They're just doing their own version of what the Jesuits do... get your people into as many key positions as you can, then get them to violate the trust inherent in their respective offices.
Perhaps we should ask them to rename themselves to the Humanist Rights Campaign?
Bill's aim in life seems to be acquiring control, and measuring that control by the number of bills he can lay hold on with it.
Bill's strategy to remove his anti-trust albatross seems to be dragging it on and on until everyone's thoroughly sick of it, then rushing through a quick settlement - to almost everyone's relief - then trading heavily on that relief.
Hillary's strategy with her greed albatross seems to be waving it in people's faces. Ugh.
...and not before time. Perhaps Linus can make a firm decision by, say, 2.5.10 on what goes into 2.6 and what gets kept aside for 2.7? That way we might see 2.6 before the end of 2002. We can always hope.
It's important for a lot of this new stuff to get thoroughly used so that alternatives, replacements, options and enhancements can be devised at warp speed. It's also important to have an odd kernel series active so that imaginitive new stuff has a home and doesn't stagnate.
...the idea of imposing global solutions on local problems is inherently stupid.
Open Source applies local solutions to global problems, and what do you know? ``Global'' solutions fall out of the results with no extra effort.
A solution to poverty which works well in one African village may not work well in the next, but may also work well for a particular Chinese (or for that matter Australian or German) community.
One way or another, globalism would have them all use the same solutions - good bad or ugly. This has two nasty effects; firstly, resources and goodwill are wasted trying to jam an inappropriate solution down relatively helpless local throats (en passant, making the solutions impalatable to communities for which they would otherwise have worked well); secondly, local solutions which would be effective elsewhere are extinguished.
Now, looking back on that, haven't I just described Open Source versus Microsoft?
This isn't anticompetitive (that would be Microsoft forcing/. to only display for IE).
That would be true if all potential visitors to MSN had previously agreed to use IE. As it is, MSN is a significant (nothing like a majority) purported participant in a set of public standards (HTTP, TCP/IP and HTML), and yet they are preventing legitimate users of client software employing those standards (and if you whine about how much of those standards, Exhibit A is Mozilla, which easily trumps even IE for the Mac in this arena) from accessing their purported service.
If Microsoft want to apply their own standards, they forfeit the right to call http://www.msn.com/ a website. Let them use their vaunted SMB/CIFS, if they dare.
IIS already sends SMB responses to HTTP connects, did y'know? If the host ISP is stupid enough to let SMB out, PortSentry at the client gateway blocks the website because it ``attacked'' the PortSentry'd gateway via SMB.
the best solution that the W3 has to offer is HTTP 1.1 and XHTML 4
The stateless, text-oriented, forms-supported model had its day but that day has passed.
If you actually read the W3C website, they agree with you. That's what XML is for, and emerging standards (which Microsoft will try to either ignore or bugger up like they did with Java) such as XUL.
The problem is generally not in the standards. It is with people who bend, extend or ignore the standards.
When a monopolist abuses their monopoly, then they should be punished. An easy way to do that is simply to refuse to grant any patent or copyright protection at all to that organization, for some period of time.
Or simply not allow them to enforce any patent or copyright which applies to a technology in which they have a majority market share, including a grandfather clause to protect competing software created during that window of opportunity.
They can't "insure" (ensure) the performance of any software not directly under their control!
Whaddaya on about? They can't ensure performance or ``a great experience'' on software which is totally under their control, after over a decade of effort, so obviously either their aim is not to ensure a great experience, or they're completely incompetent. Take your pick.
My personal take is that their aim is to line their own pockets and win some prizes rather than to discover and deliver what people actually want. MCS is a bit of an anomaly, and makes me wonder.
So, if you actually want or need anything IE-specific (I don't), run a late Konqueror with the WINE-assisted ActiveX-running code and tell it to impersonate IE.
So Microsoft want people to put IE-specific code on their sites? No worries! Can do! If the browser ID says Exploder, add a banner warning them about their vulnerable browser. If it says Windows, do the same for their OS. Piece of the proverbial in PHP...
I remember finding a SCO Unix box at a client site that had lost the PSU fan (Pentium-II-350). The CPU fan was just circulating hot air inside the box. The desktop case was mounted vertically (ie tower style) in a little wooden box affair slung under a desk, with approx 5mm clearance each side and 20mm clearance on top. And no gaps at the corners.
The SCO box had been going kind of erratic, killing the odd user process. This was bad because their entire business (four vet clinics, maybe 20-25 workstations) was running from it.
I couldn't touch the case bare-handed to get it out, it was too hot. I used some convenient price lists as insulators to get the (still running) box out far enough to circulate air around it, at which point I aimed a fan-heater (set at blow-only-no-heat). After a few minutes, it was cool enough to touch, albeit briefly, so I unbolted the lid and angled the blower at the PSU. This kept it happy (ie no more dead processes) until after closing time about nine hours later, when the clinic's director replaced the PSU.
The box kept running flawlessly for some months until they replaced the P-II-350 SCO box using 32M of RAM and about 800M of its 2GB hard disk for Telnet clients with a monster multi-CPU gigabytes-of-RAM acres-of-disk Terminal Server box supporting similarly high-grunt Win2k client boxen, each doing nothing more than an X server would be.
Also, as a protest we could keep the sites/.ed. See how long this little company lasts then.
What? And perpetuate hate, spite and the use of force? If you do that - if you become like that - you lose instantly. Not just this battle, but the whole war.
Reading between the lines, both Future and Mosfet are behaving like losers. Mosfet has a history of being difficult to deal with (but creative, nevertheless), Future have a similar reputation as a denial-of-reality get-rich-quick company. A match made in hell. A good thing to steer clear of, not inflame.
If you disagree, post a reply using your real name. I'd also rather see a reply than a moderation.
-- Want to fight terror? Why go to Afghanistan? Why not start at home?
I doubt too many people here [...] consider Australia sufficiently exotic that a Linuxconf would be interesting.
Visit us for a few weeks. We'll show you exotic. (-:
The only problem with Oz in terms of exotic, and WestOz in particular, is that it's so large that you need months to even visit the highlights, let alone take in and really explore much. We can show you the world's best beaches, red deserts that make Dakota look pale, lush tropical rainforests, soaring views across rugged ranges, the kind of unbelievable fishing normally associated with pacific islands, magnificent caves and sinkholes, rock made entirely out of sponges, the world's best grapes, more golf courses per capita than anywhere else in the world, and so on... about the only touristy things WA's missing are a set of Andes or Himalayas (with ski runs), and thousands of years of ambitious architecture (although we do have our share of mysterious stepped pyramids and the like, not a well known thing).
Because the linux.conf.au in Jan 2003 will be an amazing event, you can be sure - whole OSS projects are being invented to make certain sessions possible. (-:
How will MSN 7 give you the most useful Web experience? It's faster, with a cool new network design that makes it easy to find what you need, as well as many improved Web services that include everything from hip new emoticons to online photo editing tools.
Ah, yes, that's it... emoticons and photo editing, that's why they're chucking off competing browsers! Well, I must say, that's really worthwhile...
The new MSN is designed to support great new features of Windows XP. Just another example of what you expect from Microsoft: reliability.
Well, now, ain't that a peach? Reading between the lines, in order to have reliability, you need to be running in a totally Microsoft-controlled environment. From the people who brought your SirCam, CodeRed and Nimda? Yeeeah, suuuure...
Windows webserver does not necessarily mean IIS. A lot of the systems surveyed were probably Windows systems running apache.
The ex-IIS sites I've seen or created have all decided that since they're going to the trouble of dumping IIS, they may as well dump Windows too. Also, many of them dump IIS because they're dumping Windows, at least for that server. This is only my own experience, the global stats may side with your point.
Not all christians supported the inquisition either.
On one hand, it was only the Roman Catholic Church supporting the Inquisition in Spain, Portugal and India (Goa), and in fact mainly just the Jesuits within that Church.
[ BTW, think about who is going to be the next Pope. Barring a miracle, it's going to be Ratzinger, and guess which order he is head of? Lo! It's the Inquisition (trading under a polite name). Interesting times ahead. ]
On the other hand, one of the first things that the Pilgrims did when they arrived in the USA was to make repressive laws protecting their style of religion. So I guess the root cause is human nature.
But the christian power structure supported it.
True, but only partly so, in the following ways:
the power structure was an artefact run by the RCC, not all of Christianity
the power structure was aided and abetted by secular business and political groups. This was particularly evident during the Crusades
If you define Christianity as ``supported [only] by any reported text from Jesus in the Bible,'' the RCC as a whole does not represent Christianity
I have stuff to do besides try to remember whether its.Xsession.Xshrttyt.Xwhatever that I use to make my background a usable color.
I don't edit text files to configure my X. Perhaps I should? In any of KDE, Gnome or WindowMaker (and others, I'm sure), it's only a click or two to set background colour, image, series of images, application, whatever.
Have you tried CygWin? It makes life under Windows more bearable. There's also an X server for it. And if you need an instant X server anywhere, try WeirdX.
I don't even bother, I just use windows.
Sad.
Did you know that you can configure Windows in just the same way? I.e., with regedit and/or at the cmd prompt? If you use point-and-click for Windows, why not for X?
Slashdot Mirror
They're just doing their own version of what the Jesuits do... get your people into as many key positions as you can, then get them to violate the trust inherent in their respective offices.
Perhaps we should ask them to rename themselves to the Humanist Rights Campaign?
Bill's aim in life seems to be acquiring control, and measuring that control by the number of bills he can lay hold on with it.
Bill's strategy to remove his anti-trust albatross seems to be dragging it on and on until everyone's thoroughly sick of it, then rushing through a quick settlement - to almost everyone's relief - then trading heavily on that relief.
Hillary's strategy with her greed albatross seems to be waving it in people's faces. Ugh.
Why? Surely one of the point-and-click interfaces to PostgreSQL would make more sense?
...and not before time. Perhaps Linus can make a firm decision by, say, 2.5.10 on what goes into 2.6 and what gets kept aside for 2.7? That way we might see 2.6 before the end of 2002. We can always hope.
It's important for a lot of this new stuff to get thoroughly used so that alternatives, replacements, options and enhancements can be devised at warp speed. It's also important to have an odd kernel series active so that imaginitive new stuff has a home and doesn't stagnate.
Well, they are, but in this case their side was the, er, righter one.
As to the rest of it, ROTFLMAO, more please! (-:
Alpha-based technology may yet buy them out. I'm pegging Samsung as the logical candidate to acquire them. An alpha in my laptop? Oh, yes, please! (-:
...the idea of imposing global solutions on local problems is inherently stupid.
Open Source applies local solutions to global problems, and what do you know? ``Global'' solutions fall out of the results with no extra effort.
A solution to poverty which works well in one African village may not work well in the next, but may also work well for a particular Chinese (or for that matter Australian or German) community.
One way or another, globalism would have them all use the same solutions - good bad or ugly. This has two nasty effects; firstly, resources and goodwill are wasted trying to jam an inappropriate solution down relatively helpless local throats (en passant, making the solutions impalatable to communities for which they would otherwise have worked well); secondly, local solutions which would be effective elsewhere are extinguished.
Now, looking back on that, haven't I just described Open Source versus Microsoft?
<OBJECT type="image/ppm" src="tux.ppm">
(o-
//\
V_/_
</OBJECT>
[These extra words were added to satisfy that never to be sufficiently condemned lameness filter.]
That would be true if all potential visitors to MSN had previously agreed to use IE. As it is, MSN is a significant (nothing like a majority) purported participant in a set of public standards (HTTP, TCP/IP and HTML), and yet they are preventing legitimate users of client software employing those standards (and if you whine about how much of those standards, Exhibit A is Mozilla, which easily trumps even IE for the Mac in this arena) from accessing their purported service.
If Microsoft want to apply their own standards, they forfeit the right to call http://www.msn.com/ a website. Let them use their vaunted SMB/CIFS, if they dare.
IIS already sends SMB responses to HTTP connects, did y'know? If the host ISP is stupid enough to let SMB out, PortSentry at the client gateway blocks the website because it ``attacked'' the PortSentry'd gateway via SMB.
Or simply not allow them to enforce any patent or copyright which applies to a technology in which they have a majority market share, including a grandfather clause to protect competing software created during that window of opportunity.
Whaddaya on about? They can't ensure performance or ``a great experience'' on software which is totally under their control, after over a decade of effort, so obviously either their aim is not to ensure a great experience, or they're completely incompetent. Take your pick.
My personal take is that their aim is to line their own pockets and win some prizes rather than to discover and deliver what people actually want. MCS is a bit of an anomaly, and makes me wonder.
Eh? The typical M$ EULA is a Sales and Marketing contract!
So, if you actually want or need anything IE-specific (I don't), run a late Konqueror with the WINE-assisted ActiveX-running code and tell it to impersonate IE.
So Microsoft want people to put IE-specific code on their sites? No worries! Can do! If the browser ID says Exploder, add a banner warning them about their vulnerable browser. If it says Windows, do the same for their OS. Piece of the proverbial in PHP...
Surf, snorkel, chase rats around an island, attend PLUG meetings (you slacker!) and help organise conferences, rock climbing and abseiling, caving (or combine sports), bushwalking (do the Bibbulman if you're bored) including tall timber country, the vineyards, visit the animals at one of the many wildlife parks or the zoo, play golf, heaps of other stuff.
Of course, home is even better.
Mind you, the no-heatsink test does smack of running a half-track into a passenger sedan.
The SCO box had been going kind of erratic, killing the odd user process. This was bad because their entire business (four vet clinics, maybe 20-25 workstations) was running from it.
I couldn't touch the case bare-handed to get it out, it was too hot. I used some convenient price lists as insulators to get the (still running) box out far enough to circulate air around it, at which point I aimed a fan-heater (set at blow-only-no-heat). After a few minutes, it was cool enough to touch, albeit briefly, so I unbolted the lid and angled the blower at the PSU. This kept it happy (ie no more dead processes) until after closing time about nine hours later, when the clinic's director replaced the PSU.
The box kept running flawlessly for some months until they replaced the P-II-350 SCO box using 32M of RAM and about 800M of its 2GB hard disk for Telnet clients with a monster multi-CPU gigabytes-of-RAM acres-of-disk Terminal Server box supporting similarly high-grunt Win2k client boxen, each doing nothing more than an X server would be.
Works better visually.
What? And perpetuate hate, spite and the use of force? If you do that - if you become like that - you lose instantly. Not just this battle, but the whole war.
Reading between the lines, both Future and Mosfet are behaving like losers. Mosfet has a history of being difficult to deal with (but creative, nevertheless), Future have a similar reputation as a denial-of-reality get-rich-quick company. A match made in hell. A good thing to steer clear of, not inflame.
If you disagree, post a reply using your real name. I'd also rather see a reply than a moderation.
-- Want to fight terror? Why go to Afghanistan? Why not start at home?
Visit us for a few weeks. We'll show you exotic. (-:
The only problem with Oz in terms of exotic, and WestOz in particular, is that it's so large that you need months to even visit the highlights, let alone take in and really explore much. We can show you the world's best beaches, red deserts that make Dakota look pale, lush tropical rainforests, soaring views across rugged ranges, the kind of unbelievable fishing normally associated with pacific islands, magnificent caves and sinkholes, rock made entirely out of sponges, the world's best grapes, more golf courses per capita than anywhere else in the world, and so on... about the only touristy things WA's missing are a set of Andes or Himalayas (with ski runs), and thousands of years of ambitious architecture (although we do have our share of mysterious stepped pyramids and the like, not a well known thing).
Because the linux.conf.au in Jan 2003 will be an amazing event, you can be sure - whole OSS projects are being invented to make certain sessions possible. (-:
Ahuk, ahuk, ahuk...
Ah, yes, that's it... emoticons and photo editing, that's why they're chucking off competing browsers! Well, I must say, that's really worthwhile...
Well, now, ain't that a peach? Reading between the lines, in order to have reliability, you need to be running in a totally Microsoft-controlled environment. From the people who brought your SirCam, CodeRed and Nimda? Yeeeah, suuuure...
The ex-IIS sites I've seen or created have all decided that since they're going to the trouble of dumping IIS, they may as well dump Windows too. Also, many of them dump IIS because they're dumping Windows, at least for that server. This is only my own experience, the global stats may side with your point.
On one hand, it was only the Roman Catholic Church supporting the Inquisition in Spain, Portugal and India (Goa), and in fact mainly just the Jesuits within that Church.
[ BTW, think about who is going to be the next Pope. Barring a miracle, it's going to be Ratzinger, and guess which order he is head of? Lo! It's the Inquisition (trading under a polite name). Interesting times ahead. ]
On the other hand, one of the first things that the Pilgrims did when they arrived in the USA was to make repressive laws protecting their style of religion. So I guess the root cause is human nature.
True, but only partly so, in the following ways:
I don't edit text files to configure my X. Perhaps I should? In any of KDE, Gnome or WindowMaker (and others, I'm sure), it's only a click or two to set background colour, image, series of images, application, whatever.
Have you tried CygWin? It makes life under Windows more bearable. There's also an X server for it. And if you need an instant X server anywhere, try WeirdX.
Sad.
Did you know that you can configure Windows in just the same way? I.e., with regedit and/or at the cmd prompt? If you use point-and-click for Windows, why not for X?