Apple's push for h.264 is simply an attack on Linux, nothing more.
Because Apple is quaking in their boots over Linux...
Besides, if so, it's a pitifully weak attack on Linux. After all, nVidia already has an API to use hardware h.264 decoding on Linux. If you have the right video card, Firefox could theoretically play h.264 on Linux, not only legally, but faster than Flash does.
So incorporate it into XUL, or write another layer.
Point is, this is a legal way, without significant technical burdens -- in fact, it has significant technical advantages (OS vendor can optimize those codecs, even implement them in hardware). It seems the main reason they refuse to do so is to avoid allowing h.264 to become the defacto standard, which seems to be what's happening.
Looks like Google is our last chance here. Go VP8!
There's a difference between FUD and actual legal issues. Mozilla can't support H.264 in Firefox out of the box.
It is a bit annoying, however, that they absolutely refuse to use local libraries (DirectShow, GStreamer, etc) to access what codecs the user has available.
Yes but the H.264 implementation only infringes on the patents of the holders of the H.264 patents.
You have exactly as much evidence for that as we do that the Theora implementation only uses the patents which have been explicitly released to the public domain.
Theora has known patents. h.264 has known patents. Either could have unknown patents.
The difference is, Steve Jobs has a stake in h.264. He makes money every time someone else licenses it. Other than that, there's no significant difference.
Assuming Apple allowed flash onto the iPhone, and users happily started consuming sites like YouTube, and http://www.jimcarrey.com/ [jimcarrey.com] and Hulu.com
So let's see... Of those, YouTube is natively supported, and has HTML5 in the works. Hulu is going HTML5, specifically for the iPad.
But that's beside the point. I should've paid closer attention -- the complaint was about the "full web", which won't show up on the iPad for other reasons. (HTML5 currently doesn't specify a codec, but the iPad only supports H.264.) I was talking about the recent post by Steve Jobs, and the recent decision by Apple to block all incarnations of Flash, forever, even as an app development tool.
I'm kind of glad it's not in the browser, sure, but the rationale they use to ban it includes a move they've made that essentially bans frameworks, libraries, etc.
There are a slew of reasons Flash sucks
I agree. The fact that it sucks is not sufficient reason to ban it. That's Apple making my decisions for me.
a slew of reasons it's now allowed on the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad.
So far, here's the reasons I've heard:
Battery life. If I want to sacrifice my battery life to flash, that should be my choice. If it's a PR issue, make it explicit: "Touch here to enable this plugin." followed by "Flash will drain your battery life massively. Continue?"
You just mentioned security -- seems Apple could do the exact same thing about this that they could do about any other insecure app, plugin, or entity on the iPhone. For that matter, Chrome is developing the ability to sandbox plugins, so this isn't much of an excuse.
Not open. I'd agree if the iPhone/Touch/Pad was in any way open, but it's not. Ironically, the phone which is open (Android) is getting Flash after all.
Platforms take control away from Apple and give it to an intermediary. True, but I don't see why that's a bad thing. As a developer, I'm a lot more inclined to trust Adobe than Apple.
It'll lead to inefficient apps. Then judge them on their actual efficiency, rather than assuming a priori that all Flash apps will automatically be inefficient.
It's not designed for touch. You know what? Neither was the Web. Neither was HTML5. For that matter, neither was Objective C, nor the Mach kernel. What makes you think it can't be redesigned to work well with touch?
You don't need it. You don't need iFart, either. Maybe we should ban that?
I haven't seen a good reason to keep Flash off the phone entirely. I'm going to guess the real motivation is that control -- Apple doesn't want developers to be able to easily port their apps to other phones.
Again: I am glad Flash is not in the iPhone's browser, and I'm glad that this is helping it die. But it has some unfortunate casualties. There was a point I could hope to develop a nice, cross-platform app framework that would work on the iPhone, Android, Symbian, whatever -- now I can cross anything Apple off that list.
Apple's product meets some people's needs, great. Android products meet other people's needs, great. What's the point of having a holy war over it?
Because it's already a war in the marketplace, and if Apple wins, life will be a lot less pleasant for developers and geeks everywhere. End-users, too, but they won't see the effects as directly.
I don't know about the GP but for a start I'm happy about this because this is our insurance, as geeks, that we'll keep having our paradise. The real threat was MS and their dominance.
What? No, the new threat is Apple and their dominance. Also Google and their dominance.
I'd much rather live in a world that was Windows everything, but at least allowed open development, than a world that's iPad-everything.
You can't design an "IE only" website anymore: well, you can, but you're losing a huge part of your potential customers: iPhone, iPad, Macs.
We didn't need Apple for that -- IE is below 80% now, and most of that is due to Firefox. What website is dumb enough to write off 20% of their users?
What a lot of Linux nerds/geek don't realize is that everytime Apple wins, MS looses.
What does MS loose? Do they loose the hounds? Please, learn the difference between lose and loose -- it's embarrassing.
But no, MS owns stock in Apple, so every time Apple wins, so does MS. They've certainly had business arrangements in the past, including Office for Mac, which even includes some unique features (Entourage) which aren't available on Windows.
this has the potential to eventually kill that mediocre piece of proprietary crap that Flash is (die Adobe, really) and push open standards (HTML 5).
As the other poster says, Apple only supports H.264. Other browsers only support Ogg Theora. I love HTML5, but as it stands, it's only marginally better than Flash.
But for every website that does this, there's something which would work perfectly well as a web app, or as a standalone-but-portable app, which will be written for iPhone/iPad only. It will never be ported to another platform, because Apple has disallowed any hope you have of using cross-platform toolkits, Flash or otherwise. And it will cost money, because even free apps cost money for developer licenses and Mac workstations to develop on.
Restoring your iPhone to factory is as easy as clicking a button,
Assuming that's reliable, you've now restored it to its original unpatched, vulnerable state. The second it gets online again, congratulations! You're re-infected.
It's also a bit disingenuous to compare something like an iPAd with WebTV.
WebTV was a poor example, but there were other "internet appliances" -- a box with a modem, had a keyboard and a monitor built-in. For some reason, they never took off.
I'd much rather have patented but otherwise open standards, with multiple open source implementations, than patented and proprietary defacto standards, with a single proprietary implementation.
this has to be one of the most idiotic things I've ever read on slashdot
How so? Please explain.
I didn't mean to say that the overwhelming majority of people couldn't use a computer. But think about what "need" implies.
I need food. I need shelter. I could even argue that I need sex.
I don't need a computer.
Now, I want a job and an education, and I need a computer for that, especially the kind of job and education I want. But that's still not a need, it's a want.
The problem I have with all these technophiles decrying the iPad's lack of flash is this: are you not the same group that beats down any flash site?
Generally not, no. Slashdot is not one groupthink overmind, we are individuals, and we disagree a lot, just like you and I are doing right now.
I have a somewhat subtler position: I hate Flash and I want it to die, but this is not the way. Flash is being banned from the iPad for bullshit reasons -- Jobs' rant was one of the least technically-informed pieces of garbage I've seen on the topic, and that's straight from the fucking top. It's being banned because it's a third-party framework/library/language/whatever, and Apple can't have any of those, except when they can.
Even if they were consistent about it, it's the wrong decision. Just like freedom of speech means freedom to say things I don't like, an open system means the right of others to develop software I don't like. Flash on the iPad would suck, but Python on the iPad would rock.
The only legitimate reason for keeping Flash off the iPad would be open standards, and do you really expect me to take Apple seriously when they talk about openness now?
full PCs are simply too much machine for what many people want to do (watch a show, check facebook, etc).
They're also dirt-cheap and capable of doing that. They also tend to come with a keyboard, thus enabling you to actually post to Facebook effectively -- the iPad just isn't that much fun to type on.
A $99 iPad would be a true game-changer,
You know what? So would a $20 laptop. What makes you think this will actually happen?
Oh no, others will hit the $99 mark, maybe.
people (like you) get confused because of the price and say (as you did), 'but... look at the sweet box I could buy for $500, I don't get it!'
laptop I could buy for $500.
The point is that my mom and my wife and many like them don't care in the least if they have a sweet box. They care if they can "like" timmy's facebook status.
Again, sadly, even Facebook works better on an actual laptop.
Your geek factor (Look at me! HTPC!
Even Apple sells HTPCs now. I'm surprised people haven't picked more of them up.
I've been observing with great amusement the geek outrage over Apple's closed, locked-down ecosystem, starting with the iPod and iPhone, and culminating with the iPad, and I say: more power to Apple.
Oh, this won't end well.
Manufacturers have placed general-purpose computers into the hands of the masses, and what have we gotten in return? Mountains of spam, malware galore, and tens of millions of zombie boxes.
The only difference is that when the same thing happens to the iPad -- and it has happened to iPhones -- you'll have a proprietary monoculture that's wirelessly connected, even over a cell network (so always, always on), and it will be the sort of thing that is that much more difficult for us geeks to deal with. A desktop computer, if something goes wrong, you may not be able to fix it, but we can. Something goes wrong with your iPad, you can either jailbreak it or take it to Apple.
Now, you can get most of the supposed advantages you're talking about with Android. A centralized app store, a pretty UI, but the sanctioned ability to get apps through other means if you really want it. Keep in mind that the average user isn't likely to do that, any more than they're likely to jailbreak their iWhatever, but I'd much rather have the option than not.
The irony is that we've had just such a geek paradise for most of a decade -- any popular Linux distro is going to have a large repository of free apps, all of which have gone through some sort of quality control, and are delivered securely. Users can install third-party apps, but it's a channel that geeks avoid and ordinary users won't necessarily understand.
The overwhelming majority of people don't need a computer with a general purpose operating system.
The overwhelming majority of people don't need a computer at all.
But to the extent that they "need" a computer, they need certain things which tend to work well on a general-purpose computer, with a real, actual keyboard.
They need an iPad or something like it - an appliance
Here's where I'm confused: The appliance thing was tried, extensively, in the late 90's. Remember WebTV?
Why do you think this will be any better?
Apple is going to sell a lot of iPads.
That much is certain. What I find puzzling is that you seem to be happy about this.
Yes, yes it does. The way the world is today does determine what happens tomorrow. Burden is on you to show why the future looks different.
there is no tux without young, fresh blood
You again assert things without evidence. The reality is that, first, Tux is a mascot, and it's really grating when you use it as a synonym for Linux -- Tux the mascot will exist as long as Linus wants him to exist, as Linus holds that trademark. Second, Linux the kernel will exist as long as people have a use for it, because as long as people have a use for it, it will financially make sense to contribute to it.
on tux i seen only couple of crappy php sites, basta
Johny the user-looser gives no crap on couple of supercomputers or what is running his 4x4 automatic guzzler
And why is Johnny relevant to this discussion? I thought we were talking about whether Linux is dead or dying, and it obviously doesn't need this one particular user, nor the unwashed masses. Never has.
what he cares is seeing his porn nice and smooth
Nope, clearly he cares about more than that. If that's all he cared about, Linux will do it smoother and without the spyware.
I don't often see someone be wrong more than once per sentence...
Religion is a convenient focal point but lacking that, others can, will, and have been found.
And when they do, they will look suspiciously like religion. In particular, the idea of faith is a remarkably dangerous one -- other things can demand faith, certainly, but it's actually built into the structure of many religions.
It's also disgusting the way religion can clothe hateful thought in a guise of respectability, especially when the moderate masses are silent...
Religious thought in the absence of blind following can and has lead people to shun violence and other sins of less than honorable leaders as well.
Secular thought has, also. It doesn't take a religious mind to say, "Maybe we shouldn't be killing people just because we're weirded out by what they do in the bedroom." It also doesn't take a religious mind to say, "Let's kill those faggots." It does take a religious mind to say, "Killing those faggots is the right thing to do," or as a Westboro Baptist Church protester once said, "I don't hate them. God hates them."
Or, as Christopher Hitchins likes to point out, religion is the one thing which can consistently make good people do bad things. Without religion, it's hard to imagine why any loving parent would willingly mutilate (or allow another to mutilate) the genitalia of their child. With religion, loving parents do it all the time.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you can justify religion as a good thing unless it's actually true.
At least two people have about 40 shortcuts on their desktop to files and web pages because they can't navigate a folder or intranet site. They do their jobs well...
No they don't. Part of their job involves using a computer, and they suck at that.
This is equivalent to someone whose job involves using a forklift occasionally, and they occasionally drive it into walls -- I don't care how well they do the non-forklift-related parts of their job, or how well they drive the forklift when they don't drive it into a wall, this is not the line of work for them.
I realize it's not your call, so I'm not ranting at you. I'm ranting at what seems to be common corporate policy -- hire people who are otherwise competent, without considering their computer competence, and then make IT subservient to them, not the other way around.
thought he was smarter then anyone else and therefor above any laws that only apply to lesser people.
The way I read it, he was following the policy (law) to the letter. Seems like management were the ones who thought they were above any laws.
Like that reiserfs guy, thought he could get away with murder
Because not giving passwords over is exactly like murder.
It is like when a cop with a dog tells you to get down on the floor.
No, a cop with a dog is like a cop with a dog.
If you ever find yourself in the same position as Childs, document EVERYTHING, in paper, print all emails and insist on written instructions, never verbal,
Agreed.
and then do as you are told
I'd be less inclined to do as I'm told if I had everything documented that way.
and get the fuck out of there.
Oh, definitely -- though jail does make that harder.
Also, you haven't presented any evidence that he wasn't, in fact, smarter than the system. The fact that he fought the system and lost doesn't make the system right, and it certainly doesn't make him an idiot, it just makes him a loser, in the most literal sense of the word -- "someone who lost."
You have a boss who makes the rules, if your boss later tells you to break the rules then you do it.
Just like Enron's accountants?
Sorry, no. If your boss later wants to change the rules, there's likely a procedure in place to do so, but they can't simply do that by fiat. That's the whole point of having a policy in the first place.
We elect people who raise taxes for social programs. You elect people who also raise taxes on us so they can lower them on the wealthy and powerful.
Maybe we're not electing people who serve our best interest... maybe we are. You're electing people who work exactly the fucking opposite of your best interests.
The fact that gay marriage is even in the debate is also moronic. If the sanctity of your marriage is threatened by Adam and Steve's marriage down the street, guess what? Your marriage was on the rocks anyway. If you really want to protect marriage, outlaw divorce.
If you actually want to be a libertarian, you're going to have to say so explicitly. Most conservatives think they're libertarians, but they clearly aren't. How many times over could we have funded a mission to mars, paid for our own healthcare, and dealt with some of our failing infrastructure, poverty, and other issues, with a fraction of the money we've spent on Iraq so far?
Oh, and finally: The TEA parties themselves? Completely promoted by Fox News, for their own blatantly biased political purposes. "Fair and balanced" my ass. If you participated in one of those, know that for the time you participated, you were a corporate tool, marching not for yourself, but for the benefit of a wealthy elite who will not hesitate to toss you aside when it suits them.
Out of curiosity, can you make Single Sign On work for IETab?
No idea. How does it work for IE?
Here is the issue where I work. We use Sharepoint.
I'm sorry. Guess that is your issue...
Even if the password is saved in the box after the first time they log in....they'll just change the crap randomly instead of hitting ok.
...I assume that, since they're using a computer, your users are required to use their brains in their daily jobs, right? This is really too much to ask?
Slashdot Mirror
Apple's push for h.264 is simply an attack on Linux, nothing more.
Because Apple is quaking in their boots over Linux...
Besides, if so, it's a pitifully weak attack on Linux. After all, nVidia already has an API to use hardware h.264 decoding on Linux. If you have the right video card, Firefox could theoretically play h.264 on Linux, not only legally, but faster than Flash does.
So incorporate it into XUL, or write another layer.
Point is, this is a legal way, without significant technical burdens -- in fact, it has significant technical advantages (OS vendor can optimize those codecs, even implement them in hardware). It seems the main reason they refuse to do so is to avoid allowing h.264 to become the defacto standard, which seems to be what's happening.
Looks like Google is our last chance here. Go VP8!
Apple has exactly one patent in the h264 pool.
For which they are paid.
Citation, please.
It's true that I don't know that they're paid proportionately, but I'd hope Apple wasn't stupid enough to accept a one-time fee.
It was hyperbole on my part, but it seems pretty clear he has a stake in it.
Not a significant one, to be sure -- I have no clue what his actual motive might be.
There's a difference between FUD and actual legal issues. Mozilla can't support H.264 in Firefox out of the box.
It is a bit annoying, however, that they absolutely refuse to use local libraries (DirectShow, GStreamer, etc) to access what codecs the user has available.
Yes but the H.264 implementation only infringes on the patents of the holders of the H.264 patents.
You have exactly as much evidence for that as we do that the Theora implementation only uses the patents which have been explicitly released to the public domain.
Theora has known patents. h.264 has known patents. Either could have unknown patents.
The difference is, Steve Jobs has a stake in h.264. He makes money every time someone else licenses it. Other than that, there's no significant difference.
Actually it doesn't revert completely. It restores it to the latest OS version you've downloaded, but with factory settings.
In other words, it restores it to something stored in writable memory. What's to stop the malware from overwriting that latest version?
Once you sync it
Even more places for the malware to hide.
There are open-source implementations of WMV. I don't see the difference.
That and the player itself. Not insignificant.
Assuming Apple allowed flash onto the iPhone, and users happily started consuming sites like YouTube, and http://www.jimcarrey.com/ [jimcarrey.com] and Hulu.com
So let's see... Of those, YouTube is natively supported, and has HTML5 in the works. Hulu is going HTML5, specifically for the iPad.
But that's beside the point. I should've paid closer attention -- the complaint was about the "full web", which won't show up on the iPad for other reasons. (HTML5 currently doesn't specify a codec, but the iPad only supports H.264.) I was talking about the recent post by Steve Jobs, and the recent decision by Apple to block all incarnations of Flash, forever, even as an app development tool.
I'm kind of glad it's not in the browser, sure, but the rationale they use to ban it includes a move they've made that essentially bans frameworks, libraries, etc.
There are a slew of reasons Flash sucks
I agree. The fact that it sucks is not sufficient reason to ban it. That's Apple making my decisions for me.
a slew of reasons it's now allowed on the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad.
So far, here's the reasons I've heard:
I haven't seen a good reason to keep Flash off the phone entirely. I'm going to guess the real motivation is that control -- Apple doesn't want developers to be able to easily port their apps to other phones.
Again: I am glad Flash is not in the iPhone's browser, and I'm glad that this is helping it die. But it has some unfortunate casualties. There was a point I could hope to develop a nice, cross-platform app framework that would work on the iPhone, Android, Symbian, whatever -- now I can cross anything Apple off that list.
Apple's product meets some people's needs, great. Android products meet other people's needs, great. What's the point of having a holy war over it?
Because it's already a war in the marketplace, and if Apple wins, life will be a lot less pleasant for developers and geeks everywhere. End-users, too, but they won't see the effects as directly.
I don't know about the GP but for a start I'm happy about this because this is our insurance, as geeks, that we'll keep having our paradise. The real threat was MS and their dominance.
What? No, the new threat is Apple and their dominance. Also Google and their dominance.
I'd much rather live in a world that was Windows everything, but at least allowed open development, than a world that's iPad-everything.
You can't design an "IE only" website anymore: well, you can, but you're losing a huge part of your potential customers: iPhone, iPad, Macs.
We didn't need Apple for that -- IE is below 80% now, and most of that is due to Firefox. What website is dumb enough to write off 20% of their users?
What a lot of Linux nerds/geek don't realize is that everytime Apple wins, MS looses.
What does MS loose? Do they loose the hounds? Please, learn the difference between lose and loose -- it's embarrassing.
But no, MS owns stock in Apple, so every time Apple wins, so does MS. They've certainly had business arrangements in the past, including Office for Mac, which even includes some unique features (Entourage) which aren't available on Windows.
this has the potential to eventually kill that mediocre piece of proprietary crap that Flash is (die Adobe, really) and push open standards (HTML 5).
As the other poster says, Apple only supports H.264. Other browsers only support Ogg Theora. I love HTML5, but as it stands, it's only marginally better than Flash.
But for every website that does this, there's something which would work perfectly well as a web app, or as a standalone-but-portable app, which will be written for iPhone/iPad only. It will never be ported to another platform, because Apple has disallowed any hope you have of using cross-platform toolkits, Flash or otherwise. And it will cost money, because even free apps cost money for developer licenses and Mac workstations to develop on.
Restoring your iPhone to factory is as easy as clicking a button,
Assuming that's reliable, you've now restored it to its original unpatched, vulnerable state. The second it gets online again, congratulations! You're re-infected.
It's also a bit disingenuous to compare something like an iPAd with WebTV.
WebTV was a poor example, but there were other "internet appliances" -- a box with a modem, had a keyboard and a monitor built-in. For some reason, they never took off.
I'd much rather have patented but otherwise open standards, with multiple open source implementations, than patented and proprietary defacto standards, with a single proprietary implementation.
this has to be one of the most idiotic things I've ever read on slashdot
How so? Please explain.
I didn't mean to say that the overwhelming majority of people couldn't use a computer. But think about what "need" implies.
I need food. I need shelter. I could even argue that I need sex.
I don't need a computer.
Now, I want a job and an education, and I need a computer for that, especially the kind of job and education I want. But that's still not a need, it's a want.
The problem I have with all these technophiles decrying the iPad's lack of flash is this: are you not the same group that beats down any flash site?
Generally not, no. Slashdot is not one groupthink overmind, we are individuals, and we disagree a lot, just like you and I are doing right now.
I have a somewhat subtler position: I hate Flash and I want it to die, but this is not the way. Flash is being banned from the iPad for bullshit reasons -- Jobs' rant was one of the least technically-informed pieces of garbage I've seen on the topic, and that's straight from the fucking top. It's being banned because it's a third-party framework/library/language/whatever, and Apple can't have any of those, except when they can.
Even if they were consistent about it, it's the wrong decision. Just like freedom of speech means freedom to say things I don't like, an open system means the right of others to develop software I don't like. Flash on the iPad would suck, but Python on the iPad would rock.
The only legitimate reason for keeping Flash off the iPad would be open standards, and do you really expect me to take Apple seriously when they talk about openness now?
full PCs are simply too much machine for what many people want to do (watch a show, check facebook, etc).
They're also dirt-cheap and capable of doing that. They also tend to come with a keyboard, thus enabling you to actually post to Facebook effectively -- the iPad just isn't that much fun to type on.
A $99 iPad would be a true game-changer,
You know what? So would a $20 laptop. What makes you think this will actually happen?
Oh no, others will hit the $99 mark, maybe.
people (like you) get confused because of the price and say (as you did), 'but... look at the sweet box I could buy for $500, I don't get it!'
laptop I could buy for $500.
The point is that my mom and my wife and many like them don't care in the least if they have a sweet box. They care if they can "like" timmy's facebook status.
Again, sadly, even Facebook works better on an actual laptop.
Your geek factor (Look at me! HTPC!
Even Apple sells HTPCs now. I'm surprised people haven't picked more of them up.
I've been observing with great amusement the geek outrage over Apple's closed, locked-down ecosystem, starting with the iPod and iPhone, and culminating with the iPad, and I say: more power to Apple .
Oh, this won't end well.
Manufacturers have placed general-purpose computers into the hands of the masses, and what have we gotten in return? Mountains of spam, malware galore, and tens of millions of zombie boxes.
The only difference is that when the same thing happens to the iPad -- and it has happened to iPhones -- you'll have a proprietary monoculture that's wirelessly connected, even over a cell network (so always, always on), and it will be the sort of thing that is that much more difficult for us geeks to deal with. A desktop computer, if something goes wrong, you may not be able to fix it, but we can. Something goes wrong with your iPad, you can either jailbreak it or take it to Apple.
Now, you can get most of the supposed advantages you're talking about with Android. A centralized app store, a pretty UI, but the sanctioned ability to get apps through other means if you really want it. Keep in mind that the average user isn't likely to do that, any more than they're likely to jailbreak their iWhatever, but I'd much rather have the option than not.
The irony is that we've had just such a geek paradise for most of a decade -- any popular Linux distro is going to have a large repository of free apps, all of which have gone through some sort of quality control, and are delivered securely. Users can install third-party apps, but it's a channel that geeks avoid and ordinary users won't necessarily understand.
The overwhelming majority of people don't need a computer with a general purpose operating system.
The overwhelming majority of people don't need a computer at all.
But to the extent that they "need" a computer, they need certain things which tend to work well on a general-purpose computer, with a real, actual keyboard.
They need an iPad or something like it - an appliance
Here's where I'm confused: The appliance thing was tried, extensively, in the late 90's. Remember WebTV?
Why do you think this will be any better?
Apple is going to sell a lot of iPads.
That much is certain. What I find puzzling is that you seem to be happy about this.
what is today doesn't warrant the tomorrow
Yes, yes it does. The way the world is today does determine what happens tomorrow. Burden is on you to show why the future looks different.
there is no tux without young, fresh blood
You again assert things without evidence. The reality is that, first, Tux is a mascot, and it's really grating when you use it as a synonym for Linux -- Tux the mascot will exist as long as Linus wants him to exist, as Linus holds that trademark. Second, Linux the kernel will exist as long as people have a use for it, because as long as people have a use for it, it will financially make sense to contribute to it.
i don't know on which planet u live
This one.
m$ moved strong on the enterprise development domain not only on the desktop
On the desktop, they have a near-monopoly. On the server, not even close -- not even half.
on the desktop tuxi is and will be a no-no.
Tuxi is a word you just made up. Please stop.
And I run Linux on the desktop. Linux desktop marketshare is growing. Slowly, but it's growing.
there is no market dominance without the desktop
Bullshit. IBM dominates the mainframe market. When was the last time they dominated the desktop?
in the last 7 years i haven't seen even one enterprise deployment on linux
You clearly haven't been looking very hard.
on tux i seen only couple of crappy php sites, basta
Johny the user-looser gives no crap on couple of supercomputers or what is running his 4x4 automatic guzzler
And why is Johnny relevant to this discussion? I thought we were talking about whether Linux is dead or dying, and it obviously doesn't need this one particular user, nor the unwashed masses. Never has.
what he cares is seeing his porn nice and smooth
Nope, clearly he cares about more than that. If that's all he cared about, Linux will do it smoother and without the spyware.
I don't often see someone be wrong more than once per sentence...
Religion is a convenient focal point but lacking that, others can, will, and have been found.
And when they do, they will look suspiciously like religion. In particular, the idea of faith is a remarkably dangerous one -- other things can demand faith, certainly, but it's actually built into the structure of many religions.
It's also disgusting the way religion can clothe hateful thought in a guise of respectability, especially when the moderate masses are silent...
Religious thought in the absence of blind following can and has lead people to shun violence and other sins of less than honorable leaders as well.
Secular thought has, also. It doesn't take a religious mind to say, "Maybe we shouldn't be killing people just because we're weirded out by what they do in the bedroom." It also doesn't take a religious mind to say, "Let's kill those faggots." It does take a religious mind to say, "Killing those faggots is the right thing to do," or as a Westboro Baptist Church protester once said, "I don't hate them. God hates them."
Or, as Christopher Hitchins likes to point out, religion is the one thing which can consistently make good people do bad things. Without religion, it's hard to imagine why any loving parent would willingly mutilate (or allow another to mutilate) the genitalia of their child. With religion, loving parents do it all the time.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you can justify religion as a good thing unless it's actually true.
By reading a crapload of data
In what universe is four seeks "a crapload of data"?
and/or performing heavy computation
Can't really argue with that, other than I really don't see it. At all. Ever. Where are you getting your video?
At least two people have about 40 shortcuts on their desktop to files and web pages because they can't navigate a folder or intranet site. They do their jobs well...
No they don't. Part of their job involves using a computer, and they suck at that.
This is equivalent to someone whose job involves using a forklift occasionally, and they occasionally drive it into walls -- I don't care how well they do the non-forklift-related parts of their job, or how well they drive the forklift when they don't drive it into a wall, this is not the line of work for them.
I realize it's not your call, so I'm not ranting at you. I'm ranting at what seems to be common corporate policy -- hire people who are otherwise competent, without considering their computer competence, and then make IT subservient to them, not the other way around.
thought he was smarter then anyone else and therefor above any laws that only apply to lesser people.
The way I read it, he was following the policy (law) to the letter. Seems like management were the ones who thought they were above any laws.
Like that reiserfs guy, thought he could get away with murder
Because not giving passwords over is exactly like murder.
It is like when a cop with a dog tells you to get down on the floor.
No, a cop with a dog is like a cop with a dog.
If you ever find yourself in the same position as Childs, document EVERYTHING, in paper, print all emails and insist on written instructions, never verbal,
Agreed.
and then do as you are told
I'd be less inclined to do as I'm told if I had everything documented that way.
and get the fuck out of there.
Oh, definitely -- though jail does make that harder.
Also, you haven't presented any evidence that he wasn't, in fact, smarter than the system. The fact that he fought the system and lost doesn't make the system right, and it certainly doesn't make him an idiot, it just makes him a loser, in the most literal sense of the word -- "someone who lost."
You have a boss who makes the rules, if your boss later tells you to break the rules then you do it.
Just like Enron's accountants?
Sorry, no. If your boss later wants to change the rules, there's likely a procedure in place to do so, but they can't simply do that by fiat. That's the whole point of having a policy in the first place.
Alright, I've got karma to burn...
You are stupid.
We elect people who raise taxes for social programs. You elect people who also raise taxes on us so they can lower them on the wealthy and powerful.
Maybe we're not electing people who serve our best interest... maybe we are. You're electing people who work exactly the fucking opposite of your best interests.
The fact that gay marriage is even in the debate is also moronic. If the sanctity of your marriage is threatened by Adam and Steve's marriage down the street, guess what? Your marriage was on the rocks anyway. If you really want to protect marriage, outlaw divorce.
If you actually want to be a libertarian, you're going to have to say so explicitly. Most conservatives think they're libertarians, but they clearly aren't. How many times over could we have funded a mission to mars, paid for our own healthcare, and dealt with some of our failing infrastructure, poverty, and other issues, with a fraction of the money we've spent on Iraq so far?
Oh, and finally: The TEA parties themselves? Completely promoted by Fox News, for their own blatantly biased political purposes. "Fair and balanced" my ass. If you participated in one of those, know that for the time you participated, you were a corporate tool, marching not for yourself, but for the benefit of a wealthy elite who will not hesitate to toss you aside when it suits them.
Out of curiosity, can you make Single Sign On work for IETab?
No idea. How does it work for IE?
Here is the issue where I work. We use Sharepoint.
I'm sorry. Guess that is your issue...
Even if the password is saved in the box after the first time they log in....they'll just change the crap randomly instead of hitting ok.
...I assume that, since they're using a computer, your users are required to use their brains in their daily jobs, right? This is really too much to ask?
Really? Wow. What breaks with IETab?