> If you label a company by what makes them the most money, > they are an advertising company first and a search engine second.
That's hard to say since Google is 'advertising' the results of its search engine. Google does not offer 'banner' ads in the way most websites do. Their ads are specialized search results that only appear in the context of a corresponding search.
Evolution 1.x used to support RSS (not sure which versions) on an overview page that included weather and mail summaries.
They dropped it in 2.x because "stand alone readers/aggregators are better suited to the task".
Since Evo 2.x arrived, I've tried several RSS readers for Linux as well as Firefox's Live Bookmarks, and I still miss it in Evolution. Not because it was presented well (it only presented a hyperlinked title), but because of accessibility.
Presenting each feed as a folder sounds good. But an overview page to quickly scan your most-read feeds is great.
If the GPL is hurting you because of commercial competitors, why now offer a dual license? MySQL and Qt are doing it well. Quid Pro Quo (something for something).
Your code is GPL for GPL users, and it's commercial for commercial users. So if your usage/derivative is GPL, then you can use the code free. If your product is commercial, then you must license the code.
It keeps you viable to the OSS community and may help the bank at the same time.
Re:Exactly what *is* the Dell aversion to AMD?
on
Dell Dumping Itanium
·
· Score: 1
After Advanced Micro Devices demonstrated that 64-bit extensions to the x86 instruction set offered a smoother transition to 64-bit computing, Intel released a version of Xeon with similar technology, and Dell now offers 64-bit Xeon processors across its product line.
You'd think that having AMD "demonstrate that 64-bit extensions to the x86 instruction set offered a smoother transition to 64-bit computing", the likes of Dell would realize where the real innovation is coming from and begin diversifying. It's almost as if there's some other agenda behind Dell's behavior.
Sniff-sniff...smell that?... smells like a long-overdue anti-trust suit in the works.
I was reading a dated (2004) article comparing security on Windows and Linux. In it, they point out that Windows is not on the Top-50 list of highest uptimes. I recently visited the list (http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html) and noticed that Windows does indeed have a few entries.
But, no Windows machine should have an uptime of more than ~6 months as all MS updates require a reboot. And the Netcraft list contained Win2k machines w/ 4+ yrs uptime! That means they should be ripe for the picking, right?
Directly-accessible web servers that haven't been patched.
Any reason these aren't hit?
1.3 million iPod owners who may have been victim to poor or defective batteries.
More people have been victim to poor and defective MS software for over a decade...where's the class action lawsuit there?
Not to mention MS' Virtual PC.
I haven't used any, but MS is always willing to embrace...err...extend...err...innovate...ahhh let's just buy 'em out, that always works.
This has puzzled me since it was originally disclosed (over a month ago). I don't understand why MS is choosing this route.
The knee-jerk reaction is money. But how can it be? MS is the richest non-financial company in the world in terms of money in the bank. Additionally their 4Q-2004 financials proved excellent. Their gross and net income increased from 4Q-2003 despite all the money paid in anti-trust cases. Taking this stance on the basis of money makes no sense.
The only thing I can think of is to start the move. This is a traditional tactic w/ MS--start looking in the direction you want to go before you need to be there. This way, by the time trouble presents itself, you have history behind you and thus less opposition.
In my opinion, this decision will only serve to promote Linux. By far the biggest reason for Windows' current market position is easy access. Tried-and-true "hook-line-and-sinker" and/or "bait-and-switch" tactic. Most people use Windows because it's easy. "Easy" doesn't only refer to operation, but also acquisition. Requiring people to part w/ their money only serves to force the user to ask: Is it worth it?
Instead of trying to diminish the funds now, why not leave it in the bank and continue adding to it. When there's enough money, buy Microsoft and end all our woes.
Slashdot Mirror
> If you label a company by what makes them the most money,
> they are an advertising company first and a search engine second.
That's hard to say since Google is 'advertising' the results of its search engine.
Google does not offer 'banner' ads in the way most websites do. Their ads are specialized search results that only appear in the context of a corresponding search.
Evolution 1.x used to support RSS (not sure which versions) on an overview page that included weather and mail summaries. They dropped it in 2.x because "stand alone readers/aggregators are better suited to the task". Since Evo 2.x arrived, I've tried several RSS readers for Linux as well as Firefox's Live Bookmarks, and I still miss it in Evolution. Not because it was presented well (it only presented a hyperlinked title), but because of accessibility. Presenting each feed as a folder sounds good. But an overview page to quickly scan your most-read feeds is great.
If the GPL is hurting you because of commercial competitors, why now offer a dual license?
MySQL and Qt are doing it well. Quid Pro Quo (something for something).
Your code is GPL for GPL users, and it's commercial for commercial users.
So if your usage/derivative is GPL, then you can use the code free.
If your product is commercial, then you must license the code.
It keeps you viable to the OSS community and may help the bank at the same time.
...sushi all around!
After Advanced Micro Devices demonstrated that 64-bit extensions to the x86 instruction set offered a smoother transition to 64-bit computing, Intel released a version of Xeon with similar technology, and Dell now offers 64-bit Xeon processors across its product line.
... smells like a long-overdue anti-trust suit in the works.
You'd think that having AMD "demonstrate that 64-bit extensions to the x86 instruction set offered a smoother transition to 64-bit computing", the likes of Dell would realize where the real innovation is coming from and begin diversifying. It's almost as if there's some other agenda behind Dell's behavior.
Sniff-sniff...smell that?
That's certainly true for this particular vulnerability.
But in the last 4 years IIS has had its share of critical vulnerabilities.
I was reading a dated (2004) article comparing security on Windows and Linux. In it, they point out that Windows is not on the Top-50 list of highest uptimes. I recently visited the list (http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html) and noticed that Windows does indeed have a few entries.
But, no Windows machine should have an uptime of more than ~6 months as all MS updates require a reboot. And the Netcraft list contained Win2k machines w/ 4+ yrs uptime! That means they should be ripe for the picking, right?
Directly-accessible web servers that haven't been patched.
Any reason these aren't hit?
...MS software, how?
1.3 million iPod owners who may have been victim to poor or defective batteries.
More people have been victim to poor and defective MS software for over a decade...where's the class action lawsuit there?
Not to mention MS' Virtual PC.
I haven't used any, but MS is always willing to
embrace...err...extend...err...innovate...ahhh let's just buy 'em out, that always works.
...from Shared Source how? Select people can look; doesn't fit any open source license I know of.
This has puzzled me since it was originally disclosed (over a month ago). I don't understand why MS is choosing this route.
The knee-jerk reaction is money. But how can it be? MS is the richest non-financial company in the world in terms of money in the bank. Additionally their 4Q-2004 financials proved excellent. Their gross and net income increased from 4Q-2003 despite all the money paid in anti-trust cases. Taking this stance on the basis of money makes no sense.
The only thing I can think of is to start the move. This is a traditional tactic w/ MS--start looking in the direction you want to go before you need to be there. This way, by the time trouble presents itself, you have history behind you and thus less opposition.
In my opinion, this decision will only serve to promote Linux. By far the biggest reason for Windows' current market position is easy access. Tried-and-true "hook-line-and-sinker" and/or "bait-and-switch" tactic. Most people use Windows because it's easy. "Easy" doesn't only refer to operation, but also acquisition. Requiring people to part w/ their money only serves to force the user to ask: Is it worth it?
- Access context menu for the frame (right click inside the frame
- select "This Frame"
- select "View Frame Info"
It gives you all the details.Instead of trying to diminish the funds now, why not leave it in the bank and continue adding to it. When there's enough money, buy Microsoft and end all our woes.