I agree, the goal needn't be to destroy Microsoft, just to get Linux up to about 20%. That would really improve Linux, because then more hardware manufacturers would start releasing drivers (or at least specs).
I also wouldn't mind if Microsoft were forced to release its file format specifications (.doc,.xls etc). Let's open up the playing field to some more competition.
Is DVD writing still a real-time task? It shouldn't be. You don't worry about a disk drive or a flash drive getting corrupted just because you don't supply data to it as fast as it can write. I thought most CD writers now had "burn proof" and other similar buzzwords for the ability to recover from an underflow, in effect writing at whatever speed the computer can provide the data.
(I'm not asserting that current DVD drives ARE tolerant of this, just that if they aren't, they should get to work on it).
Why are companies allowed to get away with this crap just because we pay them for their shoddy wares?
The answer lies within the question: Because we pay them.
Don't blame this on consumers. We don't have real choice until we have the relevant information. Things might be quite different with a bit of truth in advertising, like a sticker on the box which reads "Router WG602 - Now With Even More Backdoors!"
The question of "why are companies allowed to get away with this crap" is a good one. They should either be forced to tell people what they're buying, or be accountable for the consequences of deception.
wow, way to be misinformed. Just... wow.
Apple bought NeXT as the core for OS X.
and it was NeXT who went and used a BSD core.
Hmm, so? With Copeland, Apple tried and failed for a long time to write a modern OS. They ended up using BSD, as I said.
Besides, BSD needs OS X to show that 'look! bsd CAN be usable!'
Apple did a good job on that and deserves credit.
As for OS 9 not being a "real" OS, it sure has had a hell of a lifetime, despite co-op multitasking. (as if that makes it any less an OS)
Yes, it makes it very much less of an OS. I first used OS9 just a few years ago, and was shocked that Apples were still running on what amounted (on a functional level) to Windows 3.1. The darn system had to be rebooted every 20 minutes. The only reason OS9 staggered on for so long was because Apple took such a long time to get a working replacement.
Tell you what. When YOU write an OS that has done what OS 9 did, you'll get the rights to be a critic.
Apple embraced open-source like a drowning man embraces a life preserver.
Apple floundered for years trying to create a modern OS. Finally they latched on to BSD and had much more success appending a nice UI layer instead of starting from scratch.
Well, that's the history as I see it. If you see it differently I'd be interested in factual corrections rather than flames.
Anyways I don't think it's bad that they latched on to BSD. The license allows it, and UNIX is one of many possible good OS designs, and so much good work has gone into it, why start over. I do think it's something of a discredit to Apple that they couldn't write a real OS from scratch, but that was a few years ago and maybe they're better managed now.
Nuclear reactions happen all the time in our universe, fueling our sun, and making the earth's core a molten blob of iron. So nuclear reactions are obviously nothing to worry about.
Yet the Bomb WAS a human-created civilization-changing event that has nearly done us in on a few occasions, and may still do so.
As to the Watson's assertion: chemical and biological weapons *do* exist. So why hasn't some predator evolved mustard gas jets to kill us off and take our food? Because evolution doesn't work all that well nor very quickly, not compared to intellect. That's why people kill animals a whole lot more than the other way around... because only people have departed from progressing at an evolutionary pace to a learning pace, which is a million times faster.
It won't help at all. After a short time you learn what "etc" means and it doesn't matter anymore.
The real issue is not directory naming but directory structure. Things like whether to put something in/var/lib or/usr/lib or/usr/local/lib etc. There are many possible ways to arrange things, and whatever you want to do somebody will not understand, or will disagree.
For better or worse there have been several efforts in the past to standardize directory structure in the past, but people keep going their own ways.
Personally I don't see what makes the issue interesting in the first place. If you don't even know where/etc/ is, its name is the least of your problems, because once you get there you certainly won't understand any of the files anyhow.
I vote everybody redirects their efforts from renaming directories to writing comprehensive, up-to-date documentation for everything:)
But when it tries to actually install, they'll check your serial number and THEN bork your system much like SP1 did.
Actually I think this is a better idea than Microsoft's current plans - to leave all those buggy unauthorized installs out there polluting the Internet with virii and acting as spam zombies.
Why not just have SP2 install and patch the system then report in ANY WAY POSSIBLE that this is a pirated copy of Window XP.
Because Microsoft knows what the ideal level of piracy is: people who might pay do pay, and people who won't pay still help make you the de facto standard.
I can understand Microsoft NOT making any effort to support unauthorized copies. But they don't need to make any extra effort; all they need to do is make a patch and let it float around the net. Instead, they're going out of their way to detect and "punish" the "pirates." That's a bit vindictive (though not to the extent you suggest).
I think Microsoft is still within their rights, but as a Linux user and an Internet user I feel I'm helping pay a bit of the price for Microsoft's sweet revenge.
I was just about to make the car comparison too. $4K is a lot for a computer, right? But on the other hand that's probably how much leather seats + a DVD player add to the price of a Navigator. Then again a lot of people hate those too.
OK, let's try this one. $4000 is only enough to pay for a 6'x6' patch of your house. That means even somebody paying $500 for their PC is using about $4K of real estate to hold it.
Not telling you how to run your business, but do people have to wear the helmets? I'd feel pretty stupid wearing a helmet at 6mph. That's jogging speed. But yeah, it might help if you get sued.
OK, let's ask a different question then, why isn't there a good DNS server available?
It seems like such a stupid-simple service, yet somehow Bind manages to make it hard. "Now type in the same information.... backwards!" Huh!?
For domains with simple needs, it should be possible to get by with a config file that looks very much like/etc/hosts. Then add option configuration directives on top of that for the fancy stuff, e.g. if somebody thinks their changes are propagating too slowly, they can find out about TTL.
Doesn't matter whether it's free or not. As the headline stated, nobody is going to "guarantee your data" (unless you count banks guaranteeing the integrity of your accounts, as the law forces them to do so). No company would want to expose themselves to the open-ended liability of somehow compensating you for whatever information (you claim) they lost. "I had the GPS coordinates for a big stash of gold bars in there!! I want 20 million dollars!!"
I agree profit is good. I'm just pointing out that a huge profit by one company year after year is not a sign of a healty competitive market. I would hold up Wal-Mart as a more positive example - they fend off competition from Target, Kmart, Sears, etc. Their profit is pretty huge in absolute dollars, but it's only about a 3% profit margin. That means that while they're turning a profit, the market is forcing them to give customers good deals.
The net loss for fiscal year 2003 was $2.378 billion or a net loss of $.75 per share as compared with a net loss of $587 million or a net loss per share of $.18 for the 2002 fiscal year.
Are you one of those lucky shareholders perhaps? That would be a real shame:
Fri, Apr. 16, 2004
Sun posts loss again
AS WOES CONTINUE, PROJECTS TO BE KILLED, MANAGERS SHUFFLED
By Dean Takahashi
Mercury News
Based on its turnaround plan, Sun Microsystems should be recovering by now. But that's not happening, as the company announced its 10th loss in 12 quarters Thursday. As a result, Sun has begun changing plans and its management team.
Anyways, the fact that Sun is losing money was just an example; lots of other businesses have hard times despite their best efforts, and even despite a fair playing field. That's why I say there's no "right" to profit.
While they could knock out the lowest capacity drives and keep the price structure the same (a la CPUs), that seems like bad business.
Oh, I'm sure there will be a short-term premium for the latest and greatest. But today's hard drives have several hundred times more capacity than those from 10 years ago, yet cost much less, so I think the long-term trend is very clear.
Slashdot Mirror
I also wouldn't mind if Microsoft were forced to release its file format specifications (.doc, .xls etc). Let's open up the playing field to some more competition.
(I'm not asserting that current DVD drives ARE tolerant of this, just that if they aren't, they should get to work on it).
The question of "why are companies allowed to get away with this crap" is a good one. They should either be forced to tell people what they're buying, or be accountable for the consequences of deception.
Whoopdie-doo, they moved the PSU over by 5 inches.
Isn't that just a G5 with the grille off?
Apple floundered for years trying to create a modern OS. Finally they latched on to BSD and had much more success appending a nice UI layer instead of starting from scratch.
Well, that's the history as I see it. If you see it differently I'd be interested in factual corrections rather than flames.
Anyways I don't think it's bad that they latched on to BSD. The license allows it, and UNIX is one of many possible good OS designs, and so much good work has gone into it, why start over. I do think it's something of a discredit to Apple that they couldn't write a real OS from scratch, but that was a few years ago and maybe they're better managed now.
Yet the Bomb WAS a human-created civilization-changing event that has nearly done us in on a few occasions, and may still do so.
As to the Watson's assertion: chemical and biological weapons *do* exist. So why hasn't some predator evolved mustard gas jets to kill us off and take our food? Because evolution doesn't work all that well nor very quickly, not compared to intellect. That's why people kill animals a whole lot more than the other way around... because only people have departed from progressing at an evolutionary pace to a learning pace, which is a million times faster.
The real issue is not directory naming but directory structure. Things like whether to put something in /var/lib or /usr/lib or /usr/local/lib etc. There are many possible ways to arrange things, and whatever you want to do somebody will not understand, or will disagree.
For better or worse there have been several efforts in the past to standardize directory structure in the past, but people keep going their own ways.
Personally I don't see what makes the issue interesting in the first place. If you don't even know where /etc/ is, its name is the least of your problems, because once you get there you certainly won't understand any of the files anyhow.
I vote everybody redirects their efforts from renaming directories to writing comprehensive, up-to-date documentation for everything :)
Not unless Hatch get it mandated by law that is.
I can understand Microsoft NOT making any effort to support unauthorized copies. But they don't need to make any extra effort; all they need to do is make a patch and let it float around the net. Instead, they're going out of their way to detect and "punish" the "pirates." That's a bit vindictive (though not to the extent you suggest).
I think Microsoft is still within their rights, but as a Linux user and an Internet user I feel I'm helping pay a bit of the price for Microsoft's sweet revenge.
If the cable. co. starts blocking off port 80, I'll know whom to blame.
OK, let's try this one. $4000 is only enough to pay for a 6'x6' patch of your house. That means even somebody paying $500 for their PC is using about $4K of real estate to hold it.
Not telling you how to run your business, but do people have to wear the helmets? I'd feel pretty stupid wearing a helmet at 6mph. That's jogging speed. But yeah, it might help if you get sued.
Bikes could work, but only for cyclists. I run regularly but definitely don't have the butt callouses to sit on a bike seat for 3 hours.
Walking would be nice, but you couldn't go as far in 3 hours, and besides nobody would pay you $60 to let them walk for 3 hours.
Besides being a great attention-getter, I have to admit the Segway actually makes some sense here!
It seems like such a stupid-simple service, yet somehow Bind manages to make it hard. "Now type in the same information.... backwards!" Huh!?
For domains with simple needs, it should be possible to get by with a config file that looks very much like /etc/hosts. Then add option configuration directives on top of that for the fancy stuff, e.g. if somebody thinks their changes are propagating too slowly, they can find out about TTL.
Doesn't matter whether it's free or not. As the headline stated, nobody is going to "guarantee your data" (unless you count banks guaranteeing the integrity of your accounts, as the law forces them to do so). No company would want to expose themselves to the open-ended liability of somehow compensating you for whatever information (you claim) they lost. "I had the GPS coordinates for a big stash of gold bars in there!! I want 20 million dollars!!"
So Hotmail really does have unstoppable built-in SPAM? Wow, I didn't see that on the butterfly commercials.
Come on Brits, that ain't a word.
I agree profit is good. I'm just pointing out that a huge profit by one company year after year is not a sign of a healty competitive market. I would hold up Wal-Mart as a more positive example - they fend off competition from Target, Kmart, Sears, etc. Their profit is pretty huge in absolute dollars, but it's only about a 3% profit margin. That means that while they're turning a profit, the market is forcing them to give customers good deals.
Sounds like a Palm. And yes you can run VNC (just the viewer tho) on a palm.