I remember some articles whereby he was trying to get Microsoft to pay out some big reward money. I don't remember exactly where I saw the quotes.
I should say that given the media's inclination towards misquoting people, it's entirely possible that he was misrepresented. If that's the case then I apologize.
Perhaps non-binding is not even the issue, but it's not easily verifiable. Why would he only want cashier's checks and not personal checks? All he has to do is wait for the check to clear.
We have no guarantees that this is really going to go to charity, and as far as I know, his promise is non-binding (real lawyers correct me if I'm wrong).
The reason I'm suspicious is his original quotes saying that he felt he deserved a large sum of money from Microsoft, based how much theoretical money was "lost" (which, of course, was really zero).
Call me cynical, but based on his past behavior I think a grain of salt is prescribed here.
That's what I thought at first, but just to set the record straight, BrettJB (see other note) accidently moderated me as a troll. He wrote an e-mail apologizing to myself and asked SlashDot to fix the moderation. They (or someone) restored it to 5, but left the "Troll". As Brett pointed out, I'm probably the only +5 Troll post.
For the record, I wouldn't necessarily blame him for being cautious in just recklessling letting all the cows out of the barn, so to speak.
That being said, I think the rules change a bit when they decided to release their own distribution. At that point, they aren't just developing products for Linux, they are embracing the entire development model. So do they believe in the model or not?
This is my polite way of asking, "Have you jumped on the Linux bandwagon as a cynical attempt to save Corel, or have you really become a believer in Open Source? If so, prove it."
As everyone knows, Corel has recently embraced Linux. My question is, have you embraced Open Source? If so, will you open source Corel applications (both Linux-based and other platforms) such as CorelDRAW, WordPerfect, Ventura, Photo-Paint and the others?
Normally I hate network news because the anchors annoy me so much. The idea that some $5 million/year blow-dried news anchor can be replaced by a simple machine is just too amusing.
Can't you just picture Peter Jennings (or pick your favorite hair) reading this story and saying to himself, "Nahhh... this'll never catch on! I'm too important to the well-being of America. I do more than read the news: I represent the trust in the 4th branch of government!"
I feel like I should hate this, but... I feel strangely attracted to this concept. I find myself thinking this is oddly cool.
I must love abuse, but I can't resist knocking this down:
Microsoft is in the position it is now because: (i)it appeared first, (ii)the company uses clever marketing to woo the public, (iii)the company variously destroyed/bought out all the competition.
Wrong on most counts.
(i) IBM's PC-DOS was first (which came from MS of course, but had IBM branding). Oh, you mean GUIs? Wrong. Apple was first, of course, but if you want to talk DOS, there were a whole slew of GUIs for DOS before Windows. HP had one, and I recall another one that was actually X based, believe it or not (Desq-something?). Unfortunately, PCs were too underpowered for X apps.
(ii) Wrong. Microsoft won at the corporate and developer level, not the consumer level. Microsoft hardly even advertised until the last few years. They spent buttloads of money to make sure apps were ported to Windows, and then went door-to-door at companies making sure they ran Windows. Of course those two activities were mutually synergistic. The more companies used Windows, the more developers developed for it, which made it more attractive to corporate america. Only after they conquered the corporate market did consumers want the same thing at home that they were running at the office.
Note, by the way, that Apple did exactly the opposite. Constantly kick developers in the teeth and ignore the corporate market by focusing on education and niche markets (like publishing).
(iii) While there is no doubt Microsoft has purchased/destroyed various competition, it's primarily because of (ii) and the fact that their competitors never understood how to win that Microsoft has dominated.
Take OS/2: It was not marketing that killed OS/2. It's the fact that IBM pushed an entirely new API when developers had already picked Windows. If IBM had made OS/2 absolutely, positively 100% Windows compatible, only better, and advertised it that way, they could have had a chance. But OS/2 died the day that IBM announced that they would not be Win32 compatible.
Bottom line, it's comforting to believe that all these issues have such simple answers. "Microsoft was first", "Microsoft bought the competition", etc, etc, cliche after cliche. But if you look past the obvious, very often you find out that success often happens for very subtle reasons. I think you'll learn something if you stop being so blind from hatred, and try to learn from Microsoft instead.
They actually did that in Office/2000, incidently. Features can be selected/deselected and loaded on demand when they are used. It's pretty cool, actually. The other thing they did is made the menus only show the most common features, which reorders itself depending on which features you actually use.
We can all see you have an agenda here. In this place at least, unless Slashdot is about to be invaded wholesale by MS fanboys (perish the thought), you're wasting your breath. Give it up.
Uh huh. It's the last resort of people who lose an argument to 1) insult the other party, and 2) hide in "We". Speak for yourself.
My agenda is to bring reality to Linux. It would love to have a unix-kernel based desktop system. However, being a non-advocate type, I use whatever system allows me to do my work most efficiently. I don't use inferior applications just to belong to a "cause". That means I use Office. That means I use IE. That also happens to mean I use Apache, Sendmail, Perl and a host of other programs under Linux for server type stuff.
Being a Linux "fanboy" (as you so eloquently put it) does not help Linux improve. And throwing out silly insults to anyone who makes honest statements about Microsoft that happen to be positive just makes you look foolish.
I can just see how that argument would play to a frustrated Photoshop user with a production deadline who's just lost a day's work because his Windows fell over and trashed the file system in the process.
You are getting more and more shrill. Settle down.
It is provably true that stability matters less than you think by the fact that Mac advocates continue to use the Mac. The Mac is infamous for crashing with Photoshop and particularly Pagemaker. They know that the Mac is technically inferior without any memory protection and a brain damaged VM system. But they want the applications.
As for "trashing the filesystem", now I know you hardly ever use Windows. I can't remember the last time I had a trashed filesystem. Your credibility is taken a beating. If you want to be taken seriously, then don't make silly exaggerations.
Or maybe, despite your silly insults, I know a lot about both platforms. I have built dozens of Windows boxes and at least 10 Linux boxes. I have never had a standard IDE CD-ROM drive give the symptom he claimed. If you're supporting a lot of PCs with that problem, then maybe you should change CD-ROM manufacturers.
If I said that I've never been able to make a particular network card work with Linux, yet works well with Windows, would you say that Linux (the entire operating system, mind you) is worthless crap? Well, that's my experience (although I can't remember which card it was). Well? Are you going to be consistent, or are you "*deliberately* attempting to mislead people about the true state of affairs here?"
Your "evidence" smells to me like the typical Linux advocate who never uses Windows, yet claims that it crashes every hour.
Linux has enough going for it in terms of reliability, stability and usability that people won't give a fig if the office suites aren't loaded with useless bloat that noone ever uses anyway.
I hear this "bloat" nonsense a lot. Would you care to actually name some of these useless features that "no one" ever uses?
Hint: Features are not put in arbitrarily; they are usually put in by requests from end users. Say what you want about Microsoft, but what they do really well is listen to end users and respond to their feature requests.
What I will tell you is that operating system stability is not a high priority to the average user. Would it be nice? Sure. But if OS stability was a factor, the Mac would have died a long time ago and Windows would never have dominated. Yet they did for one reason: Applications. Windows has the applications that everyone wants.
Well, I'll give you scripting, although it's unbelievably difficult and crufty to use. Since I'm very doubtful that a normal human (particularly artistic types that would be the ones to use GIMP) could actually learn to use the scripting, it's questionable how much of an advantage it is (I mean, Scheme??)
I hate to say it, but GIMP is just not that good. I'm guessing that you haven't spent that much time with Photoshop, but it's far, far better designed both from a user interface standpoint (GIMP is pretty hostile) and a functionality standpoint. It's also much slower. You can do basic stuff with it, but it's not even close to Photoshop. On the other hand, it's tough to beat for the price.:)
But the Marketroids reap the benefits because they understand how to manipulate the masses!
No. The companies you mention win because they create software for non-geeks. Geeks create software for geeks. Geeks make up at most 5% of the population. That means that non-geek software is going to win every time.
And yet, it's the non-geek software that gets grudingly adopted by the geek population, rather than the other way around. We would still be using 'troff' it was up to the geeks; fortunately, non-geeks invented WYSIWYG desktop publishing programs and office suites that are infinitely more powerful and better.
re there still some geeks who will point out some minor advantage 'troff' still has over dem dar newfangled GUI programs? Of course! That's what gives them their charm.:)
No, it's "OK, mom, click on the 'shell button'. Ok, now log into root by typing 'su root'. Now type in the root password. It's those letters and numbers. You aren't supposed to see it; it's secret! Try again. OK, now next to the pound sign, enter 'rpm -i mysoftware.rpm'. It gave you an error? Drat! I forgot you're running Distribution-X that doesn't use 'rpm'".
Half the time windows denies I have a CDrom drive
So fix it. You have a hardware problem.
I've never got my zip drive to work in windows
That's Iomega's fault. Zip drives suck.
I've no idea how to set up a modem in windows
Plug it in.
or how to hook up a plug and play usb scanner
Plug it in.
I know how to do all of them in linux what was your point again?
I think my point was how l33t Linux people are who can get these things to work.
because most applications for linux are open source projects, the developers think in terms of how they can get the job done best rather than how they can make the apps look pretty.
It's not a question of pretty vs ugly. It's a question of getting work done. I use 'vi' every day for programming projects. However, for real word processing there is no way in hell I would use "troff" or some medieval torture tool. But when you get to office suites under Linux, they are unmitigated crap compared to Office. Not just in the capability (although that's significant), but in the integration with the operation system.
I've ranted about this before, but when is Linux going to get a real print rendering subsystem? Where I can print a complex document on a cheap-o Epson color printer, and get consistent output? This is one of the biggest holes in Linux that will keep it from penetrating the desktop. I mean, the office suites ship with their own print drivers! That hasn't been needed in the Windows world since DOS!
Well, anything is easy if you're only launching one application. How about installing Netscape (or pick your software)? How about viewing the contents of a CDROM ("I have to logged on as root? What does that mean?")? How about setting up a modem? How about installing some fonts? How about hooking up a plug-and-play USB scanner?
I don't know about some of these, but GIMP is hugely inferior to Photoshop. As for KDE, it's come a long way, but it's still not at the level of Win/98. Besides, most regular users don't care about the desktop. All they want to do is launch applications.
As for server functions, that why I restricted my post to "desktop" applications.
Anyone who hasn't tried one of those infamous AOL floppies should try it some time. Those floppies are the reason AOL dominated. They were entirely self-contained: you didn't need TCP/IP, or even the modem set up. You plugged them in, they figured everything out, and boom! Joe User was online.
Many would like to see Linux be where Windows is. Many have even claimed that Linux is "easier to use than Windows" (which is laughable, but I swear someone claimed it in a post). The lesson here is that the vast majority of people don't care about how the underlying software works. They just want to use the darn thing.
Unfortunately, many Linux advocates worship at the altar of "oooooh, what a beautiful kernel" when the average user says "OK. I see a pretty desktop; what can I do with it?" Unfortunately, in the case of Linux for the average user, not much compared to the applications under Windows.
The lesson is that people will forgive almost endless technical inferiority, but they won't forgive something that is not useful to them. It's all about the content/applications. And until Linux gets at least some applications that are superior to the equivalents in Windows, it will never make any inroads into the desktop world.
Now comes the bottom line: how insignificant am I, a human, in a cosmic scale?...
Let's say that intelligence is truly unique in the Universe, and we are the only examples. That means even the lowliest human being is unique on a cosmic scale. After all, after you've seen the couple dozen or so star types, you've seen them all. But there's only one place in the Universe you'll find intelligence.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember some articles whereby he was trying to get Microsoft to pay out some big reward money. I don't remember exactly where I saw the quotes.
I should say that given the media's inclination towards misquoting people, it's entirely possible that he was misrepresented. If that's the case then I apologize.
---
Perhaps non-binding is not even the issue, but it's not easily verifiable. Why would he only want cashier's checks and not personal checks? All he has to do is wait for the check to clear.
---
We have no guarantees that this is really going to go to charity, and as far as I know, his promise is non-binding (real lawyers correct me if I'm wrong).
The reason I'm suspicious is his original quotes saying that he felt he deserved a large sum of money from Microsoft, based how much theoretical money was "lost" (which, of course, was really zero).
Call me cynical, but based on his past behavior I think a grain of salt is prescribed here.
---
Oops! Spoke too soon! I just looked again; down to 2. Oh well, life is too short to worry about rogue moderators. It's pretty funny, actually.
---
Well, OK, as long as you're not "resentful".
---
That's what I thought at first, but just to set the record straight, BrettJB (see other note) accidently moderated me as a troll. He wrote an e-mail apologizing to myself and asked SlashDot to fix the moderation. They (or someone) restored it to 5, but left the "Troll". As Brett pointed out, I'm probably the only +5 Troll post.
I feel strangely honored. :)
---
For the record, I wouldn't necessarily blame him for being cautious in just recklessling letting all the cows out of the barn, so to speak.
That being said, I think the rules change a bit when they decided to release their own distribution. At that point, they aren't just developing products for Linux, they are embracing the entire development model. So do they believe in the model or not?
---
This is my polite way of asking, "Have you jumped on the Linux bandwagon as a cynical attempt to save Corel, or have you really become a believer in Open Source? If so, prove it."
---
As everyone knows, Corel has recently embraced Linux. My question is, have you embraced Open Source? If so, will you open source Corel applications (both Linux-based and other platforms) such as CorelDRAW, WordPerfect, Ventura, Photo-Paint and the others?
---
Normally I hate network news because the anchors annoy me so much. The idea that some $5 million/year blow-dried news anchor can be replaced by a simple machine is just too amusing.
Can't you just picture Peter Jennings (or pick your favorite hair) reading this story and saying to himself, "Nahhh... this'll never catch on! I'm too important to the well-being of America. I do more than read the news: I represent the trust in the 4th branch of government!"
I feel like I should hate this, but... I feel strangely attracted to this concept. I find myself thinking this is oddly cool.
---
I must love abuse, but I can't resist knocking this down:
Microsoft is in the position it is now because: (i)it appeared first, (ii)the company uses clever marketing to woo the public, (iii)the company variously destroyed/bought out all the competition.
Wrong on most counts.
(i) IBM's PC-DOS was first (which came from MS of course, but had IBM branding). Oh, you mean GUIs? Wrong. Apple was first, of course, but if you want to talk DOS, there were a whole slew of GUIs for DOS before Windows. HP had one, and I recall another one that was actually X based, believe it or not (Desq-something?). Unfortunately, PCs were too underpowered for X apps.
(ii) Wrong. Microsoft won at the corporate and developer level, not the consumer level. Microsoft hardly even advertised until the last few years. They spent buttloads of money to make sure apps were ported to Windows, and then went door-to-door at companies making sure they ran Windows. Of course those two activities were mutually synergistic. The more companies used Windows, the more developers developed for it, which made it more attractive to corporate america. Only after they conquered the corporate market did consumers want the same thing at home that they were running at the office.
Note, by the way, that Apple did exactly the opposite. Constantly kick developers in the teeth and ignore the corporate market by focusing on education and niche markets (like publishing).
(iii) While there is no doubt Microsoft has purchased/destroyed various competition, it's primarily because of (ii) and the fact that their competitors never understood how to win that Microsoft has dominated.
Take OS/2: It was not marketing that killed OS/2. It's the fact that IBM pushed an entirely new API when developers had already picked Windows. If IBM had made OS/2 absolutely, positively 100% Windows compatible, only better, and advertised it that way, they could have had a chance. But OS/2 died the day that IBM announced that they would not be Win32 compatible.
Bottom line, it's comforting to believe that all these issues have such simple answers. "Microsoft was first", "Microsoft bought the competition", etc, etc, cliche after cliche. But if you look past the obvious, very often you find out that success often happens for very subtle reasons. I think you'll learn something if you stop being so blind from hatred, and try to learn from Microsoft instead.
---
They actually did that in Office/2000, incidently. Features can be selected/deselected and loaded on demand when they are used. It's pretty cool, actually. The other thing they did is made the menus only show the most common features, which reorders itself depending on which features you actually use.
---
We can all see you have an agenda here. In this place at least, unless Slashdot is about to be invaded wholesale by MS fanboys (perish the thought), you're wasting your breath. Give it up.
Uh huh. It's the last resort of people who lose an argument to 1) insult the other party, and 2) hide in "We". Speak for yourself.
My agenda is to bring reality to Linux. It would love to have a unix-kernel based desktop system. However, being a non-advocate type, I use whatever system allows me to do my work most efficiently. I don't use inferior applications just to belong to a "cause". That means I use Office. That means I use IE. That also happens to mean I use Apache, Sendmail, Perl and a host of other programs under Linux for server type stuff.
Being a Linux "fanboy" (as you so eloquently put it) does not help Linux improve. And throwing out silly insults to anyone who makes honest statements about Microsoft that happen to be positive just makes you look foolish.
---
I can just see how that argument would play to a frustrated Photoshop user with a production deadline who's just lost a day's work because his Windows fell over and trashed the file system in the process.
You are getting more and more shrill. Settle down.
It is provably true that stability matters less than you think by the fact that Mac advocates continue to use the Mac. The Mac is infamous for crashing with Photoshop and particularly Pagemaker. They know that the Mac is technically inferior without any memory protection and a brain damaged VM system. But they want the applications.
As for "trashing the filesystem", now I know you hardly ever use Windows. I can't remember the last time I had a trashed filesystem. Your credibility is taken a beating. If you want to be taken seriously, then don't make silly exaggerations.
---
Or maybe, despite your silly insults, I know a lot about both platforms. I have built dozens of Windows boxes and at least 10 Linux boxes. I have never had a standard IDE CD-ROM drive give the symptom he claimed. If you're supporting a lot of PCs with that problem, then maybe you should change CD-ROM manufacturers.
If I said that I've never been able to make a particular network card work with Linux, yet works well with Windows, would you say that Linux (the entire operating system, mind you) is worthless crap? Well, that's my experience (although I can't remember which card it was). Well? Are you going to be consistent, or are you "*deliberately* attempting to mislead people about the true state of affairs here?"
Your "evidence" smells to me like the typical Linux advocate who never uses Windows, yet claims that it crashes every hour.
---
Linux has enough going for it in terms of reliability, stability and usability that people won't give a fig if the office suites aren't loaded with useless bloat that noone ever uses anyway.
I hear this "bloat" nonsense a lot. Would you care to actually name some of these useless features that "no one" ever uses?
Hint: Features are not put in arbitrarily; they are usually put in by requests from end users. Say what you want about Microsoft, but what they do really well is listen to end users and respond to their feature requests.
What I will tell you is that operating system stability is not a high priority to the average user. Would it be nice? Sure. But if OS stability was a factor, the Mac would have died a long time ago and Windows would never have dominated. Yet they did for one reason: Applications. Windows has the applications that everyone wants.
---
But I do think that the current print system works fine, aside from the faulty component of ghostscript.
That's like saying "The car runs fine, except for the faulty component of the motor and drivetrain." :)
---
Well, I'll give you scripting, although it's unbelievably difficult and crufty to use. Since I'm very doubtful that a normal human (particularly artistic types that would be the ones to use GIMP) could actually learn to use the scripting, it's questionable how much of an advantage it is (I mean, Scheme??)
I hate to say it, but GIMP is just not that good. I'm guessing that you haven't spent that much time with Photoshop, but it's far, far better designed both from a user interface standpoint (GIMP is pretty hostile) and a functionality standpoint. It's also much slower. You can do basic stuff with it, but it's not even close to Photoshop. On the other hand, it's tough to beat for the price. :)
---
But the Marketroids reap the benefits because they understand how to manipulate the masses!
No. The companies you mention win because they create software for non-geeks. Geeks create software for geeks. Geeks make up at most 5% of the population. That means that non-geek software is going to win every time.
And yet, it's the non-geek software that gets grudingly adopted by the geek population, rather than the other way around. We would still be using 'troff' it was up to the geeks; fortunately, non-geeks invented WYSIWYG desktop publishing programs and office suites that are infinitely more powerful and better.
re there still some geeks who will point out some minor advantage 'troff' still has over dem dar newfangled GUI programs? Of course! That's what gives them their charm. :)
---
rpm -i mysoftware.rpm
No, it's "OK, mom, click on the 'shell button'. Ok, now log into root by typing 'su root'. Now type in the root password. It's those letters and numbers. You aren't supposed to see it; it's secret! Try again. OK, now next to the pound sign, enter 'rpm -i mysoftware.rpm'. It gave you an error? Drat! I forgot you're running Distribution-X that doesn't use 'rpm'".
Half the time windows denies I have a CDrom drive
So fix it. You have a hardware problem.
I've never got my zip drive to work in windows
That's Iomega's fault. Zip drives suck.
I've no idea how to set up a modem in windows
Plug it in.
or how to hook up a plug and play usb scanner
Plug it in.
I know how to do all of them in linux what was your point again?
I think my point was how l33t Linux people are who can get these things to work.
---
because most applications for linux are open source projects, the developers think in terms of how they can get the job done best rather than how they can make the apps look pretty.
It's not a question of pretty vs ugly. It's a question of getting work done. I use 'vi' every day for programming projects. However, for real word processing there is no way in hell I would use "troff" or some medieval torture tool. But when you get to office suites under Linux, they are unmitigated crap compared to Office. Not just in the capability (although that's significant), but in the integration with the operation system.
I've ranted about this before, but when is Linux going to get a real print rendering subsystem? Where I can print a complex document on a cheap-o Epson color printer, and get consistent output? This is one of the biggest holes in Linux that will keep it from penetrating the desktop. I mean, the office suites ship with their own print drivers! That hasn't been needed in the Windows world since DOS!
---
Well, anything is easy if you're only launching one application. How about installing Netscape (or pick your software)? How about viewing the contents of a CDROM ("I have to logged on as root? What does that mean?")? How about setting up a modem? How about installing some fonts? How about hooking up a plug-and-play USB scanner?
Heck, about setting the clock?? :)
---
I don't know about some of these, but GIMP is hugely inferior to Photoshop. As for KDE, it's come a long way, but it's still not at the level of Win/98. Besides, most regular users don't care about the desktop. All they want to do is launch applications.
As for server functions, that why I restricted my post to "desktop" applications.
---
Anyone who hasn't tried one of those infamous AOL floppies should try it some time. Those floppies are the reason AOL dominated. They were entirely self-contained: you didn't need TCP/IP, or even the modem set up. You plugged them in, they figured everything out, and boom! Joe User was online.
Many would like to see Linux be where Windows is. Many have even claimed that Linux is "easier to use than Windows" (which is laughable, but I swear someone claimed it in a post). The lesson here is that the vast majority of people don't care about how the underlying software works. They just want to use the darn thing.
Unfortunately, many Linux advocates worship at the altar of "oooooh, what a beautiful kernel" when the average user says "OK. I see a pretty desktop; what can I do with it?" Unfortunately, in the case of Linux for the average user, not much compared to the applications under Windows.
The lesson is that people will forgive almost endless technical inferiority, but they won't forgive something that is not useful to them. It's all about the content/applications. And until Linux gets at least some applications that are superior to the equivalents in Windows, it will never make any inroads into the desktop world.
---
Now comes the bottom line: how insignificant am I, a human, in a cosmic scale? ...
Let's say that intelligence is truly unique in the Universe, and we are the only examples. That means even the lowliest human being is unique on a cosmic scale. After all, after you've seen the couple dozen or so star types, you've seen them all. But there's only one place in the Universe you'll find intelligence.
---