And it might even be the case that using Linux on older machines saves energy.
I don't really think it saves any significant amounts of energy when it is running. The savings are in the longer upgrade cycle, since it won't need a new computer every time it gets a new operating system version. Granted, non-enterprise distros usually have much shorter upgrade cycles than Windows, but usually, no hardware upgrade is necessary for those.
Can you fucking imagine playing Civilization IV, StarCraft, Supreme Commander, CounterStrike or any other number of FPS, RPG and especially RTS/Strategy games on a god damn console at lower resolution and with a fucking sloppy controller?! I would shoot myself.
I agree. When I play games, I mainly play RTS games and simulation games, and to my knowledge they all suck on a console. Consoles are good for some games, but not for everything.
They aren't good for every game. How many RTS games or flight simulation games have you played on a console? I also hear FPS games are much better on PCs than on consoles.
As soon as that happens, Microsoft will find a reason to end support for XP early.
That would be a nice way to say that customers cannot trust them. People may have relied on their current EOL date for XP, if they suddenly announced a much shorter lifetime for XP, it might make some customers look into other vendors than Microsoft for their computing needs. Microsoft can't be that stupid.
Since when is PDF an "open" standard? Its compressed postscript invented by adobe.
The file format is open though, if not necessarily a standard. The specification is available for free from Adobe's web site.
I can open PNG files in IE.
Even such PNG files that contain transparent parts?
MS documents their IFS driver so you can write your own file system for windows and use it *without* recompiling the kernel.
Since only Microsoft have the Windows source code, requiring a filesystem developer to recompile the Windows kernel would be pretty stupid. T'd rather think this is an erroneous jab at Linux, which has a reputation among some people (especially trolls) that its kernel needs to be recompiled for just about anything.
If MS wanted to lock everyone into "NTFS" hahaha why would they go out of their way to document IFS drivers?
Maybe so that third party developers could create filesystem drivers for Windows? You know, Windows gains value if more software is written for it, which would make it pretty stupid to not document the IFS mechanism and API.
SMB??? samba anyone?
Samba is based on reverse engineering of various Windows protocols. Hardly an ideal situation, as reverse engineering is a very complex and time-consuming task.
Substituting binary formats for XML just contributes to bloat and for those with half a clue does not provide any more or less interoperability, the latest MS office products unfortuntely are more XML based.
Not any more interoperability? I'd really like an explanation why text files in XML format are equally interoperable to proprietary binary blobs. Besides, compressed XML files are usually more space-efficient than binary blob files, just compare equal documents stored in MS Office formats and OpenDocument Format. The latter are usually much smaller. I'd guess that the same thing applies to Microsoft's later XML formats.
There is quite a lot of information avaliable on the Internet about SMB, NTFS, and various office suite formats
All reverse-engineered (see above).
and the office suite of products have extensive import/export formatting options for a rediculous number of products.
Which would be pretty much unnecessary if they could agree on a common (and open) denominator format.
Or do you expect a business to run their IM location servers for free?
Google Talk is based on the open Jabber protocol. Any client can connect to their servers for free.
Frankly I'm surprised with how much stuff "MS" does give away.
The one and only reason they give away anything for free is to tie people harder to the Windows platform.
Many third party IM products support messenger and there is information online about the protocol. Heck if you download ethereal there protocol decode support for MSN IM is included.
Obtained though reverse engineering (see above).
WMA, WMV... ??? Does the W give away this is a propritary format? If you want to use a propritary format then thats your problem.
I may not have a choice. People may send files in proprietary formats to me and expect me to open them, or send links to such files with the same expectation. I would not choose such formats if the format decision was mine.
Since when is *ANY* compressed video format "open" and not covered in IP nonsense?
The Ogg format family seem to be unencumbered by IP issues. This family includes the Vorbis, Speex and Theora codecs.
It seems to me you guys would rather have MS as an adversary than welcoming an obvious changing attitude from them.
Given their long history of breaking standards, it is quite hard to believe that they have really changed attitudes in the last month. It is much more probable that this is just another marketing spin from Microsoft, trying to sound like they advocate standards while they in reality are trying to destroy them.
CatB discussed two open source development models, one in which potential changes were submitted to the monarch or oligarchs of a project for consideration, and one in which pretty much anybody could add stuff whenever.
By that definition, I have never heard of any projects using the bazaar model. I mean, do any project supply public commit access?
No, I'd rather think of the cathedral model as the model used in certain BSD systems, as well as in the development of XGL, which is a klosely knit team of programmers write the code without accepting patches from the public, while still releasing their code to the public. The bazaar model is used in most F/OSS projects, where anyone can contribute, but contributions are assessed by the project management or maintainers before making it into the official codebase.
Maybe in countries other than the US. In the US they might rather want to add extra taxes for Linux users, since they don't fulfill their obligation to support a national interest, which is Microsoft.
The real catch 22 is preinstallation. When Dell sells desktops with ubuntu preinstalled it will be time for tell everyone in the mainstream news and press about linux. Until then its best to keep a lid on it.
I think you forgot the second part of the catch 22: If everyone would keep the lid on Linux w.r.t. new users, the demand would forever be kept too low for Dell to start selling computers with it.
Fortunately, for parts of the tech press, SCO solved that part.;)
However, this is more useful to people with linux on laptops, who tend to reboot more often.
Power-wise, turning off my desktop is far more important than turning off my laptop. My laptop draws about 50 W under load, while my desktop (inkluding screens) draws som 250+ W. With a price of at least 1 SEK/kWh (7 SEK = 1 USD), the savings of turning off your desktop can be significant pretty fast.
Why your yanking out drives on a running computer is beyond me
Laptop computers usually puts their CD/DVD-drive in a modular bay where you also can put a floppy disk drive or an extra battery. Those are meant to be hot-pluggable.
So, you see no problem with me linking a piece of firmware that checks for a signed kernel binary with a GPLv2 and then stops the system from booting to a useful state if it isn't present? This act that is totally fine in GPLv2,but with GPLv3 code means I cannot use any GPLv3 code with it. If it is that incompatible, it causes restrictions that aren't there. It means I cannot take a compiled work or distro and change the GPLv2 items and still have a working system.
Ahh, I see what you mean. But the solution is simple, remove the code licensed under the GPLv3, and the restriction is gone. This is not about the GPLv3 software trying to restrict what you can do with the kernel, it's rather about restricting you from adding restrictions to GPLv3 software.
The GPLv3 will have somewhat of that same effect if used in the way some are wanting. Even with all the exceptions and everything. It will places restrictions on the entire work as a whole and thereby be placing further restrictions on the GPLv2 code.
I think you are wrong. The whole work does not include the operating system, only the package itself. I cannot see why the GPLv3 would suddenly require the whole operating system to be GPLv3.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess failing startups may not be the only thing giving Utah a bad reputation in VC circles. There is also a company called SCO...
I don't really think it saves any significant amounts of energy when it is running. The savings are in the longer upgrade cycle, since it won't need a new computer every time it gets a new operating system version. Granted, non-enterprise distros usually have much shorter upgrade cycles than Windows, but usually, no hardware upgrade is necessary for those.
I raise my standard of living when I use Linux compared to when I use Windows.
Nothing stops you from running Linux on these newer systems too.
I agree. When I play games, I mainly play RTS games and simulation games, and to my knowledge they all suck on a console. Consoles are good for some games, but not for everything.
They aren't good for every game. How many RTS games or flight simulation games have you played on a console? I also hear FPS games are much better on PCs than on consoles.
That would be a nice way to say that customers cannot trust them. People may have relied on their current EOL date for XP, if they suddenly announced a much shorter lifetime for XP, it might make some customers look into other vendors than Microsoft for their computing needs. Microsoft can't be that stupid.
2000, unstable? I agree about ME, but you can't really compare ME to W2000.
Not to mention Laura DiDio and Maureen O'Gara.
The file format is open though, if not necessarily a standard. The specification is available for free from Adobe's web site.
I can open PNG files in IE.Even such PNG files that contain transparent parts?
MS documents their IFS driver so you can write your own file system for windows and use it *without* recompiling the kernel.Since only Microsoft have the Windows source code, requiring a filesystem developer to recompile the Windows kernel would be pretty stupid. T'd rather think this is an erroneous jab at Linux, which has a reputation among some people (especially trolls) that its kernel needs to be recompiled for just about anything.
If MS wanted to lock everyone into "NTFS" hahaha why would they go out of their way to document IFS drivers?Maybe so that third party developers could create filesystem drivers for Windows? You know, Windows gains value if more software is written for it, which would make it pretty stupid to not document the IFS mechanism and API.
SMB??? samba anyone?Samba is based on reverse engineering of various Windows protocols. Hardly an ideal situation, as reverse engineering is a very complex and time-consuming task.
Substituting binary formats for XML just contributes to bloat and for those with half a clue does not provide any more or less interoperability, the latest MS office products unfortuntely are more XML based.Not any more interoperability? I'd really like an explanation why text files in XML format are equally interoperable to proprietary binary blobs. Besides, compressed XML files are usually more space-efficient than binary blob files, just compare equal documents stored in MS Office formats and OpenDocument Format. The latter are usually much smaller. I'd guess that the same thing applies to Microsoft's later XML formats.
There is quite a lot of information avaliable on the Internet about SMB, NTFS, and various office suite formatsAll reverse-engineered (see above).
and the office suite of products have extensive import/export formatting options for a rediculous number of products.Which would be pretty much unnecessary if they could agree on a common (and open) denominator format.
Or do you expect a business to run their IM location servers for free?Google Talk is based on the open Jabber protocol. Any client can connect to their servers for free.
Frankly I'm surprised with how much stuff "MS" does give away.The one and only reason they give away anything for free is to tie people harder to the Windows platform.
Many third party IM products support messenger and there is information online about the protocol. Heck if you download ethereal there protocol decode support for MSN IM is included.Obtained though reverse engineering (see above).
WMA, WMV... ??? Does the W give away this is a propritary format? If you want to use a propritary format then thats your problem.I may not have a choice. People may send files in proprietary formats to me and expect me to open them, or send links to such files with the same expectation. I would not choose such formats if the format decision was mine.
Since when is *ANY* compressed video format "open" and not covered in IP nonsense?The Ogg format family seem to be unencumbered by IP issues. This family includes the Vorbis, Speex and Theora codecs.
Given their long history of breaking standards, it is quite hard to believe that they have really changed attitudes in the last month. It is much more probable that this is just another marketing spin from Microsoft, trying to sound like they advocate standards while they in reality are trying to destroy them.
I agree. The negative aspects listed had stronger qualifiers than the positive aspects, which makes it feel more negative than positive.
By the way, won't you agree that Peter Moldave (their contact) looks a bit like Bill Gates? ;)
By that definition, I have never heard of any projects using the bazaar model. I mean, do any project supply public commit access?
No, I'd rather think of the cathedral model as the model used in certain BSD systems, as well as in the development of XGL, which is a klosely knit team of programmers write the code without accepting patches from the public, while still releasing their code to the public. The bazaar model is used in most F/OSS projects, where anyone can contribute, but contributions are assessed by the project management or maintainers before making it into the official codebase.
I guess you didn't notice the "By that logic" in the post you quoted from.
Microsoft sometimes creates useful things, like once every couple of years. :)
AJAX is certainly one of these (few) things.
Maybe in countries other than the US. In the US they might rather want to add extra taxes for Linux users, since they don't fulfill their obligation to support a national interest, which is Microsoft.
OT: Your mention of Rumsfeld makes me recall this quote:
[Osama bin Laden is] either alive and well or alive and not too well or not alive.Pretty intelligent, isn't it? ;)
I think you forgot the second part of the catch 22: If everyone would keep the lid on Linux w.r.t. new users, the demand would forever be kept too low for Dell to start selling computers with it.
Fortunately, for parts of the tech press, SCO solved that part. ;)
Like antivirus software, which for me is the primary reason Windows is unusable for a while even after the desktop is shown..
Power-wise, turning off my desktop is far more important than turning off my laptop. My laptop draws about 50 W under load, while my desktop (inkluding screens) draws som 250+ W. With a price of at least 1 SEK/kWh (7 SEK = 1 USD), the savings of turning off your desktop can be significant pretty fast.
It is with the ATI/nVidia proprietary drivers.
"Perfectly good" 3D performance would be drivers written by ATI/nVidia for Linux of equal caliber as those written for WindowsThe proprietary drivers are almost the same code as their corresponding Windows drivers.
Laptop computers usually puts their CD/DVD-drive in a modular bay where you also can put a floppy disk drive or an extra battery. Those are meant to be hot-pluggable.
Ahh, I see what you mean. But the solution is simple, remove the code licensed under the GPLv3, and the restriction is gone. This is not about the GPLv3 software trying to restrict what you can do with the kernel, it's rather about restricting you from adding restrictions to GPLv3 software.
In the context of GPLv3 applications with a GPLv2 kernel, I think you are wrong, plain and simply wrong.
I think you are wrong. The whole work does not include the operating system, only the package itself. I cannot see why the GPLv3 would suddenly require the whole operating system to be GPLv3.