I'm sure we've all said it. We've had enough. Enough of the spam. Enough with the telemarketers. Enough with people interrupting OUR private time. We've also all fantasized about ways to "get back" at these hucksters. Some of us more vividly violent than the others. And sadly, as this case will illustrate, we seem to be powerless. There is little or thing that can be done about this heinous situation. It's the sad and eventual outcome of capitalism run amok. And the people with the dollars have every resource available to them.
Recently I receievd multiple snail mail solicitations for refinancing my mortgage. These came shortly after I refinanced with a reputable lender. I noticed that quite a few of them had business return envelopes and was going to use one of my old 80s techniques to annoy the companies, which was to send it back empty or send it back with useless stuff in it (other mail soliciations from other companies, etc...). But then I realized, we're in a bind these days regarding the mail. Ever since the whole anthrax thing happened after the American World Trade Center bombings, the arrival of an empty envelope or even an envelope with innappropriate contents could bring about a huge investigation.
A similar kind of situation exists with telemarketers. Ever since the world got more exposure to things like workers "going postal" and the Columbine high school fiasco, even the slightest implication of violent language is now cause for concern. In the past, I could have told a telemarketer, "Have you ever seen the movie Falling Down? Well, if you keep calling you're going to get a visit from someone very much like the Michael Douglas character." and gotten away with it. Now if I say that, there's a pretty good chance that within hours I might get a visit from the police or within days or weeks get arrested. (Witness this story)
So... the question... what to do about this situation? I think the first part of answering this is trying to find out what the goal actually is. I would suggest that the goal is to take back our personal time without having to PAY for it. No... caller ID and Privacy Managers aren't the optimum solution. The Do Not Call list was a nice idea, but who knows when and if it will ever actually be permanently implemented. Talking to these jackholes directly does no good and can only make matters worse. Since most of these assholes are driven to do this kind of thing to profit, I suggest that we do everything we can to damage their profitability. For every call that you recieve or every e-mail or snail mail that you get that has a parent company of address, you lodge a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. Or perhaps, you just waste the telemarketer's time. Feign ignorance and get them to repeat their pitch multiple times. Keep them on the phone as long as possible. For every snail mail you get that has a business return envelope, send them your own form letter that tells them why you will never use their services or buy their products. (Make sure it's well worded and contains no threats no matter how much you may be tempted). On last ditch effort for those of you like me who like a good prank, is to take advantage of the fact that they called you and you can use them as the target of what would have previously been obscene or parnk phone calls. If the person is of the opposite sex, ask them if they are single. Or maybe you can ask them if their refrigerator is running, or if they have pig's feet or bowling balls... you get the idea. Think of it is phone trolling.
Whatever the case, please go to my hournal and post any ideas you might have in my latest JE.
What's music to one person is just noise to someone else. I've quite enjoyed the independent aritsts that have been able to gain exposure through MP3.com. On the other hand there is a WHOLE LOT of crap that is on the radio and MTV every since the mid nineties:
1. Limp Bizkit 2. Kidd Rock 3. X-tina 4. Shitney Spears 5. Dave Matthew's Band 6. Korn 7. Shania Twain 8. Sisqo 9. Soundgarden 10. Stone Temple Pilots...you get my drift. I HATE all of the artists listed above as I feel they are completely talentless and the only thing they have going for them is popularity. Oddly enough, one of the most profound comments I've ever heard from anyone in the music business came out of none other than schlockmeister himself, Huey Lewis. He said that when he found out "The News" (his band for you children on Slashdot who don't remember the 80s) had a hit single, he said he was a little disappointed. When someone asked him why, he said that he knew that popular doesn't always mean good (as in good music). He was sooo right.
There are plenty of artists out there who are excellent musicians but that most of the world (except for real artists) are unaware of. Musicians who HAVE a following but are not popular:
1. Ryuichi Sakamoto 2. David Sylvian 3. Jarboe 4. The Cocteau Twins 5. The Dandy Warhols 6. Dead Can Dance 7. Up until recently in the states... Kylie Minogue (she's bigger than Madonna the world over) 8. Slowdive 9. The Catherine Wheel 10. Muse
I suppose some of my anger regarding that state of music is that I live in one of the bigger cities in the US that considers itself a traditional "Rock and Roll" town. So, the radio stations here suck. There's no "alternative" radio anymore. We used to have one of those prepackaged "The End" type of stations, but they shut it down and replaced it with hip-hop crap. We now have a REALLY shitty "Extreme" format station that plays tons of grunge from the 90s and grindcore shit. There is absolutely no presence for the electonica demographic here on the radio outside of a few college radio shows. It's totally depressing. I imagine that somewhere in the US there's got to be radio stations that play trance or some other high quality electronic music. Hell... I'd be happy if I even heard a little Alice DeeJay or David Gahan (considering how "poppy" those two artists are compared to most of what I listen to). So far my saving grace has been the internet with independent artist and radio streams of some of the best music (all from Europe and the UK).
But as I stated earlier, I KNOW that some of you out there have totally opposing views. Some of you like homogenized hip-hop because it makes you part of the crowd. Some of you enjoy grindcore because it expresses your "rebelious" nature. Some of you even like X-tina and Shitney because you like to "party". (Yuck. If there is something that pisses me off more it's folks who think shit like that is "party music". Yeah, and pass the low quality beers too.) But there is one difference, (this semi-rant excluded) in general, I just smile and tolerate the rest of you. I don't go barking out how awful your taste is or that NO ONE wants to listen to shit that you like. So... to the parent of my reply... YOU should get a fucking grip and realize that not everyone shares your shitty musical taste. I don't even know what you like, but I'm willing to bet you like prepackaged shit that you can buy at WalMart or Amazon.
...music sharing service (hosting) for artists interested in getting their original music out there? What I mean is that the site itself only makes money from donations that the hosted artists give them in return for some space to sell their wares. All profit from the music goes to the artist , and it's up to the artists themselves to keep the site alive by donating periodically. If we really want music that if free of DRM and IP entanglements with big corporations, this is really the only way to go. Music should be hosted in Ogg Vorbis format for download/streaming (considering that it streams much better than MP3 anyway). Anyone?
...it's not of any use to me. When I need to get my Slashdot fix at work and I'm using ssh to connect to my server at home, I browse/. with Lynx. It's the only way to go for low bandwidth remote web browsing.
...what he's saying with this implication of chasing down BSD next is that there can be no free alternatives to Unix? Why? Are they going to claim that they own the *concepts* behind Unix as well? Why don't they just go after claiming that they own all key concepts to computing? Or... is his problem the fact that he doesn't like things NOT making money for his company? I'm sorry, but profit is highly overrated. Technical excellence and the pursuit of intellectual enrichment are far more lasting and valuable.
Look at it this way... Eminem (insert any large software company here) is making tons of money right now. Beethoven (GNU/Open Source) is barely selling. But, in twenty years time, ask young people who Eminem is and they will likely look funny at you and say, "who?". If the educational system doesn't get dismatled by greedy administrations like the current one, you will hopefully ask the same kid who Beethoven is and they will say, "some old classical music guy".
Why must it always come down to this?
on
SCO News Roundup
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
First someone makes a disparaging statement about another person's choice of OS. Then the other person, equally miffed, lists ad-nauseum all the reasons why their choice is better than the person who started the flames. The other person, now upset that their intellect has come into question (usually) then retorts with some more rhetoric supporting their OS choice and throws in a comment about the other person's mother. The other person then either takes the "high road" and extricates himself from the argument or jumps right in and lists out more pro statements about his OS while this time also highlighting all the flaws in the other OS. Then the person who started it all comes back questioning the other person's sexual preference indicating that his opponent's choice is obviously inferior because only a homosexual would use that kind of OS. So... I ask. Why must it always come to this? Is that the best you can do?
1. Microsoft has a pathetic excuse for a search engine due to mediocre technology. 2. Their search engine (much like all of their other products) was built solely with profit in mind.
This is not surprising since Microsoft is all about mediocrity to boost profits. It's a natural conclusion. Working to make "the best" of anything is never profitable. If profit is your main goal, then "good enough" or something like it is all that is needed. This is one of Microsoft's biggest problems. They need someone to whip them into shape and realize that sometimes having an "insanely great" product is much better than making a pile of money.
But what about them there solar flares? If we ain't gonna get pummeled from behind by a big hard rock, how does that keep us from gettin blasted in the face by a big ball o gas?;)
Remember folks, we wouldn't all be geeks if there wasn't a public library around. Support your public library. Support library levies. The more money they make, the better materials and services they can have.
As one of the other poster notes, what is it that makes one group the "winners" and the other group the "losers"? If it financial gain? Is it technical superiority? Is it good looks? (If you think about it, Gates and Torvalds have an eerie "separated at birth" similarity. Of course so does the Novell guy... No slight to any of the OSes meant here.) There is no contest going on to see who "wins". In Bill Gates' and Steve Ballmers' minds, "winning" is all about monetary gain. That's why security and stability have taken them a long time to notice. And even now, it's half-hearted and only based on the fact that the problems with their OS and the availability of other more secure OSes IS affecting their bottom line. But in the end, does financial success make someone a "winner"? Only if that's why you're doing what you're doing in the first place.
The people who work on Linux mostly do it because they like to and they want to. There are various drives. Some of us do it to save money. So if I "win" any contest, it's going to be how much I've accomplished with very little money. Frugality is a large motivator for me. Another potential contest is to see who can get something very well designed from the ground up. This would be the "technological superiority" contest. Guys who are throwing their own home made set top boxes together with Linux are usually the clear winners here. Sure, you can do a lot of the same things with Windows, but it's largely and technically inefficient. If all you want to do is record TV shows on a set top box, then WHY do you need a web browser?
All you Windows Haters out there better wake the fuck up and realize Microsoft has won.
The OS wars, much like the religious wars, will continue on forever. There are people still claiming that their Amigas and Ataris are still better than the current Windows boxes and Linux boxes out there. Obviously, they are deluded. Again, there is no "winning" here. Who won the religious wars? The Christian god? Allah? Satan? L. Ron Hubbard? Charles Tayes Russell? Matt Solenzer?
People WANT Microsoft. That's the basic fact that a lot of you weenies seem to like to overlook.
Wrong. People don't WANT Microsoft. They don't even realize that there may be alternatives besides the Mac. The number of people out there that grumble about how much Microsoft sucks, or Windows ate their files, or "why do I keep getting viruses", should be plenty of proof that people DON'T WANT Microsoft. They just accept Microsoft. The OpenOffice project and the Mozilla browser are furhter proof that people just want something that works for what they do. Everyone is different and no company, not even Microsoft can satisfy everyone. People are just assigned Microsoft when they buy their PCs. Then they just accept it. I RARELY hear non-technical people say, "I LOVE Windows"!
In the Long run, Microsoft has done more for innovation, security, and advanced developments in the computer industry than any other entity be they free or proprietary.
Hmmmm... where to start with this statement? Let's start with "innovation". The real definition of innovation is:
A change in customs; something new, and contrary to established customs, manners, or rites.
So that means a change in the "status quo". Considering that M$ IS the "status quo" they can hardly be thought of as innovative. Of course, it all depends on how you DEFINE innovation. Here is waht I've interpretted M$'s definition of innovation to be:
To buy, cheat or steal technology from other sources and rebrand it as Microsoft.
We all know this to be true. How did M$ get DOS? They bought it for $50,000 from the company that originally developed it and then made some cosmetic changes to it so it said "MS-DOS" instead of QDOS. That wa
I think the real issue is whether or not he meant "home desktop" vs. "corporate desktop". The corporate desktop is one where the admins have very tight controls over how the desktop works and there is a good deal of consistency across different boxes. The home desktop is a totally different beast. You have home users who want to do silly things like plug in USB cameras, scanners and play the latest games and media content. For those users, sadly, *RedHat* Linux isn't ready yet. There are other distros that are closer to being ready for the home desktop (SuSE Personal Edition, Lycoris and even Lindows), but they are geared towards a customer base that doesn't even realize an option exists.
Of course there's also the philosophy issues that surround the different distros. More technically inclined folk scoff at Lindows and other more "user friendly" systems because they allow the default user to be 'root'. While it's terribly insecure, it's incredibly convenient. And THAT IS a problem.
Windows XP is in the same boat. I forced all of my friends running XP to never run as administrator and had to show them how to use Runas or login as the administrator. I also forced them to use complex passwords, disable file sharing and rename the administrator account to something more cryptic. While it's a little more secure than a default Windows install, they ALL hated it and eventually howled at me to set their regular user account to being Admin accounts. I complied with the warning that if their box gets hosed or rooted, I'm just doing a clean install from the ground up and they better back up their data even more religiously. Of course... the average user can't comprehend this. That's why this is a problem for ANY OS that is internet connected.
Until a user can plug in a computer like they can an old style analog TV and just start using it for whatever they want it to do, these things are all going to be problems for the home desktop. None of this is going to change until computers can respond to natural language voice commands, anticipate a user's desires and parse the illogical and, often stupid, human thought process.
Yes... a lot like Bush's corrupted version of my country, the U.S.A. Of course I don't hate Bush himself, I just hate what he and his vultures have done to the carcass of a once decent nation.
The old protection racket has gone digital. I, for one, would love it if we could just give anyone found guilty of being involved in this sort of extortion a lobotomy. Why must people be so driven by greed that they do something so heinous? These folks are on my list just below spammers who retain the top position for volcano diving when I rule the world.
I should probably clarify a little. As RedHat's CEO recently stated, Linux for the desktop (and I believe he means home desktop, not corporate desktop) is not ready yet. So I should have said that I leave the average home user out of what I stated above entirely. Where Microsoft is concerned, you have situations where they are the only ones who can provide the answer (if they have one) since they own the code and won't allow you to hire someone to fix a problem... or you have situations where even Microsoft can't fix the problem (I know this because I've run into the "You have an unknown issue" blow off that they give you if you only pay $175 per incident).
For me, Linux works great at home, but I'm not "Joe Average". However, I'm not an uber-coder C/C++/Java hacker either. I consider myself to be an intermediate level user. Compiling from source is pretty easy for me. Resolving library dependencies isn't much of an issue either. I can even figure out why a compile fails in most cases and resolve the problem by editing a Makefile, altering or adding an environment variable or even editing some of the.c files. These are all things that a competent admin should be capable of understanding since none of it is really coding. I don't think I'm that rare either. I think I reflect a good percentage of the *nix using crowd.
At work, it's a mixed environment, so I get to play with various flavors of Unix, a little Linux, OpenVMS and of course Windows. The only reason we seem to need support is to give us someone to yell at when something doesn't work. Other than that, there have been many instances where we were just able to fix things ourselves and keep ticking away. I tend to disagree with my employer's belief that we need someone to yell at, but I'm not the head cheese (Two levels below him in the net admin ranks). Until I have a shop of my own, I'll be stuck in situations where the boss might want someone to account for things. But even in this environment, I've tended to fix a lot of things without having to resort to using support. That's why they pay me. Otherwise, why would anyone pay me just to admin a network?
Honestly. When it comes to the world of open source/free software, who really needs support if they know what they are doing. I haven't had to call anyone for software support since I made the move to Linux. Seriously folks, how many of you out there who consider yourselves to be competent enough IT people and can compile apps from source, or build a custom kernel and modules, actually need software support?
Even though RedHat is dropping it's free distribution, it's not really... There's Project Fedora which is actually quite impressive. It's basically the free RedHat distribution with a bunch of new (not ready for prime time) features built in that allow us to be even more bleeding edge than before. And if you REALLY need something tested and true, you've got Debian, Gentoo, hell even Linux From Scratch. The one thing that a Microsoft tends to not "get" is that many of us have no desire to be reliant on someone else. There is a lot to be said for self-sufficiency.
And I'll say one other thing. Boy am I glad I don't deal with software support anymore. Comptuers are still complex enough as it is that the last thing you want is a mouth breather on the other end perusing the same knowledgebase that you can look at yourself and then walking you through everything you've already tried. Now... if a company actually offered decent support, the desire might be a little different. But really. Who needs support these days? (This excludes anyone who can't compile from code. You don't have to be a programmer to be able to compile from source. Any competent admin can do it.)
Wait, I have a "better idea" (TM). Why don't we get servers to backup the data on the servers that back up the data on the servers that back up the data on the servers that backup the data on the ser
^Z [1] loop ends
Re:I just heard some happy news on talk radio...
on
Home Directory In CVS
·
· Score: 1
Here here! I second that opinion Fecal Troll Matter. Good to hear that we won't be pestered by those gits again.
How long before the neocons see opportunities to "create wealth" (feh!) by making underground living spaces on the moon and nuke it to pieces. Anyone see the latest version of the Time Machine?
Slashdot Mirror
I like your attitude. Welcome to my friends list.
I'm sure we've all said it. We've had enough. Enough of the spam. Enough with the telemarketers. Enough with people interrupting OUR private time. We've also all fantasized about ways to "get back" at these hucksters. Some of us more vividly violent than the others. And sadly, as this case will illustrate, we seem to be powerless. There is little or thing that can be done about this heinous situation. It's the sad and eventual outcome of capitalism run amok. And the people with the dollars have every resource available to them.
Recently I receievd multiple snail mail solicitations for refinancing my mortgage. These came shortly after I refinanced with a reputable lender. I noticed that quite a few of them had business return envelopes and was going to use one of my old 80s techniques to annoy the companies, which was to send it back empty or send it back with useless stuff in it (other mail soliciations from other companies, etc...). But then I realized, we're in a bind these days regarding the mail. Ever since the whole anthrax thing happened after the American World Trade Center bombings, the arrival of an empty envelope or even an envelope with innappropriate contents could bring about a huge investigation.
A similar kind of situation exists with telemarketers. Ever since the world got more exposure to things like workers "going postal" and the Columbine high school fiasco, even the slightest implication of violent language is now cause for concern. In the past, I could have told a telemarketer, "Have you ever seen the movie Falling Down? Well, if you keep calling you're going to get a visit from someone very much like the Michael Douglas character." and gotten away with it. Now if I say that, there's a pretty good chance that within hours I might get a visit from the police or within days or weeks get arrested. (Witness this story)
So... the question... what to do about this situation? I think the first part of answering this is trying to find out what the goal actually is. I would suggest that the goal is to take back our personal time without having to PAY for it. No... caller ID and Privacy Managers aren't the optimum solution. The Do Not Call list was a nice idea, but who knows when and if it will ever actually be permanently implemented. Talking to these jackholes directly does no good and can only make matters worse. Since most of these assholes are driven to do this kind of thing to profit, I suggest that we do everything we can to damage their profitability. For every call that you recieve or every e-mail or snail mail that you get that has a parent company of address, you lodge a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. Or perhaps, you just waste the telemarketer's time. Feign ignorance and get them to repeat their pitch multiple times. Keep them on the phone as long as possible. For every snail mail you get that has a business return envelope, send them your own form letter that tells them why you will never use their services or buy their products. (Make sure it's well worded and contains no threats no matter how much you may be tempted). On last ditch effort for those of you like me who like a good prank, is to take advantage of the fact that they called you and you can use them as the target of what would have previously been obscene or parnk phone calls. If the person is of the opposite sex, ask them if they are single. Or maybe you can ask them if their refrigerator is running, or if they have pig's feet or bowling balls... you get the idea. Think of it is phone trolling.
Whatever the case, please go to my hournal and post any ideas you might have in my latest JE.
Your Loyal Friend,
T4D
What's music to one person is just noise to someone else. I've quite enjoyed the independent aritsts that have been able to gain exposure through MP3.com. On the other hand there is a WHOLE LOT of crap that is on the radio and MTV every since the mid nineties:
...you get my drift. I HATE all of the artists listed above as I feel they are completely talentless and the only thing they have going for them is popularity. Oddly enough, one of the most profound comments I've ever heard from anyone in the music business came out of none other than schlockmeister himself, Huey Lewis. He said that when he found out "The News" (his band for you children on Slashdot who don't remember the 80s) had a hit single, he said he was a little disappointed. When someone asked him why, he said that he knew that popular doesn't always mean good (as in good music). He was sooo right.
1. Limp Bizkit
2. Kidd Rock
3. X-tina
4. Shitney Spears
5. Dave Matthew's Band
6. Korn
7. Shania Twain
8. Sisqo
9. Soundgarden
10. Stone Temple Pilots
There are plenty of artists out there who are excellent musicians but that most of the world (except for real artists) are unaware of. Musicians who HAVE a following but are not popular:
1. Ryuichi Sakamoto
2. David Sylvian
3. Jarboe
4. The Cocteau Twins
5. The Dandy Warhols
6. Dead Can Dance
7. Up until recently in the states... Kylie Minogue (she's bigger than Madonna the world over)
8. Slowdive
9. The Catherine Wheel
10. Muse
I suppose some of my anger regarding that state of music is that I live in one of the bigger cities in the US that considers itself a traditional "Rock and Roll" town. So, the radio stations here suck. There's no "alternative" radio anymore. We used to have one of those prepackaged "The End" type of stations, but they shut it down and replaced it with hip-hop crap. We now have a REALLY shitty "Extreme" format station that plays tons of grunge from the 90s and grindcore shit. There is absolutely no presence for the electonica demographic here on the radio outside of a few college radio shows. It's totally depressing. I imagine that somewhere in the US there's got to be radio stations that play trance or some other high quality electronic music. Hell... I'd be happy if I even heard a little Alice DeeJay or David Gahan (considering how "poppy" those two artists are compared to most of what I listen to). So far my saving grace has been the internet with independent artist and radio streams of some of the best music (all from Europe and the UK).
But as I stated earlier, I KNOW that some of you out there have totally opposing views. Some of you like homogenized hip-hop because it makes you part of the crowd. Some of you enjoy grindcore because it expresses your "rebelious" nature. Some of you even like X-tina and Shitney because you like to "party". (Yuck. If there is something that pisses me off more it's folks who think shit like that is "party music". Yeah, and pass the low quality beers too.) But there is one difference, (this semi-rant excluded) in general, I just smile and tolerate the rest of you. I don't go barking out how awful your taste is or that NO ONE wants to listen to shit that you like. So... to the parent of my reply... YOU should get a fucking grip and realize that not everyone shares your shitty musical taste. I don't even know what you like, but I'm willing to bet you like prepackaged shit that you can buy at WalMart or Amazon.
...music sharing service (hosting) for artists interested in getting their original music out there? What I mean is that the site itself only makes money from donations that the hosted artists give them in return for some space to sell their wares. All profit from the music goes to the artist , and it's up to the artists themselves to keep the site alive by donating periodically. If we really want music that if free of DRM and IP entanglements with big corporations, this is really the only way to go. Music should be hosted in Ogg Vorbis format for download/streaming (considering that it streams much better than MP3 anyway). Anyone?
...it's not of any use to me. When I need to get my Slashdot fix at work and I'm using ssh to connect to my server at home, I browse /. with Lynx. It's the only way to go for low bandwidth remote web browsing.
...what he's saying with this implication of chasing down BSD next is that there can be no free alternatives to Unix? Why? Are they going to claim that they own the *concepts* behind Unix as well? Why don't they just go after claiming that they own all key concepts to computing? Or... is his problem the fact that he doesn't like things NOT making money for his company? I'm sorry, but profit is highly overrated. Technical excellence and the pursuit of intellectual enrichment are far more lasting and valuable.
Look at it this way... Eminem (insert any large software company here) is making tons of money right now. Beethoven (GNU/Open Source) is barely selling. But, in twenty years time, ask young people who Eminem is and they will likely look funny at you and say, "who?". If the educational system doesn't get dismatled by greedy administrations like the current one, you will hopefully ask the same kid who Beethoven is and they will say, "some old classical music guy".
Think about it...
That should have been "Firstus Pontus"!!!! :P
First someone makes a disparaging statement about another person's choice of OS. Then the other person, equally miffed, lists ad-nauseum all the reasons why their choice is better than the person who started the flames. The other person, now upset that their intellect has come into question (usually) then retorts with some more rhetoric supporting their OS choice and throws in a comment about the other person's mother. The other person then either takes the "high road" and extricates himself from the argument or jumps right in and lists out more pro statements about his OS while this time also highlighting all the flaws in the other OS. Then the person who started it all comes back questioning the other person's sexual preference indicating that his opponent's choice is obviously inferior because only a homosexual would use that kind of OS. So... I ask. Why must it always come to this? Is that the best you can do?
I think there's two things going on here:
1. Microsoft has a pathetic excuse for a search engine due to mediocre technology.
2. Their search engine (much like all of their other products) was built solely with profit in mind.
This is not surprising since Microsoft is all about mediocrity to boost profits. It's a natural conclusion. Working to make "the best" of anything is never profitable. If profit is your main goal, then "good enough" or something like it is all that is needed. This is one of Microsoft's biggest problems. They need someone to whip them into shape and realize that sometimes having an "insanely great" product is much better than making a pile of money.
But what about them there solar flares? If we ain't gonna get pummeled from behind by a big hard rock, how does that keep us from gettin blasted in the face by a big ball o gas? ;)
Geeks love numbers. When I connected it said, "Aaaaagggghh!!!! Will you F*cking /.ers leave me alone and let me do my job!!?" ;P
Remember folks, we wouldn't all be geeks if there wasn't a public library around. Support your public library. Support library levies. The more money they make, the better materials and services they can have.
Losers just can't stand to see someone win.
As one of the other poster notes, what is it that makes one group the "winners" and the other group the "losers"? If it financial gain? Is it technical superiority? Is it good looks? (If you think about it, Gates and Torvalds have an eerie "separated at birth" similarity. Of course so does the Novell guy... No slight to any of the OSes meant here.) There is no contest going on to see who "wins". In Bill Gates' and Steve Ballmers' minds, "winning" is all about monetary gain. That's why security and stability have taken them a long time to notice. And even now, it's half-hearted and only based on the fact that the problems with their OS and the availability of other more secure OSes IS affecting their bottom line. But in the end, does financial success make someone a "winner"? Only if that's why you're doing what you're doing in the first place.
The people who work on Linux mostly do it because they like to and they want to. There are various drives. Some of us do it to save money. So if I "win" any contest, it's going to be how much I've accomplished with very little money. Frugality is a large motivator for me. Another potential contest is to see who can get something very well designed from the ground up. This would be the "technological superiority" contest. Guys who are throwing their own home made set top boxes together with Linux are usually the clear winners here. Sure, you can do a lot of the same things with Windows, but it's largely and technically inefficient. If all you want to do is record TV shows on a set top box, then WHY do you need a web browser?
All you Windows Haters out there better wake the fuck up and realize Microsoft has won.
The OS wars, much like the religious wars, will continue on forever. There are people still claiming that their Amigas and Ataris are still better than the current Windows boxes and Linux boxes out there. Obviously, they are deluded. Again, there is no "winning" here. Who won the religious wars? The Christian god? Allah? Satan? L. Ron Hubbard? Charles Tayes Russell? Matt Solenzer?
People WANT Microsoft. That's the basic fact that a lot of you weenies seem to like to overlook.
Wrong. People don't WANT Microsoft. They don't even realize that there may be alternatives besides the Mac. The number of people out there that grumble about how much Microsoft sucks, or Windows ate their files, or "why do I keep getting viruses", should be plenty of proof that people DON'T WANT Microsoft. They just accept Microsoft. The OpenOffice project and the Mozilla browser are furhter proof that people just want something that works for what they do. Everyone is different and no company, not even Microsoft can satisfy everyone. People are just assigned Microsoft when they buy their PCs. Then they just accept it. I RARELY hear non-technical people say, "I LOVE Windows"!
In the Long run, Microsoft has done more for innovation, security, and advanced developments in the computer industry than any other entity be they free or proprietary.
Hmmmm... where to start with this statement? Let's start with "innovation". The real definition of innovation is:
A change in customs; something new, and contrary to established customs, manners, or rites.
So that means a change in the "status quo". Considering that M$ IS the "status quo" they can hardly be thought of as innovative. Of course, it all depends on how you DEFINE innovation. Here is waht I've interpretted M$'s definition of innovation to be:
To buy, cheat or steal technology from other sources and rebrand it as Microsoft.
We all know this to be true. How did M$ get DOS? They bought it for $50,000 from the company that originally developed it and then made some cosmetic changes to it so it said "MS-DOS" instead of QDOS. That wa
Not a question, but a reply to the parent.
I think the real issue is whether or not he meant "home desktop" vs. "corporate desktop". The corporate desktop is one where the admins have very tight controls over how the desktop works and there is a good deal of consistency across different boxes. The home desktop is a totally different beast. You have home users who want to do silly things like plug in USB cameras, scanners and play the latest games and media content. For those users, sadly, *RedHat* Linux isn't ready yet. There are other distros that are closer to being ready for the home desktop (SuSE Personal Edition, Lycoris and even Lindows), but they are geared towards a customer base that doesn't even realize an option exists.
Of course there's also the philosophy issues that surround the different distros. More technically inclined folk scoff at Lindows and other more "user friendly" systems because they allow the default user to be 'root'. While it's terribly insecure, it's incredibly convenient. And THAT IS a problem.
Windows XP is in the same boat. I forced all of my friends running XP to never run as administrator and had to show them how to use Runas or login as the administrator. I also forced them to use complex passwords, disable file sharing and rename the administrator account to something more cryptic. While it's a little more secure than a default Windows install, they ALL hated it and eventually howled at me to set their regular user account to being Admin accounts. I complied with the warning that if their box gets hosed or rooted, I'm just doing a clean install from the ground up and they better back up their data even more religiously. Of course... the average user can't comprehend this. That's why this is a problem for ANY OS that is internet connected.
Until a user can plug in a computer like they can an old style analog TV and just start using it for whatever they want it to do, these things are all going to be problems for the home desktop. None of this is going to change until computers can respond to natural language voice commands, anticipate a user's desires and parse the illogical and, often stupid, human thought process.
Yes... a lot like Bush's corrupted version of my country, the U.S.A. Of course I don't hate Bush himself, I just hate what he and his vultures have done to the carcass of a once decent nation.
The old protection racket has gone digital. I, for one, would love it if we could just give anyone found guilty of being involved in this sort of extortion a lobotomy. Why must people be so driven by greed that they do something so heinous? These folks are on my list just below spammers who retain the top position for volcano diving when I rule the world.
I should probably clarify a little. As RedHat's CEO recently stated, Linux for the desktop (and I believe he means home desktop, not corporate desktop) is not ready yet. So I should have said that I leave the average home user out of what I stated above entirely. Where Microsoft is concerned, you have situations where they are the only ones who can provide the answer (if they have one) since they own the code and won't allow you to hire someone to fix a problem... or you have situations where even Microsoft can't fix the problem (I know this because I've run into the "You have an unknown issue" blow off that they give you if you only pay $175 per incident).
.c files. These are all things that a competent admin should be capable of understanding since none of it is really coding. I don't think I'm that rare either. I think I reflect a good percentage of the *nix using crowd.
For me, Linux works great at home, but I'm not "Joe Average". However, I'm not an uber-coder C/C++/Java hacker either. I consider myself to be an intermediate level user. Compiling from source is pretty easy for me. Resolving library dependencies isn't much of an issue either. I can even figure out why a compile fails in most cases and resolve the problem by editing a Makefile, altering or adding an environment variable or even editing some of the
At work, it's a mixed environment, so I get to play with various flavors of Unix, a little Linux, OpenVMS and of course Windows. The only reason we seem to need support is to give us someone to yell at when something doesn't work. Other than that, there have been many instances where we were just able to fix things ourselves and keep ticking away. I tend to disagree with my employer's belief that we need someone to yell at, but I'm not the head cheese (Two levels below him in the net admin ranks). Until I have a shop of my own, I'll be stuck in situations where the boss might want someone to account for things. But even in this environment, I've tended to fix a lot of things without having to resort to using support. That's why they pay me. Otherwise, why would anyone pay me just to admin a network?
Honestly. When it comes to the world of open source/free software, who really needs support if they know what they are doing. I haven't had to call anyone for software support since I made the move to Linux. Seriously folks, how many of you out there who consider yourselves to be competent enough IT people and can compile apps from source, or build a custom kernel and modules, actually need software support?
Even though RedHat is dropping it's free distribution, it's not really... There's Project Fedora which is actually quite impressive. It's basically the free RedHat distribution with a bunch of new (not ready for prime time) features built in that allow us to be even more bleeding edge than before. And if you REALLY need something tested and true, you've got Debian, Gentoo, hell even Linux From Scratch. The one thing that a Microsoft tends to not "get" is that many of us have no desire to be reliant on someone else. There is a lot to be said for self-sufficiency.
And I'll say one other thing. Boy am I glad I don't deal with software support anymore. Comptuers are still complex enough as it is that the last thing you want is a mouth breather on the other end perusing the same knowledgebase that you can look at yourself and then walking you through everything you've already tried. Now... if a company actually offered decent support, the desire might be a little different. But really. Who needs support these days? (This excludes anyone who can't compile from code. You don't have to be a programmer to be able to compile from source. Any competent admin can do it.)
Wait, I have a "better idea" (TM). Why don't we get servers to backup the data on the servers that back up the data on the servers that back up the data on the servers that backup the data on the ser
^Z
[1] loop ends
Here here! I second that opinion Fecal Troll Matter. Good to hear that we won't be pestered by those gits again.
And all our base are belong to them? ;P Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, but when a journalist screws up a quote, I just have to have a little fun.
If they want to BE like Apple Computers, they should just throw caution to the wind and do it. I imagine this doesn't bode well for Intel or AMD...
To be honest, I'll bet they are really vying to make their own chips for home users and set top boxes and keep Intel and AMD on the backend.
...what if I want to go jogging for 30 hours and don't want to carry a pack of CDs with me? Then what? Huh? ;P
Although Frito's Scoops are a pretty good deal too... Who's Moore? ;P
How long before the neocons see opportunities to "create wealth" (feh!) by making underground living spaces on the moon and nuke it to pieces. Anyone see the latest version of the Time Machine?