Yeah, I understand that - except for one thing. Even in the Windows world these users exist, and I assure you they don't call Microsoft for support (too cheap for that), so why would they call (Insert OSS Company Here> for support? Why wouldn't they just visit Google and punch in " broken"?
Yeah, to be honest I can completely understand why Mozilla Corp doesn't want the name "Firefox" used on forks - because Firefox actually has a large user base, and it'd be all too easy to ruin that by a single badly written fork with the Firefox name on it making the trunk release look bad (Firefox's target audience is people who'll see a fork, think it's the normal version, install it, say "this doesn't work, Firefox sucks", and go back to IE)
I notice however, you mention your day job. I'm a programmer, but sadly haven't found the time to meaningfully contributing to FOSS code. I could if I were to totally ignore my family, I suppose. I could see making money by selling support of FOSS one creates, but they would have to write something people wanted to have support for. It'd also have to be buggy enough to require support. I've never understood the "sell support services" geniuses, because the only way to ensure people need your support services is to sell a buggy product.
Because unlike Apple users, Windows users don't feel the need to trumpet the greatness of the latest release of their operating system that the Almighty Overlord releases and that all should bow before it?
No, that's better for you and 99% of all users like you, and an undefined amount of all users in general. Do not presume to believe you know what is best for other people.
The problem isn't the size of the script; it's the latency. As I understand, when I browser encounters a script element, it loads and executes the code before rendering the rest of the page. Unless you use the damn "defer" attribute, which any Google script (Analytics, Hosted APIs, etc) using webmaster needs to do! (Since Google's scripts are frigging slow to load)
Incorrect. A cached page STILL results in a hit to the server, the only difference is that the response is a "304 Not Modified" rather than "200 OK" with content. Check the HTTP spec sometime.
What actually happens is the same HTTP request is sent to Google whether it's cached or not. The "If-Modified-Since" header defines the latest time the file on the server can have been modified without the content being resent.
The real bullshit is that you used to be able to BUY urchin fairly reasonably, and host it on your own server, and get nearly the same reports, and analytics, and without having to give up your data, and letting google track all your visitors from site to site. You still can. They're also working on Urchin 5 beta, which is essentially the new Google Analytics in a box. It's still frigging expensive unless you get it via a hosting provider though (I get the older version of Urchin for $5/month through my DC)
TPM chips are actually useful however. They form the basis for hardware-locked full-disc encryption, useful for any sort of really sensitive data. Gets rid of that "plug it into another machine" method of "recovering" data from a disc whose machine wont boot off removable media.
No, actually it proves nothing of the sort, Twitter.
NT4 you could simply replace logon.scr to achieve the same result; 2000, XP, and 2003 you could replace sethc.exe (StickyKeys, apparently); 95 and 98 you could just fucking hit Escape!
Default is the reverse now, and the myth that System has more permissions than Administrator is just that, a myth. System, just like yourself, requires permissions be given to it to access stuff. And the only thing that System can access that you can't is the SAM.
Also, XP and 2000 are just as capable of being "exploited" by the same non-hack. Tagging this "deadhorse" and "fud"
You're right, the way it is done is indeed retarded. You should however note that you shouldn't be storing stuff in the Root of the drive anyway, nor should you be storing it in Program Files or Windows (that'd be like storing user data in/,/bin, and/boot - you wouldn't do that would you?)
Remember that when batch moving files, you'll only get that "you'll need to provide administrative permission" prompt once, and the action you pick on it applies to all relevant folders - it just shouldn't show up when moving one file is all.
And just FYI, SP1 does reduce the amount of those you get (not by a massive lot, but quite a few)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I understand that - except for one thing. Even in the Windows world these users exist, and I assure you they don't call Microsoft for support (too cheap for that), so why would they call (Insert OSS Company Here> for support? Why wouldn't they just visit Google and punch in " broken"?
Yeah, to be honest I can completely understand why Mozilla Corp doesn't want the name "Firefox" used on forks - because Firefox actually has a large user base, and it'd be all too easy to ruin that by a single badly written fork with the Firefox name on it making the trunk release look bad (Firefox's target audience is people who'll see a fork, think it's the normal version, install it, say "this doesn't work, Firefox sucks", and go back to IE)
Wikipedia doesn't agree with the "Treacherous Computing" bullshit, and redirects it to "Trusted Computing"
They're both bollocks, really.
Yes, and that's why they called it Nuisance.
Where's the "-1: Incoherent" option, because seriously, that made no sense.
It's twitter, he wont get over it. He's only posting AC because AC has a higher starting moderation score than all 7 of twitter's accounts.
Ironic. A Slashdot article about someone else DoS'ing a site gets it DoS'ed.
Because unlike Apple users, Windows users don't feel the need to trumpet the greatness of the latest release of their operating system that the Almighty Overlord releases and that all should bow before it?
Seriously, this is your answer.
Hmm, strange, we've NEVER had to remake an Exchange profile here, so I'm just going to come out and say it:
You're doing it wrong?
Heh. Crappy release names is my one major reason for avoiding Ubuntu like a plague. Seriously, what idiot names that damn thing?
No, that's better for you and 99% of all users like you, and an undefined amount of all users in general. Do not presume to believe you know what is best for other people.
No, it's the same one.
Time Machine is a bad example, because Windows XP had that feature first, in the form of Volume Shadow Copy.
I've got a Server 2003 machine that goes years without restarting. I've just set up a Server 2008 machine as well to test whether that's as good.
Incorrect. A cached page STILL results in a hit to the server, the only difference is that the response is a "304 Not Modified" rather than "200 OK" with content. Check the HTTP spec sometime.
What actually happens is the same HTTP request is sent to Google whether it's cached or not. The "If-Modified-Since" header defines the latest time the file on the server can have been modified without the content being resent.
And they're giving you the finger by not using the damn "defer" attribute.
TPM chips are actually useful however. They form the basis for hardware-locked full-disc encryption, useful for any sort of really sensitive data. Gets rid of that "plug it into another machine" method of "recovering" data from a disc whose machine wont boot off removable media.
Since FilePlanet will probably open it only to subscribers, yeah.
No, actually it proves nothing of the sort, Twitter.
NT4 you could simply replace logon.scr to achieve the same result; 2000, XP, and 2003 you could replace sethc.exe (StickyKeys, apparently); 95 and 98 you could just fucking hit Escape!
Default is the reverse now, and the myth that System has more permissions than Administrator is just that, a myth. System, just like yourself, requires permissions be given to it to access stuff. And the only thing that System can access that you can't is the SAM.
Also, XP and 2000 are just as capable of being "exploited" by the same non-hack. Tagging this "deadhorse" and "fud"
You're right, the way it is done is indeed retarded. You should however note that you shouldn't be storing stuff in the Root of the drive anyway, nor should you be storing it in Program Files or Windows (that'd be like storing user data in /, /bin, and /boot - you wouldn't do that would you?)
Remember that when batch moving files, you'll only get that "you'll need to provide administrative permission" prompt once, and the action you pick on it applies to all relevant folders - it just shouldn't show up when moving one file is all.
And just FYI, SP1 does reduce the amount of those you get (not by a massive lot, but quite a few)
Interesting. You say "monopolies do that" while pointing out that Debian or Ubuntu is an example of innovation.
This would tend to indicate that Microsoft is indeed not a monopoly as alternatives exist and are gaining traction.
Of course an alternative is that Microsoft holds a monopoly on Operating Systems and Apple holds a monopoly on MP3 players.