Actually, I was going to mention Java, but even talking about its performance issues these days hurts my head. I mean, for all Sun promised when it originally came out, I think its funny that most people can't think of anything more useful to do with it than slow the loading time of Web pages I visit considerably.
I realize that the chances of a program running on all systems/processors/whatever else isn't the most likely thing in the world to happen, though it would be nice if people diversified just a little bit instead of writing for one specific platform. Reminds me of the argument of producing games for consoles rather than general OSes I was involved with a little while back on the recent PSX 2 delayed again story..
"When will you *ALL* come to the conclusion that "A rising tide can float all boats", and instead of running about drilling holes in the other boats, agree on what we all can agree on. That OpenSource is good, and getting vendors who wish to run on "OpenSource" OSes should write there code so it can run on *ALL* the OSes. (Hint: Think Linux compatible Binaries. )"
Actually I think the idea of programs that run on all the different free operating systems like Linux, the BSD trio, etc. is a rather critical issue. Of course, I see a growing number of programs that run only on Linux for Intel.. We should all have a choice. We should be able to choose our OS, our hardware, and whatever software we damn well please without being restricted by the first two things we would like to have a choice on. A growing number of people seem to be losing sight of this, however..
"Lying to get more market share doesn't sound like a very good thing to me. If it takes that to get market share, fuck market share. I'd rather have integrity. That's something Richard M. Stallman has plenty of."
I love everything in that post, but this I feel I must remark upon. Lying to to get market share is the tactic of Microsoft we see quite arguably the most often. Half-truths, outright lies, and other misconceptions aren't what we need. If we want to be different or better, we should follow up on those things with more than just bashing Microsoft. However, if we just want to flex our muscle and crush everything in sight in any way possible, why are we even bothering with what we are doing in the first place? There's more than enough of that to go around..
Allow me to clarify.. I don't care if you call it GNU/Linux. I care about the fact that people say Linus wrote the Linux OS. GNU stuff, Linux, and all that other neat nifty software we love so dear was written by many people all over the world. Linus is sexy, but he isn't -that- damn sexy.
Actually, I use the term Linux rather than GNU/Linux myself. However, it would be nice if people knew the whole truth. Saying Linus wrote the Linux OS, for instance, isn't quite the truth. Forcing people to call it GNU/Linux has absolutely nothing to do with my point, nor do I think anyone should even bother, nor did I ever run around yelling that people should call it that. I could care less. Linux is good enough for me, because I know what the hell it is. Perhaps you should think about what you have to say before you flame someone? It helps to keep -yourself- from appearing stupid..
"The WSJ is to be commended for avoiding feeding the flames with this inanely unmerited and pretentious "GNU/Linux" moniker."
GNU is the OS, Linux is the kernel. How does that make it unmerited? And knowing that, how can anyone possibly think that GNU/Linux is more pretentious than Linux?
I don't worship Richard Stallman, either. It's no wonder this was an AC post. However, if not for his philosophy, Linus Torvalds wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Richard Stallman isn't important. What he did, what Linus did.. all of the people who have worked on GNU projects and GPL-covered software (including them) and what they did.. all of these things and people are. I thought I made that clear to begin with.
"Look this is a silly stupid ego issue for Stallman."
This really has nothing to do with the point.
"Does this mean it will benifit linux or the public at large by forcing GNU/Linux down their throughts? No!"
I thought "people deserve to know the truth". Is this a dead concept?
"The myth of Linus and his singlehanded development of the operating system plays an important role in the media recognition of linux. People's imaginations are not fired up by commitees, they are fired up by individuals and strong leaders. There is a reason we consider the president of the US to represent the United States when in reality congress hasmore to do with the present state of the US than the president."
Commitees? Whatever. I don't think we have many things that are quite that formal in our community. Personally, I get fired up over the idea of people from all over the world working together to produce good, quality software without the concept of money driving them. And if you realize that it's silly to focus on the president of the U.S. when the legislature holds more of the real power, why would you try to spread an obviously flawed belief and even focus on it? Ignoring things of this nature only allows the problems we refuse to recognize to remain unattended.. and thus grow worse and spread into other areas.
Tried to post this previously, guess I misfired or something.. I forgot what I did with it. heh. Anyway.. For brevity's sake: I never kept track of MS views. However, contradicting themselves like they did is still not very brilliant. Then again, who ever accused them of being brilliant?
Why I don't like Sun's trademark terms: If I wanted to have a Red Hat and a Sun logo on my site, I'd have to a) keep RH logo same size and make Sun logo smaller, thereby making Sun logo illegible and dumb looking or b) blow up RH logo, thereby making it dumb looking. That's not much fun.
I noticed the text-writeable boxes too. Pretty funny stuff. They are also the work of a company I wouldn't want to buy anything from. I don't think they figured out the Web design thing just yet.
"The free programs are all variants of the venerable Unix system invented by AT&T Corp. And they aren't just running Yahoo. While Microsoft almost never talks about it, its own Hotmail free e-mail service runs not on its flagship Windows NT but on FreeBSD."
I wouldn't want to talk about either, since when Microsoft first acquired Hotmail, they switched over all the servers to Windows NT. Needless to say, their setup experienced mild "difficulties" as NT tried to handle the all the user load, and failed.. miserably.. After a short period (not short enough for many, I'm sure) they were forced to switch back. And they call their systems "advanced"?
"The Linux saga is already the stuff of modern legend. In 1991, Linus Torvalds, a 21-year-old student in Helsinki, began writing an operating system essentially from scratch so he could have something to use on his home computer. The programs FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD, by contrast, are the descendants of code written in the late 1970s and early 1980s at UC Berkeley."
Oh please. No matter how technically accurate or inaccurate the media is, they always leave out some important aspects. I know I sound like a broken record, but I feel as if this is an important issue which needs to be addressed. Is there any way we can let the media know that we have GNU/Linux today because of both the GNU Project and Linus Torvalds, and not just Linus? Public perception is a big deal.. the only thing people listen to are just PR issues, anyway. Any insights on this? I don't believe I've heard of any before.
Ugh. Just killed article window. Too lazy to reopen. Hmm.. "no ego about letting people use their software"? I think I got that right, and it sounds egotistical in and of itself. What, GNU/Linux was all written by just one person? Ha!
"A Microsoft attorney said the company will point to the remarkable financial success of Red Hat Inc., a leading vendor of the upstart Linux software operating system."
Too bad Red Hat went public looong after the antitrust suit was actually filed. Isn't this a bit late in the game to point to current trends? As much as we'd like to change the past..
"An economist who testified for the Justice Department, Franklin Fisher, had dismissed as ``a joke, of course'' the potential threat that Linux posed to the market dominance of Microsoft's Windows software."
Nice to know that people who testify for the DOJ don't watch the news.
"The Microsoft lawyer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the company will tell the judge it believes Linux to be ``real competition.''"
I'd want to remain anonymous too after all the hoopla associated with Bill Gates' insistence that Linux isn't a threat.. not to mention the backing of several of his other yes-men. Nice to know that at least one person has some sense amidst that pack of utter liars.
"The Justice Department has argued that Linux has been successful challenging Microsoft in the sale of high-end business ``server'' computers, not consumer machines."
Not for long, baby. Once the hardware manufacturers realize that, then I'll be happy. I think it's absurd that IBM is taking a "wait and see" stance with regards to Linux PCs. Didn't Apple make the same mistake when IBM was just a start-up company? Thinking there was still lots of business in the mainframe market while IBM dove for the PC market and became the standard, leaving Apple to content themselves with being second best? Also, it's remarkable how many people say Linux has "a steep learning curve". I'm not sure how many people are aware of this, but among the average human, -Windows- has a steep learning curve (not to mention computers in general).
"And Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was quoted in earlier evidence in the trial as saying at a technology conference this spring that Linux's impact ``will be fairly limited'' and that he's never had a customer mention Linux to him."
I don't think Bill even listens to his customers, so of course he never heard them mention much of anything.. Or else maybe he'd take the hint that people don't like it when their system "develops random features". I'm sure he thinks it's "cute", however.
"Microsoft also was expected to cite an announcement just days ago by rival Sun Microsystems Inc. that it has begun distributing free on the Internet a package of business applications meant to compete with Microsoft's Office software."
Now this is even sillier.. Who in their right mind is really afraid of Sun Microsystems or anything they have to offer? Perhaps in time their stuff will be good (they certainly have some nice concepts.. but in a business, you need more than just a bunch of "idea men" and loony ad campaigns), but for now Java and its associated hype goes a long way to prove how immature they and their products still are.
As a side note, anyone who thinks Sun is "really cool" and not just another corporate entity that has absurd notions of, well, just about everything, feel free to peruse these terms, which you must agree to if you want to post one of their logos on your site.. even if its simply as a supporter of Sun's technology. This stuff is pretty wild..
Yes, I fully understand that what I quoted was technically accurate, spelling issues aside. However, what the entire article suggests to me is that the person who wrote it has no idea that Linux refers to the kernel and not the OS. This is a critical issue that needs to be made clear. The previous reply to my original post on this thread points this all out quite well. Every article by the general media has misrepresented this issue. All other issues aside, Richard Stallman has done a lot more for the free software community (would "liberated" be a better choice of words, since we are not trying to reference price?) than Linus Torvalds (though I admire both) with regards to his stunning philosophy.. without the benefit of which we would probably not be where we are today. After all, how many software applications are released under the GPL today?
Hmm.. "Created by a Finnish graduate student named Linus Torvalls in 1991, Linux's open code is relentlessly scrutinized and tested by tens of thousands of systems analysts worldwide, who constantly recommend improvements, Klosowski said."
Well, aside from the fact that they can't even spell Linus' name right.. If I were Richard Stallman, I'd be thinking myself to be really good material for a prospective U.S. postal employee by now. You'd think Linus had written Linux, the GNU system (oh, I meant Linux again), and every piece of software for it.. and that all of those other programmers in the world don't really do anything other than give him ideas. Is there a religion for him yet?
After all, they could always think of something devious like the Netscape Public License. They sure could use some help fixing all those annoying bugs..
The first time I mention something that I'm not totally sure about the validity of it, and someone has to call me on it. Doh! At any rate, Priest and Mage deck products (and even the wanna-be Tarot cards included with Ravenloft) weren't quite what I meant, however, by cards. What I said was excessively vague as far as that issue was concerned. I think I'll keep on track next time. *bonk self* Ugh.
At times like this I have to ask myself: Just what does security mean to people when the average end-user seems to choose passwords such as the name of their husband, wife, child, or favorite pet? Talk about some "strong encryption".
I, likewise, would hate for others to believe that I think that other's opinions don't matter.. regardless of the circumstances. Of course, since all of this is a rather convoluted and somewhat obfuscated issue, it's hard for me to be very clear. For this, I apologize.
Let me try again.. One of the points that I wished to make is that while the U.S. has its problems, and is certainly worth of criticism, I find it dismissive and lacking validity to snub the country, its inhabitants, or its government simply for the fallacies of a few of its inherent members. Were we to squelch all "negative" influences in our society, we would be some seriously totalitarian bastards, wouldn't we? Trust me, it would be better that we not live up to those kinds of stereotypes.
Everyone's opinion matters, but I find it to be in bad form to snub others simply because of the country there were born in or happen to live in at the time. That's prejudice. The reason why I don't think that any place in the world is any better or worse than the other is because there are good and bad people everywhere. Even in places where the government is horrible, there are wars and bloodshed rampant all across the land, what have you.. There are still good people, innocent victims of these atrocities. What the world needs is a little more understanding.. open minds and open hearts..
Hopefully I am being a little more clear this time? Sorry for my previous, rather inflammatory responses. Whee..
Isn't Linux a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds? I'm not much for legal research, but I've noted that statement at the bottom of a number of different Web pages (although always believing the validity of what you read is rather naive). I mean, Linus isn't exactly a huge corporation with tons of money with which to go do battle on the legal fighting grounds that are the United States. Not only that, but Linux is probably one of the mostly widely seen trademarks on the Web today. How could he possibly protect his mark against all threats to its proper usage? Again, I admit a good amount of ignorance in this area and simply seek an enlightening response.
What's with the constant comparisons between every company under the sun and Microsoft? It's like when people constantly describe a band (like, say, Gravity Kills) by comparing them with another band (perhaps Nine Inch Nails). Quickly the entire definition gets lost and you make it appear as if everything is precisely like everything else. So much for unique identities, eh?
Anyway, the only notion I have to offer here is that WotC is still not and never will be the "big boy" of RPGs. They are a CCG company. They probably always will be, unless Hasbro is just totally nuts (trust me, they are). They bought TSR, and suddenly what became a part of the new Dragonlance expansion? Cards!?! These people have no creative thought. Which, I suppose, is like Microsoft in many ways. However, they would be this to CCGs, not RPGs.
D&D and its various offshoots and editions have been slowly crumbling under the pressure of the last few years due to a lack of creative thought, a flexible rule system, and various other signs of a now decrepit age. White Wolf is the bad boy of RPGs today. Their presence is certainly felt more than any other RPG company I know of.
I never said anything about the U.S. being the best. I never even said anything at all about the original poster's government. Where do you people get these loony ideas? I'd rather live in Canada. That still doesn't mean that the U.S. is the worst, or that I don't believe in a lot of things it stands for (in theory at least), as far as governments are concerned. This, however, does not make the U.S. any better, or worse, than any other part of the world. I thought I had made this clear. I don't ask a lot (or maybe I do..?), just that people think. The reason the U.S. is so screwed up today is because of ignorance, prejudice, and the fact that many good people do.. nothing. I see no further point in pursuing blatant flamebait.
Speaking of ignorance, do I even use the word "troll" correctly and in proper context? Ha! If anyone would like to enlighten me as to an actual definition of a word rather than my half thought out notion of what it probably means, feel free to let me know.
After all, it would be rather hypocritical for anyone (and especially so with regards to myself.. ha!) to take offense at a simple error, misperception, or other common miscommunication. Honestly, I don't tend to keep track of any kind of social trend (although I'm not quite as bad as a dedicated medical student), and because of this, I never even realized there was a long period of time when Genesis was around and SNES wasn't. Maybe I knew and just didn't notice. I don't know. *grin*
Pardon this excessively opinionated foray further in the realms of off-topic discussion, but.. Well, let me try to get this straight.. What is the perfect example of the Internet community proving it's world wide (well, beside the fact that the World Wide Web isn't just a funny misnomer), GPG or snubbing your nose at America? Personally, I think snubbing your nose at a pair of continents (which are actually north and south, rather than one single land mass.. sort of) is really silly, but hey.
I'm pretty sure the original poster meant the United States government, but then again, I'm also pretty sure that they're rather confused and have no idea what they are talking about. At any rate, this sure is some serious flamebait. Don't get me wrong, even though I'm a United States citizen I have a number of issues with my country's government, and don't believe us or our country is necessarily all that better than those of other parts of the world. However, I can't agree with the idea that a community can prove itself as being world wide (which seems to me to mean that it excludes no one) by excluding a certain group (namely the United States).
National boundaries mean a lot. More than the original poster can apparently imagine. A lot of us would love to live in a better world, but being a practical realist as well as a dreamer, I can certainly attest to the fact that ignoring cold, harsh reality is quite bad for your health. Besides, the United States stands for freedom. There are a few corruptive influences in our country, but it is that way with any society. I don't like those elements of our society, but unless you can claim yours to be perfect, I don't think that you have room to talk. There are certainly much worse places in the world to live. I like what the United States as a whole stands for. And apparently a number of its opponents don't care for them as much as I do. Such as the idea that you should cast off the yolks of oppression and ignorance? Silly me.
Come on people. Does anybody out there consider Netscape (now owned by AOL) and/or Mozilla to be an "Evil Thing"? Ever wonder why most of the development of Mozilla is done by Netscape despite their open source invitation? If you really want something "insightful" or "informative", I suggest that you check out this page on the GNU Project Web site. Maybe I'm just a loon, but after reading this, it seems to me that trying to integrate an official part of the GNU Project into such software would be a rather silly notion at best.
Won't.. Linux.. be pissed? Pardon, but I seem to be a bit confused. Of course, while it is true that it would be a more technically accurate assertation to make if one said that the Free Software Foundation was based in Boston, Massacusetts than the GNU Project (although the two are practically synonymous, there are a few key differences).. or perhaps that the GNU Project was launched to accomplish a number of goals, of which releasing a free operating system was only the first. Of course, anyone who was interested could easily pick up all of this information at the GNU Project's Web site. But then, the media never has been known for doing their research, eh? I once read an article in a local newspaper that talking about Web design and mentioned HTML as being a programming language.
Other than that, the statement remarked upon by the original poster is mostly accurate. After all, the OS that the GNU Project eventually came up with was called GNU/Linux. Many people (mostly the media and the people who believe them) think that when one says "Linux kernel" that what is really meant by that statement is "the kernel for Linux" when the truth of the matter is that Linux is the name of the kernel used in the GNU OS. Therefore, as Richard Stallman states (and the Debian distribution respects), it is more appropriately referred to as GNU/Linux. Richard wants to have another GNU OS using Hurd as the kernel, but there's not too much development in that area from what I know.
I guess what originally drew me to comment on this post was simply.. how can a kernel for an OS get pissed off at anything? I would love to see posts that are a little more specific. Vague comments without a lot of backing tend to be.. well, vague. Not to mention annoying.
By the way, no, I'm not trying to detract from the work of Linus Torvalds. His is just as important as many (well, more than most, actually), although Richard Stallman is rarely given the credit he truly deserves.
Well, after rereading my post a few more times.. I've come to the inevitable conclusion that I never really committed myself to any one opinion or another with regards to this question (and others like it). Saying that one idea casts an interesting light on another doesn't mean.. well, much of anything. It was purposefully vague. Unlike many others, I at least attempt to choose my words carefully. Of course, it's not always possible to be 100% clear and concise, especially since many people I've come across like to read way, way, waaay too deep into.. almost everything, I guess. The world isn't completely populated by ulterior motives and overly subtle "you've got to read in between the lines" commentary.
And just to let you know where I stand on things, I happen to like all of the Sonic games (well, the ones for Genesis, anyway), although I still don't think the Genesis was a good game system because a) it was technically inferior to the SNES (even though the Fatal Fury for Sega was much, much better than the SNES port) and b) aside from Sonic (even though he sure beats Mario as a mascot) there weren't very many actually good games for Genesis as compared to the Super Nintendo. Is that a verbose enough response to curtail further trolling in the area of Sega vs. Nintendo? Probably not, but hey. Kirk out.
Am I the only one who wonders what the big deal is with replies to this post? Personally, while it doesn't net you much of your money back to trade in your own consoles, I think it's rather annoying to have several systems plugged in or have to switch out which systems are plugged in at any given time. I also find hooking up several different multimedia devices together to be quite irritating in general.
Therefore.. why would I want to have a PlayStation and a PlayStation 2 both hooked up? I'm quite happy that Sony's new system will be able to play older games. It means that I can junk my original PSX without worrying that I'll want to play those old games someday. What's wrong with extending the lifespan of console games? I wish consoles had always been backwards compatible. I certainly know of a large number of Nintendo games I wish I could still play, though I have long since ditched my NES in favor of limiting the number of consoles I have taking up space in my living room. A person can only have so much stuff, as it were.
Besides, as I mentioned before, PSX games in comparison to these new generation systems isn't quite the leap it was from 8- to 16- to 64-bit. Sure, games will become smoother and more complex, but it soon gets to a point where the end-user is barely even aware of it. I mean, with general computer systems, you can never have enough of the latest hardware. There are always newer and better tasks which require ever increasing amounts of computing power. But these are just games! Once the image gets so crisp, and the controls so fluid, the only thing you can possibly enhance is the actual game play. The games which require more computing power than consoles currently provide would do best to remain on general computer systems, anyway. After all, I think it's rather pointless for a game console to try to emulate the features of a general computing system (acess to the Internet? Web browsers? other silly hoopla?). Why not just get a general computer system to begin with and be able to do so much more? The entire notion is just silly.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I was going to mention Java, but even talking about its performance issues these days hurts my head. I mean, for all Sun promised when it originally came out, I think its funny that most people can't think of anything more useful to do with it than slow the loading time of Web pages I visit considerably.
I realize that the chances of a program running on all systems/processors/whatever else isn't the most likely thing in the world to happen, though it would be nice if people diversified just a little bit instead of writing for one specific platform. Reminds me of the argument of producing games for consoles rather than general OSes I was involved with a little while back on the recent PSX 2 delayed again story..
"When will you *ALL* come to the conclusion that "A rising tide can float all boats", and instead of running about drilling holes in the other boats, agree on what we all can agree on. That OpenSource is good, and getting vendors who wish to run on "OpenSource" OSes should write there code so it can run on *ALL* the OSes. (Hint: Think Linux compatible Binaries. )"
Actually I think the idea of programs that run on all the different free operating systems like Linux, the BSD trio, etc. is a rather critical issue. Of course, I see a growing number of programs that run only on Linux for Intel.. We should all have a choice. We should be able to choose our OS, our hardware, and whatever software we damn well please without being restricted by the first two things we would like to have a choice on. A growing number of people seem to be losing sight of this, however..
"Lying to get more market share doesn't sound like a very good thing to me. If it takes that to get market share, fuck market share. I'd rather have integrity. That's something Richard M. Stallman has plenty of."
I love everything in that post, but this I feel I must remark upon. Lying to to get market share is the tactic of Microsoft we see quite arguably the most often. Half-truths, outright lies, and other misconceptions aren't what we need. If we want to be different or better, we should follow up on those things with more than just bashing Microsoft. However, if we just want to flex our muscle and crush everything in sight in any way possible, why are we even bothering with what we are doing in the first place? There's more than enough of that to go around..
Allow me to clarify.. I don't care if you call it GNU/Linux. I care about the fact that people say Linus wrote the Linux OS. GNU stuff, Linux, and all that other neat nifty software we love so dear was written by many people all over the world. Linus is sexy, but he isn't -that- damn sexy.
Actually, I use the term Linux rather than GNU/Linux myself. However, it would be nice if people knew the whole truth. Saying Linus wrote the Linux OS, for instance, isn't quite the truth. Forcing people to call it GNU/Linux has absolutely nothing to do with my point, nor do I think anyone should even bother, nor did I ever run around yelling that people should call it that. I could care less. Linux is good enough for me, because I know what the hell it is. Perhaps you should think about what you have to say before you flame someone? It helps to keep -yourself- from appearing stupid..
"The WSJ is to be commended for avoiding feeding the flames with this inanely unmerited and pretentious "GNU/Linux" moniker."
GNU is the OS, Linux is the kernel. How does that make it unmerited? And knowing that, how can anyone possibly think that GNU/Linux is more pretentious than Linux?
I don't worship Richard Stallman, either. It's no wonder this was an AC post. However, if not for his philosophy, Linus Torvalds wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Richard Stallman isn't important. What he did, what Linus did.. all of the people who have worked on GNU projects and GPL-covered software (including them) and what they did.. all of these things and people are. I thought I made that clear to begin with.
"Look this is a silly stupid ego issue for Stallman."
This really has nothing to do with the point.
"Does this mean it will benifit linux or the public at large by forcing GNU/Linux down their throughts? No!"
I thought "people deserve to know the truth". Is this a dead concept?
"The myth of Linus and his singlehanded development of the operating system plays an important role in the media recognition of linux. People's imaginations are not fired up by commitees, they are fired up by individuals and strong leaders. There is a reason we consider the president of the US to represent the United States when in reality congress hasmore to do with the present state of the US than the president."
Commitees? Whatever. I don't think we have many things that are quite that formal in our community. Personally, I get fired up over the idea of people from all over the world working together to produce good, quality software without the concept of money driving them. And if you realize that it's silly to focus on the president of the U.S. when the legislature holds more of the real power, why would you try to spread an obviously flawed belief and even focus on it? Ignoring things of this nature only allows the problems we refuse to recognize to remain unattended.. and thus grow worse and spread into other areas.
Tried to post this previously, guess I misfired or something.. I forgot what I did with it. heh. Anyway.. For brevity's sake: I never kept track of MS views. However, contradicting themselves like they did is still not very brilliant. Then again, who ever accused them of being brilliant?
Why I don't like Sun's trademark terms: If I wanted to have a Red Hat and a Sun logo on my site, I'd have to a) keep RH logo same size and make Sun logo smaller, thereby making Sun logo illegible and dumb looking or b) blow up RH logo, thereby making it dumb looking. That's not much fun.
I noticed the text-writeable boxes too. Pretty funny stuff. They are also the work of a company I wouldn't want to buy anything from. I don't think they figured out the Web design thing just yet.
"The free programs are all variants of the venerable Unix system invented by AT&T Corp. And they aren't just running Yahoo. While Microsoft almost never talks about it, its own Hotmail free e-mail service runs not on its flagship Windows NT but on FreeBSD."
I wouldn't want to talk about either, since when Microsoft first acquired Hotmail, they switched over all the servers to Windows NT. Needless to say, their setup experienced mild "difficulties" as NT tried to handle the all the user load, and failed.. miserably.. After a short period (not short enough for many, I'm sure) they were forced to switch back. And they call their systems "advanced"?
"The Linux saga is already the stuff of modern legend. In 1991, Linus Torvalds, a 21-year-old student in Helsinki, began writing an operating system essentially from scratch so he could have something to use on his home computer. The programs FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD, by contrast, are the descendants of code written in the late 1970s and early 1980s at UC Berkeley."
Oh please. No matter how technically accurate or inaccurate the media is, they always leave out some important aspects. I know I sound like a broken record, but I feel as if this is an important issue which needs to be addressed. Is there any way we can let the media know that we have GNU/Linux today because of both the GNU Project and Linus Torvalds, and not just Linus? Public perception is a big deal.. the only thing people listen to are just PR issues, anyway. Any insights on this? I don't believe I've heard of any before.
Ugh. Just killed article window. Too lazy to reopen. Hmm.. "no ego about letting people use their software"? I think I got that right, and it sounds egotistical in and of itself. What, GNU/Linux was all written by just one person? Ha!
"A Microsoft attorney said the company will point to the remarkable financial success of Red Hat Inc., a leading vendor of the upstart Linux software operating system."
Too bad Red Hat went public looong after the antitrust suit was actually filed. Isn't this a bit late in the game to point to current trends? As much as we'd like to change the past..
"An economist who testified for the Justice Department, Franklin Fisher, had dismissed as ``a joke, of course'' the potential threat that Linux posed to the market dominance of Microsoft's Windows software."
Nice to know that people who testify for the DOJ don't watch the news.
"The Microsoft lawyer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the company will tell the judge it believes Linux to be ``real competition.''"
I'd want to remain anonymous too after all the hoopla associated with Bill Gates' insistence that Linux isn't a threat.. not to mention the backing of several of his other yes-men. Nice to know that at least one person has some sense amidst that pack of utter liars.
"The Justice Department has argued that Linux has been successful challenging Microsoft in the sale of high-end business ``server'' computers, not consumer machines."
Not for long, baby. Once the hardware manufacturers realize that, then I'll be happy. I think it's absurd that IBM is taking a "wait and see" stance with regards to Linux PCs. Didn't Apple make the same mistake when IBM was just a start-up company? Thinking there was still lots of business in the mainframe market while IBM dove for the PC market and became the standard, leaving Apple to content themselves with being second best? Also, it's remarkable how many people say Linux has "a steep learning curve". I'm not sure how many people are aware of this, but among the average human, -Windows- has a steep learning curve (not to mention computers in general).
"And Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was quoted in earlier evidence in the trial as saying at a technology conference this spring that Linux's impact ``will be fairly limited'' and that he's never had a customer mention Linux to him."
I don't think Bill even listens to his customers, so of course he never heard them mention much of anything.. Or else maybe he'd take the hint that people don't like it when their system "develops random features". I'm sure he thinks it's "cute", however.
"Microsoft also was expected to cite an announcement just days ago by rival Sun Microsystems Inc. that it has begun distributing free on the Internet a package of business applications meant to compete with Microsoft's Office software."
Now this is even sillier.. Who in their right mind is really afraid of Sun Microsystems or anything they have to offer? Perhaps in time their stuff will be good (they certainly have some nice concepts.. but in a business, you need more than just a bunch of "idea men" and loony ad campaigns), but for now Java and its associated hype goes a long way to prove how immature they and their products still are.
As a side note, anyone who thinks Sun is "really cool" and not just another corporate entity that has absurd notions of, well, just about everything, feel free to peruse these terms, which you must agree to if you want to post one of their logos on your site.. even if its simply as a supporter of Sun's technology. This stuff is pretty wild..
Yes, I fully understand that what I quoted was technically accurate, spelling issues aside. However, what the entire article suggests to me is that the person who wrote it has no idea that Linux refers to the kernel and not the OS. This is a critical issue that needs to be made clear. The previous reply to my original post on this thread points this all out quite well. Every article by the general media has misrepresented this issue. All other issues aside, Richard Stallman has done a lot more for the free software community (would "liberated" be a better choice of words, since we are not trying to reference price?) than Linus Torvalds (though I admire both) with regards to his stunning philosophy.. without the benefit of which we would probably not be where we are today. After all, how many software applications are released under the GPL today?
Hmm.. "Created by a Finnish graduate student named Linus Torvalls in 1991, Linux's open code is relentlessly scrutinized and tested by tens of thousands of systems analysts worldwide, who constantly recommend improvements, Klosowski said."
Well, aside from the fact that they can't even spell Linus' name right.. If I were Richard Stallman, I'd be thinking myself to be really good material for a prospective U.S. postal employee by now. You'd think Linus had written Linux, the GNU system (oh, I meant Linux again), and every piece of software for it.. and that all of those other programmers in the world don't really do anything other than give him ideas. Is there a religion for him yet?
After all, they could always think of something devious like the Netscape Public License. They sure could use some help fixing all those annoying bugs..
The first time I mention something that I'm not totally sure about the validity of it, and someone has to call me on it. Doh! At any rate, Priest and Mage deck products (and even the wanna-be Tarot cards included with Ravenloft) weren't quite what I meant, however, by cards. What I said was excessively vague as far as that issue was concerned. I think I'll keep on track next time. *bonk self* Ugh.
At times like this I have to ask myself: Just what does security mean to people when the average end-user seems to choose passwords such as the name of their husband, wife, child, or favorite pet? Talk about some "strong encryption".
I, likewise, would hate for others to believe that I think that other's opinions don't matter.. regardless of the circumstances. Of course, since all of this is a rather convoluted and somewhat obfuscated issue, it's hard for me to be very clear. For this, I apologize.
Let me try again.. One of the points that I wished to make is that while the U.S. has its problems, and is certainly worth of criticism, I find it dismissive and lacking validity to snub the country, its inhabitants, or its government simply for the fallacies of a few of its inherent members. Were we to squelch all "negative" influences in our society, we would be some seriously totalitarian bastards, wouldn't we? Trust me, it would be better that we not live up to those kinds of stereotypes.
Everyone's opinion matters, but I find it to be in bad form to snub others simply because of the country there were born in or happen to live in at the time. That's prejudice. The reason why I don't think that any place in the world is any better or worse than the other is because there are good and bad people everywhere. Even in places where the government is horrible, there are wars and bloodshed rampant all across the land, what have you.. There are still good people, innocent victims of these atrocities. What the world needs is a little more understanding.. open minds and open hearts..
Hopefully I am being a little more clear this time? Sorry for my previous, rather inflammatory responses. Whee..
Isn't Linux a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds? I'm not much for legal research, but I've noted that statement at the bottom of a number of different Web pages (although always believing the validity of what you read is rather naive). I mean, Linus isn't exactly a huge corporation with tons of money with which to go do battle on the legal fighting grounds that are the United States. Not only that, but Linux is probably one of the mostly widely seen trademarks on the Web today. How could he possibly protect his mark against all threats to its proper usage? Again, I admit a good amount of ignorance in this area and simply seek an enlightening response.
What's with the constant comparisons between every company under the sun and Microsoft? It's like when people constantly describe a band (like, say, Gravity Kills) by comparing them with another band (perhaps Nine Inch Nails). Quickly the entire definition gets lost and you make it appear as if everything is precisely like everything else. So much for unique identities, eh?
Anyway, the only notion I have to offer here is that WotC is still not and never will be the "big boy" of RPGs. They are a CCG company. They probably always will be, unless Hasbro is just totally nuts (trust me, they are). They bought TSR, and suddenly what became a part of the new Dragonlance expansion? Cards!?! These people have no creative thought. Which, I suppose, is like Microsoft in many ways. However, they would be this to CCGs, not RPGs.
D&D and its various offshoots and editions have been slowly crumbling under the pressure of the last few years due to a lack of creative thought, a flexible rule system, and various other signs of a now decrepit age. White Wolf is the bad boy of RPGs today. Their presence is certainly felt more than any other RPG company I know of.
I never said anything about the U.S. being the best. I never even said anything at all about the original poster's government. Where do you people get these loony ideas? I'd rather live in Canada. That still doesn't mean that the U.S. is the worst, or that I don't believe in a lot of things it stands for (in theory at least), as far as governments are concerned. This, however, does not make the U.S. any better, or worse, than any other part of the world. I thought I had made this clear. I don't ask a lot (or maybe I do..?), just that people think. The reason the U.S. is so screwed up today is because of ignorance, prejudice, and the fact that many good people do.. nothing. I see no further point in pursuing blatant flamebait.
Speaking of ignorance, do I even use the word "troll" correctly and in proper context? Ha! If anyone would like to enlighten me as to an actual definition of a word rather than my half thought out notion of what it probably means, feel free to let me know.
After all, it would be rather hypocritical for anyone (and especially so with regards to myself.. ha!) to take offense at a simple error, misperception, or other common miscommunication. Honestly, I don't tend to keep track of any kind of social trend (although I'm not quite as bad as a dedicated medical student), and because of this, I never even realized there was a long period of time when Genesis was around and SNES wasn't. Maybe I knew and just didn't notice. I don't know. *grin*
Pardon this excessively opinionated foray further in the realms of off-topic discussion, but.. Well, let me try to get this straight.. What is the perfect example of the Internet community proving it's world wide (well, beside the fact that the World Wide Web isn't just a funny misnomer), GPG or snubbing your nose at America? Personally, I think snubbing your nose at a pair of continents (which are actually north and south, rather than one single land mass.. sort of) is really silly, but hey.
I'm pretty sure the original poster meant the United States government, but then again, I'm also pretty sure that they're rather confused and have no idea what they are talking about. At any rate, this sure is some serious flamebait. Don't get me wrong, even though I'm a United States citizen I have a number of issues with my country's government, and don't believe us or our country is necessarily all that better than those of other parts of the world. However, I can't agree with the idea that a community can prove itself as being world wide (which seems to me to mean that it excludes no one) by excluding a certain group (namely the United States).
National boundaries mean a lot. More than the original poster can apparently imagine. A lot of us would love to live in a better world, but being a practical realist as well as a dreamer, I can certainly attest to the fact that ignoring cold, harsh reality is quite bad for your health. Besides, the United States stands for freedom. There are a few corruptive influences in our country, but it is that way with any society. I don't like those elements of our society, but unless you can claim yours to be perfect, I don't think that you have room to talk. There are certainly much worse places in the world to live. I like what the United States as a whole stands for. And apparently a number of its opponents don't care for them as much as I do. Such as the idea that you should cast off the yolks of oppression and ignorance? Silly me.
Come on people. Does anybody out there consider Netscape (now owned by AOL) and/or Mozilla to be an "Evil Thing"? Ever wonder why most of the development of Mozilla is done by Netscape despite their open source invitation? If you really want something "insightful" or "informative", I suggest that you check out this page on the GNU Project Web site. Maybe I'm just a loon, but after reading this, it seems to me that trying to integrate an official part of the GNU Project into such software would be a rather silly notion at best.
Won't.. Linux.. be pissed? Pardon, but I seem to be a bit confused. Of course, while it is true that it would be a more technically accurate assertation to make if one said that the Free Software Foundation was based in Boston, Massacusetts than the GNU Project (although the two are practically synonymous, there are a few key differences).. or perhaps that the GNU Project was launched to accomplish a number of goals, of which releasing a free operating system was only the first. Of course, anyone who was interested could easily pick up all of this information at the GNU Project's Web site. But then, the media never has been known for doing their research, eh? I once read an article in a local newspaper that talking about Web design and mentioned HTML as being a programming language.
Other than that, the statement remarked upon by the original poster is mostly accurate. After all, the OS that the GNU Project eventually came up with was called GNU/Linux. Many people (mostly the media and the people who believe them) think that when one says "Linux kernel" that what is really meant by that statement is "the kernel for Linux" when the truth of the matter is that Linux is the name of the kernel used in the GNU OS. Therefore, as Richard Stallman states (and the Debian distribution respects), it is more appropriately referred to as GNU/Linux. Richard wants to have another GNU OS using Hurd as the kernel, but there's not too much development in that area from what I know.
I guess what originally drew me to comment on this post was simply.. how can a kernel for an OS get pissed off at anything? I would love to see posts that are a little more specific. Vague comments without a lot of backing tend to be.. well, vague. Not to mention annoying.
By the way, no, I'm not trying to detract from the work of Linus Torvalds. His is just as important as many (well, more than most, actually), although Richard Stallman is rarely given the credit he truly deserves.
Well, after rereading my post a few more times.. I've come to the inevitable conclusion that I never really committed myself to any one opinion or another with regards to this question (and others like it). Saying that one idea casts an interesting light on another doesn't mean.. well, much of anything. It was purposefully vague. Unlike many others, I at least attempt to choose my words carefully. Of course, it's not always possible to be 100% clear and concise, especially since many people I've come across like to read way, way, waaay too deep into.. almost everything, I guess. The world isn't completely populated by ulterior motives and overly subtle "you've got to read in between the lines" commentary.
And just to let you know where I stand on things, I happen to like all of the Sonic games (well, the ones for Genesis, anyway), although I still don't think the Genesis was a good game system because a) it was technically inferior to the SNES (even though the Fatal Fury for Sega was much, much better than the SNES port) and b) aside from Sonic (even though he sure beats Mario as a mascot) there weren't very many actually good games for Genesis as compared to the Super Nintendo. Is that a verbose enough response to curtail further trolling in the area of Sega vs. Nintendo? Probably not, but hey. Kirk out.
Am I the only one who wonders what the big deal is with replies to this post? Personally, while it doesn't net you much of your money back to trade in your own consoles, I think it's rather annoying to have several systems plugged in or have to switch out which systems are plugged in at any given time. I also find hooking up several different multimedia devices together to be quite irritating in general.
Therefore.. why would I want to have a PlayStation and a PlayStation 2 both hooked up? I'm quite happy that Sony's new system will be able to play older games. It means that I can junk my original PSX without worrying that I'll want to play those old games someday. What's wrong with extending the lifespan of console games? I wish consoles had always been backwards compatible. I certainly know of a large number of Nintendo games I wish I could still play, though I have long since ditched my NES in favor of limiting the number of consoles I have taking up space in my living room. A person can only have so much stuff, as it were.
Besides, as I mentioned before, PSX games in comparison to these new generation systems isn't quite the leap it was from 8- to 16- to 64-bit. Sure, games will become smoother and more complex, but it soon gets to a point where the end-user is barely even aware of it. I mean, with general computer systems, you can never have enough of the latest hardware. There are always newer and better tasks which require ever increasing amounts of computing power. But these are just games! Once the image gets so crisp, and the controls so fluid, the only thing you can possibly enhance is the actual game play. The games which require more computing power than consoles currently provide would do best to remain on general computer systems, anyway. After all, I think it's rather pointless for a game console to try to emulate the features of a general computing system (acess to the Internet? Web browsers? other silly hoopla?). Why not just get a general computer system to begin with and be able to do so much more? The entire notion is just silly.