I'll imply it's a problem for Linux when it is a problem. If it doesn't work immediately upon installation, it's broken; I have better things to do than go enable shit like drivers or media codecs when I set up a new machine.
Windows: Turn on PC. Unless you have a bleeding-edge card, it'll be recognized and drivers will be loaded. Yay. All good. Plus, you can even play MP3s without it bitching.
Ubuntu: Turn on PC. Defaults to either VESA or the shitty open-source drivers, I can't remember which. Tells you to go to the "restricted drivers manager" to enable them. Hope that the drivers actually work, thank-you-shitty-X-model-and-unstable-ABI. Oh, and enjoy having to install the restricted codecs, too! No thank you, Ubuntu, you fucking fail at the desktop.
They make a great server distro, though. I switched just about everything to Ubuntu Server recently; I got tired of Fedora being out of date by the time it was actually installed.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
False dichotomy. We don't need to spend the better part of a trillion dollars a year to intervene in third world genocides.
I agree. I'm not in favor of interventionism except where it benefits us.
Wow, that's stupid. If you're for "peace-and-love", naturally you're going to be against brutal dictatorships and ethnic cleansing.
But that crowd generally rejects the tools they need to actually address them.
Which, as you should have learned in Vietnam or from Al Queda, means jack when they don't give a shit about how much you're overcompensating for something, and are perfectly willing to die for their cause.
Awesome. Let 'em die. We won't run out of bullets any time soon.:-)
You don't need to use the nVidia control panel on Windows for dual-monitor anything. The Windows display system actually...you know...has the necessary support to just be able to tell the driver what to do, rather than having to dick around with all sorts of craziness.
If you're using nVidia's drivers, yes, it is. On Windows, it works with any graphics adapter you're likely to find in use, and you don't have to dick around with "restricted drivers."
If I'm reading that right, Vista's IP stack does it correctly by setting the BROADCAST bit, while support for the more modern method of operation is disabled for some reason or other, yes?
It sounds like the DHCP servers that don't honor the BROADCAST flag are at fault.
When the condition is immoral and sick, yes, you can be called "viral."
The LGPL? "Make public changes to my code." Awesome. The CDDL? "Make public any changes to my code." Awesome. The GPL? "Make public EEEEEEEEEVERYTHING, and fuck you." Viral.
I'm sure they did consider other licenses. Do you really think that Microsoft couldn't rewrite open-source components of a frigging network driver if they wanted to? They used the GPL components, presumably because they fulfilled their requirements, and as such released it under the GPL.
It's only at batshit GNUtarded sites like Slashdot that this is being spun as anything other than "the usual," and that's because maggot-fucks like you are desperate to make Microsoft out to be the bad guy whenever you can.
If you change the specification--change how a subsystem works, such as UAC, or the system library dependencies, or add APIs--you have, by definition, committed a major change because previous applications may now be relying upon an out-of-date specification.
The changes to the NT kernel did not necessitate significant and breaking changes, so it was incremented by a minor version number instead of a major one. The operating system package did, and was incremented differently.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
We've done the research for now. We have successfully built the aircraft necessary for a modern air-to-air war, should one arise. We have not done the research for the next necessary aircraft--you know, the one to compete with whatever sixth-generation fighter craft the Russians or the Chinese start selling to the highest builder. In addition, manufacturing experience stops being relevant almost embarrassingly quickly. We do not need more F-22s for combat purposes--but to stop building them means to repurpose the lines necessary to manufacture them should we need them in the future. This is never a good idea without a replacement in mind--hell, we haven't stopped building F/A-18s just because the F-35 is nearing rollout, have we?
And the idea that air superiority is somehow unimportant is laughable. If you don't have air superiority, you don't have anything in a conventional war--and while we are not currently in a conventional war, to write off the idea that one may not occur is a joke. Powers that matter--that is to say, not the dirt merchants we're foolishly picking a fight with right now--do not fight from camels, and they are the opposition that we much always keep an eye on.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
That "global understanding" you want won't come as long as any person wants to exert control over any other person. That is what causes that "cycle of violence." It's also called "being human." There is no alternative, there is no escape. Will we survive? Maybe not. But "global understanding" in the form that the peace-and-love sorts (amongst whom you may not be, but what you're spouting is pretty similar) results in appeasement and, eventually, destruction at the hands of the people who don't care about "global understanding" and do care about taking what you have for themselves.
Some parts of the human race only understand fear. To those you must be the biggest, baddest, scariest motherfucker on the block. Whether it's good or not is immaterial; I personally don't like it but I also don't think that they'll change and it's not my place to try to change them. It is what it is, and we deal with it.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
Because research takes a very long time.
Because design takes a very long time.
Because manufacturing takes a very long time.
Because shakedown and bug testing take a very long time.
Because the best strategy to avoid somebody picking a fight with their second-best military is to openly possess the best one.
Only three F-35s? I'd put the over/under at about a dozen, given past performance in simulations and wargames against F-16s. While the F-35 is obviously a huge step up from the F-16, it still has a similar effective combat range envelope.
You're a really pathetic troll (your little "Red State" jab is funny, as a lot of the Boeing work is sourced out in Washington), but I'll bite: in a straight air-to-air combat situation (that is, what people other than Middle Eastern dirt merchants currently field), the F-22 is unparalleled. In wargame exercises, one Raptor has "killed" multiple squadrons of F-15s and F-16s. The F-35 fits many profiles, but air superiority is not one--and as an air superiority fighter, the Raptor has no competition, including the F-35.
If you actually think that Microsoft is going to be anything but "relevant" for, oh, the next ten or twenty years or so, you're out of your fucking mind.
Then again, you're a freetard, so I shouldn't be surprised.
Microsoft does what benefits them. Doing things that does not benefit them is not their job and is outside their purview, as it should be.
Oh, sure! They'd totally make money by more-than-tripling their testing and QA efforts, and tacking a huge amount of extra programming on top of that (to provide the infrastructure that Linux at least lacks, and the necessary translation layers for OS X's Core libraries), to cater to less than fifteen percent of the market and to diminish their own market share for Windows.
(Or would they just hope the community does all that development and testing for them? That's so cute.)
There are cases where open source makes money. They're not ones where you have no actual competition (and no, OpenGL/OpenAL/SDL does not compete with DirectX in any notable way). DirectX makes Microsoft money because it only works on Windows, and because it's a better development method for most developers than the assemble-your-assorted-crap choices elsewhere. By providing DirectX to other platforms, they reduce the uniqueness of Windows and make it easier to port generally unique commodity (games) to other operating systems, and therefore they lose money.
I guess I can sum it up by noting that you're as much of a moron as the original person I replied to.
Except that the GPLv3 doesn't benefit them at all. It doesn't even benefit "everyone." It benefits you, not them. Why should they do something that is harmful to themselves just because you want it?
Slashdot Mirror
I'll imply it's a problem for Linux when it is a problem. If it doesn't work immediately upon installation, it's broken; I have better things to do than go enable shit like drivers or media codecs when I set up a new machine.
Windows: Turn on PC. Unless you have a bleeding-edge card, it'll be recognized and drivers will be loaded. Yay. All good. Plus, you can even play MP3s without it bitching.
Ubuntu: Turn on PC. Defaults to either VESA or the shitty open-source drivers, I can't remember which. Tells you to go to the "restricted drivers manager" to enable them. Hope that the drivers actually work, thank-you-shitty-X-model-and-unstable-ABI. Oh, and enjoy having to install the restricted codecs, too! No thank you, Ubuntu, you fucking fail at the desktop.
They make a great server distro, though. I switched just about everything to Ubuntu Server recently; I got tired of Fedora being out of date by the time it was actually installed.
False dichotomy. We don't need to spend the better part of a trillion dollars a year to intervene in third world genocides.
I agree. I'm not in favor of interventionism except where it benefits us.
Wow, that's stupid. If you're for "peace-and-love", naturally you're going to be against brutal dictatorships and ethnic cleansing.
But that crowd generally rejects the tools they need to actually address them.
Which, as you should have learned in Vietnam or from Al Queda, means jack when they don't give a shit about how much you're overcompensating for something, and are perfectly willing to die for their cause.
Awesome. Let 'em die. We won't run out of bullets any time soon. :-)
But who gives a shit? They work.
And for all but fairly bleeding-edge cards, they're packaged with the OS, so nobody gives a fuck.
You don't need to use the nVidia control panel on Windows for dual-monitor anything. The Windows display system actually...you know...has the necessary support to just be able to tell the driver what to do, rather than having to dick around with all sorts of craziness.
If you're using nVidia's drivers, yes, it is. On Windows, it works with any graphics adapter you're likely to find in use, and you don't have to dick around with "restricted drivers."
I agree that that's not a good idea, but I don't think you can ascribe it to malice.
Do you know if Windows 7 exhibits the same behavior?
Or they can stick to the method that they have right here that already works great for their purposes.
Why should they fix what is not broken?
If I'm reading that right, Vista's IP stack does it correctly by setting the BROADCAST bit, while support for the more modern method of operation is disabled for some reason or other, yes?
It sounds like the DHCP servers that don't honor the BROADCAST flag are at fault.
DHCP works fine here. Maybe they should give you the freetard treatment and file it under WorksForMe, eh? ;)
What's the router model?
When the condition is immoral and sick, yes, you can be called "viral."
The LGPL? "Make public changes to my code." Awesome. The CDDL? "Make public any changes to my code." Awesome. The GPL? "Make public EEEEEEEEEVERYTHING, and fuck you." Viral.
I'm sure they did consider other licenses. Do you really think that Microsoft couldn't rewrite open-source components of a frigging network driver if they wanted to? They used the GPL components, presumably because they fulfilled their requirements, and as such released it under the GPL.
It's only at batshit GNUtarded sites like Slashdot that this is being spun as anything other than "the usual," and that's because maggot-fucks like you are desperate to make Microsoft out to be the bad guy whenever you can.
If you change the specification--change how a subsystem works, such as UAC, or the system library dependencies, or add APIs--you have, by definition, committed a major change because previous applications may now be relying upon an out-of-date specification.
The changes to the NT kernel did not necessitate significant and breaking changes, so it was incremented by a minor version number instead of a major one. The operating system package did, and was incremented differently.
We've done the research for now. We have successfully built the aircraft necessary for a modern air-to-air war, should one arise. We have not done the research for the next necessary aircraft--you know, the one to compete with whatever sixth-generation fighter craft the Russians or the Chinese start selling to the highest builder. In addition, manufacturing experience stops being relevant almost embarrassingly quickly. We do not need more F-22s for combat purposes--but to stop building them means to repurpose the lines necessary to manufacture them should we need them in the future. This is never a good idea without a replacement in mind--hell, we haven't stopped building F/A-18s just because the F-35 is nearing rollout, have we?
And the idea that air superiority is somehow unimportant is laughable. If you don't have air superiority, you don't have anything in a conventional war--and while we are not currently in a conventional war, to write off the idea that one may not occur is a joke. Powers that matter--that is to say, not the dirt merchants we're foolishly picking a fight with right now--do not fight from camels, and they are the opposition that we much always keep an eye on.
That "global understanding" you want won't come as long as any person wants to exert control over any other person. That is what causes that "cycle of violence." It's also called "being human." There is no alternative, there is no escape. Will we survive? Maybe not. But "global understanding" in the form that the peace-and-love sorts (amongst whom you may not be, but what you're spouting is pretty similar) results in appeasement and, eventually, destruction at the hands of the people who don't care about "global understanding" and do care about taking what you have for themselves.
Some parts of the human race only understand fear. To those you must be the biggest, baddest, scariest motherfucker on the block. Whether it's good or not is immaterial; I personally don't like it but I also don't think that they'll change and it's not my place to try to change them. It is what it is, and we deal with it.
Because research takes a very long time.
Because design takes a very long time.
Because manufacturing takes a very long time.
Because shakedown and bug testing take a very long time.
Because the best strategy to avoid somebody picking a fight with their second-best military is to openly possess the best one.
Only three F-35s? I'd put the over/under at about a dozen, given past performance in simulations and wargames against F-16s. While the F-35 is obviously a huge step up from the F-16, it still has a similar effective combat range envelope.
You're a really pathetic troll (your little "Red State" jab is funny, as a lot of the Boeing work is sourced out in Washington), but I'll bite: in a straight air-to-air combat situation (that is, what people other than Middle Eastern dirt merchants currently field), the F-22 is unparalleled. In wargame exercises, one Raptor has "killed" multiple squadrons of F-15s and F-16s. The F-35 fits many profiles, but air superiority is not one--and as an air superiority fighter, the Raptor has no competition, including the F-35.
So, in other words, sell something nobody will buy, and sink untold millions of dollars into making it.
You're a fucking genius, mate.
Wrong. Changing the specification (the "design flaw") is a change in version.
If you actually think that Microsoft is going to be anything but "relevant" for, oh, the next ten or twenty years or so, you're out of your fucking mind.
Then again, you're a freetard, so I shouldn't be surprised.
Microsoft does what benefits them. Doing things that does not benefit them is not their job and is outside their purview, as it should be.
I've worked with C for almost ten years.
I will refer you to my .sig now.
Oh, sure! They'd totally make money by more-than-tripling their testing and QA efforts, and tacking a huge amount of extra programming on top of that (to provide the infrastructure that Linux at least lacks, and the necessary translation layers for OS X's Core libraries), to cater to less than fifteen percent of the market and to diminish their own market share for Windows.
(Or would they just hope the community does all that development and testing for them? That's so cute.)
There are cases where open source makes money. They're not ones where you have no actual competition (and no, OpenGL/OpenAL/SDL does not compete with DirectX in any notable way). DirectX makes Microsoft money because it only works on Windows, and because it's a better development method for most developers than the assemble-your-assorted-crap choices elsewhere. By providing DirectX to other platforms, they reduce the uniqueness of Windows and make it easier to port generally unique commodity (games) to other operating systems, and therefore they lose money.
I guess I can sum it up by noting that you're as much of a moron as the original person I replied to.
Server Core 2008 is where HyperV is run, not a standard Server 2008 box.
And many organizations already use Operations Manager or whatever for their Windows servers, and HyperV interfaces with that nicely.
You pay more, but you get integration, which is valuable.
(Oh, and "rock solid" stopped mattering around Server 2003. I've never seen a Server 2008 machine crash at all.)
Except that the GPLv3 doesn't benefit them at all. It doesn't even benefit "everyone." It benefits you, not them. Why should they do something that is harmful to themselves just because you want it?