Right - Outlook the virus magnet and Exchange Server the second most complicated thing on the planet after the human brain - and it works as bad as well.
Rocket scientists.
Proves once again that humans will ALWAYS choose the worst alternative - and then create even more mistakes to try to "work around" their original mistake.
At the first job they took where they didn't know Office...
Not everybody learned Office in college...
And that's the problem with most businesses - they fob off "training" on the last business their new employee worked for.
Then the analysts claim "training" as some huge TCO expense in switching to OO or Linux - when most companies don't train anybody in anything.
Almost all employees pick up stuff on their own since most so-called "corporate training" consists of a couple days sitting in a room listening to blather six months before the actual rollout of whatever they were "trained" in occurs - by which time they've forgotten what little they got out of the "training".
"Corporate training" is an oxymoron and is totally irrelevant to TCO.
"Let's make sure we teach our kids to deal with crappy, non functional software right from the start"
So you want him to keep Microsoft Office. Why didn't you say so?
You're right - Windows is the best way to teach people that the computer industry is dysfunctional and that all software sucks - which is THE most important lesson to be learned.
I'm serious.
Well, there IS one more important lesson to be learned.
That it shouldn't be that way.
For that, you need to teach Linux.
Not that Linux is all that much better - but it does show that it COULD be better.
"Say what you want about Microsoft and the stability/reliability/security of their software, but they have many full time (and paid) people devoted exclusively to testing and trying to break their software so that it can be fixed."
What's wrong with the above statement?
If the end result is Windows, something is definitely wrong with their approach.
I kinda understand the "take pride in rejecting patches" concept. Keeping bad stuff out of the kernel is as important as bringing in good stuff.
OTOH, Andrew is right, too - the important thing is to get good patches into the kernel. (I would say the more important thing is not to need patches in the first place - unless you're talking about additional features, which I don't call "patches" - semantics, really.)
First of all, as I understand it, the commercial license involved says you will not reverse engineer the product YOU licensed. SourcePuller doesn't do that if YOU use it with some other SCM - it simply interoperates. It may do that if Tridge wrote it that way, which he didn't since he wasn't a licensee in the first place.
Secondly, using SourcePuller does not "get you aside from losing a tool". That statement is just idiotic. SourcePuller gets you exactly what Tridge says - interoperability with BK.
If BK is replaced as the dominant SCM, SourcePuller will be obsolete only when no one uses BK at all. When no one uses BK at all because there is something better, what is the problem with "losing a tool"? The statement is nonsense.
As for Samba, does anybody believe Samba would exist in the form it does if Windows didn't exist? And referencing Samba's AD support as being independent of Windows is just laughable. Samba entire existence is due to the need (however temporary) for Windows interoperability.
Which BTW just demonstrates the article's point - that people are so used to bad software that they simply don't want to hear about ANY more software, good or bad. That and the fact that, as one of my teachers likes to say, most people use software because they have to, not because they want to.
Just look at the delight one feels when some little utility actually does its job without any major user intervention. It's so rare that it really is noticeable and provokes an emotional response.
Of course, ninety percent of the time software does in fact "do its job" in some sense. It's just in comparison with how much BETTER it COULD do its job that it becomes clear how bad it is.
All they have is/. - unless they work at City College of San Francisco like I do where there are literally tens of thousands of cute Asian girls...
Unfortunately I'm 56 so they might as well be on another planet. Besides which, they get married five minutes after they turn 18 and four years later have six kids...
And Bill Gates comments about "open source communists" was last year.
Your point then is what?
First post?
If Ballmer's comments have any meaning at all, it means Microsoft's virtualization project will be devoted to breaking Linux when it runs on a Microsoft host so MS can claim Linux is broken.
First, my point was that CA's point was irrelevant because it has to be done by any OS.
Second, the fact that Microsoft does it and CA (which, in case you've forgotten, runs most of their stuff on Windows long before any of it ran on Linux) says nothing implies bias - which means, yes, CA is claiming Linux is inferior to Windows indirectly.
Third, my point was not technically inaccurate since I had no intention of saying anything about install vrs run-time except to point out that tons of oddball drivers exist for Windows and Windows has to know about them even to do an install. I explicitly stated this was an install time matter which you conveniently forgot so you can score points like the usual/. nerd-boy troll.
Fourth, your characterization of my "Windows does it too" as being irrelevant is therefore entirely wrong. It is in fact the central issue - whether an OS needs a ton of drivers. CA is saying Linux doesn't need ANY drivers EXCEPT the ones CA wants to use. Windows proves that's not true. So my bringing up Windows is entirely appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
Your handle of TheConfusedOne is appropriate as the other respondents have demonstrated.
Right - Outlook the virus magnet and Exchange Server the second most complicated thing on the planet after the human brain - and it works as bad as well.
Rocket scientists.
Proves once again that humans will ALWAYS choose the worst alternative - and then create even more mistakes to try to "work around" their original mistake.
You people need to be euthanized.
Fortunately, you will be.
Interesting question.
Last semester at City College of San Francisco, I suggested to one of my UNIX C teachers that there ought to be an intro course to Linux.
He said Linux was too hard to use, so a course wouldn't work.
I thought about that.
If Microsoft Windows and Office are so easy to use, why do we give courses in them?
What's wrong with this picture?
The bottom line: so-called "educational establishments" are merely ways in which corporations fob off training on someone else's dime.
City College's own IT department is so fucked up you wouldn't believe it. Or maybe you would.
It's all really quite simple: everybody is incompetent.
Except me.
And that's why I can't get an income.
You'd be surprised how bad your training is.
I, on the other hand, wouldn't be.
At the first job they took where they didn't know Office...
Not everybody learned Office in college...
And that's the problem with most businesses - they fob off "training" on the last business their new employee worked for.
Then the analysts claim "training" as some huge TCO expense in switching to OO or Linux - when most companies don't train anybody in anything.
Almost all employees pick up stuff on their own since most so-called "corporate training" consists of a couple days sitting in a room listening to blather six months before the actual rollout of whatever they were "trained" in occurs - by which time they've forgotten what little they got out of the "training".
"Corporate training" is an oxymoron and is totally irrelevant to TCO.
Ahem...
They took LEGAL action based on Federal court decisions going back a hundred years upholding the separation of church and state.
"Political action" is what the crooked Republicans like Tom DeLay do to end-run the legal system.
If you can't get your way legally, threaten religious violence against Federal judges - the new Republican platform.
"Let's make sure we teach our kids to deal with crappy, non functional software right from the start"
So you want him to keep Microsoft Office. Why didn't you say so?
You're right - Windows is the best way to teach people that the computer industry is dysfunctional and that all software sucks - which is THE most important lesson to be learned.
I'm serious.
Well, there IS one more important lesson to be learned.
That it shouldn't be that way.
For that, you need to teach Linux.
Not that Linux is all that much better - but it does show that it COULD be better.
Windows! It's just not!
Actually I've come to the conclusion that the best motto for Linux is still:
Windows sucks...
Maybe we could spruce it up a little:
Windows - You pay for it to suck...
Or like the one on the picture of Tux sucking Windows up through a straw from one of those juice boxes:
Windows - We suck more!
The word Windows and "it just works" in the same sentence!!!
Bwahahahahahaha!!!!
Oh, stop it, it hurts...!!!
Bwahahahahahaha!!!
Here it comes again!!
Bwahahahahahahah!!!
"Say what you want about Microsoft and the stability/reliability/security of their software, but they have many full time (and paid) people devoted exclusively to testing and trying to break their software so that it can be fixed."
What's wrong with the above statement?
If the end result is Windows, something is definitely wrong with their approach.
I kinda understand the "take pride in rejecting patches" concept. Keeping bad stuff out of the kernel is as important as bringing in good stuff.
OTOH, Andrew is right, too - the important thing is to get good patches into the kernel. (I would say the more important thing is not to need patches in the first place - unless you're talking about additional features, which I don't call "patches" - semantics, really.)
It's a matter of perspective and end results.
"We've made big changes to the standard kernel, and haven't broken it any more than it was before."
For those who are going to take the headline and run with it to denounce the current Linux kernel as "unstable"...like CA and certain
ATTENTION: THOSE CONSIDERING WINDOWS AS A MARKET
This is what always happens. Bring your product to Microsoft and they love you, then they kill you.
Lesson: don't bother.
How about "Linus's Landing"?
"Dynasty" - about UNIX, Linux, BSD, FreeBSD, etc.
Bill Gates = J.R. Ewing? (Naah, Billy Boy hasn't got near the style of J.R.! Forgeddaboutit...)
Ah, the first idiot posts...
First of all, as I understand it, the commercial license involved says you will not reverse engineer the product YOU licensed. SourcePuller doesn't do that if YOU use it with some other SCM - it simply interoperates. It may do that if Tridge wrote it that way, which he didn't since he wasn't a licensee in the first place.
Secondly, using SourcePuller does not "get you aside from losing a tool". That statement is just idiotic. SourcePuller gets you exactly what Tridge says - interoperability with BK.
If BK is replaced as the dominant SCM, SourcePuller will be obsolete only when no one uses BK at all. When no one uses BK at all because there is something better, what is the problem with "losing a tool"? The statement is nonsense.
As for Samba, does anybody believe Samba would exist in the form it does if Windows didn't exist? And referencing Samba's AD support as being independent of Windows is just laughable. Samba entire existence is due to the need (however temporary) for Windows interoperability.
Some of the posts on
Like I always say:
Windows is CRAP.
Linux is ALSO crap.
But Linux is FREE crap.
Makes all the difference.
I think you meant "glassy"...
Which BTW just demonstrates the article's point - that people are so used to bad software that they simply don't want to hear about ANY more software, good or bad. That and the fact that, as one of my teachers likes to say, most people use software because they have to, not because they want to.
Just look at the delight one feels when some little utility actually does its job without any major user intervention. It's so rare that it really is noticeable and provokes an emotional response.
Of course, ninety percent of the time software does in fact "do its job" in some sense. It's just in comparison with how much BETTER it COULD do its job that it becomes clear how bad it is.
Open sourcers don't have receptionists.
All they have is
Unfortunately I'm 56 so they might as well be on another planet. Besides which, they get married five minutes after they turn 18 and four years later have six kids...
"Windows steps:
- Plug in printer
- (Possibly) install software from CD
- Print"
Odd - I think that's what I did when I recently installed Mandrake 10.1 (leaving out the install software part).
My Epson Stylus C60 inkjet works fine.
Not on
Microsoft tries a lot of ploys that don't work. Doesn't seem to stop them from trying them.
He's also called it "stupid but fast".
Nice to see a programmer who recognizes his off-the-cuff stuff isn't the greatest.
Be nice if some of them worked for Microsoft.
The one on the MS announcement of Windows 2003 Server Service Pack 1 where it is admitted it breaks several Microsoft system products.
Then at the bottom, MS says (referring to the list which includes its own products):
We do not support or endorse any of these products.
Nice to know.
But then, we already knew that.
Also noteworthy is the new term used to describe a broken product: it's not a bug, it's not even a feature! It's a "regression"...
So now we can call Microsoft products "retro" and make them sound cool.
And Bill Gates comments about "open source communists" was last year.
Your point then is what?
First post?
If Ballmer's comments have any meaning at all, it means Microsoft's virtualization project will be devoted to breaking Linux when it runs on a Microsoft host so MS can claim Linux is broken.
Look, moron, try to think.
/. nerd-boy troll.
First, my point was that CA's point was irrelevant because it has to be done by any OS.
Second, the fact that Microsoft does it and CA (which, in case you've forgotten, runs most of their stuff on Windows long before any of it ran on Linux) says nothing implies bias - which means, yes, CA is claiming Linux is inferior to Windows indirectly.
Third, my point was not technically inaccurate since I had no intention of saying anything about install vrs run-time except to point out that tons of oddball drivers exist for Windows and Windows has to know about them even to do an install. I explicitly stated this was an install time matter which you conveniently forgot so you can score points like the usual
Fourth, your characterization of my "Windows does it too" as being irrelevant is therefore entirely wrong. It is in fact the central issue - whether an OS needs a ton of drivers. CA is saying Linux doesn't need ANY drivers EXCEPT the ones CA wants to use. Windows proves that's not true. So my bringing up Windows is entirely appropriate.
Having cleared that up, fuck right off.