You should test on some 10 Linuxes (including 2-years old stock of all major distributions), on all BSDs, on Solaris x86.
But how can you be sure that it works if you rely on a virtual environment over the real thing? When your virtual environment has a bug somewhere there is a change you mistake it for a bug in your software. Then what? Ease of use isn't everything. Suppose you were faced with the situation I just mentioned; then it would take you a tremendous amount of time finding & solving your problem(s) while you could have prevented this when using the real thing.
Those are indeed nice issue's allthough I still can't understand why your company would invest in VMWare while they could also make sure that you can grab your email from their server using pop3 instead of the need for Exchange (in other words; thats how I would have done it:-)). Offcourse this isn't a perfect situation when you need to be able to access specific stuff like house style emails and such, but being a developer like you said I somehow doubt that this would be the case.
If this just involves yourself I can see your point. But if this is the case for more, say 5 and up, I would consider it a waste of money.
...why anyone would even want to use virtual machines like VMWare and others (like this one). I can understand that people like to run their specific Windows software in the environment they like best. It was no different for me a few years back when I still used OS/2 Connect and later on Warp. My normal (pm) desktop featured many native OS/2 programs while my Windows (3.11) "desktop" featured an allmost exact copy of the environment which Compaq offered you back then (Presario 480CDT iirc (486DX4/90Mhz)) and most programs could run in this environment. But the main reason for me to use this from time to time was the simple fact that some Window programs were better in handeling certain tasks then OS/2's. Handeling Word documents for example, back then a pain for OS/2 but very very easy in WinOS/2 (MS Works actually could do much more then most people realized:-)).
But today things are completely different on Linux IMO. Where the regular tasks are concerned (hey, everyone needs to write a cv every now and then:)) you can find software for allmost anything. Word and even beyond (Excell, etc, etc) can be handled by most major suits (Staroffice (my personal favorite), WordPerfect, Applix, etc.) and in some cases it'll cost you nothing at all (not counting download times). Back then I could use Works just because Compaq shipped it with my PC. Bottom line; for allmost every task you want to do there is native Linux software available. Most of it is free and others cost you some money but thats the case in allmost every OS (one of the main reasons I had some difficulties letting go of OS/2; all those cool registered software).
So basicly there isn't really a need for these virtual environments for just running specific Windows based software. Most of 'm could be handeled by the likes of Wine anyway (considering that you really are looking for native Linux software first before moving back to Windows based programs). In several discussions people told me that this wasn't the point to focus on; it was development. When people need to develop software they can depend on virtual environments so that they can use the OS of choice (either Windows or Linux, in most cases it goes both ways) and develop for the other.
I think that this is one big reason & risk for another load of bl0ated software, think of it... What you are basicly doing is building software for an environment which is completely simulated by another one. When you do program / do certain specific tasks you don't have any clue what so ever what'll happen and if it will happen as it should simply due to the fact that you are completely dependend on the way the 'simulation' does its job. In the terms of your average Windows (visual) development environment this would mean depending on the way the visual dev. env. does its thing (very often producing massive (bl0ated) code) and also how well the simulation does its job. If one of them has bugs (and you can be sure that they do) your software is at risk. In rare cases you could be producing software which runs flawlessly in the simulator but is highly instable in the real environment.
Therefor I still do not understand why anyone would even want to do its developing in such environments. I can, to a certain extend, see why people want to do this on their private projects but when business is concerned (some of these virtual machines are focused on business environments as well) I think that you are doing an extremely bad thing(tm) when you choose a want-to-be over the real product. Sure; developing Windows software in Linux may sound c00l ("wow, Linux can even do that?") but anyone with some sense would choose the right product for the right job. I know I would.
VOS itself is also the (iirc patented) name of a (afaik not commonly used / available) operating system (CP/M / Unix like) which runs on specific high-end servers. Unfortunatly I only worked with it for a week (using "help" and "list", the latter for getting a directory) and can't recall the server manufactorer from mind. The reason the company using this equipment choose this environment was due to its capability to access around 64+ serial ports.
So knowing that the name VOS is allready there I really can't take this article serious.
Last week, my friend got a call at 2am in the middle of the forest while camping, one of his companies servers needed rebooted and the tech didn't know the command!! I don't want that..
IMHO he's got no one to kick but himself. You can switch a cellular off. Personally I never leave it on while I'm asleep. In fact, it can be a good thing(tm) as well, its harder to completely unplug your regular phone.
As long as there are new features to add, there are new customers.
Well, that heavily depends on a very important factor; costs. If its very expensive to upgrade to such a new device it will withold quite some people from upgrading. If the cost of ownership (usage costs) are higher even more people won't consider upgrading. And thats exactly where we are headed these days; there a lot of new gizmo's coming out but who needs 'm? Further more; who wants to spend a large amount of money as well. I guess a decreasing number of people, like the article mentions. You'll have to take that into consideration when you want to develop such new features.
I'm unfamilier about the situation in other countries but in Holland you can get cellulars pretty cheap if you either get yourself a subscribtion for a network (which lasts for around 2 - 3 years) or you can also buy a phone pre-paid. People who do that usually don't really care about new advanced techniques; all they care about is being able to call (or be called) for as less as possible. When they do want to switch mobiles they usually get themselves a complete new subscription (or other prepaid). So the high-end phones are really made for people who either really need it or actually want it. Personally I don't think there are that much around.
Most people don't realize the real costs of a cellular phone. I started out with a Nokia 2110i myself and after 3 years I wanted something more so I bought myself an Ericsson SH888 which I still own (mainly due to its irda & modem facilities) and I don't see myself changing phones very soon. I have all the access I need with my Psion series 5mx. I can easily send/receive SMS, email, fax. I can browse the Inet and all of that without any hassle like cables etc. What else would you need?
And then there is allways WAP. IMVHO a pathetic way to try and sell even more phones which I'm pretty sure will fail alltogether. The whole Gopher concept seems to have failed horribly on the (cheap) Internet, do you really think that it will re-live on another (expensive) medium? I don't think so...
If they really want to innovate they should move on IMHO. A lot of people start complaining about radiation emitting from phones so pick up the oppertunity and go on. Like you could see at the last CeBIT; sattelite phones with the size of an old(er) cellular. Who needs GSM antenna's when you can directly use a sattelite (which could send to some relaystation which could spreaden the signal using another frequency band)? If you want to make more money on phones I personally believe thats where to get it. Offcourse it needs investment (I don't keep up with the developments but I doubt that these products are 'consumer ready') but thats the case for everything nowadays.
I'm not an hard core developer myself but when "weblications" are concerned: don't we got Zope to handle these things allready? One of its main advantages is at least the fact that its totally independent because it uses a browser for its primary interface.
IMHO these so called artists should stick with what they seem to be good at. Which, in most cases, is to produce piles of junk and collect money for it. I think this whole evolution is getting way out of hand and I sure hope that they won't get any influence in the design of computers. A computer is supposed to be functional; not a form of decoration.
We've seen art "evolve" from making paintings and statues to throwing paint on the canvas and calling it a painting up to dumping piles of metal junk on the grass and calling it art (to bad about corrosion) right up to stringing up dead horses in a tree (another exclusive form of "art"). I really don't think we need that crap in the technology sector. While I admire these "artists" for getting paid for doing IMHO absolutely nothing for it I don't feel good about letting them decide how the machine would operate and feel. This is a totally different sector; people need to work with these devices, which takes another form of expertise. Judging by most of the modern "art" I really doubt that most artists are capable of having some consideration for the public.
Quick; where can I grab myself a copy of the Nuclear-Reactor-HOWTO.tgz (pref. >= version 2.6 which has the Tsjernobyl update)? Once I located that one I'm ready to build my own powersource which will reduce my bill. Then I can spend that money on my phonebill for Internet access;) I knew that, in the end, Inet visits would pay themselves;)
There is IMVHO no justification in any business to focus yourself completely on the history of computers. Simply due to the fact that its history is written down from a to x (x being undefined here) and despite the fun you may have by checking up on older computers the information it gives you is just obsolete.
Take for example XT based computers. Believe it or not but these machines are still being used by some corporations due to the simple fact that they can handle do what they need to do and its a waste of money to upgrade 'm with other machines when there is no need. But when there is an error and such a machine does crash the company sure won't call out for an 'historian' to tell them what they need in order to fix it. Thats simply too expensive. Its far more easy to buy a new PC (which is offcourse downwards compatible with XT machines (iow; any other PC)) and off you go.
I'd advice you not to focus on this subject from a 'business point of view' but I sure would advice you to spend some time on this subject in your spare time. If you like the idea of seeking information on older computers and also focus on the way they work you can learn much more about the whole 'computer aspect' then you can learn from studying books like "computer internals" and such. Its much easier to begin simple (XT) and work your way up to the current machines. Offcourse this will take more time then it does to study a book, but it sure will pay off more. For starters it will give you more insights in the working of the machines, which automaticly can lead to more insights on the internals of OS's which can lead to..... Well, I guess you get the picture:) Good luck!
"Our intent is to support existing Linux applications and drivers on an optimized NOS [network operating system] kernel that provides comparable performance metrics to today's Netware product line."
Thats all very nice to hear but when you take a look at the current server market (and the market shares offcourse) you will notice that Novell's share is decreasing very rapidly. Despite the fact that their NOS is a very robust and stable one its obvious, judging by the statistics, that the people want something else (more) nowadays. One could speculate on how people seemed to loose interest, IMHO one of the reasons is due to their own 'special' way of supporting TCP/IP but thats besides the point.
So I wonder why they want to focus on a complete new OS, which is based on a fading one, instead of supporting the currently available OS'ses even better? Sure; a Netware based OS which can also run Linux applications sounds nice but not necessary; if I need Linux support I'd just setup another server running Linux, its free remember?
As for the Netware part; if I'd have to choose between a (proven) stable NOS like netware or a new (free) product on the market I'd choose for Netware. Thats how it works when running a business. Even these folks feel the same on this: "Our first target shipment is geared to providing NetWare 4.11 NDS and networking capability in an open-source form to Novell's existing customers,". This also sounds very promising but don't forget that they plan to release somewhere in "the second half of 2001". How many Netware users will be left then? No one can predict this for sure but I really don't think it will be enough to make this whole product commonly accepted. It would take time, much effort and a lot of people supporting it.
If these folks really want to give out more support for Netware I'd personally suggest focusing on building and extending NDS support for Linux instead of selling it.
Sure, all those researches for better performance can be quite interesting and for the specific needs also a good thing(tm). But what I don't understand is that the race for better and faster hardware is still raging on (PIII 1Ghz and up) yet no one seems to care about the software running it. All the stories nowadays which cover performance increase totally focus on hardware upgrades yet no one seems to be interested in a true way to regain performance; the software.
Lets face it; a lot of commercial software out there is bloatware of the finest. Recently I did a small test with some friends who also had a laptop; pentium 160Mhz, 64Mb internal memory, 4Gb harddisk, 12.x" LCD screen and running Windows 95. My laptop is a PIII 550Mhz, Win98, 6Gb hardisk and has a 14" TFT screen. Both were equiped with a PCMCIA network card. We put the laptops next to each other and booted the machines. The 95 machine was waay done while mine was just past the PCMCI initialization. And no; my machine does not have major programs which are loaded during boot; its a very plain Win98 installation, most commonly used for office applications and demonstration purposes.
Second example is something which most people experienced afaik; if you take win98 running on a PII266 Mhz and on a PIII500 Mhz you will notice some increase in performance but not as drastic as it could be. If you compare all these Windows based experiences with an environment as Linux, BeOS or OS/2 (I haven't played around with BSD myself) then you'll notice that by using environments like Windows you don't use the hardware to its full capabilities.
Offcourse I do realize that this isn't an issue in all cases. Not everyone uses Windows and in some environments the software is allready at the 'cutting edge' in which there is no more performance to gain by adjusting the software.
But if you focus on the consumers market then the remark "We'll have to rely on innovations like this to go faster" is not the issue.
Everyone is talking about stable potato's. What ever happened to the "Joel 'Espy' Klecker" release (also peek at the Debian site? Is your memory (pointed at the posters in here who referred to Potato) really that short termed? Its not potato thats gone stable; its espy.
-Personal rant ON-
This makes me kinda sick. Even though I don't know Espy, never chatted with 'm and heard from him when he passed away, I really have a strange feeling after reading the/. story about his death and all the comments on it. Everyone sympathized yet no one is able to remeber the posting for even 1 month? Do a search on 'Espy' on this page and it turns out to nothing. Thats a strange way of showing that you sympathized with the going ons IMVHO.
-Personal rant OFF-
And you probably don't want those with hundreds of machines to download the distribution to each?
You don't have to, thats why I agree with the original poster. Just stack those.deb files in one big pile and point apt-get to it. OR use the nifty tool apt-move and create your own personalised installation CD.
I agree with you on most parts allthough I do believe that some suspicion could never hurt. Like it or not but the goverment, no matter in which country you are, makes mistakes. Some small, some severe. If it weren't for people keeping an eye out, which also includes those 'paranoid people', a lot of these mistakes would not be discovered alltogether. In many cases its no big deal but in some rare case it is. Even though I agree with you that most people see way to much things going on which aren't there (IMHO, I can also only guess here) your arguments work both ways. Those people could move to another country. But you could just as easy ignore their comments as well. Sure, most exagurate (prob. spelled horribly wrong) but sticking your head in the sand and ignore everything isn't the answer as well IMHO.
This microchip will include biosensors that will measure the biological parameters of the body and store this information.
In other words; measuring parameters which tend to change from time to time. Where is the security? I mean; I guess it could tranfer those parameters as well as the position of the owner but I don't think it will be using any encryption or something. So basicly I'd call it a nice tracking device but thats about it. IMHO its 'improving' "e business secutiry" simply because e-business is in the picture.
I agree with most parts of your posting, yet this one puzzles me: If that old document happens to contain password-protected tax data, and no modern software will read it, where does the user turn to but to abandonware?.
When talking tax data they should dive into their software archive IMHO. If they own files containing stuff like tax data they also owned the software. If they threw out the software before converting their data they got no one to kick but themselves. IMHO this is not a valid excuse to break the law.
Yet if I don't break the law, this music will eventually disappear completely.
So keep on to it untill the copyright has gone (thats after 30 years btw) and make sure you are the first one to claim the rights. After that you can do with the music whatever you want. Even sue others for violating the copyright on which you spended your hard earned money.
Oh; and if you want examples; I guess you've heard of the Abba teens? And I don't know about other countries but didn't you notice a large amount of "easy reconizable" tunes in commercials and stuff like that? The fact that you reconize some is not allways because of the way the music is composed. In most cases its due to the fact that the company is using music which is more then 30 years old.
Allthough I do wonder if that time span of 5 years isn't a bit short. In some cases vendors tend to bundle their software together in order to sell it, once again, in some form of "the best off". IIRC its adventure games (they need some time to solve anyway) which tend to be bundled over the years.
The most recent examples of this coming to my mind are the Dragonlance series from SSI (Champions of Krynn, Death Knight of Krynn and the Dark Queen of Krynn (see the Dragonlance site) which were bundled in the so called "Forgotten realms collection". And there is offcourse the Ultima series which also got bundled (episode 1 - 8 iirc).
If you compare that with an action game like Half Life you'll notice a difference. It was quite recently when I picked up a bundle offering Half life & opposing force. So basicly I think its kinda hard to take a period of 5 years and consider everything older then 5 years obsolete.
Intel then accused Sun of not doing enough work to port Solar to its own 64-bit technology.
Hmz, I call that very narrow minded, or perhaps 'biased' would be the better phrase. As a matter of fact Microsoft (Windows and other programs) sometimes also don't support the processor as efficiently as they could. The Pentium processor has been around for quite some time now (I'm referring to the plain Pentium (I?) btw) yet it took a lot of developers ages before any decent Pentium based software came out. I've debugged quite some software back then just to see in which way Pentium based software really did differ with the rest and I was quite surprised to make this discovery.
Offcourse I don't judge all the software outthere, don't get me wrong, but if Windows in those days also didn't use the processor to its full extent then I have a difficult time believing that they are doing so now (speculation, mind you). But why didn't Intel complain about that, and still seem to complain about Sun?
Slashdot Mirror
But how can you be sure that it works if you rely on a virtual environment over the real thing? When your virtual environment has a bug somewhere there is a change you mistake it for a bug in your software. Then what? Ease of use isn't everything. Suppose you were faced with the situation I just mentioned; then it would take you a tremendous amount of time finding & solving your problem(s) while you could have prevented this when using the real thing.
If this just involves yourself I can see your point. But if this is the case for more, say 5 and up, I would consider it a waste of money.
But today things are completely different on Linux IMO. Where the regular tasks are concerned (hey, everyone needs to write a cv every now and then :)) you can find software for allmost anything. Word and even beyond (Excell, etc, etc) can be handled by most major suits (Staroffice (my personal favorite), WordPerfect, Applix, etc.) and in some cases it'll cost you nothing at all (not counting download times). Back then I could use Works just because Compaq shipped it with my PC. Bottom line; for allmost every task you want to do there is native Linux software available. Most of it is free and others cost you some money but thats the case in allmost every OS (one of the main reasons I had some difficulties letting go of OS/2; all those cool registered software).
So basicly there isn't really a need for these virtual environments for just running specific Windows based software. Most of 'm could be handeled by the likes of Wine anyway (considering that you really are looking for native Linux software first before moving back to Windows based programs). In several discussions people told me that this wasn't the point to focus on; it was development. When people need to develop software they can depend on virtual environments so that they can use the OS of choice (either Windows or Linux, in most cases it goes both ways) and develop for the other.
I think that this is one big reason & risk for another load of bl0ated software, think of it... What you are basicly doing is building software for an environment which is completely simulated by another one. When you do program / do certain specific tasks you don't have any clue what so ever what'll happen and if it will happen as it should simply due to the fact that you are completely dependend on the way the 'simulation' does its job. In the terms of your average Windows (visual) development environment this would mean depending on the way the visual dev. env. does its thing (very often producing massive (bl0ated) code) and also how well the simulation does its job. If one of them has bugs (and you can be sure that they do) your software is at risk. In rare cases you could be producing software which runs flawlessly in the simulator but is highly instable in the real environment.
Therefor I still do not understand why anyone would even want to do its developing in such environments. I can, to a certain extend, see why people want to do this on their private projects but when business is concerned (some of these virtual machines are focused on business environments as well) I think that you are doing an extremely bad thing(tm) when you choose a want-to-be over the real product. Sure; developing Windows software in Linux may sound c00l ("wow, Linux can even do that?") but anyone with some sense would choose the right product for the right job. I know I would.
Thats exactly it, thanks for refreshing my memory :-)
So knowing that the name VOS is allready there I really can't take this article serious.
Thats how the whole mobile phone standard started out as well...
IMHO he's got no one to kick but himself. You can switch a cellular off. Personally I never leave it on while I'm asleep. In fact, it can be a good thing(tm) as well, its harder to completely unplug your regular phone.
Well, that heavily depends on a very important factor; costs. If its very expensive to upgrade to such a new device it will withold quite some people from upgrading. If the cost of ownership (usage costs) are higher even more people won't consider upgrading. And thats exactly where we are headed these days; there a lot of new gizmo's coming out but who needs 'm? Further more; who wants to spend a large amount of money as well. I guess a decreasing number of people, like the article mentions. You'll have to take that into consideration when you want to develop such new features.
Most people don't realize the real costs of a cellular phone. I started out with a Nokia 2110i myself and after 3 years I wanted something more so I bought myself an Ericsson SH888 which I still own (mainly due to its irda & modem facilities) and I don't see myself changing phones very soon. I have all the access I need with my Psion series 5mx. I can easily send/receive SMS, email, fax. I can browse the Inet and all of that without any hassle like cables etc. What else would you need?
And then there is allways WAP. IMVHO a pathetic way to try and sell even more phones which I'm pretty sure will fail alltogether. The whole Gopher concept seems to have failed horribly on the (cheap) Internet, do you really think that it will re-live on another (expensive) medium? I don't think so...
If they really want to innovate they should move on IMHO. A lot of people start complaining about radiation emitting from phones so pick up the oppertunity and go on. Like you could see at the last CeBIT; sattelite phones with the size of an old(er) cellular. Who needs GSM antenna's when you can directly use a sattelite (which could send to some relaystation which could spreaden the signal using another frequency band)? If you want to make more money on phones I personally believe thats where to get it. Offcourse it needs investment (I don't keep up with the developments but I doubt that these products are 'consumer ready') but thats the case for everything nowadays.
I'm not an hard core developer myself but when "weblications" are concerned: don't we got Zope to handle these things allready? One of its main advantages is at least the fact that its totally independent because it uses a browser for its primary interface.
We've seen art "evolve" from making paintings and statues to throwing paint on the canvas and calling it a painting up to dumping piles of metal junk on the grass and calling it art (to bad about corrosion) right up to stringing up dead horses in a tree (another exclusive form of "art"). I really don't think we need that crap in the technology sector. While I admire these "artists" for getting paid for doing IMHO absolutely nothing for it I don't feel good about letting them decide how the machine would operate and feel. This is a totally different sector; people need to work with these devices, which takes another form of expertise. Judging by most of the modern "art" I really doubt that most artists are capable of having some consideration for the public.
Quick; where can I grab myself a copy of the Nuclear-Reactor-HOWTO.tgz (pref. >= version 2.6 which has the Tsjernobyl update)? Once I located that one I'm ready to build my own powersource which will reduce my bill. Then I can spend that money on my phonebill for Internet access ;) I knew that, in the end, Inet visits would pay themselves ;)
Take for example XT based computers. Believe it or not but these machines are still being used by some corporations due to the simple fact that they can handle do what they need to do and its a waste of money to upgrade 'm with other machines when there is no need. But when there is an error and such a machine does crash the company sure won't call out for an 'historian' to tell them what they need in order to fix it. Thats simply too expensive. Its far more easy to buy a new PC (which is offcourse downwards compatible with XT machines (iow; any other PC)) and off you go.
I'd advice you not to focus on this subject from a 'business point of view' but I sure would advice you to spend some time on this subject in your spare time. If you like the idea of seeking information on older computers and also focus on the way they work you can learn much more about the whole 'computer aspect' then you can learn from studying books like "computer internals" and such. Its much easier to begin simple (XT) and work your way up to the current machines. Offcourse this will take more time then it does to study a book, but it sure will pay off more. For starters it will give you more insights in the working of the machines, which automaticly can lead to more insights on the internals of OS's which can lead to..... Well, I guess you get the picture :) Good luck!
"Our intent is to support existing Linux applications and drivers on an optimized NOS [network operating system] kernel that provides comparable performance metrics to today's Netware product line."
Thats all very nice to hear but when you take a look at the current server market (and the market shares offcourse) you will notice that Novell's share is decreasing very rapidly. Despite the fact that their NOS is a very robust and stable one its obvious, judging by the statistics, that the people want something else (more) nowadays. One could speculate on how people seemed to loose interest, IMHO one of the reasons is due to their own 'special' way of supporting TCP/IP but thats besides the point.
So I wonder why they want to focus on a complete new OS, which is based on a fading one, instead of supporting the currently available OS'ses even better? Sure; a Netware based OS which can also run Linux applications sounds nice but not necessary; if I need Linux support I'd just setup another server running Linux, its free remember?
As for the Netware part; if I'd have to choose between a (proven) stable NOS like netware or a new (free) product on the market I'd choose for Netware. Thats how it works when running a business. Even these folks feel the same on this: "Our first target shipment is geared to providing NetWare 4.11 NDS and networking capability in an open-source form to Novell's existing customers,". This also sounds very promising but don't forget that they plan to release somewhere in "the second half of 2001". How many Netware users will be left then? No one can predict this for sure but I really don't think it will be enough to make this whole product commonly accepted. It would take time, much effort and a lot of people supporting it.
If these folks really want to give out more support for Netware I'd personally suggest focusing on building and extending NDS support for Linux instead of selling it.
The 95 machine just boots within aprox. 15 seconds.
Lets face it; a lot of commercial software out there is bloatware of the finest. Recently I did a small test with some friends who also had a laptop; pentium 160Mhz, 64Mb internal memory, 4Gb harddisk, 12.x" LCD screen and running Windows 95. My laptop is a PIII 550Mhz, Win98, 6Gb hardisk and has a 14" TFT screen. Both were equiped with a PCMCIA network card. We put the laptops next to each other and booted the machines. The 95 machine was waay done while mine was just past the PCMCI initialization. And no; my machine does not have major programs which are loaded during boot; its a very plain Win98 installation, most commonly used for office applications and demonstration purposes.
Second example is something which most people experienced afaik; if you take win98 running on a PII266 Mhz and on a PIII500 Mhz you will notice some increase in performance but not as drastic as it could be. If you compare all these Windows based experiences with an environment as Linux, BeOS or OS/2 (I haven't played around with BSD myself) then you'll notice that by using environments like Windows you don't use the hardware to its full capabilities.
Offcourse I do realize that this isn't an issue in all cases. Not everyone uses Windows and in some environments the software is allready at the 'cutting edge' in which there is no more performance to gain by adjusting the software.
But if you focus on the consumers market then the remark "We'll have to rely on innovations like this to go faster" is not the issue.
-Personal rant ON- /. story about his death and all the comments on it. Everyone sympathized yet no one is able to remeber the posting for even 1 month? Do a search on 'Espy' on this page and it turns out to nothing. Thats a strange way of showing that you sympathized with the going ons IMVHO.
This makes me kinda sick. Even though I don't know Espy, never chatted with 'm and heard from him when he passed away, I really have a strange feeling after reading the
-Personal rant OFF-
You don't have to, thats why I agree with the original poster. Just stack those .deb files in one big pile and point apt-get to it. OR use the nifty tool apt-move and create your own personalised installation CD.
Do they really? Or did they just happen to have some smart people around who were able to grab the best tool for this specific job.
I agree with you on most parts allthough I do believe that some suspicion could never hurt. Like it or not but the goverment, no matter in which country you are, makes mistakes. Some small, some severe. If it weren't for people keeping an eye out, which also includes those 'paranoid people', a lot of these mistakes would not be discovered alltogether. In many cases its no big deal but in some rare case it is. Even though I agree with you that most people see way to much things going on which aren't there (IMHO, I can also only guess here) your arguments work both ways. Those people could move to another country. But you could just as easy ignore their comments as well. Sure, most exagurate (prob. spelled horribly wrong) but sticking your head in the sand and ignore everything isn't the answer as well IMHO.
In other words; measuring parameters which tend to change from time to time. Where is the security? I mean; I guess it could tranfer those parameters as well as the position of the owner but I don't think it will be using any encryption or something. So basicly I'd call it a nice tracking device but thats about it. IMHO its 'improving' "e business secutiry" simply because e-business is in the picture.
When talking tax data they should dive into their software archive IMHO. If they own files containing stuff like tax data they also owned the software. If they threw out the software before converting their data they got no one to kick but themselves. IMHO this is not a valid excuse to break the law.
So keep on to it untill the copyright has gone (thats after 30 years btw) and make sure you are the first one to claim the rights. After that you can do with the music whatever you want. Even sue others for violating the copyright on which you spended your hard earned money.
Oh; and if you want examples; I guess you've heard of the Abba teens? And I don't know about other countries but didn't you notice a large amount of "easy reconizable" tunes in commercials and stuff like that? The fact that you reconize some is not allways because of the way the music is composed. In most cases its due to the fact that the company is using music which is more then 30 years old.
The most recent examples of this coming to my mind are the Dragonlance series from SSI (Champions of Krynn, Death Knight of Krynn and the Dark Queen of Krynn (see the Dragonlance site) which were bundled in the so called "Forgotten realms collection". And there is offcourse the Ultima series which also got bundled (episode 1 - 8 iirc).
If you compare that with an action game like Half Life you'll notice a difference. It was quite recently when I picked up a bundle offering Half life & opposing force. So basicly I think its kinda hard to take a period of 5 years and consider everything older then 5 years obsolete.
Hmz, I call that very narrow minded, or perhaps 'biased' would be the better phrase. As a matter of fact Microsoft (Windows and other programs) sometimes also don't support the processor as efficiently as they could. The Pentium processor has been around for quite some time now (I'm referring to the plain Pentium (I?) btw) yet it took a lot of developers ages before any decent Pentium based software came out. I've debugged quite some software back then just to see in which way Pentium based software really did differ with the rest and I was quite surprised to make this discovery.
Offcourse I don't judge all the software outthere, don't get me wrong, but if Windows in those days also didn't use the processor to its full extent then I have a difficult time believing that they are doing so now (speculation, mind you). But why didn't Intel complain about that, and still seem to complain about Sun?