I see where your coming from. You want to know why everyone slams Vista. I know a lot of people slam everything Microsoft do no matter what. I don't, actually I use XP every day, even though my main work boxes are all Linux, I also (pause for effect) like MS word! (but then it was a free copy from my university), and liked win95 after a bit of coaxing back in the day. 95% of my productivity is Linux based, all my web browsing (firefox) and game playing is on XP. Its horses for courses for me. I prefer Linux for the real work, Windows is for relaxation.
I wanted to give Vista a fair chance, having in mind that eventually I'd end up using it anyway. We got a Vista box a few weeks ago, on a duel core machine with 2gb of ram. Its not my machine, but I've been playing with it because of the duel cores.
The copy function is awful. make no bones about it, never before has an OS had such a crippled copy function. Slow? Doesn't quite cover it. Not since the days of DOS has it taken me so long to copy large amounts of files over our network. I was shocked. And this is on pretty good hardware, with a decent network.
That is a biggie, a killer for some people, and if OsX were available on non apple hardware, it would make me switch. There's no excuse for such bad copy performance. The reason seems to be the rights management layer. Whoever thought that inconveniencing millions of customers many times a day was better than risking a small minority copying protected content was a fool. The take home for Microsoft is that they need to please customers, not content providers. The latter have never been into freedom in any case.
There is a plus, the explorer improvements are very nice, I like the new address bar system, very slick.
Alas the much hyped Aero is a waste of system resources, so its best left off. Pretty as it is, it has lots of animations that just aren't needed. Lets be fair no, I've used AIGLX in Linux, which is the closest thing to Aero in the open source world, and well, that suffers the same problems IMO. When it comes down to it you don't need animations, or transparent/wobbly windows to use a computer, you need a crisp, fast window manager that's easy on the eye, comfortable to use, and stays out of the way when you aren't using it, especially when you use a computer all day for work.
You joke -- obviously God doesn't need a microwave when he can simply will his food to be cooked -- but in all seriousness, they come from his X-Ray vision.
Well that's almost true. Actually he sub contracts the job to Chuck Norris.
One machine on my home network has Vista. I don't like it, but not because I belong in the 'hate it because its Microsoft camp'. I don't like it primarily because of the copy feature. It's extremely slow, shockingly so in fact. copying a few thousand files over the network that total just 25mb takes me almost two minutes. I can copy the same amount of data between my linux boxes using ssh in just a few seconds.
Copying is a major thing for me, each time I run an experiment I have to prepare groups of ten. I prefer to always compile fresh on the machine an experiment is to run on, and that requires full source *10 for convenience. Plus input data, and when finished, the whole lot copied back includes output data too, adding yet more files. These groups can total thousands of files, and I do a lot, so Vista is out of the question as a science resource.
That said, the changes to the explorer address bar I like, very neat, and it makes navigating via explorer tidier. I can't compare it to Linux, since I do all my Linux work using bash. X just uses up clock cycles I want for myself, because I'm greedy.
I can see that this would be extremely handy in the US, given the sheer size of the country. Parents should take advantage of any method to get their kid noticed. I do wonder however whether some ripoff sites will start charging nieve parents large fees for poorly made or badly placed video's.
There are plenty of independant ssh implementations, like openssh (server), putty, winscp, and some more that aren't free. Windows doesn't need to have this feature, you can add it yourself.
And for the record, linux does not have ssh in the OS, it has it as an additional program you install. It's just that most distributions already have this.
I am currently at college as a CS major and I chose this because I enjoy computers and it can make me lots of money
Sorry to rain on your parade, but doing CS is not by a long way assured to make you lots of money. I did it too, and loved it, and while I do have a higher earning potential, it's quite clear that to get at it I would have to do some pretty dull jobs where other people decide my tasks. My main interest is research, and I am considering starting my own software house, but I do not assume this will make me rich. At best I hope for a comfortable living, or at least working for myself.
The myth of huge wages for CS bods is a hangover from a decade ago. Most CS people earn a reasonable wage, but only if you take a few chances and risk being very poor, or start your own company and risk going broke do you have a chance of the big bucks. Its very chancy, but a good risk for a young person without too many commitments. This brings CS into line with innumerable other professions.
A programmer can only demand high wages after many years of quality work and further study. The best paid programmer I know, who earns many times what I do doesn't even have a CS degree, he's 100% self taught.
I see your point, your not entirely correct though. Actually the colonisation of america was almost entirely a business effort. It just happened that some religious groups got themselves hired to found these cities that were going to make their sponsors rich. It almost never worked mind, as in the business side anyway. The Pilgrim fathers, whilst undoubtedly pretty tough, entered into a contractual relationship in order to get their passage to the new world, they were not escaping persecution.
Why else do you think even George W. "All My Money Comes From Big Oil" Bush and every Democrat and Republican presidential candidate are making a big deal about 'energy independence.'?
Energy Independence? Does that mean the same thing as invading the Middle East? Cos, y'know, I'm having some problem with that picture.
SCO's puppet masters may attempt to re-do this whole operation in a few years in a more favorable legal environment and perhaps a judge that is more "reliable" (i.e. in their pocket)
Thats extremely unlikely. Every strategy SCO came up with over the course of litigation failed, every single one. Their initial plan seems to have been a pump and dump type affair, getting IBM to buy them out to remove the problem. It was Novells involvement that really shagged them. They were onto a losing slope from that point on.
That's not to say there won't be more attacks on Linux, but the SCO fiasco has actually hardened the IP status of Linux to the point where they may actually have helped Linux be robust to this form of attack in the future. Linux and Unix are related, but one is not made using pieces of the other, except for public domain code and required portions that are non protectable and exist in both.
They may well leave themselves behind. Think about how long the holy land has been fought over. It has to be holy by now, what with all the blood thats soaked into it over the millenia. They aren't going to walk away that easy.
In fact I doubt that fundamentalists will want to go anywhere. It might well be that the first interstellar colonists aren't leaving the nutbars with imaginary friends behind (sorry, I meant 'culturally diverse people with deeply held beliefs'..), instead they might be running from them.
excellent point. Probably people will look hard to discover what possible legal torrent there aare that would account for a 50+ Gb habit for the last three years.
what if they then just start denying any encrypted traffic outside of certain types? Oh sorry, 'dalaying' it? From what I understand its easy to tell if ssh is in use, what with the standard port 22 thing, just not easy to read it.
I doubt people could easily use ssh for bittorrent, since lots of people are on networks that don't do what comcast does, so if your seed isn't using it, you're screwed. Needing to use ssh would probably kill bittorrent.
I'm not an expert on encryption, but it seems to me they might be able to start saying only some protocols can be freely used, and deny everything else. That would also stop new methods emerging, since you'd need permission to introduce it to your providers system.
should be spacecraft OS development. Silly? Think again. How much money do you think is going to be in that field when commercial spacecraft take of? Enough for microsoft to buy up any startup with the slightest inkling of how to control an attitude jet, that's for sure. Asteroid mining? Ok not yet, but think about all the minerals on earth we can actually get at, then forget the number because it barely counts as a fraction of what's floating around in the Solar system. Then there's all that near earth junk, old satellites, empty booster stages and lots more relativelly easy to reach stuff.
I'd feel a lot happier travelling in, or sending cargo on, a spacecraft that had an open OS at it core. That way we have a greater chance to avoid things like secretive burying of known problems that might effect a companies profits.
in many cases you would be right, but in this case that secret is important information that is holding back anyone else from being able to compete fairly with Microsoft on the dominant platform, which Microsoft also control.
It is analogous to making and selling the only car most people use, but refusing to tell anyone else how to make the best petrol for it, so no-one buys petrol from the competition, or if they do its not as good. Sooner or later someone is going to start complaining of monopoly.
No-one is asking Microsoft to hand over all their secrets, and no-one is asking that they do so for no money. All that is required is that they not abuse their dominant position.
oh dear oh dear. I'm not going to bother any more, obviously you have an agenda and cannot accept an alternative to your view. I can when presented with evidence, but the best you have is opinion and a few very odd ideas. I despair of someone who uses the term scientific principle and yet ignores the requirement that that very same principle would, if applied correctly, invalidate almost all of their arguments.
To say that a day is not (in the absence of hour measures, but the same time nonetheless) a measure of a 24 hour period and might mean millions of years avoids one vital point. If this were the case, why have a word for year as well? We know absolutely what a year meant, and a day was a division of the year into day/night cycles. This simple cannot be extended, there is no inductive, or scientifically valid means to perform such an operation.
When a day was mentioned, a day was meant. When, for example, the book of genesis was written by men, they chose 7 because it was a significant value. To then say god did the thing in 7 days obviously indicated that this god chap was obviously better than humans, who took as much as whole seasons to do complex large scale work. 7 was a mystical number, and its use made the text fit with perceived wisdom.
This was a time when the word of priests was not questioned, ever. Much like the state that some fundamentalists seem to want to return to. They have identified that if their return to fundamentalism is to succeed, they must place the old time frames into a new system, altering them so they can mean something other than the original intent, and thus bring the text that relies on it into applicability. In essence re-writing the ancient texts to suit a new agenda (a very traditional occupation for all religions it has to be said).
Of course science could be wrong, the central tenant of science is that ideas must be either incomplete or able to be proved wrong. That so many concepts aren't is a testament to the method, but without the provision that proof to the negative can be obtained, any hypothesis is bunk.
Alas your are making the mistake of placing modern reinterpretations on top of ancient meaning, in this case, time. Had a time other than actual days been meant, it would have been clearly stated, it was not, and they knew all about longer timeframes. This is a common mistake, one that secular historians are also guilty of succumbing to, ascribing modern concepts to ancient scholars. So was I, until I got to grips with the concept of requiring proof.
If I stuck up a website that told people where to score some crack, I'd be arrested too, even if I had never met a dealer personally. This guy linked to the content, and like it or not, in England the copyright enforcers are almost as anal as those in America and Japan, so he's screwed.
I shouldn't think for a moment he's surprised though. I'm pretty certain he made money from the site too.
the main problem with your answer is that it is not based in any way on testable evidence. I've heard this theory that 7 days could mean billions of years, but in fact in the old testament it meant just that, 7 real and 24 hour long days.
This new trend to re-write the timescale in order to keep creationist ideas alive is a mistake. Once upon a time there was just the world and the arc of the sky with god on the other side, that was the time when religions we know today got going. Then the planets were tracked, and the crystal spheres idea developed, with god on the outside of those. Then we knew there were no crystal spheres, and god moved out into the universe. At what point does religion admit that constantly rewriting the fundamental assumptions of their faith means they are most likely fundamentally flawed?
Now there is a this move to re-interpret timescales, to fit god into this not only vast, but unimaginably old universe by using some of the tools of science, in your case, a sort of mistaken interpretation of relativity. This is a mistake. I say mistake because religion is not scientific, never has been, never will be, to try and bend words to say it is talking about the same things as science is the wrong thing to do, it makes for elongated and unwieldy explanations that ultimately lead nowhere.
I'm not 'against' religion, although I do dislike some of the rather unpleasant things done in its name by all religions. My primary motivation for discarding it is that it produces no testable assumptions. One cannot test miracles, or the existence of god, or the soul, or that jesus is still alive and on his way back, any of that stuff. Also it makes no useful predictions. That's why science emerged, religion was of paramount importance, but couldn't answer simple questions like how to refine metals, how to make better glass, how to extract chemicals from plants, how to make better buildings, or how to build a better telescope.
I'm not trying to be unpleasant here, this is my opinion, disagree if you wish.
Slashdot Mirror
I see where your coming from. You want to know why everyone slams Vista. I know a lot of people slam everything Microsoft do no matter what. I don't, actually I use XP every day, even though my main work boxes are all Linux, I also (pause for effect) like MS word! (but then it was a free copy from my university), and liked win95 after a bit of coaxing back in the day. 95% of my productivity is Linux based, all my web browsing (firefox) and game playing is on XP. Its horses for courses for me. I prefer Linux for the real work, Windows is for relaxation.
I wanted to give Vista a fair chance, having in mind that eventually I'd end up using it anyway. We got a Vista box a few weeks ago, on a duel core machine with 2gb of ram. Its not my machine, but I've been playing with it because of the duel cores.
The copy function is awful. make no bones about it, never before has an OS had such a crippled copy function. Slow? Doesn't quite cover it. Not since the days of DOS has it taken me so long to copy large amounts of files over our network. I was shocked. And this is on pretty good hardware, with a decent network.
That is a biggie, a killer for some people, and if OsX were available on non apple hardware, it would make me switch. There's no excuse for such bad copy performance. The reason seems to be the rights management layer. Whoever thought that inconveniencing millions of customers many times a day was better than risking a small minority copying protected content was a fool. The take home for Microsoft is that they need to please customers, not content providers. The latter have never been into freedom in any case.
There is a plus, the explorer improvements are very nice, I like the new address bar system, very slick.
Alas the much hyped Aero is a waste of system resources, so its best left off. Pretty as it is, it has lots of animations that just aren't needed. Lets be fair no, I've used AIGLX in Linux, which is the closest thing to Aero in the open source world, and well, that suffers the same problems IMO. When it comes down to it you don't need animations, or transparent/wobbly windows to use a computer, you need a crisp, fast window manager that's easy on the eye, comfortable to use, and stays out of the way when you aren't using it, especially when you use a computer all day for work.
How Microsoft missed that one is beyond me,.
You joke -- obviously God doesn't need a microwave when he can simply will his food to be cooked -- but in all seriousness, they come from his X-Ray vision.
Well that's almost true. Actually he sub contracts the job to Chuck Norris.
If you turn off UAC it becomes slightly better.
One machine on my home network has Vista. I don't like it, but not because I belong in the 'hate it because its Microsoft camp'. I don't like it primarily because of the copy feature. It's extremely slow, shockingly so in fact. copying a few thousand files over the network that total just 25mb takes me almost two minutes. I can copy the same amount of data between my linux boxes using ssh in just a few seconds.
Copying is a major thing for me, each time I run an experiment I have to prepare groups of ten. I prefer to always compile fresh on the machine an experiment is to run on, and that requires full source *10 for convenience. Plus input data, and when finished, the whole lot copied back includes output data too, adding yet more files. These groups can total thousands of files, and I do a lot, so Vista is out of the question as a science resource.
That said, the changes to the explorer address bar I like, very neat, and it makes navigating via explorer tidier. I can't compare it to Linux, since I do all my Linux work using bash. X just uses up clock cycles I want for myself, because I'm greedy.
I can see that this would be extremely handy in the US, given the sheer size of the country. Parents should take advantage of any method to get their kid noticed. I do wonder however whether some ripoff sites will start charging nieve parents large fees for poorly made or badly placed video's.
There are plenty of independant ssh implementations, like openssh (server), putty, winscp, and some more that aren't free. Windows doesn't need to have this feature, you can add it yourself.
And for the record, linux does not have ssh in the OS, it has it as an additional program you install. It's just that most distributions already have this.
I am currently at college as a CS major and I chose this because I enjoy computers and it can make me lots of money
Sorry to rain on your parade, but doing CS is not by a long way assured to make you lots of money. I did it too, and loved it, and while I do have a higher earning potential, it's quite clear that to get at it I would have to do some pretty dull jobs where other people decide my tasks. My main interest is research, and I am considering starting my own software house, but I do not assume this will make me rich. At best I hope for a comfortable living, or at least working for myself.
The myth of huge wages for CS bods is a hangover from a decade ago. Most CS people earn a reasonable wage, but only if you take a few chances and risk being very poor, or start your own company and risk going broke do you have a chance of the big bucks. Its very chancy, but a good risk for a young person without too many commitments. This brings CS into line with innumerable other professions.
A programmer can only demand high wages after many years of quality work and further study. The best paid programmer I know, who earns many times what I do doesn't even have a CS degree, he's 100% self taught.
I see your point, your not entirely correct though. Actually the colonisation of america was almost entirely a business effort. It just happened that some religious groups got themselves hired to found these cities that were going to make their sponsors rich. It almost never worked mind, as in the business side anyway. The Pilgrim fathers, whilst undoubtedly pretty tough, entered into a contractual relationship in order to get their passage to the new world, they were not escaping persecution.
Why else do you think even George W. "All My Money Comes From Big Oil" Bush and every Democrat and Republican presidential candidate are making a big deal about 'energy independence.'?
Energy Independence? Does that mean the same thing as invading the Middle East? Cos, y'know, I'm having some problem with that picture.
SCO's puppet masters may attempt to re-do this whole operation in a few years in a more favorable legal environment and perhaps a judge that is more "reliable" (i.e. in their pocket)
Thats extremely unlikely. Every strategy SCO came up with over the course of litigation failed, every single one. Their initial plan seems to have been a pump and dump type affair, getting IBM to buy them out to remove the problem. It was Novells involvement that really shagged them. They were onto a losing slope from that point on.
That's not to say there won't be more attacks on Linux, but the SCO fiasco has actually hardened the IP status of Linux to the point where they may actually have helped Linux be robust to this form of attack in the future. Linux and Unix are related, but one is not made using pieces of the other, except for public domain code and required portions that are non protectable and exist in both.
They may well leave themselves behind. Think about how long the holy land has been fought over. It has to be holy by now, what with all the blood thats soaked into it over the millenia. They aren't going to walk away that easy.
In fact I doubt that fundamentalists will want to go anywhere. It might well be that the first interstellar colonists aren't leaving the nutbars with imaginary friends behind (sorry, I meant 'culturally diverse people with deeply held beliefs'..), instead they might be running from them.
well for one thing theres that huge rack that IBM sent them full of their version control system, that's got to be worth something.
Maybe in the history of Mac OS X, but definitely not the history of Apple itself. I'd say that would be, oh, the shift to Unix.
Don't you mean iUnix?
excellent point.
Probably people will look hard to discover what possible legal torrent there aare that would account for a 50+ Gb habit for the last three years.
Nah, 'Citizen of the Galaxy', that has teh pirates!!111one.
Possibly my favoite after 'Friday'.
Hell, Apple could still kill Microsoft if they would just get a clue and sell people what they want.
Plus another 30 billion dollers float and a 95% market share for desktop computing....
what if they then just start denying any encrypted traffic outside of certain types? Oh sorry, 'dalaying' it? From what I understand its easy to tell if ssh is in use, what with the standard port 22 thing, just not easy to read it.
I doubt people could easily use ssh for bittorrent, since lots of people are on networks that don't do what comcast does, so if your seed isn't using it, you're screwed. Needing to use ssh would probably kill bittorrent.
I'm not an expert on encryption, but it seems to me they might be able to start saying only some protocols can be freely used, and deny everything else. That would also stop new methods emerging, since you'd need permission to introduce it to your providers system.
should be spacecraft OS development. Silly? Think again. How much money do you think is going to be in that field when commercial spacecraft take of? Enough for microsoft to buy up any startup with the slightest inkling of how to control an attitude jet, that's for sure.
Asteroid mining? Ok not yet, but think about all the minerals on earth we can actually get at, then forget the number because it barely counts as a fraction of what's floating around in the Solar system. Then there's all that near earth junk, old satellites, empty booster stages and lots more relativelly easy to reach stuff.
I'd feel a lot happier travelling in, or sending cargo on, a spacecraft that had an open OS at it core. That way we have a greater chance to avoid things like secretive burying of known problems that might effect a companies profits.
Not until he can figure out how to get a chair through the server......
:-)
If he does you can bet he'll patent it and use it to sue F**king google
in many cases you would be right, but in this case that secret is important information that is holding back anyone else from being able to compete fairly with Microsoft on the dominant platform, which Microsoft also control.
It is analogous to making and selling the only car most people use, but refusing to tell anyone else how to make the best petrol for it, so no-one buys petrol from the competition, or if they do its not as good. Sooner or later someone is going to start complaining of monopoly.
No-one is asking Microsoft to hand over all their secrets, and no-one is asking that they do so for no money. All that is required is that they not abuse their dominant position.
oh dear oh dear. I'm not going to bother any more, obviously you have an agenda and cannot accept an alternative to your view. I can when presented with evidence, but the best you have is opinion and a few very odd ideas. I despair of someone who uses the term scientific principle and yet ignores the requirement that that very same principle would, if applied correctly, invalidate almost all of their arguments.
To say that a day is not (in the absence of hour measures, but the same time nonetheless) a measure of a 24 hour period and might mean millions of years avoids one vital point. If this were the case, why have a word for year as well? We know absolutely what a year meant, and a day was a division of the year into day/night cycles. This simple cannot be extended, there is no inductive, or scientifically valid means to perform such an operation.
When a day was mentioned, a day was meant. When, for example, the book of genesis was written by men, they chose 7 because it was a significant value. To then say god did the thing in 7 days obviously indicated that this god chap was obviously better than humans, who took as much as whole seasons to do complex large scale work. 7 was a mystical number, and its use made the text fit with perceived wisdom.
This was a time when the word of priests was not questioned, ever. Much like the state that some fundamentalists seem to want to return to. They have identified that if their return to fundamentalism is to succeed, they must place the old time frames into a new system, altering them so they can mean something other than the original intent, and thus bring the text that relies on it into applicability. In essence re-writing the ancient texts to suit a new agenda (a very traditional occupation for all religions it has to be said).
I predict the porno industry will find a use for it first, always being on the cutting edge as they are.
Goddam! Rule 34 moves fast these days.
Of course science could be wrong, the central tenant of science is that ideas must be either incomplete or able to be proved wrong. That so many concepts aren't is a testament to the method, but without the provision that proof to the negative can be obtained, any hypothesis is bunk.
Alas your are making the mistake of placing modern reinterpretations on top of ancient meaning, in this case, time. Had a time other than actual days been meant, it would have been clearly stated, it was not, and they knew all about longer timeframes. This is a common mistake, one that secular historians are also guilty of succumbing to, ascribing modern concepts to ancient scholars. So was I, until I got to grips with the concept of requiring proof.
If I stuck up a website that told people where to score some crack, I'd be arrested too, even if I had never met a dealer personally. This guy linked to the content, and like it or not, in England the copyright enforcers are almost as anal as those in America and Japan, so he's screwed.
I shouldn't think for a moment he's surprised though. I'm pretty certain he made money from the site too.
the main problem with your answer is that it is not based in any way on testable evidence. I've heard this theory that 7 days could mean billions of years, but in fact in the old testament it meant just that, 7 real and 24 hour long days.
This new trend to re-write the timescale in order to keep creationist ideas alive is a mistake. Once upon a time there was just the world and the arc of the sky with god on the other side, that was the time when religions we know today got going. Then the planets were tracked, and the crystal spheres idea developed, with god on the outside of those. Then we knew there were no crystal spheres, and god moved out into the universe. At what point does religion admit that constantly rewriting the fundamental assumptions of their faith means they are most likely fundamentally flawed?
Now there is a this move to re-interpret timescales, to fit god into this not only vast, but unimaginably old universe by using some of the tools of science, in your case, a sort of mistaken interpretation of relativity. This is a mistake. I say mistake because religion is not scientific, never has been, never will be, to try and bend words to say it is talking about the same things as science is the wrong thing to do, it makes for elongated and unwieldy explanations that ultimately lead nowhere.
I'm not 'against' religion, although I do dislike some of the rather unpleasant things done in its name by all religions. My primary motivation for discarding it is that it produces no testable assumptions. One cannot test miracles, or the existence of god, or the soul, or that jesus is still alive and on his way back, any of that stuff. Also it makes no useful predictions. That's why science emerged, religion was of paramount importance, but couldn't answer simple questions like how to refine metals, how to make better glass, how to extract chemicals from plants, how to make better buildings, or how to build a better telescope.
I'm not trying to be unpleasant here, this is my opinion, disagree if you wish.