"...but I would say: you have an "open source PC." I do too. Mine works. Lots of peoples' do."
Agreed. And I dare say you could easily change this sentence slightly and it would not lose a bit of accuracy...
"...but I would say: you have an "Windows PC." I do too. Mine works. Lots of peoples' do."
Sometimes shit works, sometimes not. If you are an end user and don't won't to research which hardware you should buy for an OS or can't be bothered to figure out why something doesn't work then either pay someone to do it for you or buy an OS from a manufacturer who will support you because you paid for it. (Of course that's no guarantee the support is any good).
What I wonder is if it is all as bad as he says why does he still have this "sore" PC? If that's how he feels he should go fork over the $ for XP or something. Shameless anti-os plug if you ask me.
Don't under estimate Ubuntu! It is a great Desktop distro. I imagine that the sample is not completely representative of the Linux user community but taken in the context of the desktop I bet it is pretty spot on. Somehow I don't think those of us running Linux on our servers took much notice of this survey. But the folks who have been trying Linux off and on for the past few years wondering if it works well enough to replace Windows probably did participate.
And the second most important application is "Digital Camera/Video?"
This is the one thing that my wife still hates me for after I put Ubuntu on her computer. Yes, it's easy for me to make it work and with some tweaking I could make it easy for her, I am just lazy... But it's little things like these that Vendors refuse to support cleanly on Linux that cause all the hesitation on the part of the regular users.
If that's what you pay for software I'm guessing you also buy pharmaceuticals from Canada, have recently refinanced your mortgage and are anxiously awaiting those enlargement pills...
I see your point about the money and there is no way I want to see control of TLD's in the hands of a single, private company.
But the concept behind the flat top level namespace actually solves the problem you speak of. Imagine, as a small company, coughing up a reasonable initial and annual fee to register a single domain. No worries that someone will come along and grab.org and.net minutes after you register.com. The worst someone can do to you is misspell yours slightly in hopes people will somehow get to them instead of you through a typo (like "micorsoft.com", I hate these jerks).
IMHO this concept has pros and cons but the flat namespace would be a boon to the little guy when it comes to getting domains that reflect a company's image without having to register 42 of them.
It's Debian based first off, always a good thing:)
It has a very easy to use installer. As mentioned already it has great package management based on dpkg, apt and synaptic.
It makes a great desktop system out of the box; very little effort is needed to get everything to just work. It comes with all the typical goodies for a desktop (browser, email, office suite, etc) whether you pick Gnome or KDE as the default desktop.
All in all a very good "I think I'll install this for my Aunt Tillie" type of distribution.
I am sad to hear about it going away but on a purely practical note I think anyone who used this and wants to upgrade when Libranet is gone would do well to look to Ubuntu.
So as corporate customer of Microsoft's, how do I leverage this new, service oriented architecture they are developing? I would like to have access to an API that allows me to track my company's users and also see what my competition is up to. Will I be able to utilize my existing legacy infrastructure or will I have to upgrade every other installed service at my company to use this wonderful service you speak of?
Fair enough. Then Lego should have no problem with this ruling. Their patent expired, they already recouped what they should and more on holding the patent. It's time for them to compete on the merit of their product, not try to monopolize plastic brick making by abusing trademark law.
Of course, all Slashdotters were not infected because we all boycott music companies anyway.
Well yes, but it's also because we run Linux, *BSD and OSX.
(except for some of us when we're at work)
Yes, if you ask me spamming is just a gateway to much harder and addictive crime. You spam a little, you know, just with your friends and then before you know it you're thinking "gee this is great, I wonder what firebombing the local police station feels like"...
you can expect a full fledged War on Copyright Infringement just like our current War on Drug Users. It will be accompanied by a similar loss of personal freedoms, and be just as effective (i.e. not all).
Agreed. And I would add it will be fought against the tax payers at the tax payers' expense. ( just like the war on drugs )
As has been mentioned elsewhere Microsoft has, in the U.S. anyway, a trademark on "Microsoft Windows", not just "Windows". Windows by itself has been deemed too generic to trademark.
But it would also appear that there is room for MS to wiggle. A fairly recent discussion on this can be found at Intellectual Property Forums.
I think the most insightful thing I've read so far in this discussion so far has been (paraphrasing) "Oh well, it wasn't worth him to fight their lawyers anyway".
Thank you. I was wondering about this. Jokes about "keeping up with Microsoft" aside I believe Cisco did provide an initial patch and this is a much more comprehensive patch that actually fixes the core problem.
Everyone always bashes MS for releasing patches that simply prevent a working/known exploit w/o fixing the core issue. Cisco has done both now and even though I think they handled this very poorly on both the PR front, and with their behaviour towards Lynn, I do applaud them for taking the two step approach and actually fixing the core issue with their products.
What you miss in that is that *everyone* who was directly involved in the contract (which was with AT&T, not SCO, or SCOX)
I have a deep loathing for SCO and can not wait until they finish falling off the cliff they ran over. But this is not about IBM's contract with AT&T, its about the project Monteray contract. I don't really beleive for a minute that IBM signed a contract with SCO (or oldSCO as they probably should be called when talking about that contract) that said IBM could not put it's own code in other OS's but after the AT&T original contract theory of Darl's was thouroughly debunked they shifted back to the original claim of the case and that was about Project Monteray.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I read Groklaw way too much:)
Slashdot Mirror
"...but I would say: you have an "open source PC." I do too. Mine works. Lots of peoples' do."
Agreed. And I dare say you could easily change this sentence slightly and it would not lose a bit of accuracy...
"...but I would say: you have an "Windows PC." I do too. Mine works. Lots of peoples' do."
Sometimes shit works, sometimes not. If you are an end user and don't won't to research which hardware you should buy for an OS or can't be bothered to figure out why something doesn't work then either pay someone to do it for you or buy an OS from a manufacturer who will support you because you paid for it. (Of course that's no guarantee the support is any good).
What I wonder is if it is all as bad as he says why does he still have this "sore" PC? If that's how he feels he should go fork over the $ for XP or something. Shameless anti-os plug if you ask me.
Don't under estimate Ubuntu! It is a great Desktop distro. I imagine that the sample is not completely representative of the Linux user community but taken in the context of the desktop I bet it is pretty spot on. Somehow I don't think those of us running Linux on our servers took much notice of this survey. But the folks who have been trying Linux off and on for the past few years wondering if it works well enough to replace Windows probably did participate.
And the second most important application is "Digital Camera/Video?"
This is the one thing that my wife still hates me for after I put Ubuntu on her computer. Yes, it's easy for me to make it work and with some tweaking I could make it easy for her, I am just lazy... But it's little things like these that Vendors refuse to support cleanly on Linux that cause all the hesitation on the part of the regular users.
If that's what you pay for software I'm guessing you also buy pharmaceuticals from Canada, have recently refinanced your mortgage and are anxiously awaiting those enlargement pills...
I see your point about the money and there is no way I want to see control of TLD's in the hands of a single, private company.
.org and .net minutes after you register .com. The worst someone can do to you is misspell yours slightly in hopes people will somehow get to them instead of you through a typo (like "micorsoft.com", I hate these jerks).
But the concept behind the flat top level namespace actually solves the problem you speak of. Imagine, as a small company, coughing up a reasonable initial and annual fee to register a single domain. No worries that someone will come along and grab
IMHO this concept has pros and cons but the flat namespace would be a boon to the little guy when it comes to getting domains that reflect a company's image without having to register 42 of them.
It's Debian based first off, always a good thing :)
It has a very easy to use installer. As mentioned already it has great package management based on dpkg, apt and synaptic.
It makes a great desktop system out of the box; very little effort is needed to get everything to just work. It comes with all the typical goodies for a desktop (browser, email, office suite, etc) whether you pick Gnome or KDE as the default desktop.
All in all a very good "I think I'll install this for my Aunt Tillie" type of distribution.
I am sad to hear about it going away but on a purely practical note I think anyone who used this and wants to upgrade when Libranet is gone would do well to look to Ubuntu.
Very sorry, apparently I forgot the tag in my post.
Say that sounds great!
So as corporate customer of Microsoft's, how do I leverage this new, service oriented architecture they are developing? I would like to have access to an API that allows me to track my company's users and also see what my competition is up to. Will I be able to utilize my existing legacy infrastructure or will I have to upgrade every other installed service at my company to use this wonderful service you speak of?
I think you are referring to multi-casting and that is available in IPv4. See RFC 2365 if you're curious.
Please tell me for the 34253456345324th time... Why? (link is fine, I like to read.)
"My Documents...sponsored by Coca-Cola!"
:)
No, no you have it all wrong! In the next version of Windows it will be "Documents... Sponsored by Coca-Cola". They dropped that silly "My" stuff.
Fair enough. Then Lego should have no problem with this ruling. Their patent expired, they already recouped what they should and more on holding the patent. It's time for them to compete on the merit of their product, not try to monopolize plastic brick making by abusing trademark law.
Of course, all Slashdotters were not infected because we all boycott music companies anyway.
Well yes, but it's also because we run Linux, *BSD and OSX. (except for some of us when we're at work)
Yes, if you ask me spamming is just a gateway to much harder and addictive crime. You spam a little, you know, just with your friends and then before you know it you're thinking "gee this is great, I wonder what firebombing the local police station feels like"...
...that supposedly co-existed alongside humans
And dinosaurs?
The only thing new this post tells me that I didn't already understand from RTFA is that I should reconsider using AVG as an antivirus solution.
you can expect a full fledged War on Copyright Infringement just like our current War on Drug Users. It will be accompanied by a similar loss of personal freedoms, and be just as effective (i.e. not all).
Agreed. And I would add it will be fought against the tax payers at the tax payers' expense. ( just like the war on drugs )
As has been mentioned elsewhere Microsoft has, in the U.S. anyway, a trademark on "Microsoft Windows", not just "Windows". Windows by itself has been deemed too generic to trademark.
More information can be found here, in an article concerning the Lindows case.
But it would also appear that there is room for MS to wiggle. A fairly recent discussion on this can be found at Intellectual Property Forums.
I think the most insightful thing I've read so far in this discussion so far has been (paraphrasing) "Oh well, it wasn't worth him to fight their lawyers anyway".
NT / XP / Vista - Built off of OS/2
I beleive you menat to say "Built off of VMS" here.
Thank you. I was wondering about this. Jokes about "keeping up with Microsoft" aside I believe Cisco did provide an initial patch and this is a much more comprehensive patch that actually fixes the core problem.
Everyone always bashes MS for releasing patches that simply prevent a working/known exploit w/o fixing the core issue. Cisco has done both now and even though I think they handled this very poorly on both the PR front, and with their behaviour towards Lynn, I do applaud them for taking the two step approach and actually fixing the core issue with their products.
Yes, offtopic I know, but after clearing my FF cache 3 times and still getting the mess that is /. today I realize it is not my browser.
That is perhaps the most polite post pointing out a dupe that I've ever read on /.
Nice.
Well in that case, who watches the watchers of the watchers? Hmmm? Answer me that ... if you can!
Homeland Security
Well he said he didn't watch that much Pokemon... :)
(although he could have fooled me!
Will some informative /.er please point me to a logo page that isn't /.ed?
Tx
What you miss in that is that *everyone* who was directly involved in the contract (which was with AT&T, not SCO, or SCOX)
:)
I have a deep loathing for SCO and can not wait until they finish falling off the cliff they ran over. But this is not about IBM's contract with AT&T, its about the project Monteray contract. I don't really beleive for a minute that IBM signed a contract with SCO (or oldSCO as they probably should be called when talking about that contract) that said IBM could not put it's own code in other OS's but after the AT&T original contract theory of Darl's was thouroughly debunked they shifted back to the original claim of the case and that was about Project Monteray.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I read Groklaw way too much