Exactly. The article that I got the Microsoft statistics were also, incidentely, talking about how it was a "disappointing" result. While the article for the AMD stats were raving about how good it was, that they rebounded from a $140 million loss.
burning CDs and DVDs on some distributions (like Fedora Core)
Is it hard to do that on Red Hat? I haven't used Red Hat recently, but I'm just curious. (Though I personally use Debian) I used mandrake not long ago and it was literally as easy as installing it then running k3b which is as easy to use as Nero - in fact I'd give the crown to Mandrake over WinXP in that respect. In fact all of those things except OCR (which I've never heard of) and modems (which I have no experience of in mandrake) are a breeze. You don't ever have to use the command line.
But anyway, why is Red Hat different burning cd/dvds?
That linux is hard to set up is a thing of the past with Mandrake and Red Hat (though I haven't used that) and Knoppix. Mandrake took me forty five minutes to fully install (I mean including graphics drivers and updates). Windows XP takes over two hours. Only debian is particularly hard to install, but that's only if you don't know exactly what you're doing, otherwise it's really quite easy.
*sigh* I hate people judging without personal experience.
I've seen the movie once a long time ago when I was quite young - I was probably about 12 or so, and I do remember being tired as anything cause I watched it at a friends house and didn't get any sleep for the past few day. The only parts I can remember is the basic storyline, what happened in the end and that there was a really weird ending with Ben Affleck and the guy that played the manipulative daemon in Dogma and that girl. So basically I can't remember the names of characters specific to that film, and I can't remember most of the minor dialogue.
Never-the-less, I don't think I should be tested for Alzheimers.
Re:Sacrifice hardware for the good of software?
on
How Cheap Can A PC Be?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Though I know (or at least I think, I'm not actually sure) that's a joke, I just want to back you up with monetary values.
When you pay the couple of hundred dollars for a good CPU, you pay mostly for the cost of research not the cost of production. If you look at AMD's revenue vs. profit, net revenue was $1.26 Billion for Q2, while profit was $32 million. In other words that's about a 2.5% profit ratio.
NVidia was in a similar situation. $456.1 million revenue. $5.1 million profit. That's just over 1% profit.
Contrast that with Microsoft, last quarter they earnt $9.19 billion with a profit of $2.9 billion! That's over 30% profit for software!
If you're talking about Chasing Amy, I have seen the movie and can't remember that dialog.
But anyway I was giving a compliment, saying "I don't recognize the reference though I've heard the actual joke before, but that's hilerious anyway" so grow up and try defending something that needs defending.
The problem with the article is that it just has more openly glaring factual errors or misrepresentations than the "get the facts" campaign. I'm all for printing facts and letting the reader determine what's right or wrong. But really, half of the readers of slashdot just read the summaries. They don't read the comments or the articles. Look at the summary - it looks fine, told in the usual slashdot vogue. Click through to the story and you'll see crap, but half the readers won't be enlightened by the multiple layers of crap in that article, and will believe that the summary is true, that IBM are in trouble, have broken the law, and are dishonest.
Now nothing came out of it this time since there was a virtual retraction posted not long later, but slashdot, like it or not, is a respected news website with what I've heard is a million readers. Many people trust what they read without reading the articles, and public harm can come of it.
That's an old one, I've heard it before, I don't know who Banky Edwards is let alone Holden (where I assume you don't mean the car dealership), but I must say, that is perhaps the most entertaining telling of that joke I've ever heard!
I agree in a way. Slashdot has the right and in fact the job to link to the stories that concern nerds as well as the open source community.
But really, come on! This one was just stupid. Slashdot do have the editorial as well, and some bloody common sense has to be used! Just take this exert:
Well, during the Third Amended Complaint discussion, SCO's lawyer held up a piece of paper - that was duplicated on a projection screen that only the magistrate judge, Brooke Wells, could see - that listed all of the AIX code that IBM has and hasn't turned over to SCO. And SCO's lawyer pointed out that the only piece of code that IBM hasn't come up with - which was highlighted in red - was the AIX-on-Power code - to which IBM's lawyer replied that IBM "can't find it."
On-Power code???? Can't find it? If that's real then my mum's turned into a five hundred kilo shark-eating baby panda. And a sad one at that. Could you imagine a lawyer saying "umm ahh I can't find it! I was in Australia the other day and there was this really good looking girl and an available closet that I might have mislaid her, I mean it, in..."
God - really common sense has to occasionally be used. Though I'm not in favour of censorship, such a blatant and unrealistic article should have at least been delayed a day or so before release.
Of course it is, as is the shying away from the HTML standard - it's all strategic. I have a feeling that if they lose to Firefox then they're going to have a harder time taking back than when they were losing against Netscape though.
umm let's do the maths. They have 2000 machines. Since you can't install Panther on a windows machine they'd have to buy completely new computers. Lets value those computers at an ultra conservative $1000. Even then that's a cost of $2 000 000. That's gotta be a bit frightening to put on a form for "spyware protection". FreeBSD is a better suggestion, though I still think that to get the best of both worlds as well as a pretty much 0 cost maintainability you should go with a KDE debian linux setup.
You can't just say "No it is not" or "Yes you can". Though I'm naturally biased towards linux as a linux user, swapping OSs is a decision that has to be specific to the company.
Firstly, Linux is most definitely ready for the mainstream, it is currently far ahead of Windows XP (which is, after all, 3-4 years old) in technology and definitely usability. There I don't see an issue, and I'm just bringing it up to refute your point, as you obviously haven't used a linux box that's less than three years old. That guess can be proven since, in the last three years (that's a round-down guess) I've installed linux on a variety of computers using a variety of peripherals and I have not had a single hardware problem in that time-frame. Hardware problems are a thing of the past, especially since in a networked environment you don't need to worry about those damned winmodems.
Other than that, you can't just say that it's impossible to change. You can't just say "why don't you go ahead and change cause it's soooo much better" either. You have to look at the specific company and see if it relies on Windows only products, how feasable it is to change over, how expensive it is to hire people to install the new operating system and programs, and whether the costs of saving microsoft lisenses account for those costs, how much it will cost to train users, or whether in the specific application you actually need to train people to use the software, as well as any other relevant arguments that are specific for your company.
Please don't be so ingnorant to completely dismiss everything that you haven't used recently or that you're not comfortable, and please "get the facts" before you rush to any conclusions as you have. The exact opposite I think goes to the grandparent poster.
That pile of cash can be wittled away very quickly if they aren't just forced to not sell anything, but are forced to fight a losing marketing battle which, again, can get extremely expensive.
None-the-less you're right - Microsoft won't burn in a day.
Of course, not as if Windows even has a 64-bit OS yet which is what matters for a lot of people (not me tho).
Use linux!
(not aimed at parent, he hinted that he uses linux. It's aimed at everyone else stupid enough to have an A64 CPU and is not using 64 bit linux!)
I didn't look at the kernel vunerabilities in thoroughness, mostly because the first one that I looked at had the fix "upgrade to the next version of the kernel - it's fixed there".
I try not to troll, and it's not likely that you'll see this anyway (being an anonymous coward and all) but you are just an idiot for showing a link claiming that linux is less secure because it doesn't have as high-a EAL as Windows. You're saying "this company that owns pretty much a hundred billion worth of assets (not real stats) has a higher EAL than an operating system that's given away for free".
The reason why you're an idiot for believing that piece of crap is that EAL costs money! A quick search gleaned that Microsoft made 1.5 billion pounds worth of profits last quarter. In comparison Redhat made 47.6 million. Redhat doesn't have the money to spend millions (and yes it does cost millions) of dollars for an EAL writing.
This is aside from the fact that EAL requirements doesn't test something like . . . say . . . going on the internet . . . connecting to a network . . . installing any piece of software . . .
where on earth have you gotten those values from? I don't know about the linux kernel vulnerabilities, but I can definitely pick out more than 1 windows XP vulnerability! Hell I can even exploit more than one vulnerability!
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. The article that I got the Microsoft statistics were also, incidentely, talking about how it was a "disappointing" result. While the article for the AMD stats were raving about how good it was, that they rebounded from a $140 million loss.
burning CDs and DVDs on some distributions (like Fedora Core)
Is it hard to do that on Red Hat? I haven't used Red Hat recently, but I'm just curious. (Though I personally use Debian) I used mandrake not long ago and it was literally as easy as installing it then running k3b which is as easy to use as Nero - in fact I'd give the crown to Mandrake over WinXP in that respect. In fact all of those things except OCR (which I've never heard of) and modems (which I have no experience of in mandrake) are a breeze. You don't ever have to use the command line.
But anyway, why is Red Hat different burning cd/dvds?
That linux is hard to set up is a thing of the past with Mandrake and Red Hat (though I haven't used that) and Knoppix. Mandrake took me forty five minutes to fully install (I mean including graphics drivers and updates). Windows XP takes over two hours. Only debian is particularly hard to install, but that's only if you don't know exactly what you're doing, otherwise it's really quite easy.
*sigh* I hate people judging without personal experience.
I've seen the movie once a long time ago when I was quite young - I was probably about 12 or so, and I do remember being tired as anything cause I watched it at a friends house and didn't get any sleep for the past few day. The only parts I can remember is the basic storyline, what happened in the end and that there was a really weird ending with Ben Affleck and the guy that played the manipulative daemon in Dogma and that girl. So basically I can't remember the names of characters specific to that film, and I can't remember most of the minor dialogue.
Never-the-less, I don't think I should be tested for Alzheimers.
Though I know (or at least I think, I'm not actually sure) that's a joke, I just want to back you up with monetary values.
When you pay the couple of hundred dollars for a good CPU, you pay mostly for the cost of research not the cost of production. If you look at AMD's revenue vs. profit, net revenue was $1.26 Billion for Q2, while profit was $32 million. In other words that's about a 2.5% profit ratio.
NVidia was in a similar situation. $456.1 million revenue. $5.1 million profit. That's just over 1% profit.
Contrast that with Microsoft, last quarter they earnt $9.19 billion with a profit of $2.9 billion! That's over 30% profit for software!
ISpell
The difference is that Windows will set up all users as administrators, true, but running as a plain user can be very bad too.
...
Perhaps another problem with this, I remember saying before, is that most clueless users will just respond to the following instructions:
1. Login as root.
2.
Yep. Everyone except YOU!!!
If you're talking about Chasing Amy, I have seen the movie and can't remember that dialog.
But anyway I was giving a compliment, saying "I don't recognize the reference though I've heard the actual joke before, but that's hilerious anyway" so grow up and try defending something that needs defending.
The problem with the article is that it just has more openly glaring factual errors or misrepresentations than the "get the facts" campaign. I'm all for printing facts and letting the reader determine what's right or wrong. But really, half of the readers of slashdot just read the summaries. They don't read the comments or the articles. Look at the summary - it looks fine, told in the usual slashdot vogue. Click through to the story and you'll see crap, but half the readers won't be enlightened by the multiple layers of crap in that article, and will believe that the summary is true, that IBM are in trouble, have broken the law, and are dishonest.
Now nothing came out of it this time since there was a virtual retraction posted not long later, but slashdot, like it or not, is a respected news website with what I've heard is a million readers. Many people trust what they read without reading the articles, and public harm can come of it.
That's an old one, I've heard it before, I don't know who Banky Edwards is let alone Holden (where I assume you don't mean the car dealership), but I must say, that is perhaps the most entertaining telling of that joke I've ever heard!
I agree in a way. Slashdot has the right and in fact the job to link to the stories that concern nerds as well as the open source community.
But really, come on! This one was just stupid. Slashdot do have the editorial as well, and some bloody common sense has to be used! Just take this exert:
Well, during the Third Amended Complaint discussion, SCO's lawyer held up a piece of paper - that was duplicated on a projection screen that only the magistrate judge, Brooke Wells, could see - that listed all of the AIX code that IBM has and hasn't turned over to SCO. And SCO's lawyer pointed out that the only piece of code that IBM hasn't come up with - which was highlighted in red - was the AIX-on-Power code - to which IBM's lawyer replied that IBM "can't find it."
On-Power code???? Can't find it? If that's real then my mum's turned into a five hundred kilo shark-eating baby panda. And a sad one at that. Could you imagine a lawyer saying "umm ahh I can't find it! I was in Australia the other day and there was this really good looking girl and an available closet that I might have mislaid her, I mean it, in..."
God - really common sense has to occasionally be used. Though I'm not in favour of censorship, such a blatant and unrealistic article should have at least been delayed a day or so before release.
It's depressing when they're labelling stuff as bad habits, and I used to do it all the time thinking how good the idea was.
Of course it is, as is the shying away from the HTML standard - it's all strategic. I have a feeling that if they lose to Firefox then they're going to have a harder time taking back than when they were losing against Netscape though.
I wasn't talking about distress signals - picking up even something as small as a TV doesn't require an advanced setup much at all.
If it had been a free unencrypted feed of the Spice or Playboy channels then noone would know about it - he would be too busy to alert the media!
It's depressing that the most powerful satellite telescopes aren't pointing up but down.
umm let's do the maths. They have 2000 machines. Since you can't install Panther on a windows machine they'd have to buy completely new computers. Lets value those computers at an ultra conservative $1000. Even then that's a cost of $2 000 000. That's gotta be a bit frightening to put on a form for "spyware protection". FreeBSD is a better suggestion, though I still think that to get the best of both worlds as well as a pretty much 0 cost maintainability you should go with a KDE debian linux setup.
You can't just say "No it is not" or "Yes you can". Though I'm naturally biased towards linux as a linux user, swapping OSs is a decision that has to be specific to the company.
Firstly, Linux is most definitely ready for the mainstream, it is currently far ahead of Windows XP (which is, after all, 3-4 years old) in technology and definitely usability. There I don't see an issue, and I'm just bringing it up to refute your point, as you obviously haven't used a linux box that's less than three years old. That guess can be proven since, in the last three years (that's a round-down guess) I've installed linux on a variety of computers using a variety of peripherals and I have not had a single hardware problem in that time-frame. Hardware problems are a thing of the past, especially since in a networked environment you don't need to worry about those damned winmodems.
Other than that, you can't just say that it's impossible to change. You can't just say "why don't you go ahead and change cause it's soooo much better" either. You have to look at the specific company and see if it relies on Windows only products, how feasable it is to change over, how expensive it is to hire people to install the new operating system and programs, and whether the costs of saving microsoft lisenses account for those costs, how much it will cost to train users, or whether in the specific application you actually need to train people to use the software, as well as any other relevant arguments that are specific for your company.
Please don't be so ingnorant to completely dismiss everything that you haven't used recently or that you're not comfortable, and please "get the facts" before you rush to any conclusions as you have. The exact opposite I think goes to the grandparent poster.
That pile of cash can be wittled away very quickly if they aren't just forced to not sell anything, but are forced to fight a losing marketing battle which, again, can get extremely expensive.
None-the-less you're right - Microsoft won't burn in a day.
I don't have any so you'd better make that 99.999%
Of course, not as if Windows even has a 64-bit OS yet which is what matters for a lot of people (not me tho). Use linux! (not aimed at parent, he hinted that he uses linux. It's aimed at everyone else stupid enough to have an A64 CPU and is not using 64 bit linux!)
I didn't look at the kernel vunerabilities in thoroughness, mostly because the first one that I looked at had the fix "upgrade to the next version of the kernel - it's fixed there".
I try not to troll, and it's not likely that you'll see this anyway (being an anonymous coward and all) but you are just an idiot for showing a link claiming that linux is less secure because it doesn't have as high-a EAL as Windows. You're saying "this company that owns pretty much a hundred billion worth of assets (not real stats) has a higher EAL than an operating system that's given away for free".
The reason why you're an idiot for believing that piece of crap is that EAL costs money! A quick search gleaned that Microsoft made 1.5 billion pounds worth of profits last quarter. In comparison Redhat made 47.6 million. Redhat doesn't have the money to spend millions (and yes it does cost millions) of dollars for an EAL writing.
This is aside from the fact that EAL requirements doesn't test something like . . . say . . . going on the internet . . . connecting to a network . . . installing any piece of software . . .
I saw it on a public site (IFilm link off Fark). I can only assume that it's allowed to be distributed.
where on earth have you gotten those values from? I don't know about the linux kernel vulnerabilities, but I can definitely pick out more than 1 windows XP vulnerability! Hell I can even exploit more than one vulnerability!
I can definitely not say the same about linux.