"Competition among Linux distros is limitless, so any increase in marketshare is a temporary shift that the market will correct over time. If Lycoris users wanted Mandrake, they would be using it already."
It should be obvious to you what Mandrake gets from this. Mandrake gets more advanced work at making the Linux desktop compete with Windows. Lycoris and Xandros and Linspire are the three Linux distros that most compete FOR WINDOWS USERS. Acquiring Lycoris gives Mandrake several pieces of technology that they can use to make Mandrake more appealing to Windows users looking to dump Windows.
As for Lycoris users, presumably most of the features that made them choose Lycoris will end up in Mandrake, so it's a wash for them - depending on whether they have to shell out money for those features in the next Mandrake release or can get them from the free download version.
"Why pay for developers on staff when you can simply take the best bits of their work for free?"
Not if they're proprietary bits or licenses of proprietary software from others. Lycoris was a proprietary Linux distro with, not a free community one. Parts of its desktop capabilities are licensed from proprietary software companies. Now Mandrake can probably use those licenses to enhance its desktop to compete better with Windows.
I don't see this as helping Mandrake against Red Hat or other Linux distros at all - it's entirely a Windows desktop migration strategy.
"The question, that is more intriguing, is why? Why is an OS that is free, not have the largest market share? And unfortunately, the answer is consolidation."
Absolutely not.
Has absolutely nothing to do with "consolidation" - which means merging multiple versions into one which word has nothing to do with the simple fact that Windows is closed source.
Has everything to do with being first to market with an OS cheaper than UNIX USED to be, and then tying it to restrictive OEM contracts, and also tying the desktop applications to the OS.
Also, it is pointless to suggest that Linux should NOW be the only OS on the market simply because it is free. Anybody with a brain knows that corporation management is resistant to using "free" stuff because they view it as inferior simply by virtue of it not costing them an arm and a leg. Not to mention the problem of converting existing Office apps to OSS ones - which, while not insurmountable, obviously is not something that's going to be done overnight worldwide.
So to suggest that Linux is not the dominant OS NOW just because it is open vrs closed is ridiculous.
What is simply happening here is that one Linux distro with interesting and useful desktop features that make it easier to use for Windows users has been acquired by another Linux distro that wants to incorporate those features in its distro.
Really not much different than just grabbing the code - except that the distro being acquired was proprietary and so were the extensions, so the distro had to be bought instead of just downloaded.
I don't see the need for any huge reaction to this one way or the other - unless you're a Mandrake user (as I am) interested in what improvements in Mandrake this will cause.
Mandrake buys two moderately sized ones (not the smallest, not the biggest), and the sky is falling?
This is modded "Interesting"?
OTOH, if you're commenting on how some people WANT consolidation in Linux (down to two or a half dozen distros), then you are of course correct - diversity is better.
Since such consolidation isn't going to happen, it's a moot point.
Mod this "Redundant". Wait, I HAVE mod points, and I'm posting? Oops.
"To beat Microsoft in this arena, their needs to be more of a weaving between the DE and the kernal. I could be wrong and the only way this can happen is consolidation. This is my view, but most likely I am looking at things wrong."
You are.
The biggest security problem in Windows is that the desktop (AND the browser, AND the applications) have connections to the kernel (that's "kernel" BTW to be/. pedantic.)
The last thing Linux (or Windows) needs is more interaction between the desktop and the kernel.
"Alternatively they could accept that the Linux world is a diverse world and restricting yourself to the one distribution that is guaranteed to have everything you want where you want it is a little limiting."
This basically brings up the basic point that you have a spectrum of users. Most users of (large) corporation machines do not (or at least should not) install software unapproved by IT. Users of small corporation machines and home users might. But if those users know enough to use the package manager, it doesn't matter - the package manager handles it in most cases - at least if the user only knows enough to get his software from his distros repository.
And a user who knows MORE than this is more than capable of figuring out where stuff is or should be and where it should go on his machine.
I get tarred and feathered by/. morons for painting all politicians as bad, but it seems no one cares if all Linux users are considered either idiots or nerds. There is a spectrum of users, and Linux can be made to fit most of them with either some minimal training or external IT control - exactly the same as Windows.
A modern Linux distro is powerful enough to be compared to a Windows Server in terms of functionality - not to Windows 95. Try handing Windows 2003 Server to a naive user - or even your average sys admin - and have him set Group Policy. effectively.
I've said this before: I had to learn Windows and Linux simultaneously over the last three years - and I have found NO difference in usability or learnability between the two. No modern OS is "intuitive" - beyond knowing that clicking the mouse does something and what a menu is. What I HAVE found is a difference in reliability, security, and COST (cost for apps - I got all my Windows OS free as well as Linux - in fact, I actually spent money to get Red Hat 7.3 in the past.)
And watch Joe User - or even me, since I haven't bothered to analyze them all - look at the plethora of Windows folders under the Windows folders and get confused.
Yes, finally, Windows XP hides those folders automatically (and I of course unhide them instantly since I'm not a dumbed down Windows moron who needs to be "protected" from his own system.)
The bottom line is that whether you hide those directories or not, you still have them and any user confused by them should comprehend that he doesn't need to be looking at them anyway if he doesn't know what he's doing.
As for explaining where things are to a new Linux user, you simply go through the File System Hierarchy concept and then point out that he doesn't need to know where everything is as the package manager will tell him and handle things automatically (or at least as far as the app developer allows it to - and lazy programmers are a problem with Windows, too. Stuffing everything in the Registry is NOT a solution.)
"How did you determine that all politicians are corrupt then"
The state of the world and a knowledge of human psychology and every single political decision made over my lifetime and every single comment made by every single politician ever heard in my lifetime AND a profound comprehension of the nature of the state.
Yes, ALL politicians are bad - they just vary in degree and form. NO exceptions. A statist is a statist and the reasons for being a statist are known.
"turn out to be reasonably intelligent people, who genuninely want to try to do what they perceive to be the Right Thing, for the country, their constituents, and themselves."
And you determined this how?
By talking to them?
Right.
That makes YOU a moron. And them elected politicians.
As an aside, you had the order wrong: it's themselves FIRST, their country second - as long as said country gives THEM more power to push their constituents around - and their constituents dead last - unless said constituents have plenty of money for a campaign donation or a bribe.
Not to mention that you said you encountered "one or two" politicians. Given the Senate and Congress together comprise 535 people, you are basing your conclusions on a sample of about one half of one percent or less.
Much as I hate Microsoft, I expect IBM will do the same once it gets its foothold in China via the Lenovo deal - assuming the issue ever comes up with IBM at all, since I don't know that they are running general content Web sites there.
The problem for Microsoft is that MSN is SUPPOSED to be an open information portal. Thus, censoring it - especially such general terms as "freedom" - would seem to be a fundamental contradiction of the MSN "mission" (other than making money for Microsoft - which IIRC it isn't doing anyway - unless you treat it as a loss-leader PR move to sell Microsoft products - which it is).
But then, any SUPPOSEDLY open information portal which censors the word "fuck" or pictures of naked babes or anything else is by definition NOT an "open information portal".
As I say elsewhere, every Web site is run by and for the people who run it - and NO ONE ELSE. Get used to it. If you don't like it, start your own, like I'm going to do. And yes, mine will be run exactly the same way.
Linking to "new information" should be done by updating the PREVIOUS article - especially when that article was only a couple days ago.
Besides which, how many different versions of the same stuff would be on the front page if every time somebody put "new information" (one more line) in each piece it got added as a new story?
to get replacement cartridges for my Epson Stylus C60 - and for $5.95 for black and $6.95 for color - with FREE shipping and ten percent discount coupons after you order a few - I'd say even if I got only 50% of the ink quantity I'd be well ahead of Epson's $30-35 price for cartridges.
And AFAIK I'm getting pretty much the same quantity and quality as Epson.
I don't how they make money on that stuff, but now they've expanded to offer printer paper and other related stuff cheap.
"requires the attorney general to create an official list of Web sites with material that is deemed harmful to minors."
First of all, there is no such thing as "material which is harmful to minors" (material DEEMED harmful is of course another matter - just find your local Christian and ask.)(And, no, morons, when I say "material" I'm not referring to gamma rays, explosives, rock slides, or any other stupid shit you might desire to bring up just to prove what pedantic/. nerdboys you are.)
Second, if this guy needs to create an official list of Web sites, he's got a LOT of work cut out for his office. There are only - what? - several tens of millions such sites? Wouldn't it be nice if he succeeded, tho? We wouldn't need Persian Kitty anymore!
"banned the words 'democracy' and 'freedom' from parts of its website in an apparent effort to avoid offending Beijing's political censors.'"
They've got it wrong.
These words have been banned to avoid offending Bill Gates. He confuses these terms with "open source" and "communism". The word "totalitarian" and "shared source" are acceptable substitutes for these terms, according to a recent MS memo to Steve Ballmer.
Suspected terrorist has posted an apparently coded message on Slashdot indicating connections with terrorist supporters in Middle Eastern countries.
Suspect has possible sexual relations with both his wife and his sister based on frequency of email contacts.
Suspect is apparently concealing his connections with his wife's mother from his wife. His wife, however, is also in contact with the terrorist leader. Indications are his wife is part of a different cell than the suspect. {See "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" for operational details.]
Flag for further analysis by the understaffed translation department. Under no circumstances let Sibel Edmonds translate these communications.
Robert Mueller Director, FBI
I Guess George Bush is the perfect example of this
on
The Evil in E-Mail
·
· Score: 1
"like several people e-mailing one person but not each other, which is how some criminal networks operate."
I was about to cut and paste your "and and", then say "You will not." Unfortunately I cannot, so the rest of this post is not directed at you. Instead it is a rant about Firefox.
One of Firefox's NUMEROUS bugs just bit, and I can no longer cut and paste!
Forget the content of the post... (Score:0) by ninja_assault_kitten (883141) Neutral on Sunday June 12, @04:20PM (#12796893) ( http://www.freebsd.org/ )
Why the hell is this even on Slashdot in the first place? Who is this guy? Is he anyone I should know? Is he known to be an authority on anything?
Does any dumb fuck get to post on Slashdot if they write something that's anti-OSS? FUCK.
Re:And the funny thing is...
on
Ajax On Rails
·
· Score: 1
"I just think its kinda funny"
Well, I think it's funny that Microsoft can do something USEFUL BY ACCIDENT!
And Microsoft SHOULD take flak for being Microsoft - given that's the problem with them. Assholes should be criticized for being assholes - even when they do something that works out.
Did Microsoft INTEND for this extension to be something other browsers could use, so it would be general enough to advance the functionality of Web sites? Or did they INTEND for it to be a non-standard extension to lock Web site visitors into using IE?
Slashdot Mirror
I can't wait for my first virus email proclaiming that I can see her naked!
Ooh, it's so exciting!
Oh, wait, I already have 1,800 pictures of her - and several video clips - including the naked lesbian sex scene in "Gia".
Never mind.
"Competition among Linux distros is limitless, so any increase in marketshare is a temporary shift that the market will correct over time. If Lycoris users wanted Mandrake, they would be using it already."
It should be obvious to you what Mandrake gets from this. Mandrake gets more advanced work at making the Linux desktop compete with Windows. Lycoris and Xandros and Linspire are the three Linux distros that most compete FOR WINDOWS USERS. Acquiring Lycoris gives Mandrake several pieces of technology that they can use to make Mandrake more appealing to Windows users looking to dump Windows.
As for Lycoris users, presumably most of the features that made them choose Lycoris will end up in Mandrake, so it's a wash for them - depending on whether they have to shell out money for those features in the next Mandrake release or can get them from the free download version.
"Why pay for developers on staff when you can simply take the best bits of their work for free?"
Not if they're proprietary bits or licenses of proprietary software from others. Lycoris was a proprietary Linux distro with, not a free community one. Parts of its desktop capabilities are licensed from proprietary software companies. Now Mandrake can probably use those licenses to enhance its desktop to compete better with Windows.
I don't see this as helping Mandrake against Red Hat or other Linux distros at all - it's entirely a Windows desktop migration strategy.
"The question, that is more intriguing, is why? Why is an OS that is free, not have the largest market share? And unfortunately, the answer is consolidation."
Absolutely not.
Has absolutely nothing to do with "consolidation" - which means merging multiple versions into one which word has nothing to do with the simple fact that Windows is closed source.
Has everything to do with being first to market with an OS cheaper than UNIX USED to be, and then tying it to restrictive OEM contracts, and also tying the desktop applications to the OS.
Also, it is pointless to suggest that Linux should NOW be the only OS on the market simply because it is free. Anybody with a brain knows that corporation management is resistant to using "free" stuff because they view it as inferior simply by virtue of it not costing them an arm and a leg. Not to mention the problem of converting existing Office apps to OSS ones - which, while not insurmountable, obviously is not something that's going to be done overnight worldwide.
So to suggest that Linux is not the dominant OS NOW just because it is open vrs closed is ridiculous.
What is simply happening here is that one Linux distro with interesting and useful desktop features that make it easier to use for Windows users has been acquired by another Linux distro that wants to incorporate those features in its distro.
Really not much different than just grabbing the code - except that the distro being acquired was proprietary and so were the extensions, so the distro had to be bought instead of just downloaded.
I don't see the need for any huge reaction to this one way or the other - unless you're a Mandrake user (as I am) interested in what improvements in Mandrake this will cause.
There are HOW MANY DISTROS OUT THERE?
Mandrake buys two moderately sized ones (not the smallest, not the biggest), and the sky is falling?
This is modded "Interesting"?
OTOH, if you're commenting on how some people WANT consolidation in Linux (down to two or a half dozen distros), then you are of course correct - diversity is better.
Since such consolidation isn't going to happen, it's a moot point.
Mod this "Redundant". Wait, I HAVE mod points, and I'm posting? Oops.
"To beat Microsoft in this arena, their needs to be more of a weaving between the DE and the kernal. I could be wrong and the only way this can happen is consolidation. This is my view, but most likely I am looking at things wrong."
/. pedantic.)
You are.
The biggest security problem in Windows is that the desktop (AND the browser, AND the applications) have connections to the kernel (that's "kernel" BTW to be
The last thing Linux (or Windows) needs is more interaction between the desktop and the kernel.
Good points.
/. morons for painting all politicians as bad, but it seems no one cares if all Linux users are considered either idiots or nerds. There is a spectrum of users, and Linux can be made to fit most of them with either some minimal training or external IT control - exactly the same as Windows.
Especially this one:
"Alternatively they could accept that the Linux world is a diverse world and restricting yourself to the one distribution that is guaranteed to have everything you want where you want it is a little limiting."
This basically brings up the basic point that you have a spectrum of users. Most users of (large) corporation machines do not (or at least should not) install software unapproved by IT. Users of small corporation machines and home users might. But if those users know enough to use the package manager, it doesn't matter - the package manager handles it in most cases - at least if the user only knows enough to get his software from his distros repository.
And a user who knows MORE than this is more than capable of figuring out where stuff is or should be and where it should go on his machine.
I get tarred and feathered by
A modern Linux distro is powerful enough to be compared to a Windows Server in terms of functionality - not to Windows 95. Try handing Windows 2003 Server to a naive user - or even your average sys admin - and have him set Group Policy. effectively.
I've said this before: I had to learn Windows and Linux simultaneously over the last three years - and I have found NO difference in usability or learnability between the two. No modern OS is "intuitive" - beyond knowing that clicking the mouse does something and what a menu is. What I HAVE found is a difference in reliability, security, and COST (cost for apps - I got all my Windows OS free as well as Linux - in fact, I actually spent money to get Red Hat 7.3 in the past.)
And watch Joe User - or even me, since I haven't bothered to analyze them all - look at the plethora of Windows folders under the Windows folders and get confused.
Yes, finally, Windows XP hides those folders automatically (and I of course unhide them instantly since I'm not a dumbed down Windows moron who needs to be "protected" from his own system.)
The bottom line is that whether you hide those directories or not, you still have them and any user confused by them should comprehend that he doesn't need to be looking at them anyway if he doesn't know what he's doing.
As for explaining where things are to a new Linux user, you simply go through the File System Hierarchy concept and then point out that he doesn't need to know where everything is as the package manager will tell him and handle things automatically (or at least as far as the app developer allows it to - and lazy programmers are a problem with Windows, too. Stuffing everything in the Registry is NOT a solution.)
"How did you determine that all politicians are corrupt then"
The state of the world and a knowledge of human psychology and every single political decision made over my lifetime and every single comment made by every single politician ever heard in my lifetime AND a profound comprehension of the nature of the state.
Yes, ALL politicians are bad - they just vary in degree and form. NO exceptions. A statist is a statist and the reasons for being a statist are known.
"turn out to be reasonably intelligent people, who genuninely want to try to do what they perceive to be the Right Thing, for the country, their constituents, and themselves."
And you determined this how?
By talking to them?
Right.
That makes YOU a moron. And them elected politicians.
As an aside, you had the order wrong: it's themselves FIRST, their country second - as long as said country gives THEM more power to push their constituents around - and their constituents dead last - unless said constituents have plenty of money for a campaign donation or a bribe.
Not to mention that you said you encountered "one or two" politicians. Given the Senate and Congress together comprise 535 people, you are basing your conclusions on a sample of about one half of one percent or less.
Which also makes you a moron.
Much as I hate Microsoft, I expect IBM will do the same once it gets its foothold in China via the Lenovo deal - assuming the issue ever comes up with IBM at all, since I don't know that they are running general content Web sites there.
The problem for Microsoft is that MSN is SUPPOSED to be an open information portal. Thus, censoring it - especially such general terms as "freedom" - would seem to be a fundamental contradiction of the MSN "mission" (other than making money for Microsoft - which IIRC it isn't doing anyway - unless you treat it as a loss-leader PR move to sell Microsoft products - which it is).
But then, any SUPPOSEDLY open information portal which censors the word "fuck" or pictures of naked babes or anything else is by definition NOT an "open information portal".
As I say elsewhere, every Web site is run by and for the people who run it - and NO ONE ELSE. Get used to it. If you don't like it, start your own, like I'm going to do. And yes, mine will be run exactly the same way.
Yes, it IS a fucking dupe.
Linking to "new information" should be done by updating the PREVIOUS article - especially when that article was only a couple days ago.
Besides which, how many different versions of the same stuff would be on the front page if every time somebody put "new information" (one more line) in each piece it got added as a new story?
It's NOT a NEW STORY.
No, we couldn't.
Because the editors would see it was a dupe - then THEY would submit it AS A DUPE to take CREDIT for submitting the dupe.
See how it works?
If you're not an editor, don't waste your time trying to get something submitted no matter HOW newsworthy it is - or even if it's a dupe.
Like every other Web site on the planet, this one is run by and for the people who run it and NO ONE ELSE.
If you don't like it, start your own. That's what I'm going to do.
And yes, it will be run exactly the same way.
You primates just love Darwinian competition - except when you're losing it, of course.
to get replacement cartridges for my Epson Stylus C60 - and for $5.95 for black and $6.95 for color - with FREE shipping and ten percent discount coupons after you order a few - I'd say even if I got only 50% of the ink quantity I'd be well ahead of Epson's $30-35 price for cartridges.
And AFAIK I'm getting pretty much the same quantity and quality as Epson.
I don't how they make money on that stuff, but now they've expanded to offer printer paper and other related stuff cheap.
Better (or worse, depending on your perspective) AMATEUR porn. Anybody with a bedroom and a server and bandwidth can become the Porn King!
Now who do I know is hot?
Oh, wait, never mind.
"requires the attorney general to create an official list of Web sites with material that is deemed harmful to minors."
/. nerdboys you are.)
First of all, there is no such thing as "material which is harmful to minors" (material DEEMED harmful is of course another matter - just find your local Christian and ask.)(And, no, morons, when I say "material" I'm not referring to gamma rays, explosives, rock slides, or any other stupid shit you might desire to bring up just to prove what pedantic
Second, if this guy needs to create an official list of Web sites, he's got a LOT of work cut out for his office. There are only - what? - several tens of millions such sites? Wouldn't it be nice if he succeeded, tho? We wouldn't need Persian Kitty anymore!
I gotta laugh at the responses to this one.
I point out the ridiculous nature of the original post and I get criticized for the same thing.
You gotta love
"banned the words 'democracy' and 'freedom' from parts of its website in an apparent effort to avoid offending Beijing's political censors.'"
They've got it wrong.
These words have been banned to avoid offending Bill Gates. He confuses these terms with "open source" and "communism". The word "totalitarian" and "shared source" are acceptable substitutes for these terms, according to a recent MS memo to Steve Ballmer.
Memo to SAIC:
Suspected terrorist has posted an apparently coded message on Slashdot indicating connections with terrorist supporters in Middle Eastern countries.
Suspect has possible sexual relations with both his wife and his sister based on frequency of email contacts.
Suspect is apparently concealing his connections with his wife's mother from his wife. His wife, however, is also in contact with the terrorist leader. Indications are his wife is part of a different cell than the suspect. {See "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" for operational details.]
Flag for further analysis by the understaffed translation department. Under no circumstances let Sibel Edmonds translate these communications.
Robert Mueller
Director, FBI
"like several people e-mailing one person but not each other, which is how some criminal networks operate."
Nice.
I was about to cut and paste your "and and", then say "You will not." Unfortunately I cannot, so the rest of this post is not directed at you. Instead it is a rant about Firefox.
One of Firefox's NUMEROUS bugs just bit, and I can no longer cut and paste!
Somebody kindly fix Firefox's NUMEROUS MEMORY LEAKS!
Jesus, now I can NOT use the goddamn APOSTROPHE without it jumping to the FIND bar!
If this shit keeps up, it IS back to Opera!
Mozilla, STOP adding FEATURES until you FIX THE FUCKING BUGS!
That's true. Especially the Windows trolls.
/. consists of gutless feeble punks with no balls.
I, however, proudly post flamebait, ass-backwards, and plain annoying-as-hell comments directly under MY OWN NAME - not even a handle!
The rest of
Right - it should be moderated as "Windows troll".
What submissions were turned down? Probably a LOT of news about Microsoft's "new initiative" ("initiative" about "something" - i.e., PR speak.)
George, go back to the White House. Laura is calling you. Barbara has been found drunk again. This has to stop.
Forget the content of the post... (Score:0)
by ninja_assault_kitten (883141) Neutral on Sunday June 12, @04:20PM (#12796893)
( http://www.freebsd.org/ )
Why the hell is this even on Slashdot in the first place? Who is this guy? Is he anyone I should know? Is he known to be an authority on anything?
Does any dumb fuck get to post on Slashdot if they write something that's anti-OSS? FUCK.
"I just think its kinda funny"
Well, I think it's funny that Microsoft can do something USEFUL BY ACCIDENT!
And Microsoft SHOULD take flak for being Microsoft - given that's the problem with them. Assholes should be criticized for being assholes - even when they do something that works out.
Did Microsoft INTEND for this extension to be something other browsers could use, so it would be general enough to advance the functionality of Web sites? Or did they INTEND for it to be a non-standard extension to lock Web site visitors into using IE?
Guess which... I don't need to.