If "success == working yourself into an early grave", then yes. Americans are more successful.
Personally, I think "success == living a happy life with those I love", which America isn't as successful at, as most Americans are stuck in the office.
Unemployment figures are grossly misleading, as they only count people who are collecting unemployment benefits, which run out after a period. After that time, those people cease to be "unemployed", even though they might not have a job. Great, huh?
"This short term thinking is rampant in this country and it is almost universally negative for the country. It does make a few people very rich in the short term. At the expense of everybody else and with no long term benefit to anybody."
Obviously, but the guy wasn't saying "windows" as in "a segmented graphical display", but "the operating system". He wants windows-based 'cos he uses windows. Fair enough. That could be a command-line app or anything.
The police and FBI are government agencies whos only action involving you and that evidence would be your indictment. We're talking about a college professor here, not the stasi. I can understand all you privacy zealots crapping yourselves over this one, but just let it go. It's opt-in, anyway.
There's a thing called a "bit reservoir" which makes that slightly difficult. True, it is made of seperate frames, but they're not as seperate as you'd think.
Wow. Way to find something to moan about. Semantics in an article on support.microsoft.com not clear enough for you. That is truly inspiring that, even after everyone's already agreed linux fanboys should give MS a break on this one, you manage to pull this self-proclaimed "show stopper" out of your ass. Congratulations.
Not when I'm at home. As you say, a hardware firewall is way more effective. Of course, if I had a notebook and went on another LAN with weirdos, then yes, I suppose I'd bang it on. But I don't do that, so it's not an issue.:)
Don't assume Windows isn't the best OS for everyone. I'm being serious here.
I'm a developer (open-source), and I use windows. I've had no (and I repeat: no) reason to leave. My windows installs are secure enough for me to not worry about anything. The software installs fine and works well. My multimedia works perfectly, and all my games run natively and with hardware acceleration. My machine runs apache, ssh, mysql, cvs, you name it. Multi-monitor support, hardware-accelerated GUI, everything.
I know you can do all that stuff on other platforms, but that's not the point. I can do it on Windows, so why should I change?
Not all Windows users are lazy or naive... some have found a very useable operating system that lets them do EXACTLY what they want, with no fussing.
And your last point is mooted by SP2 - the only way you can run that program is if you download and run it yourself, which can be done on ANY OPERATING SYSTEM. The auto-installs on IE are now a thing of the past (they're not auto any more, and require lots of clicking to start, with lots of big, red "X"s everywhere.)
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I keep seeing this "windows users are all stupid, and windows is useless crap" rubbish everywhere, and it's starting to get slightly annoying:)
We should just accept that every discussion on here about windows and microsoft will ignore anything good the company does, and instantly assume every action they take to be a stab at open source and democracy.
People here aren't objective when it comes to microsoft. They see the ol' "Bash MS" band-wagon and leap on. Come on, folks, think for yourselves. Put away all that childish anecdotal evidence you pull out of your asses every time someone even mentions windows, and start arguing with the facts.
Sheesh, mac posters. We know you have macs, we know they're pretty and we know they now run unix. We know all of that. We have accepted it. You don't need to repeatedly remind us that you have a mac. We get it already. Can you all refrain for just one story about computers from pointlessly interjecting with some off-topic ego-rant about macs? Objectivity, folks - we need all of it we can get.
And also remember that code-reusing could mean that live code is being released in an old product (ie old code is still being used), which could cause all sorts of licensing problems, not to mention giving away a chunk of their product.
It's akin to asking companies to open up any spare rooms they have lying around and let geeks sit in them all day - after all, they're not using them.
It clearly is money. That's all governments are worried about. They don't care about open source initiative, etc. If it was anything else, they would have turned it into spin and used it.
I'm comparing it against Windows98, as the article said. Not NT 4. NT 4 wasn't even up to Windows 95 standard, and was released before. NT4 didn't have modern DirectX or hardware acceleration. It didn't have fully-fledged multimedia support, or play the latest games properly.
NT couldn't do anything compared to 98, so by saying Slackware in 96 could do everything NT could, you've just proved my point. Thanks!:)
The BBC aren't doing that for some sort of ideological reason, but because they have to do "our bidding". They can't be in Microsoft's pocket by using their technology to encode the video streams - it has to be done in-house, and free of external licenses (also remember the license could extend to the client decoding side, which would mean every license-fee-paying-person would be automatically signed up as a MS customer)
I wish everyone here would stop equating "not microsoft" with "vehemently opposed to microsoft on an ideological level and smoking the open-source pole" - it is possible to just not choose MS and still think for yourself.
CNN.com may be mainstream media where you come from, but over here it's a government mouthpiece.
Either way, Saddam got a useful supply up to some people quickly. The US couldn't even manage that. Nice that that was the only piece of my post you could argue with, though. thanks!:)
"functions better, works better, and breaks much more rarely" - that's your opinion. I could voice my opinion, which is that it would cost a lot more, function less, work less and break more. And if she likes playing games, forget it.
People don't want to buy hardware/software because of ideological reasons. They want what can do the job. A PC and XP does the job, and is cheaper than a mac. By far. As for Linux? Sure. If the user likes compiling or having to find "alternatives" for everything they want to do.
I'm not having a go at anyone, or saying anything trollish. Let's just stop speaking out of our collective asses.
Yes, and that OS can't do as much as Windows 98 can for that particular user. Let's compare like with like here. I mean, I could say "and I can turn on my Spectrum 128 +2 and it would run fine!" - technically true, but hardly a real comparison.
And this is/., so no-one expects microsoft to be absolved, even if they did nothing wrong;)
Which is the exact thing the US is doing at the moment, but their definition of Infidel is just as warped, and their aim is to build an American Empire.
It would run terribly slow, as you'd have to figure out a way to link all those cards together, and link them to the motherboard (and the cards aren't too snappy themselves, either).
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I think "success == living a happy life with those I love", which America isn't as successful at, as most Americans are stuck in the office.
Unemployment figures are grossly misleading, as they only count people who are collecting unemployment benefits, which run out after a period. After that time, those people cease to be "unemployed", even though they might not have a job. Great, huh?
Obviously, but the guy wasn't saying "windows" as in "a segmented graphical display", but "the operating system". He wants windows-based 'cos he uses windows. Fair enough. That could be a command-line app or anything.
The police and FBI are government agencies whos only action involving you and that evidence would be your indictment. We're talking about a college professor here, not the stasi. I can understand all you privacy zealots crapping yourselves over this one, but just let it go. It's opt-in, anyway.
There's a thing called a "bit reservoir" which makes that slightly difficult. True, it is made of seperate frames, but they're not as seperate as you'd think.
Then who on earth will work on Gentoo?
Wow. Way to find something to moan about. Semantics in an article on support.microsoft.com not clear enough for you. That is truly inspiring that, even after everyone's already agreed linux fanboys should give MS a break on this one, you manage to pull this self-proclaimed "show stopper" out of your ass. Congratulations.
Again, let's all bash microsoft for doing the right thing. Damn yous! You damned dirty software developers! :)
Not when I'm at home. As you say, a hardware firewall is way more effective. Of course, if I had a notebook and went on another LAN with weirdos, then yes, I suppose I'd bang it on. But I don't do that, so it's not an issue. :)
I'm a developer (open-source), and I use windows. I've had no (and I repeat: no) reason to leave. My windows installs are secure enough for me to not worry about anything. The software installs fine and works well. My multimedia works perfectly, and all my games run natively and with hardware acceleration. My machine runs apache, ssh, mysql, cvs, you name it. Multi-monitor support, hardware-accelerated GUI, everything.
I know you can do all that stuff on other platforms, but that's not the point. I can do it on Windows, so why should I change?
Not all Windows users are lazy or naive... some have found a very useable operating system that lets them do EXACTLY what they want, with no fussing.
And your last point is mooted by SP2 - the only way you can run that program is if you download and run it yourself, which can be done on ANY OPERATING SYSTEM. The auto-installs on IE are now a thing of the past (they're not auto any more, and require lots of clicking to start, with lots of big, red "X"s everywhere.)
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I keep seeing this "windows users are all stupid, and windows is useless crap" rubbish everywhere, and it's starting to get slightly annoying :)
People here aren't objective when it comes to microsoft. They see the ol' "Bash MS" band-wagon and leap on. Come on, folks, think for yourselves. Put away all that childish anecdotal evidence you pull out of your asses every time someone even mentions windows, and start arguing with the facts.
Sheesh, mac posters. We know you have macs, we know they're pretty and we know they now run unix. We know all of that. We have accepted it. You don't need to repeatedly remind us that you have a mac. We get it already. Can you all refrain for just one story about computers from pointlessly interjecting with some off-topic ego-rant about macs? Objectivity, folks - we need all of it we can get.
All these generalisations about windows users... tut tut. ;)
It's akin to asking companies to open up any spare rooms they have lying around and let geeks sit in them all day - after all, they're not using them.
It clearly is money. That's all governments are worried about. They don't care about open source initiative, etc. If it was anything else, they would have turned it into spin and used it.
NT couldn't do anything compared to 98, so by saying Slackware in 96 could do everything NT could, you've just proved my point. Thanks! :)
I wish everyone here would stop equating "not microsoft" with "vehemently opposed to microsoft on an ideological level and smoking the open-source pole" - it is possible to just not choose MS and still think for yourself.
Either way, Saddam got a useful supply up to some people quickly. The US couldn't even manage that. Nice that that was the only piece of my post you could argue with, though. thanks! :)
That's hilarious :) nice one
And back in '98, most people were on to Pentiums, as opposed to the ol' 486s...
People don't want to buy hardware/software because of ideological reasons. They want what can do the job. A PC and XP does the job, and is cheaper than a mac. By far. As for Linux? Sure. If the user likes compiling or having to find "alternatives" for everything they want to do.
I'm not having a go at anyone, or saying anything trollish. Let's just stop speaking out of our collective asses.
And this is /., so no-one expects microsoft to be absolved, even if they did nothing wrong ;)
Again, where's the difference?
Cool, though :)