There it is again, the Saddam/9-11 link. Bush no longer maintains this fiction, it's time to drop it here too. BTW, if it was due to just the book excerpts why did Time remove the entire article and any reference to it in the table of contents (instead of, obviously, deleting just the excerpts or replacing the TOC entry with a short explanation.) I'll take off the Tin Foil Hat when you remove the Tin Foil Glasses.
The issue is that for a Microsoft customer, Windows software is better, that is, easier to use and easier to maintain (even if it does take more time, it is understandable to the point-and-click user).
You are absolutely, 100% correct. Unfortunately it's irrelevant. Ease-of-use-through-familiarity (and that's all it is, Linux is as easy or easier once you know it) is no guarantee a competitor won't eat your lunch. If free software based on paid support truly has a lower cost and higher reliability, that Windows user will pay for their comfort level through higher operating expenses and spiraling license costs and therefore reduced competitiveness. They may come to wish they'd taken the hard route.
Beats me, I've used the hairshirt distros for years (my last Redhat adventure was 5.1, quickly dumped for Caldera), yet Fedora on a test box last night was the slickest Linux install I've ever seen. Multimedia aside (it's a server), everything just worked, including X. It recognized the ATI MAch 64 and the Compaq V500 monitor and brought up the best resolution without intervention. I'm impressed. The GUI tools are at a level that makes me feel safe trying it out as a SMB server at work without worrying that the rest of the department, most Windows-only users, will find managing it impossible.
A better theory, IBM is cutting off SCO's funding by using SCO's tactics against them. SCO expended most of their energy so far badgering corporate Linux users with threats of IP transgression and 'offers' or ridiculously priced licenses. The obvious intent is to make corporate users think twice before adopting Linux.
It's no coincidence that IBM's move came soon after the RBC and BayStar announcements. It's a warning to other potential investors, invest in SCO and endure the gaze of IBM's army of lawyers. With Worldcom and Enron still fresh in their memory, watch them blink first. Anyone care to bet on another anonymous mass purchase of SCO licenses?
You pray all those clients are near-identical hardware and the lab testing you did covers your ass. If you're not that lucky prepare backups for some of the latest patches breaking a system. We've run into that with some 2k machines running cards with older (though still the latest) drivers.
Could only find a dreary string of ad hominem bashes and a delight in repeating the tired cliche "Thanks for playing". Which smarmy one-liner did you mean?
Four channel IDE boards have been available for years at a marginal premium. My home server is based on the HighPoint-equiped Abit-KT7 RAID board, running Gentoo and a couple of 120 gig Maxtors in software RAID0. Effortlessly saturates the single 100 mbps NIC and never burps.
For a better home server though, my recommendation would be to find something along the lines of a P3-550 Compaq desktop. It's dead quiet, generates no heat runs for years without problems. It's more than enough horsepower for home use. I bought one from work for $50.
Nothing like simplistic dualism to lead a discussion into stable waters. How about
C) A 'Someone' representative of the Adminstration spoke to a 'someone' at Time and, on the grounds of 'public interest', 'American national solidarity' or maybe evewn 'interstate commerce' convinced the little 'someone' of the benefits of removing the critical article?
See, no mastermind sending ninjas to Time's head office, just the quiet fear of an out-of-control adminstration.
Perhaps they pulled it to spark conversations like this one?
Time, a 'liberal' news outlet, pulled without announcement from their archive something critical of the Bush administration, at the expense of the public's perception of their journalistic integrity, on the hope somebody would stumble across its absence and post on a Slashdot-type forum and generate publicity for Time's..hmmmmm, lack of integrity? The discussion has come full circle, please pass a Tin Foil Hat.
This was defined as: "MICROSOFT IS RIPPING LINUX OUT OF VIRTUAL PC!"
is incorrect. The original poster jumped to that conclusion because MS hid the Linux option of a product with once excellent support under 'Other'. Posters - both pro-MS and anti-MS - quickly pointed this out and the discussion revolved around whether this constituted a drop or reduction in support. Nothing in today's announcement changes that. You preconceptions confuse you, go back and read the old posts.
Firebird isn't harder to install than the Google Toolbar. Most computer users know how to click on a download link and double-click on the file they've saved. It's a challenge to envision a user capable of using a computer who couldn't perform these two steps.
Google may be a part of MS's reasoning, but don't underestimate MS grudgingly adapting valuable features from outside sources. The real curiousity is why it took so long? (My guess: so as not to alienate corporate customers.)
...things like checking his email, opening attachments, things like that - just didn't work properly.....don't need/want to deal with vagaries like the command line.
Maybe having your dad start with Pine was a bad idea. Must have been, because neither Mozilla Mail or Sylpheed have ever posed a problem saving attachments. Or was your dad unfamiliar with the new desktop software you presented him and he stumbled because it wasn't Outlook? All software requires a period of acclimation. He'd have the same troubles with OS-X.
Too bad you quit. You might have learned something new and valuable by listening to your boss, asshole or not. I'm the only one at work who predominantly uses Linux at home (2k for HalfLife only) and am constantly consulted at work for solutions to Windows problems, including from the GUI-clicking IT support staff.
BayStar is betting that SCO will be able to collect license fees from Linux users. "We think this licensing initiative is going to work," says Lawrence Goldfarb, managing partner. "We spent a lot of time calling around to potential licensees, and we believe SCO is going to sign enough companies to make this an interesting growth story."
This is a war of opinion, and SCO are turning heads. Certainly there are enterprises using Linux who are being influenced by BayStar's and RBC's decision to back SCO.
Slashdot Mirror
There it is again, the Saddam/9-11 link. Bush no longer maintains this fiction, it's time to drop it here too. BTW, if it was due to just the book excerpts why did Time remove the entire article and any reference to it in the table of contents (instead of, obviously, deleting just the excerpts or replacing the TOC entry with a short explanation.) I'll take off the Tin Foil Hat when you remove the Tin Foil Glasses.
You are absolutely, 100% correct. Unfortunately it's irrelevant. Ease-of-use-through-familiarity (and that's all it is, Linux is as easy or easier once you know it) is no guarantee a competitor won't eat your lunch. If free software based on paid support truly has a lower cost and higher reliability, that Windows user will pay for their comfort level through higher operating expenses and spiraling license costs and therefore reduced competitiveness. They may come to wish they'd taken the hard route.
Beats me, I've used the hairshirt distros for years (my last Redhat adventure was 5.1, quickly dumped for Caldera), yet Fedora on a test box last night was the slickest Linux install I've ever seen. Multimedia aside (it's a server), everything just worked, including X. It recognized the ATI MAch 64 and the Compaq V500 monitor and brought up the best resolution without intervention. I'm impressed. The GUI tools are at a level that makes me feel safe trying it out as a SMB server at work without worrying that the rest of the department, most Windows-only users, will find managing it impossible.
nt
It's no coincidence that IBM's move came soon after the RBC and BayStar announcements. It's a warning to other potential investors, invest in SCO and endure the gaze of IBM's army of lawyers. With Worldcom and Enron still fresh in their memory, watch them blink first. Anyone care to bet on another anonymous mass purchase of SCO licenses?
You pray all those clients are near-identical hardware and the lab testing you did covers your ass. If you're not that lucky prepare backups for some of the latest patches breaking a system. We've run into that with some 2k machines running cards with older (though still the latest) drivers.
Could only find a dreary string of ad hominem bashes and a delight in repeating the tired cliche "Thanks for playing". Which smarmy one-liner did you mean?
For a better home server though, my recommendation would be to find something along the lines of a P3-550 Compaq desktop. It's dead quiet, generates no heat runs for years without problems. It's more than enough horsepower for home use. I bought one from work for $50.
The whole point of Linux and the GPL is the ability to modify the software. Interesting conflict between theory and practice.
C) A 'Someone' representative of the Adminstration spoke to a 'someone' at Time and, on the grounds of 'public interest', 'American national solidarity' or maybe evewn 'interstate commerce' convinced the little 'someone' of the benefits of removing the critical article?
See, no mastermind sending ninjas to Time's head office, just the quiet fear of an out-of-control adminstration.
Time, a 'liberal' news outlet, pulled without announcement from their archive something critical of the Bush administration, at the expense of the public's perception of their journalistic integrity, on the hope somebody would stumble across its absence and post on a Slashdot-type forum and generate publicity for Time's..hmmmmm, lack of integrity? The discussion has come full circle, please pass a Tin Foil Hat.
This was defined as: "MICROSOFT IS RIPPING LINUX OUT OF VIRTUAL PC!"
is incorrect. The original poster jumped to that conclusion because MS hid the Linux option of a product with once excellent support under 'Other'. Posters - both pro-MS and anti-MS - quickly pointed this out and the discussion revolved around whether this constituted a drop or reduction in support. Nothing in today's announcement changes that. You preconceptions confuse you, go back and read the old posts.
It's part of what I do for a living. I'm half way there with ya pal, half way.
moving or resizing of windows
raise or lower windows
hide the status bar
change the status bar text
change images
create or change icons
read cookies
for the browser and mail independently. Until MS releases ActiveX for Gentoo, I won't be worrying about that either. ;)
Google may be a part of MS's reasoning, but don't underestimate MS grudgingly adapting valuable features from outside sources. The real curiousity is why it took so long? (My guess: so as not to alienate corporate customers.)
And how long have you worked for Microsoft? (joke...joke.....)
Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, say hi to Pot.
The default XP desktop constitutes style? In what alternate Polyester/AMC Pacer world?
Maybe having your dad start with Pine was a bad idea. Must have been, because neither Mozilla Mail or Sylpheed have ever posed a problem saving attachments. Or was your dad unfamiliar with the new desktop software you presented him and he stumbled because it wasn't Outlook? All software requires a period of acclimation. He'd have the same troubles with OS-X.
Linux or Windows?
Pong and Frogger?
Too bad you quit. You might have learned something new and valuable by listening to your boss, asshole or not. I'm the only one at work who predominantly uses Linux at home (2k for HalfLife only) and am constantly consulted at work for solutions to Windows problems, including from the GUI-clicking IT support staff.
I read this as precisely the author's point. It's possible to use spend years before a GUI and not know these things.
Yikes, that fleeting visual of McBride wearing chaps in the shower gave me the heebies.
BayStar is betting that SCO will be able to collect license fees from Linux users. "We think this licensing initiative is going to work," says Lawrence Goldfarb, managing partner. "We spent a lot of time calling around to potential licensees, and we believe SCO is going to sign enough companies to make this an interesting growth story."
This is a war of opinion, and SCO are turning heads. Certainly there are enterprises using Linux who are being influenced by BayStar's and RBC's decision to back SCO.