It should be noted that a "pig" is the device used to clean out large pipes. There are a bunch of different pigs like those designed to do inspection, repairs, or simple cleaning. Your username kind of checks out but probably not intentionally.
As I recall, they're called the Olympic Games and not the Olympic Sports. I do believe there are actual expectations in at least a couple of those. Thus, there's an objective. In the skating, for example, you have to do certain things in order to even have your work count. They include things like basics such as a Double Lutz and even a Figure 8. All of them will do them because they're a requirement - they must be a part of their show or the penalties will be so high that they don't qualify.
I only know about skating and a bit about gymnastics from a relative and because I wanted to be able to represent Rwanda at the Olympics as a skater. No, I can't skate or anything. In fact, I wanted to get out there and stomp up and down, fucking the ice all up - for days, to AC/DC. Alas, it turns out that they have minimal standards. It would have required more effort than stomping around which meant that I was not only not qualified, I was unwilling to learn.
Oh, I can probably do a Double Lutz. I just can't do it on purpose or with grace.
But, if you've ever wondered why everyone does a Figure 8 in their routine, that's it. Failing to do so will result in disqualification by rules. It turns out, you actually have to have some talent. You can't just ask to represent Rwanda in the Winter Games and expect they'll let you "dance the Dance of the Palooga" on their ice, while getting international attention, and cranking out AC/DC's Hell's Bells on the sound system for your own amusement. Err... If you ever had that question, I've found out the answer.
It is also remarkably more enjoyable than it looks like. It's not that exciting to watch if you're unfamiliar with the complexities involved and what the mechanisms are. However, if you're a player then it's kind of exciting to watch. There's also an assload of physics involved and to be considered. It's rather interesting, in my experience.
That said, I don't really watch TV so I can only speculate, more or less, but I'd watch curling before I'd watch many, many other things that are much more popular. I generally only watch documentaries - to the point where everything else is not an option in the vast, vast majority of cases. I don't actually have television except it turns out that I have cable down in Florida. I have no idea how long I've had cable for as this is only my fourth time at this house even though I own it.
At any rate, I've gone curling. I've gone a bit often, actually. Yes, yes I did pick it up in Canada. I have Canadian citizenship (by grace of heritage) and family.
It should be noted that my enjoyment of the sport was greatly reduced when I quit drinking. I'd speculate that's an internal thing and not intrinsic to the enjoyment of the sport/game. It is fair to add that I've not played nor watched for a while now and that I've never been curling while sober - using a strict definition of sober. Of course, there are lots of things that I've not done much/often while sober, using a strict definition.
I hope that is a work desk, that you're in a cubical, and that you tried varied amounts of force. It's not that I don't like you, or anything. I just have this picture of people staring at you as if you're a lunatic and it'd be disappointing were it not true.
They can last, for a very long time, without a successful product. Even moderate success means they'll be able to stay afloat from now until 100 years from now. Hell, they can probably drop half their cash-on-hand assets and buy a country and *STILL* be afloat in 100 years, even if every new product is a complete flop with a negative profit.
They have BILLIONS in just cash reserves. If they tried to build a Scrooge McDuck tower, to dive and swim in the cash, they'd probably bankrupt the mint of several nations. They probably couldn't even store all of their cash, in physical form, without having built the tower.
Maybe... Is it less time to skip the documentation, do the install, and go right to the help files? I find the answer would probably be no except I'm (also, usually) in the latter camp.
It's not easy to admit that I've installed software, for example, that turned out to not actually do what I was hoping it would do. I've then spent hours trying to find that feature in that software, only to not find it. Sure, sure... I'd looked at the page(s) about the software but, you know, who actually writes down everything the software does? I mean, they just list the more common features - right? Man pages are obviously not manly.
In my defense, I sometimes read the documentation before installing... Well, I have...
All these problems are easily solved if you can just handle your own devices.
Fucking terrorist! Next you'll be wanting ownership and control, I suppose? You want to actually control the input and read the output? Yeah, you're damned terrorist!
Imagine, you've been working on this since 1990 - nearly 26 years, and you finally figured out how to make a system beep. That must have been very thrilling. That moment, that point, where it recompiled, was installed, and finally went "BEEP" must have been one of the most exciting moments in their lives. All for want of a Spice Girls' track...
*BEEP*
Imagine the look on their face when that beep finally beeped. For better or worse, I bet they were thrilled. I wonder how many times they tried before realizing the speaker wasn't plugged into the right port? I also wonder who they told first?
*BEEP!*
The BEEP HURD 'round the world! I imagine it was quite thrilling. Eureka was cried, champagne was opened, dancing and merriment were had by all. Someone's mom even splurged and let someone have an extra juice box as a family danced merrily while singing the joys of the eternal beep. Pure, unadulterated, bliss - for someone.
And if that's not how it didn't happen, fuck you! That's how I'm picturing it in my head and how I'm always going to picture it. Someday, there will be a documentary made and it will be complete with a recreation of the event. It will lack a certain something, a certain essence, but it will be all we have as we strive in vain to live vicariously through the joys of others.
... of course sheep flargle and antipode and place mat vicissitude, duh!
I am not alone in this Universe!!! So far, I recommend garbanzo beans as a treatment. Shistikitabootily is the smoking jacket but damned hard scrape and mitten.
Pink and purple garbanzo beans fester in my scrotum, not entirely unlike fuchsia!
Well, to continue with your car analogy... You'd probably be placing the blame emphasis on the wrong parties.
If those things didn't work - can you fix them? If those things didn't work - why was that? Was it because of improper documentation? Was it because they had proprietary lock-out? Was it because they were prevented access due to legal mechanisms? Was it just because the OS sucked?
I mean, there are lots of reasons that such behavior could be happening. It may not be entirely the fault of the OS authors. I'd also suggest that there's a whole lot of blame for the installer of that OS (you, in this case). You should have read the documentation and seen that those features were not yet supported. You shouldn't have installed the OS if you weren't willing to accept those faults/limitations. You also should have made backups!;-)
But, the big question is - why weren't those things supported? Nothing in the GPL would mean those couldn't be supported. At least, I can't think of any reason that the license of the free software would prevent those things from working. If they're not working, it's probably due to something other than the license. At the very least, you might want to read the documentation *before* installing.
You can do it for free (sort of). Just use the Shared Source Initiative program. Microsoft has had it for years. As in, they've had it for years and years now.
If you want to access Windows source code, sign up, give them a reason (I've personally used, "Because I want to see it."), and read the code. You don't even need to pay for it. It's entirely free. I don't believe you can get all the source, however. Well, not unless you've got a good reason (by their view of good) can you access everything. You don't just tick a box and they'll send you the complete source, ready to compile, and their tool chain. It's a bit more complicated than that but you can read (not edit, reuse, transfer, or own) the source and you can audit it.
That said, I've been telling people about this program for years now. I've even used this program. I'm kind of surprised that it's not more known. All those people bitched about not being able to see the source. Microsoft set it up so that they can read the source (albeit with an NDA and not editing that source) and nobody appears to take the time and effort to do so.
There was an interesting and budding community in those times. I'm not sure how much they can accomplish with today's tech and expectations. A good and powerful general purpose computer is hard to make and that's got an added complexity matter where size is concerned. Given enough time, tools, and documentation - I can probably make an x86 CPU. It's just going to be slow because it's the size of a table top.
If there were a good, realistic, open hardware initiative - I'd be throwing money at them. (And I have some money to throw.) I've yet to find one that has both good goals and realistic odds. I've sent off a few donations here and there but I've never found one which I got behind with any fervor. I don't even ask for anything directly in return. If there were full-blown, open hardware, desktops with modern architecture and speeds - I'd be interested.
I am a bit too lazy this morning but I seem to recall that people were dancing with glee to point out that IE had fewer vulnerabilities/listed/ than Firefox. Taken as a whole, I get more security patches and updates for Linux than I've gotten on any Windows system.
I point that out not to be negative but to politely disagree. The volume of issues isn't even really important. What's important is that they can be fixed by anyone who has the time and skills to understand the problems and fix them. You get that with open source.
So, your statement about Microsoft's products always having more security flaws may not be accurate. Even if it were, it'd be unimportant - to me. The number isn't really all that important. That you *can* do something about a problem is what's important to me. (Also, sorry if this doesn't come off as a spittle-flecked rant about one licensing preference. I'm just not that kind of guy.)
Oddly, I have that tab open right this very minute. It has been open for days - I keep downloading a distro every once in a while and trying them in a VM.
It's odd to see it brought up but not entirely unknown.
That's the "official" link - as far as I know. All of those should be free software by FSF beliefs. Every bit of code in them should have source available. There should be zero closed binaries or the likes. So far? Meh... I've found some interesting ideas with great potential.
I'm too lazy to scroll back up or hit parent and scroll back down... Yes... I'm that lazy.
That said, I have no idea who you're replying to. However, "If you want to understand..." They probably do not. I'm just playing the odds here but odds are, at best, they're pretending to want to understand. They might even be fooling themselves into believing they want to understand.
However, if they wanted to understand - they'd already have looked at HURD, Minix, QNX, BSD, Linux, Mach, and even Windows. They'd already know about the differences and benefits. They'd at least have a rough idea of some of the challenges. They might even have download 'em all (that they could) and given them a try in a VM or maybe even on bare metal. They'll have simply highlighted a word and searched. Probably Minix or even Hurd would have been fine choices but they all get you to the same spot eventually.[snip]
I'll skip the novella. In short, I settled on Linux. If they want to understand then there are many choices to get that understanding. I, a layman, can understand enough to know that I don't want to understand. I tried 'em all in a VM or on bare metal. I considered each and made my choices. I went with documentation, ecosystem, quantities, and resources. I could have gone with security, stability, and a more complete understanding. I went with an official Ubuntu flavor (Lubuntu) but left myself options. Why? I wanted to understand. I'm guessing that the person you replied to doesn't actually want to understand.
We had a lot of stuff from IBM. Then, we went almost entirely Sun - even workstations. We kept that up for a while but more things changed and we ended up with a bunch of IBM stuff again. And, again, we even had IBM workstations. What really mattered was what was in the back and we had IBM stuff back there - even when we were almost all Sun. There was almost always something from IBM back there - I say almost because I can't think of a time when there wasn't. Ever...
No, at times it was not a lot but there was always something even when we'd made an effort to go elsewhere. I really can't think of a time when we were IBM-free. We used their blade servers for years. There was always something with IBM on the front panel. Always...
Now, I've been retired for 8 years and I know about the sale to Lenovo. I am very much out of the "business" and I was already not spending a whole lot of time in the server rooms when I sold. But, I do keep my finger on the pulse. I have put no effort into verifying this; There's still IBM hardware in those same server rooms. It's still there and still prevalent. It's just not all that exciting any more - it's almost certainly not cutting edge any more (like you do indicate).
So, while I agree that IBM isn't cutting edge any more (though they're still innovating and chugging along - but mostly the latter), I'd have to need some evidence to say that nobody is buying IBM any more. There's a few reasons to buy IBM. One of the biggest reasons that you buy IBM is the company. You're not just paying for the name, you're paying for the support and community access.
I strongly suspect that you'll still find IBM "back there." I could be mistaken but I think someone would have mentioned this if it were no longer true. I don't really picture IBM going out with a whimper instead of a bang. It could happen but I'd expect someone to point it out by now. CDW was still pushing in their direction back before I sold and I expect they still are.
If you're putting an RFP out for forklift or build-out and IBM is not on the list somewhere, I'd actually be kind of surprised. I suspect that people are still buying IBM. I further suspect that they're buying them enough for them to remain viable - and even profitable. Assuming that they're profitable, someone's gotta be buying them? Surely they're worth more than support contracts?
Wait, what? Microsoft ditched their Windows Phone? I've not read anything of the sort. I've read that a few folks decided to declare it dead but I have a Windows phone (it's the only Windows device I own) and I know a surprising number of Windows phone users - the number has gone up lately. If you add to that, the OS is the same as is on the tablet, well I've not read anything about Microsoft actually ditching the phone OS.
Did I miss something? There was an article about some folks declaring it dead on the 29th but that wasn't some official thing. I'm sure they will have some changes and I'm suspect we'll be something a bit more tablet-y but I don't think they've actually made any announcements that are officially saying that Windows Phone is dead. Did I miss something important? I had a hectic weekend. I also looked at the most popular article list and that's not listed. I suspect that there'd be a lot said if Microsoft actually had announced that they were willing off their phone and no longer working in the phone market (thus the transition between devices).
That separation sounds good. I could probably use further refinement and better over-all organization and placement. I should give that some thought.
Basically, it tends to stay where it was put. Eventually, I've ended up with so much stuff that to re-org would be a project from hell. To move things to change location? Also a project from hell. I did leave some spaces in - not as much as I could/should have.
Mostly, it's about what will be closest and used in that area or what will be accessed most frequently is the closest to where I physically am. For some odd reason, and I'm not a collector by default but they were acquired, I have a rather large collection of old comics. Those are all stored properly but are down in the old barn area. I have several boxes full of 'em and boxes of boxes with them. (They had someone go over them and grade and price them. They then offered them to me at about a 1/10 retail price. That was some 25 years ago.)
At any rate, I suspect we'd get along just fine.;-) If I happen to be stomping through Texas, I'll let you know (assuming I remember and have the chance to do so) and we can take it from there. I'm currently in the Panhandle of Florida but I need to go home in the spring. Retirement has its perks, as does accumulation of a few dollars, but it still doesn't seem to quite afford enough time. I'd like to be far better organized than I am - and, yet, I'm pretty well organized. I'm thinking some real enterprise asset management/tracking solutions might actually go a long ways. I'd not need to track everything, or even keep some things up-to-date with effort, because they're either used so frequently that such would be impractical or because they're used so infrequently that they just don't move.
I don't really like buying something that I've already bought again and discarded. So, I've lots of things that I needed only once or twice but have still kept. Knowing what I already own and keeping track of it - should actually help that. "Oh, wait. I don't have to buy X. I already own one." So, unless there's a compelling reason to buy a new X, I might just as well find and use the old one. I've bought multiple X items in the wood shop. I suspect that I get giddy around certain tools and just forget what I already owned. What, you mean you don't have a half-dozen dovetail jigs? The big question is why do I own them when I actually can make them faster, and just as nice, with a coping saw, chisel, and pencil? I even *prefer* to make them without a jig.
Eventually it reaches the point where you not only can't move with a single rented truck but that you'd never even dream of packing and moving yourself. Nope. I'm rooted in Maine now. Unless you can magically get all that stuff from one place to another? Yeah.... There's probably a law of physics to describe it. It's probably not just gravity but that goes a long way to explain the acquisition of new stuff. (Also, it's my "stuff" but it'd be someone else's shit if they owned it. Funny how that works.) The kids (grown adults) still love going through my "shit" to see what I have. It kind of feels like they're pawing over my remains before I'm in the ground! (Not really, they're good kids. They just like seeing "Dad's old junk." They sometimes "borrow" the good stuff.)
If you promise to not be too pedantic... I'd like to ask...
Do you mean a computer or a iPad/iPod type of computer? So, a bit more specific would be good. (Yes, I know they're both computers.)
The iPad/iPod are a bit locked down, walled garden, devices while I see a computer as being more open. With both the iPad/iPod it really is (and this ties in with your "what for" part) are devices also made popular by what developers are able to do on it. There's a limit to what can be done, reasonably, and I'm thinking the least limit idea would be good.
My thinking is, perhaps wrong, that a more open device would be better in the long-run. A bunch of neat hardware, put together well, and someone will find a creative way to use it for you. Apple doesn't have to provide all the benefits - developers can. They can do so on a more closed system but I'd expect something that is more open to have greater potential.
Hmm... I'm not articulating that as well as I'd like. Ah well. Hopefully you can figure out what I'm thinking/asking. Also, it's not what will Apple do that I'm interested in. I'm interested in what *you* would do.
For some people, and I make no claims other than that of observation, it's a bad thing if you're not an extremist. If you're not an angry zealot, you don't care enough. That could mean (to them) that you don't like a product, don't hold a political view, don't support a software license, and many other things. While not specifically applicable in this case, it should be noted, that they're heard saying things like, "If you're not with us, you're against us." I'd further add, a non-sequitur is the most minimal of their logically fallacies in many cases. It's also their most frequent.
So, the person you're replying to probably believes that if you're not 100% invested (emotionally and financially) then you're not a "believer." It'd be, and you know this, completely moronic to invest everything in one single entity - in the vast majority of cases and certainly in an 401k designed to give steady growth and provide for a reasonable retirement. But, if you don't invest completely, that means the company is a complete and utter failure and proves you have no faith in the company.
It goes well with many other thinking patterns exhibited by this group of people. I think they exist for most any belief and, it would appear, they even exist for this.
They remind me of children... "If you love the tree so much, why don't you just marry it?!?" (Kids still say that, right?)
Apple now has so much money and such dedicated followers/aficionados that I'm pretty sure they can release 0 successful products for the next ten generations (human generations - not tech generations) and still have enough assets, on hand, to buy Finland and several of the higher ranking African nations. Apple has more money, currently, than quite a few countries have as their GDP. Their revenue is greater than the GDP of some countries.
I'm probably preaching to the choir but the above is quite true (as far as I know - someone posted stats with links not long ago). They could probably go even longer just making 1:10 products a moderate success and 2:10 break even.
As I sit here (and I'm told I have a good imagination) I am unable to think of a single realistic scenario where Apple doesn't exist for the next 200 years. I really can't. Aliens... Aliens might come and kick Apple in the nuts - then leaving the planet and taking all of Apples assets with them. Apple will be involved in the design of the Mr. Fusion. It'll probably be called the iFusion and people will still buy it just because it has an Apple logo on it.
On that last part... At this point, I can't really blame them for doing so. I don't own anything but an iPod. I've owned some iStuff but my daughter's a fan and she "borrows" it, like borrowing my Carhartt sweatshirts, and I'll never see it again. She's borrowed my iDevices in much the same way she's borrowed my money. As much as I do not prefer iDevices, I can not say anything bad about them that is logical - other than price and that's subjective.
To be clear, I do technically own a whole bunch of Apple shares. I have no idea how many. They are not in my play portfolio. I can find out if anyone really needs to know. I've also, oddly enough, probably purchased more Apple products than anyone else here. No, they weren't for me. Yes, I'm actually going to be buying more. Yes, I agree with their product choices and even made those choices for myself at times - I elected to buy them and was not forced to buy them.
An example of the latter is that I'm currently waiting to find out if they'll give me a damned discount if I buy 28 (the number has gone up) iPads for a children's wing in a hospital. No, I'm not entirely sure how I get into these situations. Yes, I feel a bit conned. However, they're cute and tough kids. I've met some of them and couldn't put up with half their pain and would shoot myself if my own life had such a bleak outlook. Oh, no, I do not tell (or indicate) such thoughts to the children when I visit.
Anyone advocating a strict, pure political ideology, as a solution is an idiot. A pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. The tyranny of the masses is a serious threat and I'd expect that the stupidity of the masses would be far more terrifying. There is no pure political ideology without huge failings at a scale of meaningful size.
Fortunately, this is usually addressed in some way and, as you indicate, there are no pure democracies and the word has changed meaning. Hell, it's changed meaning so much that I feel inclined to differential by calling it a pure democracy instead of just a democracy.
Actually, I'm just shocked that someone got the signal to noise ratio pointed in the right direction. Most people say that exactly backwards. "I like that place. The signal to noise ratio is really low!" Well, they are not necessarily wrong. I'm just not sure why one would prefer an environment where separation of noise and signal is difficult. It is really kind of odd how frequently someone posts it backwards.
Slashdot Mirror
It should be noted that a "pig" is the device used to clean out large pipes. There are a bunch of different pigs like those designed to do inspection, repairs, or simple cleaning. Your username kind of checks out but probably not intentionally.
That and it already WORKS© for some definition of WORKS®. You can do $, £, € and even do ¥. © and ® work and you can type El Niño if you want.
äåéëüúíóöáßðfghïø©®bñ磽¾ÄÅÉËÜÚÍÓÖ“”¦ÁÐFGHÏ®B and the "<" works too.
As I recall, they're called the Olympic Games and not the Olympic Sports. I do believe there are actual expectations in at least a couple of those. Thus, there's an objective. In the skating, for example, you have to do certain things in order to even have your work count. They include things like basics such as a Double Lutz and even a Figure 8. All of them will do them because they're a requirement - they must be a part of their show or the penalties will be so high that they don't qualify.
I only know about skating and a bit about gymnastics from a relative and because I wanted to be able to represent Rwanda at the Olympics as a skater. No, I can't skate or anything. In fact, I wanted to get out there and stomp up and down, fucking the ice all up - for days, to AC/DC. Alas, it turns out that they have minimal standards. It would have required more effort than stomping around which meant that I was not only not qualified, I was unwilling to learn.
Oh, I can probably do a Double Lutz. I just can't do it on purpose or with grace.
But, if you've ever wondered why everyone does a Figure 8 in their routine, that's it. Failing to do so will result in disqualification by rules. It turns out, you actually have to have some talent. You can't just ask to represent Rwanda in the Winter Games and expect they'll let you "dance the Dance of the Palooga" on their ice, while getting international attention, and cranking out AC/DC's Hell's Bells on the sound system for your own amusement. Err... If you ever had that question, I've found out the answer.
It is also remarkably more enjoyable than it looks like. It's not that exciting to watch if you're unfamiliar with the complexities involved and what the mechanisms are. However, if you're a player then it's kind of exciting to watch. There's also an assload of physics involved and to be considered. It's rather interesting, in my experience.
That said, I don't really watch TV so I can only speculate, more or less, but I'd watch curling before I'd watch many, many other things that are much more popular. I generally only watch documentaries - to the point where everything else is not an option in the vast, vast majority of cases. I don't actually have television except it turns out that I have cable down in Florida. I have no idea how long I've had cable for as this is only my fourth time at this house even though I own it.
At any rate, I've gone curling. I've gone a bit often, actually. Yes, yes I did pick it up in Canada. I have Canadian citizenship (by grace of heritage) and family.
It should be noted that my enjoyment of the sport was greatly reduced when I quit drinking. I'd speculate that's an internal thing and not intrinsic to the enjoyment of the sport/game. It is fair to add that I've not played nor watched for a while now and that I've never been curling while sober - using a strict definition of sober. Of course, there are lots of things that I've not done much/often while sober, using a strict definition.
Well, err... They didn't want a tickle, after all.
(And no, if you don't get that reference you are dead to me, dead to me!!!)
(Well, I guess you could learn but there's a whole lot more than a song to learn.)
I hope that is a work desk, that you're in a cubical, and that you tried varied amounts of force. It's not that I don't like you, or anything. I just have this picture of people staring at you as if you're a lunatic and it'd be disappointing were it not true.
They can last, for a very long time, without a successful product. Even moderate success means they'll be able to stay afloat from now until 100 years from now. Hell, they can probably drop half their cash-on-hand assets and buy a country and *STILL* be afloat in 100 years, even if every new product is a complete flop with a negative profit.
They have BILLIONS in just cash reserves. If they tried to build a Scrooge McDuck tower, to dive and swim in the cash, they'd probably bankrupt the mint of several nations. They probably couldn't even store all of their cash, in physical form, without having built the tower.
Maybe... Is it less time to skip the documentation, do the install, and go right to the help files? I find the answer would probably be no except I'm (also, usually) in the latter camp.
It's not easy to admit that I've installed software, for example, that turned out to not actually do what I was hoping it would do. I've then spent hours trying to find that feature in that software, only to not find it. Sure, sure... I'd looked at the page(s) about the software but, you know, who actually writes down everything the software does? I mean, they just list the more common features - right? Man pages are obviously not manly.
In my defense, I sometimes read the documentation before installing... Well, I have...
All these problems are easily solved if you can just handle your own devices.
Fucking terrorist! Next you'll be wanting ownership and control, I suppose? You want to actually control the input and read the output? Yeah, you're damned terrorist!
Imagine, you've been working on this since 1990 - nearly 26 years, and you finally figured out how to make a system beep. That must have been very thrilling. That moment, that point, where it recompiled, was installed, and finally went "BEEP" must have been one of the most exciting moments in their lives. All for want of a Spice Girls' track...
*BEEP*
Imagine the look on their face when that beep finally beeped. For better or worse, I bet they were thrilled. I wonder how many times they tried before realizing the speaker wasn't plugged into the right port? I also wonder who they told first?
*BEEP!*
The BEEP HURD 'round the world! I imagine it was quite thrilling. Eureka was cried, champagne was opened, dancing and merriment were had by all. Someone's mom even splurged and let someone have an extra juice box as a family danced merrily while singing the joys of the eternal beep. Pure, unadulterated, bliss - for someone.
And if that's not how it didn't happen, fuck you! That's how I'm picturing it in my head and how I'm always going to picture it. Someday, there will be a documentary made and it will be complete with a recreation of the event. It will lack a certain something, a certain essence, but it will be all we have as we strive in vain to live vicariously through the joys of others.
*BEEP!!!* Excitement, indeed.
... of course sheep flargle and antipode and place mat vicissitude, duh!
I am not alone in this Universe!!! So far, I recommend garbanzo beans as a treatment. Shistikitabootily is the smoking jacket but damned hard scrape and mitten.
Pink and purple garbanzo beans fester in my scrotum, not entirely unlike fuchsia!
Well, to continue with your car analogy... You'd probably be placing the blame emphasis on the wrong parties.
If those things didn't work - can you fix them?
If those things didn't work - why was that?
Was it because of improper documentation?
Was it because they had proprietary lock-out?
Was it because they were prevented access due to legal mechanisms?
Was it just because the OS sucked?
I mean, there are lots of reasons that such behavior could be happening. It may not be entirely the fault of the OS authors. I'd also suggest that there's a whole lot of blame for the installer of that OS (you, in this case). You should have read the documentation and seen that those features were not yet supported. You shouldn't have installed the OS if you weren't willing to accept those faults/limitations. You also should have made backups! ;-)
But, the big question is - why weren't those things supported? Nothing in the GPL would mean those couldn't be supported. At least, I can't think of any reason that the license of the free software would prevent those things from working. If they're not working, it's probably due to something other than the license. At the very least, you might want to read the documentation *before* installing.
You can do it for free (sort of). Just use the Shared Source Initiative program. Microsoft has had it for years. As in, they've had it for years and years now.
If you want to access Windows source code, sign up, give them a reason (I've personally used, "Because I want to see it."), and read the code. You don't even need to pay for it. It's entirely free. I don't believe you can get all the source, however. Well, not unless you've got a good reason (by their view of good) can you access everything. You don't just tick a box and they'll send you the complete source, ready to compile, and their tool chain. It's a bit more complicated than that but you can read (not edit, reuse, transfer, or own) the source and you can audit it.
That said, I've been telling people about this program for years now. I've even used this program. I'm kind of surprised that it's not more known. All those people bitched about not being able to see the source. Microsoft set it up so that they can read the source (albeit with an NDA and not editing that source) and nobody appears to take the time and effort to do so.
There was an interesting and budding community in those times. I'm not sure how much they can accomplish with today's tech and expectations. A good and powerful general purpose computer is hard to make and that's got an added complexity matter where size is concerned. Given enough time, tools, and documentation - I can probably make an x86 CPU. It's just going to be slow because it's the size of a table top.
If there were a good, realistic, open hardware initiative - I'd be throwing money at them. (And I have some money to throw.) I've yet to find one that has both good goals and realistic odds. I've sent off a few donations here and there but I've never found one which I got behind with any fervor. I don't even ask for anything directly in return. If there were full-blown, open hardware, desktops with modern architecture and speeds - I'd be interested.
I am a bit too lazy this morning but I seem to recall that people were dancing with glee to point out that IE had fewer vulnerabilities /listed/ than Firefox. Taken as a whole, I get more security patches and updates for Linux than I've gotten on any Windows system.
I point that out not to be negative but to politely disagree. The volume of issues isn't even really important. What's important is that they can be fixed by anyone who has the time and skills to understand the problems and fix them. You get that with open source.
So, your statement about Microsoft's products always having more security flaws may not be accurate. Even if it were, it'd be unimportant - to me. The number isn't really all that important. That you *can* do something about a problem is what's important to me. (Also, sorry if this doesn't come off as a spittle-flecked rant about one licensing preference. I'm just not that kind of guy.)
Oddly, I have that tab open right this very minute. It has been open for days - I keep downloading a distro every once in a while and trying them in a VM.
It's odd to see it brought up but not entirely unknown.
http://www.gnu.org/distros/fre...
That's the "official" link - as far as I know. All of those should be free software by FSF beliefs. Every bit of code in them should have source available. There should be zero closed binaries or the likes. So far? Meh... I've found some interesting ideas with great potential.
I'm too lazy to scroll back up or hit parent and scroll back down... Yes... I'm that lazy.
That said, I have no idea who you're replying to. However, "If you want to understand..." They probably do not. I'm just playing the odds here but odds are, at best, they're pretending to want to understand. They might even be fooling themselves into believing they want to understand.
However, if they wanted to understand - they'd already have looked at HURD, Minix, QNX, BSD, Linux, Mach, and even Windows. They'd already know about the differences and benefits. They'd at least have a rough idea of some of the challenges. They might even have download 'em all (that they could) and given them a try in a VM or maybe even on bare metal. They'll have simply highlighted a word and searched. Probably Minix or even Hurd would have been fine choices but they all get you to the same spot eventually.[snip]
I'll skip the novella. In short, I settled on Linux. If they want to understand then there are many choices to get that understanding. I, a layman, can understand enough to know that I don't want to understand. I tried 'em all in a VM or on bare metal. I considered each and made my choices. I went with documentation, ecosystem, quantities, and resources. I could have gone with security, stability, and a more complete understanding. I went with an official Ubuntu flavor (Lubuntu) but left myself options. Why? I wanted to understand. I'm guessing that the person you replied to doesn't actually want to understand.
We had a lot of stuff from IBM. Then, we went almost entirely Sun - even workstations. We kept that up for a while but more things changed and we ended up with a bunch of IBM stuff again. And, again, we even had IBM workstations. What really mattered was what was in the back and we had IBM stuff back there - even when we were almost all Sun. There was almost always something from IBM back there - I say almost because I can't think of a time when there wasn't. Ever...
No, at times it was not a lot but there was always something even when we'd made an effort to go elsewhere. I really can't think of a time when we were IBM-free. We used their blade servers for years. There was always something with IBM on the front panel. Always...
Now, I've been retired for 8 years and I know about the sale to Lenovo. I am very much out of the "business" and I was already not spending a whole lot of time in the server rooms when I sold. But, I do keep my finger on the pulse. I have put no effort into verifying this; There's still IBM hardware in those same server rooms. It's still there and still prevalent. It's just not all that exciting any more - it's almost certainly not cutting edge any more (like you do indicate).
So, while I agree that IBM isn't cutting edge any more (though they're still innovating and chugging along - but mostly the latter), I'd have to need some evidence to say that nobody is buying IBM any more. There's a few reasons to buy IBM. One of the biggest reasons that you buy IBM is the company. You're not just paying for the name, you're paying for the support and community access.
I strongly suspect that you'll still find IBM "back there." I could be mistaken but I think someone would have mentioned this if it were no longer true. I don't really picture IBM going out with a whimper instead of a bang. It could happen but I'd expect someone to point it out by now. CDW was still pushing in their direction back before I sold and I expect they still are.
If you're putting an RFP out for forklift or build-out and IBM is not on the list somewhere, I'd actually be kind of surprised. I suspect that people are still buying IBM. I further suspect that they're buying them enough for them to remain viable - and even profitable. Assuming that they're profitable, someone's gotta be buying them? Surely they're worth more than support contracts?
Wait, what? Microsoft ditched their Windows Phone? I've not read anything of the sort. I've read that a few folks decided to declare it dead but I have a Windows phone (it's the only Windows device I own) and I know a surprising number of Windows phone users - the number has gone up lately. If you add to that, the OS is the same as is on the tablet, well I've not read anything about Microsoft actually ditching the phone OS.
Did I miss something? There was an article about some folks declaring it dead on the 29th but that wasn't some official thing. I'm sure they will have some changes and I'm suspect we'll be something a bit more tablet-y but I don't think they've actually made any announcements that are officially saying that Windows Phone is dead. Did I miss something important? I had a hectic weekend. I also looked at the most popular article list and that's not listed. I suspect that there'd be a lot said if Microsoft actually had announced that they were willing off their phone and no longer working in the phone market (thus the transition between devices).
Hmm... What'd I miss?
That separation sounds good. I could probably use further refinement and better over-all organization and placement. I should give that some thought.
Basically, it tends to stay where it was put. Eventually, I've ended up with so much stuff that to re-org would be a project from hell. To move things to change location? Also a project from hell. I did leave some spaces in - not as much as I could/should have.
Mostly, it's about what will be closest and used in that area or what will be accessed most frequently is the closest to where I physically am. For some odd reason, and I'm not a collector by default but they were acquired, I have a rather large collection of old comics. Those are all stored properly but are down in the old barn area. I have several boxes full of 'em and boxes of boxes with them. (They had someone go over them and grade and price them. They then offered them to me at about a 1/10 retail price. That was some 25 years ago.)
At any rate, I suspect we'd get along just fine. ;-) If I happen to be stomping through Texas, I'll let you know (assuming I remember and have the chance to do so) and we can take it from there. I'm currently in the Panhandle of Florida but I need to go home in the spring. Retirement has its perks, as does accumulation of a few dollars, but it still doesn't seem to quite afford enough time. I'd like to be far better organized than I am - and, yet, I'm pretty well organized. I'm thinking some real enterprise asset management/tracking solutions might actually go a long ways. I'd not need to track everything, or even keep some things up-to-date with effort, because they're either used so frequently that such would be impractical or because they're used so infrequently that they just don't move.
I don't really like buying something that I've already bought again and discarded. So, I've lots of things that I needed only once or twice but have still kept. Knowing what I already own and keeping track of it - should actually help that. "Oh, wait. I don't have to buy X. I already own one." So, unless there's a compelling reason to buy a new X, I might just as well find and use the old one. I've bought multiple X items in the wood shop. I suspect that I get giddy around certain tools and just forget what I already owned. What, you mean you don't have a half-dozen dovetail jigs? The big question is why do I own them when I actually can make them faster, and just as nice, with a coping saw, chisel, and pencil? I even *prefer* to make them without a jig.
Eventually it reaches the point where you not only can't move with a single rented truck but that you'd never even dream of packing and moving yourself. Nope. I'm rooted in Maine now. Unless you can magically get all that stuff from one place to another? Yeah.... There's probably a law of physics to describe it. It's probably not just gravity but that goes a long way to explain the acquisition of new stuff. (Also, it's my "stuff" but it'd be someone else's shit if they owned it. Funny how that works.) The kids (grown adults) still love going through my "shit" to see what I have. It kind of feels like they're pawing over my remains before I'm in the ground! (Not really, they're good kids. They just like seeing "Dad's old junk." They sometimes "borrow" the good stuff.)
If you promise to not be too pedantic... I'd like to ask...
Do you mean a computer or a iPad/iPod type of computer? So, a bit more specific would be good. (Yes, I know they're both computers.)
The iPad/iPod are a bit locked down, walled garden, devices while I see a computer as being more open. With both the iPad/iPod it really is (and this ties in with your "what for" part) are devices also made popular by what developers are able to do on it. There's a limit to what can be done, reasonably, and I'm thinking the least limit idea would be good.
My thinking is, perhaps wrong, that a more open device would be better in the long-run. A bunch of neat hardware, put together well, and someone will find a creative way to use it for you. Apple doesn't have to provide all the benefits - developers can. They can do so on a more closed system but I'd expect something that is more open to have greater potential.
Hmm... I'm not articulating that as well as I'd like. Ah well. Hopefully you can figure out what I'm thinking/asking. Also, it's not what will Apple do that I'm interested in. I'm interested in what *you* would do.
For some people, and I make no claims other than that of observation, it's a bad thing if you're not an extremist. If you're not an angry zealot, you don't care enough. That could mean (to them) that you don't like a product, don't hold a political view, don't support a software license, and many other things. While not specifically applicable in this case, it should be noted, that they're heard saying things like, "If you're not with us, you're against us." I'd further add, a non-sequitur is the most minimal of their logically fallacies in many cases. It's also their most frequent.
So, the person you're replying to probably believes that if you're not 100% invested (emotionally and financially) then you're not a "believer." It'd be, and you know this, completely moronic to invest everything in one single entity - in the vast majority of cases and certainly in an 401k designed to give steady growth and provide for a reasonable retirement. But, if you don't invest completely, that means the company is a complete and utter failure and proves you have no faith in the company.
It goes well with many other thinking patterns exhibited by this group of people. I think they exist for most any belief and, it would appear, they even exist for this.
They remind me of children... "If you love the tree so much, why don't you just marry it?!?" (Kids still say that, right?)
Apple now has so much money and such dedicated followers/aficionados that I'm pretty sure they can release 0 successful products for the next ten generations (human generations - not tech generations) and still have enough assets, on hand, to buy Finland and several of the higher ranking African nations. Apple has more money, currently, than quite a few countries have as their GDP. Their revenue is greater than the GDP of some countries.
I'm probably preaching to the choir but the above is quite true (as far as I know - someone posted stats with links not long ago). They could probably go even longer just making 1:10 products a moderate success and 2:10 break even.
As I sit here (and I'm told I have a good imagination) I am unable to think of a single realistic scenario where Apple doesn't exist for the next 200 years. I really can't. Aliens... Aliens might come and kick Apple in the nuts - then leaving the planet and taking all of Apples assets with them. Apple will be involved in the design of the Mr. Fusion. It'll probably be called the iFusion and people will still buy it just because it has an Apple logo on it.
On that last part... At this point, I can't really blame them for doing so. I don't own anything but an iPod. I've owned some iStuff but my daughter's a fan and she "borrows" it, like borrowing my Carhartt sweatshirts, and I'll never see it again. She's borrowed my iDevices in much the same way she's borrowed my money. As much as I do not prefer iDevices, I can not say anything bad about them that is logical - other than price and that's subjective.
To be clear, I do technically own a whole bunch of Apple shares. I have no idea how many. They are not in my play portfolio. I can find out if anyone really needs to know. I've also, oddly enough, probably purchased more Apple products than anyone else here. No, they weren't for me. Yes, I'm actually going to be buying more. Yes, I agree with their product choices and even made those choices for myself at times - I elected to buy them and was not forced to buy them.
An example of the latter is that I'm currently waiting to find out if they'll give me a damned discount if I buy 28 (the number has gone up) iPads for a children's wing in a hospital. No, I'm not entirely sure how I get into these situations. Yes, I feel a bit conned. However, they're cute and tough kids. I've met some of them and couldn't put up with half their pain and would shoot myself if my own life had such a bleak outlook. Oh, no, I do not tell (or indicate) such thoughts to the children when I visit.
Rather than my usual novella...
Anyone advocating a strict, pure political ideology, as a solution is an idiot. A pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. The tyranny of the masses is a serious threat and I'd expect that the stupidity of the masses would be far more terrifying. There is no pure political ideology without huge failings at a scale of meaningful size.
Fortunately, this is usually addressed in some way and, as you indicate, there are no pure democracies and the word has changed meaning. Hell, it's changed meaning so much that I feel inclined to differential by calling it a pure democracy instead of just a democracy.
Actually, I'm just shocked that someone got the signal to noise ratio pointed in the right direction. Most people say that exactly backwards. "I like that place. The signal to noise ratio is really low!" Well, they are not necessarily wrong. I'm just not sure why one would prefer an environment where separation of noise and signal is difficult. It is really kind of odd how frequently someone posts it backwards.