then I'm not interested. Honestly, am I the only one who has trouble "writing" on these touchscreen tablets? I find it very uncomfortable due to the thickness of the unit. My arm/wrist is at an odd angle. I think they're fine for checking off forms or choosing from drop down lists, but free-form note-taking on these things is not for me.
I wonder if this fellow has thought this through. If he managed to force Google, Vonage, et al to pay him fees, then they would have to pass those fees on to their customers. A large percent of those customers would then no longer be customers... and then why would they need broadband? In a lame effort to goose revenue on one end he will dramatically reduce revenue on the other end. This all brings to mind an old saying: "cut off your nose to spite your face."
So it seems we still disagree about Microsoft's role in the emergence of cheap hardware. You say it *would* have happened without them. In my view, a common software platform that insulated 3rd party applications from the hardware was a necessary ingredient. Microsoft provided that ingredient. OK, it *could* have been somebody else, and maybe it *would* have been somebody else had Microsoft not been there, but that doesn't change the fact that it *was* Microsoft that filled that void.
As Patrick Moynihan once said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
I think those rabbit ears will be a big problem on an iPod. You need those to watch old time TV - at least that is my recollection. It was a long time ago. I could be mistaken.
AMD was forced to be binary compatible with Intel BECAUSE IT HAD TO RUN THE SAME SOFTWARE AS AN INTEL MACHINE. The software could have been anything.
It just so happens that the software IT HAD TO RUN was DOS/Windows. Pure luck in your version of history. It's the result of hard work and vision in my view.
This conversation reminds me of a discussion I had with a regulatory person at my company. They wanted to know which PC our new medical software would run on. I told them that we ran on Windows NT 4.0. They said, "no, which box?" I carefully explained that we write our applications to an OS platform. We rely on Microsoft and the hardware vendors to verify that Windows runs correctly on their hardware, whatever it may be. It was our job to make sure our application ran on Windows. Hardware didn't matter. It took some convincing, but finally they *got it*. Do you?
MS did not hitch a ride, they drove the bus. Until MS came along the pattern was for hardware vendors to also sell you an OS. Everything was closed. Even Apple (a darling of this forum) was closed (and still is). It's "us or the highway" was what all the hardware vendors declared. As it turns out, though, IBM screwed up by outsourcing their OS and not demanding an exclusive (I'm sure they would do it differently if they could have a "do-over"). Gates was no dummy. He developed versions of MSDOS independent of IBM, which ran on IBM machines. And yes, MS got a bit lucky when clones emerged, though frankly if he hadn't have secured rights to sell MSDOS to these clone manufacturers then it would have been much more difficult for them to achieve compatibility. They would have had to "clean room develop" an OS, which is significantly more difficult than clean-rooming a BIOS (which was hard in itself). [note: why is that? it's because a BIOS is a middle layer which is pinned from both ends, an OS is only pinned from the bottom unless you can get your hands on every application ever written to test compatibility at the top] So basically it was MS that broke the hardware vendor's lock on operating systems. This led to competition in the hardware world, which led to cheap hardware.
One more note, by insisting on binary compatibility, MS has fostered this cheap hardware revolution all the way to today. Intel/AMD were forced to keep binary compatibility, which again led to much competition in the processor world, which led to amazing performance at ever cheaper prices. Counter-examples: Sun SPARC, Intel Itanium, IBM PowerPCs (used by Apple). None of these processors had binary compatibity with another vendor's parts and, surprise of surprises, they are all fading away.
You can say all you want about MS business practices, and the security and stability problems with their software, but you cannot deny their significant role in laying the foundations for cheap, compatible hardware which enabled things like FOSS and Linux to emerge.
Here is an example, perhaps, where FOSS has an advantage. Microsoft might not be able to fix the function because it is "in the wild" and there could be many dependent "already-compiled" applications which would/could be affected. In the FOSS world where backwards binary compatibility is not an issue, a source patch could be made available. Oftentimes the way these sorts of problems are handled by Microsoft is they roll out a new updated API, leaving the old ones in place. This obviously doesn't address the installed base of buggy code, but fixes the problem going forward - assuming they can convince the developers to adopt the new API. Unfortunately, this course of action is also not applicable to a security patch scenario. So, MS issues an imperfect patch addressing, hopefully, the most flagrant problems, and queues the function as one needing to be deprecated in a future release.
"If the KFTC enters an order requiring Microsoft to remove code or redesign Windows uniquely for the Korean market, it might be necessary to withdraw Windows from the Korean market or delay offering new versions in Korea," Microsoft said.
It's amazing to me how everyone in this forum is so very quick to point out how poorly MS is behaving... taking their marbles and going home, acting like an 8-year old, etc. If you read the above quote you will see that all they said was that if South Korea requires a version of Windows uniquely for Korea (by virtue of the mix of "allowable" services the OS includes - the list of allowable features no doubt a function of whatever SKorean companies they are trying to protect), then MS would be forced to (temporarily) pull out of South Korea, since, as all of us software developers know, they can't just snap their fingers and have a customized version ready.
No big surprise, but virtually everybody who has commented in this forum, and in the "survey" has something in common - they are tinkerers who like to play with computers and/or write code. I am not terribly surprised by the lack of expressed anti-Microsoft sentiments. First of all, that group is smart enough to couch their reason in a positive way (Linux is great!) since they know how the former would be perceived. Second, I really believe that for tinkerers Linux is a strong alternative to Windows. Stuff is free, the hardware is cheap (thank you Microsoft) and there are plenty of tools and lots of "help" in the form of sample code, open source, etc. However, that population only covers about 0.5% of the overall computer-using population. The big question is, how many of the remaining 99.5% are using Linux, and if so, why did they switch.
Since Windows 95, binary compatibility is extremely likely. I have many applications from as far back as the mid to late 90s that "just install and run" on a Windows XP box. And I anticipate they will still run on Vista. Binary compatibility is something Microsoft has always worked very hard at, and, I believe, is one of the keys to their success. True, there is a great deal of source-code portability between the various distros, but having to recompile, deal with the minor issues that pop up, and maintain install packages for all the various flavors is alot of work. Clearly this is not the only consideration, nor is it a really big deal. I was just pointing out that, from an application developer's perspective, one ubiquitous and fully featured (eg browser-equipped, media player-equipped) OS is the most desirable environment in which to develop.
Having done cellphone development for quite a few years, I can attest to the difficulty in developing for Symbian. The tools are buggy, and no 2 Symbian phones are the same - we had a different executable for each and every model. The Microsoft phones were much better to develop for. The tools were free and quite good. And we ran the same executable on every Microsoft-based phone, including both Smartphones (non-stylus button phones) and Pocket PC derivatives (stylus/touch screen). Further, we had the luxury of building and testing the exact same source tree on the desktop, which really accelerated development.
All of that said, I think Linux could pretty quickly dominate the mobile space. I have done some embedded Linux development and it has many of the attributes of the Microsoft environment (good tools, lots of "sample" code, ability to do parallel desktop builds). And since Linux has a much smaller footprint the phones can be cheaper, which will help with adoption. Now hopefully the phone vendors will standardize on a common API so the poor application developers don't have to create a separate install package for every model. Unfortunately, past history is not very encouraging in this regard.
It says "irrelevant". Honestly, I posted a comment awhile back asking this forum if there was any more irrelevant company in tech these days than Sun. This article just convinces me even more.
So everything this guy writes is suspect (i.e. wrong) because he ALWAYS takes Microsoft's side on things? Taking that thought a bit further, virtually everybody in this forum takes the anti-Microsoft side, so everything written here is suspect (i.e. wrong). I think that, as is almost always the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Probably Microsoft is somewhat faster because it is C++ throughout, and it is a mature product that has had much optimization work done over a long period of time. It also probably uses less memory because it links with all those DLLs, and it is compiled C++. Conversely, OpenOffice is probably nowhere near as bad as the reviewer states; most likely he found an optimally bad dataset for OpenOffice to make his point.
I disagree. My point was that, indeed that was the state of the world 20 years ago. The dominance of Windows has, for the most part, made that no longer the case. Virtually any application you want is available for Windows. And in many cases, the best-in-class is the Windows version (because it's the one into which the application developers pour the most resources, not necessarily because Windows is a better platform). As an application developer (of which I am one) the choice is (was?) easy - you develop for Windows because you know your customer already has and supports Windows. Now, Windows has had a nice run - 15 years - but the tectonic plates are shifting again.
Using an iPod to store medical images is not a very good idea. There is no security, and no data integrity. And iPods are much more likely to be stolen than, say, a burned CD. All of that said, having a portable storage medium for medical images makes some sense. Perhaps this is yet another application for USB thumbdrives. Add some encryption (TrueCrypt) and an application (Osiris) that can be run from the drive and you might have a nifty little product.
There is obviously a trend towards open source platforms and away from proprietary platforms. On that we can probably all agree. The question I have is, what happens next? Assume 2 or 3 Linux distributions end up becoming widespread and dominant. Assume Windows becomes just one of many rather than being ubiquitous. Let's think outside the box and assume that even Apple ekes out more than a 3% share of the desktop. What is the impact of this on application developers? Sure, the "generic" apps like those found in the various Office products will continue to evolve, copy each other, exchange data with each other, and be the primary application most people use in their jobs. But what about the specialty applications: audio/video editing, medical and scientific applications, airline reservation systems, tax preparation software, web content creation, etc, etc? Do "best-in-class" applications emerge for each of these niches - tied to a single platform? Does the whole world switch to open source so the platform doesn't matter? My big fear is we end up like it was in the 1970's all over again where you are forced to choose a platform to get the particular application you need. And if you need multiple applications, you end up supporting multiple platforms. Yes, standards that address interoperability can help in this regard, but if you want best-in-class you will not have much choice, and we all know that supporting multiple platforms is more work than supporting one.
I guess I'm pretty dumb. I tried to install the latest Ubuntu distribution on my (admittedly somewhat dated) PIII-600 Compaq laptop. It hung halfway through while installing the packages. I restarted it and it hung in the same place. Undaunted I switched to Redhat (FC4). It threw an error about a quarter of the way through and then quit (offering to send a bug report - shades of Microsoft). Frustrated I stuck in my Windows 2000 CD and 45 minutes later I was up and running.
On the flipside, I put Ubuntu into a newer desktop (Athlon 2000Xp on an ASUS motherboard) and the install went smoothly. And I was very impressed when I was able to immediately access my file server (running Windows 2000) and load up a Word document from that network share. Of course then I tried to play an mp3 from that same network share, but learned that mp3 support is not in the distribution. Some web searching revealed the solution, which was not trivial (involved enabling repositories and such). When I finally got the mp3 codec installed (I would estimate this task was beyond the vast majority of casual users) I again tried to play an mp3 from my Windows share - but again, no joy. I ended up having to drag the song to the Ubuntu desktop to be able to play it. I never did diagnose what that was all about - some Samba switches no doubt.
So, I don't think it's *ALL* FUD - there are legitimate issues that still need to be worked out.
I have been keeping track of WMC as it has evolved. I am a longtime TIVO owner (fantastic usability, excellent reliability) and last year I also built my own homebrew PVR to try and get out from under the TIVO monthly fee. So far the homebrew is working out very well -- I used Snapstream Beyond TV software, a Hippauge tuner card in an ASUS motherboard with an Athlon 2400XP CPU, 512MB of memory and a 200GB IDE drive (no RAID). Snapstream provides program data over the internet, bundled with the purchase of the software. I used an ATI remote that came with an older All-In-Wonder board that I no longer use. Bottom line, it works really well. Usability is excellent (almost as good as TIVO) and picture quality (and sound sync) also are as good as TIVO (actually I can dial up better picture quality if I want to trade off space). Anyhow, I have been waiting to see when Microsoft eclipses both TIVO and Snapstream. It seems inevitable, but from what I read they aren't there yet.
"Uemura said PWC chose OpenBSD, an operating system he is comfortable with..."
"My predecessor spent too much [so] I was told not to spend any money."
Seems to me the reasons they switched are spelled out pretty plainly in the article -- Uemura was a *nix person and OpenBSD was free. Yet somehow the abstract of the article claims PWC switched because "Windows was a nightmare".
Yes, there was mention in the article that their Windows servers were bouncing alot. But the main reason given for the switch was to "spend no money". I suspect if Uemura had not been a *nix type and instead was a good Windows admin he could have fixed the problem without spending any money by instead properly configuring and patching the Windows servers.
I don't think I said anywhere that reduced crime was entirely due to increased prison population. I merely said, and I'll re-state it in more simple terms, when you put criminals in jail they are no longer able to commit new crimes. This reduces the total number of crimes. Now let us examine the formula for crime rate:
CrimeRate = #Crimes / Unit-of-Time
If we make the numerator smaller, then the function CrimeRate returns a smaller value. Apparently this is a concept that is too advanced for many to grasp.
And I completely believe your claim that a reduction in teen and unmarried young mothers correlates with a reduced crime rate. As it happens both my assertion and yours fit neatly in the "common sense" category which is so often overlooked, ignored and/or/criticized as too simplistic.
Let me offer the following statistics as further proof that locking up criminals reduces the crime rate. I refer you to:
And in case you are pressed for time, here are a few excerpts:
Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers.
BTW, that's 18 arrests per inmate - very productive these criminals!
Ahh, so the only reason Linux is adopted because it is free? If Windows were free, everyone would use it? Those are dangerous things to say 'round these parts.
Slashdot Mirror
then I'm not interested. Honestly, am I the only one who has trouble "writing" on these touchscreen tablets? I find it very uncomfortable due to the thickness of the unit. My arm/wrist is at an odd angle. I think they're fine for checking off forms or choosing from drop down lists, but free-form note-taking on these things is not for me.
I wonder if this fellow has thought this through. If he managed to force Google, Vonage, et al to pay him fees, then they would have to pass those fees on to their customers. A large percent of those customers would then no longer be customers ... and then why would they need broadband? In a lame effort to goose revenue on one end he will dramatically reduce revenue on the other end. This all brings to mind an old saying: "cut off your nose to spite your face."
So it seems we still disagree about Microsoft's role in the emergence of cheap hardware. You say it *would* have happened without them. In my view, a common software platform that insulated 3rd party applications from the hardware was a necessary ingredient. Microsoft provided that ingredient. OK, it *could* have been somebody else, and maybe it *would* have been somebody else had Microsoft not been there, but that doesn't change the fact that it *was* Microsoft that filled that void.
As Patrick Moynihan once said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
I think those rabbit ears will be a big problem on an iPod. You need those to watch old time TV - at least that is my recollection. It was a long time ago. I could be mistaken.
AMD was forced to be binary compatible with Intel BECAUSE IT HAD TO RUN THE SAME SOFTWARE AS AN INTEL MACHINE. The software could have been anything.
It just so happens that the software IT HAD TO RUN was DOS/Windows. Pure luck in your version of history. It's the result of hard work and vision in my view.
This conversation reminds me of a discussion I had with a regulatory person at my company. They wanted to know which PC our new medical software would run on. I told them that we ran on Windows NT 4.0. They said, "no, which box?" I carefully explained that we write our applications to an OS platform. We rely on Microsoft and the hardware vendors to verify that Windows runs correctly on their hardware, whatever it may be. It was our job to make sure our application ran on Windows. Hardware didn't matter. It took some convincing, but finally they *got it*. Do you?
Anyway, what you are saying about just introducing new APIs in patches is basically false. They wouldn't be patches if that's what they do.
Actually, quoting my own comment:
Unfortunately, this course of action is also not applicable to a security patch scenario
So I guess we have a case of violent agreement?
MS did not hitch a ride, they drove the bus. Until MS came along the pattern was for hardware vendors to also sell you an OS. Everything was closed. Even Apple (a darling of this forum) was closed (and still is). It's "us or the highway" was what all the hardware vendors declared. As it turns out, though, IBM screwed up by outsourcing their OS and not demanding an exclusive (I'm sure they would do it differently if they could have a "do-over"). Gates was no dummy. He developed versions of MSDOS independent of IBM, which ran on IBM machines. And yes, MS got a bit lucky when clones emerged, though frankly if he hadn't have secured rights to sell MSDOS to these clone manufacturers then it would have been much more difficult for them to achieve compatibility. They would have had to "clean room develop" an OS, which is significantly more difficult than clean-rooming a BIOS (which was hard in itself). [note: why is that? it's because a BIOS is a middle layer which is pinned from both ends, an OS is only pinned from the bottom unless you can get your hands on every application ever written to test compatibility at the top] So basically it was MS that broke the hardware vendor's lock on operating systems. This led to competition in the hardware world, which led to cheap hardware.
One more note, by insisting on binary compatibility, MS has fostered this cheap hardware revolution all the way to today. Intel/AMD were forced to keep binary compatibility, which again led to much competition in the processor world, which led to amazing performance at ever cheaper prices. Counter-examples: Sun SPARC, Intel Itanium, IBM PowerPCs (used by Apple). None of these processors had binary compatibity with another vendor's parts and, surprise of surprises, they are all fading away.
You can say all you want about MS business practices, and the security and stability problems with their software, but you cannot deny their significant role in laying the foundations for cheap, compatible hardware which enabled things like FOSS and Linux to emerge.
Here is an example, perhaps, where FOSS has an advantage. Microsoft might not be able to fix the function because it is "in the wild" and there could be many dependent "already-compiled" applications which would/could be affected. In the FOSS world where backwards binary compatibility is not an issue, a source patch could be made available. Oftentimes the way these sorts of problems are handled by Microsoft is they roll out a new updated API, leaving the old ones in place. This obviously doesn't address the installed base of buggy code, but fixes the problem going forward - assuming they can convince the developers to adopt the new API. Unfortunately, this course of action is also not applicable to a security patch scenario. So, MS issues an imperfect patch addressing, hopefully, the most flagrant problems, and queues the function as one needing to be deprecated in a future release.
Check out http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1869093 ,00.asp for an explanation.
Yeah, and magically the install CDs appear. You have to master new CDs and packaging, schedule production runs, yada yada. Don't be naive.
"If the KFTC enters an order requiring Microsoft to remove code or redesign Windows uniquely for the Korean market, it might be necessary to withdraw Windows from the Korean market or delay offering new versions in Korea," Microsoft said.
... taking their marbles and going home, acting like an 8-year old, etc. If you read the above quote you will see that all they said was that if South Korea requires a version of Windows uniquely for Korea (by virtue of the mix of "allowable" services the OS includes - the list of allowable features no doubt a function of whatever SKorean companies they are trying to protect), then MS would be forced to (temporarily) pull out of South Korea, since, as all of us software developers know, they can't just snap their fingers and have a customized version ready.
It's amazing to me how everyone in this forum is so very quick to point out how poorly MS is behaving
No big surprise, but virtually everybody who has commented in this forum, and in the "survey" has something in common - they are tinkerers who like to play with computers and/or write code. I am not terribly surprised by the lack of expressed anti-Microsoft sentiments. First of all, that group is smart enough to couch their reason in a positive way (Linux is great!) since they know how the former would be perceived. Second, I really believe that for tinkerers Linux is a strong alternative to Windows. Stuff is free, the hardware is cheap (thank you Microsoft) and there are plenty of tools and lots of "help" in the form of sample code, open source, etc. However, that population only covers about 0.5% of the overall computer-using population. The big question is, how many of the remaining 99.5% are using Linux, and if so, why did they switch.
Since Windows 95, binary compatibility is extremely likely. I have many applications from as far back as the mid to late 90s that "just install and run" on a Windows XP box. And I anticipate they will still run on Vista. Binary compatibility is something Microsoft has always worked very hard at, and, I believe, is one of the keys to their success. True, there is a great deal of source-code portability between the various distros, but having to recompile, deal with the minor issues that pop up, and maintain install packages for all the various flavors is alot of work. Clearly this is not the only consideration, nor is it a really big deal. I was just pointing out that, from an application developer's perspective, one ubiquitous and fully featured (eg browser-equipped, media player-equipped) OS is the most desirable environment in which to develop.
Having done cellphone development for quite a few years, I can attest to the difficulty in developing for Symbian. The tools are buggy, and no 2 Symbian phones are the same - we had a different executable for each and every model. The Microsoft phones were much better to develop for. The tools were free and quite good. And we ran the same executable on every Microsoft-based phone, including both Smartphones (non-stylus button phones) and Pocket PC derivatives (stylus/touch screen). Further, we had the luxury of building and testing the exact same source tree on the desktop, which really accelerated development.
All of that said, I think Linux could pretty quickly dominate the mobile space. I have done some embedded Linux development and it has many of the attributes of the Microsoft environment (good tools, lots of "sample" code, ability to do parallel desktop builds). And since Linux has a much smaller footprint the phones can be cheaper, which will help with adoption. Now hopefully the phone vendors will standardize on a common API so the poor application developers don't have to create a separate install package for every model. Unfortunately, past history is not very encouraging in this regard.
It says "irrelevant". Honestly, I posted a comment awhile back asking this forum if there was any more irrelevant company in tech these days than Sun. This article just convinces me even more.
So everything this guy writes is suspect (i.e. wrong) because he ALWAYS takes Microsoft's side on things? Taking that thought a bit further, virtually everybody in this forum takes the anti-Microsoft side, so everything written here is suspect (i.e. wrong). I think that, as is almost always the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Probably Microsoft is somewhat faster because it is C++ throughout, and it is a mature product that has had much optimization work done over a long period of time. It also probably uses less memory because it links with all those DLLs, and it is compiled C++. Conversely, OpenOffice is probably nowhere near as bad as the reviewer states; most likely he found an optimally bad dataset for OpenOffice to make his point.
I disagree. My point was that, indeed that was the state of the world 20 years ago. The dominance of Windows has, for the most part, made that no longer the case. Virtually any application you want is available for Windows. And in many cases, the best-in-class is the Windows version (because it's the one into which the application developers pour the most resources, not necessarily because Windows is a better platform). As an application developer (of which I am one) the choice is (was?) easy - you develop for Windows because you know your customer already has and supports Windows. Now, Windows has had a nice run - 15 years - but the tectonic plates are shifting again.
Using an iPod to store medical images is not a very good idea. There is no security, and no data integrity. And iPods are much more likely to be stolen than, say, a burned CD. All of that said, having a portable storage medium for medical images makes some sense. Perhaps this is yet another application for USB thumbdrives. Add some encryption (TrueCrypt) and an application (Osiris) that can be run from the drive and you might have a nifty little product.
There is obviously a trend towards open source platforms and away from proprietary platforms. On that we can probably all agree. The question I have is, what happens next? Assume 2 or 3 Linux distributions end up becoming widespread and dominant. Assume Windows becomes just one of many rather than being ubiquitous. Let's think outside the box and assume that even Apple ekes out more than a 3% share of the desktop. What is the impact of this on application developers? Sure, the "generic" apps like those found in the various Office products will continue to evolve, copy each other, exchange data with each other, and be the primary application most people use in their jobs. But what about the specialty applications: audio/video editing, medical and scientific applications, airline reservation systems, tax preparation software, web content creation, etc, etc? Do "best-in-class" applications emerge for each of these niches - tied to a single platform? Does the whole world switch to open source so the platform doesn't matter? My big fear is we end up like it was in the 1970's all over again where you are forced to choose a platform to get the particular application you need. And if you need multiple applications, you end up supporting multiple platforms. Yes, standards that address interoperability can help in this regard, but if you want best-in-class you will not have much choice, and we all know that supporting multiple platforms is more work than supporting one.
I guess I'm pretty dumb. I tried to install the latest Ubuntu distribution on my (admittedly somewhat dated) PIII-600 Compaq laptop. It hung halfway through while installing the packages. I restarted it and it hung in the same place. Undaunted I switched to Redhat (FC4). It threw an error about a quarter of the way through and then quit (offering to send a bug report - shades of Microsoft). Frustrated I stuck in my Windows 2000 CD and 45 minutes later I was up and running.
On the flipside, I put Ubuntu into a newer desktop (Athlon 2000Xp on an ASUS motherboard) and the install went smoothly. And I was very impressed when I was able to immediately access my file server (running Windows 2000) and load up a Word document from that network share. Of course then I tried to play an mp3 from that same network share, but learned that mp3 support is not in the distribution. Some web searching revealed the solution, which was not trivial (involved enabling repositories and such). When I finally got the mp3 codec installed (I would estimate this task was beyond the vast majority of casual users) I again tried to play an mp3 from my Windows share - but again, no joy. I ended up having to drag the song to the Ubuntu desktop to be able to play it. I never did diagnose what that was all about - some Samba switches no doubt.
So, I don't think it's *ALL* FUD - there are legitimate issues that still need to be worked out.
I have been keeping track of WMC as it has evolved. I am a longtime TIVO owner (fantastic usability, excellent reliability) and last year I also built my own homebrew PVR to try and get out from under the TIVO monthly fee. So far the homebrew is working out very well -- I used Snapstream Beyond TV software, a Hippauge tuner card in an ASUS motherboard with an Athlon 2400XP CPU, 512MB of memory and a 200GB IDE drive (no RAID). Snapstream provides program data over the internet, bundled with the purchase of the software. I used an ATI remote that came with an older All-In-Wonder board that I no longer use. Bottom line, it works really well. Usability is excellent (almost as good as TIVO) and picture quality (and sound sync) also are as good as TIVO (actually I can dial up better picture quality if I want to trade off space). Anyhow, I have been waiting to see when Microsoft eclipses both TIVO and Snapstream. It seems inevitable, but from what I read they aren't there yet.
"Uemura said PWC chose OpenBSD, an operating system he is comfortable with..."
"My predecessor spent too much [so] I was told not to spend any money."
Seems to me the reasons they switched are spelled out pretty plainly in the article -- Uemura was a *nix person and OpenBSD was free. Yet somehow the abstract of the article claims PWC switched because "Windows was a nightmare".
Yes, there was mention in the article that their Windows servers were bouncing alot. But the main reason given for the switch was to "spend no money". I suspect if Uemura had not been a *nix type and instead was a good Windows admin he could have fixed the problem without spending any money by instead properly configuring and patching the Windows servers.
I don't think I said anywhere that reduced crime was entirely due to increased prison population. I merely said, and I'll re-state it in more simple terms, when you put criminals in jail they are no longer able to commit new crimes. This reduces the total number of crimes. Now let us examine the formula for crime rate:
/criticized as too simplistic.
CrimeRate = #Crimes / Unit-of-Time
If we make the numerator smaller, then the function CrimeRate returns a smaller value. Apparently this is a concept that is too advanced for many to grasp.
And I completely believe your claim that a reduction in teen and unmarried young mothers correlates with a reduced crime rate. As it happens both my assertion and yours fit neatly in the "common sense" category which is so often overlooked, ignored and/or
Let me offer the following statistics as further proof that locking up criminals reduces the crime rate. I refer you to:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm
And in case you are pressed for time, here are a few excerpts:
Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers.
BTW, that's 18 arrests per inmate - very productive these criminals!
Ahh, so the only reason Linux is adopted because it is free? If Windows were free, everyone would use it? Those are dangerous things to say 'round these parts.
The obvious solution is to make the BBC homepage the default homepage for Firefox!