X has a big advantage of having a number of virtual desktops. Why dont distros agree to have #5 given over to documenation & monitoring. (#5 is alive) & #6 given over to Distro Specific features.
Assuming they have 6 desktops (I know you can have more) 4 would be for the user, 1 for monitoring, 1 for exceptions and warnings & 7 to reset the mouse & keyboard.
1. named for an OS that isn't released WINXP64 - so its eather lying or its based on early release candidates. I'd say the same if they called it blah 2.61 and based it on Linux.
2. isn't fanless. Of all the people doing flips and twists to get rid of noice and moving parts Musicians are near the top of the list.
Personally if I found a keyboard I really liked to play on my suspicion is that I'd want a link to an upgradable computer network. I think this would do better with a browser or X interface that could take advantage of an external computer. You know one of those things that you can get and upgrade for only $1000 and keep the keyboard you enjoy.
Perhaps others like the 'all in one ness' of the thing but I suspect the extra features let them draw focus from a cheaper keyboard.
Radiation shielding and some amount of supplies would be a good investment. One might even want to prepare for the landing with a few caches of supplies to make the stay more comfortable and the responses more reasonable. Dont forget you've spent gigabucks getting the crew there they should be able to do something for the money, even if they're not coming back.
I actually envisage that there would have to be a planned trip involved. A brave martian experiament for all the world to see, almost to the end. I wonder how they would deal with the final moments. Would Popular earth officially lose contact before the fateful hour?
They'd want the world to remember the astronaut as an entrepid adventurer in a frail shelter under the martian sky reading select emails and telling the world how beautiful everything was.
Later their corpse would be treated like an arctic expedition.
I dont think it would be hard to find someone to get in the shuttle. You'd have trouble knowing if they would face their end with dignity and thankfulness though.
While its a truism that it is "unlikely that two desktops will be supported to the same extent" that doesn't necessarily matter. If your desktop has all the major players you need it will be the one you use. Gnome or KDE may be a month or two behind the other but popularity may quickly matter less than rliability. The KDE people are very proud of their structure and design -- maybe that will give them the edge?
I personally suspect there will always be a few linux desktops that are different enough to have a loyal user base. At very least, there will always be a light desktop and a heavy desktop. Dont forget Linux doesn't have to be a copy of windows, there will always be those who like minimal -- I certainly do.
ls
IBM is dropping Windows because it is a good business move not as a gimmick. They are not trying to impress Slashdot or open themselves up to abuse.
IBM is simply too big to not sell Windows so they don't want to make this rude. IBM needs to make money from the whole market to support IBM. They do not want the more childish Linux Element posting to the web every time they see a non Linux machine in the hands of one of their reps. The move is hugely important because it will help them hammer out all the kinks in their understanding of the software. It will help them see where business oportunities lie, more than anything else. They will then be in a position to share how they do it with the rest of the world.
They are not doing it to insult Microsoft. They are doing it because they have more control and bigger margins when they sell Linux.
IBM will run _all_ prevalent operating systems as long as there is an IBM. They are just too big not to.
AMD has rebranded _one_ product with no parts renamed. They wanted a numberring scheme that reflected their performance and were relatively clear in their advertising that this is what they were doing. Their justification by benchmark legitimated their naming & customers could refuse if they didn't agree.
HP is baiting and switching here. Offer the appeal of the more expensive chip and supply the cheaper one. Performance is not the only issue, lifespan heat etc.... even the intangible satisfaction of brand recognition is a concern.
If its the best part for the design label it right. I can't advertise a car with designer parts in it then remove them before delivery. I could put in equivelent, even better parts, but if they are not what I advertised I should offer the customer a chance to return the car.
If you change the deal after its made you unmake the deal.
If there is no difference they wouldn't have changed the name -- they should have properly named the chip.
Thats the Irony about Software for BIG clients. These very large amounts could write a lot of software the governments could own or give away. True, there would be false starts, corruption, mistakes etc... but its still a LOT of money.
I think this is ultimately the pay off of a moral stance on software. Governments have a resposibility to literacy, computers are the new literacy. Just like governments give out books they should give out software whenever possible.
The GPL makes it very likely that what gets developed is distributed with little expensive management or strategy. The patronage of the government(s) basically create a marketing free zone. I think this translates into a lot of money available for coding. All it takes is a couple of successful projects a year and Open source could walk through the markets reflecting the government will with democratic software.
120 million thats a lot of money to develope a system that writes memos, even with Hebrew Characters, -- especially when the project rests on the available work of others and is designed to contribute to future projects.
Thats the Irony about Software for BIG clients. These very large amounts could write a lot of software the governments could own or give away. True, there would be false starts, corruption, mistakes etc... but its still a LOT of money.
I think this is ultimately the pay off of a moral stance on software. Governments have a resposibility to literacy, computers are the new literacy. Just like governments give out books they should give out software whenever possible.
The GPL makes it very likely that what gets developed is distributed with little expensive management or strategy. The patronage of the government(s) basically create a marketing free zone. I think this translates into a lot of money available for coding. All it takes is a couple of successful projects a year and Open source could walk through the markets reflecting the government will with democratic software.
120 million thats a lot of money to develope a system that writes memos, even with Hebrew Characters, -- especially when the project rests on the available work of others and is designed to contribute to future projects.
ls
Has anyone made emulation work with Parallel port Dongles and Hasps? It seems that most of the emulators target dos games -- will they translate com and printer port calls ?
Some programs that "just work" are really a pain to change. I support a few of these that run on dos and I don't think there is a will to port them or replace them.
At this point Linux is much better maintained than dos and it would be a better fit if the programs ran perfectly? I know I'd like to dump dos.
Group of idiots commit fraud to crash an important meeting and discover -- rf tags. Then in sanctimonious puffery they tell the world about it because...
Do you not think the organizers knew there were limits to what they had to spend on security?
Rfid tags have the advantage of not needing an interpreter if the delegate only speaks another tongue.
See who gets painted by the same brush as these jerks, not scientists, not researchers...
When the car manufacturors stopped making older cars a whole industry sprang up supporting older models. The Car companies had at first said to the consumer -- upgrade its not supported.
Car part companies won a major legal win where they were allowed to make parts, against the wishes of the car manufacturers because there was an over-riding consumer interest.
At what point must the publishers of a de-facto standard publish its source code to allow others to help the userbase when they choose not to?
This is not a huge money maker for Microsoft, this is a strategic move on a couple of fronts.
1. To all those who say the announcement only covers hardware -- you're all wet. This might mean similar claims may be made against software strategies and not knowing is worse than a claim.
2. Linux attack may only be an added bonus for Microsoft in this measure. They might be preparing to build a case for database driven file storage. The SQL server vision they've been talking about. I'm not debating its workability.
Microsoft likes to control the market rather than compete in it. The licensing issue is a new stick or carrot. When they want to push people off FAT drives they can raise this license price.
3. Linux should take this seriously, where it is affected -- I dont know enough to answer that.
Open source should continue appealing to the government for a right to interroperate according to simple, sustainable rules. The government is responsible for protecting consumer choice and fair market -- Microsoft's history shows it cannot be reasonable in this matter.
The Intellectual Property basis for the available file systems should be catalogued. If there is a clear best choice it should be made known.
The underlying problem is that most users do not want to be administrated. Microsoft etc does not support the notion of a sysadmin.
Sysadmin says that.vbs is a security hole, microsoft says its a feature -- a feature the company paid for.
A lot of businesses do not want advice from even their own sysadmins they have been taught to look to marketing. Marketing has only one answer -- upgrade.
I would guess that the majority of working MCSEs are either completely ignored by the companies they work for or, are salesmen. I do not think this is true of Unix sysadmins. Windows sysadmins are little else but chief water bearers.
1. Microsoft
- We own your file formats so we own your data. We will probably support your data into the future, if not sue us.
- Your problems inspire solutions that make us rich. We will help you so long as this is true. If it will not make us rich enough you must wait.
2. Open Source
- You control your file formats and your data. We (any company - even Microsoft) want your business and we will do our best. We know that if you don't like our work or prices you can find someone else (a local programmer).
It isn't legislation that Microsoft fears its that enough users create critical mass making their anti-linux wall a liability to their own new business. A couple of innovations, a cool feature or two that MS doesnt have and cant control -- Microsoft is on the outside of its own wall.
The internet basically makes the world one big customer who will eventually wake up to the better deal or pay local developers to create one.
Software purchasing doesn't have to be more complicated than buying fresh fruit. Do you want local product with all the nutrition and no brand name or will you pay extra to support exotic flavours and rich foreign farms?
The poor need nutrition. They will make their own choice for fine dining. Microsoft will be a spice, the main course will be Open Source.
I can think of a lot of roadside emergency kits that would add this immediately.
Renting a cell with your car when traveling would probably also really take off.
I hate the idea that there is so much waste. On the other hand if there were no fees until activation - gauranteed. I think there would be real uses for an emergency phone.
But whats to stop this company selling a bunch of phones and then quietly folding. Could bring a new meaning to the term Folding Cell Phone.
ls
This phrase invented here on Slashdot is released under the GPL. Any and all rights & benefits pertaining to its copyright are assigned to the Free Software Foundation.
Slashdot Mirror
X has a big advantage of having a number of virtual desktops. Why dont distros agree to have #5 given over to documenation & monitoring. (#5 is alive) & #6 given over to Distro Specific features.
Assuming they have 6 desktops (I know you can have more) 4 would be for the user, 1 for monitoring, 1 for exceptions and warnings & 7 to reset the mouse & keyboard.
ls
Leaving aside the Linux question for a minute.
How can they design a system:
1. named for an OS that isn't released WINXP64 - so its eather lying or its based on early release candidates. I'd say the same if they called it blah 2.61 and based it on Linux.
2. isn't fanless. Of all the people doing flips and twists to get rid of noice and moving parts Musicians are near the top of the list.
Personally if I found a keyboard I really liked to play on my suspicion is that I'd want a link to an upgradable computer network. I think this would do better with a browser or X interface that could take advantage of an external computer. You know one of those things that you can get and upgrade for only $1000 and keep the keyboard you enjoy.
Perhaps others like the 'all in one ness' of the thing but I suspect the extra features let them draw focus from a cheaper keyboard.
Just a cynical guess, you'd best ignore me...
ls
Protection and preservation are important. I think it needs a large roll down rubber covvering -- perhaps with an Spacemen reservoir in the tip!
ls
$1400 is a huge amount for a case (looking is free though :) ). You're spending gigabucks for the last couple of elements of silence.
How often have people spent that sort of money for the last couple of percent on the performance curve?
At least the quiet is not going to get obsoleted?
How do you price the idea that comes to you when your environment just works????
ls
Radiation shielding and some amount of supplies would be a good investment. One might even want to prepare for the landing with a few caches of supplies to make the stay more comfortable and the responses more reasonable. Dont forget you've spent gigabucks getting the crew there they should be able to do something for the money, even if they're not coming back.
I actually envisage that there would have to be a planned trip involved. A brave martian experiament for all the world to see, almost to the end. I wonder how they would deal with the final moments. Would Popular earth officially lose contact before the fateful hour?
They'd want the world to remember the astronaut as an entrepid adventurer in a frail shelter under the martian sky reading select emails and telling the world how beautiful everything was.
Later their corpse would be treated like an arctic expedition.
I dont think it would be hard to find someone to get in the shuttle. You'd have trouble knowing if they would face their end with dignity and thankfulness though.
I'd love to hear more about mozilla as a platform. Java\python and open office integration is happening , I just dont think that it gets enough press.
Mozilla is easily the easiest open source project I've been able to implement, its that good.
IE is so dangerous that its not worth the integration -- even my users are beginning to get that.
sl
While its a truism that it is "unlikely that two desktops will be supported to the same extent" that doesn't necessarily matter. If your desktop has all the major players you need it will be the one you use. Gnome or KDE may be a month or two behind the other but popularity may quickly matter less than rliability. The KDE people are very proud of their structure and design -- maybe that will give them the edge? I personally suspect there will always be a few linux desktops that are different enough to have a loyal user base. At very least, there will always be a light desktop and a heavy desktop. Dont forget Linux doesn't have to be a copy of windows, there will always be those who like minimal -- I certainly do. ls
Just another memorable leak, found and patched. Good thing it wasn't in one of the windows, they'd have to relaunch the space station. :)
ls
IBM is dropping Windows because it is a good business move not as a gimmick. They are not trying to impress Slashdot or open themselves up to abuse.
IBM is simply too big to not sell Windows so they don't want to make this rude. IBM needs to make money from the whole market to support IBM. They do not want the more childish Linux Element posting to the web every time they see a non Linux machine in the hands of one of their reps.
The move is hugely important because it will help them hammer out all the kinks in their understanding of the software. It will help them see where business oportunities lie, more than anything else. They will then be in a position to share how they do it with the rest of the world.
They are not doing it to insult Microsoft. They are doing it because they have more control and bigger margins when they sell Linux.
IBM will run _all_ prevalent operating systems as long as there is an IBM. They are just too big not to.
LS
AMD has rebranded _one_ product with no parts renamed. They wanted a numberring scheme that reflected their performance and were relatively clear in their advertising that this is what they were doing. Their justification by benchmark legitimated their naming & customers could refuse if they didn't agree.
HP is baiting and switching here. Offer the appeal of the more expensive chip and supply the cheaper one. Performance is not the only issue, lifespan heat etc.... even the intangible satisfaction of brand recognition is a concern.
If its the best part for the design label it right. I can't advertise a car with designer parts in it then remove them before delivery. I could put in equivelent, even better parts, but if they are not what I advertised I should offer the customer a chance to return the car.
If you change the deal after its made you unmake the deal.
If there is no difference they wouldn't have changed the name -- they should have properly named the chip.
ls
Thats the Irony about Software for BIG clients. These very large amounts could write a lot of software the governments could own or give away. True, there would be false starts, corruption, mistakes etc... but its still a LOT of money.
I think this is ultimately the pay off of a moral stance on software. Governments have a resposibility to literacy, computers are the new literacy. Just like governments give out books they should give out software whenever possible.
The GPL makes it very likely that what gets developed is distributed with little expensive management or strategy. The patronage of the government(s) basically create a marketing free zone. I think this translates into a lot of money available for coding. All it takes is a couple of successful projects a year and Open source could walk through the markets reflecting the government will with democratic software.
120 million thats a lot of money to develope a system that writes memos, even with Hebrew Characters, -- especially when the project rests on the available work of others and is designed to contribute to future projects.
ls
Thats the Irony about Software for BIG clients. These very large amounts could write a lot of software the governments could own or give away. True, there would be false starts, corruption, mistakes etc... but its still a LOT of money. I think this is ultimately the pay off of a moral stance on software. Governments have a resposibility to literacy, computers are the new literacy. Just like governments give out books they should give out software whenever possible. The GPL makes it very likely that what gets developed is distributed with little expensive management or strategy. The patronage of the government(s) basically create a marketing free zone. I think this translates into a lot of money available for coding. All it takes is a couple of successful projects a year and Open source could walk through the markets reflecting the government will with democratic software. 120 million thats a lot of money to develope a system that writes memos, even with Hebrew Characters, -- especially when the project rests on the available work of others and is designed to contribute to future projects. ls
Has anyone made emulation work with Parallel port Dongles and Hasps? It seems that most of the emulators target dos games -- will they translate com and printer port calls ?
Some programs that "just work" are really a pain to change. I support a few of these that run on dos and I don't think there is a will to port them or replace them.
At this point Linux is much better maintained than dos and it would be a better fit if the programs ran perfectly? I know I'd like to dump dos.
LS
TV expects me to watch the comercials and pay.
Group of idiots commit fraud to crash an important meeting and discover -- rf tags. Then in sanctimonious puffery they tell the world about it because...
Do you not think the organizers knew there were limits to what they had to spend on security?
Rfid tags have the advantage of not needing an interpreter if the delegate only speaks another tongue.
See who gets painted by the same brush as these jerks, not scientists, not researchers...
ROTFL. Notice I'm not trying to defend Win98 but respond to a public need. (I like the Invade China Alone the most)
When the car manufacturors stopped making older cars a whole industry sprang up supporting older models. The Car companies had at first said to the consumer -- upgrade its not supported.
Car part companies won a major legal win where they were allowed to make parts, against the wishes of the car manufacturers because there was an over-riding consumer interest.
At what point must the publishers of a de-facto standard publish its source code to allow others to help the userbase when they choose not to?
This is not a huge money maker for Microsoft, this is a strategic move on a couple of fronts.
1. To all those who say the announcement only covers hardware -- you're all wet. This might mean similar claims may be made against software strategies and not knowing is worse than a claim.
2. Linux attack may only be an added bonus for Microsoft in this measure. They might be preparing to build a case for database driven file storage. The SQL server vision they've been talking about. I'm not debating its workability.
Microsoft likes to control the market rather than compete in it. The licensing issue is a new stick or carrot. When they want to push people off FAT drives they can raise this license price.
3. Linux should take this seriously, where it is affected -- I dont know enough to answer that.
Open source should continue appealing to the government for a right to interroperate according to simple, sustainable rules. The government is responsible for protecting consumer choice and fair market -- Microsoft's history shows it cannot be reasonable in this matter.
The Intellectual Property basis for the available file systems should be catalogued. If there is a clear best choice it should be made known.
SCO is going to sue somebody?
"This is all speculation until such a suit is filed, though."
Sadly its Speculation even after a suite is filed.
They put the _P_oint _O_f _S_ale in POSture and POSpone.
ls
I can just the future.
"Humanity wiped out by terrible strain of life threatenning virus -- but it makes great video cards."
Finally a use for the moon. A clean room.
Could you imagine getting sick and having to sign an NDA and non contagion agreement?
The underlying problem is that most users do not want to be administrated. Microsoft etc does not support the notion of a sysadmin. Sysadmin says that .vbs is a security hole, microsoft says its a feature -- a feature the company paid for.
A lot of businesses do not want advice from even their own sysadmins they have been taught to look to marketing. Marketing has only one answer -- upgrade.
I would guess that the majority of working MCSEs are either completely ignored by the companies they work for or, are salesmen. I do not think this is true of Unix sysadmins. Windows sysadmins are little else but chief water bearers.
With the penalties for holding copied MP3s now exceeding the penalties for crimes of violence I think we should call them....
MP3's of Mass Destruction
1. Microsoft
- We own your file formats so we own your data. We will probably support your data into the future, if not sue us.
- Your problems inspire solutions that make us rich. We will help you so long as this is true. If it will not make us rich enough you must wait.
2. Open Source
- You control your file formats and your data. We (any company - even Microsoft) want your business and we will do our best. We know that if you don't like our work or prices you can find someone else (a local programmer).
It isn't legislation that Microsoft fears its that enough users create critical mass making their anti-linux wall a liability to their own new business. A couple of innovations, a cool feature or two that MS doesnt have and cant control -- Microsoft is on the outside of its own wall.
The internet basically makes the world one big customer who will eventually wake up to the better deal or pay local developers to create one.
Software purchasing doesn't have to be more complicated than buying fresh fruit. Do you want local product with all the nutrition and no brand name or will you pay extra to support exotic flavours and rich foreign farms?
The poor need nutrition. They will make their own choice for fine dining. Microsoft will be a spice, the main course will be Open Source.
Just wait till all the cooks share their recipes!
I can think of a lot of roadside emergency kits that would add this immediately. Renting a cell with your car when traveling would probably also really take off. I hate the idea that there is so much waste. On the other hand if there were no fees until activation - gauranteed. I think there would be real uses for an emergency phone. But whats to stop this company selling a bunch of phones and then quietly folding. Could bring a new meaning to the term Folding Cell Phone. ls
S-peculative
C-rap
U-ncertainty
D-oubt
This phrase invented here on Slashdot is released under the GPL. Any and all rights & benefits pertaining to its copyright are assigned to the Free Software Foundation.