because Redhat can't afford to give them enough money to have them switch. when MS invests in education he gives them new computers, not just the software.
yeah but everytime you say C# you tend to spread word of mouth about Microsoft. So even if there is a C# compiler for linux, Microsoft gets free advertising.
"The funny thing is, what you are saying is compleatly true! GPL is all but comunist, because it removes ownership from a single person."
Save the denial and deception for the commie nations.
communism [kómmy nìzzm ] noun
classless political system: the political theory or system in which all property and wealth is owned in a classless society by all the members of a community
communism is great. just look at cuba's economy! it was really cool how the USSR's economy was so poor that nobody wanted to even make televisions!
this is interesting. you want to make a law that prohibits from using proprietary software, yet the only reason they are doing this is because they keep choosing products from MS over the already available open source products. It's already freely available, and the choice has been made. If you are really concerned over your tax dollars, it's already been spent.
I think IBM just wanted to win the hearts of linux fans for when they all realize theres no money to be made in OSS they choose IBM. (btw, IBM will prove to wallstreet that oss isn't good for long term investments)
Certain death status has been attained.
Re:Yes, GPL is anti-commercial. yes yes yes
on
Linuxworld Fun
·
· Score: 1
Redhat stock is about as hot as realnetworks. you can't say that companies like VA would be able to survive on their own without the fat piggy bank of IBM. whats the excuse for that? "uh, poor management" haha. theres no monetary value in providing services to geeks who have no money to begin with and who will never profit off of their work. this is what we call reality, folks.
interesting concept. i don't doubt that a xbox would be preferrable due to the nice hardware it provides. if the cost is the all important factor, wait for the xbox2 to come out in the next few years.
Let's not make assumptions. I've never personally used Lycoris in particular however I do recall recently a freind who has been a Windows user since forever who was asking for my assistance. If Lycoris was really that easy to use, I don't think he would have asked me how to configure and compile the kernel. While I'm on the subject I should add that Linux doesn't like Adelphia's USB cable modem. Now he's a happy Windows XP user.
It's not that it's too hard or too crappy to be using for a home desktop, it's just well, i guess it is crappy. Sorry if I hurt your feeling!
While I agree that Lycoris definitely can simplify the task, a user would still need to know alot about what they need when configuring the kernel, learning file permissions, etc. likewise i don't think linux is at all ready for the average user. its like aliens and UFOs, if they were here most people wouldn't be ready to accept it despite the grandoise claims about it. (though the media has done a good job of making it a point that many users are looking into a cheap alternative)
An impressive article would have been "Is Linux or Windows Easier to Use?"
or maybe this is about creating controversy among the geeks to spread the word of mouth about Dell and Microsoft. Reminds me of eminem and the battle of the parents.
you are missing the point. that kind of circular thought cycle will only lead you to the truth. (see ockham's razor)
the bottom line is that it isn't illegal. it will never be. as long as you can install a non microsoft operating system on your computer, microsoft will never have a monopoly. to mistake that their large market share is a monopoly is to mistake AOL for having a monopoly on dialup internet services.
now if you want to say their practices are illegal, then it was illegal for AOL to block MSN and Yahoo from accessing it's AIM service.
A REAL monopoly is Florida's electric company, FPL. Another example of a previously real monopoly was Bellsouth, until other local phone providers popped up.
Being a business major, I know that to compete means to destroy the competition, like war. This is illusory correlation provided to the public from netscape and sun (gee whiz) and 'signed' by the DOJ, who I might add is systematically obgliated to take every complaint seriously. take a hint when I say that any investigation burea is always right, and if they are completely wrong, they are still right.
monopoly [m nópplee ] (plural monopolies) noun
1. ECONOMICS control of market supply: a situation in which one company controls an industry or is the only provider of a product or service
You are not forced to purchase a Microsoft product, nor are you forced to purchase a Dell. Dell did not nessicarily have to listen to Microsoft. However, since they sell alot of Windows licenses, they must have a good deal with them. Proof that Windows is what people want, not what they are forced to use. As for the anti-competitive tactics which I often see as a complaint, this is just illusory correlation with something unusual. If you can't see anti-competitive tactics in any business, then theres something wrong with that business. If it's illegal to compete in this country, I don't know why we havn't collapsed like the roman empire yet. If Microsoft is going to be forced by the law to promote or sell a competitor's product, then I don't see why AOL wouldn't allow microsoft to advertise it's MSN service in Time magazine. funny. congrats to netscape, palm and sun on conspiring to file a frivilous antitrust lawsuit. The last and final evidence of a non-existant monopoly is the existence and wide spread use of Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, MacOS, BeOS, AIX, IRIX, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...
well, when i was in high school, people had difficulty with Windows 98. i can only imagine how all of those linux machines will become paperweights to the technically disabled folks. "yeah we're in the 21st century, but this computer runs DOS!"
Re:what if you don't live in san francisco?
on
Mega-Geek March?
·
· Score: 1
At the risk of starting a religious war, US citizens could contribute to open source to make it easy enough that all US citizens could use. Then think of a way to make money off it for the rest of the US citizens who aren't interested in working for free. The advocate's preaching of open source has only created resentment for open source in me and my freinds who didn't understood the now obvious facade of the open source dogma.
I think it's a great idea to force the nation to be open about everything. Infact I think the CIA should post everything they know on their website. That would be great for national security. Anyways, the day that the NSA approves linux for use in the government is the day that open source gets credibility for security in my opinion. I'd rather not rely on a volunteer to find a bad bug before someone else finds it to keep it to themselves. Or you can pay someone to find them for you.. perhaps buy windows and you get all of that in one!::light bulb screws all the way in::
Slashdot Mirror
because Redhat can't afford to give them enough money to have them switch. when MS invests in education he gives them new computers, not just the software.
yeah but everytime you say C# you tend to spread word of mouth about Microsoft. So even if there is a C# compiler for linux, Microsoft gets free advertising.
"The funny thing is, what you are saying is compleatly true! GPL is all but comunist, because it removes ownership from a single person."
Save the denial and deception for the commie nations.
communism [kómmy nìzzm ] noun classless political system: the political theory or system in which all property and wealth is owned in a classless society by all the members of a community
communism is great. just look at cuba's economy! it was really cool how the USSR's economy was so poor that nobody wanted to even make televisions!
hourly reboots? you sound like you havn't used windows since windows 98.
As in this article on CNET, "The open-source business model hasn't worked very well,"
e =pt&part=msn&tag=cdf&form=base&subj=cn _fd
http://msn-cnet.com.com/2100-1001-949812.html?typ
this is interesting. you want to make a law that prohibits from using proprietary software, yet the only reason they are doing this is because they keep choosing products from MS over the already available open source products. It's already freely available, and the choice has been made. If you are really concerned over your tax dollars, it's already been spent.
I think IBM just wanted to win the hearts of linux fans for when they all realize theres no money to be made in OSS they choose IBM. (btw, IBM will prove to wallstreet that oss isn't good for long term investments)
Certain death status has been attained.
Redhat stock is about as hot as realnetworks. you can't say that companies like VA would be able to survive on their own without the fat piggy bank of IBM. whats the excuse for that? "uh, poor management" haha. theres no monetary value in providing services to geeks who have no money to begin with and who will never profit off of their work. this is what we call reality, folks.
you couldn't have said it good enough. open source is bad for the economy.
AOL has been known to screw up viewability. i.e. take a look at how much % of the AOL screen was sold to advertisers.
interesting concept. i don't doubt that a xbox would be preferrable due to the nice hardware it provides. if the cost is the all important factor, wait for the xbox2 to come out in the next few years.
Let's not make assumptions. I've never personally used Lycoris in particular however I do recall recently a freind who has been a Windows user since forever who was asking for my assistance. If Lycoris was really that easy to use, I don't think he would have asked me how to configure and compile the kernel. While I'm on the subject I should add that Linux doesn't like Adelphia's USB cable modem. Now he's a happy Windows XP user.
It's not that it's too hard or too crappy to be using for a home desktop, it's just well, i guess it is crappy. Sorry if I hurt your feeling!
While I agree that Lycoris definitely can simplify the task, a user would still need to know alot about what they need when configuring the kernel, learning file permissions, etc. likewise i don't think linux is at all ready for the average user. its like aliens and UFOs, if they were here most people wouldn't be ready to accept it despite the grandoise claims about it. (though the media has done a good job of making it a point that many users are looking into a cheap alternative)
An impressive article would have been "Is Linux or Windows Easier to Use?"
or maybe this is about creating controversy among the geeks to spread the word of mouth about Dell and Microsoft. Reminds me of eminem and the battle of the parents.
you are missing the point. that kind of circular thought cycle will only lead you to the truth. (see ockham's razor)
the bottom line is that it isn't illegal. it will never be. as long as you can install a non microsoft operating system on your computer, microsoft will never have a monopoly. to mistake that their large market share is a monopoly is to mistake AOL for having a monopoly on dialup internet services.
now if you want to say their practices are illegal, then it was illegal for AOL to block MSN and Yahoo from accessing it's AIM service.
A REAL monopoly is Florida's electric company, FPL. Another example of a previously real monopoly was Bellsouth, until other local phone providers popped up.
Being a business major, I know that to compete means to destroy the competition, like war. This is illusory correlation provided to the public from netscape and sun (gee whiz) and 'signed' by the DOJ, who I might add is systematically obgliated to take every complaint seriously. take a hint when I say that any investigation burea is always right, and if they are completely wrong, they are still right.
monopoly [m nópplee ] (plural monopolies) noun
1. ECONOMICS control of market supply: a situation in which one company controls an industry or is the only provider of a product or service
You are not forced to purchase a Microsoft product, nor are you forced to purchase a Dell. Dell did not nessicarily have to listen to Microsoft. However, since they sell alot of Windows licenses, they must have a good deal with them. Proof that Windows is what people want, not what they are forced to use. As for the anti-competitive tactics which I often see as a complaint, this is just illusory correlation with something unusual. If you can't see anti-competitive tactics in any business, then theres something wrong with that business. If it's illegal to compete in this country, I don't know why we havn't collapsed like the roman empire yet. If Microsoft is going to be forced by the law to promote or sell a competitor's product, then I don't see why AOL wouldn't allow microsoft to advertise it's MSN service in Time magazine. funny. congrats to netscape, palm and sun on conspiring to file a frivilous antitrust lawsuit. The last and final evidence of a non-existant monopoly is the existence and wide spread use of Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, MacOS, BeOS, AIX, IRIX, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...
well, when i was in high school, people had difficulty with Windows 98. i can only imagine how all of those linux machines will become paperweights to the technically disabled folks. "yeah we're in the 21st century, but this computer runs DOS!"
think geek is pretty "stlyish" by my definition.
At the risk of starting a religious war, US citizens could contribute to open source to make it easy enough that all US citizens could use. Then think of a way to make money off it for the rest of the US citizens who aren't interested in working for free. The advocate's preaching of open source has only created resentment for open source in me and my freinds who didn't understood the now obvious facade of the open source dogma.
I think it's a great idea to force the nation to be open about everything. Infact I think the CIA should post everything they know on their website. That would be great for national security. Anyways, the day that the NSA approves linux for use in the government is the day that open source gets credibility for security in my opinion. I'd rather not rely on a volunteer to find a bad bug before someone else finds it to keep it to themselves. Or you can pay someone to find them for you.. perhaps buy windows and you get all of that in one! ::light bulb screws all the way in::