Maybe it's the keyword context, but that page is festooned with links to "Vista sucks and Apple roxx" articles... If this had been pointing on the other direction it would be dismissed offhand as "FUD", the author accused of "shilling" and the site's funding connected to Microsoft with vague references.
I mean, "no, it's really not ready for the enterprise but these three people say they're excited about it"? And the "elegance of the platform"? WTF?
Well, in any case I wouldn't hold my breath... the day Apple comes out with a viable alternative to domain/desktop policy and the tools to deploy it and control out across 15,000 desktops maybe Microsoft will start to worry. In the meantime Apple is certainly better for small companies that are just establishing their infrastructure, not converting large ones.
There's nothing wrong with Apple if you have the apps you need - the problem is the toolset. Most people don't understand the scale at which many companies operate. That's what "enterprise" is - and for better or worse Windows will continue to do well there for a long time.
Of course it's bad. But that didn't cause a cascade failure through the rest of the ship.
It doesn't matter. That's the point - a battleship that can only go in circles at 1/4 surface speed while involved in a battle is completely and utterly useless for all practical purposes. You don't need a generalized failure because the weapon has ceased to be able to fulfill its functions. All it can do is sit (or spin) there and take it until it goes down or the crew scuttles it, which is what happened to the Kriegsmarine's pride.
this was considered more of a tradeoff by the British rather than a flaw
Well sort of. The Hood was a battlecruiser, not a battleship. It was designed to interdict shipping and for shore bombardment, so it required speed - thus the lower tonnage owing to the lighter armour. It really didn't have much to do with "closing gaps" as even the Royal Navy understood by the mid-30s that Jutland was going to be pretty much the last of the large-scale "show me your T" engagements with the rise of the aircraft carrier.
Anyway, eventually they realized how dumb a tradeoff it was and scheduled her for refitting to upgrade the deck armour. Unfortunately they had other pressing engagements and they couldn't spare her in dry dock for a year, and they paid dearly for it.
The Bismarck's rudder was a hit to a key system, but it didn't cause a failure across the board.
No, it only caused it to go in circles without the capability of correcting course or manouvering to avoid fire. For a battleship, I'd say that's pretty bad, but whatever.
Ships were armored against such attacks, but there's only so much that can be done.
The Hood had a problem shared by many of the battlecruisers of that time, which was the lack of real deck armour. She was jacked to the hilt as far as the hull and superstructure were concerned, but the deck armour (where it existed) was no more than 3-4in thick. The brits knew this, which is why the success of the Hood against something like Bismarck depended on them closing distance to avoid plunging fire from the enemy's 5-in and larger batteries, which fired a 1 ton shell. For something like that 3 inches of steel are about as stout as mache paper. Their lives depended on taking flat-trajectory fire. Lutjens and his captain knew this as well, which is why they opened up on Hood from about 14 miles.
The fact that Bismarck hit a magazine was really luck, but enough plunging fire would have eventually done her in.
Since you've never actually used it but rely solely on the "opinion" of people who think exactly like you, I think it's safe to dismiss your opinion here? Oh, especially when you link to something you did with your sockpuppet account.
BTW, I find it hilarious that the author of that "OMFG Microshaft Winblows SUXX" wankfest complained about Vista obscuring the background. Isn't that rich? GNOME does that as well, although inconsistently. I'll let you figure out why.
Vista is going to have the same kind
I love your little zealot bullet points, twitter. "Microsoft sues schoolchildren" and "four minute half-life". Wasn't that twelve minutes though? Heh. BTW, Vista has been out for more than a year for all practical purposes, and probably has a market share that is bigger than Linux and Mac combined. Your predictions simply don't pan out, do they?
icing on the cake... will always exist... non free OS... forced to trust... despise the user... refuse... sabotage each other... systems crawling... spy and malware... Debian, is the only kind of software
twitter, you are so good with weasel words it's not even funny. Have you ever thought about running for office? You'd make a great politician. The ability to compress so much bullshit negativity and FUD into such small a paragraph is just astounding. You should seriously consider it.
It's always interesting to observe the reaction of the people who supposedly make up the "open source community" when these things happen. On the original article and on the OSNews post as well the general attitude is the same that I saw when ESR dared criticize the CUPS GUI - he's a "fucking idiot", essentially.
While I am normally amused at the cries of "FUD" whenever someone outside the user/developer community criticizes anything that has to do with open source (especially when the criticism is a valid one), things like these I think pretty much paint a picture of a group of people who've become institutionally incapable of absorbing and incorporating criticism of any sort, no matter who it emanates from. One would think Raymond is among the few people who have earned the right to say "wow, this sucks and needs to change". The recent back-and-forth between Torvalds and GNOME is another good example.
Maybe is the mythic "vociferous minority" that also pollutes teh interwebs with the "M$ IS TEH SUXX LINUX ROOLZ" mantra, but whatever it is, it looks damn bad.
In his book Cosmos, Carl Sagan theorized - as part of a reflection on human evolution - that the original Viking landers were about as smart as a grasshopper. Accounting for Moore's law and whatnot you'd think they'd be able to do a lot more (though of course the Viking landers were static) nowadays.
Still, as others have pointed out, the rover was designed to last 3-4 months. All things considered the fact that they're still going and they can be patched with new software is pretty impressive.
Yes they are. WTF? Mepis, Fedora, Ubuntu, Slack, SuSE and all the other desktop distros are exactly the same in all of those aspects and many others. Are you actually denying this? So in Mepis "#!/usr/bin/perl" will not work? Got any more bullshit back there?
Now currently the vast majority of "Linux" boxes out there are servers, which reduces the attack surface significantly - and not only because they tend to be run and maintained by people who know what they're doing. That doesn't mean any number of them are not routinely rooted and crapped on. When and if the majority of Linux boxes are desktops then you're going to be singing a different song. You'll be blaming the users for not patching their machines and for doing stupid things that put them in danger. The same thing you seem to be so insulted about when someone makes the same point about Windows.
You are full of it simply because of the simple fact that there are enough "Windoze" machines out there that work just fine and have no malware, viruses or other crap. They're not part of botnets. They're not spam zombies. It's quite simple to secure a Windows desktop even though it has more attack vectors than Linux or OS X. That there are large numbers of people who are incapable of doing that is the problem. What, you think all these hundreds of millions of people will suddenly increase their computer savvy index just because you give them a Mepis live CD? For your sake, I hope to hell you're right.
I find it amusing that this is being spinned this way here of all places - I remember CmdrTaco saying they "had no control whatsoever" over the advertisements that run on Slashdot - specifically the ones for Microsoft.
I believe that was followed by the usual "deal with it, it's no big deal".
But all Microsoft has to do is to provide 99% of all requested software
Oh my sweet turtle in the sky, I can almost hear the "OMFG MONOPOLIEZ KILL KILL KILL" cries of dispair on this one - regardless of whether or not it's Microsoft's own software being distributed.
Yeah, I totally look forward to having Microsoft helpfully suggest what I should install on my computers. And I just cannot wait for the flurry of bullshit lawsuits by companies that are offended when Microsoft says their crap is nothing more than malware. Oh yes. And the lawsuits by up-and-coming state GAs with political agendas over prices (free markets babeee!!). And of course, Microsoft being forced to offer Word Perfect for download, because, well, that's the way it "should be".
How about you just keep your paradigms to yourselves and let us deal with ours? Centralized software repositories and package management - broken as they are in many cases - work only because of the nature of open source. It would never work with commercial software. Ever.
twitter - I'm going to save these links so that the next time you accuse someone of "astroturfing" for "M$" we can easily prove that you spent the better part of a day shilling your own sockpuppet account's submission. Including your hilarious "go check out Erris' journal" comment. All I need to do is find one of the many AC posts that provide proof that "twitter" and "erris" are the same person, not to mention the many threads where you forget you started with one account and ended up posting with the other. Sockpuppets are so difficult to keep track of, aren't they?
And BTW, I'm actually curious - how do you justify constantly shilling for yourself when you accuse everyone of doing the same? The ends justify the means, sort of?
Yeah. That was an underrated movie. It was pretty good, but it could have been better if they had developed the story more. It just doesn't pan out with Williams' wimpy character as the "cutter". They should have hired Brad Pitt and Salma Hayek and had a couple of scenes where cars explode and toxic gas is released and the laser-equipped shark attacks the... never mind.
Or you could just use free software and encourage others to do the same before big brother can outlaw it along with the rest of your freedoms. Who on Earth is going to trust M$ with a life recorder?
twitter, do you sometimes feel you're taking this heroic struggle against "M$" a little too far? Inserting yourself into threads with pointless non-sequiturs like these?
Well, apparently I'm just a troll but eventually we'll see "synthetic" actors become common. Gollum and Jar-Jar are believable, the Final Fantasy movie showed that there's a good potential for jumping from anime to cinematic reality and the people who voice the Simpsons make more money than most actors. It's natural evolution.
By the same reasoning, OpenOffice.org should refrain from releasing their office suite, since the use of OO.o cuts into Microsoft's profits.
OO.org is not a corporation, and the only thing they do is put out an office suite. The correct analogy would be for Microsoft to give Office away for free so they could effectively kill off WP, OO.org and everyone else. Does that make sense?
Well, tomorrow if IBM decides to change the fee structure and demand an arm and a leg or it thinks it should change the file formats to keep the competition out or decide to drop support for some API to maintain an advantage... Guess what? There is nothing to stop the customers/competitors to take the ball run circles around IBM. That is why Open source is not all that predatory.
Realistically, this would never happen. It rarely happens anymore in commercial software and in this case it would be completely bonkers of IBM to do it anyway.
No, I don't think this is a good argument as to whether or not what IBM does with Eclipse is "predatory". It might not deserve that label, but the end effect is the same. Here's the thing though - IBM does not sell IDEs for a living. So they have no problem unleashing Eclipse on the world. They'll keep selling mainframes and laptops and consulting contracts and make ton of money. The company that makes the IDE for a living however, is seriously screwed, even if they make a better product.
"Predatory" does not necessarily mean "in order to make a shitload of money". So perhaps it's the wrong label (it's an emotional weasel word, really) but the essence remains the same.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, "no, it's really not ready for the enterprise but these three people say they're excited about it"? And the "elegance of the platform"? WTF?
Well, in any case I wouldn't hold my breath... the day Apple comes out with a viable alternative to domain/desktop policy and the tools to deploy it and control out across 15,000 desktops maybe Microsoft will start to worry. In the meantime Apple is certainly better for small companies that are just establishing their infrastructure, not converting large ones.
There's nothing wrong with Apple if you have the apps you need - the problem is the toolset. Most people don't understand the scale at which many companies operate. That's what "enterprise" is - and for better or worse Windows will continue to do well there for a long time.
Wha...? You mean Mrs. Miriam Abachi is not related to Bill Gates? Now you tell me!
It doesn't matter. That's the point - a battleship that can only go in circles at 1/4 surface speed while involved in a battle is completely and utterly useless for all practical purposes. You don't need a generalized failure because the weapon has ceased to be able to fulfill its functions. All it can do is sit (or spin) there and take it until it goes down or the crew scuttles it, which is what happened to the Kriegsmarine's pride.
Well sort of. The Hood was a battlecruiser, not a battleship. It was designed to interdict shipping and for shore bombardment, so it required speed - thus the lower tonnage owing to the lighter armour. It really didn't have much to do with "closing gaps" as even the Royal Navy understood by the mid-30s that Jutland was going to be pretty much the last of the large-scale "show me your T" engagements with the rise of the aircraft carrier.
Anyway, eventually they realized how dumb a tradeoff it was and scheduled her for refitting to upgrade the deck armour. Unfortunately they had other pressing engagements and they couldn't spare her in dry dock for a year, and they paid dearly for it.
No, it only caused it to go in circles without the capability of correcting course or manouvering to avoid fire. For a battleship, I'd say that's pretty bad, but whatever.
The Hood had a problem shared by many of the battlecruisers of that time, which was the lack of real deck armour. She was jacked to the hilt as far as the hull and superstructure were concerned, but the deck armour (where it existed) was no more than 3-4in thick. The brits knew this, which is why the success of the Hood against something like Bismarck depended on them closing distance to avoid plunging fire from the enemy's 5-in and larger batteries, which fired a 1 ton shell. For something like that 3 inches of steel are about as stout as mache paper. Their lives depended on taking flat-trajectory fire. Lutjens and his captain knew this as well, which is why they opened up on Hood from about 14 miles.
The fact that Bismarck hit a magazine was really luck, but enough plunging fire would have eventually done her in.
Since you've never actually used it but rely solely on the "opinion" of people who think exactly like you, I think it's safe to dismiss your opinion here? Oh, especially when you link to something you did with your sockpuppet account.
BTW, I find it hilarious that the author of that "OMFG Microshaft Winblows SUXX" wankfest complained about Vista obscuring the background. Isn't that rich? GNOME does that as well, although inconsistently. I'll let you figure out why.
I love your little zealot bullet points, twitter. "Microsoft sues schoolchildren" and "four minute half-life". Wasn't that twelve minutes though? Heh. BTW, Vista has been out for more than a year for all practical purposes, and probably has a market share that is bigger than Linux and Mac combined. Your predictions simply don't pan out, do they?
twitter, you are so good with weasel words it's not even funny. Have you ever thought about running for office? You'd make a great politician. The ability to compress so much bullshit negativity and FUD into such small a paragraph is just astounding. You should seriously consider it.
Someone else already covered most of the reasons you're wrong on this, but I'll just add one more: I/O completion ports.
Interesting. Are you implying that the concepts encoded by the Cathedral and the Bazaar can be compared with democracy?
I wonder if I had made the same comment here someone might have modded me up, but to answer your question, apparently it's a big deal.
While I am normally amused at the cries of "FUD" whenever someone outside the user/developer community criticizes anything that has to do with open source (especially when the criticism is a valid one), things like these I think pretty much paint a picture of a group of people who've become institutionally incapable of absorbing and incorporating criticism of any sort, no matter who it emanates from. One would think Raymond is among the few people who have earned the right to say "wow, this sucks and needs to change". The recent back-and-forth between Torvalds and GNOME is another good example.
Maybe is the mythic "vociferous minority" that also pollutes teh interwebs with the "M$ IS TEH SUXX LINUX ROOLZ" mantra, but whatever it is, it looks damn bad.
Still, as others have pointed out, the rover was designed to last 3-4 months. All things considered the fact that they're still going and they can be patched with new software is pretty impressive.
We're still a long way from truly useful AI.
Hehe, no. But thanks for playing.
Now currently the vast majority of "Linux" boxes out there are servers, which reduces the attack surface significantly - and not only because they tend to be run and maintained by people who know what they're doing. That doesn't mean any number of them are not routinely rooted and crapped on. When and if the majority of Linux boxes are desktops then you're going to be singing a different song. You'll be blaming the users for not patching their machines and for doing stupid things that put them in danger. The same thing you seem to be so insulted about when someone makes the same point about Windows.
You are full of it simply because of the simple fact that there are enough "Windoze" machines out there that work just fine and have no malware, viruses or other crap. They're not part of botnets. They're not spam zombies. It's quite simple to secure a Windows desktop even though it has more attack vectors than Linux or OS X. That there are large numbers of people who are incapable of doing that is the problem. What, you think all these hundreds of millions of people will suddenly increase their computer savvy index just because you give them a Mepis live CD? For your sake, I hope to hell you're right.
I believe that was followed by the usual "deal with it, it's no big deal".
Oh my sweet turtle in the sky, I can almost hear the "OMFG MONOPOLIEZ KILL KILL KILL" cries of dispair on this one - regardless of whether or not it's Microsoft's own software being distributed.
Yeah, I totally look forward to having Microsoft helpfully suggest what I should install on my computers. And I just cannot wait for the flurry of bullshit lawsuits by companies that are offended when Microsoft says their crap is nothing more than malware. Oh yes. And the lawsuits by up-and-coming state GAs with political agendas over prices (free markets babeee!!). And of course, Microsoft being forced to offer Word Perfect for download, because, well, that's the way it "should be".
How about you just keep your paradigms to yourselves and let us deal with ours? Centralized software repositories and package management - broken as they are in many cases - work only because of the nature of open source. It would never work with commercial software. Ever.
Yeah, free software is exactly like that.
And BTW, I'm actually curious - how do you justify constantly shilling for yourself when you accuse everyone of doing the same? The ends justify the means, sort of?
It was entertaining though. Good concept.
twitter, do you sometimes feel you're taking this heroic struggle against "M$" a little too far? Inserting yourself into threads with pointless non-sequiturs like these?
That sounds about right =)
Well, apparently I'm just a troll but eventually we'll see "synthetic" actors become common. Gollum and Jar-Jar are believable, the Final Fantasy movie showed that there's a good potential for jumping from anime to cinematic reality and the people who voice the Simpsons make more money than most actors. It's natural evolution.
Or if you're Faux News, that's called "news" <zing \>
OO.org is not a corporation, and the only thing they do is put out an office suite. The correct analogy would be for Microsoft to give Office away for free so they could effectively kill off WP, OO.org and everyone else. Does that make sense?
I guess not.
Realistically, this would never happen. It rarely happens anymore in commercial software and in this case it would be completely bonkers of IBM to do it anyway.
No, I don't think this is a good argument as to whether or not what IBM does with Eclipse is "predatory". It might not deserve that label, but the end effect is the same. Here's the thing though - IBM does not sell IDEs for a living. So they have no problem unleashing Eclipse on the world. They'll keep selling mainframes and laptops and consulting contracts and make ton of money. The company that makes the IDE for a living however, is seriously screwed, even if they make a better product.
"Predatory" does not necessarily mean "in order to make a shitload of money". So perhaps it's the wrong label (it's an emotional weasel word, really) but the essence remains the same.
Larry - FWIW, best of luck with this project.
ROTFLMAO and all that.
What's your distribution and how do you run your package manager in non-root mode? And why?