. . . that people who are dependent on Windows are usually simply not capable of running Unix, either because a lack of intelligence, a lack of interest, but it's usually a combination of both
It would serve the Linux community well to change the mindset from Windows users having "a lack of intelligence" to "a lack of knowledge." This is an important distinction. Sure, there's dumb Windows users, but many are quite bright and just haven't taken the time to learn Linux. One you're out of college, time is no longer free:-)
Is there a way I can put money down on a tiny Fujitsu or Sony sub-notebook, try to put Debian GNU/Linux on it, and then return it for a full refund if I fail?
I just bought an HP zt1175 from Circuit City, and they told me I had 10 or 14 days (I forget which) to return it. I loaded Debian 3.0 on it. I haven't started looking at sound or apm yet, but everything else (including X) is working fine.
It came with restore disks, so I can restore it to its out-of-the-box state.
I was a little startled yesterday, after buying my groceries, to look at the receipt. It listed how much I'd saved that day with my saver card--I expected that. Then it listed how much I'd saved year-to-date. A clear case of someone (me) not really thinking about how much we're all being tracked, and how little privacy we really have. No I have to decide--am I willing to pay more, give up my saver card, and get more privacy? Or do I sell my privacy for saving on groceries? There's something a little prostitutish about this . . . .
Why do we put so much stock in "stick to the standards and it will come out OK on all platforms"? The fact is that, when you work for a big corporation, and you're doing real e-commerce, and the web application must dynamically respond to user input, Netscape is worthless. It's object model has more holes than swiss cheese. Sure, if you're just throwing stuff on the screen, you should be viewable in all browsers. The web isn't just for view anymore, though--it's for real applications, and the standards fall short (as do EVERYONE'S implementation of those standards).
Where I work (a large corporation), we never began the rollover from NT to 2000. We still run NT 4.0 on the desktop, and have no plans to move. We also use Office 97 . . . .
The irony is that if I click a link to a story, and it takes me instead to a home page that has nothing about the story, I'm not about to spend time finding it on my own. Not allowing deep-linking only hurts companies (like yours)
Slashdot Mirror
. . . it's one less keystroke . . .
;-)
. . . it's one fewer keystroke . . .
. . . that people who are dependent on Windows are usually simply not capable of running Unix, either because a lack of intelligence, a lack of interest, but it's usually a combination of both
:-)
It would serve the Linux community well to change the mindset from Windows users having "a lack of intelligence" to "a lack of knowledge." This is an important distinction. Sure, there's dumb Windows users, but many are quite bright and just haven't taken the time to learn Linux. One you're out of college, time is no longer free
It's also a lot easier to support FreeDOS than Linux . . . .
I just bought an HP zt1175 from Circuit City, and they told me I had 10 or 14 days (I forget which) to return it. I loaded Debian 3.0 on it. I haven't started looking at sound or apm yet, but everything else (including X) is working fine. It came with restore disks, so I can restore it to its out-of-the-box state.
I was a little startled yesterday, after buying my groceries, to look at the receipt. It listed how much I'd saved that day with my saver card--I expected that. Then it listed how much I'd saved year-to-date. A clear case of someone (me) not really thinking about how much we're all being tracked, and how little privacy we really have. No I have to decide--am I willing to pay more, give up my saver card, and get more privacy? Or do I sell my privacy for saving on groceries? There's something a little prostitutish about this . . . .
Why do we put so much stock in "stick to the standards and it will come out OK on all platforms"? The fact is that, when you work for a big corporation, and you're doing real e-commerce, and the web application must dynamically respond to user input, Netscape is worthless. It's object model has more holes than swiss cheese. Sure, if you're just throwing stuff on the screen, you should be viewable in all browsers. The web isn't just for view anymore, though--it's for real applications, and the standards fall short (as do EVERYONE'S implementation of those standards).
Where I work (a large corporation), we never began the rollover from NT to 2000. We still run NT 4.0 on the desktop, and have no plans to move. We also use Office 97 . . . .
The irony is that if I click a link to a story, and it takes me instead to a home page that has nothing about the story, I'm not about to spend time finding it on my own. Not allowing deep-linking only hurts companies (like yours)
I see this as nothing new--Windows has been on the Fritz for years.