You have to explain to me how those results reflect the comparative history of the two topics.
Otherwise, you will have made the same mistake as the person who wrote the article, i.e., do some simple search, don't think, then write an article based upon incomplete data.
Most of the items on the list had a significant marketshare at their peak, except OS/2. Why is OS/2 even on the list? I'd put FORTRAN on the list before I put OS/2 there.
The article hints at (but avoids talking about) what I think is the main reason: people buy PCs, not Windows. PCs come with Windows pre-installed. Anyone who wants to run Linux has a job to do:
Why is it that the average computer user still chooses to spend hundreds of dollars on Windows or Mac when there are countless Linux alternatives that they could download, install and make use of completely free of charge? How many typical Windows users want to download and install a new operating system? How many typical Windows users even know (or care) what an operating system is?
Why did Adrian Kingsley-Hughes write such a lame article?:)
If you had said "I think" or "I thought", you wouldn't have sounded like a "knows-better-than-you" kind of person. Linguistics and all that.
That's why I ended the statement with a question mark. I was not stating it as a fact, but I was asking it as a question.
One person correctly read my syntax, and provided a helpful answer (for which I thanked him/her). If I were a "knows-better-than-you" kind of person, as you assert, I doubt if I would have been so thankful towards the person who helped me.
The question mark at the end of the sentence indicates humility.
I admit that I do not know, therefore I ask. Thus is the reason for the question mark.
Why are drivers cluttering up the kernel? Doesn't that mean that the kernel is ever-increasing in size and complexity as more drivers are added to the kernel? Two things that a reliable kernel should avoid?
An even bigger difference that you neglect to mention: the 802.11b/g uses an antenna to disperse the radiation over a wide area, while the microwave uses shielding to contain the radiation within the cooking cavity.
To do a proper comparison, you need to look at the amount of microwave power that a microwave oven leaks through/around its shielding, and compare that to the amount of power emitted from a 802.11b/g access point.
802.11a uses the 5GHz range, out of the way of microwave ovens.
2.4GHz was used because it was available for use, i.e., it would not interfere with frequencies already allocated to other services in the microwave area.
In other words, the thought process (if you can call it that) was not, "let's find a frequency for 802.11b that is free of interference from other sources". It was more along the lines of, "let's find a frequency for 802.11b so that 802.11b won't mess up anything of import, i.e., microwave ovens don't really care about interference from your wireless router.
By the way, the same "thought" process was used to pick a frequency for the 2.4GHx wireless phones.
802.11b/g uses 2.4GHz radio waves. That's the same frequency range as microwave ovens. Microwave ovens work because the microwaves are absorbed by the bonds in the water molecules of food (which is why dry food does not cook in microwave ovens).
So yes, human tissue that contains water can absorb WiFi radiation. That is a fact.
What is not known is: how much absorption of that radiation is bad for the kids?
The quotes from the "Internet Tidal Wave" memo should be counted as misses. Gates, and Microsoft, were caught unaware of the impending power of the Internet. Only belately (as the article states) did Gates realize this and write the memo.
If Gates were really a great seer, he would have written the Internet Tidal Wave memo in 1990, not after the wave rolled onto the beach in 1996.
I am wondering why all this effort over the past year to pump up Gates' reputation? Has his illegal activities so ruined his reputation that there is an active effort in place to clean Gates' reputation for the history books?
It fascinates me that this is framed as a "Free Speech" issue. The airwaves that XM uses aren't of the public variety, it has nothing to do with constitutional amendments.
Free speech is not just applicable to public venues. Consider the old chestnut about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. The theater is not a public venue, yet you do not have theright of free speech to yell "fire" at will (unless, of course, there really is a fire).
Free speech is not absolute, if it were, the SCOTUS would have nothing to do.
Here's another editorial piece from a couple of months ago when Microsoft tried to do the same number twisting:
Microsoft's claim of 20 million Vista licenses sold simply doesn't add up when trying to assess who realistically bought them in the time frame"in the opening month"stated in today's press release.
Further, the press release claims that "Windows Vista made a splash in its debut."
What kind of Kool-Aid are they drinking up there in Redmond? Who spiked the Windows Vista-logo soda cans?
"Clearly there haven't been 20 million PCs sold worldwide since Jan. 30, and we're really only talking about February," said Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis.
License sales are good public relations fodder, but they're real world merits stop there. By every reasonable measurePCs and retail boxed salesMicrosoft's numbers don't add up with the 20 million figure in one month.
The company used the 20 million in-one-month figure compared to 17 million Windows XP licenses in two-and-a-half months to bolster its Vista gangbusters sales claim.
Just like vulnerability alerts aren't a good measure of Vista security, number of licenses sold is no way to reckon the operating system's sales success.
The number's meaning collapses for three simple reasons:
Microsoft's sales period for the license sales is significantly longer than 30 days - more like four months.
License sales into the channel do not correspond to actual Vista PC sales out of the channel.
The numbers don't match up with real world PC sales volumes.
By my accounting, Vista is actually off to a slower start than Windows XP, using real world comparisons.
You realize you're citing an editorial piece, not an actual article, right? And that's an editorial piece from an IT magazine that is about as anti-Microsoft as Slashdot.
You realize that if the numbers cited in the editorial piece are incorrect, that you can provide the correct ones?
Trying to make a failed product launch look like a success.
Fortunately, there are articles that take a more rational view of how many copies of Vista are actually being sold.
The headline is simple, 40 million copies sold. Wow, we rox0rz! This is twice as fast as the XP adoption rate. What he didn't mention is that sales of PCs have more than doubled since XP came out. Silly Vole, no statistical cookie.
The problem? Well, PCs sell at about 60 million units a quarter, and everyone we talk to expects sales of around 240-245 million units in 2007. Vista went on sale at the end of November for corporate customers, and one would expect a fair chunk of sales there from pent-up demand.
What you infer is not what I necessarily imply. However, if the first thing that you think of is that IE contributes to Windows inferior security architecture, then all I can say is 'go for it'.
His comments show that Microsoft obviously still does not understand the FOSS movement. Microsoft lacks the framework to understand what it is about. Microsoft is all about putting competitors out of business, not delivering high-quality software. As such, Microsoft will never understand FOSS.
When Linux has 90+% of the worldwide PC installations, then I suspect we will see a similar bias against Linux.
Until then, Microsoft has completely abdicated its responsibility of providing a secure operating system, and should be routinely called to task for that.
A simple application like the IE web browser is tightly integrated into the operating system in order to get around anti-trust laws. How dumb is that?
Perhaps Windows is attacked so much because it is the most popular operating system. However, those attacks succeed so frequently because the security architecture of Windows is so poor.
Slashdot Mirror
Otherwise, you will have made the same mistake as the person who wrote the article, i.e., do some simple search, don't think, then write an article based upon incomplete data.
I agree. I was one of those who used OS/2 in a business environment instead of the then popular Windows 3.1.
But still, it did not have a significant marketshare.
Most of the items on the list had a significant marketshare at their peak, except OS/2. Why is OS/2 even on the list? I'd put FORTRAN on the list before I put OS/2 there.
The questions were very rational. Just because you might not like them, does not make them irrational.
Try researching before making outlandish statements.
They were questions, not statements.
Why did Adrian Kingsley-Hughes write such a lame article? :)
That's why I ended the statement with a question mark. I was not stating it as a fact, but I was asking it as a question.
One person correctly read my syntax, and provided a helpful answer (for which I thanked him/her). If I were a "knows-better-than-you" kind of person, as you assert, I doubt if I would have been so thankful towards the person who helped me.
I think that ever increasing size and complexity are things that a reliable kernel should avoid. What is wrong with that?
The question mark at the end of the sentence indicates humility. I admit that I do not know, therefore I ask. Thus is the reason for the question mark.
Maybe you should try to understand that some people ask questions in an attempt to learn, and not to troll.
OK, that makes sense. Thanks for the rational answer.
Why are drivers cluttering up the kernel? Doesn't that mean that the kernel is ever-increasing in size and complexity as more drivers are added to the kernel? Two things that a reliable kernel should avoid?
An even bigger difference that you neglect to mention: the 802.11b/g uses an antenna to disperse the radiation over a wide area, while the microwave uses shielding to contain the radiation within the cooking cavity.
To do a proper comparison, you need to look at the amount of microwave power that a microwave oven leaks through/around its shielding, and compare that to the amount of power emitted from a 802.11b/g access point.
2.4GHz was used because it was available for use, i.e., it would not interfere with frequencies already allocated to other services in the microwave area.
In other words, the thought process (if you can call it that) was not, "let's find a frequency for 802.11b that is free of interference from other sources". It was more along the lines of, "let's find a frequency for 802.11b so that 802.11b won't mess up anything of import, i.e., microwave ovens don't really care about interference from your wireless router.
By the way, the same "thought" process was used to pick a frequency for the 2.4GHx wireless phones.
802.11b/g uses 2.4GHz radio waves. That's the same frequency range as microwave ovens. Microwave ovens work because the microwaves are absorbed by the bonds in the water molecules of food (which is why dry food does not cook in microwave ovens).
So yes, human tissue that contains water can absorb WiFi radiation. That is a fact.
What is not known is: how much absorption of that radiation is bad for the kids?
If Gates were really a great seer, he would have written the Internet Tidal Wave memo in 1990, not after the wave rolled onto the beach in 1996.
I am wondering why all this effort over the past year to pump up Gates' reputation? Has his illegal activities so ruined his reputation that there is an active effort in place to clean Gates' reputation for the history books?
At what point will the people who are selling these items find out that they have chased away their prospective customer base?
How long will it be before those customers have the confidence to buy from these vendors again?
Free speech is not just applicable to public venues. Consider the old chestnut about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. The theater is not a public venue, yet you do not have theright of free speech to yell "fire" at will (unless, of course, there really is a fire).
Free speech is not absolute, if it were, the SCOTUS would have nothing to do.
Microsoft's claim of 20 million Vista licenses sold simply doesn't add up when trying to assess who realistically bought them in the time frame"in the opening month"stated in today's press release. Further, the press release claims that "Windows Vista made a splash in its debut." What kind of Kool-Aid are they drinking up there in Redmond? Who spiked the Windows Vista-logo soda cans? "Clearly there haven't been 20 million PCs sold worldwide since Jan. 30, and we're really only talking about February," said Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis. License sales are good public relations fodder, but they're real world merits stop there. By every reasonable measurePCs and retail boxed salesMicrosoft's numbers don't add up with the 20 million figure in one month. The company used the 20 million in-one-month figure compared to 17 million Windows XP licenses in two-and-a-half months to bolster its Vista gangbusters sales claim. Just like vulnerability alerts aren't a good measure of Vista security, number of licenses sold is no way to reckon the operating system's sales success. The number's meaning collapses for three simple reasons:
By my accounting, Vista is actually off to a slower start than Windows XP, using real world comparisons.
You realize that if the numbers cited in the editorial piece are incorrect, that you can provide the correct ones?
Fortunately, there are articles that take a more rational view of how many copies of Vista are actually being sold.
The headline is simple, 40 million copies sold. Wow, we rox0rz! This is twice as fast as the XP adoption rate. What he didn't mention is that sales of PCs have more than doubled since XP came out. Silly Vole, no statistical cookie. The problem? Well, PCs sell at about 60 million units a quarter, and everyone we talk to expects sales of around 240-245 million units in 2007. Vista went on sale at the end of November for corporate customers, and one would expect a fair chunk of sales there from pent-up demand.
What you infer is not what I necessarily imply. However, if the first thing that you think of is that IE contributes to Windows inferior security architecture, then all I can say is 'go for it'.
His comments show that Microsoft obviously still does not understand the FOSS movement. Microsoft lacks the framework to understand what it is about. Microsoft is all about putting competitors out of business, not delivering high-quality software. As such, Microsoft will never understand FOSS.
Until then, Microsoft has completely abdicated its responsibility of providing a secure operating system, and should be routinely called to task for that.
I never said it did. What I did say was that Windows has an insecure architecture.
I also said that IE was integrated into Windows in order to get around the anti-trust laws (remember Ballmer's infamous ham sandwich remark?).
Perhaps Windows is attacked so much because it is the most popular operating system. However, those attacks succeed so frequently because the security architecture of Windows is so poor.