the web is not only a library. Its a themepark, a post office, a news stand, a porno rental, a bookstore, a flee market, a bank and tons of other things. A web as library would be quite boring. Also regarding target=_new the correct analogy does translate perfectly into a library. When wanting to access a reference (link) found in the book, the new book doesn't replace the old one. Instead it is usualy open alongside the first.
will you people quit having fits like 'MS = monopoly (convicted, even)'. The term monopoly is missaplied. The conviction was not about marketshare. You are simply lying.
They made their billions, they should be happy with that, anyone else certainly would be, for the sheer volume of non work they did to make all that loot.
Google says:
define:loot
steal goods; take as spoils; "During the earthquake people looted the stores that were deserted by their owners"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
How did MS steal the money they have? People bought their product as an act of free will. Accusing someone of a crime they didn't commit is, in fact, libel. You have just exposed yourself to a justified law suit for damages. Congratulations! I hope against hope that you will have to pay for your stupidity.
Complaining about software MS doesn't ship is pure irony. Why just the other day the mighty US american court system decided that not even a webbrowser belongs to an OS. The EU found that preinstalling MediaPlayer is such a crime that MS should pay millions of dollars to soothe the pain inflicted on unsuspecting EU citizens. So lets hear your complains again: antivir? free? Symantec certainly would sue instantly. firewall? Also free? Ha, I can see the headlines 'Microsofts decision to bundle a free firewall with exceeding functionality with its Windows products is just another ploy against their competition'.
One other thing: When windows was even more dominant then today, you and your zealot friends claimed that consumers had no choice. You justified your claims by noting that consumers didn't choose what you thought best for them. Now people are switching because linux merits it for them. And all you can do is to devalue that by interpreting it as malice against MS. Regular consumers are not feeling the same hatred as you do. They evaluate different options and decide what is best for them. They don't want to afford an ideology, the roots and aims of which only matter to a small percentage of technicals and users. This was true before linux came to play on the desktop or server market and it is still true now.
Also, especially nations are known to routinely make very bad choices.
In this whole Java vs. NET fight one question crossed my mind: With java its possible to ship a JVM with the software without installing it ( the VM via MSI ie.). I know this is a pain for modem users but it allows for different code targeted at different JVMs (vendor/version) to cooexist on the same machine without causing compatability issues. Is the same thing possible with NET? Or do you need to install it to run, thereby overwriting the previous versions and maybe breaking other software?
yeah, I caught your drift, I saw what you meant to say. It just didn't check out with the strict-logic-analyzer;)... Actually I am not part of 'we' but I am waiting for the day that linux has become mainstream enough that the 'signal' parts hits the right level. Games, to be specific. Now I know that WINE and transgaming are doing all they can but this just isn't enough. I won't even try it until the 'supported game list' disapears because all games are expected to run. Its frustrating enough to get windows games running on windows so it's not going to get easier on linux.
The last thing I heard about dot.net was from that perl guy that wanted to do perl on it. He said: with.nets bytecode basically all you can do is different flavors of C#
What do you mean by ValueTypes exactly? Is it really 'structs'? Because we have 'classes', you know. Using those you can even have functions with your data if you are so inclined.
Some would say that calling native code easily is A Bad Thing. But what do I know? Want to finally get segmentation faults again? No problem with.net.
yes, you can't 'hack' C and Lisp on windows. Everyone knows that. What most people don't know is why. Windows itself was written in EvilAsm, the programming language invented by the devil((c) capcom) himself. Gates had to trade his soul and BASIC for the compiler. EvilAsmComp is well, evil but smart and added code to windows that prevents it from ever running a C compiler. C, of course, being the language created by God ( aka Dennis Ritchie ) on sunday. Now it is clear why *nix and Windows are adversaries, destined to fight until the end of time.
for me, your post boils down to: I prefer to know that X doesn't exist (even if proving a negative is not possible;) to signing up, queueing up and watching adds to receive X. That doesn't make sense. You say that the signal to noise ratio increases automaticaly as the 'bandwith' (total number of softwares) increases. Accepting that and accepting that high signal to noise is 'a bad thing' the best solution is to have one piece of software total.
how has it been 'proven' ineffective? I think the large number of shareware products indicate the opposite. There is no maintenance problem with shareware. either it works for you -> encouragement to pay or it doesn't -> delete it. 'vacuous pool': how is it pointless to pay a guy/gal that wrote software that helps you?
negligence is not for me to define. The courts certainly have a working definition of it. The way I see it, the whole negligence thing means: Well, mistakes do happen, but you are only going to pay when the mistake had been preventable or in good faith.
I don't get your post, sorry. English is not my native language so this might be the reason. Was it a joke? Do you really claim to know anyone that can write a zero bug program with more than 100 lines in one go?
Somehow I don't believe the for-free argument really holds. Microsoft would only get succesfully sued when its negligence is proven to have directly harmed someone, IMO. Negligence has nothing to do with free vs. none-free. If I 'treat' you after you had an accident by letting heavy objects fall on your head, I would still be liabel for damages.
this is a fine example for everyone that won't believe that governments are passing laws just to pass laws. What the hell business do they have telling anyone that GCs can't expire. Normal fraud laws should prevent expiring GCs to be sold as if they were was no expiry ( like a little note that says: this gc will expire in x years) date anyways. Is it mandatory for washington state politicians to be brain amputated? Who thought that this was a good idea? Who gives them the right to do this?
The big private companies that operate within the free market ( no regulation buying and such) do accord to free market principles. Saying anything else is nonsensical.
Please tell me why my mandatory state run health insurance costs about 400$ a month and won't pay my dental care or my glasses or anything else that actually is expensive? Please also tell me why my mandatory state run retirement plan cost from 3 to 4 times as much as a private one with exacly the same benefits? And while you are at it, please give me just one example of an efficient gov. operation.
The problem is never with the people that have the offices, its the framework that they must operating in. Government agents can not help but act politically motivated just as private companies always act on the profit motive. Government agents have no way of evaluating cost vs. benefits because no market prices exist since most of the time private competition is not allowed along side government enterprises. And finally, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutly. From this follows: the more power a government has ( the more activities its involved in) the more bloated, corrupt and unefficient it becomes. This is the reason why communist wastage was unbearable. If you want to prevent the same thing happening in any democracy you got to keep government power in check ( ie. limiting the activities it is allowed to partake in).
I just mentioned those to show that the 'do one thing well' philosophy is not necessarly superior. That debian fixed the grep thing helps my point, I think. I work with AIX 5.2 so I wouldn't know much about the breaking news on linux dev. As for head and tail, well obviously they do the same thing on default 'show 10 lines from line x', they just use different parameters. It would make sense as an alias but please, a whole different program? That, in earlier unices, used two different syntaxes for the input parameters? And more, more is just head or tail with scrolling.
it means that the known bugs are fixed. Like chenney said: there are unkowns unknowns (incompatibility with exotic software/hardware combinations), known unkowns ( there are probably x bugs per x lines of code), known known ( found bugs, hence testcases) and unknown knowns don't really apply.
Also, if you guys would quit snipping sentences at crucial points, we'd need a lot less typing. The whole quote is:
'additional features available, existing features pass all test cases'
As is obvious, the sentence does not imply zero bugs in the final software at all. Even if the existing features where totally bug free, the new features could introduce bugs that might go undetected until shipment.
I won't go into this in detail because it is way offtopic. But two examples: see bowling for columbine and then read the heston speech transcript on moores website. The speech was definatly cut to make heston appear like an insensitive nut. you'll also understand about the 'out-of-context' thing The second example would be the little NRA/KKK comic in bowling that portrait the NRA as the sucessor of the KKK. The well documented history of the NRA clearly shows excactly the opposite. The NRA always was pro-black, anti-segregation and (violently) anti-kkk. Take heston, he demonstrated with Martin L. King. Certainly not a racist. As for the title of the film, the two shooters actually skipped the bowling classes that morning.
This is what created the abortions 'head', 'tail', 'more', 'fgrep', 'egrep' (which is faster than fgrep;), 'grep' instead of logically grouping the functionalities into two programs. And yet the world is full of 'whizes' that can't stop praising this bullshit as the be and end all of IT philosophy.
Yeah, out of context this quote doesn't make sense. Just like a lot of 'facts' in moores movies. Reading the sentence before, it actually means 'zero defects for this milestone'. So you got a milestone that says 'additional features available, existing features pass all test cases'. For the logically impaired this means: defects in new features a-ok, defects in prior features no-go. I can't help to think that you have no-clue(tm) and are trying to hide it by mixing with the oss/developer crowd since expecting perfectness at every milestone can't come from extensive IT expierience.
(economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like" www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
exclusive control or possession of something; "They have no monopoly on intelligence" www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/we bwn
One or only a few firms dominate. In general, the economy favors competition between service and product providers. For instance, there are a lot of different restaurants as opposed to one restaurant that produces and controls the restaurant industry. Regarding databases, there are, for various reasons, companies that are sole-source providers of information, i.e. the New York Stock Exchange. Generally, the providers are regulated to prevent them from abusing their position as the only source of information. H.R. 354 would put larger, established companies above the competition and unfairly strengthen the market position of certain large companies. www.databasedata.org/db101/glossar/glo ssar.html
The only seller with control over market sales. www.naruc.org/resources/glossary.shtml
A market with only one supplier. pittsford.monroe.edu/jefferson/calfieri /economics/ EcoGlossary.html
A market structure with only a single seller of a commodity or service dealing with a large number of buyers which results in closing entry into the industry to potential competitors. Consequently, due to the absence of a competitive supply of goods on the market, the seller usually has complete control over the quantity of goods released into the market and the ability to set the price at which they are sold. This results in a lower level of production and a higher price than would occur under more competitive market conditions. www.indiana.edu/~ipe/glossry.html
Can you count the number of times 'exclusive' and only appear? Say they violate the sherman act okay, than we can argue about the act itself. But *don't* use a word which is usually seen as something 'bad' and apply it to a different situation just because it has been done before. Repeating the mistakes of others doesn't make you right! Btw, what is wrong with MSs practices? Oh I forgot, don't giving party donation and generally failing at bribing washington 'politicians', well they changed that now to avoid futher pointless lawsuites.
Slashdot Mirror
g.) If you have to fart near her, make a show of it. I don't know why this works. (Note: Do not aim at her more than once.)
This is comedy gold. Don't aim at her more than once. Gee, I am getting all giggly here.
the web is not only a library. Its a themepark, a post office, a news stand, a porno rental, a bookstore, a flee market, a bank and tons of other things. A web as library would be quite boring. Also regarding target=_new the correct analogy does translate perfectly into a library. When wanting to access a reference (link) found in the book, the new book doesn't replace the old one. Instead it is usualy open alongside the first.
will you people quit having fits like 'MS = monopoly (convicted, even)'. The term monopoly is missaplied. The conviction was not about marketshare. You are simply lying.
You said:
They made their billions, they should be happy with that, anyone else certainly would be, for the sheer volume of non work they did to make all that loot.
Google says:
define:loot
steal goods; take as spoils; "During the earthquake people looted the stores that were deserted by their owners" www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
How did MS steal the money they have? People bought their product as an act of free will. Accusing someone of a crime they didn't commit is, in fact, libel. You have just exposed yourself to a justified law suit for damages. Congratulations! I hope against hope that you will have to pay for your stupidity.
Complaining about software MS doesn't ship is pure irony. Why just the other day the mighty US american court system decided that not even a webbrowser belongs to an OS. The EU found that preinstalling MediaPlayer is such a crime that MS should pay millions of dollars to soothe the pain inflicted on unsuspecting EU citizens. So lets hear your complains again: antivir? free? Symantec certainly would sue instantly. firewall? Also free? Ha, I can see the headlines 'Microsofts decision to bundle a free firewall with exceeding functionality with its Windows products is just another ploy against their competition'.
One other thing: When windows was even more dominant then today, you and your zealot friends claimed that consumers had no choice. You justified your claims by noting that consumers didn't choose what you thought best for them. Now people are switching because linux merits it for them. And all you can do is to devalue that by interpreting it as malice against MS. Regular consumers are not feeling the same hatred as you do. They evaluate different options and decide what is best for them. They don't want to afford an ideology, the roots and aims of which only matter to a small percentage of technicals and users. This was true before linux came to play on the desktop or server market and it is still true now.
Also, especially nations are known to routinely make very bad choices.
thanks for enlightening me ;-)
thanks .. like I said, I just didn't get it ;)
In this whole Java vs. NET fight one question crossed my mind: With java its possible to ship a JVM with the software without installing it ( the VM via MSI ie.). I know this is a pain for modem users but it allows for different code targeted at different JVMs (vendor/version) to cooexist on the same machine without causing compatability issues. Is the same thing possible with NET? Or do you need to install it to run, thereby overwriting the previous versions and maybe breaking other software?
yeah, I caught your drift, I saw what you meant to say. It just didn't check out with the strict-logic-analyzer ;) ... Actually I am not part of 'we' but I am waiting for the day that linux has become mainstream enough that the 'signal' parts hits the right level. Games, to be specific. Now I know that WINE and transgaming are doing all they can but this just isn't enough. I won't even try it until the 'supported game list' disapears because all games are expected to run. Its frustrating enough to get windows games running on windows so it's not going to get easier on linux.
The last thing I heard about dot.net was from that perl guy that wanted to do perl on it. He said: with .nets bytecode basically all you can do is different flavors of C#
.net.
What do you mean by ValueTypes exactly? Is it really 'structs'? Because we have 'classes', you know. Using those you can even have functions with your data if you are so inclined.
Some would say that calling native code easily is A Bad Thing. But what do I know? Want to finally get segmentation faults again? No problem with
generics are good! very good, I mean it.
yes, you can't 'hack' C and Lisp on windows. Everyone knows that. What most people don't know is why. Windows itself was written in EvilAsm, the programming language invented by the devil((c) capcom) himself. Gates had to trade his soul and BASIC for the compiler. EvilAsmComp is well, evil but smart and added code to windows that prevents it from ever running a C compiler. C, of course, being the language created by God ( aka Dennis Ritchie ) on sunday.
Now it is clear why *nix and Windows are adversaries, destined to fight until the end of time.
for me, your post boils down to: I prefer to know that X doesn't exist (even if proving a negative is not possible ;) to signing up, queueing up and watching adds to receive X. That doesn't make sense.
;)
You say that the signal to noise ratio increases automaticaly as the 'bandwith' (total number of softwares) increases. Accepting that and accepting that high signal to noise is 'a bad thing' the best solution is to have one piece of software total.
Not serious
how has it been 'proven' ineffective? I think the large number of shareware products indicate the opposite. There is no maintenance problem with shareware. either it works for you -> encouragement to pay or it doesn't -> delete it. 'vacuous pool': how is it pointless to pay a guy/gal that wrote software that helps you?
negligence is not for me to define. The courts certainly have a working definition of it. The way I see it, the whole negligence thing means: Well, mistakes do happen, but you are only going to pay when the mistake had been preventable or in good faith.
I don't get your post, sorry. English is not my native language so this might be the reason. Was it a joke? Do you really claim to know anyone that can write a zero bug program with more than 100 lines in one go?
Somehow I don't believe the for-free argument really holds. Microsoft would only get succesfully sued when its negligence is proven to have directly harmed someone, IMO. Negligence has nothing to do with free vs. none-free. If I 'treat' you after you had an accident by letting heavy objects fall on your head, I would still be liabel for damages.
Negligence + damage = you pay.
Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Just like soviet russia, where linux runs you.
Why was a critical system/network conntected to the internet or any other net? Might this be the real issue?
what makes any vehicle a train but the tracks?
this is a fine example for everyone that won't believe that governments are passing laws just to pass laws. What the hell business do they have telling anyone that GCs can't expire. Normal fraud laws should prevent expiring GCs to be sold as if they were was no expiry ( like a little note that says: this gc will expire in x years) date anyways. Is it mandatory for washington state politicians to be brain amputated? Who thought that this was a good idea? Who gives them the right to do this?
The big private companies that operate within the free market ( no regulation buying and such) do accord to free market principles. Saying anything else is nonsensical.
Please tell me why my mandatory state run health insurance costs about 400$ a month and won't pay my dental care or my glasses or anything else that actually is expensive? Please also tell me why my mandatory state run retirement plan cost from 3 to 4 times as much as a private one with exacly the same benefits? And while you are at it, please give me just one example of an efficient gov. operation.
The problem is never with the people that have the offices, its the framework that they must operating in. Government agents can not help but act politically motivated just as private companies always act on the profit motive. Government agents have no way of evaluating cost vs. benefits because no market prices exist since most of the time private competition is not allowed along side government enterprises. And finally, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutly. From this follows: the more power a government has ( the more activities its involved in) the more bloated, corrupt and unefficient it becomes. This is the reason why communist wastage was unbearable. If you want to prevent the same thing happening in any democracy you got to keep government power in check ( ie. limiting the activities it is allowed to partake in).
I just mentioned those to show that the 'do one thing well' philosophy is not necessarly superior. That debian fixed the grep thing helps my point, I think. I work with AIX 5.2 so I wouldn't know much about the breaking news on linux dev.
As for head and tail, well obviously they do the same thing on default 'show 10 lines from line x', they just use different parameters. It would make sense as an alias but please, a whole different program? That, in earlier unices, used two different syntaxes for the input parameters? And more, more is just head or tail with scrolling.
it means that the known bugs are fixed. Like chenney said: there are unkowns unknowns (incompatibility with exotic software/hardware combinations), known unkowns ( there are probably x bugs per x lines of code), known known ( found bugs, hence testcases) and unknown knowns don't really apply.
Also, if you guys would quit snipping sentences at crucial points, we'd need a lot less typing. The whole quote is:
'additional features available, existing features pass all test cases'
As is obvious, the sentence does not imply zero bugs in the final software at all. Even if the existing features where totally bug free, the new features could introduce bugs that might go undetected until shipment.
I won't go into this in detail because it is way offtopic. But two examples: see bowling for columbine and then read the heston speech transcript on moores website. The speech was definatly cut to make heston appear like an insensitive nut. you'll also understand about the 'out-of-context' thing
The second example would be the little NRA/KKK comic in bowling that portrait the NRA as the sucessor of the KKK. The well documented history of the NRA clearly shows excactly the opposite. The NRA always was pro-black, anti-segregation and (violently) anti-kkk. Take heston, he demonstrated with Martin L. King. Certainly not a racist.
As for the title of the film, the two shooters actually skipped the bowling classes that morning.
make each program do one thing well
;), 'grep' instead of logically grouping the functionalities into two programs. And yet the world is full of 'whizes' that can't stop praising this bullshit as the be and end all of IT philosophy.
This is what created the abortions 'head', 'tail', 'more', 'fgrep', 'egrep' (which is faster than fgrep
Yeah, out of context this quote doesn't make sense. Just like a lot of 'facts' in moores movies. Reading the sentence before, it actually means 'zero defects for this milestone'. So you got a milestone that says 'additional features available, existing features pass all test cases'. For the logically impaired this means: defects in new features a-ok, defects in prior features no-go.
I can't help to think that you have no-clue(tm) and are trying to hide it by mixing with the oss/developer crowd since expecting perfectness at every milestone can't come from extensive IT expierience.
(economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like"
e bwn
o ssar.html
i /economics/ EcoGlossary.html
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
exclusive control or possession of something; "They have no monopoly on intelligence"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/w
One or only a few firms dominate. In general, the economy favors competition between service and product providers. For instance, there are a lot of different restaurants as opposed to one restaurant that produces and controls the restaurant industry. Regarding databases, there are, for various reasons, companies that are sole-source providers of information, i.e. the New York Stock Exchange. Generally, the providers are regulated to prevent them from abusing their position as the only source of information. H.R. 354 would put larger, established companies above the competition and unfairly strengthen the market position of certain large companies.
www.databasedata.org/db101/glossar/gl
The only seller with control over market sales.
www.naruc.org/resources/glossary.shtml
A market with only one supplier.
pittsford.monroe.edu/jefferson/calfier
A market structure with only a single seller of a commodity or service dealing with a large number of buyers which results in closing entry into the industry to potential competitors. Consequently, due to the absence of a competitive supply of goods on the market, the seller usually has complete control over the quantity of goods released into the market and the ability to set the price at which they are sold. This results in a lower level of production and a higher price than would occur under more competitive market conditions.
www.indiana.edu/~ipe/glossry.html
Can you count the number of times 'exclusive' and only appear? Say they violate the sherman act okay, than we can argue about the act itself. But *don't* use a word which is usually seen as something 'bad' and apply it to a different situation just because it has been done before. Repeating the mistakes of others doesn't make you right! Btw, what is wrong with MSs practices? Oh I forgot, don't giving party donation and generally failing at bribing washington 'politicians', well they changed that now to avoid futher pointless lawsuites.