You haven't watched the Hitchhiker's Guide to the galaxy Movie It is pretty much Line by line from the book series, it's long as hell too, 1:1 translations are possible, just not very interesting
What, they already released a movie they just started filming?
Besides that, you *are* familiar with the compleat history of the hitchhiker's series, right? You know, how it originally started as a radio show, then was made into a book, then a tv series, then an Infocom adventure game (I might have the sequence off a little bit). How it was completely changed with each new adaptation of a story that was originally written one week at a time? You know about this, right? So, not only is a literal translation of the book *not* expected, it's also *not* wanted.
Oh, Jackson's done a fantastic job. And I have no doubt that ROTK will rock my world as well. I get massively annoyed by these fanboys who appear to think that Tolkien is somehow "above" film adaptation, and even though it's perfectly fine to fold, spindle, or mutilate any OTHER book to make it into a movie, LOTR must be 100% literal or not exist at all. Riiiiiiiiiigh-t.
I'll tell you this much::)
I slogged through FOTR and still put it down before getting to the end. I found it to be the driest, most boring read I'd ever struggled with. (I actually intend to give the series another shot after ROTK) But I remember some parts of the book that were annoyingly long and particularly boring.
Jackson has taken those parts of the book and turned them into very exciting heart-pounding scenes. I didn't think much of the confrontation between Strider, the Hobbits, and the wraiths (I forget what they're called). I thought it was really really really boring. And the way Frodo was poisoned and turning into one of them just drug on and on and on. Man. Like this post. But in the movie, I was at the edge of my seat, terrified like I've never been watching a movie. I have to say that Jackson has definitely got his work cut out for him, but that he's doing a splendid job. Of course, I didn't read the whole series, but I am fairly adequate at identifying scenes that look blatantly hollywoodly boner scenes (added, not present in the book, for no discernible reason), and it doesn't appear that there are that many of them. All in all, while it's a sure bet Jackson is making small modifications to the subplots and probably dropping some entirely, what can you expect?
You're absolutely right that it's very difficult to take a book and make a movie out of it. There are atrocious examples of hollywood taking books and turning them into whatever movie they intended to make (Starship Troopers, although I did enjoy it a lot) and just using the notoriety and familiarity of the author to brand and sell the movie (any given Stephen King movie). But Jackson is doing something that is divorced from all of that, and he is really adding his own touch to LOTR, and I, for one, welcome our new LOTR overlords.
(chuckles) I was making an illustrative example. People (not me) complained about Revolutions starting by wrapping up Reloaded. Now they're complaining that ROTK is *not* starting by wrapping up TTT.
The entire Back to the Future trilogy is similar to this. I think the problem stems from the same thing that caused the original plotholes in the star wars trilogy. When the first movie was made, nobody expected any sequels. Lucas came out and said (at the time, I suspect he's "revised" his own story) that he didn't expect star wars to do so well, and he didn't *have* a story to continue. Yet Episodes 5 and 6 go well together as a duo, while Ep 4 stands out like a sore thumb. Same with Back to the Future. The first one stands on its own, completely. The second and third run right into each other, and are essentially the same movie (albeit with separate and distinct storylines).
LOTR is totally different. They *knew* from the beginning they were either gonna make three movies, or piss off the entire D&D-playing world (I don't know about you, but pissing off a bunch of gamers isn't my idea of "smart"). They don't have any excuses for using ROTK to wrap up TTT, since they knew before they even made the first that they were making three movies. Presumably they had already written screenplays and did some sort of storyboarding for all three movies before filming *any* of FOTR.
Two disclaimers: I haven't read the books. I struggled through the Hobbit, and then tried to slog my way through FOTR. There's just something about Tolkien's style of writing that I have problems with. On the other hand, I loved the Shannara books, and those were a blatant ripoff of Tolkien's storytelling. Go figure. Second, I'm not a filmmaker, and I probably only know as much about filmmaking as Michael Moore. (Ok, that last part's a troll)
Personally, what makes the most sense to me is to film the entire story, making the best adaptation you can, and *then* cut it up into 3, 4, 5, or 6 movies or whatever, and release them in rapid succession. (I wish Lucas had done that with the new star wars movies. He'd have had to do more to preserve continuity, in that case)
I know how to set up a Linux router, and until they became so cheap, I used to run a 486 as my personal NAT router. Today, however, even using the old parts I've collected over time, a Linux router still can't compete price-wise with a store bought model.
I wasn't actually trying to compete with price, but with function instead.:) The GP had said that a solution where you spent $250 on hardware and then still had to cram an OS on it wasn't useful. But for $60 - $100 USD, assuming old comp hardware laying around, a homebuilt Linux-based router would be much more useful than any router you can get. Think about it like this. Most WAPs I've seen have been significantly cheaper than wireless equipped routers (half the cost at least). Instead of buying a new wireless router every few years so I can have faster wireless, I could just keep slapping on WAPs to support new standards. It's all about TCO, and function.
Likewise linux developers are very happy to have the flexibility to run windows application under linux when all the OS calls will be stable under WINE.
Um, that's never going to happen, seeing as how the Wine developers have explicitly stated that they intend to implement the win32 API "bug for bug".
In other words, you are out of luck unless you get support from your linux vendor and in turn your linux vendor is entitled to virtualpc support from MS.
Does that mean that Microsoft has unwittingly credited Free Software as having a business model based on support services? If so, then it's a pretty significant milestone to have accomplished.
1. Route packets as best as it can. Do not intentionally destroy, edit, delete, mutilate, or otherwise change any packet.
I agree, I don't have a problem with a company giving you more advertising after you've bought something. If they're smart, they'll approach you as "We want to build a lasting relationship with you" rather than "We want to get as much money out of you as possible." In the first case, there's an opportunity for me to benefit as a customer. In the second case, I don't want to give them the money at all.
The problem with their method is as you outlined. THey broke the core function of the product in order to advertise. I have scripts I periodically run as part of my work that do a lot of http requests (parsing search results, parsing client web pages, and so forth), and I would be in big trouble if I turned in a report to my client and said "This is how your web page gets ranked in relevance" and my client said "What is 'Parental Control Service'?". My business is small, so we use many low-grade consumer pieces of hardware (incidentally, the routers probably also have in their fine print something that says "suitable for home/office use only"), and something like this could be potentially devastating to one of my own customer relationships. Didn't anybody there ever think, even once, "It's great we're advertising this service, but we've broken the product. We can no longer guarantee huge uptimes, because we already know that one http request every 8 hours will be redirected. Our product can't be reliable if it's already known to redirect requests." This advertising method doesn't pass the common sense test, so obviously Belkin needs to institute some sort of Common Sense Training(tm).
I've configured one of those low-end Linksys routers about a year ago, and remember running into tons of pain when the thing tried using an MTU that was six bytes off. After a firmware upgrade, it let me manually set the value, but I was never impressed with Linksys' products.
Really? I found my Linksys router plugged in and just fucking worked. Like good things should. I've been very pleased with my Linksys, especially compared to the netgear piece of crap I had before.
Of course, now that Linksys turns out to be evil for violating the GPL, and Belkin can't be trusted for awhile either, and considering that I *am* a bit upset that 11g came out so quickly after I bought my router (which had 11b), I'm thinking I'll be better off building my next router from scratch, and just using a switch to network my wired computers. Get a WAP and plug it in, and when a new standard comes out, just get the plugin box for it (and update my kernel as needed).
On a side note, to my knowledge D-link has been Linux-friendly for awhile and done no harm. I could be wrong, but I was pretty happy that they included redundant Linux drivers on their driver disk (I say redundant because my 2.4.x series kernel already supported the card).
I would like to thank Belkin for supporting me in my purchase of a Linksys router instead...
Didn't Linksys embed Linux and distribute it as binary without proper GPL notifications, and then subsequently refused to comply with GPL requirements that they give the source code to any customer who asks?
I must admit, I find this post quite reasonable. That doesn't mean what they did was right, don't get me wrong, but I have to agree that the method does achieve their goals of usability.
I would suggest that if they intend to be reasonable like this in response, they should add to their list of goals, in the future, "hardware should be trusted, since it will be relied on for security, no matter what we put in our fine print. Therefore it will always behave as the user expects it to behave."
If that goal was listed right next to their usability goal, they wouldn't have done this stoooopid thing in the first place.:)
Hmmm... $220 for a router that I'd have to spend hours squeezing an OS into and configuring from scratch, or $60 for a home router that include 802.11b, and most of the basic settings preconfigured for me. Gosh, that's a difficult choice. Configuring things from scratch is fun and all, but it's not really $160 worth of fun, especially when I'd likely end up with a product with fewer functions than I have right now.
2 network cards, a USB Wireless Access Point, and a 4-port switch (or more, if you prefer), that old Pentium piece of shit laying in the back, and fli4l.
Microsoft can't afford to sling the "GPL is invalid" FUD and the like. They need someone else to do it for them. It's as simple as that. If Microsoft bought them (easy enough to do) then the whole world would know that Microsoft is behind the FUD and MS would end up getting sued by IBM. Which is bigger overall? I think IBM is bigger than MS quite frankly. IBM Corp reaches much farther than MS IMHO. I really don't think MS wants that battle.
IN my own fantasy world, Microsoft buys SCO right after they lose their suit against IBM in order to fund the GPL court battle and fully leverage their own resources to utilize them to the greatest potential against their competitors (Microsoft can't just "try to kick ass", they have to do a bunch of corporate mumbo-jumbo). Then IBM kicks their ass and is finally able to slap down Microsoft.
Take DOS from us, will you? Take PCs from us, will you? Fuck over OS/2, will you? FUCK YOU.
SCO would like to be purchased by anyone, MS included, but I can't think of
any reason MS would do that. Buying a UnixWare license is one thing, but
if MS bought SCO, it would raise all sorts of unpleasant questions about how
SCO's current actions line up with the antitrust settlement terms. Microsoft
will leave SCO as an independent entity, I think.
What's actually going on, or so I observed the other day when I was driving around in Kirkland and stumbled across Bill Gates and Steve Balmer in McDonald's. The conversation I overheard was something like this:
Steve: So did you read the latest about SCO?
Bill: Yeah, something about offering to pay people to migrate away from Linux.
Steve: I can get those guys to do anything. *snicker*
Bill: Whadya mean, exactly?
Steve: I put them up to that. *snicker snicker*
Bill: Eh? YOU put them up to that?
Steve: *burst out laughing*
Bill: *snicker* Why you little--*snicker*
Steve: *laughing with tears now* It's great! Darling McBride will do anything I want! *laughing uproariously*
Bill: *laughing a bit now* How did you get him to do it? *snicker snicker*
Steve: *laughs uncontrollably for a few minutes*
Steve: *laughing more, but getting control of himself again* You'll never *laughs* You'll never guess! *laughs uproariously again*
Bill: *laughing a bit more* Tell me, please! *snicker snicker*
Steve: *laughing* Well, I hahahahaha, I just hahahahahahahaha. I told Darl that if he paid people to move away from Linux we'd buy SCO! *laughs some more*
Bill: *sober* Oooo, the stockholders aren't gonna like that. Did he get you on paper?
Steve: *can't stop laughing now* FUCK No! You don't think I was serious, do you? *laughs uncontrollably*
Bill: You're just going to leave SCO hanging?
Steve: *laughs uncontrollably for a few minutes*
Bill: *laughs uncontrollably for a few minutes
At this point, I left because I realized how bad McDonald's food really is.
Of course Microsoft would never be behind something like this. Um. Because, uh, anyone?
Because it's stoooo - pid.
Now I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy here, but one thing's for sure: Gates and Co. aren't dumb. They may be clones, but they're not stupid clones.
Let's be honest - what features does linux have that NT needs ?
Um, lack of buffer-overflow exploits.
Oh yeah, and thousands of developers not on Microsoft's payroll means cheap development. (Of course, Microsoft the Control Freak wouldn't be able to work with that model anyway)
"The Internet created -- and creatively destroyed -- great wealth. It also created a culture legitimizing intellectual property theft," said McBride. "When you defend intellectual property, you speak an unpleasant truth. People don't like to hear unpleasant truths. The alternative to this fight, however, is the death of an industry and thousands of jobs lost."
I just realized, McBride is starting a political career.:( After SCO self-destructs, expect him to run for office in Utah. Maybe Governor? idk. Don't be surprised if, in the next 20 years, we hear Darl McBride announcing his intentions to run for President. Not that I think he'll be that successful as a politician, just that it seems that Presidents these days all have something like this in their past.
Slashdot Mirror
That was truly find acting.
THat's funny, I thought that "find acting" is what Christopher Lee and those other dildos in the Attack of the Clones were doing...
Something to think about :)
A summary of the post:
Watch out for the little fuckers. They'll get you every time.
You haven't watched the Hitchhiker's Guide to the galaxy Movie It is pretty much Line by line from the book series, it's long as hell too, 1:1 translations are possible, just not very interesting
What, they already released a movie they just started filming?
Besides that, you *are* familiar with the compleat history of the hitchhiker's series, right? You know, how it originally started as a radio show, then was made into a book, then a tv series, then an Infocom adventure game (I might have the sequence off a little bit). How it was completely changed with each new adaptation of a story that was originally written one week at a time? You know about this, right? So, not only is a literal translation of the book *not* expected, it's also *not* wanted.
Oh, Jackson's done a fantastic job. And I have no doubt that ROTK will rock my world as well. I get massively annoyed by these fanboys who appear to think that Tolkien is somehow "above" film adaptation, and even though it's perfectly fine to fold, spindle, or mutilate any OTHER book to make it into a movie, LOTR must be 100% literal or not exist at all. Riiiiiiiiiigh-t.
I'll tell you this much: :)
I slogged through FOTR and still put it down before getting to the end. I found it to be the driest, most boring read I'd ever struggled with. (I actually intend to give the series another shot after ROTK) But I remember some parts of the book that were annoyingly long and particularly boring.
Jackson has taken those parts of the book and turned them into very exciting heart-pounding scenes. I didn't think much of the confrontation between Strider, the Hobbits, and the wraiths (I forget what they're called). I thought it was really really really boring. And the way Frodo was poisoned and turning into one of them just drug on and on and on. Man. Like this post. But in the movie, I was at the edge of my seat, terrified like I've never been watching a movie. I have to say that Jackson has definitely got his work cut out for him, but that he's doing a splendid job. Of course, I didn't read the whole series, but I am fairly adequate at identifying scenes that look blatantly hollywoodly boner scenes (added, not present in the book, for no discernible reason), and it doesn't appear that there are that many of them. All in all, while it's a sure bet Jackson is making small modifications to the subplots and probably dropping some entirely, what can you expect?
You're absolutely right that it's very difficult to take a book and make a movie out of it. There are atrocious examples of hollywood taking books and turning them into whatever movie they intended to make (Starship Troopers, although I did enjoy it a lot) and just using the notoriety and familiarity of the author to brand and sell the movie (any given Stephen King movie). But Jackson is doing something that is divorced from all of that, and he is really adding his own touch to LOTR, and I, for one, welcome our new LOTR overlords.
(chuckles) I was making an illustrative example. People (not me) complained about Revolutions starting by wrapping up Reloaded. Now they're complaining that ROTK is *not* starting by wrapping up TTT.
The entire Back to the Future trilogy is similar to this. I think the problem stems from the same thing that caused the original plotholes in the star wars trilogy. When the first movie was made, nobody expected any sequels. Lucas came out and said (at the time, I suspect he's "revised" his own story) that he didn't expect star wars to do so well, and he didn't *have* a story to continue. Yet Episodes 5 and 6 go well together as a duo, while Ep 4 stands out like a sore thumb. Same with Back to the Future. The first one stands on its own, completely. The second and third run right into each other, and are essentially the same movie (albeit with separate and distinct storylines).
LOTR is totally different. They *knew* from the beginning they were either gonna make three movies, or piss off the entire D&D-playing world (I don't know about you, but pissing off a bunch of gamers isn't my idea of "smart"). They don't have any excuses for using ROTK to wrap up TTT, since they knew before they even made the first that they were making three movies. Presumably they had already written screenplays and did some sort of storyboarding for all three movies before filming *any* of FOTR.
Two disclaimers: I haven't read the books. I struggled through the Hobbit, and then tried to slog my way through FOTR. There's just something about Tolkien's style of writing that I have problems with. On the other hand, I loved the Shannara books, and those were a blatant ripoff of Tolkien's storytelling. Go figure. Second, I'm not a filmmaker, and I probably only know as much about filmmaking as Michael Moore. (Ok, that last part's a troll)
Personally, what makes the most sense to me is to film the entire story, making the best adaptation you can, and *then* cut it up into 3, 4, 5, or 6 movies or whatever, and release them in rapid succession. (I wish Lucas had done that with the new star wars movies. He'd have had to do more to preserve continuity, in that case)
I know how to set up a Linux router, and until they became so cheap, I used to run a 486 as my personal NAT router. Today, however, even using the old parts I've collected over time, a Linux router still can't compete price-wise with a store bought model.
I wasn't actually trying to compete with price, but with function instead. :) The GP had said that a solution where you spent $250 on hardware and then still had to cram an OS on it wasn't useful. But for $60 - $100 USD, assuming old comp hardware laying around, a homebuilt Linux-based router would be much more useful than any router you can get. Think about it like this. Most WAPs I've seen have been significantly cheaper than wireless equipped routers (half the cost at least). Instead of buying a new wireless router every few years so I can have faster wireless, I could just keep slapping on WAPs to support new standards. It's all about TCO, and function.
isn't that like wearing a raincoat so you don't get wet while riding in a boat with a hole in the bottom of it...hehe
Or wearing a rubber while your boyfriend slams you in the ass without one?
Sorry, I saw "wearing a raincoat" and had to come up with a useless way to use a condom.
Likewise linux developers are very happy to have the flexibility to run windows application under linux when all the OS calls will be stable under WINE.
Um, that's never going to happen, seeing as how the Wine developers have explicitly stated that they intend to implement the win32 API "bug for bug".
IMO means it should be avoided like the plaque.
So, if I brush my teeth in the morning, at night, and after every meal, I won't have to deal with VPC or plaque?
In other words, you are out of luck unless you get support from your linux vendor and in turn your linux vendor is entitled to virtualpc support from MS.
Does that mean that Microsoft has unwittingly credited Free Software as having a business model based on support services? If so, then it's a pretty significant milestone to have accomplished.
1. Route packets as best as it can. Do not intentionally destroy, edit, delete, mutilate, or otherwise change any packet.
I agree, I don't have a problem with a company giving you more advertising after you've bought something. If they're smart, they'll approach you as "We want to build a lasting relationship with you" rather than "We want to get as much money out of you as possible." In the first case, there's an opportunity for me to benefit as a customer. In the second case, I don't want to give them the money at all.
The problem with their method is as you outlined. THey broke the core function of the product in order to advertise. I have scripts I periodically run as part of my work that do a lot of http requests (parsing search results, parsing client web pages, and so forth), and I would be in big trouble if I turned in a report to my client and said "This is how your web page gets ranked in relevance" and my client said "What is 'Parental Control Service'?". My business is small, so we use many low-grade consumer pieces of hardware (incidentally, the routers probably also have in their fine print something that says "suitable for home/office use only"), and something like this could be potentially devastating to one of my own customer relationships. Didn't anybody there ever think, even once, "It's great we're advertising this service, but we've broken the product. We can no longer guarantee huge uptimes, because we already know that one http request every 8 hours will be redirected. Our product can't be reliable if it's already known to redirect requests." This advertising method doesn't pass the common sense test, so obviously Belkin needs to institute some sort of Common Sense Training(tm).
I am available to train the monkeys.
I've configured one of those low-end Linksys routers about a year ago, and remember running into tons of pain when the thing tried using an MTU that was six bytes off. After a firmware upgrade, it let me manually set the value, but I was never impressed with Linksys' products.
Really? I found my Linksys router plugged in and just fucking worked. Like good things should. I've been very pleased with my Linksys, especially compared to the netgear piece of crap I had before.
Of course, now that Linksys turns out to be evil for violating the GPL, and Belkin can't be trusted for awhile either, and considering that I *am* a bit upset that 11g came out so quickly after I bought my router (which had 11b), I'm thinking I'll be better off building my next router from scratch, and just using a switch to network my wired computers. Get a WAP and plug it in, and when a new standard comes out, just get the plugin box for it (and update my kernel as needed).
On a side note, to my knowledge D-link has been Linux-friendly for awhile and done no harm. I could be wrong, but I was pretty happy that they included redundant Linux drivers on their driver disk (I say redundant because my 2.4.x series kernel already supported the card).
I would like to thank Belkin for supporting me in my purchase of a Linksys router instead...
Didn't Linksys embed Linux and distribute it as binary without proper GPL notifications, and then subsequently refused to comply with GPL requirements that they give the source code to any customer who asks?
I must admit, I find this post quite reasonable. That doesn't mean what they did was right, don't get me wrong, but I have to agree that the method does achieve their goals of usability.
I would suggest that if they intend to be reasonable like this in response, they should add to their list of goals, in the future, "hardware should be trusted, since it will be relied on for security, no matter what we put in our fine print. Therefore it will always behave as the user expects it to behave."
If that goal was listed right next to their usability goal, they wouldn't have done this stoooopid thing in the first place. :)
Hmmm... $220 for a router that I'd have to spend hours squeezing an OS into and configuring from scratch, or $60 for a home router that include 802.11b, and most of the basic settings preconfigured for me. Gosh, that's a difficult choice. Configuring things from scratch is fun and all, but it's not really $160 worth of fun, especially when I'd likely end up with a product with fewer functions than I have right now.
2 network cards, a USB Wireless Access Point, and a 4-port switch (or more, if you prefer), that old Pentium piece of shit laying in the back, and fli4l.
Ignoring Newton makes Baby Jesus cry.
So throw his ass into the pool, just like they did with Moses. Except, um, leave out the miniature ark. I don't think he needs that.
What about Kilroy? OH yeah, he wasn't a robot, with parts made in Japan. Secret secret, he's got a secret. Blah.
What about the robots Kilroy impersonated in order to escape, reinvent rock music, and overthrow the totalitarian government?
Why not just nominate Kryton? Next to the other guys, he actually turned out to be the smartest character on the show!
Oh, thank goodness! Because I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.
(I was set up! I swear!)
Microsoft can't afford to sling the "GPL is invalid" FUD and the like. They need someone else to do it for them. It's as simple as that. If Microsoft bought them (easy enough to do) then the whole world would know that Microsoft is behind the FUD and MS would end up getting sued by IBM. Which is bigger overall? I think IBM is bigger than MS quite frankly. IBM Corp reaches much farther than MS IMHO. I really don't think MS wants that battle.
IN my own fantasy world, Microsoft buys SCO right after they lose their suit against IBM in order to fund the GPL court battle and fully leverage their own resources to utilize them to the greatest potential against their competitors (Microsoft can't just "try to kick ass", they have to do a bunch of corporate mumbo-jumbo). Then IBM kicks their ass and is finally able to slap down Microsoft.
Take DOS from us, will you? Take PCs from us, will you? Fuck over OS/2, will you? FUCK YOU.
This party's over.
Here comes the reckoning.............DAY
SCO would like to be purchased by anyone, MS included, but I can't think of any reason MS would do that. Buying a UnixWare license is one thing, but if MS bought SCO, it would raise all sorts of unpleasant questions about how SCO's current actions line up with the antitrust settlement terms. Microsoft will leave SCO as an independent entity, I think.
What's actually going on, or so I observed the other day when I was driving around in Kirkland and stumbled across Bill Gates and Steve Balmer in McDonald's. The conversation I overheard was something like this:
Steve: So did you read the latest about SCO?
Bill: Yeah, something about offering to pay people to migrate away from Linux.
Steve: I can get those guys to do anything. *snicker*
Bill: Whadya mean, exactly?
Steve: I put them up to that. *snicker snicker*
Bill: Eh? YOU put them up to that?
Steve: *burst out laughing*
Bill: *snicker* Why you little--*snicker*
Steve: *laughing with tears now* It's great! Darling McBride will do anything I want! *laughing uproariously*
Bill: *laughing a bit now* How did you get him to do it? *snicker snicker*
Steve: *laughs uncontrollably for a few minutes*
Steve: *laughing more, but getting control of himself again* You'll never *laughs* You'll never guess! *laughs uproariously again*
Bill: *laughing a bit more* Tell me, please! *snicker snicker*
Steve: *laughing* Well, I hahahahaha, I just hahahahahahahaha. I told Darl that if he paid people to move away from Linux we'd buy SCO! *laughs some more*
Bill: *sober* Oooo, the stockholders aren't gonna like that. Did he get you on paper?
Steve: *can't stop laughing now* FUCK No! You don't think I was serious, do you? *laughs uncontrollably*
Bill: You're just going to leave SCO hanging?
Steve: *laughs uncontrollably for a few minutes*
Bill: *laughs uncontrollably for a few minutes
At this point, I left because I realized how bad McDonald's food really is.
Of course Microsoft would never be behind something like this. Um. Because, uh, anyone?
Because it's stoooo - pid.
Now I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy here, but one thing's for sure: Gates and Co. aren't dumb. They may be clones, but they're not stupid clones.
What about AmigaOS?
I thought that might fit.
What, you mean that full-torso free floating vaporous apparition?
Let's be honest - what features does linux have that NT needs ?
Um, lack of buffer-overflow exploits.
Oh yeah, and thousands of developers not on Microsoft's payroll means cheap development. (Of course, Microsoft the Control Freak wouldn't be able to work with that model anyway)
"The Internet created -- and creatively destroyed -- great wealth. It also created a culture legitimizing intellectual property theft," said McBride. "When you defend intellectual property, you speak an unpleasant truth. People don't like to hear unpleasant truths. The alternative to this fight, however, is the death of an industry and thousands of jobs lost."
I just realized, McBride is starting a political career. :( After SCO self-destructs, expect him to run for office in Utah. Maybe Governor? idk. Don't be surprised if, in the next 20 years, we hear Darl McBride announcing his intentions to run for President. Not that I think he'll be that successful as a politician, just that it seems that Presidents these days all have something like this in their past.