Of course a pre-installed Linux would come with the video card working. I added iPod support to Amarok from the GUI. Windows share?! Also added from the GUI... but can't make permanent. Ok, you got me there. That would be a nice option. Still, OP's example was "click and work", which is what you get with no required config file editing.
I'm not pretending that life isn't sometimes difficult with unsupported hardware (e.g. iPod), but my family, who uses e-mail, web, instant messaging, documents, digital photo management, and not much else, would have all their needs met, be more secure, and require less maintenance with a Linux Dell.
To make Linux available to people who won't intall an OS. To increase the number of people using Linux. To improve hardware support. To break the Windows monopoly.
"...your average person isn't going to know what to do if their wireless card isn't working, or if they don't have support for MP3s"
This is the point of pre-installing. The wireless card is selected to work. MP3s and DVDs will play if the licensing is handled by Dell and built into the price of the PC. Just offering Linux compatible hardware is not enough. I wouldn't buy Dell for that, and most businesses wouldn't buy Linux Destop machines either.
"Editing a bunch of configuration files..."
Config files?! I'm not using config files for my e-mail, browser, office apps, multimedia, desktop environment, etc. For someone who tried Linux recently, you certainly have antiquated ideas of its current state.
...he originally found exploits for various third-party wireless drivers... ...he figured, "Yeah, I could write an exploit for them too". So he made a big announcement. then... All he could do was KP the box.
Hey, you left out, "he made a fraudulent demo to gullible reporter, then hung him out to dry." Clearly his biggest sin. Too bad for him that showing a system should be vulnerable, and developing an exploit for it are vastly different things. I half expected that he might come up with something during the months of stalling to make Apple look like liars. Now I can only assume (a) he's competent, and it cannot be exploited or (b) he's incompetent, and a vulnerability did exist, but he couldn't exploit it. I doubt Maynor likes either of these options, but what kind of fool is still going to buy the "I have it, but I can't show it yet" roadshow anymore?
Ravi: Brute-force login. The interesting thing is he's coming in through Hong Kong, Korea and Malaysia, but he's trying sequential account numbers. He's hacking all over!
Jack: Move over for me. Let's try a rule change on him, see what he does. Put in an IPS signature that black-holes the pattern. See if that slows him down.
If he's referring to the Month of Apple bugs, then the premise an outright lie in the first place. Most of those are denial of service, priviledge escalation, arbitrary code with non-root permission, potential exploits, etc. On top of that, they've thrown in 3rd party apps to fill out the month. I'm not saying the MOAB people are doing a bad job, but it's a shame to see them being used in this way, because MS shills they are not.
As for getting what he wishes for, he already does - on a scale that OSX will never see. People measure the cost of the MS disasters in the billions of dollars. Way to miss the point Microsoft.
Don't take it personally if Flushed Away didn't get the same box office that other movies in that market usually do. They did the full marketing job on it, complete with MacDonalds and Breakfast Cereal tie-ins. Fortunately, this shouldn't affect their ability to continue producing films.
Acquiring the fruit of someone else's effort, whether that effort is physical or mental, without paying the one putting forth such effort is called stealing.
It's called copying in the software case. Many large companies use works that are out of copyright, thus legally appropriating the work of other people without compensating them. Just another case of how this is a different legal construct, not stealing. Still don't get it?
If someone has a kid mow their lawn for an agreed price, and then doesn't pay, that person has stolen from that kid.
No, that's fraud. I think you're just defending your beliefs and are unable to re-examine them. Illegal copying can still be wrong, you need to give up on your "stealing" crusade. Real stealing is more hurtful and should not be minimized.
I agree that those announcements that end in, "and you can buy them in stores today" are much more powerful. I recall the Intel-based Macs were announced that way. Clearly the iPhone didn't miss MacWorld due to development delays, they announced it now to make the biggest splash. I thought it was overdone at the time - especially as they completly ignored the 11n AirPort upgrade - but who can argue with the incredible PR it brought them and the 5% stock bump, all ahead of another jump at earnings announcement. And they beat the LG/Prada phone to the punch. This was less an analysis of the unqualified success that it was, and more a prediction of the failure that iPhone is going to be. These journalists seem to be rewarded for making wrong predictions, because they're labeled "controvertial." Adjust accordingly.
They make it hard to browse to. If you go to the Home/Home Office you won't see it. Neither will Medium/Large Businesses. You need to be a small business to get any use out of it, apparently. Only there will you see open source computers. Yipee!
The excitement wears off for me, however, when I see the Latitude D520 selling for $700 with FreeDOS, and only $600 with Windows XP Home. Better to order the Windows version and try to get your Windows rebate - or better yet, buy your Linux laptops elsewhere.
Too easy. It's almost like saying look here for more info. It's one click away from being the same thing, and arguably more informative, since I'm providing more than two links.
P.S. Thanks for not going the "MOD PARENT UP" route.
If you mean the free market is all about misrepresentation, then you are exactly right. By the time the free market catches up with them, they'll have made a tidy sum off all of those who mistakenly thought it was a cooperative effort.
You're assuming that a higher volume purchase of this chip will be cheaper than a lesser volume of a single mode chips. I don't think that will be the case. I also can't agree that it avoids waste. Manufacturers buy just what they need, just in time to build devices, so if a manufacturers device stays on the shelves or in the warehouses, that's where the waste would occur - not in boxes of unused chips.
Therefore, this is for dual mode devices only, until the cost matches the single mode chips.
I doubt you live by this ridiculous premise. Do you really hire servants everywhere you could when it would save you an hour or more per $70. Do family members get a certain amount of minutes each month? - and minutes don't rollover, Grandma! Do you treat the primary cost of food as the time it takes you to prepare and eat it?
An efficiency expert like yourself must be a joy to be around... or maybe you're just posturing, because it doesn't make sense to me that someone would say they care so much about money, and then find excuses for not collecting $200 available to them.
If the point of Microsoft offering a full refund for the software in their EULA is so that they can say that the consumer is being treated fairly, then this should be an offer based in reality, not some dodge to continue screwing us over. If MS were not a monopoly, then I wouldn't have a problem with companies offering only PC/Windows bundles. Due to their monopoly status and documented abuses, however, I think all computer models should be available without pre-installed Windows, and MS shouldn't be allowed to create financial disincentives to manufacturers in the process.
The refund is not a bad solution. Manufacturers don't have to change a thing. Microsoft should cover all refund charges. The manufacturers should be free to say what they're actually paying for the OEM version, and have that be the amount of the refund. What's so unfair about MS losing a sale? It's a perfectly ordinary concept for most businesses.
I think the best you'll get is Firefox's extensibility model. I'm hoping they don't bow to the pressure to add too much to 2.0 and future versions. Having a smaller core program allows for better security, stability, and maintainability. When they offload some of the maintenance to the extensions, they offload the testing that goes with it. It allows for a much better and faster QA.
If most features could be added and removed at will, you could take their current testing load and multiply it by the possible number of feature configurations - certainly a bad idea. So long as the core program isn't too bloated, people with resource limitations will be able to set up their browser to suit their needs.
If it costs you nothing to trust, then go with your instincts. If you could get fired for knowingly hiring someone with a documented black hat past after he does something wrong, then "he's just not a fit" is the right answer. It's just too likely that people are going to believe you should have known better.
They don't say, but since the support and maintenance contract was won by Softcon and Gonicus, they obviously don't want to pay Suse for doing nothing. Debian was their choice.
Just one more reason to admire this rethink. You might expect that they would move from the big name vendor to the biggest name Linux vendor they could get, but in the end the name doesn't buy you anything. What matters is that you're supported.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course a pre-installed Linux would come with the video card working. I added iPod support to Amarok from the GUI. Windows share?! Also added from the GUI... but can't make permanent. Ok, you got me there. That would be a nice option. Still, OP's example was "click and work", which is what you get with no required config file editing.
I'm not pretending that life isn't sometimes difficult with unsupported hardware (e.g. iPod), but my family, who uses e-mail, web, instant messaging, documents, digital photo management, and not much else, would have all their needs met, be more secure, and require less maintenance with a Linux Dell.
"Why do we want Linux on Dells again?"
To make Linux available to people who won't intall an OS. To increase the number of people using Linux. To improve hardware support. To break the Windows monopoly.
"...your average person isn't going to know what to do if their wireless card isn't working, or if they don't have support for MP3s"
This is the point of pre-installing. The wireless card is selected to work. MP3s and DVDs will play if the licensing is handled by Dell and built into the price of the PC. Just offering Linux compatible hardware is not enough. I wouldn't buy Dell for that, and most businesses wouldn't buy Linux Destop machines either.
"Editing a bunch of configuration files..."
Config files?! I'm not using config files for my e-mail, browser, office apps, multimedia, desktop environment, etc. For someone who tried Linux recently, you certainly have antiquated ideas of its current state.
...he originally found exploits for various third-party wireless drivers...
...he figured, "Yeah, I could write an exploit for them too".
So he made a big announcement.
then...
All he could do was KP the box.
Hey, you left out, "he made a fraudulent demo to gullible reporter, then hung him out to dry." Clearly his biggest sin. Too bad for him that showing a system should be vulnerable, and developing an exploit for it are vastly different things. I half expected that he might come up with something during the months of stalling to make Apple look like liars. Now I can only assume (a) he's competent, and it cannot be exploited or (b) he's incompetent, and a vulnerability did exist, but he couldn't exploit it. I doubt Maynor likes either of these options, but what kind of fool is still going to buy the "I have it, but I can't show it yet" roadshow anymore?
You've been watching "Firewall" again?
Jack: Hey, Ravi. What have we got?
Ravi: Brute-force login.
The interesting thing is he's coming in through Hong Kong,
Korea and Malaysia, but he's trying sequential account
numbers. He's hacking all over!
Jack: Move over for me.
Let's try a rule change on him,
see what he does. Put in an IPS signature
that black-holes the pattern. See if that slows him down.
Ravi: That'd slow me down!
If he's referring to the Month of Apple bugs, then the premise an outright lie in the first place. Most of those are denial of service, priviledge escalation, arbitrary code with non-root permission, potential exploits, etc. On top of that, they've thrown in 3rd party apps to fill out the month. I'm not saying the MOAB people are doing a bad job, but it's a shame to see them being used in this way, because MS shills they are not.
As for getting what he wishes for, he already does - on a scale that OSX will never see. People measure the cost of the MS disasters in the billions of dollars. Way to miss the point Microsoft.
Don't take it personally if Flushed Away didn't get the same box office that other movies in that market usually do. They did the full marketing job on it, complete with MacDonalds and Breakfast Cereal tie-ins. Fortunately, this shouldn't affect their ability to continue producing films.
"Anyone else see..."
Everyone else saw it. They were trying to make that point. Glad you caught it.
Acquiring the fruit of someone else's effort, whether that effort is physical or mental, without paying the one putting forth such effort is called stealing.
It's called copying in the software case. Many large companies use works that are out of copyright, thus legally appropriating the work of other people without compensating them. Just another case of how this is a different legal construct, not stealing. Still don't get it?
If someone has a kid mow their lawn for an agreed price, and then doesn't pay, that person has stolen from that kid.
No, that's fraud. I think you're just defending your beliefs and are unable to re-examine them. Illegal copying can still be wrong, you need to give up on your "stealing" crusade. Real stealing is more hurtful and should not be minimized.
I agree that those announcements that end in, "and you can buy them in stores today" are much more powerful. I recall the Intel-based Macs were announced that way. Clearly the iPhone didn't miss MacWorld due to development delays, they announced it now to make the biggest splash. I thought it was overdone at the time - especially as they completly ignored the 11n AirPort upgrade - but who can argue with the incredible PR it brought them and the 5% stock bump, all ahead of another jump at earnings announcement. And they beat the LG/Prada phone to the punch. This was less an analysis of the unqualified success that it was, and more a prediction of the failure that iPhone is going to be. These journalists seem to be rewarded for making wrong predictions, because they're labeled "controvertial." Adjust accordingly.
I still want a AirPort Extreme though.
Here is the full link for the notebook
They make it hard to browse to. If you go to the Home/Home Office you won't see it. Neither will Medium/Large Businesses. You need to be a small business to get any use out of it, apparently. Only there will you see open source computers. Yipee!
The excitement wears off for me, however, when I see the Latitude D520 selling for $700 with FreeDOS, and only $600 with Windows XP Home. Better to order the Windows version and try to get your Windows rebate - or better yet, buy your Linux laptops elsewhere.
If only he weren't AC, I would have modded him up immediately.
That's not begging the question. Really. Look up "begs the question."
Too easy. It's almost like saying look here for more info. It's one click away from being the same thing, and arguably more informative, since I'm providing more than two links.
P.S. Thanks for not going the "MOD PARENT UP" route.
To me, that's the free market at work.
If you mean the free market is all about misrepresentation, then you are exactly right. By the time the free market catches up with them, they'll have made a tidy sum off all of those who mistakenly thought it was a cooperative effort.
You're assuming that a higher volume purchase of this chip will be cheaper than a lesser volume of a single mode chips. I don't think that will be the case. I also can't agree that it avoids waste. Manufacturers buy just what they need, just in time to build devices, so if a manufacturers device stays on the shelves or in the warehouses, that's where the waste would occur - not in boxes of unused chips.
Therefore, this is for dual mode devices only, until the cost matches the single mode chips.
I doubt you live by this ridiculous premise. Do you really hire servants everywhere you could when it would save you an hour or more per $70. Do family members get a certain amount of minutes each month? - and minutes don't rollover, Grandma! Do you treat the primary cost of food as the time it takes you to prepare and eat it?
An efficiency expert like yourself must be a joy to be around... or maybe you're just posturing, because it doesn't make sense to me that someone would say they care so much about money, and then find excuses for not collecting $200 available to them.
If the point of Microsoft offering a full refund for the software in their EULA is so that they can say that the consumer is being treated fairly, then this should be an offer based in reality, not some dodge to continue screwing us over. If MS were not a monopoly, then I wouldn't have a problem with companies offering only PC/Windows bundles. Due to their monopoly status and documented abuses, however, I think all computer models should be available without pre-installed Windows, and MS shouldn't be allowed to create financial disincentives to manufacturers in the process.
The refund is not a bad solution. Manufacturers don't have to change a thing. Microsoft should cover all refund charges. The manufacturers should be free to say what they're actually paying for the OEM version, and have that be the amount of the refund. What's so unfair about MS losing a sale? It's a perfectly ordinary concept for most businesses.
Get your terminology right. It will undoubtedly be a "mash-up" of Max Headroom, RSS, and Google Video.
I think the best you'll get is Firefox's extensibility model. I'm hoping they don't bow to the pressure to add too much to 2.0 and future versions. Having a smaller core program allows for better security, stability, and maintainability. When they offload some of the maintenance to the extensions, they offload the testing that goes with it. It allows for a much better and faster QA.
If most features could be added and removed at will, you could take their current testing load and multiply it by the possible number of feature configurations - certainly a bad idea. So long as the core program isn't too bloated, people with resource limitations will be able to set up their browser to suit their needs.
Classy kdawson, very classy.
Clearly, you missed:
"kimvette writes..."
Not that I'd want to lynch him/her either. I'm just saying if you want to call someone out, you should make an effort to call the right person.
More people get prostate cancer, but more die of breast cancer.
We could still use a PR campaign though - even if older men don't look good on posters.
Calculated vertically, of course.
50 vertical miles or so? That wouldn't count for much.
If it costs you nothing to trust, then go with your instincts. If you could get fired for knowingly hiring someone with a documented black hat past after he does something wrong, then "he's just not a fit" is the right answer. It's just too likely that people are going to believe you should have known better.
They don't say, but since the support and maintenance contract was won by Softcon and Gonicus, they obviously don't want to pay Suse for doing nothing. Debian was their choice.
Just one more reason to admire this rethink. You might expect that they would move from the big name vendor to the biggest name Linux vendor they could get, but in the end the name doesn't buy you anything. What matters is that you're supported.
I don't see an answer there at all. (-1, Not informative)