Congratulations! You have just been granted The Weirdest Analogy Of The Day award! The judges gave extra merit as the analogy was not only weird, but also irrational.
Linux isn't a desktop OS. No matter what people say, that's not its purpose.
If someone wants to use their computer to check e-mail, browse the web, or pay bills online, they should stick to OS X or Windows...
Ok. Could you maybe open that up a little?
See, for me linux looks like a very good desktop OS. On my old HP laptop Ubuntu works faster and more reliably than Windows 2000 that it replaced (it was also easier to install). Most of my computer use fits in to the categories you mentioned -- the fact that setting up a ssh daemon is possible is nice too, but that's just a bonus.
Now, how exactly would Windows or OS X do those three things you mentioned better than my (pretty much out-of-the-box) Ubuntu installation? I'm trying not to label you a troll, but you just gave no explanation to your opinions...
True, but if you start using Outlook don't count on ever getting rid of it -- exporting stuff out from it is hell. Outport mostly works, but when it doesn't, you're really out of luck.
I value my information enough to keep it in a format that is at least readable, preferably free.
"If MS had 50% of the market, SAMBA wouldn't have a case"
Even in that case Samba would have a winning case.
You have ALWAYS to allow for interoperatibility;...
Now you're mistaken. Of course companies are allowed to create proprietary solutions. Government-forced interoperability is only possible (or acceptable) in special circumstances, such as a monopoly.
Lexmark didn't have a patent on their toner chips and the reverse engineering that the competition did turned out to be perfectly legal even under the DMCA. If the cartridge-printer communication had been so complicated that it could not have been reverse engineered, I believe Lexmark would still be the only one selling toner for their printers.
What an insightful and thought-provoking, yet witty comment. Do you have a newsletter I could subscribe to?
Seriously, I don't use RH/Fedora myself but that doesn't stop me from realising that there are a lot of people that do use them. A lot people who think they're fine distros. If you are going to disagree with them, at least make some real arguments. I'll give you an extra point if those arguments have some connection to this spin-off.
Incidentally, Microsoft is perfectly capable of pulling its business completely out of EU nations, though that is of course an absolute last option. Note that such a move would be disastrous for consumers there (and don't think for a second that it wouldn't be), but Microsoft would continue as ever.
I don't buy that. EU is a huge economy with a lot of OS and office suite buyers. If Microsoft would pull out, someone else would take their place -- and then Microsoft would no longer have 90% of the office suite market in the world. Then their american customers would start demanding interoperability... Giving in to that would take away one of their strongest selling points.
If you ask me, MS can't afford to lose any single market in the world. After that it would just be downhill for them (IMHO to a healthier OS/office ecosystem).
In two years, Linux and the Mac have shown little growth at all
This is true only if increasing share by 50% is little growth... That kind of growth sustained for the next ten years would mean roughly 25% share for linux and a little less for Mac.
I'm not an OS expert, but I would have thought that the quite different designs of the operating systems you mentioned would affect this... It seem you believe the differences are not relevant. Is that just a hunch or can you justify that a bit more?
This wasn't about admission as evidence. This was about proving criminal intent. His intent was 'proven' with the existence of encryption software -- so GPs analogy was actually quite accurate.
...just remember to read up on some vulnerability reporting site (like secunia once in a while to see if it's safe to visit your bank online.
I'm not saying Firefox is without holes, just pointing out that MS doesn't really rush those security updates out... And that is a big part of all the stuff that sucks, if you ask me.
I think you've got your Meyers' mixed up... Sid is the game mogul, Russ is the director of masterpieces like Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! and Wild Gals of the Naked West.
The only worrisome thing is if Microsoft were to buy Sun and start slowly tightening the screws on Java.
Yours seems to be a simple world... There are many scenarios where the owner of Java might do stupid things. Just imagine Sun running out of money and selling everything valuable (if you think this is impossible, just remember what almost happened to big blue); or dividing into multiple separate companies, one of which would own only Java... There is no telling what would happen.
Not sure what doctors get these days in Russia, but AFAIK in Moscow any clerical job pays in the hundreds of dollars. Average wage for an engineer is probably closer to 1000$. In smaller cities things might be different, so your point might still apply. I just wanted to say that things seem to have changed a lot in a couple of years...
I'm not russian, so my info might be inaccurate -- please correct me if I'm wrong.
it was wrote as a full application runtime enviroment instead of just a browser, with much of the XUL stuff being useless with the advent of xmlhttprequest and good DOM support in major browsers.
Eh? I have a hard time imagining a browser UI developed with xmlhttp and DOM... Pretty much every XUL widget is used in (and was developed for) Mozilla browser UI, see for yourself: XULPlanet reference. Sure, it's slower but that's the price you pay for multiple platforms - I don't believe it's related to "useless XUL stuff".
We're getting a little far from Windows Graphic tech, but what the heck: Do you seriously think the average Joe understands Synaptic (or Windows Installers) any better than apt-get install programname? They might get the job done faster, but I don't believe that they know the difference between malicious commands and harmless install commands in a GUI easier than in CLI.
Look at these examples... You could talk a clueless user into doing any of them, but I'd say that "remove" in the apt-get command is just as dangerous sounding as the red "X" in Synaptic: CLI:
apt-get install programname
apt-get remove programname
GUI:
select "status: not installed" -> find row with "programname" --> set icon to yellow arrow.
select "status: installed" -> find row with "programname" --> set icon to red "X".
Yes, running unknown programs (like deltree in your example) is always risk in CLI, but that risk kind of reminds me of the thousands of cases of spyware installs where users click on innocent looking icons they downloaded from the web... Or, if you want to use the deltree example: Open Windows explorer -> navigate to C:\Program Files -> press Shift-del -> answer yes
With a good enough story that's all you need.
Yeah just like bitching about web standards is foolish and creating browsers that support web standards is stupid. Everyone will just keep using IE and web designers will design pages for IE.
Changing the world is not possible, don't even think about it.
At least in civilized countries law enforcement agencies have very little say in legalization of anything... Something to do with Montesquieu, I heard.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that Nokia outsells Motorola by 100%, there has to be something seriously wrong with the Motorola lineup (or marketing) then...
Congratulations! You have just been granted The Weirdest Analogy Of The Day award! The judges gave extra merit as the analogy was not only weird, but also irrational.
See, for me linux looks like a very good desktop OS. On my old HP laptop Ubuntu works faster and more reliably than Windows 2000 that it replaced (it was also easier to install). Most of my computer use fits in to the categories you mentioned -- the fact that setting up a ssh daemon is possible is nice too, but that's just a bonus.
Now, how exactly would Windows or OS X do those three things you mentioned better than my (pretty much out-of-the-box) Ubuntu installation? I'm trying not to label you a troll, but you just gave no explanation to your opinions...
Software giants do bully hardware vendors, Microsoft and others have been shown to do it. So where's the conspiracy?
I value my information enough to keep it in a format that is at least readable, preferably free.
Lexmark didn't have a patent on their toner chips and the reverse engineering that the competition did turned out to be perfectly legal even under the DMCA. If the cartridge-printer communication had been so complicated that it could not have been reverse engineered, I believe Lexmark would still be the only one selling toner for their printers.
Umm, yes. It does say so in the title (although only once and not in CAPS).
Seriously, I don't use RH/Fedora myself but that doesn't stop me from realising that there are a lot of people that do use them. A lot people who think they're fine distros. If you are going to disagree with them, at least make some real arguments. I'll give you an extra point if those arguments have some connection to this spin-off.
If you ask me, MS can't afford to lose any single market in the world. After that it would just be downhill for them (IMHO to a healthier OS/office ecosystem).
This is true only if increasing share by 50% is little growth... That kind of growth sustained for the next ten years would mean roughly 25% share for linux and a little less for Mac.
I'm not an OS expert, but I would have thought that the quite different designs of the operating systems you mentioned would affect this... It seem you believe the differences are not relevant. Is that just a hunch or can you justify that a bit more?
I'm sorry I left out the sarcasm tags (I thought it would have been a little too obvious...).
This wasn't about admission as evidence. This was about proving criminal intent. His intent was 'proven' with the existence of encryption software -- so GPs analogy was actually quite accurate.
You can get anywhere with that! Maybe they should call it Google Passport!
I'm not saying Firefox is without holes, just pointing out that MS doesn't really rush those security updates out... And that is a big part of all the stuff that sucks, if you ask me.
I think you've got your Meyers' mixed up... Sid is the game mogul, Russ is the director of masterpieces like Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! and Wild Gals of the Naked West.
I'm not russian, so my info might be inaccurate -- please correct me if I'm wrong.
Look at these examples... You could talk a clueless user into doing any of them, but I'd say that "remove" in the apt-get command is just as dangerous sounding as the red "X" in Synaptic:
CLI:
- apt-get install programname
- apt-get remove programname
GUI:- select "status: not installed" -> find row with "programname" --> set icon to yellow arrow.
- select "status: installed" -> find row with "programname" --> set icon to red "X".
Yes, running unknown programs (like deltree in your example) is always risk in CLI, but that risk kind of reminds me of the thousands of cases of spyware installs where users click on innocent looking icons they downloaded from the web... Or, if you want to use the deltree example:Open Windows explorer -> navigate to C:\Program Files -> press Shift-del -> answer yes
With a good enough story that's all you need.
Changing the world is not possible, don't even think about it.
What was your point?
At least in civilized countries law enforcement agencies have very little say in legalization of anything... Something to do with Montesquieu, I heard.