There are already OEMs who will offer you operating system choices. If you want that to be the norm, then patronize them.
There are *always* alternatives to a monopoly, it isn't that there aren't, it is that it is too hard for the average consumer to use something other that the monopoly.
You really should read the standard oil case and the sherman act.
Best Buy, Walmart, and others should offer choice. Microsoft should be forbidden from being the default.
Why don't you come here and fucking try forcing me into something? You have no right.
No, not force per se' but enforce a competitive environment which provides choice and options, which will require consumers to be more educated.
Has Microsoft taken Windows XP off retail shelves yet? When that happens, will you scream bloody murder, too?
Its more the point that the average user doesn't have a choice of anything than what Microsoft chooses to sell.
Systems should be sold without operating systems or at least operating system choices. Microsoft's monopoly has too much control over the market place.
That may cause the consumers to need to be more educated about their options, but a computer is a fairly big purchase. People put more thought into buying a TV than a computer and they are about the same price range. Forcing the consumer to be educated and responsible for their computer is better than allowing them to be spoon fed what ever Microsoft gives them.
The difference is optimization vs generalization. Many problems can be handled using simple key/value pair relationships. You can model this in an RDBMS using two-column tables that you never join across, where all of your queries are SELECT val FROM tab WHERE key=? and INSERT INTO tab (key,val) VALUES (?,?). However, if you use the RDBMS this way, you're paying for the overhead of the SQL engine, (usually) a client/server connection, and your language's library for interacting with an RDBMS.
This assumption is one of those things that needs a LOT of discussion to explain why it is wrong. There is not enough space to have a real technological argument.
Suffice to say that the client/server relationship between the application and server actually helps your application.
The "overhead" of the SQL engine can be minimized to almost negligible by using stored procedures.
As for the interface library, no matter what data storage system you use you will always have an interface library.
The alternative is a non-relational database like BerkeleyDB [wikipedia.org], which is optimized for key/value pair operations. All the fetch and store operations do is fetch and store the value for a given key, with a minimum of overhead. BerkeleyDB is also an in-process database, where your application is accessing the database files directly using the BerkeleyDB library code. (The library handles locking so that multiple processes can use the database files at the same time.) Again, the overhead is kept to a minimum.
You say a couple things that don't make sense. "BerkeleyDB is an in-process database" and "library handles locking so that multiple processes can use the database files at the same time." You are saying there is a mechanism being used to synchronize access across multiple processes? An MVCC database blows the doors off a locking system.
BerkeleyDB is much less flexible than an RDBMS, but for the problem domains where that flexibility is not needed, BerkeleyDB is much more efficient.
The "problem domain" for BerkeleyDB is far far more limited than people think.
I've easily achieved over 6000 read/write transactions per second on modest hardware in a single-threaded process; a multi-threaded and/or multi-process application can achieve much higher rates. Compare that to a typical Oracle database connection, where you're lucky to get as many as a few hundred transactions per second, just because of the network round-trip.
Well, the network "round trip" isn't even possible with BerkeleyDB so it is not an issue. However, I would compare PostgreSQL and BerkeleyDB in a simple key/value database shootout with 50 or more reader/writer processes on the same box and see which scales better. I have a hint, BerkeleyDB would spend all its time managing locks.
where you're lucky to get as many as a few hundred transactions per second
Are you insane? A few hundred a second? Yea, back in 1999 on a 10BaseT ethernet connection with IDE hard disks and PIIIs.
Huh? How many car companies sell cars with engines as separate and optional?
You can choose engine and transmission on a lot of cars. A lot of custom shops can get frames and bodies.
She's complaining because Microsoft stopped offering discounts to manufacturers, forcing them to go to Vista. Lenovo (in this case) offers the legacy option of XP for a fee because of this, instead of just saying "we're not selling XP anymore because Microsoft isn't giving us a discount", and somehow it's Microsoft's fault?
Microsoft is using its monopoly position to force OEMs to restrict customer choice.
Because of the support nightmare it would cause when Joe Sixpack discovers he can't run his $10 game from Walmart on his new Linux-preinstalled computer (and he chose Linux because he didn't know it wasn't Windows, and he was cheap).
Then the OEMs have to opportunity to create an "aftermarket" business, just like the automakers.
Microsoft deserves every last bit of it. make it stick, make it hurt.
I'd like to see computers sold at a price and have the OS as an option. Car makers deal with optional engine types and other optional features. Why can't computer OEMs.
no, the relational database is not going anywhere, you are correct. but, that does not mean that there aren't instances where a non-relational database, with the addition of map/reduce, aren't extremely useful.
A relational database is a lot like C++. It provides the tools for relationships but that does not mean you have to use in that way or that it is sub-optimal.
non-relational databases have been around for decades, and are in use for quite a number of applications involving rapid development and storage of very large records. couple this with map/reduce, and you have the ability to scale quickly with very large datasets.
What is a large data set? I have a few PostgreSQL databases with some pretty HUGE data sets, and it blows the doors off anything else I could use.
scaling quickly is a very difficult problem to solve with an RDBMS - you either need to continue to throw more hardware at the problem, to the point of diminishing returns, or re-architect your data at the cost of possible significant downtime, while still attempting to serve up the data in a timely manner.
Without any details this sounds like an urban legend. If you designed your system as you would have with a lesser system like a simple "key/value" pair, how would a RDBMS be any different?
i've been deep in the bowels of oracle RAC, fighting to get just 5% more speed out of a query over a billion rows and realizing that i have to start over with a new schema, just to squeeze more data out. compare that to simply adding another machine and letting the map functionality run across one more cpu before returning it for the reduce.
Why do you need to start over with a new schema? Why not simply denormalize some of the tables. You can alter the table on line.
I don't mean to impugn your abilities, but if you can't get oracle to do what you need, you aren't going to get a lesser system to do better.
once again, correct, but having to denormalize to a snowflake or a star isn't always the best solution. you're taking the best parts of the relational database model, and throwing them out - normalization, referential integrity, just to squeeze more out of something that may not be the best tool for the job.
Normalization is a tool. Denormalization is also a tool. They are approaches to handling data. The RDBMS doesn't care. Why bitch about referential integrity if you aren't going to use it anyway?
do you hammer with a wrench? i have before, and i managed to hurt my thumb.
Poor analogy. Do you use the bottle opener screwdriver in your swiss army knife or do you use a real screw drive?
What is being argued is that they will do so because they have superior scalability and distribution properties, and that in many real-world applications those are more important than the having the full expressive power of relational algebra.
Please site a valid argument that suggests the SQL lacks scalability or distribution. If you are willing to get rid of ACID like the other solutions, there are no limitations.
Particularly as you get ones that can provide ACID guarantees, that becomes a compelling selling point in many applications where RDBMS's would otherwise be used simply because they are the only available tool, but where distributed key/value stores are a better tool.
Please site one example, just one, where a simple key/pair data system is the "better" solution for a high volume site than a more powerful database like PostgreSQL wouldn't do a better job.
The relational database is not going anywhere and nothing in that article is based on any firm understanding of managing data.
Is the notion of a "join" obsolete? No, but it is typically impractical in a high volume system. You would probably use denormalization as a strategy.
Scaling many nodes? OK, you still gotta put your data "in" something.
key/value indexing? yawn. select val from keyvalue_tab where key = foo;
The value can be basically anything, and most "relational" databases have good object support as well as XML, JSON, etc.
So we can establish that a SQL relational database can do *everything* a simpler system can do. Now, think about ALL the things you can do with your data in a real database.
What is the point of using a limited and less functional system? A good system, like Oracle, DB2, PostgreSQL, etc (!mysql of course) will do what you need AND allow you do do more should you be successful.
The problem with data is two fold: Managing read/write/deletes and finding what you are looking for. These problems have been solved. A good database will do this for you. Want to store object? XML, JSON, binary objects, or a specialized database extension works perfectly.
You know what? Most people are honest. Most people accept that they should pay money for things they use/want.
This is the problem with the *IAA mafia types. They assume everyone is dishonest and treat them as such.
You know what I love? The $5.00 bin of DVDs at kmart, best buy, or walmart. Some older movies, sure, but some that I've wanted to watch and never did.
Now, this is the absolute truth and I'm sure 99% of the people will agree with me.
I want a way to get a movie or some music, in a format I want, I don't want it locked with DRM, and I want it at a reasonable price.
I sometimes watch a movie on my computer, sometimes on my TV, sometimes I stop it on one and continue on another. Sometimes, I want to watch it a few months later.
In the case of kids movies, I want to be able to put it on my iPod to keep her quiet on long drives.
If the movie and music industry actually kept up with the times, they would realize that all the terrible "downloaders" are actually potential customers. Analyze the market, adapt, and capitalize on the opportunity. Don't just try to sue and legislate!
I don't know how you can write that and be serious. OpenOffice is not a very well developed product, is not very flexible, and durability is in question because a lot of people end up throwing it out.
Without any actual facts to back that up, I don't believe you because my experience is entirely different.
Another feature I really like about OOo is the ODF format. It is documented and I will always be able to use my documents.
But for those that see open source as a religion instead of a means to an end, they'll prefer to have no tool and just the moral high horse
It is easy to paint someone's position as "extreme" in order to make yours more reasonable. It is a isotope of ad-hominem.
The opposite is true, of course. We open source/free software people are very practical by nature. We see and understand that "better" software isn't just an arbitrary and subjective feature set comparison. It is quality. Flexibility. Durability.
Having used Microsoft office, WordPerfect, WordStar, Quatro, 123, Hollywood, Applix, OpenOffice.org, and so many others, I can honestly say that OpenOffice.org is a better over all system for anyone who cares about their content.
OO.org is pretty cool. Some parts of it are definitely NOT as good, definitely ont better, than MS Office.
This is a subjective evaluation and very open do debate. Since the two products are not from an "identical" specification, it is impossible to evaluate how one is better than another based on a side by side comparison. We have to weight the features of one against another, factor in quality, and weight the feature sets. MS Office does have more features, but by and large, not features the 99% of the users will ever care about.
For me, the built in "Export to PDF" is a huge feature.
No, it was called Linux very early on, somewhere around 0.9, by one person, in 1991 (not the 80s); and the number of developers involved is still quite short of "millions of guys".
What is now Linux started, possible as early as the lat 60s, but definitely by 1984 in the form of GNU. The Linux kernel didn't come on the scene until 1991.
when i can play every game i've purchased in the last 15 years out of the box NATIVELY without having to run it in wine, cedega, crossover or whatever the fuck the new "emulator" is these days, then i'll consider switching to linux.
When you can do that in Vista or Windows 7, let us know. Most programs written in 1994 won't even run correctly on Vista or XP. A lot of programs written prior to 2002 for DOS Windows (95,98,98SE,ME) have difficulty on the NT kernel line.
To all you Windows users, we feel your pain. Seriously, you don't even know how bad you have it. What's worse, you have been sucked into a mind set that, on one hand, you hate your computer because of all the problems you have with it, but think you *need* windows because of all the programs you feel you can't live without.
You don't need Microsoft Office, you can go to http://www.openoffice.org/ and download a fully functional office suite that, in many ways, is better than Microsoft Office. What's even better, is that it runs on system other than Windows!
Linux is a system, more similar to the macintosh than it is to Windows, and it will run on your PC. It replaces Windows completely. Not only that, out of the box, it is slick, beautiful, and easy to use, and if you like to tinker, there is absolutely no limit to what you can change.
Best of all its free! That's right, free!
Go to http://www.ubuntu.com/ and look around. (There are other vendors for Linux too, so you are not stuck with only one.)
I know, you ask "How can it be free?" Well, you know how your friends who know about cars will sometimes fix your car as a favor? That's because they enjoy working on cars. Well, with the internet, millions of guys who know about computers started working on a system in the '80s that was eventually called Linux. The software comes from places like IBM, Sun, U.C. Berkeley, MIT, HP, and a whole list of other companies and organizations. It is a collaborative system that is put together, not to make money for Microsoft, but to make computers more usable for everyone. In fact, a lot of the web sites you visit every day run Linux.
So, if you are fed up with your computer and Windows, now is a great time to start a new adventure. Try something new, learn something new! It won't be hard, but not too easy either, as a lot of things are different than what you are used to, but once you get the hang of it, you'll realize that sometimes "different" is the only to get "better."
This is actually fun news. Microsoft's R&D budget is used to develop things like Vista, C#, MS Dogs, etc. The problem is that, rather than work with established standards, Microsoft's anti-competitive work is to create new and non-standard road blocks to interoperability.
Now that vista's ROI was MUCH less than expected and share holders are starting to think twice, maybe Microsoft will think twice about writing a whole NEW computer language and execution environment, and work with the existing vendors.
You do not have the rights to change the content of the book and resell it without permissions from the copyright owner
You are correct with regard making copies of the "content" of the book, but not my physical copy. I'm not making copies, I'm altering my property. I can do what ever I want to it and sell my physical copy. If I change it, I may not be able to sell it as if it were the original, but I can sell it as my unique work.
You are confusing the "content" (work) with the physical "copy." I can do ANYTHING I WANT to my physical copy and sell it as long as I point out it has been modified.
The only exceptions to infringement are cleared spelled out. Fair use, parody, etc. None of the examples you cite fall under any exceptions and you cite no case, no law that would allow you to do describe.
Copyright law applies to the "content" of the book, i.e. the "work," not the physical book itself.
If I buy a Rolls Royce and paint flames on it. I may piss off Rolls Royce quite a bit, but it is my car to do with as I please.
It doesn't matter if they are making copies. They are making modifications to an existing copy or work. Only the copyright holder can make modifications and distribute. That is the basic tenet of copyright law.
The important part of what you are saying is this: "Only the copyright holder can make modifications and distribute." This is fundamentally incorrect. Only the copyright owner can authorize copies, but of the physical copy, once sold, the "copy" is the property of the purchaser and the "content" is protected by copyright.
I own my copy of the book I just bought, but I do not own what is written in it. I have "fair use" rights to the content.
Of my single copy of the book, I may write on it, change pages, and what ever and I may sell my copy as it is my property.
I think your mistake is in believing the software industry means making money from selling copies of an OS. They're not the same. The OS vendors are a small part of the commercial software development happening in this country.
You know, I don't need to hear the open source party line. I use GNU/Linux, I agree on most all points with RMS. I think "Free Software" is far more important than merely "Open Source" software, and I know the differences intimately.
I'm not talking about the philosophy of software development, I'm talking about the business of software.
Unless we are all communists and socialists, we need to be enterprising and make money with our skills. My skill set, while pretty varied, is primarily software architecture and development. I'm good at it and have a good number of former coworkers and clients that will vouch for me. I've published articles about data acquisition, Widows and NT drivers, and done some web stuff about robotics, motor control, enterprise data systems and so on.
The problem is that a group of people who are very good at what they do will not be able to make a living at it. For all intents and purposes, there is no market for an office suite unless you are Microsoft. There is no market for a desktop operating system unless you are Microsoft and to a lesser extent Apple.
Sure, there are small vertical markets here and there, but mainstream consumer software flows through Microsoft and you can't make any money otherwise.
Free Software is really good as a baseline, but BeOS was a good product. Go was a good product. ConcurrentDOS was good in its day.
We need to recreate the environment where inventive software can be made, even if it does not run on Windows or worse yet, challenges Microsoft's monopoly. Without investment into projects that may or may not take off, we will keep losing and losing decent software jobs to over seas companies.
Your example is not fitting. What Apple is arguing is that someone took their blank canvas and paint all over it. What they're arguing is someone took their copyrighted painted canvas changed a line or two, changed the color in one section, and then resold it as OS X. It wouldn't matter if they named is Psystar OS, the fact is their product contains a significant amount of OS X code and they did not get permission from Apple before distributing it.
If they are making copies, then it is a violation. If they are modifying their copy, it is not.
The movie industry may think you're too small and not worth their time if you sold like one or two but what you were doing would be copyright infringement.
How so, I buy a VHS tape and I resell it under fair use. Where is the infringement?
This is one of the stupidest things I have read on Slashdot. Is this more anti-MS FUD, are you a troll, or do you really not understand anything you wrote about?
The sign of a weak mind is to assail those with whom you disagree. A reasonable debate does need ad hominem.
Microsoft is not the U.S. economy. It isn't even the biggest mover the U.S. economy. It is however, one of the better parts of the economy because it creates an exportable product and provides many high paying jobs.
This is true on the surface, but Microsoft's monopoly success demands the elimination of competition. Competition and a thriving competitive industry creates more jobs and more opportunities.
if MS were to "fail" and go bankrupt, the source for Windows would still exist, and work would most likely continue while the company was in receivership.
You misunderstand the point. People around the world are getting fed up with Microsoft's monopoly, but we as a nation have no other options to sell. Where are the DRIs, Corels, Go, Stac, GEM, Wordperfects, Borlands, Lotuses, Interactive, Mark Williams, etc. They have all been destroy by Microsoft's dirty tricks and illegal anti-competitive behavior in some form.
The U.S. commercial software industry is mostly Windows only. As the world outside the U.S.A. goes non-windows, we won't have a software industry.
Slashdot Mirror
There are already OEMs who will offer you operating system choices. If you want that to be the norm, then patronize them.
There are *always* alternatives to a monopoly, it isn't that there aren't, it is that it is too hard for the average consumer to use something other that the monopoly.
You really should read the standard oil case and the sherman act.
Best Buy, Walmart, and others should offer choice. Microsoft should be forbidden from being the default.
Why don't you come here and fucking try forcing me into something? You have no right.
No, not force per se' but enforce a competitive environment which provides choice and options, which will require consumers to be more educated.
Has Microsoft taken Windows XP off retail shelves yet? When that happens, will you scream bloody murder, too?
Its more the point that the average user doesn't have a choice of anything than what Microsoft chooses to sell.
Systems should be sold without operating systems or at least operating system choices. Microsoft's monopoly has too much control over the market place.
That may cause the consumers to need to be more educated about their options, but a computer is a fairly big purchase. People put more thought into buying a TV than a computer and they are about the same price range. Forcing the consumer to be educated and responsible for their computer is better than allowing them to be spoon fed what ever Microsoft gives them.
The difference is optimization vs generalization. Many problems can be handled using simple key/value pair relationships. You can model this in an RDBMS using two-column tables that you never join across, where all of your queries are SELECT val FROM tab WHERE key=? and INSERT INTO tab (key,val) VALUES (?,?). However, if you use the RDBMS this way, you're paying for the overhead of the SQL engine, (usually) a client/server connection, and your language's library for interacting with an RDBMS.
This assumption is one of those things that needs a LOT of discussion to explain why it is wrong. There is not enough space to have a real technological argument.
Suffice to say that the client/server relationship between the application and server actually helps your application.
The "overhead" of the SQL engine can be minimized to almost negligible by using stored procedures.
As for the interface library, no matter what data storage system you use you will always have an interface library.
The alternative is a non-relational database like BerkeleyDB [wikipedia.org], which is optimized for key/value pair operations. All the fetch and store operations do is fetch and store the value for a given key, with a minimum of overhead. BerkeleyDB is also an in-process database, where your application is accessing the database files directly using the BerkeleyDB library code. (The library handles locking so that multiple processes can use the database files at the same time.) Again, the overhead is kept to a minimum.
You say a couple things that don't make sense. "BerkeleyDB is an in-process database" and "library handles locking so that multiple processes can use the database files at the same time." You are saying there is a mechanism being used to synchronize access across multiple processes? An MVCC database blows the doors off a locking system.
BerkeleyDB is much less flexible than an RDBMS, but for the problem domains where that flexibility is not needed, BerkeleyDB is much more efficient.
The "problem domain" for BerkeleyDB is far far more limited than people think.
I've easily achieved over 6000 read/write transactions per second on modest hardware in a single-threaded process; a multi-threaded and/or multi-process application can achieve much higher rates. Compare that to a typical Oracle database connection, where you're lucky to get as many as a few hundred transactions per second, just because of the network round-trip.
Well, the network "round trip" isn't even possible with BerkeleyDB so it is not an issue. However, I would compare PostgreSQL and BerkeleyDB in a simple key/value database shootout with 50 or more reader/writer processes on the same box and see which scales better. I have a hint, BerkeleyDB would spend all its time managing locks.
where you're lucky to get as many as a few hundred transactions per second
Are you insane? A few hundred a second? Yea, back in 1999 on a 10BaseT ethernet connection with IDE hard disks and PIIIs.
Huh? How many car companies sell cars with engines as separate and optional?
You can choose engine and transmission on a lot of cars. A lot of custom shops can get frames and bodies.
She's complaining because Microsoft stopped offering discounts to manufacturers, forcing them to go to Vista. Lenovo (in this case) offers the legacy option of XP for a fee because of this, instead of just saying "we're not selling XP anymore because Microsoft isn't giving us a discount", and somehow it's Microsoft's fault?
Microsoft is using its monopoly position to force OEMs to restrict customer choice.
Because of the support nightmare it would cause when Joe Sixpack discovers he can't run his $10 game from Walmart on his new Linux-preinstalled computer (and he chose Linux because he didn't know it wasn't Windows, and he was cheap).
Then the OEMs have to opportunity to create an "aftermarket" business, just like the automakers.
Microsoft deserves every last bit of it. make it stick, make it hurt.
I'd like to see computers sold at a price and have the OS as an option. Car makers deal with optional engine types and other optional features. Why can't computer OEMs.
no, the relational database is not going anywhere, you are correct. but, that does not mean that there aren't instances where a non-relational database, with the addition of map/reduce, aren't extremely useful.
A relational database is a lot like C++. It provides the tools for relationships but that does not mean you have to use in that way or that it is sub-optimal.
non-relational databases have been around for decades, and are in use for quite a number of applications involving rapid development and storage of very large records. couple this with map/reduce, and you have the ability to scale quickly with very large datasets.
What is a large data set? I have a few PostgreSQL databases with some pretty HUGE data sets, and it blows the doors off anything else I could use.
scaling quickly is a very difficult problem to solve with an RDBMS - you either need to continue to throw more hardware at the problem, to the point of diminishing returns, or re-architect your data at the cost of possible significant downtime, while still attempting to serve up the data in a timely manner.
Without any details this sounds like an urban legend. If you designed your system as you would have with a lesser system like a simple "key/value" pair, how would a RDBMS be any different?
i've been deep in the bowels of oracle RAC, fighting to get just 5% more speed out of a query over a billion rows and realizing that i have to start over with a new schema, just to squeeze more data out. compare that to simply adding another machine and letting the map functionality run across one more cpu before returning it for the reduce.
Why do you need to start over with a new schema? Why not simply denormalize some of the tables. You can alter the table on line.
I don't mean to impugn your abilities, but if you can't get oracle to do what you need, you aren't going to get a lesser system to do better.
once again, correct, but having to denormalize to a snowflake or a star isn't always the best solution. you're taking the best parts of the relational database model, and throwing them out - normalization, referential integrity, just to squeeze more out of something that may not be the best tool for the job.
Normalization is a tool. Denormalization is also a tool. They are approaches to handling data. The RDBMS doesn't care. Why bitch about referential integrity if you aren't going to use it anyway?
do you hammer with a wrench? i have before, and i managed to hurt my thumb.
Poor analogy. Do you use the bottle opener screwdriver in your swiss army knife or do you use a real screw drive?
What is being argued is that they will do so because they have superior scalability and distribution properties, and that in many real-world applications those are more important than the having the full expressive power of relational algebra.
Please site a valid argument that suggests the SQL lacks scalability or distribution. If you are willing to get rid of ACID like the other solutions, there are no limitations.
Particularly as you get ones that can provide ACID guarantees, that becomes a compelling selling point in many applications where RDBMS's would otherwise be used simply because they are the only available tool, but where distributed key/value stores are a better tool.
Please site one example, just one, where a simple key/pair data system is the "better" solution for a high volume site than a more powerful database like PostgreSQL wouldn't do a better job.
The relational database is not going anywhere and nothing in that article is based on any firm understanding of managing data.
Is the notion of a "join" obsolete? No, but it is typically impractical in a high volume system. You would probably use denormalization as a strategy.
Scaling many nodes? OK, you still gotta put your data "in" something.
key/value indexing? yawn. select val from keyvalue_tab where key = foo;
The value can be basically anything, and most "relational" databases have good object support as well as XML, JSON, etc.
So we can establish that a SQL relational database can do *everything* a simpler system can do. Now, think about ALL the things you can do with your data in a real database.
What is the point of using a limited and less functional system? A good system, like Oracle, DB2, PostgreSQL, etc (!mysql of course) will do what you need AND allow you do do more should you be successful.
The problem with data is two fold: Managing read/write/deletes and finding what you are looking for. These problems have been solved. A good database will do this for you. Want to store object? XML, JSON, binary objects, or a specialized database extension works perfectly.
You know what? Most people are honest. Most people accept that they should pay money for things they use/want.
This is the problem with the *IAA mafia types. They assume everyone is dishonest and treat them as such.
You know what I love? The $5.00 bin of DVDs at kmart, best buy, or walmart. Some older movies, sure, but some that I've wanted to watch and never did.
Now, this is the absolute truth and I'm sure 99% of the people will agree with me.
I want a way to get a movie or some music, in a format I want, I don't want it locked with DRM, and I want it at a reasonable price.
I sometimes watch a movie on my computer, sometimes on my TV, sometimes I stop it on one and continue on another. Sometimes, I want to watch it a few months later.
In the case of kids movies, I want to be able to put it on my iPod to keep her quiet on long drives.
If the movie and music industry actually kept up with the times, they would realize that all the terrible "downloaders" are actually potential customers. Analyze the market, adapt, and capitalize on the opportunity. Don't just try to sue and legislate!
I've used all of those to some degree except Dos 1 Dos 2 Windows 1
I have in fact owned DOS 1 and 2 as well as Windows 1.03 (the first real release)
Not only that, I developed software on all of them as well, even, CP/M.
Does anyone remmeber pip?
I don't know how you can write that and be serious. OpenOffice is not a very well developed product, is not very flexible, and durability is in question because a lot of people end up throwing it out.
Without any actual facts to back that up, I don't believe you because my experience is entirely different.
Another feature I really like about OOo is the ODF format. It is documented and I will always be able to use my documents.
But for those that see open source as a religion instead of a means to an end, they'll prefer to have no tool and just the moral high horse
It is easy to paint someone's position as "extreme" in order to make yours more reasonable. It is a isotope of ad-hominem.
The opposite is true, of course. We open source/free software people are very practical by nature. We see and understand that "better" software isn't just an arbitrary and subjective feature set comparison. It is quality. Flexibility. Durability.
Having used Microsoft office, WordPerfect, WordStar, Quatro, 123, Hollywood, Applix, OpenOffice.org, and so many others, I can honestly say that OpenOffice.org is a better over all system for anyone who cares about their content.
OO.org is pretty cool. Some parts of it are definitely NOT as good, definitely ont better, than MS Office.
This is a subjective evaluation and very open do debate. Since the two products are not from an "identical" specification, it is impossible to evaluate how one is better than another based on a side by side comparison. We have to weight the features of one against another, factor in quality, and weight the feature sets. MS Office does have more features, but by and large, not features the 99% of the users will ever care about.
For me, the built in "Export to PDF" is a huge feature.
No, it was called Linux very early on, somewhere around 0.9, by one person, in 1991 (not the 80s); and the number of developers involved is still quite short of "millions of guys".
What is now Linux started, possible as early as the lat 60s, but definitely by 1984 in the form of GNU. The Linux kernel didn't come on the scene until 1991.
when i can play every game i've purchased in the last 15 years out of the box NATIVELY without having to run it in wine, cedega, crossover or whatever the fuck the new "emulator" is these days, then i'll consider switching to linux.
When you can do that in Vista or Windows 7, let us know. Most programs written in 1994 won't even run correctly on Vista or XP. A lot of programs written prior to 2002 for DOS Windows (95,98,98SE,ME) have difficulty on the NT kernel line.
You realise that the topic is about Exchange.
None of the products mentioned provide the functionality Exchange has.
The topic is about patches to Windows and its services, and this indirectly about the piss poor reliability and quality of Windows.
My time is valuable.
So is everybody else's.
I don't have all night to sit up recompiling to get the thing to work.
FUD alert FUD alert FUD alert.
Oh, and don't forget the legions of friendly, helpful Linux users who will be glad to listen to my problems and recommend a solution.
There are legions of helpful companies who will charge you money to support you and it will still cost less than Window$
To all you Windows users, we feel your pain. Seriously, you don't even know how bad you have it. What's worse, you have been sucked into a mind set that, on one hand, you hate your computer because of all the problems you have with it, but think you *need* windows because of all the programs you feel you can't live without.
You don't need Microsoft Office, you can go to http://www.openoffice.org/ and download a fully functional office suite that, in many ways, is better than Microsoft Office. What's even better, is that it runs on system other than Windows!
Linux is a system, more similar to the macintosh than it is to Windows, and it will run on your PC. It replaces Windows completely. Not only that, out of the box, it is slick, beautiful, and easy to use, and if you like to tinker, there is absolutely no limit to what you can change.
Best of all its free! That's right, free!
Go to http://www.ubuntu.com/ and look around. (There are other vendors for Linux too, so you are not stuck with only one.)
I know, you ask "How can it be free?" Well, you know how your friends who know about cars will sometimes fix your car as a favor? That's because they enjoy working on cars. Well, with the internet, millions of guys who know about computers started working on a system in the '80s that was eventually called Linux. The software comes from places like IBM, Sun, U.C. Berkeley, MIT, HP, and a whole list of other companies and organizations. It is a collaborative system that is put together, not to make money for Microsoft, but to make computers more usable for everyone. In fact, a lot of the web sites you visit every day run Linux.
So, if you are fed up with your computer and Windows, now is a great time to start a new adventure. Try something new, learn something new! It won't be hard, but not too easy either, as a lot of things are different than what you are used to, but once you get the hang of it, you'll realize that sometimes "different" is the only to get "better."
This is actually fun news. Microsoft's R&D budget is used to develop things like Vista, C#, MS Dogs, etc. The problem is that, rather than work with established standards, Microsoft's anti-competitive work is to create new and non-standard road blocks to interoperability.
Now that vista's ROI was MUCH less than expected and share holders are starting to think twice, maybe Microsoft will think twice about writing a whole NEW computer language and execution environment, and work with the existing vendors.
Nah, that will never happen.
You do not have the rights to change the content of the book and resell it without permissions from the copyright owner
You are correct with regard making copies of the "content" of the book, but not my physical copy. I'm not making copies, I'm altering my property. I can do what ever I want to it and sell my physical copy. If I change it, I may not be able to sell it as if it were the original, but I can sell it as my unique work.
You are confusing the "content" (work) with the physical "copy." I can do ANYTHING I WANT to my physical copy and sell it as long as I point out it has been modified.
The only exceptions to infringement are cleared spelled out. Fair use, parody, etc. None of the examples you cite fall under any exceptions and you cite no case, no law that would allow you to do describe.
Copyright law applies to the "content" of the book, i.e. the "work," not the physical book itself.
If I buy a Rolls Royce and paint flames on it. I may piss off Rolls Royce quite a bit, but it is my car to do with as I please.
It doesn't matter if they are making copies. They are making modifications to an existing copy or work. Only the copyright holder can make modifications and distribute. That is the basic tenet of copyright law.
The important part of what you are saying is this: "Only the copyright holder can make modifications and distribute." This is fundamentally incorrect. Only the copyright owner can authorize copies, but of the physical copy, once sold, the "copy" is the property of the purchaser and the "content" is protected by copyright.
I own my copy of the book I just bought, but I do not own what is written in it. I have "fair use" rights to the content.
Of my single copy of the book, I may write on it, change pages, and what ever and I may sell my copy as it is my property.
I think your mistake is in believing the software industry means making money from selling copies of an OS. They're not the same. The OS vendors are a small part of the commercial software development happening in this country.
You know, I don't need to hear the open source party line. I use GNU/Linux, I agree on most all points with RMS. I think "Free Software" is far more important than merely "Open Source" software, and I know the differences intimately.
I'm not talking about the philosophy of software development, I'm talking about the business of software.
Unless we are all communists and socialists, we need to be enterprising and make money with our skills. My skill set, while pretty varied, is primarily software architecture and development. I'm good at it and have a good number of former coworkers and clients that will vouch for me. I've published articles about data acquisition, Widows and NT drivers, and done some web stuff about robotics, motor control, enterprise data systems and so on.
The problem is that a group of people who are very good at what they do will not be able to make a living at it. For all intents and purposes, there is no market for an office suite unless you are Microsoft. There is no market for a desktop operating system unless you are Microsoft and to a lesser extent Apple.
Sure, there are small vertical markets here and there, but mainstream consumer software flows through Microsoft and you can't make any money otherwise.
Free Software is really good as a baseline, but BeOS was a good product. Go was a good product. ConcurrentDOS was good in its day.
We need to recreate the environment where inventive software can be made, even if it does not run on Windows or worse yet, challenges Microsoft's monopoly. Without investment into projects that may or may not take off, we will keep losing and losing decent software jobs to over seas companies.
Your example is not fitting. What Apple is arguing is that someone took their blank canvas and paint all over it. What they're arguing is someone took their copyrighted painted canvas changed a line or two, changed the color in one section, and then resold it as OS X. It wouldn't matter if they named is Psystar OS, the fact is their product contains a significant amount of OS X code and they did not get permission from Apple before distributing it.
If they are making copies, then it is a violation. If they are modifying their copy, it is not.
The movie industry may think you're too small and not worth their time if you sold like one or two but what you were doing would be copyright infringement.
How so, I buy a VHS tape and I resell it under fair use. Where is the infringement?
This is one of the stupidest things I have read on Slashdot. Is this more anti-MS FUD, are you a troll, or do you really not understand anything you wrote about?
The sign of a weak mind is to assail those with whom you disagree. A reasonable debate does need ad hominem.
Microsoft is not the U.S. economy. It isn't even the biggest mover the U.S. economy. It is however, one of the better parts of the economy because it creates an exportable product and provides many high paying jobs.
This is true on the surface, but Microsoft's monopoly success demands the elimination of competition. Competition and a thriving competitive industry creates more jobs and more opportunities.
if MS were to "fail" and go bankrupt, the source for Windows would still exist, and work would most likely continue while the company was in receivership.
You misunderstand the point. People around the world are getting fed up with Microsoft's monopoly, but we as a nation have no other options to sell. Where are the DRIs, Corels, Go, Stac, GEM, Wordperfects, Borlands, Lotuses, Interactive, Mark Williams, etc. They have all been destroy by Microsoft's dirty tricks and illegal anti-competitive behavior in some form.
The U.S. commercial software industry is mostly Windows only. As the world outside the U.S.A. goes non-windows, we won't have a software industry.