IE 5.5 is better than Netscape 4.7 But Netscape was at less than 15% marketshare by the time that happened, and shortly after, was bought out for their default home page.
Maybe I'll try Fedora on my 'hobby' desktop system. In a year or so, when it has a history. If it still exists. I know from experience that even though I like to blow away partitions and throw in test kernels and apps, that sometimes I get attached to data (or even something as stupid as a desktop theme) so I'm not willing to risk using Fedora (and supposedly, thus Redhat) until it has some kind of track record. So I'm not bleeding edge. I do have a couple servers that were just about to be upgraded, and a RH 9 box to do it with. I paid for the box, but it's not going on my (relatively non-mission critical) servers. I would probably have paid for RHN in the future too. Oh well. Anyone know a decent linux distribution. If SuSE was still around I'd check them out. No, Mandrake & Debian are not serious options.
Alienating 90% of your potential customer base is not too shabby, wouldn't you say? So what if half of them were never going to buy. Half of the ones you didn't alienate probly aren't going to buy either.
It's supporting (actually just compiling RPMs & putting them up for others to mirror) my 8 PCs with Redhat 6.2 (and thousands like me) that got them every single one of their Enterprise contracts. It *was* good business. And cheaper than hell for them, even if they paid bandwidth for every leech user themselves (which they didn't.)
that's very nice, but now the 10 factors of 10 times more people for whom the price for RHE is more than a drop in the bucket have been cut out of redhat's profitability model. No one's saying they should sell Linux, we're just saying it's pretty stupid to stop supporting it, price it higher than the competition, and cut yourself out from your existing proven distribution channels just so you could be a drop in the bucket for an infintesimal market that has no chance of ever growing.
If you make $150,000, you're paying 39% federal income tax (most of the rest of us are paying around to 20%), 8% social security, (15% including employer contribution), 5-15% state taxes, and another 1-3% misc. taxes.
So he'd easily paying more than 50% in taxes without a good accountant, and even the rest of us lose close to 40% of our income to tax.
He's the editor of the "hacker" magazine 2600. He's been around since the 1980s, mainly as an activist and sensationalist. Slashdot readers may know him as the guy who provided a hyperlink on his website to the DeCSS code that allowed DVDs to be played on Linux.
You can't stop spam with a new RFC. SMTP isn't the problem. You can already refuse to receive email from anyone you don't want. The problem is, most of us don't have a definitive list of everyone we will ever want to receive email from. Whatever new authentication scheme you throw on top of a mail protocol is still subject to the same weaknesses both above and below the transport level. Addresses will still be spoofed, servers will still be hacked, messages will still get by filters, and clients will still be 0wnz0r3d!
Actually, only Tolkien gets away with making up such gibberish. Why? Because he was a real linguist, back when they had them, and he spent 30 years coming up with 'Boromir' and 'Frodo' and has volumes of notes about why he called them that. And he still calls a sword a sword, a horse a horse, and tobacco pipeweed, so he's not violating the principle anyway.
I hate IBM Websphere Rational Rose too, but what is your friend's stance, pro or anti genetic food? Does more testing mean more genetic engineering or does it mean banning foods? I'm not up with the political euphamisms on the topic.
What do you mean 'job-wise'? The main reason we accept cheap disposable consumer goods is because we know it *creates* jobs.
Our disposable society was predicted back in the 1950s by Fredrick Pohl in his short story, "The Midas Plague." It's a real economic dilemma, and perhaps the biggest flaw in capitalism.
When production outstrips demand, growth stagnates, and wealth is no longer created, so it aggregates (or "trickles down") into the hands of the few.
Whiteware? That's a term I've never heard. If your grandfather's appliances are from the 1960s, does that mean he has avacado-greenware or salmon-pinkware or perhaps puke-yellowware?
From my experience with some big corps, they have downtime all the time. They think nothing of having thousands of employees idle for hours on end and tens of thousands of customers not being serviced and millions of transactions not being processed, etc. It happens all the time, every day. It's the primary reason slashdot is able to sell ads.
Here's the trick. All you need is a computation for every 'bit' (transistor) to see if it can be reversed or not. Obviously you can't do this for every bit, because even if all you do is XOR everything, you still expend at least as much as you gain. The bet is that there is some algorithm that can 'guess' accurately enough so that you get a net conservation of energy.
When Intel had a virtual monopoly, they enforced the "law" fairly well. But in the late 1990s, competition from AMD forced them to exceed their delivery targets. Transistor fab advancements do come suddenly, and typicall allow for triple or greater increase in speed, but because it is more lucrative to graduate the curve, and also because it increases stability, the law has held fairly well over time. For instance, the past 3 years have seen markedly slower growth than Moore's law predicts, but averaged with the 3 previous, it still holds.
There was lots of good content before banner ads, and there will be after. Even slashdot existsed for years without banners. There was (and would be again) more variety of content if we lost 'the free internet' and had to return to what it was before advertising dollars.
That said, I think banners are a good revenue stream, a good marketing technique, and actively support content and applications supported by advertizing. But I also support the users' right to avoid advertising if they choose to.
If ABC doesn't want to broadcast football because I'll miss the commercials with Tivo, that's their loss. If slashdot doesn't want to link to other sources of content unless I subject myself to eye-straining tags, likewise.
They could, but its just a bunch of volunteers. There's really no motivation to keep their website or product up to date for every luser is isn't leet enough to run patch directly on bug reports from the mailing list.
Slashdot Mirror
If only teamsters are allowed to drive trucks, then only teamsters will commit crimes. And, you'll have to pay more for your groceries.
IE 5.5 is better than Netscape 4.7 But Netscape was at less than 15% marketshare by the time that happened, and shortly after, was bought out for their default home page.
Maybe I'll try Fedora on my 'hobby' desktop system. In a year or so, when it has a history. If it still exists. I know from experience that even though I like to blow away partitions and throw in test kernels and apps, that sometimes I get attached to data (or even something as stupid as a desktop theme) so I'm not willing to risk using Fedora (and supposedly, thus Redhat) until it has some kind of track record. So I'm not bleeding edge. I do have a couple servers that were just about to be upgraded, and a RH 9 box to do it with. I paid for the box, but it's not going on my (relatively non-mission critical) servers. I would probably have paid for RHN in the future too. Oh well. Anyone know a decent linux distribution. If SuSE was still around I'd check them out. No, Mandrake & Debian are not serious options.
Alienating 90% of your potential customer base is not too shabby, wouldn't you say? So what if half of them were never going to buy. Half of the ones you didn't alienate probly aren't going to buy either.
It's supporting (actually just compiling RPMs & putting them up for others to mirror) my 8 PCs with Redhat 6.2 (and thousands like me) that got them every single one of their Enterprise contracts. It *was* good business. And cheaper than hell for them, even if they paid bandwidth for every leech user themselves (which they didn't.)
There is one difference: Microsoft actually writes (or bought) the software they are selling.
you're right. An "EULA" isn't legal.
that's very nice, but now the 10 factors of 10 times more people for whom the price for RHE is more than a drop in the bucket have been cut out of redhat's profitability model. No one's saying they should sell Linux, we're just saying it's pretty stupid to stop supporting it, price it higher than the competition, and cut yourself out from your existing proven distribution channels just so you could be a drop in the bucket for an infintesimal market that has no chance of ever growing.
This means a 10% loss of business from Redhat Enterprise customers, and a 100% loss from all other customers. Not a good sign for Redhat.
If you make $150,000, you're paying 39% federal income tax (most of the rest of us are paying around to 20%), 8% social security, (15% including employer contribution), 5-15% state taxes, and another 1-3% misc. taxes. So he'd easily paying more than 50% in taxes without a good accountant, and even the rest of us lose close to 40% of our income to tax.
He's the editor of the "hacker" magazine 2600. He's been around since the 1980s, mainly as an activist and sensationalist. Slashdot readers may know him as the guy who provided a hyperlink on his website to the DeCSS code that allowed DVDs to be played on Linux.
You can't stop spam with a new RFC. SMTP isn't the problem. You can already refuse to receive email from anyone you don't want. The problem is, most of us don't have a definitive list of everyone we will ever want to receive email from. Whatever new authentication scheme you throw on top of a mail protocol is still subject to the same weaknesses both above and below the transport level. Addresses will still be spoofed, servers will still be hacked, messages will still get by filters, and clients will still be 0wnz0r3d!
I say give tammi a chance.
Actually, only Tolkien gets away with making up such gibberish. Why? Because he was a real linguist, back when they had them, and he spent 30 years coming up with 'Boromir' and 'Frodo' and has volumes of notes about why he called them that. And he still calls a sword a sword, a horse a horse, and tobacco pipeweed, so he's not violating the principle anyway.
I hate IBM Websphere Rational Rose too, but what is your friend's stance, pro or anti genetic food? Does more testing mean more genetic engineering or does it mean banning foods? I'm not up with the political euphamisms on the topic.
What do you mean 'job-wise'? The main reason we accept cheap disposable consumer goods is because we know it *creates* jobs. Our disposable society was predicted back in the 1950s by Fredrick Pohl in his short story, "The Midas Plague." It's a real economic dilemma, and perhaps the biggest flaw in capitalism. When production outstrips demand, growth stagnates, and wealth is no longer created, so it aggregates (or "trickles down") into the hands of the few.
Whiteware? That's a term I've never heard. If your grandfather's appliances are from the 1960s, does that mean he has avacado-greenware or salmon-pinkware or perhaps puke-yellowware?
From my experience with some big corps, they have downtime all the time. They think nothing of having thousands of employees idle for hours on end and tens of thousands of customers not being serviced and millions of transactions not being processed, etc. It happens all the time, every day. It's the primary reason slashdot is able to sell ads.
Windows XP (Home or Professional) doesn't support SRNF 2.5. Do you consider that a bug too?
I'm not an expert either, but when they (experts) talk about entropy, they mean heat loss.
Here's the trick. All you need is a computation for every 'bit' (transistor) to see if it can be reversed or not. Obviously you can't do this for every bit, because even if all you do is XOR everything, you still expend at least as much as you gain. The bet is that there is some algorithm that can 'guess' accurately enough so that you get a net conservation of energy.
When Intel had a virtual monopoly, they enforced the "law" fairly well. But in the late 1990s, competition from AMD forced them to exceed their delivery targets. Transistor fab advancements do come suddenly, and typicall allow for triple or greater increase in speed, but because it is more lucrative to graduate the curve, and also because it increases stability, the law has held fairly well over time. For instance, the past 3 years have seen markedly slower growth than Moore's law predicts, but averaged with the 3 previous, it still holds.
Silicon is a metal. Your MoTB(R)(TM) implants are not going to burst and leak.
There was lots of good content before banner ads, and there will be after. Even slashdot existsed for years without banners. There was (and would be again) more variety of content if we lost 'the free internet' and had to return to what it was before advertising dollars. That said, I think banners are a good revenue stream, a good marketing technique, and actively support content and applications supported by advertizing. But I also support the users' right to avoid advertising if they choose to. If ABC doesn't want to broadcast football because I'll miss the commercials with Tivo, that's their loss. If slashdot doesn't want to link to other sources of content unless I subject myself to eye-straining tags, likewise.
They could, but its just a bunch of volunteers. There's really no motivation to keep their website or product up to date for every luser is isn't leet enough to run patch directly on bug reports from the mailing list.