Let me sum it up for you: power socket != OS
A power socket is not required for electrical usage. Alternatives are solar powered. There is one standard because it is only one type of energy. If you drop solar and other forms off the face of the earth, then your argument is valid. If you remember solar exists then suddenly it doesn't matter if there are sockets or not.
A Operating system is required for hardware usage. Be it Windows or Linux, both are a choice and neither are -required- to make the hardware work since either will do the job.
It's two completely seperate situations.
And? I don't care who is making the descisions, it is still happening. I fail to see how that point applied to anything other than "But nuh uh! they just wunna perserve themselves but they are illegal.! M$ sux!"
I'm sorry, but that example doesn't even hold water. That's like trying to compare water with the process in which one has to start a Union, and yes your example is -that- unrelated. Let's look at this:
Power Sockets: Everyone -needs- them, period. There is no argument there. Everyone needs socket standards not only because of saftey requirements (which operating system standards are not a part of) but also because everyone -has- to use the same electricity. I don't care if it is solar or gas powered, electricity when that radio turns on is electricity.
Everyone does not -need- windows. Everyone does not have to use -just- windows. No one is going to burn alive and die from closed standards on windows because they stuck a fork in it (or would they..). You can't compare the two, and I can't believe you even tried. A proper comparison would be comparing two completely different types of electricity, rather than plugs. The OS controls the hardware, and the OS is the optional part and thus why it's okay for buisnesses to not go to standards. Because everyone offering the same options (electricity) is going to kill a buisness model.
I can't quite put my finger on what I'm trying to say, but I know damn well you'll get it.
This is something we need to keep in mind while all the flames and MS troll rant. Microsoft is making a buisness descision, because it is a buisness and not a local geek club that does this in their spare time. Good or bad, we can't expect them to suddenly shake hands with Linux and begin working on universal standards for OS interopolbility because that is a buisness killing move and against the very reason buisness competition even exists in the first place.
I can understand that. SP2 is sad and as an admin I can feel that pain, but not going to shatter them nor me. The poster was talking about MS setting back software as a whole, from Longhorn to Billy Goat Bob.
For system administrators who are mostly still running on Windows 2000 server/pro anyways, I don't know that the XP SP2 patch would have much effect on them. I could be wrong on that though, completely wrong lol
No, I really don't. So they keep pushing dates back. Who cares? Do you honestly think that the majority of Windows users hangs on the edge of their seat about new updates like a typical geek?
No. They don't. And chances are, most could care less about Longhorn, and even more don't mind that it is pushed back because computing isn't a large part of their life. So it won't matter how fast linux improves, nor how far back Windows get's pushed. -Right now- Windows works perfectly for a good number of people, and it does what they need. There is no incentive for the flood of Windows users to care whether its in 2004 or 2006, because in their mind they know one thing: "We will get it when it is released".
And no, I don't see this as a dangerous time for them.
Wait, can you show me some statistics on why people who don't understand what the SP2 patch does anyways, would make this sudden and drastic switch to linux you are talking about?
I'm sure if mplayer and multiple mirror sites (big name mirrors, not w4Re3z) can host them for distribution without reprecussion, I'm perfectly sure we will all be okay.
For Windows users, just install the Kazaa Lite ++ Codec Pack. It's legal (unlike it's p2p software) and includes not only the latest DivX codecs, but quicktime/realplayer Dll's that operate without the quicktime/realplayer software. This means quicktime/realplayer playability and browser streaming without the spyware. They are known as quicktime/realplayer lite.
Which is the mplayer release of an essential codec pack containing divx, quicktime, realplayer, etc. Those should be extracted (without the sub director in the tar) to/usr/lib/win32
Source code is source code, is source code. Even if there is a major fork of Gnome I know that when I want to compile gaim, it will still compile due to it relying on the basic Gnome libraries. This means there won't be an episode as described above.
We are not talking about libraries or the core of gnome, but the UI. HUGE difference! While I feel the libraries and core Gnome in itself is fine, I do not feel the interface itself (and the tools within) are up to par with gnome's history.
I agree with you:) 2.6.1 introduced a lot of good things with it.
simplicity is good (KISS principle), but I simply think they are crossing the line from remaining simple to going out of their way to make it easier on the newcomers, sacraficing a few things that simply made gnome 'gnome'. To each their own opinion of course, and I do understand where you are coming from.
It would seem more and more OSes and DM are going to path of "please the unsavvy users FIRST!", and thus simplifying things down to a horrid level. This not only upsets those who have followed Gnome since damn near day one, but it complicated backwards compatability when us vets have resort to the command line yet again, because a crucial tool within Gnome was 'simplified' and the power of it removed.
Don't get me wrong, command line is amazing. But I'm in Gnome for a reason. Here's my idea:
Gnome needs to focus on developing a more intuitive interface that allows for seamless use between gtk2 applications and the Gnome desktop enviroment, while remaining elegant. Follow the slackware principle, basically. Don't include and modify to the point in which it's no longer the origonal intended product, and let people (such as redhat, slackware, debian, etc) modify gnome to their own extent.
Maybe Redhat will want to customize gnome from it's origonal state to make it more user friendly, while slackware wants to keep it the stock power/elegant/simple gnome. The point is that we should give the people a choice, rather than preassume that all vets have suddenly dropped ten years in experience and now need to rely on the bloat that if we wanted, we could find in Redhat.
Maybe I'm ranting, in fact I know I am. But there is a difference between making a DM work well with the OS, versus making the DM ideals forced upon only a certain area of people (linux novices).
That has nothing to do with your origonal post:) Am I mistaken, or did you try and link something unrelated (release dates) to something I posted (os version differences)?
We still have to wonder was it actually Gates that had his hand over every final say? Don't get me wrong, I agree that MS has done some shady deals in the past, but we would need to eventually draw the lines between it having been Bill's call or the new CEO's call.
Sure, bad dealings were still done, but at least then we could get the names right. Right now, Bill == Microsoft in the eyes of not only the general public, but geeks as well. That needs to change, or someone needs to start reminding/showing people who made what call and when.
Gates that is. Remember, since he isn't CEO anymore the primary fsck-ups (SCO anyone?) are not something he agreed the company should have ever touched in the first place, when instead the new CEO said "yay! Lets GO DO THIS!".
The journal of the intern is not the only one I've seen where people who meet and spend time with Gates end up with a surprisingly pleasent experience. Geek + Dad + Down to Earth. Of course, people here will continue to flame Gates as if he is CEO, continue to say what a greeding person he is and ignore the intern's journal, or say that the intern is a Microsoft employee.
I hope people can eventually look beyond the company and see the man behind what started it. He's not half bad if you give him a chance.
I don't mind not having a use flag, know why?./configure -h doesn't really take up that much of my time. I'd rather see the options per program than preassume their configuration.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me sum it up for you: power socket != OS A power socket is not required for electrical usage. Alternatives are solar powered. There is one standard because it is only one type of energy. If you drop solar and other forms off the face of the earth, then your argument is valid. If you remember solar exists then suddenly it doesn't matter if there are sockets or not. A Operating system is required for hardware usage. Be it Windows or Linux, both are a choice and neither are -required- to make the hardware work since either will do the job. It's two completely seperate situations.
And? I don't care who is making the descisions, it is still happening. I fail to see how that point applied to anything other than "But nuh uh! they just wunna perserve themselves but they are illegal.! M$ sux!"
Mod me as troll, I dare you. You know it's true.
I'm sorry, but that example doesn't even hold water. That's like trying to compare water with the process in which one has to start a Union, and yes your example is -that- unrelated. Let's look at this:
Power Sockets: Everyone -needs- them, period. There is no argument there. Everyone needs socket standards not only because of saftey requirements (which operating system standards are not a part of) but also because everyone -has- to use the same electricity. I don't care if it is solar or gas powered, electricity when that radio turns on is electricity.
Everyone does not -need- windows. Everyone does not have to use -just- windows. No one is going to burn alive and die from closed standards on windows because they stuck a fork in it (or would they..). You can't compare the two, and I can't believe you even tried. A proper comparison would be comparing two completely different types of electricity, rather than plugs. The OS controls the hardware, and the OS is the optional part and thus why it's okay for buisnesses to not go to standards. Because everyone offering the same options (electricity) is going to kill a buisness model.
I can't quite put my finger on what I'm trying to say, but I know damn well you'll get it.
This is something we need to keep in mind while all the flames and MS troll rant. Microsoft is making a buisness descision, because it is a buisness and not a local geek club that does this in their spare time. Good or bad, we can't expect them to suddenly shake hands with Linux and begin working on universal standards for OS interopolbility because that is a buisness killing move and against the very reason buisness competition even exists in the first place.
I can understand that. SP2 is sad and as an admin I can feel that pain, but not going to shatter them nor me. The poster was talking about MS setting back software as a whole, from Longhorn to Billy Goat Bob.
For system administrators who are mostly still running on Windows 2000 server/pro anyways, I don't know that the XP SP2 patch would have much effect on them. I could be wrong on that though, completely wrong lol
No, I really don't. So they keep pushing dates back. Who cares? Do you honestly think that the majority of Windows users hangs on the edge of their seat about new updates like a typical geek?
No. They don't. And chances are, most could care less about Longhorn, and even more don't mind that it is pushed back because computing isn't a large part of their life. So it won't matter how fast linux improves, nor how far back Windows get's pushed. -Right now- Windows works perfectly for a good number of people, and it does what they need. There is no incentive for the flood of Windows users to care whether its in 2004 or 2006, because in their mind they know one thing: "We will get it when it is released".
And no, I don't see this as a dangerous time for them.
Wait, can you show me some statistics on why people who don't understand what the SP2 patch does anyways, would make this sudden and drastic switch to linux you are talking about?
In a heartbeat. Put it in bold letters on her front page, and I will make sure I show everyone I know what is going on, and where to donate.
I'm sure if mplayer and multiple mirror sites (big name mirrors, not w4Re3z) can host them for distribution without reprecussion, I'm perfectly sure we will all be okay.
Um, okay. Did I miss something? Because that has got to be -the- random opinion of the day :)
For Windows users, just install the Kazaa Lite ++ Codec Pack. It's legal (unlike it's p2p software) and includes not only the latest DivX codecs, but quicktime/realplayer Dll's that operate without the quicktime/realplayer software. This means quicktime/realplayer playability and browser streaming without the spyware. They are known as quicktime/realplayer lite.
e ssential-20040704.tar.bz2
/usr/lib/win32
Get the 'mega codec pack' here:
http://g5.edskes.com/klmcodec103.exe
For linux users, of course head here and snag:
http://www1.mplayerhq.hu/MPlayer/releases/codecs/
Which is the mplayer release of an essential codec pack containing divx, quicktime, realplayer, etc. Those should be extracted (without the sub director in the tar) to
Source code is source code, is source code. Even if there is a major fork of Gnome I know that when I want to compile gaim, it will still compile due to it relying on the basic Gnome libraries. This means there won't be an episode as described above.
We are not talking about libraries or the core of gnome, but the UI. HUGE difference! While I feel the libraries and core Gnome in itself is fine, I do not feel the interface itself (and the tools within) are up to par with gnome's history.
Once again though, to each their own.
I agree with you :) 2.6.1 introduced a lot of good things with it.
simplicity is good (KISS principle), but I simply think they are crossing the line from remaining simple to going out of their way to make it easier on the newcomers, sacraficing a few things that simply made gnome 'gnome'. To each their own opinion of course, and I do understand where you are coming from.
It would seem more and more OSes and DM are going to path of "please the unsavvy users FIRST!", and thus simplifying things down to a horrid level. This not only upsets those who have followed Gnome since damn near day one, but it complicated backwards compatability when us vets have resort to the command line yet again, because a crucial tool within Gnome was 'simplified' and the power of it removed.
Don't get me wrong, command line is amazing. But I'm in Gnome for a reason. Here's my idea:
Gnome needs to focus on developing a more intuitive interface that allows for seamless use between gtk2 applications and the Gnome desktop enviroment, while remaining elegant. Follow the slackware principle, basically. Don't include and modify to the point in which it's no longer the origonal intended product, and let people (such as redhat, slackware, debian, etc) modify gnome to their own extent.
Maybe Redhat will want to customize gnome from it's origonal state to make it more user friendly, while slackware wants to keep it the stock power/elegant/simple gnome. The point is that we should give the people a choice, rather than preassume that all vets have suddenly dropped ten years in experience and now need to rely on the bloat that if we wanted, we could find in Redhat.
Maybe I'm ranting, in fact I know I am. But there is a difference between making a DM work well with the OS, versus making the DM ideals forced upon only a certain area of people (linux novices).
Feel free to expand, I'm done.
It's cute to see a bunch of trolls use AC. Then again, this is slashdot, where a fifteen year old can post as AC and think they are "teh next sh1t".
Afraid to get a karma hit boys?
That has nothing to do with your origonal post :) Am I mistaken, or did you try and link something unrelated (release dates) to something I posted (os version differences)?
Do you know why this isn't funny anymore? Because this is the joke most people make who have not tried Windows beyond the 95 and 98SE1 days.
Do you REALLY want me to bring up how 'good' the Linux kernel was in it'x 1.x days?
So he answered honestly. So maybe he was having a bad day. Never been short or honest in your answers before?
You are trying to compare an entire man's persona based upon ONE sentance, versus the rest of the article/journal?
So if that's the case, all criminals should be put to death because they won't ever find a change possible due to your logic.
In fact, once a teenager's attitude, always a teenager's attitude, right? I'm sure none of us have ever changed from how we acted in the 8th grade.
I hate it when you reply to the wrong post...
We still have to wonder was it actually Gates that had his hand over every final say? Don't get me wrong, I agree that MS has done some shady deals in the past, but we would need to eventually draw the lines between it having been Bill's call or the new CEO's call.
Sure, bad dealings were still done, but at least then we could get the names right. Right now, Bill == Microsoft in the eyes of not only the general public, but geeks as well. That needs to change, or someone needs to start reminding/showing people who made what call and when.
Before I get hit with "troll", yes the Microsoft Employee joke was actually a joke, and not a RTFA
Gates that is. Remember, since he isn't CEO anymore the primary fsck-ups (SCO anyone?) are not something he agreed the company should have ever touched in the first place, when instead the new CEO said "yay! Lets GO DO THIS!".
The journal of the intern is not the only one I've seen where people who meet and spend time with Gates end up with a surprisingly pleasent experience. Geek + Dad + Down to Earth. Of course, people here will continue to flame Gates as if he is CEO, continue to say what a greeding person he is and ignore the intern's journal, or say that the intern is a Microsoft employee.
I hope people can eventually look beyond the company and see the man behind what started it. He's not half bad if you give him a chance.
I don't mind not having a use flag, know why? ./configure -h doesn't really take up that much of my time. I'd rather see the options per program than preassume their configuration.
It's usually called /etc/profile.d/make.sh in which you export CFLAGS and the compiling options you wanted.
What is this nonsense about other OSes not being able to do this?