I think I'm with you, some of the other stories are about there being too much caffeine in the sea (!?) and free music downloads. What do you need to emigrate?
No, I simply mean that it should be illegal to use a closed method of data transmission unless the design of the system calls for it (note: thats a get out for the military, more than anything else).
I'm all for market forces chosing the best standard, which is why I am against large companies using their dominance of the software market to lock customers in to a propriety method of data exchange.
And the MS Word XML schemas are known to be incomplete.
MS have taken a published standard, altered it in minor but annoying ways for those of you ho have to deal with browser compatibility and massively publicised it. This sounds like the MS approved HTML debacle all over again. WTF happened with that Anti-trust case?
Communication and data exchange protocols ought to be open standards by law, damnit!
I think they will sue. Its their core business now, remember? They are suing everything and everybody in sight, why stop at Novell. Darl would sue himself if his lawyers could think of a way to profit by it.
Patience grasshopper, such is inevitable, but it will take some time
Look at the english railways - for a long time, seperate companies used their own parallel rail network, often running different gage track (different width) and having to step around one anothers infrastructure, creating clumsy and non user friendly railway stations and services.
Eventually rail regulation came in, standardising all rail networks to one standard gage, allowing rolling stock and engines to work on any rail companies track and making the whole exercise better for customers and more profitable for the companies.
Sooner or later, p2p filesharing (and maybe chat client) protocol will become standardised, and it will simply be a matter of which piece of software you use to connect to a complete network.
Mind you, it'll probably be the one without any advertsising, and will lead to the end of civilisation as the marketing droids know it, but some sacrifices must be made for the good of the internet:)
Wow! Look at that, a transport analogy for the internet and computers that isn't about cars! Thats got to be a first:)
Re:It's been done... "Your Name Here"
on
Recycling TV Ads
·
· Score: 2, Funny
As Carrots Commercial Breakdown pointed out years ago, 'If you want to sell Womens Underwear, your show a woman walking around in her underwear. If you want to sell Margerine, you show a woman walking around in her underwear...'
That's why someone -- whoever is trying to break Linux into the desktop -- needs to take charge and make a decision. Compromises must be made and obviously not everyone is going be happy, but it's a necessity to promote a single, unified desktop experience for Linux.
But the elementary desktop for home and office is only one of the many possible applications for Linux. You are thinking in terms of single solution for all possible applications, which ends up catering to the lowest common denominator, creating the Windows monoculture that we know and hate. What is going to happen with Linux as it runs will be a series of related distros of various utility for different applications. A company with a specific need in mind will be well able to employ someone to create their own custom variant of Linux tailored to their specifications.
Why on earth would anyone want to encourage the promulgation of a the worlds greatest computing mistake - the monoculture of Windows operating systems. It doesn't and shouldn't have to be that way.
Sure, and how does one company (or group of companies) promoting one tool as their "default" prevent anyone from seeking alternatives?
It doesn't. User choice and freedom, prevention of the type of user base lock in that MS perpetrates - ain't it great?
It's not going to be me calling the shots nor will it be you. For desktop Linux to be a reality, it's going to take a consortium of well-funded companies.
Linux is already on the desktop, and gaining ground. Furthermore the way open source works is one of the greatest applications of democracy in existence. If you have a valid view to express, make your view known and it will be given as much consideration as anyone elses.
Well funded companies are all very well, but the strength of Open Source lies in doing things the opposite way to the traditional business model - your 'problems' are in fact the strengths of the system.
The reason that no-one is saying 'X is the best one' is that there isn't a clearly defined consensus as to what is 'best'
Different tools work better in different circumstances, and people are quite right to use what works best for them.
If you sincerely want a single program, then take the code and do with it as you wish - thats the point of open source, and why the large companies can employ their own developer to modify the source as they see fit, which of course filters back into the entire codebase and waits for the next innovator to come along.
If you want something to happen, go forth and do it!
Would it be feasible to bring these valuable materials back on Earth?
No, but it is much more likely to be feasible to bring them to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), as the energy costs of raising mass from the moon are only 1/6th of the cost of raising the same mass from earth (before assumptions of fuel cost for terrestrial weather is taken into consideration)
Building space stations from moon rock would be easier than building them from Earth rock.
In many ways the duplication of effort towards a single end on seperate code lines is a good thing. because we are falliable, and acknowledged as such, each small team of coders works along its own lines.
Therefore it can be deduced that a greater number of the potential solutions to any given problems will be taken, and thus that there is a greater likelyhood that the best solution will be found (and a higher overall quality of product can be attained)
In this case it is very much that the duplication of effort, while seeming to waste effort, actually results in a better product, because more solutions can be investigated.
The approach would also indicate open standards for data interchange as being an optimal path, allowing the most potential courses of action to be tried with an even greater chance of high effect results.
In addition, the problems of the software are open to outside review far easier than the alternative coding model, and as the saying goes 'The outsider sees more of the game'.
The major difference between something that might go wrong and something that cannot possibly go wrong is that when something that cannot possibly go wrong eventually goes wrong it usually turns out to be almost impossible to get at or repair. -Douglas Adams, THHG2TG
This quote illustrates why closed source is a bad idea for a programming model, preventing those with the most immediate experience with the system and the quickest response time to it the issue from solving it.
Anyway, seriously, while I see the issue about cryptography preventing terrorists being phone tapped, i'm less than enthusiastic about them being able to tap just anyone.
For that matter the ability of any kid with the right equipment to pick phone conversations out of the air, like that record that got released a few years back...
Now thats a good point: however much one dislikes Lindows as having all of the downsides of Windows, it wouldn't make much sense for them to allienate this customer base, which by presumably means a mainstream Linux port will be easier.
Now, would anyone like to bet on how long it will take before they bundle it on the machines they sell and someone start shouting about Anti-trust matters?
Slashdot Mirror
As with most things in American law, it isn't what is right that matters, it is who has the most money.
I think I'm with you, some of the other stories are about there being too much caffeine in the sea (!?) and free music downloads. What do you need to emigrate?
And you thought
The only thing I noticed was that NTL's DNS servers stopped working.
I switched to the OpenNIC DNS server and it all works fine, with a little more lag, but nothing serious.
No, I simply mean that it should be illegal to use a closed method of data transmission unless the design of the system calls for it (note: thats a get out for the military, more than anything else).
I'm all for market forces chosing the best standard, which is why I am against large companies using their dominance of the software market to lock customers in to a propriety method of data exchange.
And the MS Word XML schemas are known to be incomplete.
yup, sounds like the HTML debacle. Anyone for Anti-Toast?
MS have taken a published standard, altered it in minor but annoying ways for those of you ho have to deal with browser compatibility and massively publicised it. This sounds like the MS approved HTML debacle all over again. WTF happened with that Anti-trust case?
Communication and data exchange protocols ought to be open standards by law, damnit!
Timothy has the right idea
from the sub-instead-taxpayer-scum/righteous-despot dept.
I think they will sue. Its their core business now, remember? They are suing everything and everybody in sight, why stop at Novell. Darl would sue himself if his lawyers could think of a way to profit by it.
Patience grasshopper, such is inevitable, but it will take some time
:)
:)
Look at the english railways - for a long time, seperate companies used their own parallel rail network, often running different gage track (different width) and having to step around one anothers infrastructure, creating clumsy and non user friendly railway stations and services.
Eventually rail regulation came in, standardising all rail networks to one standard gage, allowing rolling stock and engines to work on any rail companies track and making the whole exercise better for customers and more profitable for the companies.
Sooner or later, p2p filesharing (and maybe chat client) protocol will become standardised, and it will simply be a matter of which piece of software you use to connect to a complete network.
Mind you, it'll probably be the one without any advertsising, and will lead to the end of civilisation as the marketing droids know it, but some sacrifices must be made for the good of the internet
Wow! Look at that, a transport analogy for the internet and computers that isn't about cars! Thats got to be a first
As Carrots Commercial Breakdown pointed out years ago, 'If you want to sell Womens Underwear, your show a woman walking around in her underwear. If you want to sell Margerine, you show a woman walking around in her underwear...'
I don't think America can trust any kind of voting, let alone the electronic variety.
I concur, although I also find close page (hold RMB, right left right) to be very useful, with the number of extra windows I open.
/. would be a much bigger chore without the refresh gesture (hold RMB, Up, then down) :P
Continually refreshing
Why on earth would anyone want to encourage the promulgation of a the worlds greatest computing mistake - the monoculture of Windows operating systems. It doesn't and shouldn't have to be that way.
It doesn't. User choice and freedom, prevention of the type of user base lock in that MS perpetrates - ain't it great?
Linux is already on the desktop, and gaining ground. Furthermore the way open source works is one of the greatest applications of democracy in existence. If you have a valid view to express, make your view known and it will be given as much consideration as anyone elses.
Well funded companies are all very well, but the strength of Open Source lies in doing things the opposite way to the traditional business model - your 'problems' are in fact the strengths of the system.
Copyleft. All rights reversed.
I stand corected on the maths, but the point stands. It is better to bring building materials to LEO than bring them up from earth.
The reason that no-one is saying 'X is the best one' is that there isn't a clearly defined consensus as to what is 'best'
Different tools work better in different circumstances, and people are quite right to use what works best for them.
If you sincerely want a single program, then take the code and do with it as you wish - thats the point of open source, and why the large companies can employ their own developer to modify the source as they see fit, which of course filters back into the entire codebase and waits for the next innovator to come along.
If you want something to happen, go forth and do it!
Building space stations from moon rock would be easier than building them from Earth rock.
I've just tried Win98 SE and it works, haven't got anything more archaic than that to hand :P
Therefore it can be deduced that a greater number of the potential solutions to any given problems will be taken, and thus that there is a greater likelyhood that the best solution will be found (and a higher overall quality of product can be attained)
In this case it is very much that the duplication of effort, while seeming to waste effort, actually results in a better product, because more solutions can be investigated.
The approach would also indicate open standards for data interchange as being an optimal path, allowing the most potential courses of action to be tried with an even greater chance of high effect results.
In addition, the problems of the software are open to outside review far easier than the alternative coding model, and as the saying goes 'The outsider sees more of the game'.
This quote illustrates why closed source is a bad idea for a programming model, preventing those with the most immediate experience with the system and the quickest response time to it the issue from solving it.
Anyway, seriously, while I see the issue about cryptography preventing terrorists being phone tapped, i'm less than enthusiastic about them being able to tap just anyone.
For that matter the ability of any kid with the right equipment to pick phone conversations out of the air, like that record that got released a few years back...
don't be daft, you don't think anyone on /. actually reads the goddamn articles do you? Sheesh @_@
(laugh. its funny)
There's no competition, Linux far outclasses SCOs efforts... isn't that the whole point of this?
Now thats a good point: however much one dislikes Lindows as having all of the downsides of Windows, it wouldn't make much sense for them to allienate this customer base, which by presumably means a mainstream Linux port will be easier.
Now, would anyone like to bet on how long it will take before they bundle it on the machines they sell and someone start shouting about Anti-trust matters?
Someone hasn't done their research
make up some bullshit excuse why and loudly proclaim that their is still the genuine body of course...
Not too different to what'll happen if either one is proven to be him.