Of course they wear out. But within three months? Are you seriously telling me that an Ipod that requires 4 new batteries a year is normal?
I can also think of plenty of ways to crack a screen on such a small device without damaging the internals. Standing on it in stillettos is one off the top of my head. My sister did a similar thing to her mobile phone with a chair leg. It worked fine, just a cracked screen. Are you saying that something like that would case the battery to stop working?
I accept what you're saying has some valid points, but I think you're a little blinkered in your view.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that Qt4 would make this a distinct possibility, or at least make it easier to contemplate doing it. I don't know if there would be any interest in doing such a thing, but time will tell.
It's my opinion, yes, but I'm not alone in holding it.
Weasel out of fixing them?
There was a programme on TV here in the UK called Watchdog (a consumer affairs program) in which there was some discussion about the problem UK users were having getting Apple to acknowledge and fix the problems with the batteries. If there was any exterior damage, no matter how small, Apple refused to replace it. One just had a cracked screen, but that was enough for them to refuse to fix it. Some people were getting a battery life of only 3 months, but according to Apple there is no issue with the battery at all. The class action suit that Apple lost in the US was brought up. Apples response? "No comment."
The key to good design is often to leave things out.
No, the key to good design, is good design. Apple have a long way to go yet with regards to the Ipods. Dodgy batteries and click wheels and Apple trying their best to weasel out of fixing them doesn't fill me with confidence. Still, their seems to be an endless supply of people too stupid to know better who are willing to part with their money. An absolute trimumph of style over substance. As much as I dislike Apple, I have to admire their ability to make money out of idiots.
Reminds me of the old saying, "If you want the job done quickly, find the laziest man."
I've done a similar thing with registering MAC addresses for our students. Like you've observed, a little laziness and some clever thinking can make everyones life easier.
I get enough junk mail, and the forests of our planet dont need anothe reason to be cut down.
You're right of course. Maybe if they could find some other way to send out this marketing material. Some means of sending it electronically perhaps...
Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?
on
Microsoft Sues EU
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It looks like I'm not going to win this argument, but just before I go to bed I'll respond to this last one.
There are multiple implementations of just about anything you'd want to run on a Linux server. Unlike Microsoft, Free Software encourages choice.
Yes, absolutely, and for the most part they all interoperate fine, but they're all fundamentally using the same technology - they're all using the same protocols etc. Microsoft approaches it all entirely differently. Whats the equivalent of AD domains in Linux? Group Policies? See, the technology and approach is very different in many ways, and that's what we shouldn't lose. Would it be better if this stuff was more open? Sure, why not. But to lose that alternative approach entirely would just be a bad thing.
Okay, that's all I'm going to say on it.
Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?
on
Microsoft Sues EU
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
For the most part actually, yes they do. IBM has been pretty good about working with open standards for quite a while.
Okay, maybe I picked a poor example. My point was, there are countless software vendors out there that don't open their specs/protocols. Whether you think this is good or bad is another discussion, but picking on Microsoft alone is hardly fair.
It seems like a valid point to me. If MS does not want people to be able to see their protocols they must have a reason. Maybe that reason is to stop interoperability or maybe it is because they are full of security holes or even stolen code. It is perfectly reasonable to speculate as to their motives.
And speculation is all it is, so it's irrelavant as far as I'm concerned.
You can't have a monopoly on Linux. Thats is most of the point. As open source it will never be locked to one vendor. With an MS monopoly customers are subject to the whims of MS. They pay what MS wants or go without and they are restricted to the features MS is willing to allow. With Linux if one vendor charges too much, you can go with a different vendor and prices reflect the fact that there is competition. If you want functionality added/fixed you can do it yourself or hire anyone you want to do it. You seem to have a very skewed idea of what a monopoly is.
Maybe monopoly was too strong a word. It also depends on what you're using the label Linux to refer too, a distribution or the kernel alone. I was assuming the former. Now there are certianly a lot of choices out there for distributions, but lets be honest, they all contain pretty much the same software. My point was really focusing on the technical side, rather than cost. If Linux were to take over the server market entirely, everyone would be using much the same technologies and software. Yes, if you wanted something different you could write it yourself, but theres nothing stopping you doing that on Windows either. Given that Microsoft's approach to technologies is somewhat different to the Linux one, I can only see their complete demise as a bad thing.
Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?
on
Microsoft Sues EU
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
...yet Microsoft seems to have a very tight leash on their communication protocols.
It's just business. Microsoft aren't alone in this sort of thing. Do you think IBM open everything of theirs to their competitors?
...or are they more concerned about the general public seeing how flawed and inefficient their communication protocols are?
Geez, where'd you pull that one from? What has this got to do with anything?
I also know that my Linux server can handle way more connections and traffic then a Windows server ever could imagine...
Really? Have you done any comparisons with your setup and data load, or are you just spouting what you think the Linux zealots want to hear?
It is only a matter of time, before Linux totally takes over the server market, making such legal battles a thing of the past...
I think that highly unlikely. Even if it were to happen, I can't see how it would be a good thing. Replacing one monopoly with another is hardly sensible is it, regardless of how that new monopoly behaves?
For most people, a proportionally spaced serif font is easier to read for the body of a document, and a proportionally spaced sans-serif font is better for thing like headlines or section titles.
That's generally true for print, I'm not so sure about on screen reproduction (anyone care to offer any case studies?). The theory is that the serifs are supposed to help guide your eye, so it's easier to see what the letter is. However, given the relatively low resolution of screens, it doesn't seem to work as well for me. I certainly prefer serif fonts, and have told my browser to always override the font to my own preference.
...assuming that people in business are pretty thick and need to be told the blindingly obvious.
Bingo! We have a winner! Of course, not every business is like this, but a fair number of them are. It may be that they've grown too quickly and have not been able to obtain or keep the necessary expertise in house. Nevertheless, sometimes these places really do need to be told how to run their IT systems.
Thanks for the link. It is as I thought it was... one of the most pointless devices ever made. Who on earth is going to be looking at their keyboard when they're playing games, especially when playing FPS? Someone clearly had too much time on their hands. No doubt people will buy it though, you only have to look at the Ipod to see how style triumphs over substance.
How many fucking times?!! Window Maker is a Window Manager. It does nothing but manage windows. By all means compare it to kwm, but comparing it to KDE is comparing apples with bicycles.
I am still of the opinion that Doom 3 was the finest lit and rendered game to date.
Which bit? The dark bit at the start, the very dark bit in the middle, or the super dark bit at the end? While there were a few glimpses of very nicely rendered scenes, for the most part it was just too dark to see anything. Plus the game was crap, but that's another matter.
Until then, I will still use Skype, because it just works. Really.
Personally I wouldn't touch Skype with a bargepole, solely on the dubious behaviour of the company producing it. They won't disclose who their backers are, but they're suspected to have ties with suspicious (Russian/South African?) companies. They won't disclose who their CEO is. The person who is supposed to be the CEO has gone on record stating that they have very little if anything to do with the running of the company, which has caused a bit of hassle in Australia. What really suprises me are the number of business that are now depending on it. A closed system, run by a dubious company with access to your voice data. Madness.
You are correct of course. This is the first case in 5 years of using Debian that it's been an issue for me, so I think I made the right choice. I just had to vent because I was wound up about it. I don't blame Debian for doing it, although it would perhaps be nice to have a non-free version of the kernel for people like me who want it all;)
There's a difference between constructive criticism and complaints. The former can be useful, the latter just tends to get peoples backs up. Having said that, I'm going to complain.
I am a fan of Debian, using it on all my home machines and the servers here at work. However, I'm in a somewhat foul mood this morning after spending ages trying to get an HBA FC card to work with debian Sarge, only to (eventually) find they've ripped the code out of the kernel because it contained non-free binary firmware.
Yes, I understand Debian is all about Free software. But dammit, I need the card to work, and now I have to compile my own kernel to do it.
...but there is an unending supply of suckers who believe that all they have to do is pay someone $500 for an "email blast" and the money will roll in.
That is all they have to do, because there are plenty of stupid people out there who respond to it. If we drastically reduce the number of people responding (big if, and I've no idea how to, short of physical violence) then the money will stop rolling in, and they'll have to find some other way to get us to part with it. The only long term workable solution is to stop making spam a money spinner.
But then, why are you using an 8 CPU mineral oil cooled system with no fans in the middle of the desert, at the center of a solar collector in mid day...?!
Yes, but most of them don't involve parting with money. If you ignore the "time is money" thing, FOSS costs very little. Hardware development however, is not anywhere near as cheap. Unless they're able to shift lots of these things, you'll be paying more money, for less product. Maybe if you're one who sticks to his/her principles you'll consider that a good tradeoff. I doubt most people will though.
This has got to be one of the dumbest comments I've ever read.
Untill you've had enough time to see how it performs for others you keep a system you know works.
You're saying that Microsoft, with all of its expertise at hand, is going to wait for a few other companies to roll out their OS before they do, so they can see how it goes? Give me a break. And more to the point, why would anyone else use it if even Microsoft won't. Dumb, just dumb.
This has given me an idea. How about whenever Firefox (or indeed Opera/Konqueror/Safari/IE) comes up against a page that requires quirks mode, a small indicator is shown at the top of the page (much like the security alert strip) that informs the user that the page is not following the standards, and maybe helpfully includes a link to the webmaster address. If more users saw the abysmal state of the web at large, and informed the site owners that they care about it being fixed, maybe something would change. Well, I can dream, right?;)
Slashdot Mirror
Of course they wear out. But within three months? Are you seriously telling me that an Ipod that requires 4 new batteries a year is normal?
I can also think of plenty of ways to crack a screen on such a small device without damaging the internals. Standing on it in stillettos is one off the top of my head. My sister did a similar thing to her mobile phone with a chair leg. It worked fine, just a cracked screen. Are you saying that something like that would case the battery to stop working?
I accept what you're saying has some valid points, but I think you're a little blinkered in your view.
Does anyone think we can port KDE to Windows?
I seem to remember reading somewhere that Qt4 would make this a distinct possibility, or at least make it easier to contemplate doing it. I don't know if there would be any interest in doing such a thing, but time will tell.
One person's sheer opinion, I suppose.
It's my opinion, yes, but I'm not alone in holding it.
Weasel out of fixing them?
There was a programme on TV here in the UK called Watchdog (a consumer affairs program) in which there was some discussion about the problem UK users were having getting Apple to acknowledge and fix the problems with the batteries. If there was any exterior damage, no matter how small, Apple refused to replace it. One just had a cracked screen, but that was enough for them to refuse to fix it. Some people were getting a battery life of only 3 months, but according to Apple there is no issue with the battery at all. The class action suit that Apple lost in the US was brought up. Apples response? "No comment."
The key to good design is often to leave things out.
No, the key to good design, is good design. Apple have a long way to go yet with regards to the Ipods. Dodgy batteries and click wheels and Apple trying their best to weasel out of fixing them doesn't fill me with confidence. Still, their seems to be an endless supply of people too stupid to know better who are willing to part with their money. An absolute trimumph of style over substance. As much as I dislike Apple, I have to admire their ability to make money out of idiots.
Reminds me of the old saying, "If you want the job done quickly, find the laziest man."
I've done a similar thing with registering MAC addresses for our students. Like you've observed, a little laziness and some clever thinking can make everyones life easier.
I get enough junk mail, and the forests of our planet dont need anothe reason to be cut down.
You're right of course. Maybe if they could find some other way to send out this marketing material. Some means of sending it electronically perhaps...
It looks like I'm not going to win this argument, but just before I go to bed I'll respond to this last one.
There are multiple implementations of just about anything you'd want to run on a Linux server. Unlike Microsoft, Free Software encourages choice.
Yes, absolutely, and for the most part they all interoperate fine, but they're all fundamentally using the same technology - they're all using the same protocols etc. Microsoft approaches it all entirely differently. Whats the equivalent of AD domains in Linux? Group Policies? See, the technology and approach is very different in many ways, and that's what we shouldn't lose. Would it be better if this stuff was more open? Sure, why not. But to lose that alternative approach entirely would just be a bad thing.
Okay, that's all I'm going to say on it.
For the most part actually, yes they do. IBM has been pretty good about working with open standards for quite a while.
Okay, maybe I picked a poor example. My point was, there are countless software vendors out there that don't open their specs/protocols. Whether you think this is good or bad is another discussion, but picking on Microsoft alone is hardly fair.
It seems like a valid point to me. If MS does not want people to be able to see their protocols they must have a reason. Maybe that reason is to stop interoperability or maybe it is because they are full of security holes or even stolen code. It is perfectly reasonable to speculate as to their motives.
And speculation is all it is, so it's irrelavant as far as I'm concerned.
You can't have a monopoly on Linux. Thats is most of the point. As open source it will never be locked to one vendor. With an MS monopoly customers are subject to the whims of MS. They pay what MS wants or go without and they are restricted to the features MS is willing to allow. With Linux if one vendor charges too much, you can go with a different vendor and prices reflect the fact that there is competition. If you want functionality added/fixed you can do it yourself or hire anyone you want to do it. You seem to have a very skewed idea of what a monopoly is.
Maybe monopoly was too strong a word. It also depends on what you're using the label Linux to refer too, a distribution or the kernel alone. I was assuming the former. Now there are certianly a lot of choices out there for distributions, but lets be honest, they all contain pretty much the same software. My point was really focusing on the technical side, rather than cost. If Linux were to take over the server market entirely, everyone would be using much the same technologies and software. Yes, if you wanted something different you could write it yourself, but theres nothing stopping you doing that on Windows either. Given that Microsoft's approach to technologies is somewhat different to the Linux one, I can only see their complete demise as a bad thing.
...yet Microsoft seems to have a very tight leash on their communication protocols.
...or are they more concerned about the general public seeing how flawed and inefficient their communication protocols are?
It's just business. Microsoft aren't alone in this sort of thing. Do you think IBM open everything of theirs to their competitors?
Geez, where'd you pull that one from? What has this got to do with anything?
I also know that my Linux server can handle way more connections and traffic then a Windows server ever could imagine...
Really? Have you done any comparisons with your setup and data load, or are you just spouting what you think the Linux zealots want to hear?
It is only a matter of time, before Linux totally takes over the server market, making such legal battles a thing of the past...
I think that highly unlikely. Even if it were to happen, I can't see how it would be a good thing. Replacing one monopoly with another is hardly sensible is it, regardless of how that new monopoly behaves?
For most people, a proportionally spaced serif font is easier to read for the body of a document, and a proportionally spaced sans-serif font is better for thing like headlines or section titles.
That's generally true for print, I'm not so sure about on screen reproduction (anyone care to offer any case studies?). The theory is that the serifs are supposed to help guide your eye, so it's easier to see what the letter is. However, given the relatively low resolution of screens, it doesn't seem to work as well for me. I certainly prefer serif fonts, and have told my browser to always override the font to my own preference.
...if you get this plugin you could feasibly set it to make the search bar non existant.
Wouldn't it be easier to just customize the toolbar and drag the search bar off?
...assuming that people in business are pretty thick and need to be told the blindingly obvious.
Bingo! We have a winner! Of course, not every business is like this, but a fair number of them are. It may be that they've grown too quickly and have not been able to obtain or keep the necessary expertise in house. Nevertheless, sometimes these places really do need to be told how to run their IT systems.
Thanks for the link. It is as I thought it was... one of the most pointless devices ever made. Who on earth is going to be looking at their keyboard when they're playing games, especially when playing FPS? Someone clearly had too much time on their hands. No doubt people will buy it though, you only have to look at the Ipod to see how style triumphs over substance.
How many fucking times?!! Window Maker is a Window Manager. It does nothing but manage windows. By all means compare it to kwm, but comparing it to KDE is comparing apples with bicycles.
I am still of the opinion that Doom 3 was the finest lit and rendered game to date.
Which bit? The dark bit at the start, the very dark bit in the middle, or the super dark bit at the end? While there were a few glimpses of very nicely rendered scenes, for the most part it was just too dark to see anything. Plus the game was crap, but that's another matter.
Until then, I will still use Skype, because it just works. Really.
Personally I wouldn't touch Skype with a bargepole, solely on the dubious behaviour of the company producing it. They won't disclose who their backers are, but they're suspected to have ties with suspicious (Russian/South African?) companies. They won't disclose who their CEO is. The person who is supposed to be the CEO has gone on record stating that they have very little if anything to do with the running of the company, which has caused a bit of hassle in Australia. What really suprises me are the number of business that are now depending on it. A closed system, run by a dubious company with access to your voice data. Madness.
If something has real value, it's only logical to compensate the persons who made it.
Which is entirely why I have never paid for Windows.
Ah, so Windows has no real value. Can I assume you're running your copy of Neverwinter Nights on something other than Windows then?
You are correct of course. This is the first case in 5 years of using Debian that it's been an issue for me, so I think I made the right choice. I just had to vent because I was wound up about it. I don't blame ;)
Debian for doing it, although it would perhaps be nice to have a non-free version of the kernel for people like me who want it all
There's a difference between constructive criticism and complaints. The former can be useful, the latter just tends to get peoples backs up. Having said that, I'm going to complain.
I am a fan of Debian, using it on all my home machines and the servers here at work. However, I'm in a somewhat foul mood this morning after spending ages trying to get an HBA FC card to work with debian Sarge, only to (eventually) find they've ripped the code out of the kernel because it contained non-free binary firmware.
Yes, I understand Debian is all about Free software. But dammit, I need the card to work, and now I have to compile my own kernel to do it.
...but there is an unending supply of suckers who believe that all they have to do is pay someone $500 for an "email blast" and the money will roll in.
That is all they have to do, because there are plenty of stupid people out there who respond to it. If we drastically reduce the number of people responding (big if, and I've no idea how to, short of physical violence) then the money will stop rolling in, and they'll have to find some other way to get us to part with it. The only long term workable solution is to stop making spam a money spinner.
All sounds very nice, until some bastard steals it. At which point, you've lost not only your means of transportation, but also your house. Bugger.
But then, why are you using an 8 CPU mineral oil cooled system with no fans in the middle of the desert, at the center of a solar collector in mid day...?!
;)
Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time...
Yes, but most of them don't involve parting with money. If you ignore the "time is money" thing, FOSS costs very little. Hardware development however, is not anywhere near as cheap. Unless they're able to shift lots of these things, you'll be paying more money, for less product. Maybe if you're one who sticks to his/her principles you'll consider that a good tradeoff. I doubt most people will though.
This has got to be one of the dumbest comments I've ever read.
Untill you've had enough time to see how it performs for others you keep a system you know works.
You're saying that Microsoft, with all of its expertise at hand, is going to wait for a few other companies to roll out their OS before they do, so they can see how it goes? Give me a break. And more to the point, why would anyone else use it if even Microsoft won't. Dumb, just dumb.
There is where the "quirks mode" comes in.
;)
This has given me an idea. How about whenever Firefox (or indeed Opera/Konqueror/Safari/IE) comes up against a page that requires quirks mode, a small indicator is shown at the top of the page (much like the security alert strip) that informs the user that the page is not following the standards, and maybe helpfully includes a link to the webmaster address. If more users saw the abysmal state of the web at large, and informed the site owners that they care about it being fixed, maybe something would change. Well, I can dream, right?