That's a good point. Being collateral damage is not funny. But it is funny that the richest software company on the planet, run by two of the most arrogant lying blowhards alive, can't code its way out of a wet paper bag.
Yes, truly it was awful when the free-as-in-freeloader demographic was cut off. Now there are fewer choices for the freeloaders than ever. Instead of nice free Red Hat.isos, you have Fedora, CentOS, White Box Linux, Pie box Linux, Lineox..... poor dears, how will you survive.
That would make him a terrorist, by magnifying the problem of windoze botnets, spams, phishes, malware of all kinds, fraud, and identity theft a hundred times worse. We wouldn't even be able to get on the Internet at all- all the world's bandwidth would be devoured by warring malware bots.
Firefox forked from Mozilla, which forked from Netscape.
It's still Firefox on Windows, IceWeasel has nothing to do with winduhs at all, so it won't affect the Firefox vs. Aieee war
Forks are insurance against idiot vendors.
That's pretty dim reasoning, because Microsoft has a long, proven history of customer and partner abuse, while none of the Linux distributions do. And I'd like to know how anyone would even pick your company as a target- suppose you download and use a free-beer Linux. Who on earth would even know you had it? SCO was already way over the legal line when they claimed end-users were liable. Sorry, but there is absolutely zero legal precedent for holding users responsible for vendor's misdeeds. In a nutshell, whoever makes the decisions in your company is beyond stupid and well into delusional.
Can't British persons face facts? It's really OK to do your own thinking, and not let the government do it for you.
You're also confusing "truth" with "proven in court". They are not the same thing, sometimes they
re not even close. We know what the truth of SCO's case is- pure hot air.
I do wonder. How do such dim, unimaginative people hold jobs? You'd think even a TV exec could figure out that
1. When you've seen a commercial 100 times, you're probably tired of it 2. Even more so if it's a product you have no interest in 3. Which is probably 95% of all ads- I don't know the real numbers, but you can look at any random ad and figure out pretty easily that the product will appeal to a small fraction of viewers 4. Even for products you're interested in, you're not going to watch every single damned ad they run 5. Making viewers hate you doesn't sell product
Which would wipe out half of FOSS in one fell swoop. But the ranks would quickly be re-filled with normal people with actual technical and social skills.
What to do with all those leftover dorks? Not to worry, they'll have more time to do what they really want, which is spend more time posting asinine comments on Digg and Slashdot.
the biggest reason to like the Gimp...
on
Beginning GIMP
·
· Score: 2, Informative
One of the biggest reasons to like the Gimp is the Gimp devs won't have you jailed and arrested, while Adobe just might. http://www.freesklyarov.org/
Re:What's wrong with the interface?
on
Beginning GIMP
·
· Score: 1
You're not missing a thing. It's the alleged "pros" who have nothing better to do than trash the gimp and promote Photoshop, which they pirated anyway. Of course there are differences, but like you and thousands of other people I enjoy using the Gimp. It more than meets my needs, and every release has good new features and improvements.
This is a very good book, especially for people who want to learn about using the Gimp instead of bitching that it's not exactly the same as Photoshop. The Gimp is a powerhouse image editor and it's not that hard to learn, especially with the aid of an excellent book like this one.
They have the finest coders in the world, surely they can spy on users and invade their systems without being caught so easily. Why, they look like amateurs when Zone Alarm finks them off on the first try.
Nah, Infoworld is just like the others. They save the big tech vendors money by publishing "interviews" and "news stories", so the poor lads don't have to spend more on their own PR firms. They're just mouthpieces. I don't see the news value in yet another CEO blathering on about "we're going to do cool stuff." That's not news.
To get real tech journalism, you have to search out the educated, independent bloggers like Groklaw, Andy Updegrove, Bruce Schneier, and various others. The commercial "journalism" pubs are just vehicles to sell ads. Most of the time their reporters aren't tech savvy at all, just English majors working for paychecks, who don't understand the fields they're supposed to cover.
My fave is the current trend towards "balance". Collect random quotes with no regard for the qualifications of the people being quoted, string them together, and instant balanced article.:P Supposed Infoworld editor, if you're still reading this, you know it's all true.
You must be hiding the good articles, because you're not publishing them. This interview is nothing more than a puff piece. When you start publishing articles that don't look like warmed-over press releases, and asking intelligent interview questions, then we'll believe you. When Microsoft spokespeople utter blatantly stupid blather like "we want to reach out to the OSS community more!" why aren't you asking the obvious questions, like "What's stopping you from being a good OSS participant already? Open up some of your document formats, quit playing games with networking protocols and XML, quit your dirty tricks with ODF, and quit spreading misinformation and lies about FOSS. You know you don't need an invitation- just join in, honor FOSS licenses, and quit trying to own and control everything."
If your interviewees refuse to answer the hard questions, why don't you make that part of your article?
Slashdot Mirror
Right. Put a bounty on spammers, and in a few week's time problem solved.
That's a good point. Being collateral damage is not funny. But it is funny that the richest software company on the planet, run by two of the most arrogant lying blowhards alive, can't code its way out of a wet paper bag.
...a day goes by when Office and Windows are not exploited with trivial ease.
If natural selection really worked, idiots like this guy would not live to breeding age, or find mates.
How weird, my nose is growing.
I give it a couple of days. Oh sorry, I see that was a rhetorical question. Never mind!
Yes, truly it was awful when the free-as-in-freeloader demographic was cut off. Now there are fewer choices for the freeloaders than ever. Instead of nice free Red Hat .isos, you have Fedora, CentOS, White Box Linux, Pie box Linux, Lineox..... poor dears, how will you survive.
That would make him a terrorist, by magnifying the problem of windoze botnets, spams, phishes, malware of all kinds, fraud, and identity theft a hundred times worse. We wouldn't even be able to get on the Internet at all- all the world's bandwidth would be devoured by warring malware bots.
Then you'll see spam levels drop. Most spam is distributed via windows botnets. Thanks Billg for all you've done for the world.
Firefox forked from Mozilla, which forked from Netscape. It's still Firefox on Windows, IceWeasel has nothing to do with winduhs at all, so it won't affect the Firefox vs. Aieee war Forks are insurance against idiot vendors.
That's pretty dim reasoning, because Microsoft has a long, proven history of customer and partner abuse, while none of the Linux distributions do. And I'd like to know how anyone would even pick your company as a target- suppose you download and use a free-beer Linux. Who on earth would even know you had it? SCO was already way over the legal line when they claimed end-users were liable. Sorry, but there is absolutely zero legal precedent for holding users responsible for vendor's misdeeds. In a nutshell, whoever makes the decisions in your company is beyond stupid and well into delusional.
You're also confusing "truth" with "proven in court". They are not the same thing, sometimes they re not even close. We know what the truth of SCO's case is- pure hot air.
You actually gave credence to SCO's claims? Oh my. Why oh why??
Except to all of BillG's towel boyz: told ya so. The only thing that Microsoft innovates is corruption.
If I worked at Hewlett-Packard.
I do wonder. How do such dim, unimaginative people hold jobs? You'd think even a TV exec could figure out that
1. When you've seen a commercial 100 times, you're probably tired of it
2. Even more so if it's a product you have no interest in
3. Which is probably 95% of all ads- I don't know the real numbers, but you can look at any random ad and figure out pretty easily that the product will appeal to a small fraction of viewers
4. Even for products you're interested in, you're not going to watch every single damned ad they run
5. Making viewers hate you doesn't sell product
I wish natural selection were more effective.
Which would wipe out half of FOSS in one fell swoop. But the ranks would quickly be re-filled with normal people with actual technical and social skills. What to do with all those leftover dorks? Not to worry, they'll have more time to do what they really want, which is spend more time posting asinine comments on Digg and Slashdot.
One of the biggest reasons to like the Gimp is the Gimp devs won't have you jailed and arrested, while Adobe just might. http://www.freesklyarov.org/
You're not missing a thing. It's the alleged "pros" who have nothing better to do than trash the gimp and promote Photoshop, which they pirated anyway. Of course there are differences, but like you and thousands of other people I enjoy using the Gimp. It more than meets my needs, and every release has good new features and improvements.
This is a very good book, especially for people who want to learn about using the Gimp instead of bitching that it's not exactly the same as Photoshop. The Gimp is a powerhouse image editor and it's not that hard to learn, especially with the aid of an excellent book like this one.
They have the finest coders in the world, surely they can spy on users and invade their systems without being caught so easily. Why, they look like amateurs when Zone Alarm finks them off on the first try.
Articulate he is not.
To get real tech journalism, you have to search out the educated, independent bloggers like Groklaw, Andy Updegrove, Bruce Schneier, and various others. The commercial "journalism" pubs are just vehicles to sell ads. Most of the time their reporters aren't tech savvy at all, just English majors working for paychecks, who don't understand the fields they're supposed to cover.
My fave is the current trend towards "balance". Collect random quotes with no regard for the qualifications of the people being quoted, string them together, and instant balanced article. :P Supposed Infoworld editor, if you're still reading this, you know it's all true.
You must be hiding the good articles, because you're not publishing them. This interview is nothing more than a puff piece. When you start publishing articles that don't look like warmed-over press releases, and asking intelligent interview questions, then we'll believe you. When Microsoft spokespeople utter blatantly stupid blather like "we want to reach out to the OSS community more!" why aren't you asking the obvious questions, like "What's stopping you from being a good OSS participant already? Open up some of your document formats, quit playing games with networking protocols and XML, quit your dirty tricks with ODF, and quit spreading misinformation and lies about FOSS. You know you don't need an invitation- just join in, honor FOSS licenses, and quit trying to own and control everything."
If your interviewees refuse to answer the hard questions, why don't you make that part of your article?
You're just industry lapdogs, not journalists.
Someone needs to tell Tom's that you can fit more than 10 article words per Web page, even if 99% of it is advertising.