So you're saying I should pay microsft for the priveledge of running linux?
No thanks.
If Compaq wasn't so pussy whipped, maybe they'd sell an ipaq without wince and with linux. But oh, that's right, their CEO is a weenie from the accounting department.
This is obviously a troll. But I'll say two things in reply.
1: Windows costs alot of money. Around $200 for win2k. Not only that, but the EULA is very burdensome for businesses and home users alike, and offers no route for custom modification.
2: The performance difference between BSD and Linux is marginal at best, and is highly dependant on what application you are running. If you point me to the byte.com tests, those were obviously crippled machines (64MB ram) that accentuated FreeBSD's VM subsystem. Not exactly fair to linux2.4. I can point you to a website that shows linux beating FreeBSD by a very large margin. Check it out.
(As far as security is concerned, a skilled admin can secure linux as tight as most any of the *BSD's. OpenBSD is thoroughly vetted for security holes, so I dont know, and it also has a very limited, feature-wise, default install, which helps.)
If cdparanoia is bitching about the wrong libc.so.6.... WELL FSCKING COMPILE IT YOURSELF!!!
That's the beauty of Free Software. And by the way, cdparanoia is PAINLESS to compile and install... What, scared of a little/usr/local/ beef? heh Wuss.
Not really. Intel will price tualatins higer than coppermines.
Intel will also have a variant of tualatin with 512KB of cache. Not only is tualatin superior (especially for mobile devices and overclockers), intel says its superior and is marketing it as a superior product.
If you read the interview you'll see that Jim Gettys points out that X is not bloated. More precicely, it gets the bloated reputation from moron unix users who dont know how to read top or ps correctly.
Further, he points out that the full X implementation for the ipaq runs in less than 700k of ram. (if you want Xrender extensions that'll cost you about 300-400k).
So lets cut the crap, X is not bloated. If you were trying to be funny.. ah well. nice try, but no cigar.
I encourage people to read the interview before commenting.
That's a very good point. The more publicity this gets, the more MS's hand will be forced into concessions. Although another way of looking at is, the more we let MS do monopolistic things, the sooner they will be broken up. I dont know the path of least resistence to MS devolution. You got any ideas?
From a practical standpoint, and an OEM standpoint, MS probably will have total control over them. (lets say they control 80% of smart tag implementations).
Who cares if a hacker-type can change an.xml file? That's irrelevant. You may not care about 80% of the people who use operating systems, but I have a tiny nook in my soul for them, poor fellows.
Heh, You got me on the offensive thing though. I confess, I berated you:) hahahha, sorry ol' chum ol' pal. Maybe we can make up and drink a few pints at the pub? On me.
Not that I see much use in it:P except for duping the masses into visiting your profit centers. (You'd have to dupe them initially just to get them to install the damned thing. lets face not many people are.)
So what's the practical value of this new feature? Really no practical value for every day users. There's alot of value for microsoft in this, and they stand to gain the most. All other players in the Microsoft Innovated Net of the future will really be bit players at best.
I really think this is a taste of the.NET to come. Sure other people can play in microsoft's "innovated" new marketplace that they created.. But really, it's not for them. It's for MS. It's so they can leverage (that word is used too much, really) windows users into more and more MS profit centers. Of course they couldn't do this without a monopoly.
Sorry to disappoint you. But this is MS turf. You gotta be defensive and on-gaurd. Saying "well we can all do what MS is doing with this feature" is lying to yourself. Technically, you can do what MS will do, but in practice it aint worth two shits (for a business, not a hacker's ego).
Cheer up buddy. If you're so sad smoke a dube, and turn on some dylan.
Microsoft (#1 canditate, prime suspect).
OEM's (A slimy group of money grubbing semi-legal organizations, who couldnt give a fuck about their customers (in general)).
Last but not least, ISP's. (I'm sure they'd love to redirect you to their corperate sponsored Shopping channels)
End users arent going to want to change this. They'd have no reason to.
95% of windows users aren't going to edit a.xml file to change their redirects.
Ok Clue time.
Why would ANYONE want to change a redirect file?! THAT"S WHAT BOOKMARKS ARE FOR.
Who has an interest in changing this?
1. Microsoft (obviously they have alot to gain)
2. OEM's (Changing copyrighted material to gain financially is what every OEM worth its salt guns for)
3. ISP's, again profiting from changing other people's copyrighted material..
Final thoughts.
How dare you try to deceive us? Who cares that the end user can change the redirects?! The end user has NO USE DOING THAT. It provides NOTHING for the end user, to change them himself. HE HAS BOOKMARKS for that purpose.
(sorry for the anger, but this schmuck is obviously clueless and/or deceitful).
>then we should applaud this feature, as it will
>allow millions to finally venture out into the
>web as a whole, and increase connectivity
>massively.
Do you realize that it's microsoft that picks the sites that other people can go to with this new "feature"?
So if there's an AOL page, MS could redirect you to MSN on some tricky word or phrase having to do with getting a subscription or whatnot.
(copyright)
>well you could say the same thing about proxy
>services like Junkbuster, which strip certain
>elements out of webpages before the user sees
>them.
The difference here is that you are exercising your fair use rights by removing unsightly material from the webpages you view. Whereas with Microsoft's "innovation" they are altering the copyrighted material for _commercial monetary gain_, which could be in direct competitive conflict the the very sight it's altering. You'd have to have your head up your arse not to see the lawsuits this will spurn. Maybe someone should slip an email to the appealate justices hearing the MS antitrust appeal. I hope their clerks are on the ball here, passing along important developments in monopoly abuse.
It's clear, to me at least, that microsoft is abusnig its monopoly again - on the way to turning the Web into the Microsoft.NET proprietary internet.
Linux is for those who value the freedom to see the source -- that's it.
I think I should clear this up with you. The freedom to see the source is only one of many Freedoms that Free Software users value. I've included a link to the GPL FAQ for your personal edification.
Hahah, this guy finds one instance of incompatability in a linux distro and then declares the argument a wash.
Good lord, what are they teaching in schools now a days. Where's the critical thinking?!
Re:Why the X-Box cannot be a linux machine
on
PS2 As PC
·
· Score: 1
If Nvidia has their head on their shoulders and aren't taking one in the rear for good ol' MS, then they should release the AGP-gart specs, the IDE-UDMA specs, the USB specs (they'll probably use a current standard), and the LAN specs (the chip has lan core too! gad zooks.)
What I'm skeptical they will release is their new Sound Chip specs. Their new sound core is currently better than anything on the market. It can handle 128 2d voices, and 64 3d voices, all simultaneously, which is alot better than Emu10k(sblive).
What I am convinced they wont release specs on, not in a million years, is their geforce2-MX graphics core. But this is moot, somewhat, by the fact that Nvidia releases solid 3d drivers for Linux (binary-only) that perform better than Win2k on average. (not better than win98, go figure).
Re:This should be good for Linux..
on
PS2 As PC
·
· Score: 1
Heh, I think the #1 thing that would make Linux on PS/2 a success is if Mozilla became more optimized for X11 !!!.
As it is right now, the Windows client is much faster and much more optimized than the Linux/X11 client, and probably because that's where most of the development resources went to (Like with NS4.x, the windows client was always more optimized).
Re:PS2 manufacturing cost.
on
PS2 As PC
·
· Score: 1
Just think. You could put in your Linux/AOL ps2 disc, and pay Sony/AOL a monthly fee to browse the web and send email.
This is also not stopping you from buying games and playing them when you're not using the web.
There are some really good ps2 games coming out now.. If I had a job and didn't live with my mommy, I might get one:)
Im sure this isn't mission critical medical software that lives depend on.
The PS1 isn't reliability tested to live/death uses.
The physical data needs to be read off a spinning, motorized, plastic disc which is read by a laser which is moved mechanically. To top it off, all of these motorized functions are exposed to the elements, i.e. when you open the lid for cdrom access.
It could be used for stuff like ultrasounds maybe.. Who knows.. but definately not in the operating room.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying I should pay microsft for the priveledge of running linux?
No thanks.
If Compaq wasn't so pussy whipped, maybe they'd sell an ipaq without wince and with linux. But oh, that's right, their CEO is a weenie from the accounting department.
Uh, ok. that ws completely irrelevent.
HAhaha, I hope that religious stuff was meant to be humorous. :)
I always laugh when I see "God fearing". If god means tornados, Car accidents, and cancer, then I guess I fear god as well.
This is obviously a troll. But I'll say two things in reply.
1: Windows costs alot of money. Around $200 for win2k. Not only that, but the EULA is very burdensome for businesses and home users alike, and offers no route for custom modification.
2: The performance difference between BSD and Linux is marginal at best, and is highly dependant on what application you are running. If you point me to the byte.com tests, those were obviously crippled machines (64MB ram) that accentuated FreeBSD's VM subsystem. Not exactly fair to linux2.4. I can point you to a website that shows linux beating FreeBSD by a very large margin. Check it out.
(As far as security is concerned, a skilled admin can secure linux as tight as most any of the *BSD's. OpenBSD is thoroughly vetted for security holes, so I dont know, and it also has a very limited, feature-wise, default install, which helps.)
Dont be such an imp :)
/usr/local/ beef? heh Wuss.
If cdparanoia is bitching about the wrong libc.so.6.... WELL FSCKING COMPILE IT YOURSELF!!!
That's the beauty of Free Software. And by the way, cdparanoia is PAINLESS to compile and install... What, scared of a little
Not really. Intel will price tualatins higer than coppermines.
Intel will also have a variant of tualatin with 512KB of cache. Not only is tualatin superior (especially for mobile devices and overclockers), intel says its superior and is marketing it as a superior product.
If you read the interview you'll see that Jim Gettys points out that X is not bloated. More precicely, it gets the bloated reputation from moron unix users who dont know how to read top or ps correctly.
Further, he points out that the full X implementation for the ipaq runs in less than 700k of ram. (if you want Xrender extensions that'll cost you about 300-400k).
So lets cut the crap, X is not bloated. If you were trying to be funny.. ah well. nice try, but no cigar.
I encourage people to read the interview before commenting.
That's a very good point. The more publicity this gets, the more MS's hand will be forced into concessions. Although another way of looking at is, the more we let MS do monopolistic things, the sooner they will be broken up. I dont know the path of least resistence to MS devolution. You got any ideas?
Awesome. That's good news, mr 10Ghz :) I'm glad nokia has some balls. Maybe it's the brisk air up there. :)
Duh, revenues count more than earnings in for growth companies. :) heh, it worked for amazon (sorta).
Consensus Estimates, Revenue Estimates, Average.
_ _______$75M
This Quarter(7/2001)Next Quarter(10/2001)This Year(1/2002)Next Year(1/2003) $4.0M_______________$5.7M________________$21M____
Link to yahoo financial research on TiVO
I dont know where you got your numbers, but they aren't the facts reported on yahoo.com
TiVO is alive and well, but oh yeah, you're just flame baiting.
I think microsoft paid nokia alot of money recently. After they announced the linux product.
I dont think we'll be seeing the nokia box any time soon.
Check out this register article about recent Canoodling between MS and Nokia.
From a practical standpoint, and an OEM standpoint, MS probably will have total control over them. (lets say they control 80% of smart tag implementations).
.xml file? That's irrelevant. You may not care about 80% of the people who use operating systems, but I have a tiny nook in my soul for them, poor fellows.
:) hahahha, sorry ol' chum ol' pal. Maybe we can make up and drink a few pints at the pub? On me.
Who cares if a hacker-type can change an
Heh, You got me on the offensive thing though. I confess, I berated you
I have no problem with that.
:P except for duping the masses into visiting your profit centers. (You'd have to dupe them initially just to get them to install the damned thing. lets face not many people are.)
.NET to come. Sure other people can play in microsoft's "innovated" new marketplace that they created.. But really, it's not for them. It's for MS. It's so they can leverage (that word is used too much, really) windows users into more and more MS profit centers. Of course they couldn't do this without a monopoly.
Not that I see much use in it
So what's the practical value of this new feature? Really no practical value for every day users. There's alot of value for microsoft in this, and they stand to gain the most. All other players in the Microsoft Innovated Net of the future will really be bit players at best.
I really think this is a taste of the
Sorry to disappoint you. But this is MS turf. You gotta be defensive and on-gaurd. Saying "well we can all do what MS is doing with this feature" is lying to yourself. Technically, you can do what MS will do, but in practice it aint worth two shits (for a business, not a hacker's ego).
Cheer up buddy. If you're so sad smoke a dube, and turn on some dylan.
Gee it's configurable.
So who's going to want to change it.
Microsoft (#1 canditate, prime suspect).
OEM's (A slimy group of money grubbing semi-legal organizations, who couldnt give a fuck about their customers (in general)).
Last but not least, ISP's. (I'm sure they'd love to redirect you to their corperate sponsored Shopping channels)
End users arent going to want to change this. They'd have no reason to.
Also, Why would anyone even care to change the redirects? it makes no sense for an end user to even care about that.
first of all, it costs too much effort.
second, bookmarks are a better facility for this (from an end-user point of view).
I dont think you understand the issue.
.xml file to change their redirects.
Ok let me point out something to you.
95% of windows users aren't going to edit a
Ok Clue time.
Why would ANYONE want to change a redirect file?! THAT"S WHAT BOOKMARKS ARE FOR.
Who has an interest in changing this?
1. Microsoft (obviously they have alot to gain)
2. OEM's (Changing copyrighted material to gain financially is what every OEM worth its salt guns for)
3. ISP's, again profiting from changing other people's copyrighted material..
Final thoughts.
How dare you try to deceive us? Who cares that the end user can change the redirects?! The end user has NO USE DOING THAT. It provides NOTHING for the end user, to change them himself. HE HAS BOOKMARKS for that purpose.
(sorry for the anger, but this schmuck is obviously clueless and/or deceitful).
>then we should applaud this feature, as it will
.NET proprietary internet.
>allow millions to finally venture out into the
>web as a whole, and increase connectivity
>massively.
Do you realize that it's microsoft that picks the sites that other people can go to with this new "feature"?
So if there's an AOL page, MS could redirect you to MSN on some tricky word or phrase having to do with getting a subscription or whatnot.
(copyright)
>well you could say the same thing about proxy
>services like Junkbuster, which strip certain
>elements out of webpages before the user sees
>them.
The difference here is that you are exercising your fair use rights by removing unsightly material from the webpages you view. Whereas with Microsoft's "innovation" they are altering the copyrighted material for _commercial monetary gain_, which could be in direct competitive conflict the the very sight it's altering. You'd have to have your head up your arse not to see the lawsuits this will spurn. Maybe someone should slip an email to the appealate justices hearing the MS antitrust appeal. I hope their clerks are on the ball here, passing along important developments in monopoly abuse.
It's clear, to me at least, that microsoft is abusnig its monopoly again - on the way to turning the Web into the Microsoft
Linux is for those who value the freedom to see the source -- that's it.
I think I should clear this up with you. The freedom to see the source is only one of many Freedoms that Free Software users value. I've included a link to the GPL FAQ for your personal edification.
GNU GPL FAQ
Specific Freedoms advocated by the FSF and implemented in the GPL
Hahah, this guy finds one instance of incompatability in a linux distro and then declares the argument a wash.
Good lord, what are they teaching in schools now a days. Where's the critical thinking?!
If Nvidia has their head on their shoulders and aren't taking one in the rear for good ol' MS, then they should release the AGP-gart specs, the IDE-UDMA specs, the USB specs (they'll probably use a current standard), and the LAN specs (the chip has lan core too! gad zooks.)
What I'm skeptical they will release is their new Sound Chip specs. Their new sound core is currently better than anything on the market. It can handle 128 2d voices, and 64 3d voices, all simultaneously, which is alot better than Emu10k(sblive).
What I am convinced they wont release specs on, not in a million years, is their geforce2-MX graphics core. But this is moot, somewhat, by the fact that Nvidia releases solid 3d drivers for Linux (binary-only) that perform better than Win2k on average. (not better than win98, go figure).
Heh, I think the #1 thing that would make Linux on PS/2 a success is if Mozilla became more optimized for X11 !!!.
As it is right now, the Windows client is much faster and much more optimized than the Linux/X11 client, and probably because that's where most of the development resources went to (Like with NS4.x, the windows client was always more optimized).
Just think. You could put in your Linux/AOL ps2 disc, and pay Sony/AOL a monthly fee to browse the web and send email.
:)
This is also not stopping you from buying games and playing them when you're not using the web.
There are some really good ps2 games coming out now.. If I had a job and didn't live with my mommy, I might get one
Im sure this isn't mission critical medical software that lives depend on.
The PS1 isn't reliability tested to live/death uses.
The physical data needs to be read off a spinning, motorized, plastic disc which is read by a laser which is moved mechanically. To top it off, all of these motorized functions are exposed to the elements, i.e. when you open the lid for cdrom access.
It could be used for stuff like ultrasounds maybe.. Who knows.. but definately not in the operating room.