Do I ever agree with that. A little more information goes a long way. Of course it also lends itself to desensationalizing the story.
Granted I still don't like this move, however I guess it does stand to reason that the future will all depend on how the US handles the administration of the Root DNS in the future. I the government sits there and acts like a little child ("you can look but dont you dare touch... neaner neaner")... the idea of multiple "internets" may not be far off.
Ok, so I phrased a little poorly. Yes they have proof, but what can they do beyond seizure of the equipment that has been sold to a new user, and investigating to find out information they already know. She as the offended party, really should sue for compensation, and honestly, in the case of EB their crime was selling equipment before the waiting period was up. Yes EB should have waited the mandatory period of time, and they should be fined for this, but she should be pursuing her charges against the thief, the one who actually took her equipment, for compensation.
I've seen quite the opposite here. Most used stores that I have sold games and such to, you walk in, hand them a game, and either take your store credit or cash without ever taking your id out of your wallet. No of course there are the exceptions: Game Stop did require me to show my id to show that I was over the age of 18, but as far as I remember they never logged a piece of information from it.
That statement itself seems more like a brush off than an admission of guilt. That EB location seems to be saying, well if you really believe this was your stollen property, prove it, and catch the theif yourself kind of thing.
Sometimes calling the police isn't feasible. On many things, such as small claims like this, the police will require some level of proof before they move on it. In some cases, gathering a minor amount of proof and taking EB to small claims court would be a better route. At least, it seems that way to me.
In alot of cases in the business world, its not just about price or features. It comes down to answering a few questions:
Does the current system work
Will the current system work in one year
If either of those are yes, and in some cases both, the will to upgrade gets shot down the tubes. It makes little to no sense to upgrade a station if it is doing its job, before the argument ever gets to money.
Features are one thing that can supercede both the Is it working / money arguments, but that is a fine like that argument walks. If a feature is desired, but not entirely needed, would in some cases, money allowing, provide the urge for upgrading, but in alot of cases just fall to the way side in the interest of office stability.
While I do not disagree with you on this note entirely, and I can also see where my thoughts went slightly astray, just like the main point I was making that was on-topic to this article, my focus remains primarily business and experience oriented with my clients. A little background before I continue, I have been in many situations where I have had to think of my clients technological needs and abilities before setting up a network or machine. In many cases clients have had an inability to learn brought on by their inward fears about computers in general.
Your arguments are good, though the focus I feel is missing this level of computer user, the average business person or home user who is used to seeing nothing but IBM and Redmond pumped into their homes and what not. Its what they know, its what they trust. The aforementioned fear of computers adds a multiplier onto their inability or non-desire to learn a new system.
Let me step back a step here. I have worked a fair amount of varying positions and jobs, being on Contract tends to do that, and in each I have bore witness to varying levels of computer users. Right now, I can say for some of the users out there yes Linux is ready, and in use. For many, it isn't. To change the attitudes of the majority of users means to also show them how it is easier and why they should switch....out-of-the-box Linux distributions provide more power in general than any consumer-level Windows distribution.
Linux was on the side of servers for the longest time, thus it needed the power. Consumer Desktop machines don't necessarily need that power, and in a lot of cases that out of the box power, can be a bad thing (in the mind of a consumer). I have known users who are literally crippled with fear and would sooner say that switching from the platform they liked (one example Mac to Win 2k) to another was the source of their problem instead of actually learning what they had or the power at their fingertips.
I guess it basically comes down to what users are used to, and their level of understanding of what is available. The average business person/home user views what their peers are used to using (MS Money, Office... etc... etc...) and in turn want to use it. Most wont care how it works, or the more power that they can possibly gain, when they don't understand the tech. When you talk to a business person on why linux will benefit them better than windows, the configuration argument will be lost on them. Why? Tech Departments/staffs. A business user will be interested in the bottom line of what can this do for me versus my cost and ease of use. In all honesty the best alternative I have seen to Windows on the desktop is Lindows. Their instant updating service alone is one of the best points to show a business person, how they can have access to lots of updates and software for just... a small amount each year as opposed to $400 here $700 there.
I guess my main point is that while your point is a valid point, it isn't addressing all the issues that surround the argument, and rather the argument it self needs to be targeted to gain ground.
Hmm, how does this compare to Linux, by any chance?
In regard to this point most Technology follows this pattern. As the technology ages and evolves not everyone will have the need to move forward to the new technology, but will always need someone to support it should something go horribly wrong. In the case of Linux, many distro's (RedHat, Mandrake, Suse, etc... etc...), offer support contracts on limited versions of their distro. Everything else, including the versions not supported, is in the hands of the community and independent contractors.
I hope you're not one of those people who keeps saying "Linux isn't ready for the desktop because you have to learn about more advanced topics."
This isn't exactly relevant to the current topic, though I am not adverse to discussing this side, in a different thread or forum.
I find it ironic that the only way Win98 is a decent platform is if you learn about all the internals and tweak it "just so".
I actually disagree on a whole. This blanket statement makes the assumption that the quality of the OS is in its Out of the Box appeal. Everyone is going to have some settings to "tweak just so" in order to get things right for their needs. For example the needs of Software Engineer causes him to drive two monitors and run all sorts of device monitoring programs in the background, while a day-trader needs something that makes accessing his portfolio easier. So it's decent status, in what I referred to, was more of its ability to serve its function.
But in all honesty, his presence should neither make someone worry more or less. More notably at this moment it would seem to just be a change in strategy (as what happens when different controlers take the wheel). We will see more Lawsuits, but perhaps in directions we haven't seen yet. I don't know a great deal about this guy, but it seems at though he is just like any other in that position, the only thing different will be his game plan.
Cash cow yes bad ruling far from it. Windows 98 was a decent platform for those who didnt want to bother about more advanced topics, but it as many things slowly loose their appeal to support after a while as well as the invention of "newer" technologies, but honestly who reaps the benefit of this "Cash Cow". Not just Redmond. Usually when a peice of software (os or otherwise) is "retired" supporting companies (ISP's, repair shops, etc...) lag behind about a year or more before declaring that they will not support it. For example, this year an ISP I worked for finally decided not to support Win 95 anymore. The repair shops that are in town that still support these "older" technologies will reap the benefits in that users who first turned to microsoft will turn to them instead before even considering to upgrade.
That's not a bad idea, a teired level of Subscription, allowing for users who want more filtering but not ad suppression... etc... or even possibly, a level where there is some form of DNS pointing to the users journal.
There are definative flaws in the system, no doubt. And the average quality of exploration can vary greatly as we have all seen. But a community is just that, the sum of what the community puts into it. Moderation/Thresholds helps a little but it is a dual edged sword and seems a little off balanced.
Your opinion is valid and I agree, you should pay for and support that which has a value to you, whatever it may be. The definition of value is a little skewed though, for I tend to think of anything that can help me think or change no matter its frustration can be a value. As true to your original comment, the only "Why" there would be would be support, and the supposed value the admins think it will add to the experiance. In my opinion the former is more important than the latter in principle, as the "value" the extra features add can be more or less useful depending on the person.
How true this is. I have never found the ads on this site to be that obtrusive that I needed them gone! The subscription does offer some unique features and all, but the removing the ad's one just seems a little moot to me in comparision.
At least the ads here are relavant, not like being on a book site, with an ad about designer jeans.
Your paying more than for the content. Slashdot is more than just content it is in itself a community. That community thrives on the existence of Slashdot and the news that otherwise could just pass by alot of us on a daily basis.
The idea that slashdot is just a linking system is false in its approach, as it also is a commenting and journalling system that allow for more exploration of the topics than the original article itself.
There are similar systems for the original content, and each of them as well has their own community, and what it comes down to is you pay to ensure that the community will exist in the future. It is just a way to show your support.
While I agree with you on the point that some make mountains over mole hills where timeframe is concerned, there is still some merit to having people respond in due time. In my work history I have found that not waiting an egregious amount of time actually recieved the reward of a contract, where as waiting too long oft times signified to the customer instability with in and shaky confidence on what was being told to them. Being on the phone, or stuck in email all day is indeed a large waste, save for sales persons or CS specialists, whose livelyhood depends on that constant communication.
But too many people think they can wait until the last minute, then dump a load of shit onto somebody else and make them jump. They use that as a tool to get what they want - they condition you to jump when they ring the bell, and eventually they can slip past anything they want.
That actually is a point positive towards at least more organized time frames. An action such as that usually warrents bad office politics, and a project poorly served.
Pressure may not be the key in getting people to respond. Just like phone calls and memo's, there will always be that one worker or Executive Type who simply doesn't bother themselves with expediency. That having been said though, there are those who are trapped with not understanding the basics of the technology they use. They often times rely on other people to get their message across, "delegating" the delicate task of communication. This is a burden that is inherent in the industry itself. Having something that is relatively intuitive and portable, yet retaining its initial power.
Perhaps instead of using pressure, convenience should be fulcrum from which the software stands.
The UI in Lotus Notes is quite a bear, though for the average user the functionality offered inside it, or even MS Outlook, can really be overkill. I use MS Outlook, and actively use some of its features but most of my clients just want to be able to get in check their messages and get out, and have the capability of doing it cheaply. Most are unaware that this functionality even exists and of course price per seat becomes a huge factor in their willingness to learn.
Which I see as the biggest point at least in the rennovation of Email Clients, is to have something that fully featured without having to spend a small fortune to get it.
You know, I really disagree with that blanket assessment. Technology isn?t necessarily a complication to life. Depends on the lifestyle and the technology as to whether it is worth it or not. In alot of cases the trouble that comes along with technology is the need for maintenance... etc., which in and of itself can be annoying, but again that is a lifestyle choice, to have an iPod or something doesn't necessarily complicate someone?s life by having it, and sometimes having it may become simpler. For example, I just joined a Gym. I want to listen to music without lugging around a stack of CD's or listening to the presets on FM. Solution, a compact MP3 player. Its compact, quick to put an album on it, and I have what I want to listen to without having to carry around the CDs with me. The gadgets of today, using a Cell Phone, for say wireless web, is also an interest of simplification. Instead of having someone write down an email address, you can quickly shoot them an email, from your phone so they have your address where it matters... in their email!
Silly problems will arise whether or not an API is present or not. Murphy's Law and all.
The only thing one prevents by locking out developers is a steady pace of progress.
I would say either you aren't posting it in any visible spot or that your 15-minute test is a flawed approach
I would actually have to say both in all honesty. I faced quite a number of tests, designed at "testing" the skill level of those taking the tests, and for the most part, if I was told that "everyone" has failed it this far, I would be predisposed to think, that I would quickly fall into that category.
Mind you of course the majority of those "tests of aptitude" I took came through from headhunters and agencies that promised to make a firm match, though would often embellish my skillset to prospective employers without my previous knowledge, which of course left me looking like an idiot at interview time.
Sometimes having a mixture of test/relevant portfolio/exposure of posting will have alot better response than just a simple 15 minute, crushed military styled test. The portfolio, will show the preperation skills of the applicant, and more importantly, how much the applicant cares to try and impress you with the prepackaged stuff, then use the test more to measure how well they do under pressure, or... make them tell you how long they think it will take... then hold them to it.
This is just some babbling of experiance from the other side.
I have taken the time to peruse the articles that you have referenced, and I must say as far as articles go, very interesting for some of them. For the most part, though it seems as those are geared in a direction in which I did not think this thread was in or going. Yes, NT is powerful, Yes UNIX is powerful, that wasn?t the question, or even statement. At this point my understanding was the lineage of NT.
Your articles definitely point out the ability and structure behind Windows NT, which I do not believe anyone is contesting (at least in this thread). However the main point since the entry of this thread has been maintained that NT's lineage came somewhere directly from OS/2. As demonstrated at least in part with the following excerpt from a link provided by Coventry:
"By late 1990, Microsoft had intensified its disagreements with IBM to the point where IBM decided that it would have to take some overt action to ensure that OS/2 development continued at a reasonable pace. IBM, therefore, took over complete development responsibility for OS/2 1.x, even though it was in its dying days, and OS/2 2.00. Microsoft would continue development on Windows and OS/2 3.00. Shortly after this split, Microsoft renamed OS/2 V3 to Windows NT."
In this excerpt we can find a definitive statement about the lineage of NT. Not that NT is better or Worse, and definitely no accusation of Microsoft being evil, certainly more towards the act of Microsoft acting on business sense to develop what the market wanted.
Thank you for the links, they definitely proved to be insightful reading, even if however off point.
Also of note several of the links had been mis-formatted, which for most was just a simple space in the name, which could be corrected so I could find the article, however, the reference on Microsoft?s site I cannot resolve, and simply gives me a page moved error.
You seem to make alot of assumptions based upon a few lines of text. I for one am neither Pro or Anti Microsoft Technology, I use and learn what I can. I don't believe any of this post, the comments made by anyone on this thread, with the exception of yours mention anything even related to Anti-Microsoft Sentiment. The current comments point out that the founded roots of an Operating System and technology have common ground with another Operating System, as found in many texts.
As far as research, and my "request" at your references, everything I am finding seems to contradict what you are saying. I can easily do a search on Google.com to look for various URL's that talk about the OS2 background of Windows NT. Of course, thanks to the other users who have posted in this thread I did not have to dig very far on that side. And unfortunately, there is no such thing as common knowledge as this thread is distinctly pointing out. If it were Common we would have all been agreeing and none of us would have wasted our time replying to you. And no one asks you to be a librarian, we just ask you to be considerate, however that itself seems a bit much to ask. If you make a claim, your expected to back it up. I think we as a society are past the ?take a fact on face value? phase. Socrates and the other great philosophers all taught us how to question everything, ?
As far as yelling, I don?t need to tell you how rude it is, or how completely unnecessary it is especially in this comment thread considering the only person displaying agitation and sheer rudeness... is you.
Slashdot Mirror
Do I ever agree with that. A little more information goes a long way. Of course it also lends itself to desensationalizing the story.
... the idea of multiple "internets" may not be far off.
Granted I still don't like this move, however I guess it does stand to reason that the future will all depend on how the US handles the administration of the Root DNS in the future. I the government sits there and acts like a little child ("you can look but dont you dare touch... neaner neaner")
Ok, so I phrased a little poorly. Yes they have proof, but what can they do beyond seizure of the equipment that has been sold to a new user, and investigating to find out information they already know. She as the offended party, really should sue for compensation, and honestly, in the case of EB their crime was selling equipment before the waiting period was up. Yes EB should have waited the mandatory period of time, and they should be fined for this, but she should be pursuing her charges against the thief, the one who actually took her equipment, for compensation.
I've seen quite the opposite here. Most used stores that I have sold games and such to, you walk in, hand them a game, and either take your store credit or cash without ever taking your id out of your wallet. No of course there are the exceptions: Game Stop did require me to show my id to show that I was over the age of 18, but as far as I remember they never logged a piece of information from it.
True enough, but at that point, it isnt the police's job to strong arm EB into providing restitution. That burden lies in the arms of the courts.
That statement itself seems more like a brush off than an admission of guilt. That EB location seems to be saying, well if you really believe this was your stollen property, prove it, and catch the theif yourself kind of thing.
Sometimes calling the police isn't feasible. On many things, such as small claims like this, the police will require some level of proof before they move on it. In some cases, gathering a minor amount of proof and taking EB to small claims court would be a better route. At least, it seems that way to me.
In alot of cases in the business world, its not just about price or features. It comes down to answering a few questions:
Does the current system work
Will the current system work in one year
If either of those are yes, and in some cases both, the will to upgrade gets shot down the tubes. It makes little to no sense to upgrade a station if it is doing its job, before the argument ever gets to money.
Features are one thing that can supercede both the Is it working / money arguments, but that is a fine like that argument walks. If a feature is desired, but not entirely needed, would in some cases, money allowing, provide the urge for upgrading, but in alot of cases just fall to the way side in the interest of office stability.
While I do not disagree with you on this note entirely, and I can also see where my thoughts went slightly astray, ...out-of-the-box Linux distributions provide more power in general than any consumer-level Windows distribution.
just like the main point I was making that was on-topic to this article, my focus remains primarily business and
experience oriented with my clients. A little background before I continue, I have been in many situations where
I have had to think of my clients technological needs and abilities before setting up a network or machine. In many cases
clients have had an inability to learn brought on by their inward fears about computers in general.
Your arguments are good, though the focus I feel is missing this level of computer user, the average business person or
home user who is used to seeing nothing but IBM and Redmond pumped into their homes and what not. Its what they know,
its what they trust. The aforementioned fear of computers adds a multiplier onto their inability or non-desire to learn a new system.
Let me step back a step here. I have worked a fair amount of varying positions and jobs, being on Contract tends to do
that, and in each I have bore witness to varying levels of computer users. Right now, I can say for some of the users out there
yes Linux is ready, and in use. For many, it isn't. To change the attitudes of the majority of users means to also show them how it
is easier and why they should switch.
Linux was on the side of servers for the longest time, thus it needed the power. Consumer Desktop machines don't necessarily
need that power, and in a lot of cases that out of the box power, can be a bad thing (in the mind of a consumer). I have known users
who are literally crippled with fear and would sooner say that switching from the platform they liked (one example Mac to Win 2k)
to another was the source of their problem instead of actually learning what they had or the power at their fingertips.
I guess it basically comes down to what users are used to, and their level of understanding of what is available. The average business
person/home user views what their peers are used to using (MS Money, Office... etc... etc...) and in turn want to use it. Most wont
care how it works, or the more power that they can possibly gain, when they don't understand the tech. When you talk to a business
person on why linux will benefit them better than windows, the configuration argument will be lost on them. Why? Tech Departments/staffs.
A business user will be interested in the bottom line of what can this do for me versus my cost and ease of use. In all honesty the best
alternative I have seen to Windows on the desktop is Lindows. Their instant updating service alone is one of the best points to show
a business person, how they can have access to lots of updates and software for just... a small amount each year as opposed to $400 here
$700 there.
I guess my main point is that while your point is a valid point, it isn't addressing all the issues that surround the argument,
and rather the argument it self needs to be targeted to gain ground.
Hmm, how does this compare to Linux, by any chance?
In regard to this point most Technology follows this pattern. As the technology
ages and evolves not everyone will have the need to move forward to the new technology,
but will always need someone to support it should something go horribly wrong. In
the case of Linux, many distro's (RedHat, Mandrake, Suse, etc... etc...), offer support
contracts on limited versions of their distro. Everything else, including the versions not supported,
is in the hands of the community and independent contractors.
I hope you're not one of those people who keeps saying "Linux isn't ready for the desktop
because you have to learn about more advanced topics."
This isn't exactly relevant to the current topic, though I am not adverse to discussing this side, in
a different thread or forum.
I find it ironic that the only way Win98 is a decent platform is if you learn about
all the internals and tweak it "just so".
I actually disagree on a whole. This blanket statement makes the assumption
that the quality of the OS is in its Out of the Box appeal. Everyone is going to
have some settings to "tweak just so" in order to get things right for their needs.
For example the needs of Software Engineer causes him to drive two monitors and run
all sorts of device monitoring programs in the background, while a day-trader needs
something that makes accessing his portfolio easier. So it's decent status, in what I
referred to, was more of its ability to serve its function.
ACK! Good catch, sometimes my thoughts outrun my spell checker.
Well, the guy has had long standing tenure at the ATF:
his ATF Bio
But in all honesty, his presence should neither make someone worry more or less. More notably at this moment it would seem to just be a change in strategy (as what happens when different controlers take the wheel). We will see more Lawsuits, but perhaps in directions we haven't seen yet. I don't know a great deal about this guy, but it seems at though he is just like any other in that position, the only thing different will be his game plan.
Cash cow yes bad ruling far from it. Windows 98 was a decent platform for those who didnt want to bother about more advanced topics, but it as many things slowly loose their appeal to support after a while as well as the invention of "newer" technologies, but honestly who reaps the benefit of this "Cash Cow". Not just Redmond. Usually when a peice of software (os or otherwise) is "retired" supporting companies (ISP's, repair shops, etc...) lag behind about a year or more before declaring that they will not support it. For example, this year an ISP I worked for finally decided not to support Win 95 anymore. The repair shops that are in town that still support these "older" technologies will reap the benefits in that users who first turned to microsoft will turn to them instead before even considering to upgrade.
That's not a bad idea, a teired level of Subscription, allowing for users who want more filtering but not ad suppression... etc... or even possibly, a level where there is some form of DNS pointing to the users journal.
There are definative flaws in the system, no doubt. And the average quality of exploration can vary greatly as we have all seen. But a community is just that, the sum of what the community puts into it. Moderation/Thresholds helps a little but it is a dual edged sword and seems a little off balanced.
Your opinion is valid and I agree, you should pay for and support that which has a value to you, whatever it may be. The definition of value is a little skewed though, for I tend to think of anything that can help me think or change no matter its frustration can be a value. As true to your original comment, the only "Why" there would be would be support, and the supposed value the admins think it will add to the experiance. In my opinion the former is more important than the latter in principle, as the "value" the extra features add can be more or less useful depending on the person.
How true this is. I have never found the ads on this site to be that obtrusive that I needed them gone! The subscription does offer some unique features and all, but the removing the ad's one just seems a little moot to me in comparision.
At least the ads here are relavant, not like being on a book site, with an ad about designer jeans.
Your paying more than for the content. Slashdot is more than just content it is in itself a community. That community thrives on the existence of Slashdot and the news that otherwise could just pass by alot of us on a daily basis.
The idea that slashdot is just a linking system is false in its approach, as it also is a commenting and journalling system that allow for more exploration of the topics than the original article itself.
There are similar systems for the original content, and each of them as well has their own community, and what it comes down to is you pay to ensure that the community will exist in the future. It is just a way to show your support.
While I agree with you on the point that some make mountains over mole hills where timeframe is concerned, there is still some merit to having people respond in due time. In my work history I have found that not waiting an egregious amount of time actually recieved the reward of a contract, where as waiting too long oft times signified to the customer instability with in and shaky confidence on what was being told to them. Being on the phone, or stuck in email all day is indeed a large waste, save for sales persons or CS specialists, whose livelyhood depends on that constant communication.
But too many people think they can wait until the last minute, then dump a load of shit onto somebody else and make them jump. They use that as a tool to get what they want - they condition you to jump when they ring the bell, and eventually they can slip past anything they want.
That actually is a point positive towards at least more organized time frames. An action such as that usually warrents bad office politics, and a project poorly served.
Pressure may not be the key in getting people to respond. Just like phone calls and memo's, there will always be that one worker or Executive Type who simply doesn't bother themselves with expediency. That having been said though, there are those who are trapped with not understanding the basics of the technology they use. They often times rely on other people to get their message across, "delegating" the delicate task of communication. This is a burden that is inherent in the industry itself. Having something that is relatively intuitive and portable, yet retaining its initial power.
Perhaps instead of using pressure, convenience should be fulcrum from which the software stands.
The UI in Lotus Notes is quite a bear, though for the average user the functionality offered inside it, or even MS Outlook, can really be overkill. I use MS Outlook, and actively use some of its features but most of my clients just want to be able to get in check their messages and get out, and have the capability of doing it cheaply. Most are unaware that this functionality even exists and of course price per seat becomes a huge factor in their willingness to learn.
Which I see as the biggest point at least in the rennovation of Email Clients, is to have something that fully featured without having to spend a small fortune to get it.
Bush Phones Home
You know, I really disagree with that blanket assessment. Technology isn?t necessarily a complication to life. Depends on the lifestyle and the technology as to whether it is worth it or not. In alot of cases the trouble that comes along with technology is the need for maintenance... etc., which in and of itself can be annoying, but again that is a lifestyle choice, to have an iPod or something doesn't necessarily complicate someone?s life by having it, and sometimes having it may become simpler. For example, I just joined a Gym. I want to listen to music without lugging around a stack of CD's or listening to the presets on FM. Solution, a compact MP3 player. Its compact, quick to put an album on it, and I have what I want to listen to without having to carry around the CDs with me. The gadgets of today, using a Cell Phone, for say wireless web, is also an interest of simplification. Instead of having someone write down an email address, you can quickly shoot them an email, from your phone so they have your address where it matters... in their email!
Silly problems will arise whether or not an API is present or not. Murphy's Law and all.
The only thing one prevents by locking out developers is a steady pace of progress.
I would actually have to say both in all honesty. I faced quite a number of tests, designed at "testing" the skill level of those taking the tests, and for the most part, if I was told that "everyone" has failed it this far, I would be predisposed to think, that I would quickly fall into that category.
Mind you of course the majority of those "tests of aptitude" I took came through from headhunters and agencies that promised to make a firm match, though would often embellish my skillset to prospective employers without my previous knowledge, which of course left me looking like an idiot at interview time.
Sometimes having a mixture of test/relevant portfolio/exposure of posting will have alot better response than just a simple 15 minute, crushed military styled test. The portfolio, will show the preperation skills of the applicant, and more importantly, how much the applicant cares to try and impress you with the prepackaged stuff, then use the test more to measure how well they do under pressure, or... make them tell you how long they think it will take... then hold them to it.
This is just some babbling of experiance from the other side.
I have taken the time to peruse the articles that you have referenced, and I must say as far as articles go, very interesting for some of them. For the most part, though it seems as those are geared in a direction in which I did not think this thread was in or going. Yes, NT is powerful, Yes UNIX is powerful, that wasn?t the question, or even statement. At this point my understanding was the lineage of NT.
Your articles definitely point out the ability and structure behind Windows NT, which I do not believe anyone is contesting (at least in this thread). However the main point since the entry of this thread has been maintained that NT's lineage came somewhere directly from OS/2. As demonstrated at least in part with the following excerpt from a link provided by Coventry:
"By late 1990, Microsoft had intensified its disagreements with IBM to the point where IBM decided that it would have to take some overt action to ensure that OS/2 development continued at a reasonable pace. IBM, therefore, took over complete development responsibility for OS/2 1.x, even though it was in its dying days, and OS/2 2.00. Microsoft would continue development on Windows and OS/2 3.00. Shortly after this split, Microsoft renamed OS/2 V3 to Windows NT."
In this excerpt we can find a definitive statement about the lineage of NT. Not that NT is better or Worse, and definitely no accusation of Microsoft being evil, certainly more towards the act of Microsoft acting on business sense to develop what the market wanted.
Thank you for the links, they definitely proved to be insightful reading, even if however off point.
Also of note several of the links had been mis-formatted, which for most was just a simple space in the name, which could be corrected so I could find the article, however, the reference on Microsoft?s site I cannot resolve, and simply gives me a page moved error.
You seem to make alot of assumptions based upon a few lines of text. I for one am neither Pro or Anti Microsoft Technology, I use and learn what I can. I don't believe any of this post, the comments made by anyone on this thread, with the exception of yours mention anything even related to Anti-Microsoft Sentiment. The current comments point out that the founded roots of an Operating System and technology have common ground with another Operating System, as found in many texts.
As far as research, and my "request" at your references, everything I am finding seems to contradict what you are saying. I can easily do a search on Google.com to look for various URL's that talk about the OS2 background of Windows NT. Of course, thanks to the other users who have posted in this thread I did not have to dig very far on that side.
And unfortunately, there is no such thing as common knowledge as this thread is distinctly pointing out. If it were Common we would have all been agreeing and none of us would have wasted our time replying to you. And no one asks you to be a librarian, we just ask you to be considerate, however that itself seems a bit much to ask. If you make a claim, your expected to back it up. I think we as a society are past the ?take a fact on face value? phase. Socrates and the other great philosophers all taught us how to question everything, ?
As far as yelling, I don?t need to tell you how rude it is, or how completely unnecessary it is especially in this comment thread considering the only person displaying agitation and sheer rudeness... is you.