I got a letter from Microsoft once in an A4 envelope. It shipped from Dubai and costed them roughly $30 USD to send it to me. I don't think Canonical is using FedEx.
Anyway, the main problem there is the ISPs and their mentalities - if Microsoft distributed Windows 7 via torrent, most people would be waiting 35 years for their^CONNECTION RESET.
Large volume license. Home Use Rights is included in Select and Enterprise agreements at no additional charge (so, for all intents and purposes, free).
True. But for some reason, Android was excluded from the list somewhere in the GGGP.
Although I would personally argue that the evil in Android is that it only comes on one phone in this country, and it's with the crappiest phone company I can imagine. Think AT&T, and that's Vodafone.
Symbian that you get on your phone might as well not be open source. Symbian Signed? Please. iPhone needs jailbreaking to be open. Windows Mobile does not.
Hence the original statement from GP that I agree with - Windows Mobile is the lesser evil. Scary, that is.
You're right, I phrased my original question badly - I did not necessarily mean in person, but I was trying to explicitly exclude users who actively engage in developing Linux (folks who contribute to the code, etc) since the point is that the users who use Windows will likely never look at the code for Linux as well.
And you're still conflating Open Source with Transparent. They don't mean the same thing and don't necessarily go together at all. I mean, you're saying "the source is available" is the reason it's transparent. Why is that specifically transparent? Why does that exclude closed source vendors from being largely transparent (after all, someone can read the code, probably a lot of someones).
I also see that someone thinks "Troll" is a euphemism for "Disagree". Newsflash jerkwad, it isn't. "Troll" means "a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses". That isn't directed at you, by the way BasilBrush.
I can't believe people trying to justify "freeware" vendors access to phone number. It is totally impossible on other smartphone operating systems, on Symbian you can't even dare to try it.
Incorrect. Symbian will allow it if you're Symbian Signed®, and Windows Mobile allows it by default. Not sure about Blackberry OS.
Just because it's open source, doesn't make it transparent - people keep making that mistake. How many people do you know (personally, not on Linux developer forums) that actually inspect the source code of their Apache install? How many of them actually look at the release notes of a given patch? How many of them check to see that the only files changed are part of that patch?
Don't be sucked into thinking that open source == transparent. It doesn't necessarily mean that.
No, actually no company will buy those because those are CRM software. Your company has bigger things to worry about if they buy CRM software as a result of an evaluation of CMS software.
(Actually, I take that back - some of those are legitimate CMS software. But I'd bet those don't get selected because they never respond to tenders).
What's a bunch of CRM products got to do with anything? SharePoint isn't a CRM product at all - Dynamics CRM is (and that's actually relatively good, probably since they bought it not developed it).
But you'll take any opportunity to spread bullshit, won't you twitter?
Google has proven that they are not dependable time and time again. The mail services are randomly offline for hours at a time, with your only compensation being "here's an extra day on your subscription". Chat services are somewhat flaky. Calendar craps out for no reason. Meeting reminders arrive at random times (sometimes even after the meeting).
You're also wrong. In the associations section in the registry for a file type, which is the biggest pile of shit to navigate that I've ever seen, you can declare the associated executable for many actions, and one of those is the in-process viewing (i.e. the browser). QuickTime overrides this, presumably to incorporate full alpha-transparency support which hasn't been needed for about 4 years now.
Hmm. So what you're saying is that Microsoft is actually doing well with their security if they're patching the vulnerabilities before they are discovered and exploited? Good to know.
Anyway, we're still talking about a difference of 8 to 27. Even your "undisclosed vulnerabilities" (because demon forbid that Microsoft actually do something better than someone else, you have to put up a load of bollocks argument to explain it) would not account for the 1:3 variance there.
Quicktime does not appreciate tactics like that, and will change it back. Also, unfortunately, the addon manager does not allow you to remove said hooks at all. You can disable Quicktime, but then any PNGs just get "red x'd" on you.
Slashdot Mirror
Others who are even less able to afford it, even.
Mac OS is worse. Much worse.
I got a letter from Microsoft once in an A4 envelope. It shipped from Dubai and costed them roughly $30 USD to send it to me. I don't think Canonical is using FedEx.
He didn't say Mac users don't pirate - he said Mac users don't pirate Apple products which is true.
So Blizzard Downloader then?
Anyway, the main problem there is the ISPs and their mentalities - if Microsoft distributed Windows 7 via torrent, most people would be waiting 35 years for their^CONNECTION RESET.
Large volume license. Home Use Rights is included in Select and Enterprise agreements at no additional charge (so, for all intents and purposes, free).
True. But for some reason, Android was excluded from the list somewhere in the GGGP.
Although I would personally argue that the evil in Android is that it only comes on one phone in this country, and it's with the crappiest phone company I can imagine. Think AT&T, and that's Vodafone.
Symbian that you get on your phone might as well not be open source. Symbian Signed? Please.
iPhone needs jailbreaking to be open.
Windows Mobile does not.
Hence the original statement from GP that I agree with - Windows Mobile is the lesser evil. Scary, that is.
You're right, I phrased my original question badly - I did not necessarily mean in person, but I was trying to explicitly exclude users who actively engage in developing Linux (folks who contribute to the code, etc) since the point is that the users who use Windows will likely never look at the code for Linux as well.
And you're still conflating Open Source with Transparent. They don't mean the same thing and don't necessarily go together at all. I mean, you're saying "the source is available" is the reason it's transparent. Why is that specifically transparent? Why does that exclude closed source vendors from being largely transparent (after all, someone can read the code, probably a lot of someones).
I also see that someone thinks "Troll" is a euphemism for "Disagree". Newsflash jerkwad, it isn't. "Troll" means "a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses". That isn't directed at you, by the way BasilBrush.
I can't believe people trying to justify "freeware" vendors access to phone number. It is totally impossible on other smartphone operating systems, on Symbian you can't even dare to try it.
Incorrect. Symbian will allow it if you're Symbian Signed®, and Windows Mobile allows it by default. Not sure about Blackberry OS.
Just because it's open source, doesn't make it transparent - people keep making that mistake. How many people do you know (personally, not on Linux developer forums) that actually inspect the source code of their Apache install? How many of them actually look at the release notes of a given patch? How many of them check to see that the only files changed are part of that patch?
Don't be sucked into thinking that open source == transparent. It doesn't necessarily mean that.
And now they have two problems...
No, because they're counting revenue from MOSS, not WSS. MOSS is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
$150 per CAL covers the entire Microsoft product suite (i.e. that's a Sharepoint, Windows, Exchange, SCCM and so on CAL).
Be careful about conflating CAL bundles with actual CALs.
No, no you can not buy Google Apps as a product to host on your own servers. You can purchase Google Search as an appliance.
You forgot the golden Microsoft rule:
No-one pays retail.
No, actually no company will buy those because those are CRM software. Your company has bigger things to worry about if they buy CRM software as a result of an evaluation of CMS software.
(Actually, I take that back - some of those are legitimate CMS software. But I'd bet those don't get selected because they never respond to tenders).
Additional note: I see that some of those are actually CMS software, even though SugarCRM is included and the comment explicitly says "CRM".
Anyway, linking to BoycottNovell is an instant -90% to your credibility.
What's a bunch of CRM products got to do with anything? SharePoint isn't a CRM product at all - Dynamics CRM is (and that's actually relatively good, probably since they bought it not developed it).
But you'll take any opportunity to spread bullshit, won't you twitter?
Actually, I think they're doing you a favour, keeping you away from WebSphere.
Google has proven that they are not dependable time and time again. The mail services are randomly offline for hours at a time, with your only compensation being "here's an extra day on your subscription". Chat services are somewhat flaky. Calendar craps out for no reason. Meeting reminders arrive at random times (sometimes even after the meeting).
Except Google does have a for-pay service. I'm not sure if it disables ads
It does.
You're also wrong. In the associations section in the registry for a file type, which is the biggest pile of shit to navigate that I've ever seen, you can declare the associated executable for many actions, and one of those is the in-process viewing (i.e. the browser). QuickTime overrides this, presumably to incorporate full alpha-transparency support which hasn't been needed for about 4 years now.
Hmm. So what you're saying is that Microsoft is actually doing well with their security if they're patching the vulnerabilities before they are discovered and exploited? Good to know.
Anyway, we're still talking about a difference of 8 to 27. Even your "undisclosed vulnerabilities" (because demon forbid that Microsoft actually do something better than someone else, you have to put up a load of bollocks argument to explain it) would not account for the 1:3 variance there.
Quicktime does not appreciate tactics like that, and will change it back. Also, unfortunately, the addon manager does not allow you to remove said hooks at all. You can disable Quicktime, but then any PNGs just get "red x'd" on you.