This isn't a _new_ kind of war. It's a very _old_ kind of war - what is going on in Afghanistan today is a conventional war - suppression of air defenses prior to ground action. This war (like many others back many millenia) will be fought by conventional and unconventional means.
Yes and no. You are right, it is a form of _old_kind of war, but they didn't want to drudge up comparisions with Vietnam or WWII where losses were huge in horrible struggles from things that often didn't matter. So in that respect, it is a NEW kind of OLD war. The other distinction that they want to make sure the public understands is that this will not be the Gulf war over again which people (okay, stupid Americans) have come to think that was is. So again, since it's not the same type of war the last one was, it's therefore a NEW kind of war. Either way you look at it, it's not the OLD war that many envision when they see clips of WWII (Iwo Jima -- what, 27,000 dead???) or Korea. If it does turn to that, public support might wavier. Does that mean that people expect only a handfull or our guys to to "bite" it like it the Gulf War (half of which was frinedly fire)? I hope not, because that's not the picture that's being painted. The WH has been very straight forward in saying ground troups WILL be involved and that we should prepare for more loss of American life.
God Bless America (and I'm not even 'Merican!)
Thank you. And Ditto for me too (the first part, not the second part).
Simple. The charges leveled that they are a monopoly and that they have undue control of the desktop/consumer computer market place. Considering something like this was done with IBM, it would seemingly apply.
I think you forget that it is often enough for MS to state they will deliver "x" to the market place in a year but deliver it in 4. In the mean time, pretty much everyone in that field stopped developing for fear of being smashed. Of course, this also works to prevent MS from ALWAYS steering the standards too. If they can't prerelease their lies and abuse the market, it's much harder for them to minipulate it. If you can't see the connection now, I have serious concerns about you being a MS camper.
Hmmm.... Interesting. Considering this type of thing has been used before, including against big blue, I don't see how this could be a problem. Interesting that you consider a healthy competitive market place to be communistic.
I wonder if I should fear being black listed by the nut jobs of Hollywood now...nope...sure wouldn't want anyone to have an independant thought. Nope!
On the other hand, I can sure see how limiting MS' ability to steer the market place with vaporware announcements isn't in everyone's best interest. Sure. Makes sense. Thank you for making my vision clear. I'm healed! Thankfully I now understand that consumer protection and the health of our market is communistic.
There is a valid reason why you don't throw out the prevailing theory even though it can be shown to be incorrect.
We *know* that Newtonian physics is incorrect. It doesn't describe quantum mechanics or relativistic physics, *at all*, yet it is still used.
Where it does work, it's still useful. The same holds true with evolution or the big bang.
I think hidden away in my statement, what I was trying to say, is that many theories are often precieved as being absolute fact being 100% correct with perhaps only blurry edges existing only at the reach of our knowledge. The simple fact is, as you were nice enough to provide, many theories are not complete or accurate save for specific events and/or cases. That doesn't mean the theory is correct, rather, it just means it works for those specific events and/or cases.
The other facit here is that you are correct, not all work should be thrown out and everything sit at a standstill while we try to figure out the correct starting point. However, areas where we have very abstract theories (such as the big bang) which are based on TONS and TONS and TONS and assumptions which can NOT be proved by current scientific method, should not be asserted as absolute truths, which they often are.
I would also like to point out that I blame the scientific community for the slow progress of quantum physics because it wasn't so long ago that the entire field was considered kooky and and full of quacks. My point being, because many physisist were unwilling to admit that there may be alternate views of the world around us, they could not accept facts which clearly showed them to be true (err...mostly;) or false. Arrogance is horrible and the greatest sin of science.
I could go on, but I think you understand what I'm trying to say here.
Yes. Really. I'm under the _impression_ that it has been peer reviewed and they it was rejected by the masses for one and only one reason. It does not fit into the existing theories, therefore, it is invalid.
It's also worth mentioning that the Natural Sciences buildings in Washington, I'm told, is filled with odd-ball "things" which do not fit into existing theories (including human evolution), however, they don't display them because they don't know/understand the proper way to present it since there are no prevaling theories to support it.
...is it incontravertible?
I'm not going to lay a claim to that. I'll just say, from what I've seen, it was pretty compelling evidence.
BTW, one of the pieces of evidence comes from a state park located here in Texas where it looks like they have foot prints from both dino and man (the man being chased -- or the other way around -- I've slept since then) in stone that date the same. Furthermore, they were found after removing layers of (if I recall) limestone, which was also dated and matched that (closely), from a river bed. Which means they can say for sure that the sediment was there at such-n-such time, therefore, anything under it is at least that old.
I don't recall the park's name, however, I'm pretty sure you won't have trouble finding info about this. It's also mentioned in one of the documentaries that I spoke about.
...is there more then one piece of evidence to support it?
Yes, there are several pieces to this story. None of which fits into existing theories.
...can the evidence be explained in other ways?
From I have seen and read on this, the bulk of the evidence against it is that it is disproved by the theory. Which to me, seems rather odd that the scientific community would look at it like that.
This is facinating. What you are sying is that the entire curriculum of every high chool and collage is wrong. I am looking forward to reading about this could you please provide a link (preferably to a site not run by religous zealots or kooks).
I certainly understand what it is you are looking for. PBS has two documentaries on the subject. I've also read several articles on it in two news papers (Houston and Dallas) over the years. I'm afraid I can't point you at much more than that, but hey...it's a start.
My point being, I'm not trying to assert these findings as my point, rather, I'm trying to offer evidence that the current scientific method is FLAWED and that there is plenty of proof that this is the case. Rather than people figuring out what is wrong with fundimental building blocks of many theories, people are happy to ignore it and build onto it, often forgetting that they are contributing to a theory that built solely on the basis of flawed assumptions or incorrect evidence.
Oh ya, about the text book issue. I'm not sure if you know this or not, but this will almost ALWAYS be the case. Text books are expensive. It is not uncommon for even historical information to of been corrected/revised for tens of years and for it to not only still be incorrect in text books, but still be taught incorrectly in class as well. This happens with science books too, though, not nearly as often.
One last thing, btw, there is MUCHO evidence to support the T-Rex was a scavenger and NOT a hunter. Likewise, there is no evidence that supports the inverse (I don't think Jurasic Park counts here). Cool...huh!:)
It's dismissed because the "evidence" is nothing but creationist fabrication.
Actually, that's incorrect. If it were being put forth my creationist, dino's wouldn't exist either, and man certainly wouldn't of been alive that long.
Of course, you completely ignore the whole point of the posting, which is case in point.
Since you're generally insulting and obviously desire to remain "closed eye" about everything, I'll not respond to you any further.
So what remedies would accomplish these goals? (Assuming the third is also a goal?)
* Force MS to open up and document all APIs which they themselves use in any application
* Force MS to open up and document all file formats
* Force MS to open up and document all protocols
You forgot one of the most important ones. They should be prohibited from pre-announing ANY products. They should only be allowed to announce a product when it is within 30-days of it's release. Furthermore, if the product is not publically available at the end of the 30-day period, a million or two dollar fine should be imposed for each day as well as all product related profits for a period of 60-days once it is released (as it related to the announcement -- including service offerings) siezed for a competition development fund. The fund in turn, should be administrated by the government whereby, public companies, having no relationship with Microsoft, can obtain a development grant for competing products (of course, there should be a strict qualification process to get these funds). Of course, any public announcements to be made by Microsoft should first be proceeded by a document stating MS's initial advertising compaign costs and market focus, etc, to ensure that they do not try to back out on sales until after the 60-day "fine" window has gone by.
This measure and the fund would serve as a wonderful means to help keep Microsoft in check as well as helping fund smaller software companies to actually be able to compete with Microsoft.
Just imagine, a competing product paid for my Microsoft. Now, that's justice!
Good for the consumer? What does XP cost? $250.00? According to the documents that came out during the trail, the top of the linux consumer OS should be no more than $40.00. That leaves $210.00 to invest in other significant software packages? If you assume the average consumer software package is what, $40 or $50, then that's still four or five significant add ons which would be developed in a competitive market which more than likely would of be a better, faster, stronger implementation than what already comes with XP.
Anyone that says that MS hasn't hurt the consumer is living in their own little dream world. That's not to say that they haven't had a good idea or two. They have. But the point is, they have failed to innovate anything. Everything that is MS is a rip-off or purchase from someone else. Again, squashing areas of growth and development which is not only bad for the consumer market but for the development market. You look elsewhere in other industries, you'll find three, four, and lots more, of groups competing and developing against each other, each trying to out due the other. With Microsoft in the picture, all of these jobs have been eliminated from the market place and the end result is a lesser product that you are now over paying for. Plain and simple. A monopoly is NEVER good for the consumer.
The problem with "The Big Bang Never Happened" (which I have read) and other alternative cosmologies is that they don't even attempt to go deep enough to prove their points. There's a reason for this. All of modern cosmology is based on General Relativity. If you are going to say that the Big Bang Never Happened, then your alternative cosmology has to not only come up with an alternative explanation for the Universe, but also explain everything that GR does without having a Big Bang. This is a very tall order.
The problem with this is that often, things can be disproved, however, there may not be another theory to take its place. So, the standing theory continues to stand. Furthermore, people take the theory and continue to develope it even though there is enough evidence to prove it's wrong.
For example, there is evidence that man (ya, homo-us) was alive at the same time dinos roamed the earth, however, it's dismissed. Such a notion screws up tons of other theories and there isn't another theory which can take the place of human evolution. So, it's just easier to go on proving how things are right based a keystone which is wrong rather than start from the beginning and attempt to figure out what is really going on. I would like to remind you that several key pieces which are need to prove human evolution have never been found. On the other hand, there is evidence which proves it to be wrong. Go figure. Nonetheless, the current flawed theory stands. Case in point.
Often, since we simply don't have a new theory to take it's place, bad science continues and people forget that the basis of all the new science, which seemingly makes since, should of been thrown own long ago. This is a serious problem which continues to be ignored daily.
I would also like to remind you that many recent discoveries have been made in various scientific areas which only occured when keystones of knowledge were tossed away even without a new body of knowledge to take it's place. Specifically, here, I will mean super conductors and some areas of biotech. We can also talk somewhat about mathmatics. Does anyone remember the math (forget what it's called) that is used to determine the price of stock/bond call insurance (don't hold me to the specifics here...it's been a while). That areas of financial models where only developed because about 100 years of math, theories and proofs were tossed and and completely reworked from scratch. It only took them THREE tries at doing this to get it right.
My point being is that is many fields, we have enough to simply say the theory is wrong. Period. It is flawed logic to state that it's right only because we don't know enough to understand what it really is; especially when we have data to prove it wrong.
Good info. Thanks. Of course, it wouldn't hurt for them to simply ask the user during installation either: "Multiple users will be using Star Office?" and react accordingly.
Few and far between is text that shows many that survived daily exposure ate two or more raw cloves of garlic daily. The stink surely was enough to ward off vampires and plague alike. Although it is unknown how common this practice was, we are only now starting to understand that eating raw garlic does, in fact, increase the body's ability to respond to invasion by disease.
Oddly enough, there are also biblical accounts of people eating a cousin of garlic (sorry, don't remember the odd-ball name) which was said to also ward of disease. Go figure...
Actually, assuming that you have the VM to allow it, it would not be commited until it was used. So, just malloc'ing it would not of hindered performance at all. On the other hand, calloc would be a different issue...
Somehow, somewhere, I missed that part that said that Linux rocks just because of this single test. The fact is, it is a test that compared only a single aspect. Fact is, it really has no effect on anyone's perseption of the two, unless you're off the deep end. On the other hand, it does make for interesting conversation, not to mention important knowledge for anyone that attempts to port something to Win32 which uses pipes and wonders why it performs like a dog. So, the information is hardly worthless but certainly not strong enough to carry Linux any further that it already is in the minds and hearts of those that already use it.
Under windows, there are many things the he "neglected" to notice:
* pipes in Windows have ACLs (access control lists).
That's fine, however, the overhead should be not be noticable unless the is constanly creating and destroying and/or opening/closing the handle. Unless all Win32 implementations really suck and MS is stupid, this will have no effect on the test. Point is safely ignored.
* There are two types of pipes: Anonymous pipes [microsoft.com] and named pipes [microsoft.com]. Anonymous pipes require less overhead than named pipes, but offer limited services. He "neglected" to test anonymous pipes on Windows platforms (which BTW are faster).
Not sure what you're basing that on as I've used both. Named pipes are built on top of anonymous pipes last I read (or the other way around) last time I checked MS's documentation. In fact, performance, last I measured, was always the same between the two. In fact, if you dig deeper, you find that local named pipes use anonymous pipe facilities. Thusly, they are one and the same when used locally. I noticed in another thread that someone else was sharp enough to point this fact out too. Point ignored.
* Windows Named pipes can be used to provide communication between processes on the same computer or between processes on different computers across a network.
Granted, however, since no one tested that, it has no bearing on the test or the results. Point ignored.
* Windows XP can provide encryption for pipes, which might explain the drastically lower rates. Since XP is based on the same kernel as Windows 2000 there's obviously some additional setting that is on by default now that is causing the decreased rates.
Actually, I didn't know that about the encryption, however, be that as it may be, it was a fair comparision. I don't think he attempted to attribute the cause of the speed issue to anything. You may be right, however, that does change the fact that Win32 pipe implementations are slow compared to Linux. I think it should be pointed out that unless encryption is actually being used, the fact that such a huge performance gap is detected indicates that MS has done an incredibly poor job. I'd guess that it's either a horrible design and/or never been optimized.
Now then, while this is an interesting fact, I think it's safe to say that many applications don't use pipes on Win32 platforms just because there are many ways to avoid doing so. Because of this, I have no doubt that MS gave it a low priority (performance that is) when optimizing various design patterns. Let's face it, shared memory (shared files), threading and sockets are obviously where MS has been trying to get to.
I agree. My wife and I were just watching a re-run of Farscape last night and mentioned to each other how well the "slug dude" (Rigel(sp?)) is done. For the most part, if willing, you can completely accept both Rigel(sp?) and Pilot as just another character. Both are done rather excellently. It's important to keep in mind that many people have problems doing that because they are so used to the stick-in-the-mud concept (okay -- brainwashed by lesser shows) that everyone should be bipedal humanoid and roughly the same size as presented in every other scifi shows since we were wee-tad kids. Farscape moves beyond that horrible preconcept.
Of course, you failed to realize that this is really the record industry at work. They pay these people to steal CD's from people so that you are forced to purchase more copies...and last I heard, this is what Elvis has been doing every since he "died."
It's important to understand that much of what people think Exchange does is really done by Outlook. Exchange is a piece of crufty software which does LDAP, SMTP, POP3, and some microsoft specific protocols (DCOM(MAPI), RPC), but under it all, Outlook is doing almost all the real work. Once you understand this, you soon see that not speaking MS's RPC really isn't an issue as most if not all of it can be communicated via standard SMTP/POP3/IMAP messaging standards.
In short, when people pay big bucks for Exchange, they are buying an LDAP server, a POP3 server, an IMAP server and an SMTP server plus a database (MS JetDB...ACK!) to store everything in and nice GUI's to go with it. Exchange really has no value beyond these items and, again, Outlook really does all of the work.
You are correct. Right after I submitted my reply, I realized what it was that you REALLY meant...rather, I realized that I didn't understand what you meant the first time around.
Now then, I do think I recall seeing that SAMBA can use PAM which can, in turn, make use of your domain controller? Likewise, I think LDAP can also be used. Please don't hold me to this as it's been a while since I've had to look into these types of issues with SAMBA, but it may prove to be a starting point for you.
I think the obvious and safe assumption, especially since you've received lots of feedback at this point, is that yes, it will work. So, unless you hear otherwise, I know of no reason why you should stand and argue unless you have first hand (recent) information that supports your position. Until that time, I think enough has been said. Printing works well. Period.
Actually, printing is NOT that complex. The hardest part is for the APPLICATION to properly generate the needed output for the drivers to properly understand. Long story short, if the driver can print complex and high quality images as well as complex documents in a given application, it should work for ALL applications that are able to produce proper printed output. Yes, that's correct. No matter how good your print driver is, the application still has to properly present/represent the desired output to the driver to render. Your indirect assertion that driver quality is application dependant ("...variety of applications...") is really without merit as the drivers will render what it's told to do. So, if it doesn't work with an application, it's known as a broken application. Thusly, this has nothing to do with print drivers or frameworks. A broken app is a broken app.
Counter to your assertion, CUPS is generally accepted as being a complete and robust printing solution. Most that use it, soon learn to love it. Bluntly, MS should have lots to envy here. You can choose to remain agnostic if you like, however, it doesn't change the facts.
So, long story short, applications that create proper output for printing will find excellent results under Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't a _new_ kind of war. It's a very _old_ kind of war - what is going on in Afghanistan today is a conventional war - suppression of air defenses prior to ground action. This war (like many others back many millenia) will be fought by conventional and unconventional means.
Yes and no. You are right, it is a form of _old_kind of war, but they didn't want to drudge up comparisions with Vietnam or WWII where losses were huge in horrible struggles from things that often didn't matter. So in that respect, it is a NEW kind of OLD war. The other distinction that they want to make sure the public understands is that this will not be the Gulf war over again which people (okay, stupid Americans) have come to think that was is. So again, since it's not the same type of war the last one was, it's therefore a NEW kind of war. Either way you look at it, it's not the OLD war that many envision when they see clips of WWII (Iwo Jima -- what, 27,000 dead???) or Korea. If it does turn to that, public support might wavier. Does that mean that people expect only a handfull or our guys to to "bite" it like it the Gulf War (half of which was frinedly fire)? I hope not, because that's not the picture that's being painted. The WH has been very straight forward in saying ground troups WILL be involved and that we should prepare for more loss of American life.
God Bless America (and I'm not even 'Merican!)
Thank you. And Ditto for me too (the first part, not the second part).
Thank you. Someone mod this up please. Wish you hadn't posted anonymously so it would of scored higher.
Greg
Simple. The charges leveled that they are a monopoly and that they have undue control of the desktop/consumer computer market place. Considering something like this was done with IBM, it would seemingly apply.
I think you forget that it is often enough for MS to state they will deliver "x" to the market place in a year but deliver it in 4. In the mean time, pretty much everyone in that field stopped developing for fear of being smashed. Of course, this also works to prevent MS from ALWAYS steering the standards too. If they can't prerelease their lies and abuse the market, it's much harder for them to minipulate it. If you can't see the connection now, I have serious concerns about you being a MS camper.
This is very realivant and hardly spurious.
Hmmm.... Interesting. Considering this type of thing has been used before, including against big blue, I don't see how this could be a problem. Interesting that you consider a healthy competitive market place to be communistic.
I wonder if I should fear being black listed by the nut jobs of Hollywood now...nope...sure wouldn't want anyone to have an independant thought. Nope!
On the other hand, I can sure see how limiting MS' ability to steer the market place with vaporware announcements isn't in everyone's best interest. Sure. Makes sense. Thank you for making my vision clear. I'm healed! Thankfully I now understand that consumer protection and the health of our market is communistic.
Thankfully your,
Greg
There is a valid reason why you don't throw out the prevailing theory even though it can be shown to be incorrect.
;) or false. Arrogance is horrible and the greatest sin of science.
We *know* that Newtonian physics is incorrect. It doesn't describe quantum mechanics or relativistic physics, *at all*, yet it is still used.
Where it does work, it's still useful. The same holds true with evolution or the big bang.
I think hidden away in my statement, what I was trying to say, is that many theories are often precieved as being absolute fact being 100% correct with perhaps only blurry edges existing only at the reach of our knowledge. The simple fact is, as you were nice enough to provide, many theories are not complete or accurate save for specific events and/or cases. That doesn't mean the theory is correct, rather, it just means it works for those specific events and/or cases.
The other facit here is that you are correct, not all work should be thrown out and everything sit at a standstill while we try to figure out the correct starting point. However, areas where we have very abstract theories (such as the big bang) which are based on TONS and TONS and TONS and assumptions which can NOT be proved by current scientific method, should not be asserted as absolute truths, which they often are.
I would also like to point out that I blame the scientific community for the slow progress of quantum physics because it wasn't so long ago that the entire field was considered kooky and and full of quacks. My point being, because many physisist were unwilling to admit that there may be alternate views of the world around us, they could not accept facts which clearly showed them to be true (err...mostly
I could go on, but I think you understand what I'm trying to say here.
Really? where? has it been peer reviewed?
...is it incontravertible?
...is there more then one piece of evidence to support it?
...can the evidence be explained in other ways?
:)
Yes. Really. I'm under the _impression_ that it has been peer reviewed and they it was rejected by the masses for one and only one reason. It does not fit into the existing theories, therefore, it is invalid.
It's also worth mentioning that the Natural Sciences buildings in Washington, I'm told, is filled with odd-ball "things" which do not fit into existing theories (including human evolution), however, they don't display them because they don't know/understand the proper way to present it since there are no prevaling theories to support it.
I'm not going to lay a claim to that. I'll just say, from what I've seen, it was pretty compelling evidence.
BTW, one of the pieces of evidence comes from a state park located here in Texas where it looks like they have foot prints from both dino and man (the man being chased -- or the other way around -- I've slept since then) in stone that date the same. Furthermore, they were found after removing layers of (if I recall) limestone, which was also dated and matched that (closely), from a river bed. Which means they can say for sure that the sediment was there at such-n-such time, therefore, anything under it is at least that old.
I don't recall the park's name, however, I'm pretty sure you won't have trouble finding info about this. It's also mentioned in one of the documentaries that I spoke about.
Yes, there are several pieces to this story. None of which fits into existing theories.
From I have seen and read on this, the bulk of the evidence against it is that it is disproved by the theory. Which to me, seems rather odd that the scientific community would look at it like that.
This is facinating. What you are sying is that the entire curriculum of every high chool and collage is wrong. I am looking forward to reading about this could you please provide a link (preferably to a site not run by religous zealots or kooks).
I certainly understand what it is you are looking for. PBS has two documentaries on the subject. I've also read several articles on it in two news papers (Houston and Dallas) over the years. I'm afraid I can't point you at much more than that, but hey...it's a start.
My point being, I'm not trying to assert these findings as my point, rather, I'm trying to offer evidence that the current scientific method is FLAWED and that there is plenty of proof that this is the case. Rather than people figuring out what is wrong with fundimental building blocks of many theories, people are happy to ignore it and build onto it, often forgetting that they are contributing to a theory that built solely on the basis of flawed assumptions or incorrect evidence.
Oh ya, about the text book issue. I'm not sure if you know this or not, but this will almost ALWAYS be the case. Text books are expensive. It is not uncommon for even historical information to of been corrected/revised for tens of years and for it to not only still be incorrect in text books, but still be taught incorrectly in class as well. This happens with science books too, though, not nearly as often.
One last thing, btw, there is MUCHO evidence to support the T-Rex was a scavenger and NOT a hunter. Likewise, there is no evidence that supports the inverse (I don't think Jurasic Park counts here). Cool...huh!
It's dismissed because the "evidence" is nothing but creationist fabrication.
Actually, that's incorrect. If it were being put forth my creationist, dino's wouldn't exist either, and man certainly wouldn't of been alive that long.
Of course, you completely ignore the whole point of the posting, which is case in point.
Since you're generally insulting and obviously desire to remain "closed eye" about everything, I'll not respond to you any further.
So what remedies would accomplish these goals? (Assuming the third is also a goal?)
* Force MS to open up and document all APIs which they themselves use in any application
* Force MS to open up and document all file formats
* Force MS to open up and document all protocols
You forgot one of the most important ones. They should be prohibited from pre-announing ANY products. They should only be allowed to announce a product when it is within 30-days of it's release. Furthermore, if the product is not publically available at the end of the 30-day period, a million or two dollar fine should be imposed for each day as well as all product related profits for a period of 60-days once it is released (as it related to the announcement -- including service offerings) siezed for a competition development fund. The fund in turn, should be administrated by the government whereby, public companies, having no relationship with Microsoft, can obtain a development grant for competing products (of course, there should be a strict qualification process to get these funds). Of course, any public announcements to be made by Microsoft should first be proceeded by a document stating MS's initial advertising compaign costs and market focus, etc, to ensure that they do not try to back out on sales until after the 60-day "fine" window has gone by.
This measure and the fund would serve as a wonderful means to help keep Microsoft in check as well as helping fund smaller software companies to actually be able to compete with Microsoft.
Just imagine, a competing product paid for my Microsoft. Now, that's justice!
Good for the consumer? What does XP cost? $250.00? According to the documents that came out during the trail, the top of the linux consumer OS should be no more than $40.00. That leaves $210.00 to invest in other significant software packages? If you assume the average consumer software package is what, $40 or $50, then that's still four or five significant add ons which would be developed in a competitive market which more than likely would of be a better, faster, stronger implementation than what already comes with XP.
Anyone that says that MS hasn't hurt the consumer is living in their own little dream world. That's not to say that they haven't had a good idea or two. They have. But the point is, they have failed to innovate anything. Everything that is MS is a rip-off or purchase from someone else. Again, squashing areas of growth and development which is not only bad for the consumer market but for the development market. You look elsewhere in other industries, you'll find three, four, and lots more, of groups competing and developing against each other, each trying to out due the other. With Microsoft in the picture, all of these jobs have been eliminated from the market place and the end result is a lesser product that you are now over paying for. Plain and simple. A monopoly is NEVER good for the consumer.
The problem with "The Big Bang Never Happened" (which I have read) and other alternative cosmologies is that they don't even attempt to go deep enough to prove their points. There's a reason for this. All of modern cosmology is based on General Relativity. If you are going to say that the Big Bang Never Happened, then your alternative cosmology has to not only come up with an alternative explanation for the Universe, but also explain everything that GR does without having a Big Bang. This is a very tall order.
The problem with this is that often, things can be disproved, however, there may not be another theory to take its place. So, the standing theory continues to stand. Furthermore, people take the theory and continue to develope it even though there is enough evidence to prove it's wrong.
For example, there is evidence that man (ya, homo-us) was alive at the same time dinos roamed the earth, however, it's dismissed. Such a notion screws up tons of other theories and there isn't another theory which can take the place of human evolution. So, it's just easier to go on proving how things are right based a keystone which is wrong rather than start from the beginning and attempt to figure out what is really going on. I would like to remind you that several key pieces which are need to prove human evolution have never been found. On the other hand, there is evidence which proves it to be wrong. Go figure. Nonetheless, the current flawed theory stands. Case in point.
Often, since we simply don't have a new theory to take it's place, bad science continues and people forget that the basis of all the new science, which seemingly makes since, should of been thrown own long ago. This is a serious problem which continues to be ignored daily.
I would also like to remind you that many recent discoveries have been made in various scientific areas which only occured when keystones of knowledge were tossed away even without a new body of knowledge to take it's place. Specifically, here, I will mean super conductors and some areas of biotech. We can also talk somewhat about mathmatics. Does anyone remember the math (forget what it's called) that is used to determine the price of stock/bond call insurance (don't hold me to the specifics here...it's been a while). That areas of financial models where only developed because about 100 years of math, theories and proofs were tossed and and completely reworked from scratch. It only took them THREE tries at doing this to get it right.
My point being is that is many fields, we have enough to simply say the theory is wrong. Period. It is flawed logic to state that it's right only because we don't know enough to understand what it really is; especially when we have data to prove it wrong.
Good info. Thanks. Of course, it wouldn't hurt for them to simply ask the user during installation either: "Multiple users will be using Star Office?" and react accordingly.
Few and far between is text that shows many that survived daily exposure ate two or more raw cloves of garlic daily. The stink surely was enough to ward off vampires and plague alike. Although it is unknown how common this practice was, we are only now starting to understand that eating raw garlic does, in fact, increase the body's ability to respond to invasion by disease.
Oddly enough, there are also biblical accounts of people eating a cousin of garlic (sorry, don't remember the odd-ball name) which was said to also ward of disease. Go figure...
Actually, assuming that you have the VM to allow it, it would not be commited until it was used. So, just malloc'ing it would not of hindered performance at all. On the other hand, calloc would be a different issue...
Somehow, somewhere, I missed that part that said that Linux rocks just because of this single test. The fact is, it is a test that compared only a single aspect. Fact is, it really has no effect on anyone's perseption of the two, unless you're off the deep end. On the other hand, it does make for interesting conversation, not to mention important knowledge for anyone that attempts to port something to Win32 which uses pipes and wonders why it performs like a dog. So, the information is hardly worthless but certainly not strong enough to carry Linux any further that it already is in the minds and hearts of those that already use it.
Under windows, there are many things the he "neglected" to notice:
* pipes in Windows have ACLs (access control lists).
That's fine, however, the overhead should be not be noticable unless the is constanly creating and destroying and/or opening/closing the handle. Unless all Win32 implementations really suck and MS is stupid, this will have no effect on the test. Point is safely ignored.
* There are two types of pipes: Anonymous pipes [microsoft.com] and named pipes [microsoft.com]. Anonymous pipes require less overhead than named pipes, but offer limited services. He "neglected" to test anonymous pipes on Windows platforms (which BTW are faster).
Not sure what you're basing that on as I've used both. Named pipes are built on top of anonymous pipes last I read (or the other way around) last time I checked MS's documentation. In fact, performance, last I measured, was always the same between the two. In fact, if you dig deeper, you find that local named pipes use anonymous pipe facilities. Thusly, they are one and the same when used locally. I noticed in another thread that someone else was sharp enough to point this fact out too. Point ignored.
* Windows Named pipes can be used to provide communication between processes on the same computer or between processes on different computers across a network.
Granted, however, since no one tested that, it has no bearing on the test or the results. Point ignored.
* Windows XP can provide encryption for pipes, which might explain the drastically lower rates. Since XP is based on the same kernel as Windows 2000 there's obviously some additional setting that is on by default now that is causing the decreased rates.
Actually, I didn't know that about the encryption, however, be that as it may be, it was a fair comparision. I don't think he attempted to attribute the cause of the speed issue to anything. You may be right, however, that does change the fact that Win32 pipe implementations are slow compared to Linux. I think it should be pointed out that unless encryption is actually being used, the fact that such a huge performance gap is detected indicates that MS has done an incredibly poor job. I'd guess that it's either a horrible design and/or never been optimized.
Now then, while this is an interesting fact, I think it's safe to say that many applications don't use pipes on Win32 platforms just because there are many ways to avoid doing so. Because of this, I have no doubt that MS gave it a low priority (performance that is) when optimizing various design patterns. Let's face it, shared memory (shared files), threading and sockets are obviously where MS has been trying to get to.
I agree. My wife and I were just watching a re-run of Farscape last night and mentioned to each other how well the "slug dude" (Rigel(sp?)) is done. For the most part, if willing, you can completely accept both Rigel(sp?) and Pilot as just another character. Both are done rather excellently. It's important to keep in mind that many people have problems doing that because they are so used to the stick-in-the-mud concept (okay -- brainwashed by lesser shows) that everyone should be bipedal humanoid and roughly the same size as presented in every other scifi shows since we were wee-tad kids. Farscape moves beyond that horrible preconcept.
Of course, you failed to realize that this is really the record industry at work. They pay these people to steal CD's from people so that you are forced to purchase more copies...and last I heard, this is what Elvis has been doing every since he "died."
;)
This is a dead/dying product. Period.
BTW, this is called a "charge back".
It's important to understand that much of what people think Exchange does is really done by Outlook. Exchange is a piece of crufty software which does LDAP, SMTP, POP3, and some microsoft specific protocols (DCOM(MAPI), RPC), but under it all, Outlook is doing almost all the real work. Once you understand this, you soon see that not speaking MS's RPC really isn't an issue as most if not all of it can be communicated via standard SMTP/POP3/IMAP messaging standards.
In short, when people pay big bucks for Exchange, they are buying an LDAP server, a POP3 server, an IMAP server and an SMTP server plus a database (MS JetDB...ACK!) to store everything in and nice GUI's to go with it. Exchange really has no value beyond these items and, again, Outlook really does all of the work.
You are correct. Right after I submitted my reply, I realized what it was that you REALLY meant...rather, I realized that I didn't understand what you meant the first time around.
Now then, I do think I recall seeing that SAMBA can use PAM which can, in turn, make use of your domain controller? Likewise, I think LDAP can also be used. Please don't hold me to this as it's been a while since I've had to look into these types of issues with SAMBA, but it may prove to be a starting point for you.
Thanks.
I think the obvious and safe assumption, especially since you've received lots of feedback at this point, is that yes, it will work. So, unless you hear otherwise, I know of no reason why you should stand and argue unless you have first hand (recent) information that supports your position. Until that time, I think enough has been said. Printing works well. Period.
RTFM. Samba has done this for a long time.
Actually, printing is NOT that complex. The hardest part is for the APPLICATION to properly generate the needed output for the drivers to properly understand. Long story short, if the driver can print complex and high quality images as well as complex documents in a given application, it should work for ALL applications that are able to produce proper printed output. Yes, that's correct. No matter how good your print driver is, the application still has to properly present/represent the desired output to the driver to render. Your indirect assertion that driver quality is application dependant ("...variety of applications...") is really without merit as the drivers will render what it's told to do. So, if it doesn't work with an application, it's known as a broken application. Thusly, this has nothing to do with print drivers or frameworks. A broken app is a broken app.
Counter to your assertion, CUPS is generally accepted as being a complete and robust printing solution. Most that use it, soon learn to love it. Bluntly, MS should have lots to envy here. You can choose to remain agnostic if you like, however, it doesn't change the facts.
So, long story short, applications that create proper output for printing will find excellent results under Linux.
Welcome to the world of Microsoft's modified Jet Database....
Last I heard, they were talking about using a modified SQL Server DB....I guess that never happened???