Yeah, but that is for the GNU Free Wedding License (which you can, of course, also get completely free if you find the right place).
95% of the industry today tends to use MicroSoft Wedding 2005, however, and last I checked, the Home version was around $5K. As recently seen on Slashdot, they recently pulled their Homo version, though -- I dunno which one you might be needing.
While many argue that the GFWL is more flexible and robust than MS Wedding (such as compatibility with gdivorce and gabortion and the equivalent open standards), many girls actually tend to like the lock-in of MS Wedding. That is often the largest setback many men see, but they are often happy to get a license at all -- especially those on Slashdot.
but then again it got screwed up in MSOffice 2000 as well.
That, of course, is yet another advantage of using OOo. When you upgrade to the next version of the program, your documents don't normally screw up along with it. Unlike what is often said of MSO.
(GP:) THere are benefits to using industry standard programs...
Yeah, but there are also benefits to using industry standards, and programs that implement them. Regardless of whether MSO is an industry standard program, its file formats certainly aren't any standard whatsoever.
Hate to break your heart, but a vast majority of Slashdot readers are using Windows. By the way, who said you can't be a geek if you use Windows?
I know I shouldn't bite, but I just couldn't resist.
Thing is, the OP never said that the majority of Slashdot readers aren't running Windows. He merely said that a geek-heavy site such as Slashdot would likely have more than enough non-Windows users to warrant not posting a direct link to the Windows installer.
In the same manner, noone said that "you can't be a geek if you use Windows". The OP just implied that geeks would be more likely not to use Windows.
That said, I would say that you can't be a geek if you use Windows. But noone said it before me.;-) </sarcasm>
Isn't all a little too much? I can assure you, I manage quite well without Windows. While I did have it installed under VMWare to, as you said, test Web sites under IE6, but I removed it quite some time ago, and I certainly haven't missed it. I needed to free the disk space, and since I hadn't started it in several months...
As a proud owner of a Celeron 500mhz machine, I must express my concern.
I have several old Pentium II machines running at speeds ranging from 233 MHz to 400 MHz that are running the latest kernels just fine working as servers.
My point with this is that it's not the kernel that's making GNU/Linux systems crawl on older hardware. It's the newer versions of GNOME and KDE. As long as you aren't running GNOME or KDE, older hardware works just fine. My servers chug along just fine, and my 233 MHz laptop with 64 MBs of RAM running Sawfish also suffices just fine to do virtually all my common tasks (except running any Mozilla product:-P ).
So, certainly, GNU/Linux may need more developers from third world nations, as you put it. Linux, however, does not.
Well, I write all kinds of documentation, and I find that with emacs and LaTeX, I can do that on much slower processors than 350 MHz PIIs, and with a lot less memory than any WYSIWYG word processor you can point to would require. Not only that, but I become much more productive because of the more streamlined interfaces of emacs vs. any GUI-driven application, and because of the more complete capabilities of LaTeX vs. OpenOffice Writer/Microsoft Word.
As for spreadsheets, I see them more as a rapid prototyping tool (if even that). When I want to get anything done that involves large lists of data, I write a Perl script to do the job. Mind you, Perl is a lot more powerful than spreadsheet programs, and it, too, takes a lot less system resources than any given contemporary spreadsheet program.
Of course, every (wo)man has his/her own preferences, and I don't write this to encourage everyone to use emacs/LaTeX/perl, but rather to spread the fact that you don't need even a 350 MHz PII or even 64 MBs of RAM to be productive, and that it is most certainly program design that makes Open/Microsoft Office take much more resources than really necessary. While you may not need a 2 GHz machine like the GP said, you do certainly need a lot more because of the fancy GUIs and stuff.
I don't know about you, but I'd take cleaning a Linux machine over cleaning a Windows machine any day.
Naturally -- I don't meant to argue about that. I, too, am a GNU/Linux user, and have been so exclusively for more than two years now, and there are too many reasons to list that I don't touch Windows even with a pair of pliers.
However, my point was that both systems may some day have a need to be cleaned, regardlessly of which one is easier to clean. My point was that it is not for any technical merits in either OS that Windows is being targeted, but rather because of the proprietary culture that surrounds Windows.
That's also why GNU/Linux has a chance of escaping spyware -- since the culture surrounding GNU/Linux is that of the free software community, there is a far lesser risk of those proprietary tendencies to reach the culture.
However, Linux has no technical merits -- and should not have -- to technically evade spyware. Like I said, there should be no such scheme either, because at some point, that would consist of restricting the user from doing stuff, and that may more than well include something the user will actually want to do.
Most other OSes generally don't let foreign programs run willy-nilly and do things behind users' backs.
What OS(es) would that be? GNU/Linux/UNIX? Just place your spyware in the user's ~/.profile.
Of course, there are many spyware programs that make their way into users' computers through holes in IE/DCOM/SMB/ActiveX/what have you, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of spyware comes with other programs, like Kazaa. That means that the user is willfully installing it. Sure, they may not know about it, but that doesn't mean they're not installing it by their own decision. There's nothing in any other OS that would prevent the user from doing that.
The reason why there's no spyware on Linux is not primarily that Linux isn't yet as popular as Windows, as many others suggest. The reason why there's no spyware on Linux (yet) is that most people run free software on their Linux systems, and free software developers... well, don't normally bundle spyware with their programs. If or when proprietary software ever gets popular with Linux, I'll assure you that you'll see an increase in spyware for Linux.
However, mind you that there's nothing inherent in Linux itself to stop it. Any such thing would just prevent the user from doing stuff, and would therefore be hindering users.
However, that's just a manifestation of the transfer of energy
Considering how no energy transfer I've ever seen has been possible to carry out with 100% efficiency, I find it hard to believe that any device doing anything would actually be able to be at absolute zero.
The benefits are that major proprietary ISVs such as Oracle, IBM, etc. make binary packages that are compatible with RHEL (and sometimes SLES). If you want to run an Oracle database, you'll need an RHEL-compatible distro.
Sorry, but that was more or less the only correct thing in the entire article. Swapping is writing out entire processes to disk, paging is writing out pages to disk.
All UNIX systems until V5 or therearound used swapping. In fact, paging was implemented in UNIX in BSD (3BSD IIRC), not at AT&T.
He did also mention that no Windows system since 95 has used swapping. I can't say I know very much about pre-95 versions of Windows, so I can't verify that. (Although I wouldn't exactly be surprised if Microsoft had implemented whole-process swapping, I don't actually believe so, since that could have been done on pre-386 archs, while Microsoft didn't implement swapping or paging until the 386 came about -- Win3.11 demanded to be run in "386 Advanced Mode" to use "swapping".)
More information can be gotten from AST's classical book "Modern Operating Systems".
Of course, I'm not saying to trust this author, as he's obviously completely clueless. Like I said, that's probably about the only true thing that he wrote in that article. Also, it is true that the terms "swapping" and "paging" are being used completely interchangably today, so when having an actual discussion about anything but the actual difference between these two, there is no difference. And since no operating system will ever be likely to implement whole-process swapping ever again, it's rather moot to even discuss the difference between these terms.
You can take away the fluff of linux. You CAN'T take away the fluff of windows XP.
Note how particularly important this is for servers. With Windows, you cannot remove the GUI. I've got servers for different purposes using less than 32 MBs of RAM. They're running RH9 with 2.6 kernels, so it's not exactly out-of-date software. RH9 was released in 2003 -- Now, I'm no Windows expert, but I wouldn't be quick to believe that you can make Windows Server 2003 do that (at least not without some serious tweaking).
If you're trying to convince your organization to switch to open-source offerings, it's easier to bring up an integrated solution such as, "We can switch to the Mozilla Suite" than to have to sell three or four different projects like, "We can switch to K-Meleon for browsing, Trillian for IM, Thunderbird for email," etc.
In the same way that Microsoft would (in a more ideal world;-) ) try to convince Linux desktop users to "switch to Internet Explorer for browsing, Windows Messenger for IM, Outlook for email," etc.?
I see nothing wrong in offering three or four different projects -- especially since that's how it all works anyway. A GNU/Linux system is composed of thousands of little projects. Windows, too, is based on lots of smaller programs. Normally, of course, these are all included simultaneously in the same O/S "package" (by that I mean the installation CD, not an individual RPM or whatever package), but if that's the problem, I'd suggest checking out the Open CD.
For that matter, I would be more cautious about switching to one mega-program that replaces five or six of my current programs simultaneously, since that affects a larger part of my desktop in a shorter amount of time. Better to switch out one component at a time and get used to one at a time instead, if you ask me.
I thought all parties who submitted RFCs to the IETF had to disavow all intellectual property regarding the described technologies?
Either way, the IPv6 effort started in like 1995 or 1996 or therearound, and many IPv6-related RFCs in active use today are dated 1998, so it seems this won't be a problem due to prior art.
Of course, that doesn't justify Microsoft's demeanor...
The great-grandparent seemed to worry about the phone companies trying to stop VoIP. The grandparent pointed out, with that advertisement, that that seems unlikely.
You always have to take what one guy says with a grain of salt; there are very few universal truths that cover all of EDS
Then maybe he should have been careful not to make it sound like he was speaking for EDS as a whole? And maybe EDS (, mgmt. of) should be careful about lettings spokesmen speak for EDS as a whole about things that do not cover all of EDS?
If an official company spokesman makes a contextless statement like that, it's usually meant to convey a truth about the company as a whole, and thus taken with the credence it is usually given.
So the bottom line is: If a company says (that is, conveys through official channels) one thing, and then another thing that completely contradicts the first thing, then all the previous poster's comments on schizophrenia are quite justified. If it truly is this guy's personal opinions, or the opinions of the part of EDS he works for, then he ought to make that clear, and it is the responsibility of the company to make sure that he does not speak as if on behalf on the company as a whole.
At this point I'd like to make some witty rejoinder about embrace and extend, but it's just not worth the effort.
ASCII Extended Character Set -- Also known as IBM codepage 437. Sure, IBM != Microsoft, but since IBM PC == Microsoft (at least almost), that point is rather moot.
Slashdot Mirror
95% of the industry today tends to use MicroSoft Wedding 2005, however, and last I checked, the Home version was around $5K. As recently seen on Slashdot, they recently pulled their Homo version, though -- I dunno which one you might be needing.
While many argue that the GFWL is more flexible and robust than MS Wedding (such as compatibility with gdivorce and gabortion and the equivalent open standards), many girls actually tend to like the lock-in of MS Wedding. That is often the largest setback many men see, but they are often happy to get a license at all -- especially those on Slashdot.
Thing is, the OP never said that the majority of Slashdot readers aren't running Windows. He merely said that a geek-heavy site such as Slashdot would likely have more than enough non-Windows users to warrant not posting a direct link to the Windows installer.
In the same manner, noone said that "you can't be a geek if you use Windows". The OP just implied that geeks would be more likely not to use Windows.
That said, I would say that you can't be a geek if you use Windows. But noone said it before me. ;-) </sarcasm>
</sarcasm>
My point with this is that it's not the kernel that's making GNU/Linux systems crawl on older hardware. It's the newer versions of GNOME and KDE. As long as you aren't running GNOME or KDE, older hardware works just fine. My servers chug along just fine, and my 233 MHz laptop with 64 MBs of RAM running Sawfish also suffices just fine to do virtually all my common tasks (except running any Mozilla product :-P ).
So, certainly, GNU/Linux may need more developers from third world nations, as you put it. Linux, however, does not.
Who modded this to zero? How is this not informative?
As for spreadsheets, I see them more as a rapid prototyping tool (if even that). When I want to get anything done that involves large lists of data, I write a Perl script to do the job. Mind you, Perl is a lot more powerful than spreadsheet programs, and it, too, takes a lot less system resources than any given contemporary spreadsheet program.
Of course, every (wo)man has his/her own preferences, and I don't write this to encourage everyone to use emacs/LaTeX/perl, but rather to spread the fact that you don't need even a 350 MHz PII or even 64 MBs of RAM to be productive, and that it is most certainly program design that makes Open/Microsoft Office take much more resources than really necessary. While you may not need a 2 GHz machine like the GP said, you do certainly need a lot more because of the fancy GUIs and stuff.
However, my point was that both systems may some day have a need to be cleaned, regardlessly of which one is easier to clean. My point was that it is not for any technical merits in either OS that Windows is being targeted, but rather because of the proprietary culture that surrounds Windows.
That's also why GNU/Linux has a chance of escaping spyware -- since the culture surrounding GNU/Linux is that of the free software community, there is a far lesser risk of those proprietary tendencies to reach the culture.
However, Linux has no technical merits -- and should not have -- to technically evade spyware. Like I said, there should be no such scheme either, because at some point, that would consist of restricting the user from doing stuff, and that may more than well include something the user will actually want to do.
Why has this been modded down? It's informative if I've ever seen anything informative. I would mod it up, but I've already posted.
Of course, there are many spyware programs that make their way into users' computers through holes in IE/DCOM/SMB/ActiveX/what have you, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of spyware comes with other programs, like Kazaa. That means that the user is willfully installing it. Sure, they may not know about it, but that doesn't mean they're not installing it by their own decision. There's nothing in any other OS that would prevent the user from doing that.
The reason why there's no spyware on Linux is not primarily that Linux isn't yet as popular as Windows, as many others suggest. The reason why there's no spyware on Linux (yet) is that most people run free software on their Linux systems, and free software developers... well, don't normally bundle spyware with their programs. If or when proprietary software ever gets popular with Linux, I'll assure you that you'll see an increase in spyware for Linux.
However, mind you that there's nothing inherent in Linux itself to stop it. Any such thing would just prevent the user from doing stuff, and would therefore be hindering users.
Autopackage has a lot of text on this.
What all this "news" about Intel suddenly doing dual-core? Isn't that what HyperThreading has been doing for, what is it, a year now?
The benefits are that major proprietary ISVs such as Oracle, IBM, etc. make binary packages that are compatible with RHEL (and sometimes SLES). If you want to run an Oracle database, you'll need an RHEL-compatible distro.
All UNIX systems until V5 or therearound used swapping. In fact, paging was implemented in UNIX in BSD (3BSD IIRC), not at AT&T.
He did also mention that no Windows system since 95 has used swapping. I can't say I know very much about pre-95 versions of Windows, so I can't verify that. (Although I wouldn't exactly be surprised if Microsoft had implemented whole-process swapping, I don't actually believe so, since that could have been done on pre-386 archs, while Microsoft didn't implement swapping or paging until the 386 came about -- Win3.11 demanded to be run in "386 Advanced Mode" to use "swapping".)
More information can be gotten from AST's classical book "Modern Operating Systems".
Of course, I'm not saying to trust this author, as he's obviously completely clueless. Like I said, that's probably about the only true thing that he wrote in that article. Also, it is true that the terms "swapping" and "paging" are being used completely interchangably today, so when having an actual discussion about anything but the actual difference between these two, there is no difference. And since no operating system will ever be likely to implement whole-process swapping ever again, it's rather moot to even discuss the difference between these terms.
I see nothing wrong in offering three or four different projects -- especially since that's how it all works anyway. A GNU/Linux system is composed of thousands of little projects. Windows, too, is based on lots of smaller programs. Normally, of course, these are all included simultaneously in the same O/S "package" (by that I mean the installation CD, not an individual RPM or whatever package), but if that's the problem, I'd suggest checking out the Open CD.
For that matter, I would be more cautious about switching to one mega-program that replaces five or six of my current programs simultaneously, since that affects a larger part of my desktop in a shorter amount of time. Better to switch out one component at a time and get used to one at a time instead, if you ask me.
Either way, the IPv6 effort started in like 1995 or 1996 or therearound, and many IPv6-related RFCs in active use today are dated 1998, so it seems this won't be a problem due to prior art.
Of course, that doesn't justify Microsoft's demeanor...
So, if it's not a thing of another past, would that mean it's still a thing of the (a?) present?
192.168.1.254
That should be about as easy to reach.
The great-grandparent seemed to worry about the phone companies trying to stop VoIP. The grandparent pointed out, with that advertisement, that that seems unlikely.
If an official company spokesman makes a contextless statement like that, it's usually meant to convey a truth about the company as a whole, and thus taken with the credence it is usually given.
So the bottom line is: If a company says (that is, conveys through official channels) one thing, and then another thing that completely contradicts the first thing, then all the previous poster's comments on schizophrenia are quite justified. If it truly is this guy's personal opinions, or the opinions of the part of EDS he works for, then he ought to make that clear, and it is the responsibility of the company to make sure that he does not speak as if on behalf on the company as a whole.
Why is there no "+1 Troll" moderation?
Are you referring to adding "site:sourceforge.net" to your search terms, like this?