Long ago one of my power generation professors gave a lecture about a solar powered communications tower he set up, in Nevada I think it was. He said the one thing they did not account for and which made the project unprofitable was crazy hicks with rifles shooting the solar panels for sport, from the next mountain over. Don't forget to include a robot sentry with a sniper rifle in the implementation.
If everything was so great about Linux then people wouldn't spend money on Windows and MacOS X. The fact is, there are pros and cons are there is personal choice.
I have never seen anyone argue that Linux or Windows or OS X was perfect or that they did not all have pros and cons. The thing is, the article in question did not bring up really any valid points about the cons of Linux, but instead resorted to attacks on random things, many of which are the same in both Windows and Linux. I didn't see much, if anything, in the way of intelligent, informed criticism or ways Linux could improve. I have a hard time believing the article's author does not know better than at least some of the inflammatory nonsense he spouted. That is why people aren't discussing any criticism he had. They were all bunk.
Much of the reaction here helps make Enderle's point.
Umm, I read the article. I don't think it had a point.
For example, Linix security isn't any better than Windows if you run as super user (the way users run in XP) and then install some random executable.
Similarly security at my house isn't any worse than at the pentagon if I needed to let all sorts of military brass in to do work and if I kept top secret files there. Of course I don't, so the statement is pointless nonsense. Linux users don't run as super user all the time and running arbitrary binaries on the average Linux distro is unlikely to compromise your machine because their are not a billion kinds of trojan out there designed to attack Linux. Security is about being appropriate for what people do with the system and the threats to the system. If Linux had 85% of the market and was constantly attacked by trojans, then methods to stop random executables from doing damage would be put in place. The results of the relative security systems in place on the different OS's is what is important.
GPL 3 is *most certainly* anti-business and most of the money in Linux is in services.
Sigh, no it is pro business. It adds further protection to a business model a lot of companies use to make money and who want to know the risks and expenses up front so they can guarantee a stable business plan. Just because you don't understand that business plan does not mean thousands of companies like mine do not. The threat of patent litigation as the result of using some tool that is not the key to a business's model is a very bad thing for business, not a good thing.
What is most spot on is that the Linux community is not a place where open discussion is valued and those who refuse to adopt the purist view are attacked...
I don't think you have any idea who makes up the "Linux community." Most of the Linux developers I know run OS X on their laptops. Just because you only pay attention to controversy or vocal morons on some newsgroup does not make that normal for the "community." I've written plenty of comments critical of Linux here on Slashdot and a lot of them have been modded up and widely discussed.
GPL is a socialist economic model...
Please, just stop talking about this. You're embarrassing yourself. You obviously do not understand the Linux "business model." It is not socialist, nor even close to socialist. It is decentralized and somewhat democratic and very much capitalist. The Windows business model(monopoly) has more in common with socialism than the Linux development business.
let's have discussion. Let's have CIVIL debate.
We have civil debates about the merits and weaknesses of linux regularly on Slashdot. They are usually in response to an educated and interesting comment or article about Linux, not some clearly inflammatory, uninformed rant about it, that is both factually incorrect and which does not even maintain consistent logic. If Enderle had made any valid points they might be worth discussing, but he did not.
I understand that Linux devotees treat any comments that don't follow the orthodox view as heresy, but if you believe in "free and open", shouldn't it include the discussion and debate.
I'm a linux devotee. I'm also very happy to discuss any real points with regard to Linux. I have, in fact written both short articles and comments on Slashdot describing ways in which Windows is superior to Linux on the desktop. They have been modded to +5 and discussed at length by people who both agree and disagree. The problem with this article, is it is just so bad and full of nonsense that there is not anything really worth addressing. It is a load of crap, most likely written as FUD or to troll Slashdot. Post or write an article with some merit if you think there needs to be real debate that is not happening.
This is the exact same pattern that almost every computing technology follows.
For the most part, I agree. The main difference as I see it, is that hardware assisted virtualization hit at the same time as several other trends and it has been applied in ways that are upsetting some long-standing problems and roadblocks. When virtualization was being touted as the next great thing, people were thinking of it for use with flexible servers and Sun and Amazon and other players have brought that to market and it is nice and convenient and cheap, but not the solution to all our problems. What I don't think quite as many people were expecting was how VM on the desktop could undermine Windows by bringing the security of Linux to a Windows laptop, or the convenience of OS X to the same. This morning an engineering manager stopped by my office and asked me what it would take to setup a Windows on top of OS X solution. I told her she would need a new laptop from Apple and she went to write up the PO. She is locked in by proprietary Windows tools, but she needs to have some Mac programs as well and today, right now, that does not mean she needs two separate machines. A year ago, that would have been the case and it would have been a roadblock. MS sees this and are working to stop it, but they are late to the game now. Apple also is late to the game, but got lucky and now I don't think they have a clue as to what to do to capitalize upon this. Linux on the desktop could be the real winner that walks away from this upset, if someone is smart enough to invest in making it really usable for the average person, but I'm not sure the community can pull it off.
In summary, virtualization was touted as the next great thing, but it has made a big difference in surprising and unanticipated areas, which is what makes it a little unusual.
You probably did, but never knew about it. I'm not sure which models had such a feature. I know the mac classics my friend used for a distributed computation, tic-tac-toe project did and that the very early PPC machines, like my old 66Mhz slab did as well. I know the old g3 tower a co-worker bought at a garage sale did not have the feature. I imagine you should look at early PPC machines and the early gen processor machines.
Macintoshes include functions in ROM, but it's not a complete OS.
It was a full, bootable OS, but not good for much aside from testing the hardware.
I've never even heard of such a thing and every Mac I've ever powered up without a valid boot volume just showed me a disk with a question mark on it...
If I recall correctly it never failed to the ROM, but you have to know about it and boot with a specific key combination in order to use it. Most people never knew it was there.
If these disks make a MacBook use less battery power, great. But I don't see why the world needs a miniature version of MacOS X.
Back in the day, Apple used to ship Macs with a copy of pre-OS X, Mac OS on a ROM. It was basically unused, but it did have the advantage that if your hard drive went down or an extension to the OS was making your system unbootable, you could always boot from the ROM and at least do a hardware check to see if your problem was hardware or software related. Apple could re-introduce this feature using Flash memory, although I'm not convinced it is really worth their time.
How can they be zero day if they are publicly known?
Zero day vulnerabilities not only can be known, they have to known. The term refers to a vulnerability that is known by blackhats and/or the public before a patch is available. A 3-day vulnerability would be a vulnerability that became common knowledge three days after a patch that fixed that vulnerability was released (probably discovered by reverse engineering that patch). The term, however, is more commonly applied to exploits, instead of vulnerabilities. A zero day exploit is an exploit that was "in the wild" before any patch to the vulnerability it is affecting was available. This has been your terminology lesson for the day.
Considering that such a large portion of the *currently allocated* addresses are grossly underutilized, I have a hard time believing that there is any natural scarcity in the IPv4 space, as opposed to an artifically created scarcity that can be corrected relatively easily, relatively quickly, and relatively inexpensively...at least as compared to the worldwide costs of the migration to IPv6.
So you think companies will voluntarily hand over IP address space already allocated to them for the common good? Or do you think they will try selling them, thus providing financial incentive for companies to go to IPv6 instead?
As for network consolidation, I think you will find that services such as Comcast's "Triple Play" will only tend to reduce the number of IP addresses actually needed in the wild, not increase that number.
Right now I use on IP address for my router, which uses NAT to supply an additional 5 or 6 to my home computers. My TV does not have an IP address. My home phone does not have an IP address. My cell phone does not have an IP address. With the convergence of services onto the IP network, soon not only will my TV and my home phone need an IP address, ideally they would like one that is not a NAT address to the quality of the service can be made more reliable without me having to overbuy by bandwidth. So how does adding public IP addresses for my TV and phone decrease the number of IP addresses that are needed?
There are only so many services that can be consumed in a 24-hour day, and therefore a limit on how many individually addressable devices will ever be needed in the world.
There are more and more services and devices that are being internet enabled. Sure, there is a limit to the number as a function of the populace, but we're nowhere near that limit. Until my refrigerator can automatically order a new water filter cartridge, my car can schedule an oil change appointment, and my iPod can automatically and wirelessly grab new albums from my favorite artists to whom I have subscribed... there will be a need for an increased number of IPs, not decreased.
True, the sheer size of the IPv6 address space obviates many of the tricks we've used to get around the very bad choices made in the early days of IPv4 as concerns allocation of address space, but at what cost?
Yes, what is the cost? Eventually all your network gear will break. There is not much on the market these days that does not handle IPv6. Service providers gain real traffic shaping and management capabilities from IPv6, which they currently spend a significant amount of money to replicate via specialty hardware. Since IPv6 is backwards compatible, I see the network core and the provider edge moving to it in the next decade and I see increasingly smaller networks moving as the cost of being IPv4 goes up and the cost of being IPv6 goes down.
...but Comcast, in this function is not an end-user of address space, but a network services provider...
I fail to see how this negates the point. Almost all ISPs will be the ones feeling the number crunch first.
it is unlikely that we will experience such meteoric growth at the level of telecommunications providers. Consolidation of networks will tned[sic] to reduce the number of allocations actually necessary for infrastructure purposes.
I think you are mistaken. Right now consolidation of networks means that voice and television networks are converging with generic data and are tunneled through regular IP. One of Comcast's main goals in moving to IPv6 was to facilitate their triple play: data, voice, television strategy and that is a whole lot easier when they can bring IPv6 right to the end node and assign a unique, routable, QoS manageable address to every device there. If you were a network engineer at Comcast what would appeal to you more... having control for insuring quality and doing traffic shaping on each individual voice and television stream to a client, or just routing it all by origin IP and hoping nothing is multicast? The consolidation of TV and phone onto data networks will provide huge incentive for IPv6, not the other way around.
I wasn't aware of this. Has Comcast migrated its cable modem subscribers over to IPv6?
I think they migrated their entire cable pool, minus a few of the acquisitions, but I'm not sure how they present this to end users. I think they still hand out encapsulated IPv4 addresses to the modems. I think they're still primarily IPv4 on their peering edge as well. They gave a good talk (I think it was at Nanog) this year describing what issues they had during the migration.
If I were to put a IPv6 capable router on the WAN, would it get a v6 address from Comcast? That would almost make it worth going out and getting another decent router.
I'm not sure if you would or not. Good luck asking their support line. I'd actually try Google to research if this would work.
Not much smarter, really, assuming that the IPV6 block allocations are public knowledge. All the worm has to do is get a list of IPV6 allocations and scan those networks. The worm doesn't even have to do this itself--most worms talk to botnet controllers, which could host the updated network information harvested by a human.
You're right about this, of course, but there is an interesting side-effect as well. Right now honeynets and worm detection systems rely upon pseudo random worm propagation attempts for worm detection by monitoring IP addresses known to be unused within a network (dark IP monitoring). Security engineers have been expecting worms to move away from random scanning for some time now in order to be more stealthy, although worms in general have not adopted this strategy yet. Whether they move away from random scanning in an attempt to hide, or in an attempt to propagate on IPv6 nets, or both, it is a likely evolution.
I really doubt that after all this time that IPv6 adoption will ever be driven by address scarcity in the IPv4 space.
Actually, the small size of the available IPv4 chunks has already driven the adoption of IPv6 in several large networks. Take a look at Comcast's huge migration of their cable modem customer edge. Of course other factors are driving it as well, which is why so many management networks have moved over. So what do you think, when BT completely replaces the their existing infrastructure as they are now doing, are all the new boxes going to work with IPv6? I don't think it is a requirement, but I also don't see any noncompliant devices winning bids.
The GPL isn't a respond to copyright law. It's entirely dependent on it.
You've failed to demonstrate how those two things are mutually exclusive.
The purpose of the GPL is to make sure source code is redistributed in software releases, so if there were no copyright laws, the GPL would be violated because nobody would have to redistribute that source code.
Nope. The GPL would not be violated if there were no copyright law, because no one would need to abide by the GPL in order to freely copy the code.
Therefore, the GPL takes away the freedom to do whatever you want with the source code you download.
Do you know what "non sequitur" means?
Um, what? You walk through physical matter when your shoes are off?
Just as much as I can legally copy the code in question if it is not GPL'd.
This is one of the most bizarre metaphors I've ever read.
It's not a metaphor, it's an analogy. Are you truly this dense or are you being intentionally obtuse?
The fact shoes let you walk on broken glass has nothing to do with the GPL restricting what you can do with source code.
Shoes grant you the freedom of movement if you happen to be surrounded by broken glass. They, thus, grant you more freedom than you had. The GPL grants you more freedom when you are restricted by copyright law. It grants you more freedom than you have. Shoes don't grant you complete freedom to do anything you want. If you're surrounded by metal bars they don't allow you to walk through them. This does not mean shoes take away freedom. The bars took away the freedom. The GPL does not grant you the freedom to take copyrighted code and close the source. This does not mean it takes away freedom. Copyright law took away the freedom. Do you know understand the analogy and the flaw in you logic it demonstrates now that I've used really small sentences?
You're one to talk, fella.
Yes, I am. I've pointed out several of your logical fallacies. You've pointed out none of mine. Please do elaborate and explain where exactly my logic fails. You do actually know what logic is, right?
You're right, let me just slip my shoes off and walk on out of this jail cell.
I am right. You can't slip off your shoes and walk out of a jail cell in the same way you can't get someone to rescind their GPL licensing of code and suddenly be free to use it without permission. In one case you're stopped by bars, in the other by copyright law. This isn't rocket science friend, you need to revisit your very sloppy thinking.
I used to think it was nice, but I am much more drawn to the BSD licence, because it is much opener then GPL3.
A lot of people invest a lot of time in writing code they contribute to open source projects. Usually those people are less motivated by some hippy idealism of giving away things for free and are more interested in the benefits they can get from a license in terms of protecting their investment and soliciting free work from others. The GPL is so popular not because it is the most "free" but because it strikes a balance that makes most people happy. If I or my company devote significant time and investment in creating some code, I don't think it is fair that some other person or company should make minor addition (like adding a new type of hardware support) and then sell my work back to me and to others. Do you think it is "right" for you to take code that is 99.9% written by others and make money off of it while the people who did all the work get nothing? Most people don't so they avoid the GPL for most userland software.
Now I've contributed to BSD licensed projects, but I don't think they are ideal in most cases. The GPL is a guarantee that the code that is being actively developed will not be a closed fork that I can't access anymore. The intention of the GPLv3 is to insure that the code that is actively being developed is also not covered by some patent that makes it almost as unusable to me. I'm not advocating the GPLv3 and I'm not certain it is the right way to go, but I certainly understand and sympathize with the intent. Like it or not most open source code is developed by commercial companies for profit and if the deal you struck with the companies doing the rest of the development is not in your own best interests and, in fact, is exploiting your generosity, well, you have no one to blame but yourself for choosing that license. The GPL like all licenses is about protecting the interests of the developers.
Not at all, the GPL is a response to copyright law that is more restrictive than some copyright holders would like. If there were no copyright laws there would be no GPL because there would be no need for the GPL. The GPL, however, takes away no rights, it merely restores some (but not all) rights restricted by copyright law.
By definition, the GPL removes freedom because it does not allow you to do whatever you want.
I see, so by your definition shoes remove freedom because they don't let me walk through the bars in a jail cell? Shoes don't grant me the freedom to do anything I want (although they do grant me the freedom to walk across broken glass without injury) but since they don't help with lava or jail cells they remove freedom?
Your logic is very broken.
You'll simply have to accept this fact...
You are quite simply wrong. Just admit it and demonstrate that you're a rational person, rather than reacting emotionally and trying to illogically defend your indefensible and factually incorrect argument.
The GPL does not grant additional "freedom" no matter how many people repeat the same tired bullshit. It takes away the freedom to use somebody else's code in your proprietary, for profit, application. Unlike the BSD license, for example.
BZZZZT! Wrong! Copyright law takes away the freedom. The GPL restores some of the freedom. Think of it this way. I just wrote some code. Can you use my code in your proprietary, for profit application? No. Why? Because copyright law makes it illegal.
Enter the GPL. The GPL is simply a license that says I'll let you use my code, if you promise certain things to me. It is a trade. I'll grant you certain freedoms that copyright law took away if you do certain things for me as specified in the license.
The GPL isn't about freedom. It's about being selfish in the guise of supporting the community.
No, the GPL is about building communities that share work (what it asks in return for said freedom) in such a way that no one can benefit from the work of others in certain ways without returning some work of their own.
If you aren't going to profit off the code, you don't want anybody else to be able to either.
Most GPL code is written by commercial enterprises for profit. IBM doesn't say they're licensing GPL code for the good of the world, they say they're doing it to maximize shareholder value. It is about making a business deal with any and all comers that they can use your code if you can use theirs and thus all parties benefit. Maybe you've noticed that most of the projects that get a whole lot of code contributed are GPL licensed, not BSD. Do you know why that is? It is because it provides a better return on the investment in the opinion of most companies and for that matter most individual hobbyists. If I spend weeks of my life writing some code, I don't particularly want someone else to sell that code back to me a few years from now. I'd much rather make them a deal that if they add to it they can use my code in exchange for letting me use their additions. There is no such thing as a free lunch buddy.
Except give you a screen you can actually see, and a keyboard you can actually use. Hm, there goes the output and input pieces, yep, its doomed for failure.
These days I use a fairly small laptop for almost everything. The portability is important to me and I'd use it more if it were more portable. Is the small screen size a deal killer? Not really, I usually have it plugged into an external monitor when I'm in the office or at home, using just the built in screen at the coffee shop and on the road. Is the small keyboard size a deal killer? Well, I usually plug in an external trackball at the office and home, so plugging in a keyboard too is not a huge deal, although it would depend on just how usable it is at the coffee shop. I actually think an ultra-portable with a dock for easy use of external monitors, keyboard, mouse, etc. might not be a bad market right now. The real deal killer is that it should be a lot less expensive than a full sized laptop, which this does not seem to be.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." Whatever your personal experiences, they are not really useful data for a person objectively trying to determine the reliability of systems. People here can trade anecdotes all day and tell you how two different Samsung laptops lit on fire killing family members or whatever. What is useful, however, is actually looking at the independent reviews by manufacturer and support/computer type and seeing how they actually do with large sample sets and documented methodologies. It is not like there is even a lot of debate among said studies. Apple and Lenovo (IBM is long gone neighbor) consistently rank at the top of the heap. Historically, Dell has been near or at the bottom, although they have improved a lot for laptops last year. One of your "best picks," HP has consistently ranked as the worst in the industry for many years running.
You might want to consider in future posting titles more like "My Apples are flakey." That at least is true. Objectively speaking all the evidence indicates Apple machines are among the least "flakey" in the industry and claiming otherwise is simply your own subjective opinion based upon not enough data to count.
It's still a silly decision to try to use Macs for mission-critical business machines for just this reason. In my business, if I have a machine go down, I either run down to my local parts store to get the part I need, or I run down to the thrift store and pick up another used beige box for $50.
What is silly is trying to run a business that way. Every place I've ever worked (even on a shoestring budget start-up companies) has done the same thing while dealing with Dell and Apple and Lenovo and our other suppliers of workstations. You standardize on a few suppliers (where I work now we have Apple and Lenovo). You keep a couple of spare machines as backups for when one breaks and give it to the user so they have no down time and ship off the machine to be fixed. When it is fixed you test it then it becomes one of the spares. When we had consumer Dell machine we had to keep a significant number of spares (10-20%) because failures were so common. With both Lenovo and Apple we have more like 2% extra to serve as spares. Even a day of downtime for a professional is about the same as the cost of a laptop when you figure how many tasks suddenly were derailed and waiting for some IT guy to try to swap parts and get something working again is absurd compared to a ten minute restore from backup. The cost evaluation of doing business some other way seems really high compared to the cost of having a few spare machines on hand.
This is what true "lock-in" (hardware AND software) looks like in the IT industry, and it's not pretty.
In real business it is common to standardize on a few suppliers so "lock in" the way you describe it is standard operating procedure and results in fewer problems for IT and better prices. Its also a lot easier to buy 50 extra power supplies for each manufacturer and leave them in all the conference rooms, rather than try to manage them from a dozen different vendors.
I really don't like the idea of a "private" (yes i know its publically traded) company having control of this public information.
You do know many government agencies already outsource IT and other projects to "private" companies who have all this government generated information, right?
The data was paid for by tax payers. Google will inevitably make money from this otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.
Yeah, and right now Microsoft makes money off of selling them the OS and office suite. This isn't a question of if the government will be paying for the ability of their employees to do word processing, it is just a matter of how much and which companies will be getting the money. I don't trust Google any less than I do MS, who currently supplies the OS and the networking and the word processor. I don't trust them any less than the contractors the government already exports this data to. If they can save 75% of the current cost I pay in taxes, I'm all for it.
I'd probably rather they saved 50% of the cost and implemented Linux and OpenOffice in house instead, which would solve both the security issue and the finance issue, but given a choice between their current solution and going with Google, I don't see how Google is any worse.
When you start to compare someone's choice of OS to an actual war, not just a metaphorical one, you should step back and realise you're taking it too seriously.
Assuming a comparison somehow implies that the things being compared are quantitatively similar makes no sense. "The sun is like a nuclear reactor," in no way implies that the sun is the same level of importance to human survival as the nuclear reactor outside Green Bay, Wisconsin. They are comparable in qualities (nuclear powered) the same way that a war and Microsoft's monopoly are both similar in that they both create jobs. This comparison demonstrates that just because one quality exists (job creation) that does not logically follow that another quality exists (net positive impact on the world).
Picking out which system you want to run your apps on is not on the same moral level as human beings shooting each other.
Morality is wholly subjective, by definition. Why do any of us care about your morals? Is it relevant to the discussion in some way?
As always the people of the world own the data. The copyright holders are, however, given a short term monopoly on making copies of it, with certain exceptions.
I hope Google isnt going to say they do like they want to with the old books theyre scanning.
Google has not, as far as I know, claimed "ownership" or even copyright on anything they've scanned. They have, however, created their own database of metadata about the works, which they use to enable people to more easily find specific items in the original data.
Everytime you download a hubble picture will it have a google watermark?
Umm, maybe. Why do I care if they add watermarks to it? If they are in the way, I'll just get them from another source that does not add watermarks. Google can also provide free copies of public domain pictures from other sources with Google advertising slogans on them if they want. It's called "freedom."
I don't think that anyone is realistically advocating free internet service for anyone. If they are, then I'll join you in calling them a bunch of twits.
The public libraries in my area have offered free internet access to residents using their terminals for more than a decade now. Are they twits? The county's wireless program is in the process of blanketing the entire county with free low speed (.5 Mb/s) wireless and it has been up and running in the high population areas for a year. Are they twits for offering this? So far they are within budget and seem to be doing okay, with a number of trials of users who have upgraded to a higher speed connection on that network. The whole system is run by a couple of commercial companies subsidized by the county.
While I normally consider myself pretty far to the Right on the economic scale, I think there are certainly some areas where there are bona fide public interests, and where government is the most capable agency of completing a project (or is the only one you'd want to own and monopolize the finished product); in these areas it doesn't make sense to not do it within the public sector.
Specifically, markets that lend themselves to natural monopolies, or where there is real, physical problem with not having one provider, are not suitable for the normal capitalist market. Capitalism works because of competition. If their is not real competition (not enough free RF spectrum for all comers or the government is not willing to subsidize all companies that want to run lines on public right of ways, but already subsidized one) then you have all the negatives of socialism as well as all the negatives of capitalism. Socialism is ineffective in most cases because it does not foster competition and innovation, but at least it also avoids needless duplication and is supposedly acting in the best interests of society. When you have only one viable player in capitalism, you still don't have competition, but anyone trying to solve the problem is duplicating effort and the entity is acting in the best interests of the shareholders, which is to take as much money from the people as possible while providing them with the minimum return.
There's no reason why modern informational infrastructure is any different, inherently, from transportation infrastructure 150-200 years ago. The same trade-offs exist, and the same risk, but also the potential for the same rewards.
The real difference is back then the government was not completely sold out. There were still reform candidates who exposed corruption and got elected to drive the scum out. Now, everyone in major political offices got there by shilling for corporations and certain special interests. They are all whores. The US has been and will continue to subsidize the information infrastructure to the tune of billions, but those funds and infrastructure are immediately sold for pennies on the dollar to private corporations who are pulling the puppet strings. The US has already paid more per person in tax dollars to fund our infrastructure than other countries with lower population densities that now have near 100% availability with higher speeds at significantly lower prices. We the people, were just screwed over on the deal because our government is more corrupt and less accountable to the people than other places. Throwing more money at the government won't solve the problem until we throw all the bums out and elect reform candidates.
...when it comes to their office suite applications, it's on a whole another level of UI design I've noticed, compared to smaller things like Windows Defender.
A lot of their basic usability flaws are in their core OS, not "smaller things." As for the UI of MS Office, I've not noticed that it is particularly good or better tested in that regard.
I have to disagree here. It may make things more complicated, but if I can customize a interface to be more efficient for what I do (take less steps todo a commonly used function), it's certainly not less usable.
The assumption that you're making is that your personal experience is a useful data set. Being able to switch the background could allow you to customize it with 4 color background that lets you sort things increasing usability. In general, users are worse at determining what will make their computer more usable and the ability to customize results in decreases to usability more often than increases resulting in a net loss. In general if you make a feature customizable, people will customize it in poor ways, which is why it usually is a bad move for usability.
People have been suggesting that iWorks can replace Microsoft Office on this article...
From what I read, people were claiming Apple could greatly expand iWorks and put resources behind it and the resulting product could be significantly better than MS Office. I've read comments that imply this could significantly hurt MS. The first is entirely possible, but I don't see it as likely anytime soon. The second is improbable for a slew of reasons there is no need to go into.
Your anecdotal experiences are even less scientifically rigorous than those of Mythbusters. Was his foot more than 9-12 inches underwater?
It was about 4 feet underwater, but the gun barrel was partially underwater as well.
Does a shotgun shoot jacketed bullets or does it shoot round pellets?
It depends what you load it with, but jacketed rounds in a shotgun are unusual. Of course a lot of bullets for other firearms are not jacketed either, including most pistol rounds.
Do you know that incendiary ammunition doesn't leave a light trail, that what you're describing is tracer ammunition? Frankly, your reading comprehension and lack of technical knowledge makes me doubt your expertise.
I was referring to phosphorus tracers, which also burn and are generally classified as an incendiary round. Maybe you need to rethink your own supposed expertise before questioning someone else's; not that I'm an expert on ammunition.
Slashdot Mirror
Long ago one of my power generation professors gave a lecture about a solar powered communications tower he set up, in Nevada I think it was. He said the one thing they did not account for and which made the project unprofitable was crazy hicks with rifles shooting the solar panels for sport, from the next mountain over. Don't forget to include a robot sentry with a sniper rifle in the implementation.
I have never seen anyone argue that Linux or Windows or OS X was perfect or that they did not all have pros and cons. The thing is, the article in question did not bring up really any valid points about the cons of Linux, but instead resorted to attacks on random things, many of which are the same in both Windows and Linux. I didn't see much, if anything, in the way of intelligent, informed criticism or ways Linux could improve. I have a hard time believing the article's author does not know better than at least some of the inflammatory nonsense he spouted. That is why people aren't discussing any criticism he had. They were all bunk.
Umm, I read the article. I don't think it had a point.
For example, Linix security isn't any better than Windows if you run as super user (the way users run in XP) and then install some random executable.Similarly security at my house isn't any worse than at the pentagon if I needed to let all sorts of military brass in to do work and if I kept top secret files there. Of course I don't, so the statement is pointless nonsense. Linux users don't run as super user all the time and running arbitrary binaries on the average Linux distro is unlikely to compromise your machine because their are not a billion kinds of trojan out there designed to attack Linux. Security is about being appropriate for what people do with the system and the threats to the system. If Linux had 85% of the market and was constantly attacked by trojans, then methods to stop random executables from doing damage would be put in place. The results of the relative security systems in place on the different OS's is what is important.
GPL 3 is *most certainly* anti-business and most of the money in Linux is in services.Sigh, no it is pro business. It adds further protection to a business model a lot of companies use to make money and who want to know the risks and expenses up front so they can guarantee a stable business plan. Just because you don't understand that business plan does not mean thousands of companies like mine do not. The threat of patent litigation as the result of using some tool that is not the key to a business's model is a very bad thing for business, not a good thing.
What is most spot on is that the Linux community is not a place where open discussion is valued and those who refuse to adopt the purist view are attacked...I don't think you have any idea who makes up the "Linux community." Most of the Linux developers I know run OS X on their laptops. Just because you only pay attention to controversy or vocal morons on some newsgroup does not make that normal for the "community." I've written plenty of comments critical of Linux here on Slashdot and a lot of them have been modded up and widely discussed.
GPL is a socialist economic model...Please, just stop talking about this. You're embarrassing yourself. You obviously do not understand the Linux "business model." It is not socialist, nor even close to socialist. It is decentralized and somewhat democratic and very much capitalist. The Windows business model(monopoly) has more in common with socialism than the Linux development business.
let's have discussion. Let's have CIVIL debate.We have civil debates about the merits and weaknesses of linux regularly on Slashdot. They are usually in response to an educated and interesting comment or article about Linux, not some clearly inflammatory, uninformed rant about it, that is both factually incorrect and which does not even maintain consistent logic. If Enderle had made any valid points they might be worth discussing, but he did not.
I understand that Linux devotees treat any comments that don't follow the orthodox view as heresy, but if you believe in "free and open", shouldn't it include the discussion and debate.I'm a linux devotee. I'm also very happy to discuss any real points with regard to Linux. I have, in fact written both short articles and comments on Slashdot describing ways in which Windows is superior to Linux on the desktop. They have been modded to +5 and discussed at length by people who both agree and disagree. The problem with this article, is it is just so bad and full of nonsense that there is not anything really worth addressing. It is a load of crap, most likely written as FUD or to troll Slashdot. Post or write an article with some merit if you think there needs to be real debate that is not happening.
For the most part, I agree. The main difference as I see it, is that hardware assisted virtualization hit at the same time as several other trends and it has been applied in ways that are upsetting some long-standing problems and roadblocks. When virtualization was being touted as the next great thing, people were thinking of it for use with flexible servers and Sun and Amazon and other players have brought that to market and it is nice and convenient and cheap, but not the solution to all our problems. What I don't think quite as many people were expecting was how VM on the desktop could undermine Windows by bringing the security of Linux to a Windows laptop, or the convenience of OS X to the same. This morning an engineering manager stopped by my office and asked me what it would take to setup a Windows on top of OS X solution. I told her she would need a new laptop from Apple and she went to write up the PO. She is locked in by proprietary Windows tools, but she needs to have some Mac programs as well and today, right now, that does not mean she needs two separate machines. A year ago, that would have been the case and it would have been a roadblock. MS sees this and are working to stop it, but they are late to the game now. Apple also is late to the game, but got lucky and now I don't think they have a clue as to what to do to capitalize upon this. Linux on the desktop could be the real winner that walks away from this upset, if someone is smart enough to invest in making it really usable for the average person, but I'm not sure the community can pull it off.
In summary, virtualization was touted as the next great thing, but it has made a big difference in surprising and unanticipated areas, which is what makes it a little unusual.
You probably did, but never knew about it. I'm not sure which models had such a feature. I know the mac classics my friend used for a distributed computation, tic-tac-toe project did and that the very early PPC machines, like my old 66Mhz slab did as well. I know the old g3 tower a co-worker bought at a garage sale did not have the feature. I imagine you should look at early PPC machines and the early gen processor machines.
Macintoshes include functions in ROM, but it's not a complete OS.It was a full, bootable OS, but not good for much aside from testing the hardware.
I've never even heard of such a thing and every Mac I've ever powered up without a valid boot volume just showed me a disk with a question mark on it...If I recall correctly it never failed to the ROM, but you have to know about it and boot with a specific key combination in order to use it. Most people never knew it was there.
Back in the day, Apple used to ship Macs with a copy of pre-OS X, Mac OS on a ROM. It was basically unused, but it did have the advantage that if your hard drive went down or an extension to the OS was making your system unbootable, you could always boot from the ROM and at least do a hardware check to see if your problem was hardware or software related. Apple could re-introduce this feature using Flash memory, although I'm not convinced it is really worth their time.
Zero day vulnerabilities not only can be known, they have to known. The term refers to a vulnerability that is known by blackhats and/or the public before a patch is available. A 3-day vulnerability would be a vulnerability that became common knowledge three days after a patch that fixed that vulnerability was released (probably discovered by reverse engineering that patch). The term, however, is more commonly applied to exploits, instead of vulnerabilities. A zero day exploit is an exploit that was "in the wild" before any patch to the vulnerability it is affecting was available. This has been your terminology lesson for the day.
So you think companies will voluntarily hand over IP address space already allocated to them for the common good? Or do you think they will try selling them, thus providing financial incentive for companies to go to IPv6 instead?
As for network consolidation, I think you will find that services such as Comcast's "Triple Play" will only tend to reduce the number of IP addresses actually needed in the wild, not increase that number.Right now I use on IP address for my router, which uses NAT to supply an additional 5 or 6 to my home computers. My TV does not have an IP address. My home phone does not have an IP address. My cell phone does not have an IP address. With the convergence of services onto the IP network, soon not only will my TV and my home phone need an IP address, ideally they would like one that is not a NAT address to the quality of the service can be made more reliable without me having to overbuy by bandwidth. So how does adding public IP addresses for my TV and phone decrease the number of IP addresses that are needed?
There are only so many services that can be consumed in a 24-hour day, and therefore a limit on how many individually addressable devices will ever be needed in the world.There are more and more services and devices that are being internet enabled. Sure, there is a limit to the number as a function of the populace, but we're nowhere near that limit. Until my refrigerator can automatically order a new water filter cartridge, my car can schedule an oil change appointment, and my iPod can automatically and wirelessly grab new albums from my favorite artists to whom I have subscribed... there will be a need for an increased number of IPs, not decreased.
True, the sheer size of the IPv6 address space obviates many of the tricks we've used to get around the very bad choices made in the early days of IPv4 as concerns allocation of address space, but at what cost?Yes, what is the cost? Eventually all your network gear will break. There is not much on the market these days that does not handle IPv6. Service providers gain real traffic shaping and management capabilities from IPv6, which they currently spend a significant amount of money to replicate via specialty hardware. Since IPv6 is backwards compatible, I see the network core and the provider edge moving to it in the next decade and I see increasingly smaller networks moving as the cost of being IPv4 goes up and the cost of being IPv6 goes down.
...but Comcast, in this function is not an end-user of address space, but a network services provider...I fail to see how this negates the point. Almost all ISPs will be the ones feeling the number crunch first.
it is unlikely that we will experience such meteoric growth at the level of telecommunications providers. Consolidation of networks will tned[sic] to reduce the number of allocations actually necessary for infrastructure purposes.I think you are mistaken. Right now consolidation of networks means that voice and television networks are converging with generic data and are tunneled through regular IP. One of Comcast's main goals in moving to IPv6 was to facilitate their triple play: data, voice, television strategy and that is a whole lot easier when they can bring IPv6 right to the end node and assign a unique, routable, QoS manageable address to every device there. If you were a network engineer at Comcast what would appeal to you more... having control for insuring quality and doing traffic shaping on each individual voice and television stream to a client, or just routing it all by origin IP and hoping nothing is multicast? The consolidation of TV and phone onto data networks will provide huge incentive for IPv6, not the other way around.
I think they migrated their entire cable pool, minus a few of the acquisitions, but I'm not sure how they present this to end users. I think they still hand out encapsulated IPv4 addresses to the modems. I think they're still primarily IPv4 on their peering edge as well. They gave a good talk (I think it was at Nanog) this year describing what issues they had during the migration.
If I were to put a IPv6 capable router on the WAN, would it get a v6 address from Comcast? That would almost make it worth going out and getting another decent router.I'm not sure if you would or not. Good luck asking their support line. I'd actually try Google to research if this would work.
You're right about this, of course, but there is an interesting side-effect as well. Right now honeynets and worm detection systems rely upon pseudo random worm propagation attempts for worm detection by monitoring IP addresses known to be unused within a network (dark IP monitoring). Security engineers have been expecting worms to move away from random scanning for some time now in order to be more stealthy, although worms in general have not adopted this strategy yet. Whether they move away from random scanning in an attempt to hide, or in an attempt to propagate on IPv6 nets, or both, it is a likely evolution.
Actually, the small size of the available IPv4 chunks has already driven the adoption of IPv6 in several large networks. Take a look at Comcast's huge migration of their cable modem customer edge. Of course other factors are driving it as well, which is why so many management networks have moved over. So what do you think, when BT completely replaces the their existing infrastructure as they are now doing, are all the new boxes going to work with IPv6? I don't think it is a requirement, but I also don't see any noncompliant devices winning bids.
You've failed to demonstrate how those two things are mutually exclusive.
The purpose of the GPL is to make sure source code is redistributed in software releases, so if there were no copyright laws, the GPL would be violated because nobody would have to redistribute that source code.Nope. The GPL would not be violated if there were no copyright law, because no one would need to abide by the GPL in order to freely copy the code.
Therefore, the GPL takes away the freedom to do whatever you want with the source code you download.Do you know what "non sequitur" means?
Um, what? You walk through physical matter when your shoes are off?Just as much as I can legally copy the code in question if it is not GPL'd.
This is one of the most bizarre metaphors I've ever read.It's not a metaphor, it's an analogy. Are you truly this dense or are you being intentionally obtuse?
The fact shoes let you walk on broken glass has nothing to do with the GPL restricting what you can do with source code.Shoes grant you the freedom of movement if you happen to be surrounded by broken glass. They, thus, grant you more freedom than you had. The GPL grants you more freedom when you are restricted by copyright law. It grants you more freedom than you have. Shoes don't grant you complete freedom to do anything you want. If you're surrounded by metal bars they don't allow you to walk through them. This does not mean shoes take away freedom. The bars took away the freedom. The GPL does not grant you the freedom to take copyrighted code and close the source. This does not mean it takes away freedom. Copyright law took away the freedom. Do you know understand the analogy and the flaw in you logic it demonstrates now that I've used really small sentences?
You're one to talk, fella.Yes, I am. I've pointed out several of your logical fallacies. You've pointed out none of mine. Please do elaborate and explain where exactly my logic fails. You do actually know what logic is, right?
You're right, let me just slip my shoes off and walk on out of this jail cell.I am right. You can't slip off your shoes and walk out of a jail cell in the same way you can't get someone to rescind their GPL licensing of code and suddenly be free to use it without permission. In one case you're stopped by bars, in the other by copyright law. This isn't rocket science friend, you need to revisit your very sloppy thinking.
A lot of people invest a lot of time in writing code they contribute to open source projects. Usually those people are less motivated by some hippy idealism of giving away things for free and are more interested in the benefits they can get from a license in terms of protecting their investment and soliciting free work from others. The GPL is so popular not because it is the most "free" but because it strikes a balance that makes most people happy. If I or my company devote significant time and investment in creating some code, I don't think it is fair that some other person or company should make minor addition (like adding a new type of hardware support) and then sell my work back to me and to others. Do you think it is "right" for you to take code that is 99.9% written by others and make money off of it while the people who did all the work get nothing? Most people don't so they avoid the GPL for most userland software.
Now I've contributed to BSD licensed projects, but I don't think they are ideal in most cases. The GPL is a guarantee that the code that is being actively developed will not be a closed fork that I can't access anymore. The intention of the GPLv3 is to insure that the code that is actively being developed is also not covered by some patent that makes it almost as unusable to me. I'm not advocating the GPLv3 and I'm not certain it is the right way to go, but I certainly understand and sympathize with the intent. Like it or not most open source code is developed by commercial companies for profit and if the deal you struck with the companies doing the rest of the development is not in your own best interests and, in fact, is exploiting your generosity, well, you have no one to blame but yourself for choosing that license. The GPL like all licenses is about protecting the interests of the developers.
Not at all, the GPL is a response to copyright law that is more restrictive than some copyright holders would like. If there were no copyright laws there would be no GPL because there would be no need for the GPL. The GPL, however, takes away no rights, it merely restores some (but not all) rights restricted by copyright law.
By definition, the GPL removes freedom because it does not allow you to do whatever you want.I see, so by your definition shoes remove freedom because they don't let me walk through the bars in a jail cell? Shoes don't grant me the freedom to do anything I want (although they do grant me the freedom to walk across broken glass without injury) but since they don't help with lava or jail cells they remove freedom?
Your logic is very broken.
You'll simply have to accept this fact...You are quite simply wrong. Just admit it and demonstrate that you're a rational person, rather than reacting emotionally and trying to illogically defend your indefensible and factually incorrect argument.
BZZZZT! Wrong! Copyright law takes away the freedom. The GPL restores some of the freedom. Think of it this way. I just wrote some code. Can you use my code in your proprietary, for profit application? No. Why? Because copyright law makes it illegal.
Enter the GPL. The GPL is simply a license that says I'll let you use my code, if you promise certain things to me. It is a trade. I'll grant you certain freedoms that copyright law took away if you do certain things for me as specified in the license.
The GPL isn't about freedom. It's about being selfish in the guise of supporting the community.No, the GPL is about building communities that share work (what it asks in return for said freedom) in such a way that no one can benefit from the work of others in certain ways without returning some work of their own.
If you aren't going to profit off the code, you don't want anybody else to be able to either.Most GPL code is written by commercial enterprises for profit. IBM doesn't say they're licensing GPL code for the good of the world, they say they're doing it to maximize shareholder value. It is about making a business deal with any and all comers that they can use your code if you can use theirs and thus all parties benefit. Maybe you've noticed that most of the projects that get a whole lot of code contributed are GPL licensed, not BSD. Do you know why that is? It is because it provides a better return on the investment in the opinion of most companies and for that matter most individual hobbyists. If I spend weeks of my life writing some code, I don't particularly want someone else to sell that code back to me a few years from now. I'd much rather make them a deal that if they add to it they can use my code in exchange for letting me use their additions. There is no such thing as a free lunch buddy.
These days I use a fairly small laptop for almost everything. The portability is important to me and I'd use it more if it were more portable. Is the small screen size a deal killer? Not really, I usually have it plugged into an external monitor when I'm in the office or at home, using just the built in screen at the coffee shop and on the road. Is the small keyboard size a deal killer? Well, I usually plug in an external trackball at the office and home, so plugging in a keyboard too is not a huge deal, although it would depend on just how usable it is at the coffee shop. I actually think an ultra-portable with a dock for easy use of external monitors, keyboard, mouse, etc. might not be a bad market right now. The real deal killer is that it should be a lot less expensive than a full sized laptop, which this does not seem to be.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." Whatever your personal experiences, they are not really useful data for a person objectively trying to determine the reliability of systems. People here can trade anecdotes all day and tell you how two different Samsung laptops lit on fire killing family members or whatever. What is useful, however, is actually looking at the independent reviews by manufacturer and support/computer type and seeing how they actually do with large sample sets and documented methodologies. It is not like there is even a lot of debate among said studies. Apple and Lenovo (IBM is long gone neighbor) consistently rank at the top of the heap. Historically, Dell has been near or at the bottom, although they have improved a lot for laptops last year. One of your "best picks," HP has consistently ranked as the worst in the industry for many years running.
You might want to consider in future posting titles more like "My Apples are flakey." That at least is true. Objectively speaking all the evidence indicates Apple machines are among the least "flakey" in the industry and claiming otherwise is simply your own subjective opinion based upon not enough data to count.
What is silly is trying to run a business that way. Every place I've ever worked (even on a shoestring budget start-up companies) has done the same thing while dealing with Dell and Apple and Lenovo and our other suppliers of workstations. You standardize on a few suppliers (where I work now we have Apple and Lenovo). You keep a couple of spare machines as backups for when one breaks and give it to the user so they have no down time and ship off the machine to be fixed. When it is fixed you test it then it becomes one of the spares. When we had consumer Dell machine we had to keep a significant number of spares (10-20%) because failures were so common. With both Lenovo and Apple we have more like 2% extra to serve as spares. Even a day of downtime for a professional is about the same as the cost of a laptop when you figure how many tasks suddenly were derailed and waiting for some IT guy to try to swap parts and get something working again is absurd compared to a ten minute restore from backup. The cost evaluation of doing business some other way seems really high compared to the cost of having a few spare machines on hand.
This is what true "lock-in" (hardware AND software) looks like in the IT industry, and it's not pretty.In real business it is common to standardize on a few suppliers so "lock in" the way you describe it is standard operating procedure and results in fewer problems for IT and better prices. Its also a lot easier to buy 50 extra power supplies for each manufacturer and leave them in all the conference rooms, rather than try to manage them from a dozen different vendors.
You do know many government agencies already outsource IT and other projects to "private" companies who have all this government generated information, right?
The data was paid for by tax payers. Google will inevitably make money from this otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.Yeah, and right now Microsoft makes money off of selling them the OS and office suite. This isn't a question of if the government will be paying for the ability of their employees to do word processing, it is just a matter of how much and which companies will be getting the money. I don't trust Google any less than I do MS, who currently supplies the OS and the networking and the word processor. I don't trust them any less than the contractors the government already exports this data to. If they can save 75% of the current cost I pay in taxes, I'm all for it.
I'd probably rather they saved 50% of the cost and implemented Linux and OpenOffice in house instead, which would solve both the security issue and the finance issue, but given a choice between their current solution and going with Google, I don't see how Google is any worse.
Assuming a comparison somehow implies that the things being compared are quantitatively similar makes no sense. "The sun is like a nuclear reactor," in no way implies that the sun is the same level of importance to human survival as the nuclear reactor outside Green Bay, Wisconsin. They are comparable in qualities (nuclear powered) the same way that a war and Microsoft's monopoly are both similar in that they both create jobs. This comparison demonstrates that just because one quality exists (job creation) that does not logically follow that another quality exists (net positive impact on the world).
Picking out which system you want to run your apps on is not on the same moral level as human beings shooting each other.Morality is wholly subjective, by definition. Why do any of us care about your morals? Is it relevant to the discussion in some way?
As always the people of the world own the data. The copyright holders are, however, given a short term monopoly on making copies of it, with certain exceptions.
I hope Google isnt going to say they do like they want to with the old books theyre scanning.Google has not, as far as I know, claimed "ownership" or even copyright on anything they've scanned. They have, however, created their own database of metadata about the works, which they use to enable people to more easily find specific items in the original data.
Everytime you download a hubble picture will it have a google watermark?Umm, maybe. Why do I care if they add watermarks to it? If they are in the way, I'll just get them from another source that does not add watermarks. Google can also provide free copies of public domain pictures from other sources with Google advertising slogans on them if they want. It's called "freedom."
The public libraries in my area have offered free internet access to residents using their terminals for more than a decade now. Are they twits? The county's wireless program is in the process of blanketing the entire county with free low speed (.5 Mb/s) wireless and it has been up and running in the high population areas for a year. Are they twits for offering this? So far they are within budget and seem to be doing okay, with a number of trials of users who have upgraded to a higher speed connection on that network. The whole system is run by a couple of commercial companies subsidized by the county.
While I normally consider myself pretty far to the Right on the economic scale, I think there are certainly some areas where there are bona fide public interests, and where government is the most capable agency of completing a project (or is the only one you'd want to own and monopolize the finished product); in these areas it doesn't make sense to not do it within the public sector.Specifically, markets that lend themselves to natural monopolies, or where there is real, physical problem with not having one provider, are not suitable for the normal capitalist market. Capitalism works because of competition. If their is not real competition (not enough free RF spectrum for all comers or the government is not willing to subsidize all companies that want to run lines on public right of ways, but already subsidized one) then you have all the negatives of socialism as well as all the negatives of capitalism. Socialism is ineffective in most cases because it does not foster competition and innovation, but at least it also avoids needless duplication and is supposedly acting in the best interests of society. When you have only one viable player in capitalism, you still don't have competition, but anyone trying to solve the problem is duplicating effort and the entity is acting in the best interests of the shareholders, which is to take as much money from the people as possible while providing them with the minimum return.
There's no reason why modern informational infrastructure is any different, inherently, from transportation infrastructure 150-200 years ago. The same trade-offs exist, and the same risk, but also the potential for the same rewards.The real difference is back then the government was not completely sold out. There were still reform candidates who exposed corruption and got elected to drive the scum out. Now, everyone in major political offices got there by shilling for corporations and certain special interests. They are all whores. The US has been and will continue to subsidize the information infrastructure to the tune of billions, but those funds and infrastructure are immediately sold for pennies on the dollar to private corporations who are pulling the puppet strings. The US has already paid more per person in tax dollars to fund our infrastructure than other countries with lower population densities that now have near 100% availability with higher speeds at significantly lower prices. We the people, were just screwed over on the deal because our government is more corrupt and less accountable to the people than other places. Throwing more money at the government won't solve the problem until we throw all the bums out and elect reform candidates.
...when it comes to their office suite applications, it's on a whole another level of UI design I've noticed, compared to smaller things like Windows Defender.A lot of their basic usability flaws are in their core OS, not "smaller things." As for the UI of MS Office, I've not noticed that it is particularly good or better tested in that regard.
I have to disagree here. It may make things more complicated, but if I can customize a interface to be more efficient for what I do (take less steps todo a commonly used function), it's certainly not less usable.The assumption that you're making is that your personal experience is a useful data set. Being able to switch the background could allow you to customize it with 4 color background that lets you sort things increasing usability. In general, users are worse at determining what will make their computer more usable and the ability to customize results in decreases to usability more often than increases resulting in a net loss. In general if you make a feature customizable, people will customize it in poor ways, which is why it usually is a bad move for usability.
People have been suggesting that iWorks can replace Microsoft Office on this article...From what I read, people were claiming Apple could greatly expand iWorks and put resources behind it and the resulting product could be significantly better than MS Office. I've read comments that imply this could significantly hurt MS. The first is entirely possible, but I don't see it as likely anytime soon. The second is improbable for a slew of reasons there is no need to go into.
It was about 4 feet underwater, but the gun barrel was partially underwater as well.
Does a shotgun shoot jacketed bullets or does it shoot round pellets?It depends what you load it with, but jacketed rounds in a shotgun are unusual. Of course a lot of bullets for other firearms are not jacketed either, including most pistol rounds.
Do you know that incendiary ammunition doesn't leave a light trail, that what you're describing is tracer ammunition? Frankly, your reading comprehension and lack of technical knowledge makes me doubt your expertise.I was referring to phosphorus tracers, which also burn and are generally classified as an incendiary round. Maybe you need to rethink your own supposed expertise before questioning someone else's; not that I'm an expert on ammunition.