....which will contain all the things that.NET can do that MONO can't even though it's v1.0
now before anyone accuses me of trolling, my stable is as follows:800G4, 700iBook, 400G4, MacSE, MacColorClassic, MacClassic II. i also have a SGI Indigo II, and last and least, a PC running XP for testing web pages.
i want to love OSS, i really do. and as soon as i can effortlessly move from one platform to another without noticing and reformatting, i will love it. that goes for Apple too.
the only way to beat windows is to be as good or better at everything windows is good at, without any learning curve for windows users.
Apple, Linux folks, listen up. stop trying to do better than windows until you can at least do as well. don't try to figure out a different and better way to do it. try and figure out how to make the experience exactly the same, but without the flaws. that is the ticket. a different product that does everything an MS product can do, but does it differeently and with all news flaws, not interested.
they could port it to Linux without making it OSS compliant.
if they were successful at that, more developers would do it. that's the secret to making people port to linux. if they have to release the source code to their crown jewels, forget it. they'll never do it and who would blame them?
linux users should welcome proprietary software that runs on linux. let developers make money on linux without spawning a hundred competitor projects because they released their source.
you want linux to be open? welcome all comers then, and let OSS and proprietary software compete on the same platform, just like OSS software is doing now on the windows and mac platforms.
no fair porting GIMP to mac and other platforms to compete with Photoshop and proprietary image editors and then whining when Adobe makes a proprietary Linux port of Photoshop to compete with GIMP.
and you know for a fact that these will not be offset by sales? i didn't see any figures, moron.
plus that was not the point you were originally making and you know it. you said that they had barely covered their costs and are unlikely to make any profit.
on what are you basing that? you gave no facts to back up your unfounded notion.
then you come back with cost of doing business stuff when your first claim was blown out of the water(using facts, you should look into some of those).
well, CODB stuff tends to remain flat for considerable peiods of time rising at predictable rates over long periods of time, while profit can rise at an exponential rate over short periods of time making profit possible.
as long as Apple watches it's cost and keep interest high, profit seems inevitable here.
i disagree. your point was to show the viability of doing that spam thing.
the amount of taxes taken out affect that directly. one amount would make it impossible to do profitably. the other makes a dent, but doesn't eliminate it as a reasonable enterprise.
and you said 500.00, not 340.00, which is still wrong.
but isn't much easier for someone to determine how to circumvent a security precaution if they can see the code used?
i would think closed, obscure code would first have to be deciphered thus adding an extra layer of protection to the process. this, of course, assuming that the security in both the open and closed source solutions were equal otherwise.
and before all the babies come back with troll insults, i don't have windows running on a single machine. Mac OSX(&OS9), Slackware, BeOS Max are my OS's.
OSS may not be the best use for every single application. i just can't imagine the government releasing security changes to the public. not gonna do it.
i was trying to burn a cd in Slack 9, KDE 3.2 last night.
what crappy non-intuitive tools. until Linux has apps like Windows or Mac, that work just as easily and cover the same range of equipment, i don't want to hear about usability.
and before all the geeks come back with RTFM, and newbie insults, if i have to RTFM then you made it to difficult. i rarely have to read anything on windows or mac.
and that's the way it should be. no product ever conquered a market by trying to convince the customers there expectations were wrong. products conquer markets by meeting and exceeding those expectations.
and linux is far from that, but it is getting a lot better.
and for those who say there are no advantages, i refer you to the constant whining about X and it's problems and how we need a new updated windowing system.
Apple gives you this, as well as the ability to run all the apps and games that Linux users wish they could run, and people say there are NO advantages?
please. you're all starting to sound like windows users. Apple does something inovative, and because it threatens to supplant Linux as the best Unix out there, you pick it apart.
i would think Linux users would know better than to spread FUD about another operating system, but i guess using a mouse isn't the only thing you've learned from Microsoft.
With little hope for legislative help from the Republican puppet government in Austin, they spun off TVS.
That seems an odd position to take, given that it's the Republican FCC commissioner that keeps pushing for the legalization of competition in communications, and fighting off the courts when they try to turn it back.
are you brain dead? since when does passing laws that allow big companies to purchase as many outlets as they choose, thereby exerting tighter control over our information, mean more competition.
oh, wait. you must be a republican. i forgot to translate that from doublespeak into the language of the intelligent open-minded thinking person. it's called openspeak.
both have their place. we have to stop thinking that for OSS to win, closed source must lose.
i think Apple has the right idea. they help where they can without giving away the farm.
Apple also showed us the way by realising the for them to win, it didn't mean MS had to lose.
open source isn't right for every product. insisting that it is only makes the whole OSS movement look unreasonable. insisting on either one completely stifles inovation.
that's right. no proprietary, no businesses developing software for a profit.
no OSS, no open source inovations happening outside company control. the two drive each other.
one more example of how everything must be balanced to work. if one or the other were on top, we would be in a very different and unhealthy place right now.
what is this conservative hostility towards those of us who think for themselves? so, you hate peace? or do you hate people who know things? people with open minds?
yeah, that's a great way to go through life. why don't you just tell us how to live? we'll all just do whatever you say, because you know all.
conservatives are geniuses, man. how did i get this far without you?
for 50.00 more, i got a 15gb. i can hold three times the music. not too mention the peripherals like the iTrip antenna which i am not sure works on the mini(could be wrong about that).
it needs to be around 200.00 to make it significantly less than the 15gb model. and the regular iPod is really small anyway, so the size thing is definitely not enough to make it worth giving up 11gb of storage just to have a tinier one.
ramrod down your throat huh? sure about your preference?
nothing is being ramrodded down your throat. why is it you conservative pinheads think that to give gays rights, means that you have to somehow be involved or will have something to deal with here?
this is simply people getting rights they were entitled to and denied. simple.
if you don't want to deal with gays or gay rights, don't. the fact that people like you get involved and try to stop them from having rights means that you want to be involved. involved in stopping them from having these rights because you think that they belong only to you.
conservative christian arrogance. you are better than us because christ is on your side and we are just pathetic sinners who need your guidance. what unbridled pride and narcisism to think that you have the answers the rest of us need.
what is this need to control others that you all seem to possess? if there is a judgement day, i think there are a lot of christians in for a big surprise.
marriage is not, nor should it be a special case. you seem to have trouble seperating what is personally important for you, from what applies to everyone.
a law cannot be fair if it only applies to one group of people.
and about the people "breaking the law" in california, breaking an unjust or unconstitutional law(and this is both) is a time honored form of protest. it's called civil disobedience and is meant to call attention to persecution by allowing oneself to be persecuted thereby proving one's point.
as far as the other bizarre examples you mentioned stupidly, human animal marriages should be banned for health reasons. sibbling marriages for the same reason, actually i believe that IS the reason they are banned.
as for gay people not bearing children, so what? they are a small percentage of our population with no indication that they will grow in numbers. are you really simple enough to suggest that gays will take over the breeding population and render us extinct?
and how are gays trampling your rights by wishing to exercise theirs? unless you think that deciding for them how they should define their unions is one of your rights, which apparrently you do.
your ice cream analogy is your biggest contradiction yet. you don't want anyone mandating what you like? you don't have to like gay marriages, but they still have the right to do it. and as for mandating what other people do, what the hell do you think you are trying to do to them you hypocrite simpleton?
as for multiple person marriages, if someone wants to do that, so be it. i'm against it personally, but unlike you, i do not try to legislate my morality on others.
i think you protest too much. all this talk about mandating, i think maybe you really want to do a little man dating, and your afraid if it was legal, you would.
well, don't worry, if you do, i still won't repress you.
There is a difference between having incomplete information and out and out lying.
yes, but if you have incomplete information you don't present it as the absolute truth the way Bush did. that IS lying.
"...the protesters are excercising their constitutional right to protest, or are you conservatives out to banish that as well?"
No, I'm all for it - if it's constructive
it's not your call. if someone wants to protest, it's their right. you don't get to stop them because you don't think it's worthwhile.
In the case of marriage, true marriage, the real problem isn't gay rights
the problem is ONLY rights. your definition of marriage is irrelevant, and so is mine. this isn't a religious issue. marriage is only a contract to the law, and that is all it should ever be, to the law.
what it is to you personally, is your business. by the same token, what it means to someone else is their business as well.
the only thing the law should be concerned with is that two peopl want to enter in to this contract and will be held to it. the end.
gay marriage does not affect your ability to have a straight mariiage and a christian life one iota. you can still do both no matter what gay couples do. the fact that you are trying to stop them just shows that you are not concerned with your way of life, rather that you do not want them to have the same rights.
it is ridiculous to say that the existence of gays means that you cannot live the way you want. you most certainly can. now how about giving them the same consideration?
and i'll quote who i want, though i can see why you wouldn't want to hear about that particular one as it brings your contradictions into specific light.
the founding fathers would be appalled. they were conservative christians, bigots, slave owners. not really people to be admired if you ask me. but i do admire some of the things they did. they managed to rise above their own prejudices for a moment and do somethign great, even if they themselves weren't able to adhere to it.
that doesn't mean we can't. and as long as you fight to exclude anyone from having those rights we are all guaranateed, you are fighting against America, and so are no patriot in my book.
"...we don't persecute gays, or minorities. that's your deal."
Uh, no frankly it's not, and you don't know me.
i meant the Conservative Christian Right, not you specifically.
"Your side is the one who can't be straight up and tell the American people the truth about their true intentions."
you mean like lying about WMD's?
"Talk about rhetoric - what about when they asked them a question about gay marriages last night and both of these individuals said, "Well, we'll let the states decide..."
yep. that IS BS. they should take a stand FOR gay marriages. absolutely i am disapointed in the Dems. That's why i'm an independent.
"Meanwhile we have cities BREAKING THE LAW to allow gay marriage since apparently they can't do it legally."
you can't make a law that is unconstitutional. and standing in the way of US citizens rights to life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness to push a religious objection to a certain lifestyle IS unconstitutional. the protesters are excercising their constitutional right to protest, or are you conservatives out to banish that as well?
"And countries self-imposing atheism found themselves without values or healthy government.
"
really? and countries imposing religions throughout history have had great luck. the church of england, islamic nations, this nation under GWB. spirituality is a personal thing and none of the governments business. just because there is a christian in office and he happens to be pushing your agenda, doesn't make it right. you see, this is when you find out who the TRUE patriots are. they are the people who, although they do not believe in the same things as the people being persecuted, will stand up for their right to believe it anyway.
but since you obviously don't respect anyone who doesn't think the way that you do, i don't expect you to understand that. you see liberals don't want you to support gay marriage, just the rights of other individuals to have the same things you do. you remember that line don't you? "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights".
that means it's illegal for fascists like you to take them away. that's what we're fighting for.
Slashdot Mirror
now before anyone accuses me of trolling, my stable is as follows:800G4, 700iBook, 400G4, MacSE, MacColorClassic, MacClassic II. i also have a SGI Indigo II, and last and least, a PC running XP for testing web pages.
i want to love OSS, i really do. and as soon as i can effortlessly move from one platform to another without noticing and reformatting, i will love it. that goes for Apple too.
the only way to beat windows is to be as good or better at everything windows is good at, without any learning curve for windows users.
Apple, Linux folks, listen up. stop trying to do better than windows until you can at least do as well. don't try to figure out a different and better way to do it. try and figure out how to make the experience exactly the same, but without the flaws. that is the ticket. a different product that does everything an MS product can do, but does it differeently and with all news flaws, not interested.
i cannot think of a more useless pursuit than a DOS clone. hey, let's do a VAX clone. or how about PDP11?
the only reason i would use it is if i needed to run 98. i'd use FreeDOS just to give the finger to MS.
So from now on OS X will just be referred to as simply "Pussy", iLife will become iPussy.
Quick to follow suit, MS will begin referring to Windows versions as "Dildo".
they could port it to Linux without making it OSS compliant.
if they were successful at that, more developers would do it. that's the secret to making people port to linux. if they have to release the source code to their crown jewels, forget it. they'll never do it and who would blame them?
linux users should welcome proprietary software that runs on linux. let developers make money on linux without spawning a hundred competitor projects because they released their source.
you want linux to be open? welcome all comers then, and let OSS and proprietary software compete on the same platform, just like OSS software is doing now on the windows and mac platforms.
no fair porting GIMP to mac and other platforms to compete with Photoshop and proprietary image editors and then whining when Adobe makes a proprietary Linux port of Photoshop to compete with GIMP.
plus that was not the point you were originally making and you know it. you said that they had barely covered their costs and are unlikely to make any profit.
on what are you basing that? you gave no facts to back up your unfounded notion.
then you come back with cost of doing business stuff when your first claim was blown out of the water(using facts, you should look into some of those).
well, CODB stuff tends to remain flat for considerable peiods of time rising at predictable rates over long periods of time, while profit can rise at an exponential rate over short periods of time making profit possible.
as long as Apple watches it's cost and keep interest high, profit seems inevitable here.
really, Econmics 101. take it.
the amount of taxes taken out affect that directly. one amount would make it impossible to do profitably. the other makes a dent, but doesn't eliminate it as a reasonable enterprise.
and you said 500.00, not 340.00, which is still wrong.
....Licrosoft Loffice PX
and why again would you need a T1? a business cable line will do fine.
and here it was, right before my eyes!
God bless you, VirtualMDA!
yeah, apparently information just wants to be cheaper than in America.
HERE is what Linux needs to conquer Windows, Profit!
How do they get it? Easy....
Step1: Steal Underwear.
Step2: ?????
Step3: Profit!!
but isn't much easier for someone to determine how to circumvent a security precaution if they can see the code used?
i would think closed, obscure code would first have to be deciphered thus adding an extra layer of protection to the process. this, of course, assuming that the security in both the open and closed source solutions were equal otherwise.
and before all the babies come back with troll insults, i don't have windows running on a single machine. Mac OSX(&OS9), Slackware, BeOS Max are my OS's.
OSS may not be the best use for every single application. i just can't imagine the government releasing security changes to the public. not gonna do it.
what crappy non-intuitive tools. until Linux has apps like Windows or Mac, that work just as easily and cover the same range of equipment, i don't want to hear about usability.
and before all the geeks come back with RTFM, and newbie insults, if i have to RTFM then you made it to difficult. i rarely have to read anything on windows or mac.
and that's the way it should be. no product ever conquered a market by trying to convince the customers there expectations were wrong. products conquer markets by meeting and exceeding those expectations.
and linux is far from that, but it is getting a lot better.
and for those who say there are no advantages, i refer you to the constant whining about X and it's problems and how we need a new updated windowing system.
Apple gives you this, as well as the ability to run all the apps and games that Linux users wish they could run, and people say there are NO advantages?
please. you're all starting to sound like windows users. Apple does something inovative, and because it threatens to supplant Linux as the best Unix out there, you pick it apart.
i would think Linux users would know better than to spread FUD about another operating system, but i guess using a mouse isn't the only thing you've learned from Microsoft.
just wanted to see what you'd say:-)
only when none are necessary, wil OOo be ready. till then it's a playtoy to all those who use MS Office seriously every day.
stop whining and code!
That seems an odd position to take, given that it's the Republican FCC commissioner that keeps pushing for the legalization of competition in communications, and fighting off the courts when they try to turn it back.
are you brain dead? since when does passing laws that allow big companies to purchase as many outlets as they choose, thereby exerting tighter control over our information, mean more competition.
oh, wait. you must be a republican. i forgot to translate that from doublespeak into the language of the intelligent open-minded thinking person. it's called openspeak.
both have their place. we have to stop thinking that for OSS to win, closed source must lose.
i think Apple has the right idea. they help where they can without giving away the farm.
Apple also showed us the way by realising the for them to win, it didn't mean MS had to lose.
open source isn't right for every product. insisting that it is only makes the whole OSS movement look unreasonable. insisting on either one completely stifles inovation.
that's right. no proprietary, no businesses developing software for a profit.
no OSS, no open source inovations happening outside company control. the two drive each other.
one more example of how everything must be balanced to work. if one or the other were on top, we would be in a very different and unhealthy place right now.
....melt Europa with you
what is this conservative hostility towards those of us who think for themselves? so, you hate peace? or do you hate people who know things? people with open minds?
yeah, that's a great way to go through life. why don't you just tell us how to live? we'll all just do whatever you say, because you know all.
conservatives are geniuses, man. how did i get this far without you?
for 50.00 more, i got a 15gb. i can hold three times the music. not too mention the peripherals like the iTrip antenna which i am not sure works on the mini(could be wrong about that).
it needs to be around 200.00 to make it significantly less than the 15gb model. and the regular iPod is really small anyway, so the size thing is definitely not enough to make it worth giving up 11gb of storage just to have a tinier one.
my $.02
ramrod down your throat huh? sure about your preference?
nothing is being ramrodded down your throat. why is it you conservative pinheads think that to give gays rights, means that you have to somehow be involved or will have something to deal with here?
this is simply people getting rights they were entitled to and denied. simple.
if you don't want to deal with gays or gay rights, don't. the fact that people like you get involved and try to stop them from having rights means that you want to be involved. involved in stopping them from having these rights because you think that they belong only to you.
conservative christian arrogance. you are better than us because christ is on your side and we are just pathetic sinners who need your guidance. what unbridled pride and narcisism to think that you have the answers the rest of us need.
what is this need to control others that you all seem to possess? if there is a judgement day, i think there are a lot of christians in for a big surprise.
the moral majority is neither.
a law cannot be fair if it only applies to one group of people.
and about the people "breaking the law" in california, breaking an unjust or unconstitutional law(and this is both) is a time honored form of protest. it's called civil disobedience and is meant to call attention to persecution by allowing oneself to be persecuted thereby proving one's point.
as far as the other bizarre examples you mentioned stupidly, human animal marriages should be banned for health reasons. sibbling marriages for the same reason, actually i believe that IS the reason they are banned.
as for gay people not bearing children, so what? they are a small percentage of our population with no indication that they will grow in numbers. are you really simple enough to suggest that gays will take over the breeding population and render us extinct?
and how are gays trampling your rights by wishing to exercise theirs? unless you think that deciding for them how they should define their unions is one of your rights, which apparrently you do.
your ice cream analogy is your biggest contradiction yet. you don't want anyone mandating what you like? you don't have to like gay marriages, but they still have the right to do it. and as for mandating what other people do, what the hell do you think you are trying to do to them you hypocrite simpleton?
as for multiple person marriages, if someone wants to do that, so be it. i'm against it personally, but unlike you, i do not try to legislate my morality on others.
i think you protest too much. all this talk about mandating, i think maybe you really want to do a little man dating, and your afraid if it was legal, you would.
well, don't worry, if you do, i still won't repress you.
yes, but if you have incomplete information you don't present it as the absolute truth the way Bush did. that IS lying.
"...the protesters are excercising their constitutional right to protest, or are you conservatives out to banish that as well?" No, I'm all for it - if it's constructive
it's not your call. if someone wants to protest, it's their right. you don't get to stop them because you don't think it's worthwhile.
In the case of marriage, true marriage, the real problem isn't gay rights
the problem is ONLY rights. your definition of marriage is irrelevant, and so is mine. this isn't a religious issue. marriage is only a contract to the law, and that is all it should ever be, to the law.
what it is to you personally, is your business. by the same token, what it means to someone else is their business as well.
the only thing the law should be concerned with is that two peopl want to enter in to this contract and will be held to it. the end.
gay marriage does not affect your ability to have a straight mariiage and a christian life one iota. you can still do both no matter what gay couples do. the fact that you are trying to stop them just shows that you are not concerned with your way of life, rather that you do not want them to have the same rights.
it is ridiculous to say that the existence of gays means that you cannot live the way you want. you most certainly can. now how about giving them the same consideration?
and i'll quote who i want, though i can see why you wouldn't want to hear about that particular one as it brings your contradictions into specific light.
the founding fathers would be appalled. they were conservative christians, bigots, slave owners. not really people to be admired if you ask me. but i do admire some of the things they did. they managed to rise above their own prejudices for a moment and do somethign great, even if they themselves weren't able to adhere to it.
that doesn't mean we can't. and as long as you fight to exclude anyone from having those rights we are all guaranateed, you are fighting against America, and so are no patriot in my book.
i meant the Conservative Christian Right, not you specifically.
"Your side is the one who can't be straight up and tell the American people the truth about their true intentions."
you mean like lying about WMD's?
"Talk about rhetoric - what about when they asked them a question about gay marriages last night and both of these individuals said, "Well, we'll let the states decide..."
yep. that IS BS. they should take a stand FOR gay marriages. absolutely i am disapointed in the Dems. That's why i'm an independent.
"Meanwhile we have cities BREAKING THE LAW to allow gay marriage since apparently they can't do it legally."
you can't make a law that is unconstitutional. and standing in the way of US citizens rights to life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness to push a religious objection to a certain lifestyle IS unconstitutional. the protesters are excercising their constitutional right to protest, or are you conservatives out to banish that as well?
"And countries self-imposing atheism found themselves without values or healthy government. "
really? and countries imposing religions throughout history have had great luck. the church of england, islamic nations, this nation under GWB. spirituality is a personal thing and none of the governments business. just because there is a christian in office and he happens to be pushing your agenda, doesn't make it right. you see, this is when you find out who the TRUE patriots are. they are the people who, although they do not believe in the same things as the people being persecuted, will stand up for their right to believe it anyway.
but since you obviously don't respect anyone who doesn't think the way that you do, i don't expect you to understand that. you see liberals don't want you to support gay marriage, just the rights of other individuals to have the same things you do. you remember that line don't you? "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights".
that means it's illegal for fascists like you to take them away. that's what we're fighting for.