How do you cut down the total number of guns in circulation?
Ban manufacturing? What do you do about all the offshore manufacturers that will spring up? Bomb them?
Guns are like drugs. When people want them, they will get them. In fact, guns are worse than drugs. People don't really NEED drugs (except emotionally). They DO need guns (for protection, sport, and emotionally.) You couldn't prevent gun possession without a major cultural shift in the entire nation.
As an example, years ago they decided to prevent any more sales of Class III (full auto) weapons in this country. For a year, there was a grace period in which previously unregistered full auto firearms could be registered without legal penalty. At the time it was estimated there were 100,000 full auto weapons in the country. During the grace period, ANOTHER 100,000 weapons were registered. Do you really think there aren't ANOTHER 100,000 STILL unregistered full auto weapons out there?
Gun control is a physical impossibility. So go ahead, pass any law you want. The only effect will be to put numerous law abiding citizens in prison on trumped up gun charges - which is exactly what the law enforcement and prison industry want - another source of budget revenue and career advancement for prison bureaucrats.
Excellent point. Most corporations are like this - screw you one day, nicey nice the next.
The issue is: should companies be allowed to get away with it. Answer: obviously not.
For any given person at any given time, you might want to put up with it for your own reasons. But as a general rule, companies that do this stuff need to be punished by customers bailing so they get either clean up their act or get run out of business.
I've had to reinstall Windows 2000 TWICE in the last week because the Registry got hosed (once from a third party program, once from who knows how).
I look at the various system recovery options in 2000 and XP. Guess what? Most of them are COMMAND LINE.
I ran Windows Media Player 9 for a few hours for the first time (I usually use Winamp) the other day. Thing eventually refused to play videos it had played twenty minutes before. Black screen only. Obvious memory leaks. And try to find the menu item to turn off the control bars with full screen. Buried in an "advanced" menu item no newbie could find if he was paid to.
This is intuitive? This "just works?"
Gimme a fucking break.
I'll say it again. Windows is CRAP. Linux is also crap, but it is FREE crap.
And Langa's complaint that commercial distros cost as much as Windows is absolute ruminant evacuation. Since when did Windows come with a free Office Suite, TWO databases, development system, etc., etc. ad nauseum?
Langa is a moron. The Windows trolls are morons.
Linux is going to eat Windows lunch.
Mod this trollbait. Mod this flame.
Is that all you got, huh? Are you nuts? Come at me!
Pegasus has always been free - and widely considered the most powerful of the email clients (although I never switched to it simply because at one point it had problems with SSL and had to use stunnel which is hard to set up - so I stuck with - ad-supported - Eudora. May look again at it at some point.)
After you spend enough money to buy Longhorn (and all the hardware upgrade it needs), you'll be locked in to MS forever - or bankrupt. So you might as well forget OSS.
Some companies just don't have a clue.
I could reverse engineer anything you're using into open source, retrain your users and give you ENHANCED functionality for LESS money than you're paying now (INCLUDING my substantial fee) AND free you from Microsoft domination.
But you won't do it because you don't have the either the nerve or the imagination.
And that's the bottom line for most corporations - not whether OSS is "functional" or even whether it's cheaper or whether it's profitable. It's simple lack of ability to comprehend.
> With AVG or Norton Antivirus, Zonealarm, Media > Player Classic and iTunes we're quite happy with > our Windows desktops.
Right, and as long as THAT'S ALL YOU INSTALL, Windows 2000 will continue to "just work".
I installed an app (just to test it) last week which claimed to close certain ports only, making it easier to use than a regular firewall (I use Kerio, so I didn't reallly need it). The app totally hosed Windows 2000. I was forced to totally reinstall 2000 and my applications.
Then, because Windows 2000 was dual-booting with Windows XP (and Red Hat Linux, using LILO for that part of it), Windows XP refused to come up when the Windows XP boot loader took over from LILO.
Worse, it told me that *Windows 2000* was refusing to boot AND that *Windows 2000* had a missing or corrupt System hive in the Registry.
NONE of that was true. It was simply that the Windows XP bootloader was screwed.
I ran the boot ini rebuilt routine - and it proceeded to put TWO copies of the boot menu into it.
I was forced to reinstall Windows XP.
Note that Linux has been dual-booting for years and LILO NEVER puts two copies of the boot menu in the file when it rebuilds the menu.
Bottom line: Windows 2000 AND Windows XP are pathetic, unstable crap.
Linux will eat Windows lunch within the next ten years. Or it would except that the casual user apparently can use it "most of the time" and therefore has no incentive to change.
People need to be more consistent about their nomenclature.
240K - B as in BYTES - per second is good at 2Mb - b as in BITS - max speed. 240Kb - b as in bits - would not be good.
Upper case B = bytes, lower case = bits.
The poster is claiming 2Mbps and receiving 240KBps which is correct.
Of course, for ninety bucks you could say he should get maybe 3Mbps or more, but he also says he gets a static IP with no port restrictions - which ain't bad and is definitely a requirement for business class.
I read an article a couple years ago that said the Microsoft campus was in fact incredibly lax about security. There were open doors, unguarded construction sites, few guards, anybody could steal a badge and wander around since nobody in any department knows everybody else from other departments, etc., etc. It was an eye-opener.
The Microsoft rep deliberately intended people to misunderstand his point.
That is FUD. Otherwise he really had nothing to say that wasn't obvious to anyone who knows either what Linux is and/or what OSS is. And anyone who doesn't know these things doesn't care.
It was MS propaganda, plain and simple.
Microsoft better at ease of use? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Selling, yes. Marketing, yes. Contract law, yes.
Ease of use? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Only an idiot who has only used Windows his whole life could say this.
Not that Linux is intuitive either. But Windows is no more intuitive than any other complex piece of software.
And you think the Microsoft rep wasn't counting on people doing just that?
This is MS FUD and BS again. As the article correctly states, it's an attempt (lame tho it be) to drive a wedge between Linux and OSS.
LOL, MS!
Anybody who doesn't know the difference between OSS and Linux doesn't need to be told since they don't care. Anybody who does know the difference doesn't need to be told.
And MS doesn't need to say anything at all about it.
You must work at Gartner. They just complained that news about Linux being given a city contract somewhere is wrong because Windows doesn't get the same publicity. They - and you - ignore the fact that Windows is the dominant OS and therefore it is NOT news when it gets a contract.
Gartner appears to be a marketing arm of Microsoft.
And what happens when the patron steals the Knoppix CD?
Libraries don't have time for Mickey Mouse systems - it's a huge job running a library. They need a system that works, doesn't need to be fussed with - and especially as the article clearly states, does not need to be patched every time a virus hits.
I'd be more interested if their Linux system was running the library instead of Dynix, but there are open source ILS (Integrated Library Systems) out there.
Sure. Problem is it occasionally blocks valid site popups. Can't tell the difference between such and the ads. And I'm too lazy to do this myself on a case by case basis. Letting it pop up in the background lets me see what it is without having it in my face. Closing them is no problem with the "Close All But Active" command.
I wasn't accusing you of Linux bashing. My post was directed to anyone reading but it was reasonably to place it where it was given the "cheap" comment.
I agree that such hardware is coming and will be used - there's no such thing as a too fast or to big machine IF you can afford it - and IF you use it.
My point - and that of others here - was that if Longhorn NEEDS that much machine to run, it better be worth it. And I doubt that will be the case.
The article said that Microsoft "recommended" that this be the "average PC". First, this suggests (correctly or not depending on how the article was edited) that Longhorn is a hog. Secondly, it also ignores the fact that PCs being sold in a given year are NOT the "average" PC - until PCs are upgraded by corporations and consumers, the average PC is always a few years old. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the architecture described will be the "average" PC in two years. It may be the one being sold - although I think two years is too soon for a terabyte of disk and a gig of RAM; I think four years or even six might be more correct given the economy - but it's not going to be the one owned by the average users in either corporations or home.
Yes, I'm inclined to believe that was the actual meaning of the spec.
HOWEVER - if you read the recent article about the Longhorn alpha versions needing 400MB of RAM to run with NO applications, it sure didn't sound good.
Everyone here dismissed that by saying it was running with debug code turned on, but I'm not so sure.
Maybe Longhorn won't need 2GB of RAM, but I'll bet the "minimum" will be 512MB with 1GB "recommended" - which means 1.5 to 2GB to do anything useful.
Slashdot Mirror
One problem with your argument:
How do you cut down the total number of guns in circulation?
Ban manufacturing? What do you do about all the offshore manufacturers that will spring up? Bomb them?
Guns are like drugs. When people want them, they will get them. In fact, guns are worse than drugs. People don't really NEED drugs (except emotionally). They DO need guns (for protection, sport, and emotionally.) You couldn't prevent gun possession without a major cultural shift in the entire nation.
As an example, years ago they decided to prevent any more sales of Class III (full auto) weapons in this country. For a year, there was a grace period in which previously unregistered full auto firearms could be registered without legal penalty. At the time it was estimated there were 100,000 full auto weapons in the country. During the grace period, ANOTHER 100,000 weapons were registered. Do you really think there aren't ANOTHER 100,000 STILL unregistered full auto weapons out there?
Gun control is a physical impossibility. So go ahead, pass any law you want. The only effect will be to put numerous law abiding citizens in prison on trumped up gun charges - which is exactly what the law enforcement and prison industry want - another source of budget revenue and career advancement for prison bureaucrats.
Excellent point. Most corporations are like this - screw you one day, nicey nice the next.
The issue is: should companies be allowed to get away with it. Answer: obviously not.
For any given person at any given time, you might want to put up with it for your own reasons. But as a general rule, companies that do this stuff need to be punished by customers bailing so they get either clean up their act or get run out of business.
Same old scrap from the same old Windows trolls.
I've had to reinstall Windows 2000 TWICE in the last week because the Registry got hosed (once from a third party program, once from who knows how).
I look at the various system recovery options in 2000 and XP. Guess what? Most of them are COMMAND LINE.
I ran Windows Media Player 9 for a few hours for the first time (I usually use Winamp) the other day. Thing eventually refused to play videos it had played twenty minutes before. Black screen only. Obvious memory leaks. And try to find the menu item to turn off the control bars with full screen. Buried in an "advanced" menu item no newbie could find if he was paid to.
This is intuitive? This "just works?"
Gimme a fucking break.
I'll say it again. Windows is CRAP. Linux is also crap, but it is FREE crap.
And Langa's complaint that commercial distros cost as much as Windows is absolute ruminant evacuation. Since when did Windows come with a free Office Suite, TWO databases, development system, etc., etc. ad nauseum?
Langa is a moron. The Windows trolls are morons.
Linux is going to eat Windows lunch.
Mod this trollbait. Mod this flame.
Is that all you got, huh? Are you nuts? Come at me!
Which I don't have.
Oh, wait, EverQuest IS my day job.
than a FEW HUNDRED BILLION dumped into the stupid-ass weapons the Pentagon is developing a la the other /. story today.
We're not sure who the victor is - yet.
It ain't over until the fat lady - or the penguin - sings.
Or as Bluto Blutarski said, "Nothing is over until WE decide it is!"
when I robbed those banks!
You'll never take me alive, copper!
Pegasus has always been free - and widely considered the most powerful of the email clients (although I never switched to it simply because at one point it had problems with SSL and had to use stunnel which is hard to set up - so I stuck with - ad-supported - Eudora. May look again at it at some point.)
After you spend enough money to buy Longhorn (and all the hardware upgrade it needs), you'll be locked in to MS forever - or bankrupt. So you might as well forget OSS.
Some companies just don't have a clue.
I could reverse engineer anything you're using into open source, retrain your users and give you ENHANCED functionality for LESS money than you're paying now (INCLUDING my substantial fee) AND free you from Microsoft domination.
But you won't do it because you don't have the either the nerve or the imagination.
And that's the bottom line for most corporations - not whether OSS is "functional" or even whether it's cheaper or whether it's profitable. It's simple lack of ability to comprehend.
> With AVG or Norton Antivirus, Zonealarm, Media
> Player Classic and iTunes we're quite happy with
> our Windows desktops.
Right, and as long as THAT'S ALL YOU INSTALL, Windows 2000 will continue to "just work".
I installed an app (just to test it) last week which claimed to close certain ports only, making it easier to use than a regular firewall (I use Kerio, so I didn't reallly need it). The app totally hosed Windows 2000. I was forced to totally reinstall 2000 and my applications.
Then, because Windows 2000 was dual-booting with Windows XP (and Red Hat Linux, using LILO for that part of it), Windows XP refused to come up when the Windows XP boot loader took over from LILO.
Worse, it told me that *Windows 2000* was refusing to boot AND that *Windows 2000* had a missing or corrupt System hive in the Registry.
NONE of that was true. It was simply that the Windows XP bootloader was screwed.
I ran the boot ini rebuilt routine - and it proceeded to put TWO copies of the boot menu into it.
I was forced to reinstall Windows XP.
Note that Linux has been dual-booting for years and LILO NEVER puts two copies of the boot menu in the file when it rebuilds the menu.
Bottom line: Windows 2000 AND Windows XP are pathetic, unstable crap.
Linux will eat Windows lunch within the next ten years. Or it would except that the casual user apparently can use it "most of the time" and therefore has no incentive to change.
Of course, that was true about DOS...
> Believe it or not, everyone that works for
> Microsoft isn't an evil person trying to crush
> the free software movement.
There are three kinds of people in the Federal prison correctional staff:
1) Evil people.
2) Stupid people.
3) People who don't care.
The same three types work at Microsoft (for that matter, at any big organization.)
NONE of them are going to be helping OSS. Certainly not some marketing dweeb.
Get a clue.
Well, anyone with half a brain should have been clearer in his comments. It sounded like you were saying he was getting only small b speed.
In any event, I SAID he probably should be getting more, but it varies - as subsequent posters also said.
The providers aren't giving everybody 6Mbps even to business class any more if you haven't noticed.
People need to be more consistent about their nomenclature.
240K - B as in BYTES - per second is good at 2Mb - b as in BITS - max speed. 240Kb - b as in bits - would not be good.
Upper case B = bytes, lower case = bits.
The poster is claiming 2Mbps and receiving 240KBps which is correct.
Of course, for ninety bucks you could say he should get maybe 3Mbps or more, but he also says he gets a static IP with no port restrictions - which ain't bad and is definitely a requirement for business class.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Windows troll alert!
Mod parent "Windows Troll"!
This joker can't possibly imagine anyone here is going to accept this crap as even remotely approaching reality.
Mod my post trollbait! Are you nuts? Come at me!
Heh!
Why would you try entering Microsoft at night AND tell the guards?
That's not how breaking and entering is usually done.
Although some people have tried it...
You think this is funny.
I read an article a couple years ago that said the Microsoft campus was in fact incredibly lax about security. There were open doors, unguarded construction sites, few guards, anybody could steal a badge and wander around since nobody in any department knows everybody else from other departments, etc., etc. It was an eye-opener.
The Microsoft rep deliberately intended people to misunderstand his point.
That is FUD. Otherwise he really had nothing to say that wasn't obvious to anyone who knows either what Linux is and/or what OSS is. And anyone who doesn't know these things doesn't care.
It was MS propaganda, plain and simple.
Microsoft better at ease of use? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Selling, yes. Marketing, yes. Contract law, yes.
Ease of use? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Only an idiot who has only used Windows his whole life could say this.
Not that Linux is intuitive either. But Windows is no more intuitive than any other complex piece of software.
Mod this trollbait! Are you nuts? Come at me!
Yeah, and yesterday several articles were full of nervous Windows trolls.
Were you here yesterday? You're here today.
Hey, troll, try this one on:
Linux will eat Windows lunch.
Have a nice day.
What, no Trollbait mod? Are you nuts? Come at me!
And you think the Microsoft rep wasn't counting on people doing just that?
This is MS FUD and BS again. As the article correctly states, it's an attempt (lame tho it be) to drive a wedge between Linux and OSS.
LOL, MS!
Anybody who doesn't know the difference between OSS and Linux doesn't need to be told since they don't care. Anybody who does know the difference doesn't need to be told.
And MS doesn't need to say anything at all about it.
Microsoft is claiming that Linux is not open source because some of the distros cost money and anyway open source is a development methodology.
More crap from MS.
Linux will eat Windows for lunch.
Mod me troll again! What are you, nuts? Come at me!
You must work at Gartner. They just complained that news about Linux being given a city contract somewhere is wrong because Windows doesn't get the same publicity. They - and you - ignore the fact that Windows is the dominant OS and therefore it is NOT news when it gets a contract.
Gartner appears to be a marketing arm of Microsoft.
Libraries don't work that way.
And what happens when the patron steals the Knoppix CD?
Libraries don't have time for Mickey Mouse systems - it's a huge job running a library. They need a system that works, doesn't need to be fussed with - and especially as the article clearly states, does not need to be patched every time a virus hits.
I'd be more interested if their Linux system was running the library instead of Dynix, but there are open source ILS (Integrated Library Systems) out there.
Sure. Problem is it occasionally blocks valid site popups. Can't tell the difference between such and the ads. And I'm too lazy to do this myself on a case by case basis. Letting it pop up in the background lets me see what it is without having it in my face. Closing them is no problem with the "Close All But Active" command.
I wasn't accusing you of Linux bashing. My post was directed to anyone reading but it was reasonably to place it where it was given the "cheap" comment.
I agree that such hardware is coming and will be used - there's no such thing as a too fast or to big machine IF you can afford it - and IF you use it.
My point - and that of others here - was that if Longhorn NEEDS that much machine to run, it better be worth it. And I doubt that will be the case.
The article said that Microsoft "recommended" that this be the "average PC". First, this suggests (correctly or not depending on how the article was edited) that Longhorn is a hog. Secondly, it also ignores the fact that PCs being sold in a given year are NOT the "average" PC - until PCs are upgraded by corporations and consumers, the average PC is always a few years old. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the architecture described will be the "average" PC in two years. It may be the one being sold - although I think two years is too soon for a terabyte of disk and a gig of RAM; I think four years or even six might be more correct given the economy - but it's not going to be the one owned by the average users in either corporations or home.
Yes, I'm inclined to believe that was the actual meaning of the spec.
HOWEVER - if you read the recent article about the Longhorn alpha versions needing 400MB of RAM to run with NO applications, it sure didn't sound good.
Everyone here dismissed that by saying it was running with debug code turned on, but I'm not so sure.
Maybe Longhorn won't need 2GB of RAM, but I'll bet the "minimum" will be 512MB with 1GB "recommended" - which means 1.5 to 2GB to do anything useful.