No. In fact, you made that whole thing up.
NASA scientists determined that a hole was punctured in the leading edge on one of Columbia's wings, made of a carbon-carbon composite. The hole had formed when a piece of insulating foam from the external fuel tank peeled off during the launch 16 days earlier, puncturing the edge of the wing. Hot gases, inaccurately described in initial reports as plasma, penetrated the interior of the wing, destroying the support structure and causing the rest of the shuttle to break apart during the intense heat of re-entry.
Your entire post was full of cost analysis, and you're complaining that I mentioned the cost?
I apparently missed the point of what you wrote, so I don't think I really care to read it again and find the hidden point you were trying to get across.
Slashdot mods will never cease to amaze me with the things that they'll mod up just because they agree. Newsflash to the mods: Insightful means someone made a perceptive comment, not that they recycled the same 'M$ tax' comments over and over again.
Troll, troll, troll.
Macthorpe reveals his motive for self torture: The only torture here is your absence of understanding, brains or reason.
AOL's web mail is probably the only way they can work with M$ mail clients, if anything from M$ ever works. Which shows a fundamental lack of understanding for how hosting actually works. Good job.
so what's your point again? That web use is dominated by M$ servers? Did you get that from the part where I actually said '33% of the market'? I don't claim web use is dominated by MS servers. I merely pointed out that your claim that MS servers are unprofitable and anyone who uses them faces disaster was complete and utter bollocks.
Also, your little M$ hosting service also has another tab called "hosting" which offers the same features for less money. I'm not sure how they can continue offering M$ servers where everyone else doing the same lost their ass. Because, again, you're lying and nobody lost their business (or in fact their buttocks) by hosting on an MS server. They wouldn't offer it if it wasn't profitable, simple as that.
Face it - non free is not competitive. M$ share is going to do nothing but shrink. Who's dreaming now?
Your comments start with a complete lack of understanding of how the market works and finishes with you telling lies that you can't hope to corrobate with a single fact.
Clueless Linux zealot and complete moron Twitter can't wrap his head around the fact that '33% of the market' doesn't mean 'loss-making money sink', and also can't understand that 'someone who tells the truth' does not equal 'Microsoft shill'.
By M$ hosting disaster I mean companies that tried to sell web hosting all bellied up. Bullshit. How weird is it that they can offer a 99.99% uptime guarantee and yet still not lose money on Microsoft servers? Can I put it to you that it's because they know more about hosting websites than you? I'm willing to bet that it's that.
Your little partial quote of the top twenty web sites does not bring the results you want either My list was from Alexa who are very much up to date thank you very much. Just because you click the first google search you see, doesn't mean I do.
AOL does not use M$ Try doing a wider search of Netcraft instead of taking the first result you see and accepting it as gospel, because it looks like all their webmail hosting is on Windows Server 2003. How about that.
When you add them, youtube, wikipedia and other great GNU powered sites, M$ quickly vanishes. When you include the traffic from all the smaller sites, there's no contest at all. You only wish it would vanish, but it won't. There will always be people like me who will carry on using Microsoft because we prefer it. It's just a bonus that it irritates people like you.
The video is of the managing director of Microsoft UK, not someone associated with the British library. Hence the caption 'Microsoft UK Managing Director Gordon Frazer running Windows 3.1 on a Vista PC'.
It's not marked 'insightful' because everyone except you got laughed. Whether it was intended to be funny is another matter.
Microsoft are providing virtualisation so they can run old software in order to convert it into newer formats, not to have a load of nested virtualised operating systems like Russian dolls that have to be paid for in perpetuity.
The idea that an institution like the British Library, which is run by people bright enough to make you look like a dead match, would accept such a preposterous idea is insulting.
Ventures into M$ hosting have met disaster Let me see. From the top 20 US websites by traffic:
Myspace.com - Windows Server 2003 Microsoft.com - Windows Server 2008 eBay.com - Windows Server 2003/Windows 2000 Live.com - Windows Server 2003 AOL.com - Windows Server 2003 Go.com - various including Windows 2000 comcast.net - various including Windows 2000 MSN.com - Windows Server 2003
I must remember to change the definition of 'disaster' to include 'becoming the third most used website in America'.
The Wikipedia list is not a complete list. Try here instead to see other standards backed by Siemens, IBM, Sony, HP, Toshiba, Philips, Boeing, Xerox, Fujifilm, Intel, Apple and Adobe, to name but a few.
Describing ECMA as "a rubber stamp for Microsoft" shows a lack of knowledge. Wikipedia doesn't have all the answers, sometimes it's worth doing some real research.
Surely that would make it equally as ridiculous that somebody would complain that Microsoft would use "Open" and "Office" in a file format that they're marketing as open and for Office?
FSF said nothing like the summary implies Would it be easier for you if I linked you directly to the release from the FSF? Here.
Here's the Slashdot summary:
Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF is quoted as saying: 'Today, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner. We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using GPL-covered work - it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software.' Here's the quote from the FSF news release:
The iPhone is leaving people questioning: Does it contain GPLed software? What impact will the GPLv3 have on the long-term prospects for devices like the iPhone that are built to keep their owners frustrated?
Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF said, "Tomorrow, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner. We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using GPL-covered work - it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software." So basically, you're talking out of your arse.
Yeah, it's so quiet in fact that it asks you every single time if you want to do it.
It's about as silent as an atomic bomb.
Re:This is my single biggest push to free software
on
Vista is Watching You
·
· Score: 1
Bottom line...serious PC Gamers are stuck with Windows....NOT!!!!! Simply set up a dual-boot system, and only boot into windows to play games Do you want to read that sentence again and see where you went wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if a substantial number people buy it for £20, then yes, and it's worth that much.
Ignoring the fact of course that you didn't really address the point I was making and instead said exactly the opposite.
You didn't actually do anything except prove his point, you do know that?
Your entire post was full of cost analysis, and you're complaining that I mentioned the cost?
I apparently missed the point of what you wrote, so I don't think I really care to read it again and find the hidden point you were trying to get across.
5 hours of coding, to me, is at the very least $60 worth of chargeable time.
Which is cheaper now?
I'm mystified as to why you would say that though, considering your history of providing sweeping conclusions with no factual or numerical basis.
Wow, and this got 'Insightful'?
Slashdot mods will never cease to amaze me with the things that they'll mod up just because they agree. Newsflash to the mods: Insightful means someone made a perceptive comment, not that they recycled the same 'M$ tax' comments over and over again.
Someone give this guy a modpoint! If I had one to give, I would.
To paraphrase Bender: That was very mean... Sorry, I meant that other thing - pathetic.
Your comments start with a complete lack of understanding of how the market works and finishes with you telling lies that you can't hope to corrobate with a single fact.
There was nothing personal about it, just good-natured ribbing, though I appreciate that doesn't carry over the internet very well.
What are you converting .doc to which causes data loss? I've never experienced any.
The video is of the managing director of Microsoft UK, not someone associated with the British library. Hence the caption 'Microsoft UK Managing Director Gordon Frazer running Windows 3.1 on a Vista PC'.
Yes, that was sarcastic, but you deserved it.
It's not marked 'insightful' because everyone except you got laughed. Whether it was intended to be funny is another matter.
Microsoft are providing virtualisation so they can run old software in order to convert it into newer formats, not to have a load of nested virtualised operating systems like Russian dolls that have to be paid for in perpetuity.
The idea that an institution like the British Library, which is run by people bright enough to make you look like a dead match, would accept such a preposterous idea is insulting.
Myspace.com - Windows Server 2003
Microsoft.com - Windows Server 2008
eBay.com - Windows Server 2003/Windows 2000
Live.com - Windows Server 2003
AOL.com - Windows Server 2003
Go.com - various including Windows 2000
comcast.net - various including Windows 2000
MSN.com - Windows Server 2003
I must remember to change the definition of 'disaster' to include 'becoming the third most used website in America'.
And now we've come in full circle. *walks away*
The Wikipedia list is not a complete list. Try here instead to see other standards backed by Siemens, IBM, Sony, HP, Toshiba, Philips, Boeing, Xerox, Fujifilm, Intel, Apple and Adobe, to name but a few.
Describing ECMA as "a rubber stamp for Microsoft" shows a lack of knowledge. Wikipedia doesn't have all the answers, sometimes it's worth doing some real research.
Surely that would make it equally as ridiculous that somebody would complain that Microsoft would use "Open" and "Office" in a file format that they're marketing as open and for Office?
Hard luck.
I'd have some sympathy if the name of OpenOffice wasn't specifically chosen to make people think of Microsoft Office.
Here's the Slashdot summary: Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF is quoted as saying: 'Today, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner. We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using GPL-covered work - it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software.' Here's the quote from the FSF news release: The iPhone is leaving people questioning: Does it contain GPLed software? What impact will the GPLv3 have on the long-term prospects for devices like the iPhone that are built to keep their owners frustrated?
Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF said, "Tomorrow, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner. We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using GPL-covered work - it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software." So basically, you're talking out of your arse.
Saying something like that comes with the implication that you do think there's GPL'd software on there.
Otherwise, why say it at all?
Yeah, it's so quiet in fact that it asks you every single time if you want to do it.
It's about as silent as an atomic bomb.