In your case, your admin uses a Windows terminal to handle Solaris boxes. In his (or her) case, he is a Solaris admin that will have to work on Windows boxes only (from one end to another). While your admin uses a terminal on a Windows box, the poster will be using Windows native tools.
Kerio, Tiny, or ZoneAlarm are not part of the the OS, they are third-party software. When he talked about Solaris, Linux and FreeBSD, he didn't install an "outside" firewall.
Installing one of these in a Windows box is an OK solution, but it's like installing PF or IPFW on Linux.
PS: Yes, I like Win2000 too. The best OS microsoft ever made (maybe MS-DOS too). One day, I will be able to run Win2000 in a nearly native speed on VMware or QEMU (especially now that the kqemu plugin is GPL licensed) and run the software that doesn't work on Wine there. But by that time, there will be software that I am interested in and doesn't run on Win2000 anymore...
winXP is inside the support cycle. He could even test Win2000 since it is still supported. A big number of corporations run Win2000 today ("if it ain't broke...") not to mention the ones still running Win98.
This isn't going to be very helpful, but on a recent Slashdot discussion I saw a reader commenting on GPL v3 not beeing enough to proect free software. I do not remember the discussion, nor the user. It worried me for a while, but then I moved on.
It's very very different. A Firefox extending analogous to the Apache extending would mean to include a Mail client . But Firefox is an evolution (not a necessarily good one) of the Mozilla Suite, so it would be like going backwards.
We will create a committee. Whenever an ISP or website will recieve such a letter, it will be forwarded to the committee that will check whether it is an infringement. Not realistic eh?
But without any patents, what would be the motivation for that individual to share their idea at all? We are still talking about software, right? Let them not share. We will discover them again. Ideas never get really lost.
For a a firewall: Kerio personal or ZoneAlarm personal, they are both free. I don't know which one does better job. I use ZoneAlarm, a friend uses Kerio. Both of us never had any problems. Do not buy the ZoneAlarm security suite, it doesn't worth the while.
For an anti-virus: AOL Active Virus Shield. The name sounds very child-ish but it's in fact Kaspersky rebranded. It is free of charge (AOL makes good adverticement like this). I remind you that Kaspersky has been on the top 3 of the list for some time now, and is usually #1 on tests. This is a quite heavy anti-virus. Other than this, there is AVG and Anti-Vir.
I don't see anything wrong here. I don't see evidence of an ego. What *I* see is somebody with very strong opinions, and grounded with a basis in fact (even if you don't agree with his conclusions - which I don't), doing something about it instead of just whining. There is a chance that these patches are not good. Either not up to the goals of Gnome, or just poor quality. Linus is a great programmer but he can't be good on everything. So, if his patches are not accepted (assuming for a while, rightly so), he can then start bragging about it. And he will be heard, just because he is Linus.
Other than that, yeah, sure, it was the best thing he could do. If he haven't done it before, then what took him so long?
Ah, yes, the good-old days, when Microsoft was the little guy and IBM was the big guy. I think they made one or two nice contributions to Unix too. Back then, Unix was for mainframes and servers. Xenix was meant for PCs. Microsoft wasn't competing with Unix. Microsoft's market was the PC.
> You are talking about the artwork.
No, I am talking about the interface. It amuses me that you don't understand this, so I'm not inclined to assist you.
WindowMaker, in the spirit of NeXTSTEP and OpenStep wins every other interface. No pretty, but efficient and productive.
> And Microsoft does business in a shadowy way, > if you know what I mean.
All business is shadowy.
Some is more than others. The link that you give points to the economic advantages of using open-source. The link that I gave points the business decisions of Microsoft, a corporation that has been convicted by the US government as illegal.
There are plenty of developers when you need them, but not enough when your competitors follow you into the open source world. And absolutely nowhere is it made clear to the potential open source business that you need to cover the entire support chain, because developers are paid out of the fees charged for other services.
Redhat, Novel, Mandriva: Three competitors. They seem to be doing business fine.
> Joe User just sees adware/viruses/trojans, > lots of crashes, and the price of Vista.
That's not really true. Most malware and crash reports are wrong; the user simply doesn't know the right word for what happened.
Which is another excellent example of the shadowy business practices coming from YOUR side of the fence.
It crashes, you made it, your fault.
> Vista was released November 2006.
The Vista interface was first shown publicly in 2003, long before XGL ever showed up, and far too soon after OSX 10.2 (in 2002) to have copied it.
Not in the form that it has today, which we had a chanse to see much later. OSX was first released along with XP, in March 2001.
I'm trying to say Linux doesn't do things that make real people's lives and jobs easier.
It's more stable, faster, more reliable, and cheaper.
But there is something very very wrong about suggesting that Shirley the housewife should be using it to do the tournament schedule for her bowling league because it runs on old hardware she has never seen (let alone owned) and has a really low number over HERE on this incomprehensible screen full of unfamiliar words.
She can get a PC with Suse, Ubuntu, or Debian pre-installed. Now, if Microsoft didn't bully the OEMs about the licenses...
> it's the overall experience that matters.
Actually, it's not. It's the experience in a very few key situations that matters. Most of the time, it doesn't really matter whether you're running Windows or Linux.
But that last bit of the time is a big geekapalooza on Linux, where you have to race around asking dozens of mailing lists how to solve your problem, and then you come out the other end a conquering hero. On Windows, that last bit tends to be a few rapid searches leading to a KB article, and most of your co-workers don't even know what happened.
Every average Joe I know has a geek on the background configuring and fixing things on Windows.
Now, as for the rest of your post, well.. I still think it is easier to do things in Windows, but this is partly because most people use it so you just ask somebody (let's not go again why Windows has the 95% of the market). And remember that the easy way to do somet
> Microsoft manufactured OSes for PCs, not mainframes
Oh, so we chose the wrong market, is that it? It's interesting how Microsoft's disadvantages were by choice, but Linux's were just luck.
Not the wrong market, another market. Microsoft didn't compete with Unix back in 1985 (and not 1987). Linux competes with Microsoft since 1991.
> If, the part that renders the GUI is not well writen, > it will cause crashes.
But regardless of how well it is written, the part that renders the GUI is not the GUI.
You are talking about the artwork. I told you, artistic things are subjective. Besides there are lots of skins to make Vista look like OSX and XGL.
> But if I want the Vista GUI, I will have to buy Vista, > so there is a price.
It's still not part of the GUI. I keep asking you what's important in a GUI, and you keep dodging the question.
I do? Well, dodging no more: what hardware you need.
> An empirical fact from a Microsoft employee.
A fact is a fact. It doesn't matter where you get it, it's still a fact.
Sure, it's just that you are a Microsoft employee. And Microsoft does business in a shadowy way, if you know what I mean.
> Why? Don't you want to know?
It's not that I don't want to know. It's that the subtleties don't matter. Joe User doesn't give a tin shit in a wicker basket whether the thread scheduler uses a more efficient context switching algorithm. Sure, that's nice, and I'd love to see the performance difference - but I'm not going to do it with normal use. I'm going to do it with a throwaway driver that spawns hundreds of thousands of threads and monitors system load. But that's because I'm a GEEK, and I think this stuff is FUN. I am not and will never pretend to be a normal user.
Yes, you are right. Joe User just sees adware/viruses/trojans, lots of crashes, and the price of Vista. Corporation see less malware but it costs them a load of money to maintain Windows.
> First, I remind you that OSX and XGL preceded > Vista.
Not really. Microsoft blathers endlessly about what we're doing. We understand that if you try to build it yourself and shove it on the market first, it will suck anyway, because you weren't smart enough to think of it yourself - so you're not going to be smart enough to build it yourself, either. We learned this from the open source community.
Your objectivity impresses me. I am not sure that you know, so I am just going to say it: OSX was released in 2001, XGL was released on January 2006, Vista was released November 2006.
You're still doing the same things in the same ways and getting the same results. That's why I need to read the changelog to see what you did over the last two years.
If it were the same things, the same ways, there wouldn't be anything in the changelog to see. Besides you are not Joe User, right? You like this stuff, right?
> Second, XGL uses system resources way more efficiently.
Volume shadow copy lets you recover previous versions of documents you've changed.
So when your boss says "rewrite this whole presentation" and then comes back just after you save it and says "hey, get me the old presentation", you right-click and select "Restore Previous Versions", then pick the one you want.
That saves your ass way more efficiently.
Oh, but system resources are important, too. Just not to the boss.
Are you trying to say to me that Windows does things that Linux cannot? Sure it does (although I am not sure if Volume shadow copy is just a work-around on an request that Linux can fulfill anyway), but it's the overall experience that matters.
> What kind of choice let Microsoft start in > 1975 and Linux in 1991?
What kind of choice let UNIX come out in the 1960s and Windows come out in 1987?
Microsoft manufactured OSes for PCs, not mainframes, servers, and supercomputers.
The GUI is not responsible for stability or speed, and there is no element of the operating system which is directly responsible for the price
If, the part that renders the GUI is not well writen, it will cause crashes.
As for your second point, yes. But if I want the Vista GUI, I will have to buy Vista, so there is a price.
> My opinion? No, it can't.
Empirical fact? Yes, it can.
An empirical fact from a Microsoft employee.
> I wouldn't be so sure whether that > middle is undistributed.
I would. You've claimed that in the theoretical case I proposed, the latter program does not come "from" the former, it is simply "like" the former. This implies that a program may be "like" another or "from" another, but not both - which is not true. You have failed to account for - or "distribute" - the class of programs which are "like" the programs they are "from". Hence, it is undistributed.
No I didn't. Why it cannot be both? It can include some of the source code of the original and have some new. GNU is like Unix, but it's not derived from Unix source code. ReactOS is like Windows but not derived from Windows source code.
> Why don't you check a changelog?
If I have to look at the changelog to know what changed, it's a subtlety.
Why? Don't you want to know?
> Yes, XGL.
WTF? What kind of loser gets excited about XGL? "Wow! My desktop is as pretty as Vista or a Mac!" Where do you demo this, mental hospitals?
First, I remind you that OSX and XGL preceded Vista. Second, XGL uses system resources way more efficiently.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe Google is just interesting to raise the bid and slow down the buyer. Maybe the do want to buy them in order to "dismiss" them.
In your case, your admin uses a Windows terminal to handle Solaris boxes. In his (or her) case, he is a Solaris admin that will have to work on Windows boxes only (from one end to another). While your admin uses a terminal on a Windows box, the poster will be using Windows native tools.
It is very different.
Kerio, Tiny, or ZoneAlarm are not part of the the OS, they are third-party software. When he talked about Solaris, Linux and FreeBSD, he didn't install an "outside" firewall.
Installing one of these in a Windows box is an OK solution, but it's like installing PF or IPFW on Linux.
PS: Yes, I like Win2000 too. The best OS microsoft ever made (maybe MS-DOS too). One day, I will be able to run Win2000 in a nearly native speed on VMware or QEMU (especially now that the kqemu plugin is GPL licensed) and run the software that doesn't work on Wine there. But by that time, there will be software that I am interested in and doesn't run on Win2000 anymore...
winXP is inside the support cycle. He could even test Win2000 since it is still supported. A big number of corporations run Win2000 today ("if it ain't broke...") not to mention the ones still running Win98.
You don't need anymore an invitation for Gmail. Go to www.gmail.com and click on "sign up for Gmail".
Solutions:
1. open a Yahoo Mail on another domain (yahoo.ca or yahoo.in)
2. use FreePOPs
This isn't going to be very helpful, but on a recent Slashdot discussion I saw a reader commenting on GPL v3 not beeing enough to proect free software. I do not remember the discussion, nor the user. It worried me for a while, but then I moved on.
Of Tony. He didn't low the prices, so the Internet got him. RIAA should learn from that.
It was data. It wasn't digital data. However, the man was talking about the 20th century (and some of the 21st).
It's very very different. A Firefox extending analogous to the Apache extending would mean to include a Mail client . But Firefox is an evolution (not a necessarily good one) of the Mozilla Suite, so it would be like going backwards.
...that every application evolves till the point that it sends mail. Well, now every application evolves till the point that it becomes an OS!
We will create a committee. Whenever an ISP or website will recieve such a letter, it will be forwarded to the committee that will check whether it is an infringement. Not realistic eh?
...it's "think of the humans". Abusing a humanoid robot is bad the for the human that abuses it.
Maybe http://www.freepops.org/ can do the job. It works for Yahoo and Hotmail, maybe it will work for Windows Live Mail too.
Sure there was, the judge admited guilt.
Actually, it's 4D, you fogot time :-P
Taken with a grain of salt, yes. But excluded, no. You saw that the judge was really guilty.
For a a firewall: Kerio personal or ZoneAlarm personal, they are both free. I don't know which one does better job. I use ZoneAlarm, a friend uses Kerio. Both of us never had any problems. Do not buy the ZoneAlarm security suite, it doesn't worth the while.
For an anti-virus: AOL Active Virus Shield. The name sounds very child-ish but it's in fact Kaspersky rebranded. It is free of charge (AOL makes good adverticement like this). I remind you that Kaspersky has been on the top 3 of the list for some time now, and is usually #1 on tests. This is a quite heavy anti-virus. Other than this, there is AVG and Anti-Vir.
Other than that, yeah, sure, it was the best thing he could do. If he haven't done it before, then what took him so long?
For video editing, take a look on Cinelerra.
> Microsoft didn't compete with Unix back in 1985 (and not 1987)
Actually, we did.
Ah, yes, the good-old days, when Microsoft was the little guy and IBM was the big guy. I think they made one or two nice contributions to Unix too. Back then, Unix was for mainframes and servers. Xenix was meant for PCs. Microsoft wasn't competing with Unix. Microsoft's market was the PC.
> You are talking about the artwork.
No, I am talking about the interface. It amuses me that you don't understand this, so I'm not inclined to assist you.
WindowMaker, in the spirit of NeXTSTEP and OpenStep wins every other interface. No pretty, but efficient and productive.
> And Microsoft does business in a shadowy way,
> if you know what I mean.
All business is shadowy.
Some is more than others. The link that you give points to the economic advantages of using open-source. The link that I gave points the business decisions of Microsoft, a corporation that has been convicted by the US government as illegal.
There are plenty of developers when you need them, but not enough when your competitors follow you into the open source world. And absolutely nowhere is it made clear to the potential open source business that you need to cover the entire support chain, because developers are paid out of the fees charged for other services.
Redhat, Novel, Mandriva: Three competitors. They seem to be doing business fine.
> Joe User just sees adware/viruses/trojans,
> lots of crashes, and the price of Vista.
That's not really true. Most malware and crash reports are wrong; the user simply doesn't know the right word for what happened.
Which is another excellent example of the shadowy business practices coming from YOUR side of the fence.
It crashes, you made it, your fault.
> Vista was released November 2006.
The Vista interface was first shown publicly in 2003, long before XGL ever showed up, and far too soon after OSX 10.2 (in 2002) to have copied it.
Not in the form that it has today, which we had a chanse to see much later. OSX was first released along with XP, in March 2001.
I'm trying to say Linux doesn't do things that make real people's lives and jobs easier.
It's more stable, faster, more reliable, and cheaper.
But there is something very very wrong about suggesting that Shirley the housewife should be using it to do the tournament schedule for her bowling league because it runs on old hardware she has never seen (let alone owned) and has a really low number over HERE on this incomprehensible screen full of unfamiliar words.
She can get a PC with Suse, Ubuntu, or Debian pre-installed. Now, if Microsoft didn't bully the OEMs about the licenses...
> it's the overall experience that matters.
Actually, it's not. It's the experience in a very few key situations that matters. Most of the time, it doesn't really matter whether you're running Windows or Linux.
But that last bit of the time is a big geekapalooza on Linux, where you have to race around asking dozens of mailing lists how to solve your problem, and then you come out the other end a conquering hero. On Windows, that last bit tends to be a few rapid searches leading to a KB article, and most of your co-workers don't even know what happened.
Every average Joe I know has a geek on the background configuring and fixing things on Windows.
Now, as for the rest of your post, well.. I still think it is easier to do things in Windows, but this is partly because most people use it so you just ask somebody (let's not go again why Windows has the 95% of the market). And remember that the easy way to do somet
Not the wrong market, another market. Microsoft didn't compete with Unix back in 1985 (and not 1987). Linux competes with Microsoft since 1991.
You are talking about the artwork. I told you, artistic things are subjective. Besides there are lots of skins to make Vista look like OSX and XGL.
I do? Well, dodging no more: what hardware you need.
Sure, it's just that you are a Microsoft employee. And Microsoft does business in a shadowy way, if you know what I mean.
Yes, you are right. Joe User just sees adware/viruses/trojans, lots of crashes, and the price of Vista. Corporation see less malware but it costs them a load of money to maintain Windows.
Your objectivity impresses me. I am not sure that you know, so I am just going to say it: OSX was released in 2001, XGL was released on January 2006, Vista was released November 2006.
If it were the same things, the same ways, there wouldn't be anything in the changelog to see. Besides you are not Joe User, right? You like this stuff, right?
Are you trying to say to me that Windows does things that Linux cannot? Sure it does (although I am not sure if Volume shadow copy is just a work-around on an request that Linux can fulfill anyway), but it's the overall experience that matters.
Microsoft manufactured OSes for PCs, not mainframes, servers, and supercomputers.
If, the part that renders the GUI is not well writen, it will cause crashes.
As for your second point, yes. But if I want the Vista GUI, I will have to buy Vista, so there is a price.
An empirical fact from a Microsoft employee.
No I didn't. Why it cannot be both? It can include some of the source code of the original and have some new. GNU is like Unix, but it's not derived from Unix source code. ReactOS is like Windows but not derived from Windows source code.
Why? Don't you want to know?
First, I remind you that OSX and XGL preceded Vista. Second, XGL uses system resources way more efficiently.