First of all, microsoft is threatened by everybody because microsoft tries to be into everything.
So, saying ms is threatened by google ( or anything/anyone else) is a no-brainer. This, by the way, pretty much describes the so-called author.
"In Arnold's analysis, he said some filings in the patent portfolio point to an accelerated use of high-speed fiber and wireless that could be used to deliver Google technology."
This isn't about how ms doesn't understand google. It about how Stephen E. Arnold doesn't understand the internet. It sounds as though he thinks google is going to try to build its own version of the internet, just for its own traffic. Next, they'll have special 'google' stations that only go to google, placed in coffee houses everywhere Then, you can buy one from google along with goole networking connections into your home with their ubquitous googled worldwide high-speed banana-peel-driven fiber network. Or, just use the worldwide google wireless network (that prioritizes google traffic over microsoft searches). All other wireless networks would of course just fall my the wayside.
It looks more like this Arnold character doesn't understand the idea of a feasible business model.
If this guy can get a book published, I should be able to get my used toilet paper published, no problem. Who's his publisher?
I'm not sure that apt-get runs from cron. When I run synaptic, it doesn't let me 'mark upgrades' until I 'reload' (apt-get update). I'm running 5.04, BTW. I'll have to check crontabs.
Seriously, I run Ubuntu on a thinkpad A22m (550Mhz), and the only thing is that X11+[Gnome|KDE] isn't very snappy (isn't X11 due for some kind of ground-up rework, or just a better replacement), and actually getting to the desktop interface takes longer than it does in windows. But, its as reliable as as usable as one could want. I sat my roomie down in from of it (she's garden-variaty end user - "what's an operating system?"), and she had no problem going to web sites, viewing attachments with MS-formats, viewing flash pages, doing term papers, etc., etc.
Granted, I installed it, but that wasn't very much more difficult than installing windows - only marginally more so. Also granted, i wasen't reared on windows either, so figuring out things from a more generic understanding of how computers work helps in non-windows scenerios.
Its about as easy to maintain as windows - apt-get update; apt-get upgrade.
Oh, here the BBC news link for those who want to skip the lengthy beta news intro.
The caliber of your ire pretty much qualifies your response.
The price of freedom is vigilance, both from without and within. People who hate freedom usually hate protest.
--
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
"In late 2003, Mr. Allchin called on the help of two men. The first was one of Microsoft's best-known "shippers," people known for their ability to turn around troubled software projects. Windows veteran Brian Valentine had a reputation for booming motivational speeches, beer bashes and stunts like showing up to work functions as Elvis, the Easter Bunny or even once a hula girl with a coconut bra."
When the best competitor won, instead of just the most deceptive, violent, and aggressive?
Wouldn't it be better if the company best at providing search results and other virtual views of the internet came out ahead, instead of the one best at killing off the competition with anything but quality service and products? If the winners are always the ones that are simply better at getting rid of competitors, what hope of betterment is there?
Isn't the inevitable outcome of this direction that we get better at getting rid of others, as opposed to getting better at doing and making things?
Here's a link to the cisco advisory I noticed the linked article didn't have that link, and its viewable by the Internet public. Let's see how Cisco holds up to the mighty/. effect.
Mac OS X is worse than Linux on several technical grounds that are never seen by normal users.
I think I'm going to install unbuntu on my iMac 800Mhz and directly compare it to OSX 10.4. That part of the article bugged me. They could have easily compared two OSes on the exact same machine and didn't.
Get the interface right (or right enough), and people will love you -- even people you might expect to care about fork() performance.
No argument there, to be sure. I care about thread, fork, signal, and IPC performance, and I have a ThinkPad A22m running Ubuntu 5.04 next to an 800Mhz iMac. I mostly use the iMac.
Still, the ThinkPad seems to do some things snappier that the iMac. And, more importantly, its mouse never locks up. When I went from OSX 10.3 to 10.4, my mouse started the habit if needing to be unplugged and plugged back in frequently. Bought a 'mighty mouse'. Problem persisted.
I'll see if Ubuntu has the same issue. If not, then its definetly Apple's fault, and they'd have no excuse at whatsoever. I'll post results in my/. journal.
It seems to me as though the article didn't point to a single weakness, but the fact that signaling, IPC and thread creation were all slower in OSX compared to linux. While it seemed clear that the threading performance was a bigger factor for MySQL, I can't help but wonder how much better all other aspects of OSX might improve if thread creation, signaling, and IPC were all improved.
Much as I would prefer to use OSX on a daily basis to windows, and somewhat prefer it to Gnome or KDE, it seems hard to escape the impression that Apple created an OS to run iSoftware (iTunes, iLife, etc.) and photoshop.
My point is that most or all OEM recovery CDs are customized to some extent. Dell tells MS, "We need these drivers on this CD", and MS supplies those drivers on that CD. It just bothers me that you tried to use a recovery disk supplied by Dell on a Dell computer, and when it didn't work you automatically blame MS without knowing whether it's really MS's fault. If it were me, I'd be screaming at Dell for shipping a recovery disk without the correct drivers. I paid good money to Dell and Dell would owe me a good recovery CD.
My point was that, all things notwithstanding, a live CD from people who had nothing at all to do with Dell (no relationship whatsoever) worked better than the OS installed by the manufacturor's recovery CDs
It wasen't due to faulty hardware. That leaves the software, something Dell probably had little input to. Also, instead of screaming at Dell (I've seen what time spent on a Dell support call can do to a healthy adult), I just booted the machine with decent software.
True that both Dell and MS share responsibility, but MS logically shares more, since MS has more control over the software than Dell does. If Dell wanted to provide a live linux CD with their boxen, they could just ship a live linux CD and that'd be that. Hell, they could customize it ad infinitum to their little heart's content (of course, they'd likely screw that up too). Not so with windows.
So, why doesn't MS make a live CD? If its so hard to do, how is it that hobbyists in their spare time can do it, and MS can't? Why don't they make it at least available for purchase and download? A number of linux vendors and distros do. What's stopping MS? Their programmers? I bet if they really wanted to, MS could make a good live windows CD - another reason MS shares more of the blame.
Just because Ubuntu detected and installed something doesn't mean a fully-featured video driver was installed. True enough. I just assumed that its driver was fully functional because it was capable of 1024X768 at 24 bits. Honestly, I didn't try any higher resolutions.
Maybe if you used a genuine Microsoft installation CD I'd be more apt to blame MS, maybe. You're right - Dell should have checked before pasting MS trademarks all over the CD. Or, at least, I should have assumed that since said MS trademarks were on the CD, it was likely not to work right. I did not try an official MS live windows CD. Can I get those from MS?
Actually, the fact that Ubuntu correctly detected things and brought up the GUI with the correct wettings would mean that MS could, if they really wanted to, do the same thing.
That's why I'm fingering MS on this one. Why should Dell pick up MS's slack? They could if they wanted to, true enough - but from their point of view, why should they?
From MS's point of view, why should MS try to fix the problem, when MS thinks that hardware vendors should be dealing with the OS?
Slashdot Mirror
Robotic Catholic nuns?
Ouch! That broke my arm!
From the looks things, the RIAA should have hired better crackers to break into people's computers. Seems they've been caught.
Oh well, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime...
First of all, microsoft is threatened by everybody because microsoft tries to be into everything.
So, saying ms is threatened by google ( or anything/anyone else) is a no-brainer. This, by the way, pretty much describes the so-called author.
"In Arnold's analysis, he said some filings in the patent portfolio point to an accelerated use of high-speed fiber and wireless that could be used to deliver Google technology."
This isn't about how ms doesn't understand google. It about how Stephen E. Arnold doesn't understand the internet. It sounds as though he thinks google is going to try to build its own version of the internet, just for its own traffic. Next, they'll have special 'google' stations that only go to google, placed in coffee houses everywhere Then, you can buy one from google along with goole networking connections into your home with their ubquitous googled worldwide high-speed banana-peel-driven fiber network. Or, just use the worldwide google wireless network (that prioritizes google traffic over microsoft searches). All other wireless networks would of course just fall my the wayside.
It looks more like this Arnold character doesn't understand the idea of a feasible business model.
If this guy can get a book published, I should be able to get my used toilet paper published, no problem. Who's his publisher?
--
So many clueless people, so little time...
I'm not sure that apt-get runs from cron. When I run synaptic, it doesn't let me 'mark upgrades' until I 'reload' (apt-get update). I'm running 5.04, BTW. I'll have to check crontabs.
I'd buy it just because of the hand-crank
Seriously, I run Ubuntu on a thinkpad A22m (550Mhz), and the only thing is that X11+[Gnome|KDE] isn't very snappy (isn't X11 due for some kind of ground-up rework, or just a better replacement), and actually getting to the desktop interface takes longer than it does in windows. But, its as reliable as as usable as one could want.
I sat my roomie down in from of it (she's garden-variaty end user - "what's an operating system?"), and she had no problem going to web sites, viewing attachments with MS-formats, viewing flash pages, doing term papers, etc., etc.
Granted, I installed it, but that wasn't very much more difficult than installing windows - only marginally more so. Also granted, i wasen't reared on windows either, so figuring out things from a more generic understanding of how computers work helps in non-windows scenerios.
Its about as easy to maintain as windows - apt-get update; apt-get upgrade.
Oh, here the BBC news link for those who want to skip the lengthy beta news intro.
The caliber of your ire pretty much qualifies your response.
The price of freedom is vigilance, both from without and within. People who hate freedom usually hate protest.
--
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
China is becoming one big free speech zone, George Bush style
"Sun's claims of the PC's eminent extinction themselves now relics."
"In late 2003, Mr. Allchin called on the help of two men. The first was one of Microsoft's best-known "shippers," people known for their ability to turn around troubled software projects. Windows veteran Brian Valentine had a reputation for booming motivational speeches, beer bashes and stunts like showing up to work functions as Elvis, the Easter Bunny or even once a hula girl with a coconut bra."
Now we know how windows is built. Explains a lot.
softwareproduct-year-n
where year is the year, and n is count of worms/viruses/trojans/ that have hit that product that year.
Ex:
Internet explorer-2001-55
Microsoft Excel-1999-33
Firefox-2004-44
MacOSX--2005-2
windows-2003-666
Oh, and people would be all better off just leaving computers alone for the holidays...
"Campaign donations are the ultimate form of free speech"
People saying whatever they want is the ultimate form of free speech.
Campaign donations are the ultimate form of keeping a campaign financed.
When the best competitor won, instead of just the most deceptive, violent, and aggressive?
Wouldn't it be better if the company best at providing search results and other virtual views of the internet came out ahead, instead of the one best at killing off the competition with anything but quality service and products? If the winners are always the ones that are simply better at getting rid of competitors, what hope of betterment is there?
Isn't the inevitable outcome of this direction that we get better at getting rid of others, as opposed to getting better at doing and making things?
"calling the music industry greedy"
Shitheads from the end of that sentence...
Hurricane Jobs?
Humanoid with open sores....
Safer by design doesn't mean immune.
Here's a link to the cisco advisory
I noticed the linked article didn't have that link, and its viewable by the Internet public. Let's see how Cisco holds up to the mighty
"logical business oriented reason"
If any four words could form an oxymoron, it'd be those four words
Mac OS X is worse than Linux on several technical grounds that are never seen by normal users.
/. journal.
I think I'm going to install unbuntu on my iMac 800Mhz and directly compare it to OSX 10.4. That part of the article bugged me. They could have easily compared two OSes on the exact same machine and didn't.
Get the interface right (or right enough), and people will love you -- even people you might expect to care about fork() performance.
No argument there, to be sure. I care about thread, fork, signal, and IPC performance, and I have a ThinkPad A22m running Ubuntu 5.04 next to an 800Mhz iMac. I mostly use the iMac.
Still, the ThinkPad seems to do some things snappier that the iMac. And, more importantly, its mouse never locks up. When I went from OSX 10.3 to 10.4, my mouse started the habit if needing to be unplugged and plugged back in frequently. Bought a 'mighty mouse'. Problem persisted.
I'll see if Ubuntu has the same issue. If not, then its definetly Apple's fault, and they'd have no excuse at whatsoever. I'll post results in my
It seems to me as though the article didn't point to a single weakness, but the fact that signaling, IPC and thread creation were all slower in OSX compared to linux. While it seemed clear that the threading performance was a bigger factor for MySQL, I can't help but wonder how much better all other aspects of OSX might improve if thread creation, signaling, and IPC were all improved.
Much as I would prefer to use OSX on a daily basis to windows, and somewhat prefer it to Gnome or KDE, it seems hard to escape the impression that Apple created an OS to run iSoftware (iTunes, iLife, etc.) and photoshop.
The real question is: what happened to the modern humans?
My point is that most or all OEM recovery CDs are customized to some extent. Dell tells MS, "We need these drivers on this CD", and MS supplies those drivers on that CD. It just bothers me that you tried to use a recovery disk supplied by Dell on a Dell computer, and when it didn't work you automatically blame MS without knowing whether it's really MS's fault. If it were me, I'd be screaming at Dell for shipping a recovery disk without the correct drivers. I paid good money to Dell and Dell would owe me a good recovery CD.
My point was that, all things notwithstanding, a live CD from people who had nothing at all to do with Dell (no relationship whatsoever) worked better than the OS installed by the manufacturor's recovery CDs
It wasen't due to faulty hardware. That leaves the software, something Dell probably had little input to. Also, instead of screaming at Dell (I've seen what time spent on a Dell support call can do to a healthy adult), I just booted the machine with decent software.
True that both Dell and MS share responsibility, but MS logically shares more, since MS has more control over the software than Dell does. If Dell wanted to provide a live linux CD with their boxen, they could just ship a live linux CD and that'd be that. Hell, they could customize it ad infinitum to their little heart's content (of course, they'd likely screw that up too). Not so with windows.
So, why doesn't MS make a live CD? If its so hard to do, how is it that hobbyists in their spare time can do it, and MS can't? Why don't they make it at least available for purchase and download? A number of linux vendors and distros do. What's stopping MS? Their programmers? I bet if they really wanted to, MS could make a good live windows CD - another reason MS shares more of the blame.
Did the researchers working on this turninto lizards? Just checking....
Just because Ubuntu detected and installed something doesn't mean a fully-featured video driver was installed.
True enough. I just assumed that its driver was fully functional because it was capable of 1024X768 at 24 bits. Honestly, I didn't try any higher resolutions.
Maybe if you used a genuine Microsoft installation CD I'd be more apt to blame MS, maybe.
You're right - Dell should have checked before pasting MS trademarks all over the CD. Or, at least, I should have assumed that since said MS trademarks were on the CD, it was likely not to work right. I did not try an official MS live windows CD.
Can I get those from MS?
A URL would be nice.
Actually, the fact that Ubuntu correctly detected things and brought up the GUI with the correct wettings would mean that MS could, if they really wanted to, do the same thing.
That's why I'm fingering MS on this one. Why should Dell pick up MS's slack? They could if they wanted to, true enough - but from their point of view, why should they?
From MS's point of view, why should MS try to fix the problem, when MS thinks that hardware vendors should be dealing with the OS?
What a f***ing mess.