Actually LindowsOS has come a long way in the two years I've been an Insider. I love it! I have been looking at other distros as well including Suse, Knoppix, Lycoris and RedHat (Fedora) and I keep reinstalling LindowsOS. Version 4.0 is very very good. And no, you do NOT have to run as root. When you install it, it gives you the option to add users and you can then sign in just like the rest. The modified KDE is much cleaner than any of the others. That's one very nice benefit.
CNR also works better than apt-get in that it installs the programs for you but it also puts icons where they make sense so you don't have to go searching for them if (like me) you're not a hard-core Linux guru.
Make sure you guys try LindowsOS before you knock it. It's really getting good!!!
Boy you can tell when you piss off the M$ camp, can't you? They start calling you names.:)
For the record, I wasn't blaming M$ for IBM's lack of marketing. I have always said that M$ has the best marketing team on earth. They have to because their products suck! Always have, always will. Substandard programs and operating systems will eventually fail to sell unless you use extortion and unfair trade practices like Microsoft has (and has been convicted of in some cases) to prohibit competition. That's the thing Gates is the most afraid of - competition - because he knows if someone releases a superior system with software to go along with it and the market starts switching, he's finished.
Given that, OS/2 2.0 *was* stable. It wasn't until they screwed things up with Warp that it went downhill fast. I used 2.0 for a long time at work. I usually do everything I can to try to break things and it was far more difficult to break OS/2 than it ever has been to break any version of Window$. Oh, and OS/2 looked a LOT more like Apple System 6 than Windows 1, 2 or 3.x ever did. I don't know why Apple sued M$, they should have sued IBM.
To be fair, I'm not a Linux zealot although I prefer the Linux opsys over Window$ any day. I don't like some of the difficult things that you have to do to Linux to make it work as easily as Window$, but I love the stability. I use Linux and XP right now because most things that I do for work are written for Window$. I'm currently experimenting with various versions of Linux to see what I want to end up using.
There's something else that has been overlooked in this whole discussion too. This BS about creating software that should be patented is crap because it's all being written with the same languages. It's only a matter of time before someone else does the same thing the same way with the same code having never seen the original. We are limited to the parameters of the compilers, processors and everything else that goes along with it when it comes to writing code. There will be similarities in code between operating systems because there are only so many ways to turn pixels on and off, copy or format data, transmit bits across a medium, etc. To think any other way is simply foolish.
Your arguement about Japanese cars is partially accurate - those cars were for the most part better than most of ours in the 80's, but that fact really made our car makers put quality on the forefront. American cars in the 80's sucked. I wouldn't have anything else nowadays. There is that Mercedes I'd like to have though...:)
Microsoft BOB was a much more enhanced takeoff on the previously released WordPerfect DAD interface but the interface for BOB looked more like a kid's game. There are many games out there right now that have that same look. I'm surprised that Microsoft hasn't sued them too.
Long before Windows 95 there was OS/2. A far better implementation of a GUI interface. Stable, powerful and good looking. Better than Mac OS was at the time and far better than Windows 3.x and it didn't crash all the time.
To be accurate you have to say that Microsoft has *never* actually created anything new. They are not innovators, they are remarketers of existing technology. Period. If you look at the history of the company, they have purchased, stolen or borrowed everything they have. Bill Gates didn't "invent" DOS, he bought it. He didn't "invent" Windows. He didn't "invent" Word or Excel or Powerpoint or Access or Front Page or... Remember Word Star, Word Perfect, Lotus 123, etc. ? Those were all forerunners of the Microsoft products and they were all better. The reason Microsoft took over was because they had the marketing behind MS-DOS and once they had their stranglehold on the OEMs with that it was just a matter of time before the rest happened. IBM REALLY screwed up there. Digital Research had a better DOS but didn't have the marketing at the time.
My point is that Microsoft has not done anything that someone else didn't do first or even better. It's too bad IBM didn't have Bill Gates in their marketing department. We'd be much better off than we are today.
OTOH,
If 700 cars out of 10 million sold were to have injured the passengers due to a heater core that leaked and sprayed water/anti-freeze at 200+ degrees that would more than justify lawsuits and a recall. So if you look at it that way, the number *is* relevant...
Despite the way it sounds, I have put a lot of thought into this over the past several years. If we're honest with ourselves, we do have everything we need to live the way we were intended to live. Medical treatment prolongs our lives, heals sickness or injury, etc. but it isn't a "necessary" thing to live. Food, water, shelter, some sort of interaction with people and a form of entertainment are really the only things we "need" to live.
I understand the advantages of medical treatment in a hurry but that's not really what I mean. I'm talking about objects, things that we don't have now. I'm not at all suggesting that we haven't come up with new things or new ways of doing things, I'm just curious why we haven't seen anything that's as big of a discovery as the telephone for example. Before the telephone there was nothing like it. Before the television there was nothing like it. That's what I'm talking about - a truly revolutionary item that changes the world in a positive way. The Internet wasn't the first electronic transmission of data, but it certainly is the best we have right now. BBSs were fun but nothing like the 'net.
I have actually "invented" a couple of things but they're tools to make a job easier, not something that is a major discovery or breakthrough like an electric motor or a refrigerator. They wouldn't make more than a few hundred people in the world happy so I don't bother trying to take them to market. I certainly wouldn't call them inventions, that makes it sound too deep-thinker-ish.
The thing is we we rarely see anything "new". It's pretty much all based on old stuff. The refrigerator for example was an improvement on the ice box which was the original invention to store food for an extended time period without smoking or drying it. That icebox was a true invention. The telephone was as well. The radio was. The light bulb was. The electric motor was. The original drum recorder evolved into the phonograph (record player - used pressed or engraved vinyl discs and a needle to make the sounds for the under 25 crowd) was and evolved into the CD. The steam engine was original but it evolved into a gas engine.
My point is, aside from some technologies that are digital or chemical processes we just don't see too many "original" ideas. They're all pretty much improvements or alterations of existing ideas. I know I'm drifting out to sea here but I wonder where the truly revolutionary original ideas for products have all gone. It seems like everything we come up with now is more for convenience sake than it is truly revolutionary.
Slashdot is not an original idea. There were message boards long before the computer.
Maybe I'm not stretching my imagination far enough, but what substantial everyday product could be discovered/invented that we don't have already? We have cars, planes, phones, radios, musical instruments, diagnostic machines, robotics, computers, refrigerators, bass boats, thinkgeek.com...
I don't know. Maybe I'm a cynic but it seems to me that we've got pretty much everything we need.
Isn't it sad when people resort to name calling instead of admitting the truth? I see it more and more with people that believe the rhetoric of the left whether they're American or not. The thing that puzzles me is why someone with supposed intelligence can't come up with something better than name calling? Such crude and immature behavior. The wars were necessary and they -were- legal whether you want to believe it or not. Denial is a wonderful pacifier.
As a conservative, right-wing, non-wife bashing, anti-religion Christian with southern "redneck" ancestors (I was born and raised in the north) I can say with all sincerity that you sir are either so wrapped up in yourself that you can't see the truth or you are in constant denial just to survive your daily journeyon this trip we call life.
A person who's honestly interested in the truth can research the information for themselves and decide based on facts instead of idiology and party bias. I don't like some of what our government is doing, but it's on both sides, not just one. I believe the disregard for what's been happening overseas over the last couple of decades by our Democratic party leaders (Clinton, Kennedy, Daschle, et al) has a direct connection to the problems we have right now.
I also believe that our Republican party has turned their backs on the social problems we've got in our own country. This has led to a tremendous increase in "I don't give a damn about anyone but myself" attitude that hurts our country and gives us a bad reputation world-wide. We as people of the best nation in the world need to go back to what's best for our country and our friends world-wide instead of focusing on what we want for ourselves.
With all due respect as a fellow human being, your one sided views make you look very foolish. Look at the real problem and see if you can offer real solutions in stead of just name calling and bashing.
These comments are from your friendly neighborhood "right-wing, spouse-beating, 7th (Day) Adventist redneck".:)
Because the snizzle told the wizzle that the Eazel was a weasel, and the weasel dropped his geezel on the snizzle's little mizzle!
Um, doesn't anyone else besides me think it's a great idea for Novell to have a total client/server solution? I don't think it's going to be very long before there IS a good desktop alternative to Window$. I use one in particular called LindowsOS which is based on Debian. I love it and so do my wife and kids. It does everything my Win box does and it does it faster with no crashes.
Many people here and in other forums have trashed LindowsOS, but it is a great system for those that are not super-geeks. I even know of a school system that has converted to it across the board and they've never been happier.
My point is that it's coming. With Novell buying SUSE, it's even closer than we all imagined.
but all Micro$oft would need to do is update an EULA for their NDIS drivers and state the same thing they state in most everything else now - you must have a legally installed version of their operating system to use -fill in the blank- which would cover any NDIS driver they own.
Now if the hardware people own the drivers, there's no problem *unless* Micro$oft tells them to put that in their EULA...
Indeed, if you are from Germany as your user info states you may (and probably do) have different rights. Unfortunately, in the US we are hamstrung by extremely tight (and unnecessary in most cases) rules regarding licenses.
From the responses I have seen regarding desktop OS preferences, something has become very clear to me. The people that seem to be the most concerned about learning more than one OpSys are the younger people (under 30). I would base this on the fact that people my age (40) did not have computers until pretty much high school age (I learned initially on an IBM System32) and we grew up not needing to know how to push a key to survive. I make sure my kids know how to solve problems manually first, then they get to use the computer or calculator to do it the way it's being taught now. I see so many kids and teachers go absolutely crazy if they can't get to the Internet or do some other function in the learning process without having a keyboard in front of them that if it weren't so sad, it would make me laugh. I believe they've forgotten how to learn.
That said, I find it very interesting that the younger generation seems to rely on computers for all jobs, all careers and their very existence. In reality, there are many many more jobs now that require the use of computers, but the level of education required to run those systems is minimal. It's no different pressing a sandwich selection button that it was looking at a price tag and punching buttons on a cash register, except that you don't have to be as careful because the machine does most of the work for you.
On the other hand, managerial, design, programming, and other technical jobs require more training than ever before. But the bottom line is that people will still be trained on whatever the company uses for equipment, regardless of whether or not they've ever used it. The reason for getting the training in school isn't as important to the actual job anymore, but rather in most cases it's simply used as an indicator to see if you're trainable.
I wish we'd stop forcing more and more technology on our people and instead insist that the basics are concentrated on first - the ability to think for ourselves, and be able to right those thoughts down on paper in a way that others can read and understand it. The level of spelling and grammer accuracy is falling at a staggering rate in our schools and it's showing up in many areas now.
I use and like all three platforms (although I hate the Micro$oft company philosophically) because they are all easy to use desktop GUIs that have a place and a purpose in our computing lives. Having been taught initially on a mainframe, I like and appreciate the command line very much as well. I get a real kick out of people that say "what's a command line?".
If you purchased an OEM version of Windows with a system you are *not* allowed to move it to another system regardless of what happens to the original system. This is part of their EULA and it's clear and non-disputable. Whether it's morally right is another story altogether, but...
On the other hand, if you purchased a retail version you can transfer it from one cpu to another in the case of retiring a system.
Unfortunately I've had to read the EULAs top to bottom to know this information as much as I hated doing it.
The biggest thing missing from Mozilla Composer is the ability to create form elements... why, oh why, haven't they added this feature?
Huh? I just created a form last night using Composer that has radio buttons and fields for user input. I'm brand new to making forms, so I might be missing something. What elements are you talking about?
Are you in the USA? IIRC, the Magnuson-Moss Act that congress passed in 1975 prohibits manufacturers from voiding your warranty if you use third party consumable or optional add-ons as long as you don't modify the original equipment. For example, if you buy an aftermarket air filter for your car, vacuum cleaner bag, memory for your computer or any other thing you can imagine, it is covered by the act and your warranty can not be voided by the manufacturer. Those things are considered as "tie-on sales" which are protected in the MMA.
Re:What about teachin them some math, physics and
on
Wi-Fi Woods
·
· Score: 3, Informative
In Michigan we're mandated by the state to integrate technology (i.e. electronic computing devices and related software) into ALL areas of the K-12 curriculum. We had to develop our curriculum in each educational area to include technology of all types, including devices like PDAs, computers, data recording devices, etc. so this is not something brand new.
The issue isn't really why they're getting technology, it's whether or not they're using it to better their skills.
That said, I am 100% for teaching concepts FIRST, technology SECOND. I don't want my kids using a calculator to do their math for example, and I don't let them at home until they understand and can do it manually. I stress being able to understand the subject first, being able to spell correctly and so on, and I DO check their homework.
Having said all of that, I also think it's neat to see what they can do with technology once they understand why they're doing it...:)
when half of the songs aren't worth listening to in most cases? As a musician I know there are songs that I've put together that no one but myself would ever want to listen to.
It grinds on me when I buy a record/tape/CD for one particular song and the rest of the songs are crap. Some artists won't put anything on an album that they don't think will be a top 10, but in reality 80% (educated guess) of the songs on today's releases never see any air play.
If I bought just the songs I want at 99 cents each instead of buying an album of 12 songs for $15.99 (or whatever the price is) the artists & music companies will get a LOT more money out of me than they do right now. I usually don't pay the retail price for CDs because it's just too high. I buy 99% of my music used at yard sales as a protest of sorts against the high prices.
Yeah, it might be a little lame, but it's my protest and I can do it any way I want...:)
I wonder what the outcome would be if you handed them a scratched Metallica CD and explained that you have a legally purchased (albeit damaged) copy of that very same song... ???
(snip) a jury could reasonably conclude that the log showing you downloaded a 10,303,334mb file named "Metallica_Enter_Sandman.mp3" on such and such day is evidence that you downloaded a copyrighted song.
"My theory on evolution is that Darwin was adopted. - Stephen Wright"
Au contraire' my friend. I am anti-Microsoft to the core but I can't afford a Mac. I am a LindowOS user and have been since I joined the "Insider" program almost two years ago.
Most of us that use Linux are looking for stability and power, and that's something Microsoft can't offer. The rest of us that use systems like LindowsOS or another flavor with a GUI are users who like stability, power AND an easy to use interface. I was born and raised on a command line, but there are times when I just like to "click and run".
Main Entry: moÂnopÂoÂly
Pronunciation: m&-'nÃ-p(&-)lE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -lies
Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- + pOlein to sell
Date: 1534
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly
Ok, Apple DOES have a monopoly over their operating system AND their hardware. You can buy the system board on the market, but they came from Apple originally. You can not buy a Mac BIOS to put on a custom motherboard from anyone but Apple. They are the only manufacturer of their operating system as well. That means they are definitions 1-4 as listed above.
No one said anything about Apple not adhering to standards, it depends on what those standards are. When I said they don't play well with others I mean on a hardware basis in that you can NOT buy a Granny Smith or Yellow Delicious computer anywhere.
My point was that at this moment (and for the last 15 years) we've had a personal computer manufacturer that with the exception of a two or three year period has not let anyone else build a system like theirs and you couldn't use any other operating system until Yellow Dog Linux and BSD Unix on their box. Now there side of the fence is a little more attractive but they still control their hardware and don't let anyone else build a clone.
Apple DOES have a monopoly on their hardware. You can argue that if you want, but you'd be wrong. I never said it was a bad thing, I just asked why people aren't throwing a fit about it when in fact Microsoft does NOT have a monopoly at all and that's all people are complaining about! There are alternative programs for everything they sell.
Except that Apple has had and retains a monopoly on their hardware AND operating system. They won't play with others yet no one complains. I -hate- Micro$oft but this is a double standard.
Slashdot Mirror
CNR also works better than apt-get in that it installs the programs for you but it also puts icons where they make sense so you don't have to go searching for them if (like me) you're not a hard-core Linux guru.
Make sure you guys try LindowsOS before you knock it. It's really getting good!!!
For the record, I wasn't blaming M$ for IBM's lack of marketing. I have always said that M$ has the best marketing team on earth. They have to because their products suck! Always have, always will. Substandard programs and operating systems will eventually fail to sell unless you use extortion and unfair trade practices like Microsoft has (and has been convicted of in some cases) to prohibit competition. That's the thing Gates is the most afraid of - competition - because he knows if someone releases a superior system with software to go along with it and the market starts switching, he's finished.
Given that, OS/2 2.0 *was* stable. It wasn't until they screwed things up with Warp that it went downhill fast. I used 2.0 for a long time at work. I usually do everything I can to try to break things and it was far more difficult to break OS/2 than it ever has been to break any version of Window$. Oh, and OS/2 looked a LOT more like Apple System 6 than Windows 1, 2 or 3.x ever did. I don't know why Apple sued M$, they should have sued IBM.
To be fair, I'm not a Linux zealot although I prefer the Linux opsys over Window$ any day. I don't like some of the difficult things that you have to do to Linux to make it work as easily as Window$, but I love the stability. I use Linux and XP right now because most things that I do for work are written for Window$. I'm currently experimenting with various versions of Linux to see what I want to end up using.
There's something else that has been overlooked in this whole discussion too. This BS about creating software that should be patented is crap because it's all being written with the same languages. It's only a matter of time before someone else does the same thing the same way with the same code having never seen the original. We are limited to the parameters of the compilers, processors and everything else that goes along with it when it comes to writing code. There will be similarities in code between operating systems because there are only so many ways to turn pixels on and off, copy or format data, transmit bits across a medium, etc. To think any other way is simply foolish.
Your arguement about Japanese cars is partially accurate - those cars were for the most part better than most of ours in the 80's, but that fact really made our car makers put quality on the forefront. American cars in the 80's sucked. I wouldn't have anything else nowadays. There is that Mercedes I'd like to have though... :)
Long before Windows 95 there was OS/2. A far better implementation of a GUI interface. Stable, powerful and good looking. Better than Mac OS was at the time and far better than Windows 3.x and it didn't crash all the time.
:)
To be accurate you have to say that Microsoft has *never* actually created anything new. They are not innovators, they are remarketers of existing technology. Period. If you look at the history of the company, they have purchased, stolen or borrowed everything they have. Bill Gates didn't "invent" DOS, he bought it. He didn't "invent" Windows. He didn't "invent" Word or Excel or Powerpoint or Access or Front Page or... Remember Word Star, Word Perfect, Lotus 123, etc. ? Those were all forerunners of the Microsoft products and they were all better. The reason Microsoft took over was because they had the marketing behind MS-DOS and once they had their stranglehold on the OEMs with that it was just a matter of time before the rest happened. IBM REALLY screwed up there. Digital Research had a better DOS but didn't have the marketing at the time.
My point is that Microsoft has not done anything that someone else didn't do first or even better. It's too bad IBM didn't have Bill Gates in their marketing department. We'd be much better off than we are today.
Oh wait - we have Linux now so maybe not!
How about issueing online surveys that have working radio buttons? They don't look like they are working in MozillaFirebird 0.7.
Despite the way it sounds, I have put a lot of thought into this over the past several years. If we're honest with ourselves, we do have everything we need to live the way we were intended to live. Medical treatment prolongs our lives, heals sickness or injury, etc. but it isn't a "necessary" thing to live. Food, water, shelter, some sort of interaction with people and a form of entertainment are really the only things we "need" to live.
I understand the advantages of medical treatment in a hurry but that's not really what I mean. I'm talking about objects, things that we don't have now. I'm not at all suggesting that we haven't come up with new things or new ways of doing things, I'm just curious why we haven't seen anything that's as big of a discovery as the telephone for example. Before the telephone there was nothing like it. Before the television there was nothing like it. That's what I'm talking about - a truly revolutionary item that changes the world in a positive way. The Internet wasn't the first electronic transmission of data, but it certainly is the best we have right now. BBSs were fun but nothing like the 'net.
I have actually "invented" a couple of things but they're tools to make a job easier, not something that is a major discovery or breakthrough like an electric motor or a refrigerator. They wouldn't make more than a few hundred people in the world happy so I don't bother trying to take them to market. I certainly wouldn't call them inventions, that makes it sound too deep-thinker-ish.
The thing is we we rarely see anything "new". It's pretty much all based on old stuff. The refrigerator for example was an improvement on the ice box which was the original invention to store food for an extended time period without smoking or drying it. That icebox was a true invention. The telephone was as well. The radio was. The light bulb was. The electric motor was. The original drum recorder evolved into the phonograph (record player - used pressed or engraved vinyl discs and a needle to make the sounds for the under 25 crowd) was and evolved into the CD. The steam engine was original but it evolved into a gas engine.
My point is, aside from some technologies that are digital or chemical processes we just don't see too many "original" ideas. They're all pretty much improvements or alterations of existing ideas. I know I'm drifting out to sea here but I wonder where the truly revolutionary original ideas for products have all gone. It seems like everything we come up with now is more for convenience sake than it is truly revolutionary.
Slashdot is not an original idea. There were message boards long before the computer.
Maybe I'm not stretching my imagination far enough, but what substantial everyday product could be discovered/invented that we don't have already? We have cars, planes, phones, radios, musical instruments, diagnostic machines, robotics, computers, refrigerators, bass boats, thinkgeek.com...
I don't know. Maybe I'm a cynic but it seems to me that we've got pretty much everything we need.
Isn't it sad when people resort to name calling instead of admitting the truth? I see it more and more with people that believe the rhetoric of the left whether they're American or not. The thing that puzzles me is why someone with supposed intelligence can't come up with something better than name calling? Such crude and immature behavior. The wars were necessary and they -were- legal whether you want to believe it or not. Denial is a wonderful pacifier.
:)
As a conservative, right-wing, non-wife bashing, anti-religion Christian with southern "redneck" ancestors (I was born and raised in the north) I can say with all sincerity that you sir are either so wrapped up in yourself that you can't see the truth or you are in constant denial just to survive your daily journeyon this trip we call life.
A person who's honestly interested in the truth can research the information for themselves and decide based on facts instead of idiology and party bias. I don't like some of what our government is doing, but it's on both sides, not just one. I believe the disregard for what's been happening overseas over the last couple of decades by our Democratic party leaders (Clinton, Kennedy, Daschle, et al) has a direct connection to the problems we have right now.
I also believe that our Republican party has turned their backs on the social problems we've got in our own country. This has led to a tremendous increase in "I don't give a damn about anyone but myself" attitude that hurts our country and gives us a bad reputation world-wide. We as people of the best nation in the world need to go back to what's best for our country and our friends world-wide instead of focusing on what we want for ourselves.
With all due respect as a fellow human being, your one sided views make you look very foolish. Look at the real problem and see if you can offer real solutions in stead of just name calling and bashing.
These comments are from your friendly neighborhood "right-wing, spouse-beating, 7th (Day) Adventist redneck".
Ah, yes, remember when Eazel was the snizzle?
Because the snizzle told the wizzle that the Eazel was a weasel, and the weasel dropped his geezel on the snizzle's little mizzle!
Um, doesn't anyone else besides me think it's a great idea for Novell to have a total client/server solution? I don't think it's going to be very long before there IS a good desktop alternative to Window$. I use one in particular called LindowsOS which is based on Debian. I love it and so do my wife and kids. It does everything my Win box does and it does it faster with no crashes.
Many people here and in other forums have trashed LindowsOS, but it is a great system for those that are not super-geeks. I even know of a school system that has converted to it across the board and they've never been happier.
My point is that it's coming. With Novell buying SUSE, it's even closer than we all imagined.
but all Micro$oft would need to do is update an EULA for their NDIS drivers and state the same thing they state in most everything else now - you must have a legally installed version of their operating system to use -fill in the blank- which would cover any NDIS driver they own.
Now if the hardware people own the drivers, there's no problem *unless* Micro$oft tells them to put that in their EULA...
The sad thing is that people will probably stil be using Cobol then...
That said, I find it very interesting that the younger generation seems to rely on computers for all jobs, all careers and their very existence. In reality, there are many many more jobs now that require the use of computers, but the level of education required to run those systems is minimal. It's no different pressing a sandwich selection button that it was looking at a price tag and punching buttons on a cash register, except that you don't have to be as careful because the machine does most of the work for you.
On the other hand, managerial, design, programming, and other technical jobs require more training than ever before. But the bottom line is that people will still be trained on whatever the company uses for equipment, regardless of whether or not they've ever used it. The reason for getting the training in school isn't as important to the actual job anymore, but rather in most cases it's simply used as an indicator to see if you're trainable.
I wish we'd stop forcing more and more technology on our people and instead insist that the basics are concentrated on first - the ability to think for ourselves, and be able to right those thoughts down on paper in a way that others can read and understand it. The level of spelling and grammer accuracy is falling at a staggering rate in our schools and it's showing up in many areas now.
I use and like all three platforms (although I hate the Micro$oft company philosophically) because they are all easy to use desktop GUIs that have a place and a purpose in our computing lives. Having been taught initially on a mainframe, I like and appreciate the command line very much as well. I get a real kick out of people that say "what's a command line?".
On the other hand, if you purchased a retail version you can transfer it from one cpu to another in the case of retiring a system.
Unfortunately I've had to read the EULAs top to bottom to know this information as much as I hated doing it.
Huh? I just created a form last night using Composer that has radio buttons and fields for user input. I'm brand new to making forms, so I might be missing something. What elements are you talking about?
Why do the people that are wrong always resort to name-calling?
http://www.kingston.com/china/policy/ftc_mmadocume nt.asp
In Michigan we're mandated by the state to integrate technology (i.e. electronic computing devices and related software) into ALL areas of the K-12 curriculum. We had to develop our curriculum in each educational area to include technology of all types, including devices like PDAs, computers, data recording devices, etc. so this is not something brand new. The issue isn't really why they're getting technology, it's whether or not they're using it to better their skills. That said, I am 100% for teaching concepts FIRST, technology SECOND. I don't want my kids using a calculator to do their math for example, and I don't let them at home until they understand and can do it manually. I stress being able to understand the subject first, being able to spell correctly and so on, and I DO check their homework. Having said all of that, I also think it's neat to see what they can do with technology once they understand why they're doing it... :)
It grinds on me when I buy a record/tape/CD for one particular song and the rest of the songs are crap. Some artists won't put anything on an album that they don't think will be a top 10, but in reality 80% (educated guess) of the songs on today's releases never see any air play.
If I bought just the songs I want at 99 cents each instead of buying an album of 12 songs for $15.99 (or whatever the price is) the artists & music companies will get a LOT more money out of me than they do right now. I usually don't pay the retail price for CDs because it's just too high. I buy 99% of my music used at yard sales as a protest of sorts against the high prices.
Yeah, it might be a little lame, but it's my protest and I can do it any way I want... :)
(snip) a jury could reasonably conclude that the log showing you downloaded a 10,303,334mb file named "Metallica_Enter_Sandman.mp3" on such and such day is evidence that you downloaded a copyrighted song.
"My theory on evolution is that Darwin was adopted. - Stephen Wright"
Most of us that use Linux are looking for stability and power, and that's something Microsoft can't offer. The rest of us that use systems like LindowsOS or another flavor with a GUI are users who like stability, power AND an easy to use interface. I was born and raised on a command line, but there are times when I just like to "click and run".
Ok, Apple DOES have a monopoly over their operating system AND their hardware. You can buy the system board on the market, but they came from Apple originally. You can not buy a Mac BIOS to put on a custom motherboard from anyone but Apple. They are the only manufacturer of their operating system as well. That means they are definitions 1-4 as listed above.
No one said anything about Apple not adhering to standards, it depends on what those standards are. When I said they don't play well with others I mean on a hardware basis in that you can NOT buy a Granny Smith or Yellow Delicious computer anywhere.
My point was that at this moment (and for the last 15 years) we've had a personal computer manufacturer that with the exception of a two or three year period has not let anyone else build a system like theirs and you couldn't use any other operating system until Yellow Dog Linux and BSD Unix on their box. Now there side of the fence is a little more attractive but they still control their hardware and don't let anyone else build a clone.
Apple DOES have a monopoly on their hardware. You can argue that if you want, but you'd be wrong. I never said it was a bad thing, I just asked why people aren't throwing a fit about it when in fact Microsoft does NOT have a monopoly at all and that's all people are complaining about! There are alternative programs for everything they sell.