Or, in putting two and two together, perhaps they're charging the $10 precisely so they can tie people to game accounts and moderate this kind of crap. Game accounts are useless if you can create an infinite number of them. But charge $10 for each account, people will be less abusive regarding the content they create, lest they get booted by an EA admin.
You don't consider internal work email to be private? So, when work email contains information that could be used for insider trading, fraud, trade secrets, etc, this should be displayed publicly?
Imagine if this happened to Coke, and the super-secret recipe was revealed. Or Pepsi, or KFC. Or Google, and the search algorithm was revealed. Even with open source projects, I'm sure if you were to trawl through the communicae that went on between coders, you'd find something that would be viewed as malicious, anti-competitive, embarrassing, etc. And those are just the cases that would damage the business, let alone the content that could damage the private lives of the individual employees.
Obviously, you're from the US: maybe you're used to having your privacy abused, so this kind of thing seems normal. To the rest of us, it's not.
The employees of Microsoft are private citizens too. Private citizens who will now have their private internal emails published in public view for all to see. Some of which, yes, could contain some not-so-professional personal opinions of businesses, business contacts, or even internal staff, or merely something not so safe for work; all in the name of possibly maybe potentially finding someone mentioning something sounding like "Vista-Capable". So much for promoting privacy. Didn't we complain when a news article mentioned this could soon be allowed to happen in Australia?
And yet, that hasn't stopped the private citizen employees at MS being group into the same evil, faceless corporate collective, ripe for effigy burning. Maybe this is what helps M$$$ ba$her$ $leep at night.
They could easily do that. But it's not that simple. Maybe if MS owned the copyright to the music they're selling, they would. But they don't, as MS themselves licence it from the record companies. After all, that's the whole reason the DRM is on there in the first place. Do you really think MS would choose to waste resources designing, implmenting and supporting a DRM service? Of course not, they do that specifically to make it attractive to the record companies to get MS to sell their music. They enter a contract which basically says "we grant MS the ability to sell our music, provided it is secured with DRM".
That's why MS have DRM and that's why they can't just take it off even if they wanted to (which they probably do). They would need the blessing of the copyright owners to do so, for every individual track.
Sure, you can only have a limited number of unique kitten/non-kitten pictures. But you can have an inifinite amount of lolcat text that you can embed on top of the image before outputting it...
I'd be willing to bet this will make it more than a little harder for the bot to figure out which is the kitten based on previous attempts
Forgive me for being obviously stupid and entirely ignorant of the situation, but I simply don't understand how when anyone remotely related to the recording industry or Hollywood wants to be paid for their work, it must be because they are greedy; and yet, some punk 1337 haX0r jacking off in his parents' basement downloading the latest Hollywood Blockbuster 3: Another Sequel (which is clearly so bad it's not worth paying for (those evil bastards!), yet it's good enough to waste a solid 4-5 hours+ finding, downloading and watching it (and that's not considering HD quality)) is somehow not only *not* considered greedy, but is in fact deemed so justifiable that you're sympathetic to their "cause" (that "cause" being the pursuit of free stuff they don't deserve).
I don't think you've thought this through very well...my post is copyrighted, yes, but quoting it in context is fair use. Also, my permission for people to quote and/or use parts of it is implicit, since I've presented it in full, in a public location.
Last time I checked, artists and recording companies aren't the ones posting songs on the Internet. To equate prevention of you up/downloading copyrighted material without permission, with restricting your freedom is speech, is so far off the mark it's beyond funny and crosses into the territory of sadly representative of the declining moral values of a liberal-extremist American sub-society, and the blatant jealous and superiority complex-inflicted rebellious hive mind within that group.
ATTN: LuYu
We regret to inform you that your Pulitzer Prize award has been withdrawn. Whilst your novel was clearly the best book of all the nominees, mere weeks after reviewing your entry, we received another entry that, strangely, was a word-for-word copy of your novel. While we know you are clearly the original creator of this work, discounting the later entry would be a breach of that author's freedom of speech. But frankly, their copy was printed on whiter paper, and the font was a little easier to read. So we gave them the prize instead.
Sorry,
Columbia University
Copyright free since 2008!
The *AA don't have a problem with you repeating lines from a song/movie, so much as they have a problem with you recording it and distributing it to others. They're not impeding your right to talk about it, or even to act out certain potions of it. In fact, I'm sure they'd love for you to talk about it as much as possible, to ensure that others know about it and possibly even purchase it just like everybody else did. They're preventing you from illegally duplicating, redistributing and/or reselling it as if were your God-given right to, because you somehow think you're better than those "suckers" who actually paid for it.
The install limit is 5x5. That is, you can install the game on 5 different machines (or, an existing machine that's been upgraded significantly to be considered a new machine) - previously 2, and on each of those machines, you can install it 5 times - previously 3.
Problem is, the principal can't "discipline" them, because it's now called child abuse. And the parents probably don't even know what MySpace is. So the kids end up getting away scot-free, and grow up to become the next wave of "identity theft and slander are my freedom of speech, fascist pigs!" bloggers.
Hey, what's with all this rationalized "defending our country" crap? I thought this was the "abuse 'Republicans' and Windows users" thread? Oh, wait, that's what every other Slashdot story is for.
You're extrapolating a bit too far. I don't care if other people use Windows. You want to use it? Feel free. I'll fix your computer for you, if it breaks. For free [grc4.org], even.
Linux isn't for everyone, at least not yet. If I feel someone may be able to hold their own after a few weeks usage, I'll recommend they try a LiveCD. Otherwise, I'll let them continue running Windows. I might install some antivirus and antispyware tools for them.
That's more like it. As long as you're not the type that, rather than forcing Linux on everyone, thinks a change of operating system is a legitimate solution to any and all PC problems a person may have if they just happen to be using Windows. If you're not that type of person, then I've got no problems. I personally use both for different purposes, but primarily Windows, because I'm primarily a gamer and Windows app developer. When posting that both have equal advantages and disadvantages, I just wait until people start calling me a troll or Windows fanboy until I tell them that I use both, for maximum amusement. Unfortunately, the Slashdot moderation system thinks differently.
Nah. That's what I call posting messages intended to elicit an angered response. You've heard about the "silent majority" in politics? The same thing exists in the Linux community. Most Linux users don't really care if you use Linux or not.
MY post was intend to get an angered response? Why, because I happen to NOT think that there's some giant conspiracy with Microsoft and the NSA, as the parent stated as fact - or that any crazy MS conspiracy theory could equally be applied to GNU/Linux? I think you're confusing the order of posts, here. I have not once unfairly posted anything bad about Linux. Not here, not on any other site, not in real life, never. I've not unfairly posted anything about Windows/MS either, or any other software or hardware that didn't deserve it. All I ask is that, if some idiot fanboy is going to come on and post about the disadvantages, or some crazy 'potential disadvantage' (conspiracy theory) of Windows, or otherwise start pointing the finger at everybody who doesn't share their personal preferences, that they think for half a second and apply the same thing equally to ALL sides - Linux, Mac, BSD, whatever. But how often do you see that happen? Not a lot, not here at least. It's only the person who points out the bias and tries to correct the situation that gets abused, as I'll show below.
So what exactly is so bad about what I posted, anyway? Here's a summary of the topic at hand: HomelessInLaJolla: Windows could/is participating in a hidden back door conspiracy with the NSA! Me: Don't be a fanboy. The same view could be applied equally to any other OS. Linux developers have as much means, motive and opportunity as these brainwashed dehumanized MS zombies you speak of. HomelessInLaJolla: No it couldn't! You're such a Windows fanboy! Troll! Flamebait! FUD! Devil child! Etc! You know the rest of the story.
Yep, that's right, clearly I'm the one in the wrong here.[/sarcasm] I'm not surprised by that view. Frankly, I'm surprised my post hasn't actually been modded down yet. Then again, maybe not so surprising, because everyone knows only the first few posters even get looked at. Another negative of Slashdot besides the OSS bias - the only ones considered for mod points are those who refresh every 5 minutes, looking for a new story where they can repost the original article's content; cite some details from Wikipedia etc; or use one of the many Simpsons/Futurama/South Park quotes and themes that have become the stock-standard, de facto Slashdot culture round these parts, and then get rewarded/praised for it.
Oh boy, now I'm in for it, "Revealing The Truth About Slashdot: -infinity plus 1 and a Lifetime Ban. Advertisement: Slashdot supports Free Speech.". One of the rare times a non-top-10 post garners a look at by some i
I wouldn't want to work on Windows...Microsoft's quality control sucks balls. Linux developers enjoy working with a decent product and a decently-written codebase. Exactly my point. You hate Microsoft. You may even be willing to do ANYTHING to get others to stop using it. Because, your mission to force people to use Linux is so much more moral than Microsoft's equivalent.
Seriously, you should try trolling over there...you'll get a lot more bang for your buck Trolling? So THAT'S what you call extinguishing hypocritical Linux FUD.
.Does Windows not crash for you? Does it not run slow? Whenever I try doing things outside of the norm (or even "normal" things, if you're a gamer.), Windows gets unstable Nope, and nope. Is that what this is about? Your pirated copy of Windows ME crashed once when you tried to use 64-bit drivers on it, and you lost your beastiality porn? And yes, I'm a gamer (and developer), and no, I'm not running on a pre-built or in any way 'average' PC.
Sure, there's things you can do to speed up Windows, but the fact remains it doesn't hold up well to advanced usage. Sure, there's things you can do to increase the usability of Linux for the average user, but the fact remains it doesn't hold up well to the most basic of usage.
You sound like you're on meth... Avoiding the question I see. Nice move!
A central, community-minded advocacy and software development organization? Is that anything like the central development organization called Microsoft, and the community-minded advocacy group called the Windows developer community?
Maybe you should read this [slashdot.org] and then get back to me when you've managed to remove your knee from the back of your throat. How amusing that you point to a Slashdot post, of all places, for your desperate fact-finding mission which, even if true, is totally irrelevent to the discussion. Surely you've noticed the obvious bias Slashdot has? What are you waiting for, a negative karma moderation specifically for "Non-Anti-Microsoft Behaviour"? (At the moment, they're only issuing the generic "Troll" moderation.) Check my other posts for some examples of where stopping FOSS FUD results in a troll mod (the one where I state MS isn't a monopoly by definition because Linux is a viable, possibly better alternative, and still get modded troll for it, is especially humorous). Check every other post for an example of where spreading FOSS FUD is rewarded. I have no doubt most/all of your posts belong to this category.
>Yes, it is. Nobody has ever denied this. Then why the hypocritic finger-pointing? Just how black is your pot, anyway?
>Wrong. They do not hate. They have a hobby which they enjoy and Microsoft cannot employ every one of them. So you're saying open source coders would work at Microsoft if they could? I'd surely like to see the survey results for that one.
>Convenient side effect of their hobby. Nothing more. Convenient indeed.
>Except that, in open source, we all police each other. Except that, in open source, you all have the same mentality. Surely you don't think there's anything special about open source developers as opposed to the many teams of internally-policing coders at a company like MS? (Other than the fact that FOSS coders think they're God's Gift to Applications, while MS coders get abused by the same anti-government types just for doing their job)
>You should have that checked out. Hey, at least I have a reason for the crazy illogical ranting. What's yours?
>FOSS/FSF/GNU has the proper doorstop. And that magical barrier would be...?
By the same logic, Linux is full of back doors too. Statistically, Linux is built by people who are only coding because they hate The Man and The Man's Operating System, and want to stick it to The Man in every which way. And because these people know that the best way to stick it to The Man is to attack His computer systems, they put back doors in the OSs to take control and attack His systems with brute force.
I swear, it makes perfectly logical sense! The Voices told me so!
Bear in mind that it's got millions of kids reading, and for that alone the Harry Potter series is priceless and JK Rowling deserves to be applauded. So does MySpace.
I'm using the definition of monopoly that all the dictionaries say it is.
>Your definition is across operating systems. Mine is the workstations market.
Oh, I think I get it now - Windows has many alternative operating systems. But it's a monopoly in the workstation market. Even though it's the same exact product, with the same exact alternatives available. And still, a majority of companies using Windows on workstations doesn't make it a monopoly. What about companies that use nothing but Linux? Does that mean Linux has a monopoly? And what about Mac-only workplaces? Surely you're not convinced that if a single environment is using one system, then it's a product-wide monopoly. Even if 100% of businesses used Windows-only environments, where Linux or Mac desktops could perform the same function, it's NOT a monopoly. A monopoly is where you have no choice but to use a specific product, because there are no alternatives. If you have the majority of the market share even though there are better alternatives around, that's just good marketing (or one of the many other methods of getting users to buy your product). BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT A MONOPOLY.
If you're going to start bringing in specific environments to the context of your "monopoly", such as a workplace desktop, why stop there? Windows has a monopoly in gaming PCs. Windows has a monopoly on Visual Basic development PCs. OMGLOLWTFBBQ! 100% of Windows users have Windows on their PC! It's a monopoly I tells ya!
Let me put it this way: if Windows has an alternative in a particular market, it's not a monopoly, no matter what percentage of people use a particular product, or the reasons they have for doing so. If Windows DOESN'T have an alternative in a particular market, what's the problem? Why aren't the Linux community updating Linux to talor it towards that market? As long as the company doesn't abuse their position as the sole retailer in a particular market, there's no problem, and it isn't their fault, unless they're proactively taking steps to prevent competition, which they're. But that situation shouldn't matter, because from what we're told, Linux can do anything Windows can, and better.
>Well, yeah. When I wrote that stuff about Microsoft, I wasn't ranting and shaking my fists behind my Linux workstation. >My point was, don't confuse technology with religion and don't mistake an opinion for zealotry. >I admire the Linux crowd for trying. An open source OS for the world would be a great thing. I hope they succeed.
So you hate Microsoft, and you have your reasons. I got that already (about 10 years ago). How does that make it a monopoly though? I mean, you called it one, despite the definition of the word disagreeing with you. What else could the reason be? A major oversight? Pure ignorance? Maybe you'd prefer I put it down to sheer stupidity, rather than calling you a fanboi? Those are the only alternatives - but this is Slashdot; it has a "monopoly" on Linux fanbois.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, in putting two and two together, perhaps they're charging the $10 precisely so they can tie people to game accounts and moderate this kind of crap. Game accounts are useless if you can create an infinite number of them. But charge $10 for each account, people will be less abusive regarding the content they create, lest they get booted by an EA admin.
You don't consider internal work email to be private? So, when work email contains information that could be used for insider trading, fraud, trade secrets, etc, this should be displayed publicly?
Imagine if this happened to Coke, and the super-secret recipe was revealed. Or Pepsi, or KFC. Or Google, and the search algorithm was revealed. Even with open source projects, I'm sure if you were to trawl through the communicae that went on between coders, you'd find something that would be viewed as malicious, anti-competitive, embarrassing, etc. And those are just the cases that would damage the business, let alone the content that could damage the private lives of the individual employees.
Obviously, you're from the US: maybe you're used to having your privacy abused, so this kind of thing seems normal. To the rest of us, it's not.
I solved this problem just the other day. http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=523628&cid=23085674
The employees of Microsoft are private citizens too. Private citizens who will now have their private internal emails published in public view for all to see. Some of which, yes, could contain some not-so-professional personal opinions of businesses, business contacts, or even internal staff, or merely something not so safe for work; all in the name of possibly maybe potentially finding someone mentioning something sounding like "Vista-Capable". So much for promoting privacy. Didn't we complain when a news article mentioned this could soon be allowed to happen in Australia?
And yet, that hasn't stopped the private citizen employees at MS being group into the same evil, faceless corporate collective, ripe for effigy burning. Maybe this is what helps M$$$ ba$her$ $leep at night.
They could easily do that. But it's not that simple. Maybe if MS owned the copyright to the music they're selling, they would. But they don't, as MS themselves licence it from the record companies.
After all, that's the whole reason the DRM is on there in the first place. Do you really think MS would choose to waste resources designing, implmenting and supporting a DRM service? Of course not, they do that specifically to make it attractive to the record companies to get MS to sell their music. They enter a contract which basically says "we grant MS the ability to sell our music, provided it is secured with DRM".
That's why MS have DRM and that's why they can't just take it off even if they wanted to (which they probably do). They would need the blessing of the copyright owners to do so, for every individual track.
Sure, you can only have a limited number of unique kitten/non-kitten pictures. But you can have an inifinite amount of lolcat text that you can embed on top of the image before outputting it...
I'd be willing to bet this will make it more than a little harder for the bot to figure out which is the kitten based on previous attempts
Forgive me for being obviously stupid and entirely ignorant of the situation, but I simply don't understand how when anyone remotely related to the recording industry or Hollywood wants to be paid for their work, it must be because they are greedy; and yet, some punk 1337 haX0r jacking off in his parents' basement downloading the latest Hollywood Blockbuster 3: Another Sequel (which is clearly so bad it's not worth paying for (those evil bastards!), yet it's good enough to waste a solid 4-5 hours+ finding, downloading and watching it (and that's not considering HD quality)) is somehow not only *not* considered greedy, but is in fact deemed so justifiable that you're sympathetic to their "cause" (that "cause" being the pursuit of free stuff they don't deserve).
Last time I checked, artists and recording companies aren't the ones posting songs on the Internet. To equate prevention of you up/downloading copyrighted material without permission, with restricting your freedom is speech, is so far off the mark it's beyond funny and crosses into the territory of sadly representative of the declining moral values of a liberal-extremist American sub-society, and the blatant jealous and superiority complex-inflicted rebellious hive mind within that group.
The *AA don't have a problem with you repeating lines from a song/movie, so much as they have a problem with you recording it and distributing it to others. They're not impeding your right to talk about it, or even to act out certain potions of it. In fact, I'm sure they'd love for you to talk about it as much as possible, to ensure that others know about it and possibly even purchase it just like everybody else did. They're preventing you from illegally duplicating, redistributing and/or reselling it as if were your God-given right to, because you somehow think you're better than those "suckers" who actually paid for it.
Unfortunately, that issue of Popular Mechanic won't appear in the dentist's office for at least another 10 years.
The French would've surrendered eventually.
The install limit is 5x5. That is, you can install the game on 5 different machines (or, an existing machine that's been upgraded significantly to be considered a new machine) - previously 2, and on each of those machines, you can install it 5 times - previously 3.
It's also explained here:
http://tinyurl.com/24xwcs
So I'm guessing you're already fully paid up for your copy of Duke Nukem Forever?
Problem is, the principal can't "discipline" them, because it's now called child abuse. And the parents probably don't even know what MySpace is. So the kids end up getting away scot-free, and grow up to become the next wave of "identity theft and slander are my freedom of speech, fascist pigs!" bloggers.
John Edwards Crossing Over...to Second Life.
Don't be silly. We got out of the oil shortage by taking posession of Iraq's oil! Supposedly.
Hey, what's with all this rationalized "defending our country" crap? I thought this was the "abuse 'Republicans' and Windows users" thread? Oh, wait, that's what every other Slashdot story is for.
You're extrapolating a bit too far. I don't care if other people use Windows. You want to use it? Feel free. I'll fix your computer for you, if it breaks. For free [grc4.org], even.
Linux isn't for everyone, at least not yet. If I feel someone may be able to hold their own after a few weeks usage, I'll recommend they try a LiveCD. Otherwise, I'll let them continue running Windows. I might install some antivirus and antispyware tools for them.
That's more like it. As long as you're not the type that, rather than forcing Linux on everyone, thinks a change of operating system is a legitimate solution to any and all PC problems a person may have if they just happen to be using Windows. If you're not that type of person, then I've got no problems. I personally use both for different purposes, but primarily Windows, because I'm primarily a gamer and Windows app developer. When posting that both have equal advantages and disadvantages, I just wait until people start calling me a troll or Windows fanboy until I tell them that I use both, for maximum amusement. Unfortunately, the Slashdot moderation system thinks differently.
Nah. That's what I call posting messages intended to elicit an angered response. You've heard about the "silent majority" in politics? The same thing exists in the Linux community. Most Linux users don't really care if you use Linux or not.
MY post was intend to get an angered response? Why, because I happen to NOT think that there's some giant conspiracy with Microsoft and the NSA, as the parent stated as fact - or that any crazy MS conspiracy theory could equally be applied to GNU/Linux? I think you're confusing the order of posts, here. I have not once unfairly posted anything bad about Linux. Not here, not on any other site, not in real life, never. I've not unfairly posted anything about Windows/MS either, or any other software or hardware that didn't deserve it. All I ask is that, if some idiot fanboy is going to come on and post about the disadvantages, or some crazy 'potential disadvantage' (conspiracy theory) of Windows, or otherwise start pointing the finger at everybody who doesn't share their personal preferences, that they think for half a second and apply the same thing equally to ALL sides - Linux, Mac, BSD, whatever. But how often do you see that happen? Not a lot, not here at least. It's only the person who points out the bias and tries to correct the situation that gets abused, as I'll show below.
So what exactly is so bad about what I posted, anyway? Here's a summary of the topic at hand:
HomelessInLaJolla: Windows could/is participating in a hidden back door conspiracy with the NSA!
Me: Don't be a fanboy. The same view could be applied equally to any other OS. Linux developers have as much means, motive and opportunity as these brainwashed dehumanized MS zombies you speak of.
HomelessInLaJolla: No it couldn't! You're such a Windows fanboy! Troll! Flamebait! FUD! Devil child! Etc!
You know the rest of the story.
Yep, that's right, clearly I'm the one in the wrong here.[/sarcasm]
I'm not surprised by that view. Frankly, I'm surprised my post hasn't actually been modded down yet. Then again, maybe not so surprising, because everyone knows only the first few posters even get looked at. Another negative of Slashdot besides the OSS bias - the only ones considered for mod points are those who refresh every 5 minutes, looking for a new story where they can repost the original article's content; cite some details from Wikipedia etc; or use one of the many Simpsons/Futurama/South Park quotes and themes that have become the stock-standard, de facto Slashdot culture round these parts, and then get rewarded/praised for it.
Oh boy, now I'm in for it, "Revealing The Truth About Slashdot: -infinity plus 1 and a Lifetime Ban. Advertisement: Slashdot supports Free Speech.". One of the rare times a non-top-10 post garners a look at by some i
.Does Windows not crash for you? Does it not run slow? Whenever I try doing things outside of the norm (or even "normal" things, if you're a gamer.), Windows gets unstable Nope, and nope. Is that what this is about? Your pirated copy of Windows ME crashed once when you tried to use 64-bit drivers on it, and you lost your beastiality porn? And yes, I'm a gamer (and developer), and no, I'm not running on a pre-built or in any way 'average' PC. Sure, there's things you can do to speed up Windows, but the fact remains it doesn't hold up well to advanced usage. Sure, there's things you can do to increase the usability of Linux for the average user, but the fact remains it doesn't hold up well to the most basic of usage. You sound like you're on meth... Avoiding the question I see. Nice move! A central, community-minded advocacy and software development organization? Is that anything like the central development organization called Microsoft, and the community-minded advocacy group called the Windows developer community? Maybe you should read this [slashdot.org] and then get back to me when you've managed to remove your knee from the back of your throat. How amusing that you point to a Slashdot post, of all places, for your desperate fact-finding mission which, even if true, is totally irrelevent to the discussion. Surely you've noticed the obvious bias Slashdot has? What are you waiting for, a negative karma moderation specifically for "Non-Anti-Microsoft Behaviour"? (At the moment, they're only issuing the generic "Troll" moderation.) Check my other posts for some examples of where stopping FOSS FUD results in a troll mod (the one where I state MS isn't a monopoly by definition because Linux is a viable, possibly better alternative, and still get modded troll for it, is especially humorous). Check every other post for an example of where spreading FOSS FUD is rewarded. I have no doubt most/all of your posts belong to this category.>Yes, it is. Nobody has ever denied this.
Then why the hypocritic finger-pointing? Just how black is your pot, anyway?
>Wrong. They do not hate. They have a hobby which they enjoy and Microsoft cannot employ every one of them.
So you're saying open source coders would work at Microsoft if they could? I'd surely like to see the survey results for that one.
>Convenient side effect of their hobby. Nothing more.
Convenient indeed.
>Except that, in open source, we all police each other.
Except that, in open source, you all have the same mentality. Surely you don't think there's anything special about open source developers as opposed to the many teams of internally-policing coders at a company like MS? (Other than the fact that FOSS coders think they're God's Gift to Applications, while MS coders get abused by the same anti-government types just for doing their job)
>You should have that checked out.
Hey, at least I have a reason for the crazy illogical ranting. What's yours?
>FOSS/FSF/GNU has the proper doorstop.
And that magical barrier would be...?
By the same logic, Linux is full of back doors too. Statistically, Linux is built by people who are only coding because they hate The Man and The Man's Operating System, and want to stick it to The Man in every which way. And because these people know that the best way to stick it to The Man is to attack His computer systems, they put back doors in the OSs to take control and attack His systems with brute force.
I swear, it makes perfectly logical sense! The Voices told me so!
The door swings both ways, moron.
>We're using different definitions of Monopoly.
I'm using the definition of monopoly that all the dictionaries say it is.
>Your definition is across operating systems. Mine is the workstations market.
Oh, I think I get it now - Windows has many alternative operating systems. But it's a monopoly in the workstation market. Even though it's the same exact product, with the same exact alternatives available. And still, a majority of companies using Windows on workstations doesn't make it a monopoly. What about companies that use nothing but Linux? Does that mean Linux has a monopoly? And what about Mac-only workplaces? Surely you're not convinced that if a single environment is using one system, then it's a product-wide monopoly. Even if 100% of businesses used Windows-only environments, where Linux or Mac desktops could perform the same function, it's NOT a monopoly. A monopoly is where you have no choice but to use a specific product, because there are no alternatives. If you have the majority of the market share even though there are better alternatives around, that's just good marketing (or one of the many other methods of getting users to buy your product). BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT A MONOPOLY.
If you're going to start bringing in specific environments to the context of your "monopoly", such as a workplace desktop, why stop there? Windows has a monopoly in gaming PCs. Windows has a monopoly on Visual Basic development PCs. OMGLOLWTFBBQ! 100% of Windows users have Windows on their PC! It's a monopoly I tells ya!
Let me put it this way: if Windows has an alternative in a particular market, it's not a monopoly, no matter what percentage of people use a particular product, or the reasons they have for doing so. If Windows DOESN'T have an alternative in a particular market, what's the problem? Why aren't the Linux community updating Linux to talor it towards that market? As long as the company doesn't abuse their position as the sole retailer in a particular market, there's no problem, and it isn't their fault, unless they're proactively taking steps to prevent competition, which they're. But that situation shouldn't matter, because from what we're told, Linux can do anything Windows can, and better.
>Well, yeah. When I wrote that stuff about Microsoft, I wasn't ranting and shaking my fists behind my Linux workstation.
>My point was, don't confuse technology with religion and don't mistake an opinion for zealotry.
>I admire the Linux crowd for trying. An open source OS for the world would be a great thing. I hope they succeed.
So you hate Microsoft, and you have your reasons. I got that already (about 10 years ago). How does that make it a monopoly though? I mean, you called it one, despite the definition of the word disagreeing with you. What else could the reason be? A major oversight? Pure ignorance? Maybe you'd prefer I put it down to sheer stupidity, rather than calling you a fanboi? Those are the only alternatives - but this is Slashdot; it has a "monopoly" on Linux fanbois.