I've never seen a Gnome icon that looked better than the stone foot. I googled it, and then I went to your page, and it's what, black now? Stone is better. It'd be like asking people to upgrade to gnome 2.14 if 2.13 was better. You can ask, but it won't happen.
The software contained on that disk is legally owned property of the company that sold it to you.
You mean the copyright to that software is owned by the company. The software belongs to me just like the disk it's on, but the government has limited my right to copy my software to "fair use" in order to encourage publication and further the arts, etc.
It lasted 20 years, but he would've been satisfied had it only lasted 10. Had they designed it to break after 10, he would've bought another one in the middle, and they would have made a better profit off of him.
Companies have learned from that mistake, and modern TVs last only 2-3 years.
I agree that the idea of a precise and inviolate time schedule is silly. Six weeks is a non-issue, and if that's all it is, they should keep polishing.
[...]do we really need to spam out new binaries twice a year?
Why not?
I like knowing that Ubuntu has a solid freeze-and-release schedule, and I upgrade every other time in the hopes that there will be some nice improvements. So far, they haven't broken anything that I've noticed, so I'm happy.
It's really not spam since no-one ever mentions the releases I skip. And for people who are downloading it to try, it's nice that it's right up to date.
I am so offended, you and Slashdot should each be fined $2000 for that horrible threat to White Supremesists. Especially Slashdot.
I still don't see how your point affects the larger issue, which is the delegitimizing of internet hosting. I would never run a webserver in Canada, because you might post to it and bankrupt me.
1. Look at the source
2. ???
3. Profit!
My anti-phishing software contacts google.com and asks whether or not your website is safe, and then blocks your site because you are a phisher. You never get a chance to run code on my machine, so who cares if you have the source?
That did cross my mind, but I don't have a copy of NT4 anymore. And any copies I did have would've actually been my former employers, so using them would've been illegal.
MS stopped supporting MS Proxy server, but that was no problem, we just kept using it because it worked. Then last year shortly after I was hired, it just stopped working.
I tried to reinstall it, only to find it was installed under windowsNT4, and then the server was upgraded to windows2000. MS Proxy cannot be installed under windows2000, you would need the windows2000 version that never existed.
Our district primarily runs windows2000, but I use Linux with my kids and it is painfully easy. And it supports education very obviously -- they are learning useful UNIX skills. Kids can handle multiple OSes with no difficulty, but if we protect them from different OSes as you advocate, then when they get older, they get scared to try new things. You are asking schools to do our country a great disservice.
They see windows at home, they should learn new things at school.
Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should.
My windows servers stay spyware/virus free due to constant vigilance and exhaustive maintanence. I don't have the time to do that with every
computer, so without a magic bullet, I'm going to continue moving to Linux.
Even Bill gets the BSOD sometimes.
Except that a peltier uses electricity to move heat where his chip uses heat to move electricity.
And he's right, you know. PMMs are more feasable than time travel.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me, or sarcastically pointing out problems with what I said... Either way, your statements demonstrate that Moore's law is meaningless, which is my point. I didn't mean to imply that it was a conspiracy on the part of Intel to hamper technology, just that Moore's law gave them a good pacing mark for many years.
Moore's law held true because people believed in it, just like the 4-minute mile in running seemed unbreakable until someone did it. Now people do it all the time.
There are real limits on computer development, but they have nothing to do with Moore.
It's not a law, and moore didn't postulate it. It's correctly referred to as "intel's business model," since 1.5 years is a profutable schedule for new releases. When AMD first started competing seriously, Intel managed to outdo moore's law for several years.
OK, perhaps you'd like to share with me how you do it then.
The computers I have are connected to our intranet, but not directly to the internet. They have limited access to internet resources, filtered through two firewalls. We have limited accounts and spyware blockers of all sorts. We autoupdate patches from windowsupdate.com every night in some labs (a vulnerability in and of itself, but nevermind). Even so, users bring amazing amounts of spyware with them.
I connect my OS/X and my Linux servers between the two firewalls, so that there's only one relaxed layer on them, and they have no problems. I don't have any virus checkers or spyware blockers at all.
Windows is an insecure environment, and no amount of precaution on my part changes that. Perhaps you've found a magic bullet?
Releasing code under the GPL helps other programmers who are using the GPL.
Anyone on earth can live with the GPL for one progect, it's not as painful as you imply.
And programmers working for Oracle or Microsoft or Apple who want to take my software to sell it should be paying me in some way. It would be nice if BSD could force Apple to open Aqua to developers, but since their license has no teeth, they can't. Sure, Linux is less free than BSD, but it's much more free than OS/X.
It's home users I care about, and GPL grants them the right to see the code they are running. I don't see a need for me to be generous to miserly mid-level developers.
The politicians did what wikipedia invites them to do: edit the entries.
Wikipedia does what it does: remove obvious errors and block those who abuse the system. Nothing went wrong here.
The problem here with congress, not with wikipedia. Namely, politicians are lying weasels whose goal is to win at any cost. I don't like knowing that congress is filled with worthless scumbags who are only there to steal whatever they can and fling poop.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never seen a Gnome icon that looked better than the stone foot. I googled it, and then I went to your page, and it's what, black now? Stone is better. It'd be like asking people to upgrade to gnome 2.14 if 2.13 was better. You can ask, but it won't happen.
It's also possible to watch too much Enterprise, where "too much" is interchangeable with "any."
Voyager wasn't the worst, even if you ignore ds9 entirely, as I do.
The software contained on that disk is legally owned property of the company that sold it to you.
You mean the copyright to that software is owned by the company. The software belongs to me just like the disk it's on, but the government has limited my right to copy my software to "fair use" in order to encourage publication and further the arts, etc.
It lasted 20 years, but he would've been satisfied had it only lasted 10. Had they designed it to break after 10, he would've bought another one in the middle, and they would have made a better profit off of him.
Companies have learned from that mistake, and modern TVs last only 2-3 years.
I agree that the idea of a precise and inviolate time schedule is silly. Six weeks is a non-issue, and if that's all it is, they should keep polishing.
[...]do we really need to spam out new binaries twice a year?
Why not?
I like knowing that Ubuntu has a solid freeze-and-release schedule, and I upgrade every other time in the hopes that there will be some nice improvements. So far, they haven't broken anything that I've noticed, so I'm happy.
It's really not spam since no-one ever mentions the releases I skip. And for people who are downloading it to try, it's nice that it's right up to date.
These people should be lobotomised.
Hate speech! Hate speech!
I am so offended, you and Slashdot should each be fined $2000 for that horrible threat to White Supremesists. Especially Slashdot.
I still don't see how your point affects the larger issue, which is the delegitimizing of internet hosting. I would never run a webserver in Canada, because you might post to it and bankrupt me.
1. Look at the source 2. ??? 3. Profit! My anti-phishing software contacts google.com and asks whether or not your website is safe, and then blocks your site because you are a phisher. You never get a chance to run code on my machine, so who cares if you have the source?
I didn't want a new product, but since I had to have one, I went with the one I could download immediately: debian.
So why didn't you replicate the install chain?
That did cross my mind, but I don't have a copy of NT4 anymore. And any copies I did have would've actually been my former employers, so using them would've been illegal.
A specific example for you.
MS stopped supporting MS Proxy server, but that was no problem, we just kept using it because it worked. Then last year shortly after I was hired, it just stopped working.
I tried to reinstall it, only to find it was installed under windowsNT4, and then the server was upgraded to windows2000. MS Proxy cannot be installed under windows2000, you would need the windows2000 version that never existed.
We have a linux based proxy server now.
Our district primarily runs windows2000, but I use Linux with my kids and it is painfully easy. And it supports education very obviously -- they are learning useful UNIX skills. Kids can handle multiple OSes with no difficulty, but if we protect them from different OSes as you advocate, then when they get older, they get scared to try new things. You are asking schools to do our country a great disservice. They see windows at home, they should learn new things at school.
Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should.
My windows servers stay spyware/virus free due to constant vigilance and exhaustive maintanence. I don't have the time to do that with every computer, so without a magic bullet, I'm going to continue moving to Linux.
Even Bill gets the BSOD sometimes.
Except that a peltier uses electricity to move heat where his chip uses heat to move electricity. And he's right, you know. PMMs are more feasable than time travel.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me, or sarcastically pointing out problems with what I said... Either way, your statements demonstrate that Moore's law is meaningless, which is my point. I didn't mean to imply that it was a conspiracy on the part of Intel to hamper technology, just that Moore's law gave them a good pacing mark for many years.
Moore's law held true because people believed in it, just like the 4-minute mile in running seemed unbreakable until someone did it. Now people do it all the time.
There are real limits on computer development, but they have nothing to do with Moore.
It's not a law, and moore didn't postulate it. It's correctly referred to as "intel's business model," since 1.5 years is a profutable schedule for new releases. When AMD first started competing seriously, Intel managed to outdo moore's law for several years.
It certainly sounds cool, but not a PDF killer.
I connect my OS/X and my Linux servers between the two firewalls, so that there's only one relaxed layer on them, and they have no problems. I don't have any virus checkers or spyware blockers at all.
Windows is an insecure environment, and no amount of precaution on my part changes that. Perhaps you've found a magic bullet?
Well, right, but if you ever connected them to the internet, that would change fairly quickly.
You mean like being from Afganistan, or maybe looking too much like Afganistan (ie. Iraq)?
But, think back a few months, when al jazeera commented how bush was a murderer, and people here were cheering on the crackers who defaced that site.
Same situation, but now you're on the other side.
But, think back a few months, when al jazeera commented how bush was a murderer, and people here were cheering on the crackers who defaced that site.
Same situation, but now you're on the other side.
Releasing code under the GPL helps other programmers who are using the GPL.
Anyone on earth can live with the GPL for one progect, it's not as painful as you imply.
And programmers working for Oracle or Microsoft or Apple who want to take my software to sell it should be paying me in some way. It would be nice if BSD could force Apple to open Aqua to developers, but since their license has no teeth, they can't. Sure, Linux is less free than BSD, but it's much more free than OS/X.
It's home users I care about, and GPL grants them the right to see the code they are running. I don't see a need for me to be generous to miserly mid-level developers.
The politicians did what wikipedia invites them to do: edit the entries. Wikipedia does what it does: remove obvious errors and block those who abuse the system. Nothing went wrong here.
The problem here with congress, not with wikipedia. Namely, politicians are lying weasels whose goal is to win at any cost. I don't like knowing that congress is filled with worthless scumbags who are only there to steal whatever they can and fling poop.Why? because he named his project? Or because he protects his trademark, preventing MS Linux from being produced?
Interesting, since DRM does exactly that.