But seriously, I've thought this for a long while. True, it's free, and (arguably) good as a server platform. But hugely overrated - Linux nuts often (not always) seem to consider it a viable replacement to Windows or OSX for *everyone*, which it is not...especilly when you consider that users don't care about the "morals" behind their software, just whether they can share files with others and keep working the same way that they're used to.
I was down there last week, and despite the fact that it's not actually 3D, as the "holographic" would suggest, it does look pretty cool. It basically looks like a sheet of glass with a TV picture hanging in the middle of it - it's bright enough to look good and sharp under showroom lighting, too.
Not sure it's worth the extortionate price tag for what's essentially a novelty toy, though.
Is there anyone who can restrain themselves from verbally masturbating over LOTR for 5 minutes?
I am aware that it's very popular, won Oscars etc, but I myself found the book to be very very long winded and the films to be somewhat self-indulgent on the part of, well, everyone in them.
Don't get me wrong, I found them entertaining and they held my attention far better than the novels - but I feel I'm the only one who doesn't think they're the greatest cinematic feat EVER?
Please don't flame me! It's just an opinion, and I respect everyone else's....but am I really alone in this POV?
No, I think the point is that the OSS movement's arguments are myths - he's not saying it's a myth that they say these things: they most definitely do!
Recently spent 3 months developing a governement website (in the UK) that not only needed to be CSS3-formatted, but also completely accessible to W3C guidelines, AND acceptable to the clients' notoriously picky design department.
In the end, it took 6 weeks to build the site HTML and CSS to be compliant with W3C guidelines and Opera, Mozilla etc, and then another 6 weeks to get it looking the same on IE.
And the thing that *really* gets me is that 90% of the problems with CSS layout in IE is that they render elements in the wrong place by a consistent 1 or 2 pixels - I mean, WHY? Why is it so hard to spend an extra few days tweaking CSS rendering before you send your browser client out to a few hundred million users?
Jeez, this pisses me off. But then again, I did get paid for an extra 6 weeks. I guess there's hoardes of developers making money out of problems MS created one way or another.
Finally, someone to balance the thread! Well, tip the scales in the MS direction a little, anyway.
You do distinctly get the feeling that 90% of the/. folk haven't used Windows since 1997 - it's a bit better than it was, and as this guy pointed out, it's easy enough to build an incredibly unstable *nix box...
I work from home, but otherwise you have a good point, and I think my wife and my raging headache would agree with you:-) In fact, I suspect my buying the PC in the first place was the start of it all...lol
Demanding I help you with threats of Microsoft software isn't going to work.
Actually, I wasn't in the slightest bit "threatening" to use Windows - I don't give a shit about your views on it, because it works for me. And neither does it bother me that you don't give a shit about my not being able to "configure a video card over a remote connection using nothing more then a text editor."
The article and my comment are not aimed at you. You're good with Linux - good for you. The article and comment were aimed at those Linux advocates who want everyone to switch to Linux, when 90% of desktop users won't be able to use it out of the box, as is (usually) the case with Windows. We all know Linux can be more powerful. But when all you want to do is type up an invoice, hours in front of emacs editing conf files is highly undesirable.
Maybe if you are a nice person and buy me a drink I will help you
Do you have any idea how big-headed this makes you appear? Please, elighten me with your higher computing ability! Please - you're not paying attention. You might enjoy doing this, but other have interests outside of PCs, and want a system which can be set up quickly and easily, and which will just plain work. Most Linux distros do not.
It's fine to say RTFM to a spotty student who spends his entire free time in front of his Linux box, but ESR is making a valid point that no-one seems to pick up on:
Most of us don't have the time
I work from 9am to 3am every day, including weekends. I would love to run Linux, purely because Microsoft's pricing and attitudes bother me, but the last time I tried to set up Red Hat, it took me 4 days to get the system to even recognise my video card.
We're not just talking about Aunt Tillie, we're talking about Joe B. Power User, who may have the skills to work it out eventually but simply does not have the time.
Wheras, I plug my Windows XP machine (and yes, I know this is only a recent thing) into the network and Universal Plug and Play makes network printers accessible without my having to so much as touch the PC. Now that's what we want from a Linux distro, and it's not even hard to implement. Why should I have to wade through a dozen.conf files to get Linux working, only to attract abuse from the same people who encouraged me to use it in the first place?
Instead of approaching this in a manner designed to piss people off and create enemies, why don't you say things like: [etc]
Um... the "Specifically at these points..." is kinda constructive, don't you think? It's a bit of a stretch to accuse him of insulting anyone - this is the kind of language I use every day when giving useability advice (I'm a web consultant), and it's normally taken as my being helpful - it would only be insulting if he criticised it without pointing out where it could be improved.
How are his views on gun controls in any way relevant to this discussion? His beliefs regarding the control of lethal weapons has nothing to do with his ability to configure CUPS!
You're asking a community who largely use Mozilla, here - what are you expecting as an answer?
More to the point: I'm currently working on a community council website which legally HAS to comply to W3C standards, and they've insisted on CSS for layout. Whilst it has taken me a week to write CSS that works on every major browser currently in use (IE6, IE5 mac&pc, Mozilla, Safari, Konqueror, Opera etc), I have finally got there.
It seems like an odd sort of question - the subject of the number of users is a bit pointless unless we have specific figures. 95% IE users is a lot if you get 100 users a week - it's only 5 users who have problems. If - like my clients - you have 500,000 users a week, that's 25,000 who can't see the site - when you take into account accessiblity too (and local councils are always worried about legal issue surrounding that) you're probably putting a lot of effort for a very small majority of users with screen-readers - but you try telling them that they don't matter because they don't use IE6.
A person should not EXPECT a search engine to magically know what they are looking for.
You say that, but then again the vast majority of Web users (and I include home users here) think that either AOL or Yahoo! is the Internet. We might know the difference, but there are enough people who don't to make a difference.
It's possible to get a doctorate in business and finance studies - how is that "scientific research"?
Not sure where you got the "Road Ahead" thought from, either. Besides, that fact that many of the brightest technical minds want to work for MS after graduation (well, they wouldn't have any employees otherwise) and that whether or not you like him and his company, he has been fabulously successful in his field, he has certainly put in the work. And I'm sure it wasn't his intention to get an honorary doctorate - they bestowed it upon him.
Excuse me? Whether or not you agree with his way of doing things, I hardly think he's spent the last 25 years just watching TV and playing pool...
The thing a lot of people seem to overlook is that Gates (for better or worse) revolutionised the way computers work along with Apple, IBM etc. Maybe someone else would have done if he hadn't, but he did and they didn't, and he did it through a huge shitload of feckin' hard work.
Business is business, dude, and 90% of big businesses push the rules as far as they can and pay the fines if they snap. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be recognised for genuine achievement.
Firstly, I should point out that I'm a big fan of open-source, use Mozilla every day and believe that the OS community produces some great projects that any other organisation would struggle with. Having said that, I think there's always value in playing devil's advocate for the purposes of discussion.
When it comes down to it, you could view this not, as/. readers tend to, as a vicious attack on the community and ideals, but simply as the kind of business practise that goes on every day in other industries.
Microsoft may well be taking a well-thought-out risk here. This could, if someone takes the matter up in court, go two ways:
1) Microsoft pay a relatively small amount in legal costs and lose the patent.
2) Microsoft get to keep their patent and go on to make large licensing deals.
We often make the mistake of thinking of these as acts of evil - they're not. At a very basic level, Microsoft are not in the software business any more that banks are in the financial assistance business. They're both, as is every other for-profit company in the world, in the money making business.
It's a lovely idea that people would turn down huge amounts of money to stand by their (arguably rather niche) moral views. But I'm willing to bet that if/. readers were offered a huge amount of money to abandon the OS movement, many would happily take the money. Maybe not all, maybe not half, but enough to keep companies like Microsoft on an even keel.
Slashdot Mirror
Heheh, kidding.
But seriously, I've thought this for a long while. True, it's free, and (arguably) good as a server platform. But hugely overrated - Linux nuts often (not always) seem to consider it a viable replacement to Windows or OSX for *everyone*, which it is not...especilly when you consider that users don't care about the "morals" behind their software, just whether they can share files with others and keep working the same way that they're used to.
I was down there last week, and despite the fact that it's not actually 3D, as the "holographic" would suggest, it does look pretty cool. It basically looks like a sheet of glass with a TV picture hanging in the middle of it - it's bright enough to look good and sharp under showroom lighting, too.
Not sure it's worth the extortionate price tag for what's essentially a novelty toy, though.
Yeah, I pretty much assumed that - but isn't it better to have a *little* faith in human intelligence? OK, now I *am* being naive :-)
How about someone sits them down and explains what would happen to the web if everyone had this policy?
Jesus, you'd think their web developers would have pointed out their stupidity - or maybe I'm just being naive.
Is there anyone who can restrain themselves from verbally masturbating over LOTR for 5 minutes?
I am aware that it's very popular, won Oscars etc, but I myself found the book to be very very long winded and the films to be somewhat self-indulgent on the part of, well, everyone in them.
Don't get me wrong, I found them entertaining and they held my attention far better than the novels - but I feel I'm the only one who doesn't think they're the greatest cinematic feat EVER?
Please don't flame me! It's just an opinion, and I respect everyone else's....but am I really alone in this POV?
No, I think the point is that the OSS movement's arguments are myths - he's not saying it's a myth that they say these things: they most definitely do!
It looks like he's giving Professor Kevin Warwick a run for his money...
Next step: interfacing with computers using mind control!
Yup, that sounds awfully familiar to me.
Recently spent 3 months developing a governement website (in the UK) that not only needed to be CSS3-formatted, but also completely accessible to W3C guidelines, AND acceptable to the clients' notoriously picky design department.
In the end, it took 6 weeks to build the site HTML and CSS to be compliant with W3C guidelines and Opera, Mozilla etc, and then another 6 weeks to get it looking the same on IE.
And the thing that *really* gets me is that 90% of the problems with CSS layout in IE is that they render elements in the wrong place by a consistent 1 or 2 pixels - I mean, WHY? Why is it so hard to spend an extra few days tweaking CSS rendering before you send your browser client out to a few hundred million users?
Jeez, this pisses me off. But then again, I did get paid for an extra 6 weeks. I guess there's hoardes of developers making money out of problems MS created one way or another.
Finally, someone to balance the thread! Well, tip the scales in the MS direction a little, anyway.
/. folk haven't used Windows since 1997 - it's a bit better than it was, and as this guy pointed out, it's easy enough to build an incredibly unstable *nix box...
You do distinctly get the feeling that 90% of the
Because only non-spammers have legitimate companies and domains. Right.
I work from home, but otherwise you have a good point, and I think my wife and my raging headache would agree with you :-) In fact, I suspect my buying the PC in the first place was the start of it all...lol
The article and my comment are not aimed at you. You're good with Linux - good for you. The article and comment were aimed at those Linux advocates who want everyone to switch to Linux, when 90% of desktop users won't be able to use it out of the box, as is (usually) the case with Windows. We all know Linux can be more powerful. But when all you want to do is type up an invoice, hours in front of emacs editing conf files is highly undesirable.
Do you have any idea how big-headed this makes you appear? Please, elighten me with your higher computing ability! Please - you're not paying attention. You might enjoy doing this, but other have interests outside of PCs, and want a system which can be set up quickly and easily, and which will just plain work. Most Linux distros do not.
To those who modded this down, it was a reply to a previous post - RTFM! lol
It's fine to say RTFM to a spotty student who spends his entire free time in front of his Linux box, but ESR is making a valid point that no-one seems to pick up on:
.conf files to get Linux working, only to attract abuse from the same people who encouraged me to use it in the first place?
Most of us don't have the time
I work from 9am to 3am every day, including weekends. I would love to run Linux, purely because Microsoft's pricing and attitudes bother me, but the last time I tried to set up Red Hat, it took me 4 days to get the system to even recognise my video card.
We're not just talking about Aunt Tillie, we're talking about Joe B. Power User, who may have the skills to work it out eventually but simply does not have the time.
Wheras, I plug my Windows XP machine (and yes, I know this is only a recent thing) into the network and Universal Plug and Play makes network printers accessible without my having to so much as touch the PC. Now that's what we want from a Linux distro, and it's not even hard to implement. Why should I have to wade through a dozen
How are his views on gun controls in any way relevant to this discussion? His beliefs regarding the control of lethal weapons has nothing to do with his ability to configure CUPS!
You're asking a community who largely use Mozilla, here - what are you expecting as an answer?
More to the point: I'm currently working on a community council website which legally HAS to comply to W3C standards, and they've insisted on CSS for layout. Whilst it has taken me a week to write CSS that works on every major browser currently in use (IE6, IE5 mac&pc, Mozilla, Safari, Konqueror, Opera etc), I have finally got there.
It seems like an odd sort of question - the subject of the number of users is a bit pointless unless we have specific figures. 95% IE users is a lot if you get 100 users a week - it's only 5 users who have problems. If - like my clients - you have 500,000 users a week, that's 25,000 who can't see the site - when you take into account accessiblity too (and local councils are always worried about legal issue surrounding that) you're probably putting a lot of effort for a very small majority of users with screen-readers - but you try telling them that they don't matter because they don't use IE6.
We might know the difference, but there are enough people who don't to make a difference.
It's possible to get a doctorate in business and finance studies - how is that "scientific research"?
Not sure where you got the "Road Ahead" thought from, either. Besides, that fact that many of the brightest technical minds want to work for MS after graduation (well, they wouldn't have any employees otherwise) and that whether or not you like him and his company, he has been fabulously successful in his field, he has certainly put in the work. And I'm sure it wasn't his intention to get an honorary doctorate - they bestowed it upon him.
Um...he HAS given donations to AIDS research.
Excuse me? Whether or not you agree with his way of doing things, I hardly think he's spent the last 25 years just watching TV and playing pool...
The thing a lot of people seem to overlook is that Gates (for better or worse) revolutionised the way computers work along with Apple, IBM etc. Maybe someone else would have done if he hadn't, but he did and they didn't, and he did it through a huge shitload of feckin' hard work.
Business is business, dude, and 90% of big businesses push the rules as far as they can and pay the fines if they snap. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be recognised for genuine achievement.
That could easily put the makers of solid state MP3 players out of business...If it's true.
It seems unlikely, however, unless they've got a really good deal with the miniature hard disc manufacturers....
This is obviously a clear winner...
Firstly, I should point out that I'm a big fan of open-source, use Mozilla every day and believe that the OS community produces some great projects that any other organisation would struggle with. Having said that, I think there's always value in playing devil's advocate for the purposes of discussion.
/. readers tend to, as a vicious attack on the community and ideals, but simply as the kind of business practise that goes on every day in other industries.
/. readers were offered a huge amount of money to abandon the OS movement, many would happily take the money. Maybe not all, maybe not half, but enough to keep companies like Microsoft on an even keel.
When it comes down to it, you could view this not, as
Microsoft may well be taking a well-thought-out risk here. This could, if someone takes the matter up in court, go two ways:
1) Microsoft pay a relatively small amount in legal costs and lose the patent.
2) Microsoft get to keep their patent and go on to make large licensing deals.
We often make the mistake of thinking of these as acts of evil - they're not. At a very basic level, Microsoft are not in the software business any more that banks are in the financial assistance business. They're both, as is every other for-profit company in the world, in the money making business.
It's a lovely idea that people would turn down huge amounts of money to stand by their (arguably rather niche) moral views. But I'm willing to bet that if
if they spend a few chapters talking about "IDSN"...