Please keep in mind that IE6 and IE7 were also both standards compliant... In case you hadn't guessed, my statement was sarcasm based off MS's claims (that they would be) before the release of each of those browsers... we see how they turned out - better (which isnt tough) but not standards compliant as promised.
Also please keep in mind, making a browser pass the Acid 2 test doesnt mean anything. I am sure MS is well aware that many places and people will test IE with that and jump to the conclusion that the browser is standards compliant - when in reality, MS may just have made sure that the browser can do what it needs to in order to pass that one set of tests (and not yet dealt with dozens of the other standards related issues).
Do I think MS will live up to their promise this time? Heck, on a personal level I really don't care. I dont use it for personal surfing.
On a professional level? Yeah I hope so (it would be nice not to have to create sites for (a) The Internet and (b) The IE-Net), but am not holding my breath - I've learned from past experience...
This is misleading.
75% to 80% of PHP users were developing on Windows workstations.
And how many of these applications are being deployed on Windows? Probably not that many. Windows isn't a great server operating system.
Not just that, but too many developers need to at least do a portion of their work on a Windows machine (virtual or "real"), simply because no matter how compatible the stuff the server sends, IE displays things just a little different (depending on version, sub-version, fonts installed, how IE decides it wants to handle font request, day of the week...). I run a Windows box (well, two if you count the virtual session on my non-Windows machine)... I don't do my development on it - but I do use it regularly to test what sites I work on.
For some it might be easier to just do all the work on the Windows box and upload/save the running/test copy on the *nix server - for me, I'd rather use Windows as little as possible - too much of a headache, especially since the other half of my job is computer "repairs" [inotherwords: 80% fixing Windows issues or removing viruses/spyware - 20% turns out to be hardware (if that much)]. So, after half day or more of dealing with our customer's Windows quirks/issues/deficiencies (when compared to any other OS - sans apps), I prefer to use it as little as possible. No, this section isn't a rant about Windows... just my preference. The other OS's I use arent perfect either, but they are a lot easier to fix if something does go wrong, and dont require that nightly (my peak working hours - like many "computer nerds") virus/spyware scan that drags the machine to a crawl.
Also, I'd think it logical (since so many companies think they need Windows workstations) that many companies, even with Linux servers, have Windows clients on the people's machines. And of course, as someone else mentioned, many people like doing parts of their development using tools such as Dreamweaver, most of which come only for Windows.
Rob
Re:No? There are commercial applications...
on
Open US GPS Data?
·
· Score: 1
Well, the zip code info is in the TigerLine data... cross reference the "Record Type Z" TLIDs with the shapes files. As for the rest of the zip code info (city, state, county, population, housing density, centerpoint long and lat, income, etc) that can be gotten from a variety of sources for free. The Census Bureau has much of it. All those files are free as well.
Someplace I have the links to it all if you need them... and someplace on my server I have all the data (which right now is being used by a simple web interface to display longitude and latitude centerpoints if one enters a city, state and zip or simply enters a zip code - if you enter a street address, it returns the longitude and latitude of that - or an error if the address doesnt exist in the database or cant be interpolated).
and the data supporting your statements are where?
To support which part of it? That people's concern over plant emissions can be targetted to known issues in that respect such as the toxic byproducts they introduce into the atmosphere?
That since there is an endless debate whether we are causing global warming or not, why not realize that the other concerns (increased CO, CO2, sulfur emissions) are still an issue. That they are still an issue even if global warming is just a fantasy?
What data do you want to support things I am sure you know? Burning oil or coal releases CO, and a bunch of other pollutants into the atmosphere - as well as of course CO2 - which the SMART thing to do (regardless of the validity of global warming) is to try to live in balance with the way the earth was before industry grew to the point it is at now.
Do you really want data that says breathing CO or sulfur emissions or such is harmful and a bad thing? Do you really want data saying that burning coal or oil produces such emissions? Give me a break.
Well, I did mean CO emissions... but should have put both. Burning coal produces a lot of emissions - including carbon monoxide. Oil refineries produce CO emissions as well... and I am guessing so does burning oil.
Either way though (whichever bad emission anyone wants to consider), I think my post relevant. But specifically, I was refering to non-global-warming reasons why such issues are still just as important... people need to consider the long term effects (and China has proven not dealing with such issues can make them... real issues in the very short term).
Again though, I am talking about other reasons why resolving the issues "the Alaskans" are complaining about are beneficial, and thus trying to say, that while this argument and suit are based off "global warming impact" there are just as viable alternative reasons why it is equally important to be dealt with - and if this pressure results in cleaner plants and refineries, then it's definitely a good thing for the environment - which possibly will positively effect global warming (assuming we actually contribute to such a thing).
The simple facts that elude everyone on each side of this argument (regardless of which side is correct) are:
As a species, we should be trying to make our technology be as harmonious with nature (and it's built in checks and balances) as possible to avoid creating these or similar issues (thus, drastically or even not so drastically but still noticeably changing the composition of our atmosphere is "probably" not a good idea).
Humans live better, longer and with less health issues when breathing a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere - unpolluted with CO emissions and such other byproducts (regardless of which are possible causes of global warming)
While trees may thrive in an atmosphere with higher CO2 levels, humans don't. And with the amount of deforestation we do, increasing CO2 levels for the sake of plants is not the solution... keeping them at a balanced level to support animal and plant life would be far more wiser (in conjunction with proper care of our plant kingdon).
It does baffle me that instead of looking at the other valid reasons (and I listed only a few that quickly came to mind) people dismiss this "issue" because it is possibly targeting the wrong problem created by the issue. Lowering emissions is still just as relevant simply to maintain a clean, properly balanced atmosphere... anyone remember SanFran a few decades ago? It is obvious we can make a difference in our environment - negative or positive - but it is up to us to choose - and pretending CO2 and CO emissions aren't a problem simply because they may not cause global warming; when we know they do cause various other health and environmental problems is not the step in the right direction.
For something such as that, where you dont need to "swipe-scan" items on a flat scanning table, the easiest way is using a PS/2 keyboard and a PS/2 "wedge" barcode scanner... the scanner gets plugged into the keyboard port, the keyboard into a cable off the scanner... done deal. The scanner works just like a keyboard (though some come with programmable variants to how they act, such as [CR] after scan, [TAB] after scan, etc).
How many did not feel frustrated remembering an old computer could do things a Windows one could not? How many didn't feel restrained by having a tumor-growth-like GUI posing as OS?
Me. Still today. I still have an OS/2 network in our office - but administer Windows 2003 Servers for clients. With OS/2 Warp Server for e-Business (and earlier versions), network management is simple drag-n-drop. Create a share, drag it on a user or group. Drag a user onto a group. Drag a directory onto a user. Drag an application onto a group. Drag a resource onto a different server. Drag a server into a domain.
WinServer2003, it's dialog box after dialog box after tab after tab - and numerous "Apply" or "OK" or "you must close this resource and re-open it before continuing" and on and on.
8 Years later and it still is a nightmare to administer Windows (in comparison)
When working at CompUSA, it was Symantec, McAfee (and others) who told us they were not given the info they needed to release the update in time - yet oddly, MS's AV and AntiSpyware team had the info in plenty of time.
I'm not debating or debasing MSs reasons, just their methods in providing competition with the info needed in time to be ready in a less costly manner. Read through the DOJ anti-trust case, as well as the EU complaints against MS, and you will see there is a pattern of such.
I'm all for whatever changes MS makes to improve Windows (security, performance, etc)... but I am totally against their repeated use of such reasons as excuses to lock out competition by not providing them the info they need in a timely fashion.
All the vendors mentioned (ironically, with the exception of Novell) already have fixes/workarounds either ready or in progress.
I kind of doubt there are any antitrust implications when MS contacts the affected vendors in advance. TFA even notes that "this step was taken with the consent of the affected vendors."
So, you see no antitrust implications when the vendors already had to modify code just to get it to work on Vista's initial release (with much of the pertinent data not being given to them till the last minute, meaning no time to update CDs... like Symantec who had to put files online for tech shops and customers to download while they changed their RTMs to match due to lack of time), followed by a SP that disables their software - yet again - leaving only MS as the working alternative, with again too little time to have updates available to end users except for too late after the fact?
That to me smells of anti-trust. As for "this step was taken with the consent of the affected vendors." - what consent does it imply? "We're changing things... too bad... you have to modify your code again if you want it to work - it's either that, or your product wont run on Vista SP1. OK?" - "Uh... OK... since our choices are (a) it wont work and we lose our customer base or (b) we modify the code."
If you call that consent... c'mon. It's like a thief with a gun telling you "I'll shoot you if you don't give me all the money in your pockets... but I'd settle for half of it and just beat you up a bit... do you consent to me just beating you up a bit for half the money in your pockets?" - "Ummm... sure" - the only things they consented to was being stuck without any choice requiring them update their software - or it wouldnt work. Consent != extortion... and this borders on extortion.
Your question and others' are great - but I am not sure why people haven't sued the manufacturers for both the wasted ink/toner AND the privacy issues...
It might not seem like a lot of toner or ink, but it does add up... looking at the horrendously high color page count on my color laser would indicate I should be owed something back from them - both for toner and for invasion of my privacy without my consent...
As for your question, I am curious just how much of it is in hardware... I think your question should have been given more thought from this snippet in the summary:
In short, most color printers print small yellow dots on every sheet in a code that identifies the printer and, potentially, its owner.
If the part I bolded is potentially accurate, that would mean that some software level work is being done as well... I really don't care if my printer puts yellow dots saying its a __________ (well other than toner wastage)... but it shouldn't be printing what it thinks my name is.
Perhaps they are marching at the wrong place, start having a huge protest right in front of fox/abc/cnn...news stations...let them ignore THAT!
Hmmmmm... I didnt know that FOX, ABC or CNN had news stations... I know for a fact that FOX doesn't. Though FOX does have a pretty funny Comedy Channel with such talented comedians as O'Reilly, Hannity, Colmes and Cavuto...
I guess since some people out there may think it's news, your plan does have merit.
...heck, I've even formatted and reinstalled windows in the past. But install something by hand? Text mode? Now my eyes are glazing over.
I agree with your sentiments... but taking things one step further, most Windows users who have "even formatted and reinstalled windows" simply do that by sticking in the restore disk - which in most cases does both of those with the user having to do nothing other than selecting "I agree" -> (will erase all data, continue?) "Yes" -> (insert Disk 2 of 1978438) "Next"... and so on.
But that too is an issue that a pre-installed Linux would deal with... having a restore disk/image would be probably a lot simpler. Your sentiments are valid - as things stand - but as Linux comes preinstalled on more machines, it wont matter... any user will be able to "format and reinstall" their copy of Linux in just as easy as a fashion as any Windows user... and in all probability, unlike most Windows restore sets, without wiping all their existing data or making all their existing programs cease working until they are reinstalled.
In the long run, I see this as a much easier experience for the pre-installed Linux user... it's only an issue now because there aren't enough pre-installed Linux machines - yet.
I'm not sure whether you people with mod points should mod this guy +1 Funny, +1 Insightful, +1 Informative or what, but someone should mod him +1 Something...
How do the film studios avoid being held liable for failing to perform due diligence? In other words, if New Line Catering Service charges a bazillion dollars to deliver food to the set, isn't it negligent for New Line to hire them at such exorbitant rates? Shouldn't New Line have an obligation to look out for the interests of all the stakeholders?
By stakeholder, do you mean shareholder? If so, then by doing this, they are... since the money going to the subsidiaries goes back up the line to New Line, then the shareholders, who own it all, by owning the parent company, see the money - it just isnt coming from New Line's (the parent) profit off the movie - but instead coming from the subsidiaries' profit from the parent having certain elements of the production, marketing, distribution, etc... Basically, if New Line owns the subsidiaries, New Line's profits havent changed - they are just being allocated differently.
Like the DVD example... if New Line (parent) sells the DVD rights to New Line Home DVD for.50, then New Line (parent) sees pretty much nothing for it THERE, but New Line Home DVD then sells the movie at lets say $25 (assume that is the going rate)... New Line still is getting $25 net - but it's through their subsidiary. So, the parent company shows no direct earnings for the DVDs and shows tremendous earnings from it's Home DVD division.
As I said, their implementations are very different, but they accomplish mostly the same goals. Sure, SOM has inheritance and runtime dispatch, but COM can simulate inheritance with aggregation. The only limitaiton is that you can't superclass in COM (as I said, subclassing can be simulated with aggregation).
You're confusing features, with purpose. They have the same purpose, they just go about it with different feature sets.
Ah... I see what you are trying to say. I guess I am just looking at it differently.
(As an example) If I wanted to replace any part of the (OS/2 or eComStation) GUI, I could... if I wanted to "replace" the whole thing, while still leaving every other method in place for programs that relied on it, I could, by simply superclassing the classes I needed - while everything lower in the class tree would inherit the features, and my classes could pass anything "standard" to the original classes to handle. To me, those are features - as they were considered in the design as features of the implementation... I guess that's why I'm looking at the two's features differently.
So, in the sense that both COM and SOM are the transport layers of the technology, they are roughly equal, even if their implementations are very different.
Please read this... it'll explain a lot about how unequal they are both in capabilities and in design...
Unfortunately, many of the key points require an understanding of how they can be used... but I think some of the "Related Links" explain it if you are interested...
I think your point may have been valid then - when many people weren't online... but today, a quick search of Google solves all that - and is at the user's option - not MS's or any other company. And I'd think that anyone using any piece of mainstream software also realizes there are alternatives, so nowadays, it's also not like a person wouldn't think to look for something else if they dont like what they are using. In addition, with numerous plug-in based programs today, it also is likely many more people would think to look for needed plugins on their own than in 1997
Your point was quite good, but nowadays, if I want relevant advertising, I'll do a Google Search and read the ads and the search results.
You are of course also right in that MS isnt the only one playing this game... but this is Slashdot... so they do make the biggest waves for such behavior (at least here). Though, with their recent advertising and (definitely) spyware patents, and their plans as outlined in them to tie them into every MS product, I guess it is more important as related to MS products than it is to other companies' products.
Oops... sorry, I misread the intent of your post... my apologies.
And I dont know why the Linux community hasnt put more effort into this either... though I can speculate (and my speculation would make the release of SOM/DSOM somewhat useless)... it could be because to use it in such things as the GUI - or applications - would require rewriting all or parts of said components.
That's probably the same reason why MS didnt do something of that nature as well... easier to simply continue with a few more add-ons as needed than re-invent the whole system to be more object oriented in a similar fashion to SOM/DSOM. I especially can't fault MS for that choice... there are too many things that require their current method that would be broken unless they figured out how to implement it (COM+, etc) into their new object based subsystem. There are probably more important things for them to worry about.
Smalltalk / Squeak has been doing something similar for years. Anything in the system can message anything else. System components / GUI elements can be freely inspected, subclassed, modified - and all on the fly while the system is running. Of course, this means that all source is very literally open (other than virtual machine primitives).
That's very interesting... can you superclass the stuff as well? And does it work with a GUI, thus making everything on the GUI an object (that can be both subclassed and superclassed)? And are objects created using it interoperable with other objects? And are you limited to using SmallTalk, or can you use any almost language with the relevant code to do all the above? Does it support full inheritance? Are the resulting DLLs as small - and as fast?
Not picking on your statement... I have a copy of SmallTalk (someplace) - but never installed it, much less looked into it's capabilities... so your answer, whatever it is, will be a (welcomed) learning experience for me. And perhaps I need to dig out my copy of SmallTalk and play with it...
I can't help but feel that that's just stupid. At least they have tried to do something, even if their solution has shortcomings.
People should stop with this whole MS = evil, Linux = good crap. Software platforms should be rated on merit and unless the Linux community comes up with a good solution in this particular case the should probably turn it down a notch or two with their criticisms already..
I never implied any such thing. SOM/DSOM is still superior to COM/COM+ or any related technology that MS has planned (that isnt vaporware). The merits (or lack thereof, depending on your point of view) of MS's business practices has nothing to do with that comparison.
COM and all it's later incarnations, quite simply, are kludges in comparison - that has nothing to do with whether MS is evil or not. And, if you actually bothered to read my post instead of taking snippets of it and misconstruing them, you would have seen I also indicated that as of yet, the Linux distros dont have anything as powerful yet either.
As a simple example, when the WPS came out (till recently) it could only display icons using the OS/2.ico format, at up to 40x40 pixels, had three (standard) folder views; Icon, Tree, Details (and some specialized ones like "LightTable"). Since then, with well under a meg of code, the WPS has been superclassed to enable use of PNG icons (and Cairo) with transparencies at virtually any size, including individual sizes per object (icon, for those of you who don't understand that an icon in OS/2 is really an object reference) (no set size - pick what you want for whichever object), active widgets with transparencies (not pretend to be active widgets), various new folder views and additions to older ones (from toolbars, search panes, status/info windows), tool-tip help pop-ups, media folders (that dont use more than a few bytes of resources to show or play media), object preview windows/panes, extensible (in and out of folder) toolbars... and the list goes on - and on and on... but that's enough to start.
How many updates to SOM/DSOM were required? None.
Why your post was not modded "Troll", I dont know... especially since you are the one trying to turn a legitimate discussion into a "MS is evil" - "MS isnt evil" - "you only say that because you think MS is evil" conversation, when that wasn't the point of it at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Please keep in mind that IE6 and IE7 were also both standards compliant... In case you hadn't guessed, my statement was sarcasm based off MS's claims (that they would be) before the release of each of those browsers... we see how they turned out - better (which isnt tough) but not standards compliant as promised.
Also please keep in mind, making a browser pass the Acid 2 test doesnt mean anything. I am sure MS is well aware that many places and people will test IE with that and jump to the conclusion that the browser is standards compliant - when in reality, MS may just have made sure that the browser can do what it needs to in order to pass that one set of tests (and not yet dealt with dozens of the other standards related issues).
Do I think MS will live up to their promise this time? Heck, on a personal level I really don't care. I dont use it for personal surfing.
On a professional level? Yeah I hope so (it would be nice not to have to create sites for (a) The Internet and (b) The IE-Net), but am not holding my breath - I've learned from past experience...
I am fervently hoping though....
And how many of these applications are being deployed on Windows? Probably not that many. Windows isn't a great server operating system.
Not just that, but too many developers need to at least do a portion of their work on a Windows machine (virtual or "real"), simply because no matter how compatible the stuff the server sends, IE displays things just a little different (depending on version, sub-version, fonts installed, how IE decides it wants to handle font request, day of the week...). I run a Windows box (well, two if you count the virtual session on my non-Windows machine)... I don't do my development on it - but I do use it regularly to test what sites I work on.
For some it might be easier to just do all the work on the Windows box and upload/save the running/test copy on the *nix server - for me, I'd rather use Windows as little as possible - too much of a headache, especially since the other half of my job is computer "repairs" [inotherwords: 80% fixing Windows issues or removing viruses/spyware - 20% turns out to be hardware (if that much)]. So, after half day or more of dealing with our customer's Windows quirks/issues/deficiencies (when compared to any other OS - sans apps), I prefer to use it as little as possible. No, this section isn't a rant about Windows... just my preference. The other OS's I use arent perfect either, but they are a lot easier to fix if something does go wrong, and dont require that nightly (my peak working hours - like many "computer nerds") virus/spyware scan that drags the machine to a crawl.
Also, I'd think it logical (since so many companies think they need Windows workstations) that many companies, even with Linux servers, have Windows clients on the people's machines. And of course, as someone else mentioned, many people like doing parts of their development using tools such as Dreamweaver, most of which come only for Windows.
Rob
Well, the zip code info is in the TigerLine data... cross reference the "Record Type Z" TLIDs with the shapes files. As for the rest of the zip code info (city, state, county, population, housing density, centerpoint long and lat, income, etc) that can be gotten from a variety of sources for free. The Census Bureau has much of it. All those files are free as well.
Someplace I have the links to it all if you need them... and someplace on my server I have all the data (which right now is being used by a simple web interface to display longitude and latitude centerpoints if one enters a city, state and zip or simply enters a zip code - if you enter a street address, it returns the longitude and latitude of that - or an error if the address doesnt exist in the database or cant be interpolated).
http://www.geocodeengine.com/
To support which part of it? That people's concern over plant emissions can be targetted to known issues in that respect such as the toxic byproducts they introduce into the atmosphere?
That since there is an endless debate whether we are causing global warming or not, why not realize that the other concerns (increased CO, CO2, sulfur emissions) are still an issue. That they are still an issue even if global warming is just a fantasy?
What data do you want to support things I am sure you know? Burning oil or coal releases CO, and a bunch of other pollutants into the atmosphere - as well as of course CO2 - which the SMART thing to do (regardless of the validity of global warming) is to try to live in balance with the way the earth was before industry grew to the point it is at now.
Do you really want data that says breathing CO or sulfur emissions or such is harmful and a bad thing? Do you really want data saying that burning coal or oil produces such emissions? Give me a break.
Well, I did mean CO emissions... but should have put both. Burning coal produces a lot of emissions - including carbon monoxide. Oil refineries produce CO emissions as well... and I am guessing so does burning oil.
A couple links:
http://www.carbon-monoxide-poisoning.com/co-emissions.html
http://www.smfrancis.demon.co.uk/airwolvs/22emit.html
Either way though (whichever bad emission anyone wants to consider), I think my post relevant. But specifically, I was refering to non-global-warming reasons why such issues are still just as important... people need to consider the long term effects (and China has proven not dealing with such issues can make them... real issues in the very short term).
Again though, I am talking about other reasons why resolving the issues "the Alaskans" are complaining about are beneficial, and thus trying to say, that while this argument and suit are based off "global warming impact" there are just as viable alternative reasons why it is equally important to be dealt with - and if this pressure results in cleaner plants and refineries, then it's definitely a good thing for the environment - which possibly will positively effect global warming (assuming we actually contribute to such a thing).
The simple facts that elude everyone on each side of this argument (regardless of which side is correct) are:
It does baffle me that instead of looking at the other valid reasons (and I listed only a few that quickly came to mind) people dismiss this "issue" because it is possibly targeting the wrong problem created by the issue. Lowering emissions is still just as relevant simply to maintain a clean, properly balanced atmosphere... anyone remember SanFran a few decades ago? It is obvious we can make a difference in our environment - negative or positive - but it is up to us to choose - and pretending CO2 and CO emissions aren't a problem simply because they may not cause global warming; when we know they do cause various other health and environmental problems is not the step in the right direction.
For something such as that, where you dont need to "swipe-scan" items on a flat scanning table, the easiest way is using a PS/2 keyboard and a PS/2 "wedge" barcode scanner... the scanner gets plugged into the keyboard port, the keyboard into a cable off the scanner... done deal. The scanner works just like a keyboard (though some come with programmable variants to how they act, such as [CR] after scan, [TAB] after scan, etc).
Me. Still today. I still have an OS/2 network in our office - but administer Windows 2003 Servers for clients. With OS/2 Warp Server for e-Business (and earlier versions), network management is simple drag-n-drop. Create a share, drag it on a user or group. Drag a user onto a group. Drag a directory onto a user. Drag an application onto a group. Drag a resource onto a different server. Drag a server into a domain.
WinServer2003, it's dialog box after dialog box after tab after tab - and numerous "Apply" or "OK" or "you must close this resource and re-open it before continuing" and on and on.
8 Years later and it still is a nightmare to administer Windows (in comparison)
Oh well...
DECADES of previous track record, including the findings lately in the DOJ case and in the EU case are hardly "purely speculation"
Yes, it doesnt affect ALL AV software... but it does affect their biggest competitors.
No... you are reading into my post.
When working at CompUSA, it was Symantec, McAfee (and others) who told us they were not given the info they needed to release the update in time - yet oddly, MS's AV and AntiSpyware team had the info in plenty of time.
I'm not debating or debasing MSs reasons, just their methods in providing competition with the info needed in time to be ready in a less costly manner. Read through the DOJ anti-trust case, as well as the EU complaints against MS, and you will see there is a pattern of such.
I'm all for whatever changes MS makes to improve Windows (security, performance, etc)... but I am totally against their repeated use of such reasons as excuses to lock out competition by not providing them the info they need in a timely fashion.
I know this is /., but please RTFA.
All the vendors mentioned (ironically, with the exception of Novell) already have fixes/workarounds either ready or in progress.
I kind of doubt there are any antitrust implications when MS contacts the affected vendors in advance. TFA even notes that "this step was taken with the consent of the affected vendors."
So, you see no antitrust implications when the vendors already had to modify code just to get it to work on Vista's initial release (with much of the pertinent data not being given to them till the last minute, meaning no time to update CDs... like Symantec who had to put files online for tech shops and customers to download while they changed their RTMs to match due to lack of time), followed by a SP that disables their software - yet again - leaving only MS as the working alternative, with again too little time to have updates available to end users except for too late after the fact?
That to me smells of anti-trust. As for "this step was taken with the consent of the affected vendors." - what consent does it imply? "We're changing things... too bad... you have to modify your code again if you want it to work - it's either that, or your product wont run on Vista SP1. OK?" - "Uh... OK... since our choices are (a) it wont work and we lose our customer base or (b) we modify the code."
If you call that consent... c'mon. It's like a thief with a gun telling you "I'll shoot you if you don't give me all the money in your pockets... but I'd settle for half of it and just beat you up a bit... do you consent to me just beating you up a bit for half the money in your pockets?" - "Ummm... sure" - the only things they consented to was being stuck without any choice requiring them update their software - or it wouldnt work. Consent != extortion... and this borders on extortion.
Hey Seth,
Your question and others' are great - but I am not sure why people haven't sued the manufacturers for both the wasted ink/toner AND the privacy issues...
It might not seem like a lot of toner or ink, but it does add up... looking at the horrendously high color page count on my color laser would indicate I should be owed something back from them - both for toner and for invasion of my privacy without my consent...
As for your question, I am curious just how much of it is in hardware... I think your question should have been given more thought from this snippet in the summary:
In short, most color printers print small yellow dots on every sheet in a code that identifies the printer and, potentially, its owner.If the part I bolded is potentially accurate, that would mean that some software level work is being done as well... I really don't care if my printer puts yellow dots saying its a __________ (well other than toner wastage)... but it shouldn't be printing what it thinks my name is.
Hmmmmm... I didnt know that FOX, ABC or CNN had news stations... I know for a fact that FOX doesn't. Though FOX does have a pretty funny Comedy Channel with such talented comedians as O'Reilly, Hannity, Colmes and Cavuto...
I guess since some people out there may think it's news, your plan does have merit.
:-P
...heck, I've even formatted and reinstalled windows in the past. But install something by hand? Text mode? Now my eyes are glazing over.I agree with your sentiments... but taking things one step further, most Windows users who have "even formatted and reinstalled windows" simply do that by sticking in the restore disk - which in most cases does both of those with the user having to do nothing other than selecting "I agree" -> (will erase all data, continue?) "Yes" -> (insert Disk 2 of 1978438) "Next"... and so on.
But that too is an issue that a pre-installed Linux would deal with... having a restore disk/image would be probably a lot simpler. Your sentiments are valid - as things stand - but as Linux comes preinstalled on more machines, it wont matter... any user will be able to "format and reinstall" their copy of Linux in just as easy as a fashion as any Windows user... and in all probability, unlike most Windows restore sets, without wiping all their existing data or making all their existing programs cease working until they are reinstalled.
In the long run, I see this as a much easier experience for the pre-installed Linux user... it's only an issue now because there aren't enough pre-installed Linux machines - yet.
I'm not sure whether you people with mod points should mod this guy +1 Funny, +1 Insightful, +1 Informative or what, but someone should mod him +1 Something...
:-)
By stakeholder, do you mean shareholder? If so, then by doing this, they are... since the money going to the subsidiaries goes back up the line to New Line, then the shareholders, who own it all, by owning the parent company, see the money - it just isnt coming from New Line's (the parent) profit off the movie - but instead coming from the subsidiaries' profit from the parent having certain elements of the production, marketing, distribution, etc... Basically, if New Line owns the subsidiaries, New Line's profits havent changed - they are just being allocated differently.
Like the DVD example... if New Line (parent) sells the DVD rights to New Line Home DVD for .50, then New Line (parent) sees pretty much nothing for it THERE, but New Line Home DVD then sells the movie at lets say $25 (assume that is the going rate)... New Line still is getting $25 net - but it's through their subsidiary. So, the parent company shows no direct earnings for the DVDs and shows tremendous earnings from it's Home DVD division.
You're confusing features, with purpose. They have the same purpose, they just go about it with different feature sets.
Ah... I see what you are trying to say. I guess I am just looking at it differently.
(As an example) If I wanted to replace any part of the (OS/2 or eComStation) GUI, I could... if I wanted to "replace" the whole thing, while still leaving every other method in place for programs that relied on it, I could, by simply superclassing the classes I needed - while everything lower in the class tree would inherit the features, and my classes could pass anything "standard" to the original classes to handle. To me, those are features - as they were considered in the design as features of the implementation... I guess that's why I'm looking at the two's features differently.
:-)
Please read this... it'll explain a lot about how unequal they are both in capabilities and in design...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System_Object_Model
Unfortunately, many of the key points require an understanding of how they can be used... but I think some of the "Related Links" explain it if you are interested...
Sadly, I dont think that policy has been tested in other states (where the policy is not legal)... I wonder if this will prompt such a (legal) test.
I think your point may have been valid then - when many people weren't online... but today, a quick search of Google solves all that - and is at the user's option - not MS's or any other company. And I'd think that anyone using any piece of mainstream software also realizes there are alternatives, so nowadays, it's also not like a person wouldn't think to look for something else if they dont like what they are using. In addition, with numerous plug-in based programs today, it also is likely many more people would think to look for needed plugins on their own than in 1997
Your point was quite good, but nowadays, if I want relevant advertising, I'll do a Google Search and read the ads and the search results.
You are of course also right in that MS isnt the only one playing this game... but this is Slashdot... so they do make the biggest waves for such behavior (at least here). Though, with their recent advertising and (definitely) spyware patents, and their plans as outlined in them to tie them into every MS product, I guess it is more important as related to MS products than it is to other companies' products.
You are probably very correct!!! :-)
Robert
Oops... sorry, I misread the intent of your post... my apologies.
And I dont know why the Linux community hasnt put more effort into this either... though I can speculate (and my speculation would make the release of SOM/DSOM somewhat useless)... it could be because to use it in such things as the GUI - or applications - would require rewriting all or parts of said components.
That's probably the same reason why MS didnt do something of that nature as well... easier to simply continue with a few more add-ons as needed than re-invent the whole system to be more object oriented in a similar fashion to SOM/DSOM. I especially can't fault MS for that choice... there are too many things that require their current method that would be broken unless they figured out how to implement it (COM+, etc) into their new object based subsystem. There are probably more important things for them to worry about.
Robert
That's very interesting... can you superclass the stuff as well? And does it work with a GUI, thus making everything on the GUI an object (that can be both subclassed and superclassed)? And are objects created using it interoperable with other objects? And are you limited to using SmallTalk, or can you use any almost language with the relevant code to do all the above? Does it support full inheritance? Are the resulting DLLs as small - and as fast?
Not picking on your statement... I have a copy of SmallTalk (someplace) - but never installed it, much less looked into it's capabilities... so your answer, whatever it is, will be a (welcomed) learning experience for me. And perhaps I need to dig out my copy of SmallTalk and play with it...
Thanks,
Rob
Ooops... sorry for the all bold... not intentional...
People should stop with this whole MS = evil, Linux = good crap. Software platforms should be rated on merit and unless the Linux community comes up with a good solution in this particular case the should probably turn it down a notch or two with their criticisms already..
I never implied any such thing. SOM/DSOM is still superior to COM/COM+ or any related technology that MS has planned (that isnt vaporware). The merits (or lack thereof, depending on your point of view) of MS's business practices has nothing to do with that comparison.
COM and all it's later incarnations, quite simply, are kludges in comparison - that has nothing to do with whether MS is evil or not. And, if you actually bothered to read my post instead of taking snippets of it and misconstruing them, you would have seen I also indicated that as of yet, the Linux distros dont have anything as powerful yet either.
As a simple example, when the WPS came out (till recently) it could only display icons using the OS/2 .ico format, at up to 40x40 pixels, had three (standard) folder views; Icon, Tree, Details (and some specialized ones like "LightTable"). Since then, with well under a meg of code, the WPS has been superclassed to enable use of PNG icons (and Cairo) with transparencies at virtually any size, including individual sizes per object (icon, for those of you who don't understand that an icon in OS/2 is really an object reference) (no set size - pick what you want for whichever object), active widgets with transparencies (not pretend to be active widgets), various new folder views and additions to older ones (from toolbars, search panes, status/info windows), tool-tip help pop-ups, media folders (that dont use more than a few bytes of resources to show or play media), object preview windows/panes, extensible (in and out of folder) toolbars... and the list goes on - and on and on... but that's enough to start.
How many updates to SOM/DSOM were required? None.
Why your post was not modded "Troll", I dont know... especially since you are the one trying to turn a legitimate discussion into a "MS is evil" - "MS isnt evil" - "you only say that because you think MS is evil" conversation, when that wasn't the point of it at all.