Picked up a Toshiba laptop at CompUSA last week. Inside the box is a note stateing that the package must be installed as a whole and no parts may be returned.
''Open source is an intellectual-property destroyer,'' Allchin said. ''I can't imagine something that could be worse than this for the software business and the intellectual-property business.''
Yup it's bad for business. MS will have a harder time making money. So? Adapt and compete and you will succeed.
But open-source is good for software. At least I'm very happy with it. I wish I could play with the Linux at work more but it so rarely breaks that I spend all my time fixing the NT that so rarely doesn't break.
Salon is wrong. Their editors are just putting pressure on the reporters to get a story out. What better story than to revist Colombine and say how the media has no idea what it's talking about. Why is this set of events more beleiveable than the first set?
Wait a minute. The media is telling me that the media has no clue? So Salon is telling me that Salon can't be trusted? So there are these two guys at a fork in the road. One always lies and one always tells the truth. . . I digress. It just leads to the question, Who should we beleive now? The media can't be trusted. They're a business not a service. One must remember that. They are not here to inform they are here to make money. What makes money? Fringe groups picking on norms. Two "punk/goth/gay/racist/whatevers" picking on good god fearing christains sells alot of add copy. Two crazy kids who snap and kill people just scares people.
You don't _need_ init. Oh lord that would be messy, but you don't need it./bin/bash? Nuke it. There are other shells, which is my argument exactly. Also if someone writes a different init or ls you can change which one you use very easily.
My argument is that init should be an application and not part of the kernel. Thus I can use someone else's init if I want. I have no trouble with bundling, it's just integrating that I have a problem with.
So, by your logic, an operating system should come with absolutely no applications? At all?
Correct. There should be no applications "integrated" into the OS. Ship all the apps you want but I had better not have to run them.
Hmmm. That means I can't have an FTP transfer program, since that would put FTP transfer program companies out of business.Therefore, I couldn't download your free browser in order to read the help files (which would presumably tell me where to download the browser).
Ship with whatever you want. I never said anything about shipping with apps. I don't want to be forced to into using app "foo" because it's been built into the OS.
2) Ah, but what I said was that should have been the issue. Or should MS have never added TCP/IP into the OS? There are many TCP/IP add-on companies that were severely hurt when MS did that. Those meanies!
1. TCP/IP allows my operating system to do something it couldn't do before. That makes it a natural extension of the operating system and thus MS can do what ever they bloody choose.
2. MS wasn't making deals with PC makers to get their TCP/IP stack ont he machine and others off.
3. Your example is flawed by nature as the things being compared to not similar. A protocol and a mark-up language are two very different beasts.
You don't need a browser built into the operating system in this case. If the author wants to put his help files in HTML then he should put them in HTML. If he is worried about people not being able to read them then he should either include a viewer or tell people where to get one, as there are many free ones available. This is case with PDF, well except for the many viewers.
Back on topic. You don't need the browser. It is a "useful tool" but it is in no way a natural extension to the operating system.
What does HTML do? It lets you format text and jump from 1 document to another or to a different location in the current document by selecting certain text. How does this extend my operating system? It doesn't. It doesn't make my OS run faster. It doesn't make my OS do anything it couldn't do with a non-integrated HTML viewer.
Really back on topic. Since it is not an intengral part of the OS then they must be adding it for some other reason. They could just be adding polish to the OS or they could be doing it wipe out Netscape. I haven't seen enough of the court case to make a choice yet. Anyone know where I can get transcripts, on the web?
Slashdot Mirror
This is just ignorant. You need to be afraid of big business getting those profiles rather than the government.
This would be pointless. Just get a degree mill doctorate and get your .phd domain with it.
Names are not copyrightable or trademarkable. She has no legal claim to the domain.
However that in no way prevents her from sueing you and making it very very expensive to keep the domain.
Too tired.
That should be returned not installed.
Picked up a Toshiba laptop at CompUSA last week. Inside the box is a note stateing that the package must be installed as a whole and no parts may be returned.
They saw you coming.
''Open source is an intellectual-property destroyer,'' Allchin said. ''I can't imagine something that could be worse than this for the software business and the intellectual-property business.''
Yup it's bad for business. MS will have a harder time making money. So? Adapt and compete and you will succeed.
But open-source is good for software. At least I'm very happy with it. I wish I could play with the Linux at work more but it so rarely breaks that I spend all my time fixing the NT that so rarely doesn't break.
Salon is wrong. Their editors are just putting pressure on the reporters to get a story out. What better story than to revist Colombine and
say how the media has no idea what it's talking about. Why is this set of events more beleiveable than the first set?
Wait a minute. The media is telling me that the media has no clue? So Salon is telling me that
Salon can't be trusted?
So there are these two guys at a fork in the road. One always lies and one always tells the truth. . .
I digress. It just leads to the question, Who should we beleive now? The media can't be trusted. They're a business not a service. One must remember that. They are not here to inform they are here to make money. What makes money?
Fringe groups picking on norms. Two "punk/goth/gay/racist/whatevers" picking on good
god fearing christains sells alot of add copy. Two crazy kids who snap and kill people just scares people.
I wish I had an answer.
Smaller player and rewritable media.
Oh and Sony needs something to use their memory sticks in.
Exceptions make the rule.
/bin/bash? Nuke it. There are other shells, which is my argument exactly. Also if someone writes a different init or ls you can change which one you use very easily.
You don't _need_ init. Oh lord that would be messy, but you don't need it.
My argument is that init should be an application and not part of the kernel. Thus I can use someone else's init if I want. I have no trouble with bundling, it's just integrating that I have a problem with.
So, by your logic, an operating system should come with absolutely no applications? At all?
Correct. There should be no applications "integrated" into the OS. Ship all the apps you want but I had better not have to run them.
Hmmm. That means I can't have an FTP transfer program, since that would put FTP transfer program companies out of business.Therefore, I couldn't download your free browser in order to read the help files (which would presumably tell me where to download the browser).
Ship with whatever you want. I never said anything about shipping with apps. I don't want to be forced to into using app "foo" because it's
been built into the OS.
Quick Dirty Summary
Bundle - Whatever you want.
Integrate - Nothing.
2) Ah, but what I said was that should have been the issue. Or should MS have never added TCP/IP into the OS? There are many TCP/IP add-on companies that were severely hurt when MS did that. Those meanies!
1. TCP/IP allows my operating system to do something it couldn't do before. That makes it
a natural extension of the operating system and thus MS can do what ever they bloody choose.
2. MS wasn't making deals with PC makers to get their TCP/IP stack ont he machine and others off.
3. Your example is flawed by nature as the things being compared to not similar. A protocol and a mark-up language are two very different beasts.
You don't need a browser built into the operating system in this case. If the author wants to put
his help files in HTML then he should put them in HTML. If he is worried about people not being able to read them then he should either include a viewer or tell people where to get one, as there are many free ones available. This is case with PDF, well except for the many viewers.
Back on topic. You don't need the browser. It is
a "useful tool" but it is in no way a natural extension to the operating system.
What does HTML do? It lets you format text and jump from 1 document to another or to a different
location in the current document by selecting certain text. How does this extend my operating system? It doesn't. It doesn't make my OS run faster. It doesn't make my OS do anything it couldn't do with a non-integrated HTML viewer.
Really back on topic. Since it is not an intengral part of the OS then they must be adding it for some other reason. They could just be adding polish to the OS or they could be doing it
wipe out Netscape. I haven't seen enough of the
court case to make a choice yet. Anyone know where I can get transcripts, on the web?