And lastly, OOo is slow opening and closing any documents - I click on the Save icon and it will take several seconds to complete even with a small document.
That's the nub of it, linux/OSS is basically desktop ready, in some respects, more than ready, but not quite for everyone yet, various bits still need polish. But really thats all it is, we have very good stuff in all thecommon categories/and some less common ones.
If OO.o cannot do formulae, then it's not a credible alternative to msword.
Sorry but your just plain wrong and silly, the parents' point isn't that OO cannot do formulae, they clearly say it can, the problem is with export to msword.
Try making a formula in OO.o then try to open it in msword. There is nothing where the formula was. Pretty anoying as it means that i can't work on my math assignments at school.
maths has changed then, I'm a maths grad and it wasn't till third year uni, that I ever used a computer for maths (that I recall), it was all paper and pen stuff apart from that, which despite the computer science side of my degree still feels right to me, what would you use the computer for?, I suppose it graphs nicer, and it's a smarter calc?? Just curious.
On closer inspection of the articles the source of this data is that "Aberdeen Group" yeah, Authors of many bodgy reports/FUD, since it comes from FUD for hire oops "The Aberdeen Group", we know... nothing, sorry SCO hardly a credable witness, those guy make a living out of Purgury.
no not really, not unless the comments are of such a nature that it couldn't be a fluke, I mean how can we know for sure with out seeing the comments, are they history/I did this when type comments then, yes it could prove a lot, (i.e. someone copied the other, from experince with comercial enties, some one cut and paste some free into sco's stuff is more likely then, as an OSS guy would at lest have the time to remove the evidece).
But come on normal explanitory comments can be as boilerplate as the code they comment. Also consider the size of the two code bases the probablity that, anywhere from 80 to 10000 lines of code plus normal non-history type comments would would be found is pretty much a given, they need blocks >~ 100 lines, even with history type comments if one wanted to allow for subbsitution of dates and names then they to are pretty much the same.
Nope sorry the evidence still says SCO are to dum to live!!
Ofcource even the *AA weren't dumb enough to say that, that code it's self violated their copyright on their code. A pity they couldn't/can't see straight on the music copyright issue.
How about prove nothing, there are many many ways that this could happen, infact it's totally improbable that it wouldn't happen, due to coincidence, use of common heritage (the stuff learned at uni/of eachother), etc, etc....
their claim rests on the larger blocks but they don't tell us the size of these, no doubt because these are insignificant, or are well known from our common heritage.
This is a snow job SCO said "the courts are dumb, they don't know stuff about this stuff, we can ca$h in big"
The more I think of it the clearer it becomes, that if we own anything we own the unique way we glued together the diverse bits to solve our problem, and the occasional flashes of insight that allowed us to solve that problem in a new (to us) and neater way, and some times solve a problem we've never seen before.
The upshot of all this is that the probability that we will have small blocks of ten to fifteen lines and occasionally longer ones which exactly match those in other code we have never seen aproaches 1 rather fast as n the number of lines of code icreases. Basically we can garantee some such matches, if one disreguardes formatting, comments and variable names; differences which could be what the brain dead ones (SCO) call attempts to hide theft, (which really point to it's indepentdant origin or reimplimenting of common stuff we all use.).
In short SCO have nothing, unless they can show large duplicate chunks (i.e. 100's -- 1000's of lines then all they prove is that the code was not copied).
Can they prove that those lines originate from their proprietary source, and not from some common (shared) free source?
Yup the truth is > 50 of most (lets be honest > 90) of most propriety code is filched from the common domain, we programmers have to get it from somewhere, and why reinvent the wheel, every other day, or whatever, but we're for ever hearing our bosses talk of their companies, technology, when we know that no such animal exists.
But then too often we work for person(s) who are equale parts Idiot, thief, liar and madman/woman, I'm just glad that my present boss is a little better than earlier employers.
No, really, I think SCO is fscked and has been fscked and this is their last dying gasp. They figure if they're gonna go out, they might as well go out in style, eh?
If this is SCO's concept of style, then they need some style therapy, it looks more like the act of a bunch of honourless brain dead fools to me.
Work on new near-field radio communication technology, called Near Field Communication (NFC), initiated by Philips and Sony Corp.
Like how near no more than 5 - 10 cm (2" - 4") I'd hope! or it's too insecure, not that credit cards are secure, any one who ever thought that banker had even slight IQ, observe the security on credit cards, and you know bankers are dribbling morons!!.
How can you be talking only one book you've got like two to three months right, so thats like enough time to read two times thirteen gives tweenty six book easy. and thats with out pushing it, I exist therefore I read. (H)
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! How dare it, I'm a Mathematician, that was hardly any nonalphas
You wicked child, stop this Naughty behavior at once, your a slashdotter it's your purpose in life to slashdot, a runner run's a miner mine's and a slashdotter slashdot's. mirrors and copies are only for when the slashdotting is done.
nb: [from the slashdot legal^H^H^H^H^Hsilly dept]: you do realise you've violated your slashdot licence.
Most of the spam I get say's I opted in, but I've never heard of them, and certainly never opted in. That's going to be a big problem with such a law, these guys couldn't lie straight in bed, they'll claim fictitious bussiness relationships, and opt in's till the cows come home, but all it'll be is lie's.
I know it's a property rights issue, and that political and religious spam is just as bad as commercial spam. But as a practical matter, it may not be wise to mess with political and religious spam because there's no telling how the courts might see it.
That seams weird to me, I'm a commited Christian, are you saying that I should have the right to spam people about my faith, please I should be made to abide by the same rules of honour and decency as any one else, spamming is wrong, I shouldn't do it whether it's for my faith or not.
Smalltalk is quite self-documenting. I'm sure most C/C++/java/Perl/Python programmers think you're joking when you talk about a "self-documenting language," but they're real.
I find any well formated C/C++/Perl or any other language I know well (except maybe Basic), self documenting, the secret is becoming sufficiently familiar with the language to read it like your natural language. This works for me with any of the more than 20 languages I use.
Slashdot Mirror
Painting your teeth blue went out of fashion long ago, the fashion is violet now :-)
That's the nub of it, linux/OSS is basically desktop ready, in some respects, more than ready, but not quite for everyone yet, various bits still need polish. But really thats all it is, we have very good stuff in all thecommon categories/and some less common ones.
Sorry but your just plain wrong and silly, the parents' point isn't that OO cannot do formulae, they clearly say it can, the problem is with export to msword.
maths has changed then, I'm a maths grad and it wasn't till third year uni, that I ever used a computer for maths (that I recall), it was all paper and pen stuff apart from that, which despite the computer science side of my degree still feels right to me, what would you use the computer for?, I suppose it graphs nicer, and it's a smarter calc?? Just curious.
On closer inspection of the articles the source of this data is that "Aberdeen Group" yeah, Authors of many bodgy reports/FUD, since it comes from FUD for hire oops "The Aberdeen Group", we know ... nothing, sorry SCO hardly a credable witness, those guy make a living out of Purgury.
But come on normal explanitory comments can be as boilerplate as the code they comment. Also consider the size of the two code bases the probablity that, anywhere from 80 to 10000 lines of code plus normal non-history type comments would would be found is pretty much a given, they need blocks >~ 100 lines, even with history type comments if one wanted to allow for subbsitution of dates and names then they to are pretty much the same.
Nope sorry the evidence still says SCO are to dum to live!!
But when we're being formal/correct most of us prefer POMMY English. :-)
but then Aussie English is quite funny to start with, I should know I'm Aussie :-)
Ahhhh nostalgia, I miss my maths so bad; thats it no more procrastination I need to go back to uni and get that Phd. :-)
Hell my nose is nearly always Congested!!
Ofcource even the *AA weren't dumb enough to say that, that code it's self violated their copyright on their code. A pity they couldn't/can't see straight on the music copyright issue.
How about prove nothing, there are many many ways that this could happen, infact it's totally improbable that it wouldn't happen, due to coincidence, use of common heritage (the stuff learned at uni/of eachother), etc, etc ....
their claim rests on the larger blocks but they don't tell us the size of these, no doubt because these are insignificant, or are well known from our common heritage.
This is a snow job SCO said "the courts are dumb, they don't know stuff about this stuff, we can ca$h in big"
The upshot of all this is that the probability that we will have small blocks of ten to fifteen lines and occasionally longer ones which exactly match those in other code we have never seen aproaches 1 rather fast as n the number of lines of code icreases. Basically we can garantee some such matches, if one disreguardes formatting, comments and variable names; differences which could be what the brain dead ones (SCO) call attempts to hide theft, (which really point to it's indepentdant origin or reimplimenting of common stuff we all use.).
In short SCO have nothing, unless they can show large duplicate chunks (i.e. 100's -- 1000's of lines then all they prove is that the code was not copied).
Well their not named the
- Silly
- Cretins
- Organisation
for nothingYup the truth is > 50 of most (lets be honest > 90) of most propriety code is filched from the common domain, we programmers have to get it from somewhere, and why reinvent the wheel, every other day, or whatever, but we're for ever hearing our bosses talk of their companies, technology, when we know that no such animal exists.
But then too often we work for person(s) who are equale parts Idiot, thief, liar and madman/woman, I'm just glad that my present boss is a little better than earlier employers.
If this is SCO's concept of style, then they need some style therapy, it looks more like the act of a bunch of honourless brain dead fools to me.
Why bother this is just a total waste. :-)
Like how near no more than 5 - 10 cm (2" - 4") I'd hope! or it's too insecure, not that credit cards are secure, any one who ever thought that banker had even slight IQ, observe the security on credit cards, and you know bankers are dribbling morons!!.
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! How dare it, I'm a Mathematician, that was hardly any nonalphas
but really it was the kilogram that was losing it. :-D
nb: [from the slashdot legal^H^H^H^H^Hsilly dept]: you do realise you've violated your slashdot licence.
Most of the spam I get say's I opted in, but I've never heard of them, and certainly never opted in. That's going to be a big problem with such a law, these guys couldn't lie straight in bed, they'll claim fictitious bussiness relationships, and opt in's till the cows come home, but all it'll be is lie's.
That seams weird to me, I'm a commited Christian, are you saying that I should have the right to spam people about my faith, please I should be made to abide by the same rules of honour and decency as any one else, spamming is wrong, I shouldn't do it whether it's for my faith or not.
I find any well formated C/C++/Perl or any other language I know well (except maybe Basic), self documenting, the secret is becoming sufficiently familiar with the language to read it like your natural language. This works for me with any of the more than 20 languages I use.
Yeah and you'll also be using a machine/whatever that is not a finite state automata (i.e. not what we presently mean when we say computer).