So Webster's dictionary is the one true dictionary that defines English, but WordNet 2.0 from Princeton University, where I got my definition, is wrong and void?
It's certainly suspect new usage as I stated (and the link was dictionary.com). It doesn't appear in any of my dictionaries (which all predate the Internet). Following the rules, how does one abbreviate id est into all caps without periods? Sorry, I learned English when a masculine pronoun was still acceptable for unknown gender. By all means feel free to use IE for _that is_ on Slashdot and expect everyone to know what you mean.
Why do you need two different distros running? If it's so easy to configure and make...
Because I like to try out different distros and new releases without messing up the VPN configuration I need for work. I don't find having two distros running or using make to be a hardship. I can also boot into Windows if absolutely necessary, and I don't complain because Windows programs don't install under Linux. I guess I'm just not easily aggravated by really minor things that have easy solutions.
Conforming to interface standards does not require you to have a software monoculture. HTTP is a standard protocol . ..
Who said protocols or interfaces were the same as a monoculture? Having the same program in all distros running from the same place, with all other known programs in known locations with the same configuration built by the same compiler is a monoculture and an easy target.
I want to have diversity and compatibility at the same time; I know it's possible.
You simply ignore the problems. When your argument is boiled down, you want to have your cake and eat it too -- because you want it. Fine. You're the guy to make it happen. I'll be watching for your name on the Grand Unified Package and Program Installer. Go get 'em! (I'll refrain from bringing a Blues Brothers quote into this.:)
All code is not portable. Not across architectures, not across libraries, not across filesystem layout styles...
Which is one reason why you're not going to get the universal installer you want. It's far more likely to work using configure and make than trying to shoehorn in some binaries.
No, no, not that IE, IE adv : that is to say; in other words.
Amazing. Slashdot spellers have managed to mangle common usage again. The next thing you know, dictionary.com is going to accept "rediculous" as a correct spelling. If you check Webster's, "IE" means Indo-European; "i.e." means "that is to say" from the Latin id est, and on any computer-related site, IE means Internet Explorer.
So what if they don't use the same kernel.
I assume that was a question. It's pretty hard to make some things work (like certain VPN clients) when the kernel doesn't have some necessary function. The changes to network protocols between 2.4 and 2.6 are a prime example. Some VPN clients stopped working unless 2.6 was patched. No matter how hard you try or where you put the files, that client is not going to work on a distro using a normal 2.6 kernel.
What should I do when two rare packages are available exclusively on different distros? By choosing one, I am forced to only use packages from that distro and no others.
If you're really opposed to compiling your own or getting help from the authors, I'd suggest dual-booting the two distros. It's something many of us have to do while coexisting with Windows. Personally, I use two different machines to have two distros running.
That is a good point, but it's a bad solution to the root problem of gross package incompatibility. It should be solved at the problem's source instead of forcing each user to come up with their own workaround.
It seems to me that you want to enforce the MS-one-size-fits-all way on FOSS, which makes no sense. If some group feels strongly enough that they need to build their own distro, they are not likely to put conformity high on their list -- they are being nonconformist (for a reason) to begin with. What you are really advocating is a single Linux distro, but we don't need another software monoculture. It's safer (and more innovative, IMHO) the way things are now. I expect to see some distros go away, but I certainly hope we never have just one or two.
Solaris is more for the enterprise, Linux is more at a server or workstation for personal or small business.
Really? Our enterprise is dumping Sun and SGI boxes in favor of Linux. Over 60 new Linux servers in the past year (and that doesn't include the personal desktop machines). The payoff is in commodity hardware instead of high-priced boxes and reduction of the very expensive support costs. There are tradeoffs in performance, sometimes worse but generally better. Sun would have to come up with a really good reason to get us to go back.
Average people prior to MS bought computers that didn't even include compilers or source code. It would have been impossible for them to compile.
Before the IBM PC, average people bought computers like the Commodore and Ataris (Tandys, TIs, etc.) that typically booted into BASIC. To be totally accurate, they were interpreters rather than compilers. They also had assemblers. There were hobbyist magazines available in grocery stores with page after page of BASIC code, Forth code, and assembler. Unless you paid for a tape or cartridge (or later a diskette), that was how you got new software. Would you like to buy some copies of Antic?
In a prior post you said "I was there", but you never said where "there" was. Apparently it wasn't earth in the 70's and 80's.
It's pretty obvious who wasn't there. Take your astroturfing elsewhere.
And how, prey tell, is it different from the perspective of the user?
Prey? Rather obviously, configuration and compilation ensures compatibility with the existing installation. It doesn't differ greatly from the user's POV - it's just a little more difficult, which is the point.
I wonder how many people run Lindow--er Linspire as a normal user? Doesn't that make you root by default too? Is this Linux's fault, or the user's?
Which is why I think Linspire is a bad idea, and it's a good thing it's not very popular.
Don't you think that's a bit of a big hammer to fix a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place, IE package incompatibility?
What does Internet Explorer have to do with package incompatibility? Different distros don't even use the same kernel. Many apply their own patches to the kernel. If you need packages prepared for you, use Mandrake, and you can request RPMs for your favorite apps.
why should I have to reinstall Linux, when the distro maintainers could just put their differences aside for a minute to create a standardized package format?
It's that whole freedom of choice thing, and it's going to take a heck of lot more than a minute or two. Nobody is forcing you to use Linux or any particular distro. If you are so bothered by the lack of a package for your favorite app, then why not give something back and put an RPM together?
There are makefiles, make scripts, and config scripts. This is another format of installer package. Yada yada yada.
Native compilation is not the same as a binary installation.
Average people did not compile from source.
Actually, if they didn't, they would have to enter pages of hex code, and yes, people really did so. Arguments about how hard it is to install Linux software are irksome for those with hindsight.
Yes I have, and no, things cannot magically install themselves on the system without sufficent privileges; I run IE without them.
Good, you're one of the ten people on the planet who run Windows without admin rights.
Pick your distro accordingly? What if I find out I've been using the wrong one, the one that doesn't support what I want it to? Should I *gasp* re-install with a new distro?
However, 2.6.8 to 2.6.9 should not have been. I recently had to make this switch. It went pretty flawlessly, but it did require driver rebuilds...
Again, it's unlikely that a company would require a patch-level upgrade. Stuff that's already running should remain running. If stuff isn't running, why did you break it?
It's not the fault of 'Linux', per se, but the kernel developers could elliviate this problem by better structure versioning within the drivers - let the driver itself determine if the kernel is close enough.
I don't see how the kernel hackers could alleviate dependency problems in "drivers". Modules already have some ability to determine if they're loadable/compatible, and you can force loading even if they object.
It's too bad you don't have managers deserving of respect where you work.
First, devices. There are several devices that only run with 2.6.x kernels.
That's a major release despite the nomenclature.
Second, security. Every couple of releases it seems there is a security update involved.
Patches are generally available for all recent (and most old) releases. Security is generally not a reason to upgrade.
Finally, keeping up. I like to have at least one computer in the office running the bleeding edge. That way if one of the engineering users wants to run a particular version - I can give informed feedback.
That is in no way problematic from a company's view, as you implied. And as an engineer, a manager is the last person I'm going to ask for an informed opinion. Sorry.
This is different than the library of.deb,.rpm or make/install scripts, that distros maintain, how?
If you install from source, there is no installer package.
If it works. If you aren't missing dependencies. If your compiler is the right version. . ..
For most apps, it's not an issue. You just compile it. Try installing Word 2003 on Win '98.
You were just saying to wait for a package from the distro maintainers. Now it's 'go fix it yourself' if you don't like it? That flippant attitude will be the first thing to turn people off of Linux.
If you want to wait a few months and get an RPM for free, that seems reasonable. If you want it sooner, do it yourself. It's not flippant, and I don't care if Windows users don't switch to a better OS because they are unwilling to do basic self-education. You don't need to read documentation to have babies either, and the result is evident. I am so tired of all these ooh-Linux-is-too-hard-for-average-users posts. AVERAGE PEOPLE BOUGHT AND USED COMPUTERS BEFORE MICROSOFT OR WINDOWS. I was there; I know. There were no magic installers, but people still survived.
I have never had anything installed that I didn't intend to install on any of my Windows or Linux machines.
Then you've never used IE while surfing the web.
Freedom to mess around with trying to compile the source and resolve dependencies manually when the maintaners for your distro can't be bothered to create a package and can't afford to support packages from other distos?
Yes. That's why it's called freedom. Pick your distro accordingly. You're free to choose.
So then I'm at the mercy of the distro people? I have to wait for them to support the app (if they ever do); I have to wait for them for new versions, long after the creator has released it. I thought free software was supposed to be decentralized.
You only need to wait if you want a binary package. FOSS is decentralized, which is why it doesn't come from MS or follow MS's rules or distribution models.
The people who are motivated to create the app (the author) should be the one releasing packages, not some third party. Think what it would be like if you couldn't install anything on Windows without Microsoft individually making a special installer package for it; you can still install but not without a major headache.
You've got it backwards. Typically, there is an individual installer package for everything you install under Windows. With Linux, you have the option to do _./configure;make;make install_ from the source. It's really not that hard, and computer users should have some basic level of proficiency and be able to read a README file. If you need an OS that holds your hand, wipes your nose, and installs things behind your back, by all means stick with Windows. Don't criticize Linux users for preferring more freedom.
You had me right up to the point where you said, "I happen to be in IT mgmt.":)
But the _every_single_double-minor_release_level_ change is difficult to manage.
Why would any company upgrade at every patch or minor release? That makes no sense. You stick with stable stuff until there's a really good reason to change.
A foot is exactly 0.3048 meters. Everyone wins, as normal people keep the values they are used to (to at least an accuracy they would never care about), and scientists get the exact values that they need.
Okay, so how long is the metric version of a cubit?
Similarly, a pot of water will certainly boil, whether you are watching it or not, provided the flame is hot enough. However, if you're paying attention, it won't boil over.
You've completely neglected factoring in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle during a Slashdot discussion about observed behavior, plus you mentioned "flame". I think that's enough to categorize that comment.:)
If those old atomic clocks were losing a second every few million years, I think we deserve refund.
Turn in your atomic clock at the Yucca Mountain repository for the nickel refund. This has been a public service announcement. If there had been a real announcement, you would have been instructed to dial 10-10-220-411 on your IM dial.
With all due respect save stories like this for the local hobby shop. No i'm not trolling it's just this is one of those, 'ok cool' lets move on stories.
With all due respect, I found it more interesting than many of the "Delta-MRX team releases pre-Alpha of Bugslogger plugin for Lynx" stories that get posted. To each his own. I don't comment in discussions about articles that don't interest me -- I go find something that does.
The pieces are kinda subject to some artistic interpretation, but on the whole this is pretty cool. Especially if you have a lot of electronics crap lying around like I do.
I thought the knurling on the pieces was a great touch for power players. During a hot and heavy chess game, you don't want to lose your grip during a move.:)
Someone has to pay the salaries of the players that play against your beloved BoSox. Else there would be no league, no games, and no reason for BoSox to exist.
How about if we spread the cost/wealth equally or as we prefer so it's not always the Yankees? I believe that was the GP's point. The Twins tried to "build the franchise's value" this year by sticking the cable providers with a 2 dollar per subscriber demand (and it was for all cable subscribers, not just premium). Their franchise was, er, devalued by the cable companies. The same should hold true for the Yankees. No sports team should be able to dictate the price of cable.
While I can appreciate the problem he's having, I also see several signs of something else... Panic Attacks. I have relatives who've gone to ER over them and I've had some symptoms myself at stressful times. Until you experience it, it's hard to understand/believe. To me (and I am not a doctor) this guy seems to need a small dose of valium followed by continued treatment for the infection - or whatever his doctors agree it is.
Good point. The one time I was really sick and near death, I didn't care any more. My (at the time) fiance and some relatives had to drag me into a car and then into the emergency room. Years before, I had sufferred panic attacks and was sure of certain, impending death. A couple of doses of Valium and a nicely worded, verbal kick in the butt from the doctor convinced me the cure was worse than the problem. Stress can do strange things. I'm not saying that's the problem, just verifying what gr8_phk said about the symptom.
i don't think ruthlessness and evilness are mutually exclusive. seriously. it's just that M$ is guided solely by their desire to make money.
You mean they lied in the commercial where they said they were awed by me, and that's what inspired them to make software? Why, that's . . . that's . . . evil!
MikeRoweSoft is phonentically the same as Microsoft. Mike Rowe is his name, not Mike Rowe Soft. He, again, stated he chose the name because it sounded like Microsoft. MS has to either defend their trademark or lose it; what do you expect them to do?
Nice try. I've never had DNS respond to "phonentically" [sic] similar names. My Crow Soffit has changed the spelling of their name at least three times. Nobody is going to enter MikeRoweSoft as a URL to locate that other slightly known software company. It was bullying, plain and simple, over a kid's humorously, catchy site name. Yeah, the kid got "free" MS software, which cost MS postage fees. Great deal for MS -- lousy deal for the public.
Microsoft will meet its own Microsoft soon, and they will likely fall faster, further, and harder than IBM did.
Goliath has already noticed David and is doing everything possible, like DRM, proposed legislation, funding helpful puppets, cut-rate deals, paid *studies*, and FUD in order to avoid a showdown. Ping -c 1 forehead.ms.com. (Hmm, that should be a cron job.)
Shocking. Microsoft has never done that before. Seriously, where have you been since Windows 1.0?
If Windows 1.0 was a look-and-feel rip-off, it was so badly done, that you'd have to forgive people for not recognizing it. The only look-and-feel I got from it was, *icckk* and *could-it-possibly-be-any-slower?*, which persisted until 3.x.
I _do_ see it as a bargain. A bargain that can be extended if the extending party gives up rights. But that's not what is happening, extensions aside. The **AA is currently taking the deal we have, which to concede your point slightly, is already less fair than it was (i.e., copyright has already been extended), and they are making bigger grabs at how they can punish us, which, to me, is worse than extending the copyright. *shrug* I think we just fundamentally disagree on which way they are screwing us (both) is worse.
Slashdot Mirror
So Webster's dictionary is the one true dictionary that defines English, but WordNet 2.0 from Princeton University, where I got my definition, is wrong and void?
It's certainly suspect new usage as I stated (and the link was dictionary.com). It doesn't appear in any of my dictionaries (which all predate the Internet). Following the rules, how does one abbreviate id est into all caps without periods? Sorry, I learned English when a masculine pronoun was still acceptable for unknown gender. By all means feel free to use IE for _that is_ on Slashdot and expect everyone to know what you mean.
Why do you need two different distros running? If it's so easy to configure and make...
Because I like to try out different distros and new releases without messing up the VPN configuration I need for work. I don't find having two distros running or using make to be a hardship. I can also boot into Windows if absolutely necessary, and I don't complain because Windows programs don't install under Linux. I guess I'm just not easily aggravated by really minor things that have easy solutions.
Conforming to interface standards does not require you to have a software monoculture. HTTP is a standard protocol . . .
Who said protocols or interfaces were the same as a monoculture? Having the same program in all distros running from the same place, with all other known programs in known locations with the same configuration built by the same compiler is a monoculture and an easy target.
I want to have diversity and compatibility at the same time; I know it's possible.
You simply ignore the problems. When your argument is boiled down, you want to have your cake and eat it too -- because you want it. Fine. You're the guy to make it happen. I'll be watching for your name on the Grand Unified Package and Program Installer. Go get 'em! (I'll refrain from bringing a Blues Brothers quote into this. :)
You didn't dust off the TV and VCR for the Farscape return?! I don't know what to think.
All code is not portable. Not across architectures, not across libraries, not across filesystem layout styles...
Which is one reason why you're not going to get the universal installer you want. It's far more likely to work using configure and make than trying to shoehorn in some binaries.
No, no, not that IE, IE adv : that is to say; in other words.
Amazing. Slashdot spellers have managed to mangle common usage again. The next thing you know, dictionary.com is going to accept "rediculous" as a correct spelling. If you check Webster's, "IE" means Indo-European; "i.e." means "that is to say" from the Latin id est, and on any computer-related site, IE means Internet Explorer.
So what if they don't use the same kernel.
I assume that was a question. It's pretty hard to make some things work (like certain VPN clients) when the kernel doesn't have some necessary function. The changes to network protocols between 2.4 and 2.6 are a prime example. Some VPN clients stopped working unless 2.6 was patched. No matter how hard you try or where you put the files, that client is not going to work on a distro using a normal 2.6 kernel.
What should I do when two rare packages are available exclusively on different distros? By choosing one, I am forced to only use packages from that distro and no others.
If you're really opposed to compiling your own or getting help from the authors, I'd suggest dual-booting the two distros. It's something many of us have to do while coexisting with Windows. Personally, I use two different machines to have two distros running.
That is a good point, but it's a bad solution to the root problem of gross package incompatibility. It should be solved at the problem's source instead of forcing each user to come up with their own workaround.
It seems to me that you want to enforce the MS-one-size-fits-all way on FOSS, which makes no sense. If some group feels strongly enough that they need to build their own distro, they are not likely to put conformity high on their list -- they are being nonconformist (for a reason) to begin with. What you are really advocating is a single Linux distro, but we don't need another software monoculture. It's safer (and more innovative, IMHO) the way things are now. I expect to see some distros go away, but I certainly hope we never have just one or two.
Solaris is more for the enterprise, Linux is more at a server or workstation for personal or small business.
Really? Our enterprise is dumping Sun and SGI boxes in favor of Linux. Over 60 new Linux servers in the past year (and that doesn't include the personal desktop machines). The payoff is in commodity hardware instead of high-priced boxes and reduction of the very expensive support costs. There are tradeoffs in performance, sometimes worse but generally better. Sun would have to come up with a really good reason to get us to go back.
Average people prior to MS bought computers that didn't even include compilers or source code. It would have been impossible for them to compile.
Before the IBM PC, average people bought computers like the Commodore and Ataris (Tandys, TIs, etc.) that typically booted into BASIC. To be totally accurate, they were interpreters rather than compilers. They also had assemblers. There were hobbyist magazines available in grocery stores with page after page of BASIC code, Forth code, and assembler. Unless you paid for a tape or cartridge (or later a diskette), that was how you got new software. Would you like to buy some copies of Antic?
In a prior post you said "I was there", but you never said where "there" was. Apparently it wasn't earth in the 70's and 80's.
It's pretty obvious who wasn't there. Take your astroturfing elsewhere.
And how, prey tell, is it different from the perspective of the user?
Prey? Rather obviously, configuration and compilation ensures compatibility with the existing installation. It doesn't differ greatly from the user's POV - it's just a little more difficult, which is the point.
I wonder how many people run Lindow--er Linspire as a normal user? Doesn't that make you root by default too? Is this Linux's fault, or the user's?
Which is why I think Linspire is a bad idea, and it's a good thing it's not very popular.
Don't you think that's a bit of a big hammer to fix a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place, IE package incompatibility?
What does Internet Explorer have to do with package incompatibility? Different distros don't even use the same kernel. Many apply their own patches to the kernel. If you need packages prepared for you, use Mandrake, and you can request RPMs for your favorite apps.
why should I have to reinstall Linux, when the distro maintainers could just put their differences aside for a minute to create a standardized package format?
It's that whole freedom of choice thing, and it's going to take a heck of lot more than a minute or two. Nobody is forcing you to use Linux or any particular distro. If you are so bothered by the lack of a package for your favorite app, then why not give something back and put an RPM together?
There are makefiles, make scripts, and config scripts. This is another format of installer package. Yada yada yada.
Native compilation is not the same as a binary installation.
Average people did not compile from source.
Actually, if they didn't, they would have to enter pages of hex code, and yes, people really did so. Arguments about how hard it is to install Linux software are irksome for those with hindsight.
Yes I have, and no, things cannot magically install themselves on the system without sufficent privileges; I run IE without them.
Good, you're one of the ten people on the planet who run Windows without admin rights.
Pick your distro accordingly? What if I find out I've been using the wrong one, the one that doesn't support what I want it to? Should I *gasp* re-install with a new distro?
Yes.
However, 2.6.8 to 2.6.9 should not have been. I recently had to make this switch. It went pretty flawlessly, but it did require driver rebuilds...
Again, it's unlikely that a company would require a patch-level upgrade. Stuff that's already running should remain running. If stuff isn't running, why did you break it?
It's not the fault of 'Linux', per se, but the kernel developers could elliviate this problem by better structure versioning within the drivers - let the driver itself determine if the kernel is close enough.
I don't see how the kernel hackers could alleviate dependency problems in "drivers". Modules already have some ability to determine if they're loadable/compatible, and you can force loading even if they object.
It's too bad you don't have managers deserving of respect where you work.
I can certainly agree with that.
First, devices. There are several devices that only run with 2.6.x kernels.
That's a major release despite the nomenclature.
Second, security. Every couple of releases it seems there is a security update involved.
Patches are generally available for all recent (and most old) releases. Security is generally not a reason to upgrade.
Finally, keeping up. I like to have at least one computer in the office running the bleeding edge. That way if one of the engineering users wants to run a particular version - I can give informed feedback.
That is in no way problematic from a company's view, as you implied. And as an engineer, a manager is the last person I'm going to ask for an informed opinion. Sorry.
This is different than the library of .deb, .rpm or make/install scripts, that distros maintain, how?
If you install from source, there is no installer package.
If it works. If you aren't missing dependencies. If your compiler is the right version. . . .
For most apps, it's not an issue. You just compile it. Try installing Word 2003 on Win '98.
You were just saying to wait for a package from the distro maintainers. Now it's 'go fix it yourself' if you don't like it? That flippant attitude will be the first thing to turn people off of Linux.
If you want to wait a few months and get an RPM for free, that seems reasonable. If you want it sooner, do it yourself. It's not flippant, and I don't care if Windows users don't switch to a better OS because they are unwilling to do basic self-education. You don't need to read documentation to have babies either, and the result is evident. I am so tired of all these ooh-Linux-is-too-hard-for-average-users posts. AVERAGE PEOPLE BOUGHT AND USED COMPUTERS BEFORE MICROSOFT OR WINDOWS. I was there; I know. There were no magic installers, but people still survived.
I have never had anything installed that I didn't intend to install on any of my Windows or Linux machines.
Then you've never used IE while surfing the web.
Freedom to mess around with trying to compile the source and resolve dependencies manually when the maintaners for your distro can't be bothered to create a package and can't afford to support packages from other distos?
Yes. That's why it's called freedom. Pick your distro accordingly. You're free to choose.
So then I'm at the mercy of the distro people? I have to wait for them to support the app (if they ever do); I have to wait for them for new versions, long after the creator has released it. I thought free software was supposed to be decentralized.
You only need to wait if you want a binary package. FOSS is decentralized, which is why it doesn't come from MS or follow MS's rules or distribution models.
The people who are motivated to create the app (the author) should be the one releasing packages, not some third party. Think what it would be like if you couldn't install anything on Windows without Microsoft individually making a special installer package for it; you can still install but not without a major headache.
You've got it backwards. Typically, there is an individual installer package for everything you install under Windows. With Linux, you have the option to do _./configure;make;make install_ from the source. It's really not that hard, and computer users should have some basic level of proficiency and be able to read a README file. If you need an OS that holds your hand, wipes your nose, and installs things behind your back, by all means stick with Windows. Don't criticize Linux users for preferring more freedom.
You had me right up to the point where you said, "I happen to be in IT mgmt." :)
But the _every_single_double-minor_release_level_ change is difficult to manage.
Why would any company upgrade at every patch or minor release? That makes no sense. You stick with stable stuff until there's a really good reason to change.
A foot is exactly 0.3048 meters. Everyone wins, as normal people keep the values they are used to (to at least an accuracy they would never care about), and scientists get the exact values that they need.
Okay, so how long is the metric version of a cubit?
Similarly, a pot of water will certainly boil, whether you are watching it or not, provided the flame is hot enough. However, if you're paying attention, it won't boil over.
You've completely neglected factoring in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle during a Slashdot discussion about observed behavior, plus you mentioned "flame". I think that's enough to categorize that comment. :)
If those old atomic clocks were losing a second every few million years, I think we deserve refund.
Turn in your atomic clock at the Yucca Mountain repository for the nickel refund. This has been a public service announcement. If there had been a real announcement, you would have been instructed to dial 10-10-220-411 on your IM dial.
With all due respect save stories like this for the local hobby shop. No i'm not trolling it's just this is one of those, 'ok cool' lets move on stories.
With all due respect, I found it more interesting than many of the "Delta-MRX team releases pre-Alpha of Bugslogger plugin for Lynx" stories that get posted. To each his own. I don't comment in discussions about articles that don't interest me -- I go find something that does.
The pieces are kinda subject to some artistic interpretation, but on the whole this is pretty cool. Especially if you have a lot of electronics crap lying around like I do.
I thought the knurling on the pieces was a great touch for power players. During a hot and heavy chess game, you don't want to lose your grip during a move. :)
Someone has to pay the salaries of the players that play against your beloved BoSox. Else there would be no league, no games, and no reason for BoSox to exist.
How about if we spread the cost/wealth equally or as we prefer so it's not always the Yankees? I believe that was the GP's point. The Twins tried to "build the franchise's value" this year by sticking the cable providers with a 2 dollar per subscriber demand (and it was for all cable subscribers, not just premium). Their franchise was, er, devalued by the cable companies. The same should hold true for the Yankees. No sports team should be able to dictate the price of cable.
While I can appreciate the problem he's having, I also see several signs of something else... Panic Attacks. I have relatives who've gone to ER over them and I've had some symptoms myself at stressful times. Until you experience it, it's hard to understand/believe. To me (and I am not a doctor) this guy seems to need a small dose of valium followed by continued treatment for the infection - or whatever his doctors agree it is.
Good point. The one time I was really sick and near death, I didn't care any more. My (at the time) fiance and some relatives had to drag me into a car and then into the emergency room. Years before, I had sufferred panic attacks and was sure of certain, impending death. A couple of doses of Valium and a nicely worded, verbal kick in the butt from the doctor convinced me the cure was worse than the problem. Stress can do strange things. I'm not saying that's the problem, just verifying what gr8_phk said about the symptom.
i don't think ruthlessness and evilness are mutually exclusive. seriously. it's just that M$ is guided solely by their desire to make money.
You mean they lied in the commercial where they said they were awed by me, and that's what inspired them to make software? Why, that's . . . that's . . . evil!
You think IBM didn't do "everything possible"? Microsoft is doing just what IBM was doing.
I'm not a big IBM fan. IBM just did it with more class. History repeats itself at a lower level -- must be entropy.
MikeRoweSoft is phonentically the same as Microsoft. Mike Rowe is his name, not Mike Rowe Soft. He, again, stated he chose the name because it sounded like Microsoft. MS has to either defend their trademark or lose it; what do you expect them to do?
Nice try. I've never had DNS respond to "phonentically" [sic] similar names. My Crow Soffit has changed the spelling of their name at least three times. Nobody is going to enter MikeRoweSoft as a URL to locate that other slightly known software company. It was bullying, plain and simple, over a kid's humorously, catchy site name. Yeah, the kid got "free" MS software, which cost MS postage fees. Great deal for MS -- lousy deal for the public.
Microsoft will meet its own Microsoft soon, and they will likely fall faster, further, and harder than IBM did.
Goliath has already noticed David and is doing everything possible, like DRM, proposed legislation, funding helpful puppets, cut-rate deals, paid *studies*, and FUD in order to avoid a showdown. Ping -c 1 forehead.ms.com. (Hmm, that should be a cron job.)
Shocking. Microsoft has never done that before. Seriously, where have you been since Windows 1.0?
If Windows 1.0 was a look-and-feel rip-off, it was so badly done, that you'd have to forgive people for not recognizing it. The only look-and-feel I got from it was, *icckk* and *could-it-possibly-be-any-slower?*, which persisted until 3.x.
I _do_ see it as a bargain. A bargain that can be extended if the extending party gives up rights. But that's not what is happening, extensions aside. The **AA is currently taking the deal we have, which to concede your point slightly, is already less fair than it was (i.e., copyright has already been extended), and they are making bigger grabs at how they can punish us, which, to me, is worse than extending the copyright. *shrug* I think we just fundamentally disagree on which way they are screwing us (both) is worse.
Agreed. *spits in hand and extends it*