I agree. Chemical weapons are weapons that deploy substances used for their poisonous effects, such as Zyklon B, Sarin, Mustard gas and VX. TNT is pretty toxic, but it is used for its explosiveness, not its toxicity.
That simply cannot be the case, at least generally. Of course you can create a system that exhibit such losses, but I'd guess that losses are far lower if you apply a little intelligence to the problem.
In Sweden, we have a north-south divide. In the north, we have many rivers, and thus, many hydro power plants. They produce 50% of the Swedish electrical energy. But only about 10-15% of the population live in that part of the country. All the major cities are in the south, with the northernmost of the major cities being Stockholm, which is still in the southernmost 1/3 of the country. So we have long power lines going from the hydro plants in the north to the population in the south, and the distances involved are 500 km and more. Losses like 40% per 100 km would simply be unbearable.
Can this type of powerplant actually blow up and cause a nuclear explosion?
No nuclear power plant can blow up in a nuclear explosion. First, the enrichment level of nuclear fuel for power plants is far too low to be able to cause an explosion, and second, even those reactors that use highöy enriched fuels have fuel elements in configurations that are unsuitable to create explosions. Remember that atomic bombs both need a very high enrichment level and a very precise shape to be able to explode. That's why it is difficult to produce atomic bombs.
Still it is difficult to find someone that did not purchase Windows with their computer or replaced it after they got it. Linux is free and has a consumer penetration of something like 0.001% so it cannot be about cost.
You are right, it isn't. The problem is that most consumers aren't actually aware that it is possible to run other operating systems on a non-Apple PC, or that other operating systems exist.
the result would not be much different. People would be running Windows.
But then at least people would have made a conscious choice, and are aware that Windows isn't "free" but costs extra money on top of what the hardware costs. For those that go to stores that offer a Linux option, they will be made aware of this possibility.
Mixing different systems interoperably is difficult and leads to the need to run the same software.
That is what Microsoft wants you to believe. They have intentionally been trying to make it difficult for other systems to interoperate with Windows systems, but that does not mean that it is a fundamental rule of computer systems and applications. The answer is open standards, and for an example, just look at the internet. Millions of very different computers all communicating (mostly) without major problems.
I don't see the point to a government mandate such as this. It wouldn't really change anything.
It would give consumers an actual choice in the matter, as well as expose the true monetary cost of Windows instead of hiding it in the cost of the hardware. That alone would make this worthwhile.
How will Apple handle this if it applies to all hdwe sales?
Why would it affect them? They are a hardware company, their main profits is in the hardware. Otherwise they would have opened up MacOS X for other HW manufacturers a long time ago. So they could sell their computers without MacOS X without any loss of profits and sell MacOS X separately. Nothing says that they would have to make MacOS X runnable on non-Apple computers, just that customers could buy a Mac but choosing to run Ubuntu instead of MacOS X.
it's a fact that they have developed and refined the user interface to the point that grandma can run it, grandpa reads the news on the internet, and little Sally Ann can simply stick in her cd and play Dora the Explorer game.
Another one of those stupid "If it wouldn't be for Microsoft we would still be living in the 80's" post.
It is simply not true. In the 80's and early 90's, Apple was years ahead of Microsoft, but Microsoft managed to stall its adoption by putting out press releases about their "new wonderful software that will eclipse anything everyone else has ever done". The media bought into this, and consumers hesitated to buy Apple products since Microsoft had promised such fantastic systems Really Soon Now. Each time the release date approached, they pushed it back another three months.
Very clever marketing for sure, but to say that Microsoft brought us user-friendly computing, and that nobody else would be able to do this, is patently false.
Exactly. To those people, Windows is "free", since its cost was hidden in the cost of the hardware. And as you say, many people don't even know what an operating system is, that it is possible to run an OS that isn't Windows, or even that Windows is not integrated into the hardware.
OEM price is about $60, so it's not like users are going to care much to begin with
The forced unbundling would have to require that customers can buy the operating system separately for the same price as when buying it together with a computer to have any teeth at all. Otherwise Microsoft could give Windows away when shipped with a computer, entirely negating the advantage of the unbundling. If you could buy Windows separately for the same price as shipped with a computer, there would probably not be an OEM version any longer.
the argument that Windows is a monopoly product is losing relevance as HP, Dell, and Lenovo begin shipping their Linux PCs.
Not as long as the Linux options are buried deep down in web sites and product brochures to make sure that no customers find them.
I think that he was referring to your notion that customers would get shafted since they would have to buy the retail version. And the retail version is surely not £50.
A computer with no operating system would be more expensive from a large PC vendor.
Hopefully, that would be spotted by the regulating authorities pretty quickly. If it wouldn't, I'd file a complaint with the competition authorities myself.
Why is the proposed unbundling of Windows in any way related to Windows XP N? XP N wasn't purchased by anyone since it was sold at exactly the same price as regular XP, making customers choose regular XP since they would "get more for the money".
Having a selection of Windows, no OS or (optionally) some other OS at different price points would expose the price of Windows instead of hiding it in the hardware cost. That would be a good thing. Then buyers would have to make a conscious decision to pay for Windows instead of viewing it as "free". That could make some buyers choose another OS instead without having to jump through hoops to get a refund on Windows.
so they go for the one that does most of what they want. Windows, for all its ills, is that OS.
Why? It is very much a possibility that many people would be perfectly content with Linux. Especially people strapped for cash could find it appealing to buy a computer with an OS that costs $100 less than Windows, especially since it comes with many of the applications they need.
7. Unable to set per-user file restrictions, VERY coarse control (broken multi-user capabilities)
Actually you can set per-user file restrictions, only it is disabled by default. To enable it, you have to take the unintuitive route of disabling Simple File Sharing. When you have done that, per-user file permissions magically appear in the file properties dialog under some tab.
Middle-click is a feature of X, not the application itself. That's why in Firefox on Linux I have two separate clipboards, the X clipboard and the Firefox clipboard.
DELL has offered a NO OS option for YEARS.
It is the N series of Computers, and they come with FreeDOS inside the box.
But why require a special system buried down on some special web page to not get Windows? It should be an option for all models, selected in the same dropdown where you select Vista or XP.
You don't see the "naked" PC in retail sales because no one wants to buy the damn things.
How do you know? Most people don't even know that there are other operating systems than Windows, how could they want something else when they don't know that something else exists?
Why should a hardware vendor be forced to support every platform?
They wouldn't. Unbundling Windows just means that people would get the question whether they want Windows, no OS, or something else. What is so bad about that? It is hardly confusing. Most people don't even know that there are other operating systems out there, because Windows is bundled with every computer, so they cannot even choose to run something else even if it would cater to all their needs.
If F/OSS folks want to make inroads into the consumer market, then give up trying to overthrow MS - it's a battle that's going to probably never be won, and is going to consume immense resources. Rather, focus on making a new version of Office, or an integrated media player that's seamless with hardware and whatever media source you've got.
So you are saying that the F/OSS community should just give up, abandon Linux and other free operating systems, and go with Windows instead? Not going to happen.
This has the flavor of a Geek-sanctioned urban legend.
I see people ask questions about new computers for this reason at least once a week in various internet forums. They want a new computer since the old one has been too infested with malware so they need a new one. Luckily, such questions are usually answered with recommendations to reinstall Windows (it's always Windows), usually with the help from the local geek, so that they don't have to buy a new computer for $1000+. They usually accept that argument and do what they are told, but even hearing people say that they are to get a new computer to get rid of malware makes one sad.
How many people do this without asking for suggestions first?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. Chemical weapons are weapons that deploy substances used for their poisonous effects, such as Zyklon B, Sarin, Mustard gas and VX. TNT is pretty toxic, but it is used for its explosiveness, not its toxicity.
That simply cannot be the case, at least generally. Of course you can create a system that exhibit such losses, but I'd guess that losses are far lower if you apply a little intelligence to the problem.
In Sweden, we have a north-south divide. In the north, we have many rivers, and thus, many hydro power plants. They produce 50% of the Swedish electrical energy. But only about 10-15% of the population live in that part of the country. All the major cities are in the south, with the northernmost of the major cities being Stockholm, which is still in the southernmost 1/3 of the country. So we have long power lines going from the hydro plants in the north to the population in the south, and the distances involved are 500 km and more. Losses like 40% per 100 km would simply be unbearable.
No nuclear power plant can blow up in a nuclear explosion. First, the enrichment level of nuclear fuel for power plants is far too low to be able to cause an explosion, and second, even those reactors that use highöy enriched fuels have fuel elements in configurations that are unsuitable to create explosions. Remember that atomic bombs both need a very high enrichment level and a very precise shape to be able to explode. That's why it is difficult to produce atomic bombs.
Why was this modded down? I would have modded it +1 Funny.
You are right, it isn't. The problem is that most consumers aren't actually aware that it is possible to run other operating systems on a non-Apple PC, or that other operating systems exist.
the result would not be much different. People would be running Windows.But then at least people would have made a conscious choice, and are aware that Windows isn't "free" but costs extra money on top of what the hardware costs. For those that go to stores that offer a Linux option, they will be made aware of this possibility.
Mixing different systems interoperably is difficult and leads to the need to run the same software.That is what Microsoft wants you to believe. They have intentionally been trying to make it difficult for other systems to interoperate with Windows systems, but that does not mean that it is a fundamental rule of computer systems and applications. The answer is open standards, and for an example, just look at the internet. Millions of very different computers all communicating (mostly) without major problems.
I don't see the point to a government mandate such as this. It wouldn't really change anything.It would give consumers an actual choice in the matter, as well as expose the true monetary cost of Windows instead of hiding it in the cost of the hardware. That alone would make this worthwhile.
Why would it affect them? They are a hardware company, their main profits is in the hardware. Otherwise they would have opened up MacOS X for other HW manufacturers a long time ago. So they could sell their computers without MacOS X without any loss of profits and sell MacOS X separately. Nothing says that they would have to make MacOS X runnable on non-Apple computers, just that customers could buy a Mac but choosing to run Ubuntu instead of MacOS X.
Well, if Microsoft wants to do business in the EU, they will have to follow EU laws.
Or are you claiming that we can have our companies come to your country and ignore your laws? Thought so.
Another one of those stupid "If it wouldn't be for Microsoft we would still be living in the 80's" post.
It is simply not true. In the 80's and early 90's, Apple was years ahead of Microsoft, but Microsoft managed to stall its adoption by putting out press releases about their "new wonderful software that will eclipse anything everyone else has ever done". The media bought into this, and consumers hesitated to buy Apple products since Microsoft had promised such fantastic systems Really Soon Now. Each time the release date approached, they pushed it back another three months.
Very clever marketing for sure, but to say that Microsoft brought us user-friendly computing, and that nobody else would be able to do this, is patently false.
Exactly. To those people, Windows is "free", since its cost was hidden in the cost of the hardware. And as you say, many people don't even know what an operating system is, that it is possible to run an OS that isn't Windows, or even that Windows is not integrated into the hardware.
If they aren't allowed to bundle an operating system, that means that they will not be allowed to bundle a trial version either.
The forced unbundling would have to require that customers can buy the operating system separately for the same price as when buying it together with a computer to have any teeth at all. Otherwise Microsoft could give Windows away when shipped with a computer, entirely negating the advantage of the unbundling. If you could buy Windows separately for the same price as shipped with a computer, there would probably not be an OEM version any longer.
the argument that Windows is a monopoly product is losing relevance as HP, Dell, and Lenovo begin shipping their Linux PCs.Not as long as the Linux options are buried deep down in web sites and product brochures to make sure that no customers find them.
No, you got it right. Those objecting to this proposed unbundling are wrong.
I think that he was referring to your notion that customers would get shafted since they would have to buy the retail version. And the retail version is surely not £50.
Hopefully, that would be spotted by the regulating authorities pretty quickly. If it wouldn't, I'd file a complaint with the competition authorities myself.
Why is the proposed unbundling of Windows in any way related to Windows XP N? XP N wasn't purchased by anyone since it was sold at exactly the same price as regular XP, making customers choose regular XP since they would "get more for the money".
Having a selection of Windows, no OS or (optionally) some other OS at different price points would expose the price of Windows instead of hiding it in the hardware cost. That would be a good thing. Then buyers would have to make a conscious decision to pay for Windows instead of viewing it as "free". That could make some buyers choose another OS instead without having to jump through hoops to get a refund on Windows.
How do you know, did you ask them?
so they go for the one that does most of what they want. Windows, for all its ills, is that OS.Why? It is very much a possibility that many people would be perfectly content with Linux. Especially people strapped for cash could find it appealing to buy a computer with an OS that costs $100 less than Windows, especially since it comes with many of the applications they need.
We non-laissez-faire people don't agree. Sometimes the government has to step in to make sure that competition is possible.
Actually you can set per-user file restrictions, only it is disabled by default. To enable it, you have to take the unintuitive route of disabling Simple File Sharing. When you have done that, per-user file permissions magically appear in the file properties dialog under some tab.
Middle-click is a feature of X, not the application itself. That's why in Firefox on Linux I have two separate clipboards, the X clipboard and the Firefox clipboard.
But why require a special system buried down on some special web page to not get Windows? It should be an option for all models, selected in the same dropdown where you select Vista or XP.
They can, they just would have to present the user with a choice of Windows, no OS or (optional to the system builder) some other OS.
How do you know? Most people don't even know that there are other operating systems than Windows, how could they want something else when they don't know that something else exists?
They wouldn't. Unbundling Windows just means that people would get the question whether they want Windows, no OS, or something else. What is so bad about that? It is hardly confusing. Most people don't even know that there are other operating systems out there, because Windows is bundled with every computer, so they cannot even choose to run something else even if it would cater to all their needs.
So you are saying that the F/OSS community should just give up, abandon Linux and other free operating systems, and go with Windows instead? Not going to happen.
I see people ask questions about new computers for this reason at least once a week in various internet forums. They want a new computer since the old one has been too infested with malware so they need a new one. Luckily, such questions are usually answered with recommendations to reinstall Windows (it's always Windows), usually with the help from the local geek, so that they don't have to buy a new computer for $1000+. They usually accept that argument and do what they are told, but even hearing people say that they are to get a new computer to get rid of malware makes one sad.
How many people do this without asking for suggestions first?