Com'on people. He's just a senile, clueless old man. He doesn't have his facts straight, he's not able to differentiate fiction from reality, he has no clue what's going on.
Oh. Wait, what? He's in charge of the MPAA? HE is the person making the final decisions?
"Well: I think Windows sucks. It does. I'm not joking either. Of course it's much prettier than Unix. But it sucks nonetheless. I'm serious (take my word for it!). It's nowhere near being worthey of the adjective 'good.'... blah blah blah."
(point: speaking from emotion only wastes peoples time)
What Unix does do, which Windows can't, is provide a _stable_ and _open_ basis to further develop the Net upon. That is where the internet originated from. As soon Commercialism (Windows et all) was added, it became about "beauty" and "money", stability, and innovation set aside. Commercialism doesn't care about furthering the Net, it's simply a race to see who can get richest the fastest. Unix isn't about that. And that is why I think the Net would benifit from moving back to the traditional "unix mentality".
Who ever said anything about/discriminating/ agains non-Unix users? Who ever said anything about the web being optimized/dependant on ELF binaries? The origional post sure didn't. I infact don't think you could be more off. It's not a battle against OS's (and your/opinions/ about them), it's about which is able to benefit the Net as a whole the most.
Actually, there was one just recently in which a handfull of kids were able to type "key" "words" into a "search" "engine", and get their hands on "pornography". The best part of all, all three or four of them were able to do it through AOL! I was pretty impressed to say the least.
Although it's right of her to offer money for compensation, my (personal) opinion is that we shouldn't accept it. We contribute to slashdot cause that's what we do, not because we get paid. I think we should apply this to this situation and happily thank jane for the offer, but smile and say no thanks.
If this becomes a regular thing, which I'm all for, and as some are suggestiong, this does bring up a different issue. That can be addressed later though.
The government only exists because we let it. If it abuses it's powers, the people can simply replace it. No one can touch microsoft. If linux and the idea of free-software had not come around recenlty, there would be/no/ competition, and no/chance/ for competition; MS simply waves it wand of corruption,eliminates what it doesn't like, and feeds us what we need in favor of their wealth.
Now that we have SPARK of hope (various unix'), I'm happy. Without it, we would be under the grasp of a power so strong, choice and reasonablity is impossible. We, as the people, don't like this idea of this, and hence, made it illegal. If we wanted to be controled, we can happily op to do away with restricting monopolies.
What the software industry needs right now is a new development model. What's being shown now with the success of free-software and the crapiness of corporate wealth, is that software evloves when money isn't an issue. When it is an issue, inefficiency, instability, and insecurity results. It becomes a matter of who can suck more money out of the people, who owns the most expensive two piece suit, and who's shoes cost more than someone elses house. NOT who has the most stable, or efficient, or secure piece of software.
Money hinders. Take it elsewhere. It is important that software evolve for the better of the people, an not for the better of a company. What is created now becomes the basis for our future. We can't afford a crappy future because it made XandX a company richer.
Regardless of how Microsoft it dealt with, it must eventually be done away with if it doesn't get it's act in gear. If they released source code, if they supported open-development, if they/stopped/ looking to benifet just themselves, then hoorah! If not... do away with them
I can only say that the net has brought this upon itself. (And by the net, unfortunatly, half the world is refering to 'the web'). If nothing more grows out of this idea of an 'internet' other than 'the web', we're all screwed big time, because the way the web is currently structured sucks. stuff needs to be changed; it must be allowed to evolve.
Unfortunatly again, this control is no longer in the hands of it's origional creators. Corporate america got it's greesy hands all over it. Instead of evolving to share information, it's evolving to MAKE MONEY (hey, it's the american way). So, until we as a community are able to kick this thing in the butt and continue, we're gonna be stuck with and controled by the big heads until we die.
Slashdot Mirror
Com'on people. He's just a senile, clueless old man. He doesn't have his facts straight, he's not able to differentiate fiction from reality, he has no clue what's going on.
Oh. Wait, what? He's in charge of the MPAA? HE is the person making the final decisions?
God Help Us.
Where the heck this get a score of 2?
... blah blah blah."
/discriminating/ agains non-Unix users? Who ever said anything about the web being optimized/dependant on ELF binaries? The origional post sure didn't. I infact don't think you could be more off. It's not a battle against OS's (and your /opinions/ about them), it's about which is able to benefit the Net as a whole the most.
"Well: I think Windows sucks. It does. I'm not joking either. Of course it's much prettier than Unix. But it sucks nonetheless. I'm serious (take my word for it!). It's nowhere near being worthey of the adjective 'good.'
(point: speaking from emotion only wastes peoples time)
What Unix does do, which Windows can't, is provide a _stable_ and _open_ basis to further develop the Net upon. That is where the internet originated from. As soon Commercialism (Windows et all) was added, it became about "beauty" and "money", stability, and innovation set aside. Commercialism doesn't care about furthering the Net, it's simply a race to see who can get richest the fastest. Unix isn't about that. And that is why I think the Net would benifit from moving back to the traditional "unix mentality".
Who ever said anything about
Free Unix/Linux do with no questions asked.
Actually, there was one just recently in which a handfull of kids were able to type "key" "words" into a "search" "engine", and get their hands on "pornography". The best part of all, all three or four of them were able to do it through AOL! I was pretty impressed to say the least.
Although it's right of her to offer money for compensation, my (personal) opinion is that we shouldn't accept it. We contribute to slashdot cause that's what we do, not because we get paid. I think we should apply this to this situation and happily thank jane for the offer, but smile and say no thanks.
If this becomes a regular thing, which I'm all for, and as some are suggestiong, this does bring up a different issue. That can be addressed later though.
The government only exists because we let it. If it abuses it's powers, the people can simply replace it. No one can touch microsoft. If linux and the idea of free-software had not come around recenlty, there would be /no/ competition, and no /chance/ for competition; MS simply waves it wand of corruption,eliminates what it doesn't like, and feeds us what we need in favor of their wealth.
Now that we have SPARK of hope (various unix'), I'm happy. Without it, we would be under the grasp of a power so strong, choice and reasonablity is impossible. We, as the people, don't like this idea of this, and hence, made it illegal. If we wanted to be controled, we can happily op to do away with restricting monopolies.
What the software industry needs right now is a new development model. What's being shown now with the success of free-software and the crapiness of corporate wealth, is that software evloves when money isn't an issue. When it is an issue, inefficiency, instability, and insecurity results. It becomes a matter of who can suck more money out of the people, who owns the most expensive two piece suit, and who's shoes cost more than someone elses house. NOT who has the most stable, or efficient, or secure piece of software.
/stopped/ looking to benifet just themselves, then hoorah! If not... do away with them
Money hinders. Take it elsewhere. It is important that software evolve for the better of the people, an not for the better of a company. What is created now becomes the basis for our future. We can't afford a crappy future because it made XandX a company richer.
Regardless of how Microsoft it dealt with, it must eventually be done away with if it doesn't get it's act in gear. If they released source code, if they supported open-development, if they
> the 'Net is all knotted up in it
::nod::
I can only say that the net has brought this upon itself. (And by the net, unfortunatly, half the world is refering to 'the web'). If nothing more grows out of this idea of an 'internet' other than 'the web', we're all screwed big time, because the way the web is currently structured sucks. stuff needs to be changed; it must be allowed to evolve.
Unfortunatly again, this control is no longer in the hands of it's origional creators. Corporate america got it's greesy hands all over it. Instead of evolving to share information, it's evolving to MAKE MONEY (hey, it's the american way). So, until we as a community are able to kick this thing in the butt and continue, we're gonna be stuck with and controled by the big heads until we die.