You expect a beta version for three platforms INSTEAD of someone using their head and putting together a beta for the most popular platform while they work out the kinks?
s/popular/quirky/
You have to develop for Windows not because it's popular, but because it's far easier to port from Windows to other platforms than vice versa. At least for some things. (Then again, not for others.)
I cannot believe that a company with [Microsoft's] resources cannot come up with great new ideas in computing.
Microsoft employees come up with all sorts of new ideas, but the company they work for consistently fails to execute.
I sometimes wonder if it's because the smartest people (those who have the luxury of ethics) usually choose to work elsewhere, and if they don't, their brilliance is stifled by the fools around (and especially above) them.
I think Microsoft will make an intriguing case study for years to come.
And that's part of the problem. Linus may be right that there are good reasons for multiple distros to exist. But that doesn't mean there are good reasons for them to store the same files in different locations.
There are, actually. As a Debian user, I'm very happy about how every package on my systems puts its stuff in the same places, regardless of what Red Hat or SuSE do. For example, Red Hat's/etc/sysconfig configuration mechanism is total crap, and I don't really care whether Red Hat users are confused by Debian's ifupdown system, because I'm not a Red Hat user. There are many examples of this kind of thing.
The truth is that each "distro" is actually its own distinct operating system that just happens to be almost, but not entirely compatible with many other similar systems. Where it makes sense to unify things, they are being unified. Where people disagree, they are free to do their own thing. This is what freedom means.
the kernel is the only completely consistent aspect
You're kidding, right? Linus killed off the idea of "stable" and "development" versions of Linux largely because hardly anyone was using the "stable" versions as-is anyway.
Some of our submodules are 20 times bigger than the Linux kernel and there is no way to subdivide them more than that.
But do they accept more changes than the Linux kernel does? Linus Torvalds's 2.6.28 tree alone (which goes back to 2.6.12-rc2, dated April 16, 2005) has 120035 commits. That doesn't include any branches that others have worked on.
when the developers you're working with have a hard time with anything not GUI-fied.
Um... You're telling me that you have "software developers" who can't understand something simple like controlling a program through the command line? Either those developers need more training or they are hopelessly incompetent and should be replaced ASAP.
If you can't grasp how to use a CLI after a few hours of training, then you aren't a developer, you're a clerk. And I know plenty of clerks who would have no trouble learning to use a CLI.
Has anyone ever tried to read or implement the OpenID spec? It's too complicated. The real problem with OpenID is that it's so complicated that it essentially requires a 3rd party library.
No kidding. The original OpenID 1.1 spec was okay, but the 2.x specs aren't even self-contained. It depends on Yadis, which depends on the idiotic XRI spec.
OpenID is a cryptographic "authentication" standard that doesn't provide strong cryptographic authentication (https:// URLs are claimed as a way to provide strong authentication, but the standards don't say which CA certificates to trust). It's both too vague and too complicated to provide any real security or interoperability benefit.
OpenID is fantastic example of how to build a thriving community around a broken, bloated standard that adds negative value.
I'm reasonably sure that these "nuclear batteries" will be safe so long as they're left alone.
What is feel is more important is the question of how much damage someone could do with one if they really tried.
Sure you can bury the thing in my back garden but what if I one day go mad and decide to attack it using a pneumatic drill? (Or whatever, pick your tool of choice)
What would happen if you one day went mad and decided to attack one of those rail cars labelled "ANHYDROUS AMMONIA" or "CHLORINE"?
You'd make a mess, and possibly kill a few people, but it wouldn't be the end of human civilization.
If we're stuck going nuclear, then it should be the exact opposite approach. Build a few huge breeder reactor complexes with integrated fuel processing on platforms in the middles of oceans, hundreds of miles from the nearest back yard. That way, if anything goes wrong, you don't kill real estate values for an entire small state for 50 years.
... and the economy takes a huge hit due to the massive shortage of electricity. I bet that would even affect real estate values.
Having an entire continent's electrical generation capacity concentrated in a small number of sites is terribly risky.
IIRC, the first three numbers could be anything, and the other 7 digits, when added together, had to add up to a multiple of 7. 123-0000007 also worked.
Well, that's because WGA actually tries to detect whether you're running a known-pirated copy of Windows. Wine doesn't fall into that category, so it's labelled "Genuine", which is Microsoft newspeak for "not copyright infringement".
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so now Joe can pick it up, put his name on it, and claim it has his completely legally?
Only as far as copyright law is concerned. Fraud is still illegal in many cases.
You expect a beta version for three platforms INSTEAD of someone using their head and putting together a beta for the most popular platform while they work out the kinks?
s/popular/quirky/
You have to develop for Windows not because it's popular, but because it's far easier to port from Windows to other platforms than vice versa. At least for some things. (Then again, not for others.)
A bit too well, perhaps. Better than natively, according to some benchmarks. :-/ (via the Linux Haters blog)
Yes (more info)
Senate nomination?
I cannot believe that a company with [Microsoft's] resources cannot come up with great new ideas in computing.
Microsoft employees come up with all sorts of new ideas, but the company they work for consistently fails to execute.
I sometimes wonder if it's because the smartest people (those who have the luxury of ethics) usually choose to work elsewhere, and if they don't, their brilliance is stifled by the fools around (and especially above) them.
I think Microsoft will make an intriguing case study for years to come.
So, if you think it's worth doing, make it happen. You have that freedom.
That's why I like free software. If others hate your idea, they can't stop you from pursuing it.
And that's part of the problem. Linus may be right that there are good reasons for multiple distros to exist. But that doesn't mean there are good reasons for them to store the same files in different locations.
There are, actually. As a Debian user, I'm very happy about how every package on my systems puts its stuff in the same places, regardless of what Red Hat or SuSE do. For example, Red Hat's /etc/sysconfig configuration mechanism is total crap, and I don't really care whether Red Hat users are confused by Debian's ifupdown system, because I'm not a Red Hat user. There are many examples of this kind of thing.
The truth is that each "distro" is actually its own distinct operating system that just happens to be almost, but not entirely compatible with many other similar systems. Where it makes sense to unify things, they are being unified. Where people disagree, they are free to do their own thing. This is what freedom means.
Yeah, AMD did when they bought ATI.
"Referer"
the kernel is the only completely consistent aspect
You're kidding, right? Linus killed off the idea of "stable" and "development" versions of Linux largely because hardly anyone was using the "stable" versions as-is anyway.
You can run GNU without running Linux (e.g. Debian GNU/kFreeBSD), and you can run Linux without GNU (mostly in embedded systems).
The term has legitimate uses, just like "i486-linux-gnu".
Some of our submodules are 20 times bigger than the Linux kernel and there is no way to subdivide them more than that.
But do they accept more changes than the Linux kernel does? Linus Torvalds's 2.6.28 tree alone (which goes back to 2.6.12-rc2, dated April 16, 2005) has 120035 commits. That doesn't include any branches that others have worked on.
when the developers you're working with have a hard time with anything not GUI-fied.
Um... You're telling me that you have "software developers" who can't understand something simple like controlling a program through the command line? Either those developers need more training or they are hopelessly incompetent and should be replaced ASAP.
If you can't grasp how to use a CLI after a few hours of training, then you aren't a developer, you're a clerk. And I know plenty of clerks who would have no trouble learning to use a CLI.
Sure, you have to be comfortable with the command line ...
If you steadfastly refuse to learn how to use the command line, you should not be writing software. The world would be better off without you.
Laziness is not a virtue, even if you're a programmer.
Most of those cultures prefer to be left-alone.
A schoolyard bully prefers to be left alone too.
"If it seems too easy, you're probably doing it wrong."
Heh. Sounds like doing PHP development.
Has anyone ever tried to read or implement the OpenID spec? It's too complicated. The real problem with OpenID is that it's so complicated that it essentially requires a 3rd party library.
No kidding. The original OpenID 1.1 spec was okay, but the 2.x specs aren't even self-contained. It depends on Yadis, which depends on the idiotic XRI spec.
OpenID is a cryptographic "authentication" standard that doesn't provide strong cryptographic authentication (https:// URLs are claimed as a way to provide strong authentication, but the standards don't say which CA certificates to trust). It's both too vague and too complicated to provide any real security or interoperability benefit.
OpenID is fantastic example of how to build a thriving community around a broken, bloated standard that adds negative value.
Good riddance.
Could you point out exactly where in my post I said that the amount of electricity generated should be less than what's needed?
I think you misunderstand me. Let me try again:
That way, if anything goes wrong, you don't kill real estate values for an entire small state for 50 years.
... and the economy takes a huge hit due to the massive shortage of electricity. I bet that would even affect real estate values.
The point is that if you're concerned about deliberate attacks, putting all your eggs into one basket is not necessarily the best countermeasure.
I'm reasonably sure that these "nuclear batteries" will be safe so long as they're left alone.
What is feel is more important is the question of how much damage someone could do with one if they really tried.
Sure you can bury the thing in my back garden but what if I one day go mad and decide to attack it using a pneumatic drill? (Or whatever, pick your tool of choice)
What would happen if you one day went mad and decided to attack one of those rail cars labelled "ANHYDROUS AMMONIA" or "CHLORINE"?
You'd make a mess, and possibly kill a few people, but it wouldn't be the end of human civilization.
If we're stuck going nuclear, then it should be the exact opposite approach. Build a few huge breeder reactor complexes with integrated fuel processing on platforms in the middles of oceans, hundreds of miles from the nearest back yard. That way, if anything goes wrong, you don't kill real estate values for an entire small state for 50 years.
... and the economy takes a huge hit due to the massive shortage of electricity. I bet that would even affect real estate values.
Having an entire continent's electrical generation capacity concentrated in a small number of sites is terribly risky.
IIRC, the first three numbers could be anything, and the other 7 digits, when added together, had to add up to a multiple of 7. 123-0000007 also worked.
And Microsoft reserves the right to alter how you are allowed to use your product at any time.
Fixed that for you.
Half of the problem is that people are willing to tolerate the notion that it's Microsoft's product even after they purchase it.
Well, that's because WGA actually tries to detect whether you're running a known-pirated copy of Windows. Wine doesn't fall into that category, so it's labelled "Genuine", which is Microsoft newspeak for "not copyright infringement".
Seriously, enough already. You guys who "warn" us about twitter have been at it almost as long as twitter has. What does that say about you?