Lots of embedded devices run Linux kernels that have been highly optimized. And since when did running the GNU userland represent a requirement for being classified as being "Linux". This sounds more like some pathetic Redmond shill realizing Windows days of dominance are over trying to fabricate a definition of "Linux" that somehow still preserves the fantasy of Windows dominance.
Microsoft won the desktop battle, but it's irrelevant, because Linux won the computing war. If you want to make fraudulent definitions of what constitutes "Linux", then go ahead, but it's not a definition that is shared by anyone, and certainly was never applied over the last 15-20 to the various embedded Linux installs which didn't run libc or the GNU userland toolkit, so it really is just your own private definition that has absolutely no meaning.
But I am enjoying crybabies like you try desperately to try to win the argument even though even you know you've lost it.
I think the direction many "PC"s are going to head is a monitor, keyboard and mouse that your connect your phone or tablet in to. I have a Windows 10 tablet that's a full-functioning Windows 10 install (not Windows 10 mobile OS). Specs aren't that great; crappy two core processor and 2gb onboard RAM and 32gb of flash, but still, it has a micro HDMI port and Bluetooth, so if I wanted to I could upgrade it to Windows 10 Pro and connect up to my organization's Active Directory network. I wouldn't want to run Eclipse on the thing, but it works well enough for Word, Excel and Outlook. I know that's the direction Samsung's moving towards, and I expect all the major mobile manufacturers are going to push towards.
Actual PCs will probably ultimately be largely used by developers, network admins, engineers and the like, but they'll become an increasingly smaller share of overall sales. Whether prices go up or not I'm not sure, but what I do know is that there are probably only two people in my entire organization (one of them being me) who actually needs a big fat quad-core with 8 or 16gb of RAM and a 2tb hard drive (heck, I probably don't even need the hard drive), and I could probably drop something like my tablet on to their desk and they probably wouldn't even notice it.
At the moment, however, we are still purchasing towers, but increasingly moving towards the refurb market because specs just aren't that important, and we see little need in investing in new desktops. If the refurbs last a couple of years, we will probably be looking at small factor PCs or even PC sticks.
By that definition, so is Windows 10. And with my Android devices, I don't have ads just randomly appearing on the screen. I actually have to go into Chrome, or install one of those "free" apps.
I've owned four Android devices now, and I've never experienced "destabilization". I don't even know what the hell that means,
But I realize you're a paid shill, so your complaint is just a sheer invention. It's pretty pathetic, shilling for a platform that's all but dead. What's next, "I love my my Amiga because..."?
The issue is "just how much longer is the desktop going to matter?" It's a question that certainly weighs heavily on the big brains at Microsoft. Sure, in the corporate world desktops are going to be around for some time to come, but in the home consumer world, I think being number one on the desktop is going to become an increasingly hollow claim to fame. And I'd argue even a lot of business activity is increasingly happening on mobile devices (certainly a fair portion of my emails and document reviews are done on my phone).
Um, yes, it's Linux, just as much as any embedded Linux-based OS is Linux. True, it may not be the Stallman-esque "GNU/Linux", in that it has very little of the GNU toolset, but that's true of most embedded Linux systems (i.e. anything with BusyBox).
So yes, it is Linux, just as much as, say, a WR54G is a Linux-based system.
You only get to say you're in the game when you at least get up to the plate. Thus far, Windows mobile offerings, from the first until now, haven't even got there. Yes, Microsoft has near-infinite resources to keep throwing new mobile offerings out there, but so what? Blackberry still has boatloads of cash, and even it has pretty much declared defeat.
It's nice you have faith in MS. I do not, nor apparently does much of the market.
The Windows app store has to be the worst of signal to noise ratio. There are damned few apps of any kind, and most are just fucking awful. I'll take my chances with the iTunes or Google Play stores, simply because there's actual selection.
There's nothing THAT novel about Netflix. In a way, HBO has been using revenues derived from subscriptions for over forty. And so long as Netflix and Amazon can buy content, they can keep going. Thus far, Netflix is showing pretty strong growth, and while its own productions are still a minority, the fact remains that between the shows it pays directly to produce and the shows it buys a license to broadcast, it's doing pretty damned well.
And really, what did most of the big networks ever offer? A couple of dozen flagship dramas and comedies per season, most of which get culled after a season or two.
And that's the real problem for the traditional TV dial in the future. For many years networks have been guaranteed on a slot on the dial simply because of the way TV channels have been bundled, but as various forms of a' la cart, the most important being streaming, mature and giants like Netflix and Amazon seem destined within a decade or so to completely swamp traditional cable, these channels are in crisis. And if ESPN falls, then it's going to bite deeply into a lot of the pro sports. I can well imagine that sooner or later as the big leagues like the NBA and NFL watch ESPN's subscriber levels erode, they may ask themselves "Why the hell aren't we just selling directly to the consumer?"
It was Balmer who insisted on pouring massive resources into Windows Mobile, and what we've seen over the last few years, even after his departure, is that strategy. But the shift towards supporting other mobile OSs indicates that the current CEO is not suffering under the same delusions Ballmer was, and is more interested in making sure that the all-important Microsoft Backoffice isn't supplanted, in particular, by Google's mobile offerings. It's as many have long suspected, Windows is far less important to Microsoft than the Office-Backoffice ecosystem.
I'd say the fact that MS has ported its flagship software to other platforms makes it very clear that even Redmond knows full well that Windows Mobile is dead in the water. They'll keep a toe in the water by their resolve to support Windows on ARM, so at that point they could, if they wanted to, likely move back into mobile if they felt there was the least bit of hope, but every signal I see suggests that they know they cannot win the mobile OS war, and are going to stop trying.
Christ, if anything, Windows 10, desktop or mobile, has to be one of the most counterintuitive interfaces. It's clunky and inelegant. To each their own, I suppose, but I truly don't like my Windows 10 tablet very much, but seeing as I don't want to fork out $400+ for a decent 8 inch tablet, I do use it. I installed Nox on it so I can run the FBreader app, seeing as it doesn't like the writers are ever going to produce a decent Windows version with sync.
The Articles of Confederation were the United States' first constitution, and created just the kind of federal government you seem to want; one that was largely impotent, couldn't really raise money and really couldn't impose any kind of order on the union at all. It was quickly recognized to be a constitution that was sure to doom the young union entirely, which is why a new constitution was produced, one that very much created a strong centralized federal government. Yes, we can debate just how strong the Framers intended it to be, but considering even the kind of Federal government one of its authors, Jefferson, ran, I'd say while he certainly wouldn't be considered Lincolnian or Rooseveltian, neither was he some sort of minimalist Libertarian, and he certainly viewed Federal power as a useful club.
That's one thing I will applaud Microsoft for. We've purchased a couple of Dell notebooks from them, and there's virtually no crapware at all, not even Dell's. It's pretty much as close to a pure Windows 10 install as one can get (yes yes, I know, Windows 10 may in some part constitute crapware even on a lean install). It was quite something to open up the Installed programs in the control panel and literally see just a small handful of items there. The real joy was in not seeing McAfee or Norton AV.
So while I'm pretty damned critical of Redmond in a lot of ways, this is one area where they really are catering to the more seasoned IT types by selling machines that are as minimalistic as Windows can be.
For chrissakes, most users are drooling idiots. Pretty much every application, but in particular every application that connects to the Internet, has to take into account that the odds are fairly good that the person sitting in front of the keyboard is a drooling idiot.
Does your mother know what kind of woman-hating monster you are? I'm going to assume you don't have a wife or a girlfriend, because you couldn't hide your hatred that well for any length of time, but you know, moms can overlook the fact that you're a hate-filled worm.
And further to that, that isn't the only place "regulate" even appears in the Constitution, with the clear intent that the enumerated powers were meant to be *governing* powers. In fact, the word appears FIFTEEN times in the Constitution, and each and every instance indicates that "regulate" is being used exactly in the definition I gave.
Even your example is absurd, since it's pretty clear a "voltage regulator" is meant to "control" voltage, in other words govern it. It is exactly the same usage.
JEsus, just how far do you want to take this argument. The fact is that "regulate" was used in governing parlance over a century and a half BEFORE the Constitution was written, and clearly the Founding Fathers, being reasonably well-versed in the English governing system were using "regulate" in exactly that sense. In fact, "voltage" as a word didn't exist until the very tale end of the 18th century or the early 19th century.
I love how the so-called "Constitutional purists" will in fact try to redefine the Framers' intentions with the most obviously moronic arguments.
Where the Constitution says "regulate", it means to control and govern, to create laws, to, well, REGULATE. Jesus Christ.
When did regulate ever mean "to make regular". The word "regulate" comes from the Latin "regula" which means "to rule", and even as early as Middle English, meant "to direct, to make rules". You're just inventing a fake etymology to further a false argument about what the framers of the Constitution intended.
"Regulate" meant the same in 18th century English as it does today.
"regulate (v.) Look up regulate at Dictionary.com early 15c., "adjust by rule, control," from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare "to control by rule, direct," from Latin regula "rule" (see regular). Meaning "to govern by restriction" is from 1620s. Related: Regulated; regulating." http://www.etymonline.com/inde...
I think we're long past the point where decent internet being pretty damned important. But I get it, the poor should be happy in their shitholes, and computers should be reserved for the moneyed classes
Slashdot Mirror
Lots of embedded devices run Linux kernels that have been highly optimized. And since when did running the GNU userland represent a requirement for being classified as being "Linux". This sounds more like some pathetic Redmond shill realizing Windows days of dominance are over trying to fabricate a definition of "Linux" that somehow still preserves the fantasy of Windows dominance.
Microsoft won the desktop battle, but it's irrelevant, because Linux won the computing war. If you want to make fraudulent definitions of what constitutes "Linux", then go ahead, but it's not a definition that is shared by anyone, and certainly was never applied over the last 15-20 to the various embedded Linux installs which didn't run libc or the GNU userland toolkit, so it really is just your own private definition that has absolutely no meaning.
But I am enjoying crybabies like you try desperately to try to win the argument even though even you know you've lost it.
I think the direction many "PC"s are going to head is a monitor, keyboard and mouse that your connect your phone or tablet in to. I have a Windows 10 tablet that's a full-functioning Windows 10 install (not Windows 10 mobile OS). Specs aren't that great; crappy two core processor and 2gb onboard RAM and 32gb of flash, but still, it has a micro HDMI port and Bluetooth, so if I wanted to I could upgrade it to Windows 10 Pro and connect up to my organization's Active Directory network. I wouldn't want to run Eclipse on the thing, but it works well enough for Word, Excel and Outlook. I know that's the direction Samsung's moving towards, and I expect all the major mobile manufacturers are going to push towards.
Actual PCs will probably ultimately be largely used by developers, network admins, engineers and the like, but they'll become an increasingly smaller share of overall sales. Whether prices go up or not I'm not sure, but what I do know is that there are probably only two people in my entire organization (one of them being me) who actually needs a big fat quad-core with 8 or 16gb of RAM and a 2tb hard drive (heck, I probably don't even need the hard drive), and I could probably drop something like my tablet on to their desk and they probably wouldn't even notice it.
At the moment, however, we are still purchasing towers, but increasingly moving towards the refurb market because specs just aren't that important, and we see little need in investing in new desktops. If the refurbs last a couple of years, we will probably be looking at small factor PCs or even PC sticks.
By that definition, so is Windows 10. And with my Android devices, I don't have ads just randomly appearing on the screen. I actually have to go into Chrome, or install one of those "free" apps.
I've owned four Android devices now, and I've never experienced "destabilization". I don't even know what the hell that means,
But I realize you're a paid shill, so your complaint is just a sheer invention. It's pretty pathetic, shilling for a platform that's all but dead. What's next, "I love my my Amiga because..."?
The issue is "just how much longer is the desktop going to matter?" It's a question that certainly weighs heavily on the big brains at Microsoft. Sure, in the corporate world desktops are going to be around for some time to come, but in the home consumer world, I think being number one on the desktop is going to become an increasingly hollow claim to fame. And I'd argue even a lot of business activity is increasingly happening on mobile devices (certainly a fair portion of my emails and document reviews are done on my phone).
Um, yes, it's Linux, just as much as any embedded Linux-based OS is Linux. True, it may not be the Stallman-esque "GNU/Linux", in that it has very little of the GNU toolset, but that's true of most embedded Linux systems (i.e. anything with BusyBox).
So yes, it is Linux, just as much as, say, a WR54G is a Linux-based system.
You only get to say you're in the game when you at least get up to the plate. Thus far, Windows mobile offerings, from the first until now, haven't even got there. Yes, Microsoft has near-infinite resources to keep throwing new mobile offerings out there, but so what? Blackberry still has boatloads of cash, and even it has pretty much declared defeat.
It's nice you have faith in MS. I do not, nor apparently does much of the market.
The Windows app store has to be the worst of signal to noise ratio. There are damned few apps of any kind, and most are just fucking awful. I'll take my chances with the iTunes or Google Play stores, simply because there's actual selection.
There's nothing THAT novel about Netflix. In a way, HBO has been using revenues derived from subscriptions for over forty. And so long as Netflix and Amazon can buy content, they can keep going. Thus far, Netflix is showing pretty strong growth, and while its own productions are still a minority, the fact remains that between the shows it pays directly to produce and the shows it buys a license to broadcast, it's doing pretty damned well.
And really, what did most of the big networks ever offer? A couple of dozen flagship dramas and comedies per season, most of which get culled after a season or two.
And that's the real problem for the traditional TV dial in the future. For many years networks have been guaranteed on a slot on the dial simply because of the way TV channels have been bundled, but as various forms of a' la cart, the most important being streaming, mature and giants like Netflix and Amazon seem destined within a decade or so to completely swamp traditional cable, these channels are in crisis. And if ESPN falls, then it's going to bite deeply into a lot of the pro sports. I can well imagine that sooner or later as the big leagues like the NBA and NFL watch ESPN's subscriber levels erode, they may ask themselves "Why the hell aren't we just selling directly to the consumer?"
It was Balmer who insisted on pouring massive resources into Windows Mobile, and what we've seen over the last few years, even after his departure, is that strategy. But the shift towards supporting other mobile OSs indicates that the current CEO is not suffering under the same delusions Ballmer was, and is more interested in making sure that the all-important Microsoft Backoffice isn't supplanted, in particular, by Google's mobile offerings. It's as many have long suspected, Windows is far less important to Microsoft than the Office-Backoffice ecosystem.
I'd say the fact that MS has ported its flagship software to other platforms makes it very clear that even Redmond knows full well that Windows Mobile is dead in the water. They'll keep a toe in the water by their resolve to support Windows on ARM, so at that point they could, if they wanted to, likely move back into mobile if they felt there was the least bit of hope, but every signal I see suggests that they know they cannot win the mobile OS war, and are going to stop trying.
Christ, if anything, Windows 10, desktop or mobile, has to be one of the most counterintuitive interfaces. It's clunky and inelegant. To each their own, I suppose, but I truly don't like my Windows 10 tablet very much, but seeing as I don't want to fork out $400+ for a decent 8 inch tablet, I do use it. I installed Nox on it so I can run the FBreader app, seeing as it doesn't like the writers are ever going to produce a decent Windows version with sync.
??? Confederacy ???
The Articles of Confederation were the United States' first constitution, and created just the kind of federal government you seem to want; one that was largely impotent, couldn't really raise money and really couldn't impose any kind of order on the union at all. It was quickly recognized to be a constitution that was sure to doom the young union entirely, which is why a new constitution was produced, one that very much created a strong centralized federal government. Yes, we can debate just how strong the Framers intended it to be, but considering even the kind of Federal government one of its authors, Jefferson, ran, I'd say while he certainly wouldn't be considered Lincolnian or Rooseveltian, neither was he some sort of minimalist Libertarian, and he certainly viewed Federal power as a useful club.
Five. Bob in San Francisco chucked his in the Bay and went and bought an iPhone. He wanted to be a proper hipster again.
That view of government died with the Articles of Confederation
That's one thing I will applaud Microsoft for. We've purchased a couple of Dell notebooks from them, and there's virtually no crapware at all, not even Dell's. It's pretty much as close to a pure Windows 10 install as one can get (yes yes, I know, Windows 10 may in some part constitute crapware even on a lean install). It was quite something to open up the Installed programs in the control panel and literally see just a small handful of items there. The real joy was in not seeing McAfee or Norton AV.
So while I'm pretty damned critical of Redmond in a lot of ways, this is one area where they really are catering to the more seasoned IT types by selling machines that are as minimalistic as Windows can be.
For chrissakes, most users are drooling idiots. Pretty much every application, but in particular every application that connects to the Internet, has to take into account that the odds are fairly good that the person sitting in front of the keyboard is a drooling idiot.
And what about a "well regulated Militia" goes against the definition of "regulation" that I quoted above?
Does your mother know what kind of woman-hating monster you are? I'm going to assume you don't have a wife or a girlfriend, because you couldn't hide your hatred that well for any length of time, but you know, moms can overlook the fact that you're a hate-filled worm.
You mean, an actual human life versus a fetus that may or may not end up as a human being.
And further to that, that isn't the only place "regulate" even appears in the Constitution, with the clear intent that the enumerated powers were meant to be *governing* powers. In fact, the word appears FIFTEEN times in the Constitution, and each and every instance indicates that "regulate" is being used exactly in the definition I gave.
Even your example is absurd, since it's pretty clear a "voltage regulator" is meant to "control" voltage, in other words govern it. It is exactly the same usage.
JEsus, just how far do you want to take this argument. The fact is that "regulate" was used in governing parlance over a century and a half BEFORE the Constitution was written, and clearly the Founding Fathers, being reasonably well-versed in the English governing system were using "regulate" in exactly that sense. In fact, "voltage" as a word didn't exist until the very tale end of the 18th century or the early 19th century.
I love how the so-called "Constitutional purists" will in fact try to redefine the Framers' intentions with the most obviously moronic arguments.
Where the Constitution says "regulate", it means to control and govern, to create laws, to, well, REGULATE. Jesus Christ.
When did regulate ever mean "to make regular". The word "regulate" comes from the Latin "regula" which means "to rule", and even as early as Middle English, meant "to direct, to make rules". You're just inventing a fake etymology to further a false argument about what the framers of the Constitution intended.
"Regulate" meant the same in 18th century English as it does today.
"regulate (v.) Look up regulate at Dictionary.com
early 15c., "adjust by rule, control," from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare "to control by rule, direct," from Latin regula "rule" (see regular). Meaning "to govern by restriction" is from 1620s. Related: Regulated; regulating."
http://www.etymonline.com/inde...
I think we're long past the point where decent internet being pretty damned important. But I get it, the poor should be happy in their shitholes, and computers should be reserved for the moneyed classes