``- Well, be that as it may, say I, but perhaps the uproar against the decision both in Sweden and internationally had something to do with. In any case, it sounds like a very fortunate technicality.;)''
Hmm. To me, it sounds like they're weasling their way out of a fuck up. It's sort of like a burglar getting caught and saying: ah, yeah, I just realized what I was doing is bad, so, yeah, I promise not to sell any of the stuff I took.
Let's face it. The whole thing was wrong. They know it. Enough members of the public know it to make a large uproar. And what do we get? An admission of wrongdoing? An admission that OOXML is something that nobody is waiting for, and the only way to get it approved is to cheat? Meh, no such luck. "One of the voters misbehaved. Therefore, we will abstain in the major election. Aren't we ever so correct?"
``Appears the reason for using TCP is that Java has no (cross-platform, at least) support for POSIX local sockets or even named pipes.''
Yes. And I think it's fair to blame Microsoft for that one. Every *nix I know has Unix sockets, and they're in POSIX (where they are called local sockets), so I imagine they are in lots of non-Unix systems as well. Of course, Microsoft decided to do everything their own way...and while I'm almost certain they have something equivalent, I'm absolutely positive it doesn't work the same way.
Your observations are absolutely correct, and a great illustration of why competition is good. Just like Microsoft had been resting on their laurels with MSIE until Firefox started getting too popular, Sun was resting on their Java laurels until.NET came along.
``Microsoft is so large and its userbase so enormous that no amount of bad press can affect them. Anything short of eating live babies would not impact them in the slightest.''
It's not only that what the press writes doesn't affect them very much, it's also that the press doesn't write about them that much...other than giving pages and pages of features (and, of course, equivalent exposure in different media) when MS announces or releases a new product. The raving about Vista was massive. Where are the scandals about the many scandalous shortfalls? Where is the coverage of alternatives? Where is the writing about the exciting and increasingly open computing (it's not just source, it's also specs, standards, etc.)? Sure, the release of Vista was a major event, but what about the REVOLUTIONS that are being unchained by the likes of Ubuntu, RSS, Wikipedia, Firefox,...?
``Shutting down Autopatcher is nothing to them and will not affect their business in even a negligible fashion.''
I think so, too.
``I would like to think otherwise but I can't. They are unstoppable.''
That, however, is not true. You _can_ stop them. Microsoft is not inescapable. You can, and people do, operate computers completely without any reliance on Microsoft. This is what will eventually coerce Microsoft into improving. Just look at Internet Explorer. It has gotten much better with IE7. Would that have happened if it wasn't for Firefox? How about Microsoft giving access to their source code to selected customers. Would that have happened without the rise of open source?
I don't believe in driving Microsoft out of the market. I do believe competition is good for consumers. Microsoft has long operated without significant competition in its home markets. This is changing, and innovation and progress accelerates as a result (not just on Microsoft's side...it's competitors also benefit from the good ideas that Microsoft brings to the world).
``What were you trying to install on? There are several problems on laptops that can be solved with a bootline option or two (I had to do this on an amd64 HP lappy).''
Beep, wrong. The point your parent was trying to make is that, in this day and age, and with a supposedly luser-friendly OS, things ought to work straight out of the box. That means no "botoline option or two".
``When you say AMD64 and not exotic in the same sentence, you're kidding yourself btw. Nothing has shaken out as standard in the chipsets or BIOS's yet.''...other than what was there from the beginning, namely backward compatibility with older iterations of the PC platform. It's there, and it's enough to boot at least the graphical installer. Unless, of course, you _do_ have something exotic, like EFI firmware that isn't backwards compatible.
Of course, there are still things that could give you trouble, like the network card or the sound card. However, you should be able to detect this and present a message to the effect that "Sorry, this hardware is not currently supported. You can file a request at... . In the meantime, you can continue without the functionality this hardware provides, or replace it by compatible hardware. A list of compatible devices can be found at...." That's a heck of a lot friendlier than the system simply not starting at all.
``Seems lots of folks get Ubuntu working on the Macs. I just wonder: why?''
In my case (Debian instead of Ubuntu):
- Package management. How many different things must I do to update all my software on OS X? It's a single command for me on Debian.
- Flexibility. I can and do customize the heck out of my Debian installation. I remap a few keys on my keyboard, use ion as my window manager, have scripts that do the right thing in the face of network interfaces and wireless networks that may or may not be present, and so on. Theoretically, all this is possible on OS X, too, but I am not willing to test this in practice.
- Performance. OS X has always felt a bit sluggish to me. Some of this is actually backed up by measurements. And it doesn't surprise me: OS X comes with a lot of baggage. Debian comes with less baggage (alas, it's not as lightweight anymore as it used to be), and it performs noticeably better.
- Open source. Others may not care whether their software is open source, but I do. I want to trust my computer, and I can't trust it if I'm not allowed to know what the software it runs does and how. Also, the right to fix and customize things is a valuable advantage to me.
- Consistency. I run Debian on my desktop and on my server and on my gaming machine. OS X is different enough that when I run it, the little differences drive me mad. Fortunately, I can run Debian on my laptop, as well, and have the system work the way I'm used to.
``Apple changes from PPC to x86 and suddenly there's no reason to buy them? I use both and *they're exactly the same*, except that the new ones are faster.''
That, and:
- The G3 and G4 iBooks had way longer battery life than PC laptops in the same price range (about 5 to 6 hours compared to 2 to 3 hours). The MacBook gets about 3:30, maybe 4 hours if you try really hard.
- The G4 iBooks I've had never ran hot. I'm pretty sure they had fans, but I've never heard them. I hear the fan in my MacBook quite often.
- The G4 iBooks had OpenFirmware, and though I'm sure it had bugs, they've never affected me. The MacBook has EFI, which is crap. It has very little functionality, and even that is full of bugs. It's just a NIH system from hell (well, Intel, actually). It's bricked my MacBook more times than I care to remember.
- Like so many PC laptops, getting MacBook power management to work is an ordeal. (Not under OS X, of course. Apple made that work for you.)
- When I got my MacBook, it had a dead battery (not one of the exploding series, just one that didn't work at all). This is a common problem with MacBook batteries (though Apple denies it). I bought Apple because I had always been impressed with the quality of their engineering. Well, not anymore.
So, yes, the MacBooks are amazingly fast, but they fail miserably on three things that I consider important in a laptop (battery life, noise, and reliability).
Now, I realize that many of these things are issues for me but not for other people. However, the point is not how many people run into these issues. The point is that the MacBook is worse than the iBook on a number of technical issues. These techical issues were what set iBooks apart from PC laptops. With the switch to Intel, that difference has disappeared. And suddenly, people buy Apple. Hmm. Actually, it now all makes sense to me. Of course, it's exactly _because_ Macs are really just PCs these days that people dare to buy them. And the reason they _do_ buy them is the extra shine and polish. Thanks, I think you've helped me understand.
I'll never understand normal people. I thought the G3 and G4 iBooks were great, and regret that they are not manufactured anymore. I missed the G3 (I had a laptop that worked acceptably for me), but I've owned two G4 iBooks, and they were the greatest machines I've ever used. I recommended them to people, but none of them actually bought one.
Now Apple has switched to Intel, and, in my opinion, the MacBook is just a crappy PC laptop with a cool OS and firmware that makes it difficult to run anything else on it. I bought one, because it was cheaper than other options I surveyed, but I regret that purchase. However, other people are falling for it in droves. And liking it.
What gives? People say that Macs look cool, but they looked cool in the iBook days, too. People clearly love OS X, but that was there in the iBook days, too. Did they have cold feet about switching to a different architecture, and is the promise of being able to run Windows on your Mac what pulled them over the line? Are people finally getting so fed up with Windows that they are willing to try alternatives? Is Apple's marketing finally catching on? I can actually imagine that the iPod has put Apple on people's radar. Before, a computer was a PC, and only weird people had Macs. Now, Macs are an alternative to PCs, and cool people have Macs. However, this, too, has been true for some time...why is the switch happening _now_?
``In all seriousness, what do you guys actually do with your Macs that justifies the expense?''
What's funny is that I've bought 3 Apple laptops in my life, and all 3 because they were _cheaper_ than the alternatives I had identified. I guess the fabled Mac Markup really depends on what qualities you're after.
``I also run a linux install pretty much the same way (though no coherence, unfortunately.)''
Eh? Surely, you can use Terminal and X11 to get your Linux apps displayed on your Mac desktop? As for filesystem access, I'm sure you can share (the important parts of) your Mac filesystem in such a way that you can access them from Linux.
``Oh, and BTW, I'm sure Intel supports "open source"... since that's a watered down meaningless term.''
Not as long as software controls the hardware. Which I believe is still the case; there may be a TPM chip in my computer, but it's not doing anything unless I actually use software that activates it. That doesn't mean I'm happy it's there, but it does mean it's Mostly Harmless.
``The reason Linux became so successful is because of Intel's low-cost, standards-compliant, open-source hardware; but with initiatives like virtualisation, vPro, multi-threaded compilers etc. the balance gets tilted further in favour of TCPA and DRM partners;''
Err, I have no idea what you mean. Intel's hardware used to be standard-compliant and open-source? What standards? Which source? How does virtualization (and I do believe they published specs on how to use it) tilt the balance in favor of DRM? What do multi-threaded compilers have to do with anything?
Now to look at some other aspects, Intel hosts and supports a number of open-source projects, among them open source drivers for certain Intel graphics and WLAN cards. These are recent efforts, as well.
All in all, I don't think I can agree with your suggestion of Intel moving away from being supportive of open-source and towards being one of the forerunners of DRM.
``t caches all files locally so if the server connection is lost, you can continue working. When you connect back up, it syncs the versions.''
Yep. And it magically works even in the face of conflicting changes, and never breaks. Others have been struggling with this for years and years, but now Microsoft has come and saved the day: they've implemented their own system, different from all the others, and it's better and more user-friendly. As always.
There have been some efforts in the area of networked filesystems with disconnected operations. I remember checking out AFS, Coda, and InterMezzo years ago. At the time, I found something wrong with each of them, but they may have improved since then. Of the three, I think Coda is your best bet.
``Maybe finally the RIAA will realize that allofmp3's pricing scheme and business model works and proves that if you price it right and don't use DRM, people will readily pay for music even if it is available for free on P2P.''
But why sell your music for $0.10 per track without DRM if you can sell it for $0.99 per track with DRM? Last I checked, iTunes Music Store was still going strong, and they're doing exactly the latter.
As a side note, the whole music downloading circus nicely illustrates the machinations of monopolies. Rather than competing on price, quality and service, as happens in free markets, the copyright holders are using the legal system to battle their competitors. And having a hard time, apparently, because even with the powerful US government on their side, they don't seem to be winning.
Of course, the same arguments that apply to pirating commercial software also apply to pirating commercial music (though perhaps to a different extent). For many levels of piracy, the rights holders still win; they might even win more. This is because piracy leads to increased poliferation, which strengthens the network effects that make your product more desirable, and thus more valuable.
On a related note, I was just copying a large file (a few GB) from DVD to harddisk, and noticed access to the network became inanely slow. We're talking about a minute for fetching a short list of directories, a process which normally takes under a second.
As soon as the copying from DVD finished, the explorer window with the network volume became responsive again.
I didn't test anything else; in particular, I didn't test whether regular (say, HTTP) network access or regular (non-networked) file I/O were slow. CPU usage was about 3% and memory wasn't reported as full.
``The systems all work pretty much the same, which I suppose puts the lie to the Microsoft astroturfers who are constantly posting here about how Linux won't succeed because Grandma can't use it.''
Obviously. It's also obvious, to me at least, that they're saying that to cover the fact that Grandma can't use _their_ system. I mean, do you think Grandma understands all she needs about viruses and other malware? Of course not! That's what grandchildren are for! She just wants to _use_ the computer instead of spend all her time on maintenance. That's why she uses Linux.
Unless she's my grandma. Then she actually does understand all she needs about malware, and runs Linux because of that.
``Everything, right down to the lighting has to work well to keep the appearance of order. Anything else makes the passengers nervous and looking for another airline.''
Not in my reality. _Especially_ the displays in front of the passengers seem to be broken more often than not.
See also the many stories in this thread about people figuring out it the airline was running Linux, because it crashed and rebooted.
Slashdot Mirror
``- Well, be that as it may, say I, but perhaps the uproar against the decision both in Sweden and internationally had something to do with. In any case, it sounds like a very fortunate technicality. ;)''
Hmm. To me, it sounds like they're weasling their way out of a fuck up. It's sort of like a burglar getting caught and saying: ah, yeah, I just realized what I was doing is bad, so, yeah, I promise not to sell any of the stuff I took.
Let's face it. The whole thing was wrong. They know it. Enough members of the public know it to make a large uproar. And what do we get? An admission of wrongdoing? An admission that OOXML is something that nobody is waiting for, and the only way to get it approved is to cheat? Meh, no such luck. "One of the voters misbehaved. Therefore, we will abstain in the major election. Aren't we ever so correct?"
``Appears the reason for using TCP is that Java has no (cross-platform, at least) support for POSIX local sockets or even named pipes.''
Yes. And I think it's fair to blame Microsoft for that one. Every *nix I know has Unix sockets, and they're in POSIX (where they are called local sockets), so I imagine they are in lots of non-Unix systems as well. Of course, Microsoft decided to do everything their own way...and while I'm almost certain they have something equivalent, I'm absolutely positive it doesn't work the same way.
Your observations are absolutely correct, and a great illustration of why competition is good. Just like Microsoft had been resting on their laurels with MSIE until Firefox started getting too popular, Sun was resting on their Java laurels until .NET came along.
``Microsoft is so large and its userbase so enormous that no amount of bad press can affect them. Anything short of eating live babies would not impact them in the slightest.''
...?
It's not only that what the press writes doesn't affect them very much, it's also that the press doesn't write about them that much...other than giving pages and pages of features (and, of course, equivalent exposure in different media) when MS announces or releases a new product. The raving about Vista was massive. Where are the scandals about the many scandalous shortfalls? Where is the coverage of alternatives? Where is the writing about the exciting and increasingly open computing (it's not just source, it's also specs, standards, etc.)? Sure, the release of Vista was a major event, but what about the REVOLUTIONS that are being unchained by the likes of Ubuntu, RSS, Wikipedia, Firefox,
``Shutting down Autopatcher is nothing to them and will not affect their business in even a negligible fashion.''
I think so, too.
``I would like to think otherwise but I can't. They are unstoppable.''
That, however, is not true. You _can_ stop them. Microsoft is not inescapable. You can, and people do, operate computers completely without any reliance on Microsoft. This is what will eventually coerce Microsoft into improving. Just look at Internet Explorer. It has gotten much better with IE7. Would that have happened if it wasn't for Firefox? How about Microsoft giving access to their source code to selected customers. Would that have happened without the rise of open source?
I don't believe in driving Microsoft out of the market. I do believe competition is good for consumers. Microsoft has long operated without significant competition in its home markets. This is changing, and innovation and progress accelerates as a result (not just on Microsoft's side...it's competitors also benefit from the good ideas that Microsoft brings to the world).
``What were you trying to install on? There are several problems on laptops that can be solved with a bootline option or two (I had to do this on an amd64 HP lappy).''
...other than what was there from the beginning, namely backward compatibility with older iterations of the PC platform. It's there, and it's enough to boot at least the graphical installer. Unless, of course, you _do_ have something exotic, like EFI firmware that isn't backwards compatible.
... . In the meantime, you can continue without the functionality this hardware provides, or replace it by compatible hardware. A list of compatible devices can be found at ... ." That's a heck of a lot friendlier than the system simply not starting at all.
Beep, wrong. The point your parent was trying to make is that, in this day and age, and with a supposedly luser-friendly OS, things ought to work straight out of the box. That means no "botoline option or two".
``When you say AMD64 and not exotic in the same sentence, you're kidding yourself btw. Nothing has shaken out as standard in the chipsets or BIOS's yet.''
Of course, there are still things that could give you trouble, like the network card or the sound card. However, you should be able to detect this and present a message to the effect that "Sorry, this hardware is not currently supported. You can file a request at
``Seems lots of folks get Ubuntu working on the Macs. I just wonder: why?''
In my case (Debian instead of Ubuntu):
- Package management. How many different things must I do to update all my software on OS X? It's a single command for me on Debian.
- Flexibility. I can and do customize the heck out of my Debian installation. I remap a few keys on my keyboard, use ion as my window manager, have scripts that do the right thing in the face of network interfaces and wireless networks that may or may not be present, and so on. Theoretically, all this is possible on OS X, too, but I am not willing to test this in practice.
- Performance. OS X has always felt a bit sluggish to me. Some of this is actually backed up by measurements. And it doesn't surprise me: OS X comes with a lot of baggage. Debian comes with less baggage (alas, it's not as lightweight anymore as it used to be), and it performs noticeably better.
- Open source. Others may not care whether their software is open source, but I do. I want to trust my computer, and I can't trust it if I'm not allowed to know what the software it runs does and how. Also, the right to fix and customize things is a valuable advantage to me.
- Consistency. I run Debian on my desktop and on my server and on my gaming machine. OS X is different enough that when I run it, the little differences drive me mad. Fortunately, I can run Debian on my laptop, as well, and have the system work the way I'm used to.
I think that about sums it up.
``Apple changes from PPC to x86 and suddenly there's no reason to buy them? I use both and *they're exactly the same*, except that the new ones are faster.''
That, and:
- The G3 and G4 iBooks had way longer battery life than PC laptops in the same price range (about 5 to 6 hours compared to 2 to 3 hours). The MacBook gets about 3:30, maybe 4 hours if you try really hard.
- The G4 iBooks I've had never ran hot. I'm pretty sure they had fans, but I've never heard them. I hear the fan in my MacBook quite often.
- The G4 iBooks had OpenFirmware, and though I'm sure it had bugs, they've never affected me. The MacBook has EFI, which is crap. It has very little functionality, and even that is full of bugs. It's just a NIH system from hell (well, Intel, actually). It's bricked my MacBook more times than I care to remember.
- Like so many PC laptops, getting MacBook power management to work is an ordeal. (Not under OS X, of course. Apple made that work for you.)
- When I got my MacBook, it had a dead battery (not one of the exploding series, just one that didn't work at all). This is a common problem with MacBook batteries (though Apple denies it). I bought Apple because I had always been impressed with the quality of their engineering. Well, not anymore.
So, yes, the MacBooks are amazingly fast, but they fail miserably on three things that I consider important in a laptop (battery life, noise, and reliability).
Now, I realize that many of these things are issues for me but not for other people. However, the point is not how many people run into these issues. The point is that the MacBook is worse than the iBook on a number of technical issues. These techical issues were what set iBooks apart from PC laptops. With the switch to Intel, that difference has disappeared. And suddenly, people buy Apple. Hmm. Actually, it now all makes sense to me. Of course, it's exactly _because_ Macs are really just PCs these days that people dare to buy them. And the reason they _do_ buy them is the extra shine and polish. Thanks, I think you've helped me understand.
I'll never understand normal people. I thought the G3 and G4 iBooks were great, and regret that they are not manufactured anymore. I missed the G3 (I had a laptop that worked acceptably for me), but I've owned two G4 iBooks, and they were the greatest machines I've ever used. I recommended them to people, but none of them actually bought one.
Now Apple has switched to Intel, and, in my opinion, the MacBook is just a crappy PC laptop with a cool OS and firmware that makes it difficult to run anything else on it. I bought one, because it was cheaper than other options I surveyed, but I regret that purchase. However, other people are falling for it in droves. And liking it.
What gives? People say that Macs look cool, but they looked cool in the iBook days, too. People clearly love OS X, but that was there in the iBook days, too. Did they have cold feet about switching to a different architecture, and is the promise of being able to run Windows on your Mac what pulled them over the line? Are people finally getting so fed up with Windows that they are willing to try alternatives? Is Apple's marketing finally catching on? I can actually imagine that the iPod has put Apple on people's radar. Before, a computer was a PC, and only weird people had Macs. Now, Macs are an alternative to PCs, and cool people have Macs. However, this, too, has been true for some time...why is the switch happening _now_?
``In all seriousness, what do you guys actually do with your Macs that justifies the expense?''
What's funny is that I've bought 3 Apple laptops in my life, and all 3 because they were _cheaper_ than the alternatives I had identified. I guess the fabled Mac Markup really depends on what qualities you're after.
``I'm only having some trouble installing Linux on it, but I'll get there, too.''
:-( Anyway, I can help you install Linux.
Yeah, don't you just _love_ EFI?
``I also run a linux install pretty much the same way (though no coherence, unfortunately.)''
Eh? Surely, you can use Terminal and X11 to get your Linux apps displayed on your Mac desktop? As for filesystem access, I'm sure you can share (the important parts of) your Mac filesystem in such a way that you can access them from Linux.
``Why would a machine ship with a beta OS?''
Well, that's the industry standard, isn't it?
``Oh, and BTW, I'm sure Intel supports "open source"... since that's a watered down meaningless term.''
Not as long as software controls the hardware. Which I believe is still the case; there may be a TPM chip in my computer, but it's not doing anything unless I actually use software that activates it. That doesn't mean I'm happy it's there, but it does mean it's Mostly Harmless.
``The reason Linux became so successful is because of Intel's low-cost, standards-compliant, open-source hardware; but with initiatives like virtualisation, vPro, multi-threaded compilers etc. the balance gets tilted further in favour of TCPA and DRM partners;''
Err, I have no idea what you mean. Intel's hardware used to be standard-compliant and open-source? What standards? Which source? How does virtualization (and I do believe they published specs on how to use it) tilt the balance in favor of DRM? What do multi-threaded compilers have to do with anything?
Now to look at some other aspects, Intel hosts and supports a number of open-source projects, among them open source drivers for certain Intel graphics and WLAN cards. These are recent efforts, as well.
All in all, I don't think I can agree with your suggestion of Intel moving away from being supportive of open-source and towards being one of the forerunners of DRM.
Care to tell me what place that is, and why you don't work there anymore?
``t caches all files locally so if the server connection is lost, you can continue working. When you connect back up, it syncs the versions.''
Yep. And it magically works even in the face of conflicting changes, and never breaks. Others have been struggling with this for years and years, but now Microsoft has come and saved the day: they've implemented their own system, different from all the others, and it's better and more user-friendly. As always.
(And yes, I was being sarcastic)
There have been some efforts in the area of networked filesystems with disconnected operations. I remember checking out AFS, Coda, and InterMezzo years ago. At the time, I found something wrong with each of them, but they may have improved since then. Of the three, I think Coda is your best bet.
``Maybe finally the RIAA will realize that allofmp3's pricing scheme and business model works and proves that if you price it right and don't use DRM, people will readily pay for music even if it is available for free on P2P.''
But why sell your music for $0.10 per track without DRM if you can sell it for $0.99 per track with DRM? Last I checked, iTunes Music Store was still going strong, and they're doing exactly the latter.
As a side note, the whole music downloading circus nicely illustrates the machinations of monopolies. Rather than competing on price, quality and service, as happens in free markets, the copyright holders are using the legal system to battle their competitors. And having a hard time, apparently, because even with the powerful US government on their side, they don't seem to be winning.
Of course, the same arguments that apply to pirating commercial software also apply to pirating commercial music (though perhaps to a different extent). For many levels of piracy, the rights holders still win; they might even win more. This is because piracy leads to increased poliferation, which strengthens the network effects that make your product more desirable, and thus more valuable.
On a related note, I was just copying a large file (a few GB) from DVD to harddisk, and noticed access to the network became inanely slow. We're talking about a minute for fetching a short list of directories, a process which normally takes under a second.
As soon as the copying from DVD finished, the explorer window with the network volume became responsive again.
I didn't test anything else; in particular, I didn't test whether regular (say, HTTP) network access or regular (non-networked) file I/O were slow. CPU usage was about 3% and memory wasn't reported as full.
``the idea that the CPU can't keep up because of file transfer is insane.''
Not if they use interrupts for the networking. Gigabit Ethernet + one interrupt per packet = ???
Note: the answer is not PROFIT!!!
See also, for example, Device Polling support for FreeBSD.
``It *is* StarOffice...but is terribly slow.''
You are repeating yourself...
``The systems all work pretty much the same, which I suppose puts the lie to the Microsoft astroturfers who are constantly posting here about how Linux won't succeed because Grandma can't use it.''
Obviously. It's also obvious, to me at least, that they're saying that to cover the fact that Grandma can't use _their_ system. I mean, do you think Grandma understands all she needs about viruses and other malware? Of course not! That's what grandchildren are for! She just wants to _use_ the computer instead of spend all her time on maintenance. That's why she uses Linux.
Unless she's my grandma. Then she actually does understand all she needs about malware, and runs Linux because of that.
``Everything, right down to the lighting has to work well to keep the appearance of order. Anything else makes the passengers nervous and looking for another airline.''
Not in my reality. _Especially_ the displays in front of the passengers seem to be broken more often than not.
See also the many stories in this thread about people figuring out it the airline was running Linux, because it crashed and rebooted.
``I'm sure they meant StarOffice. Unless there's a Linux port of MS Office that no one told me about.''
Or some translation layer that allows one to run MS Office on Linux that no one told you about.
You must be new here. You do _not_ talk about Linux crashing on Slashdot.