Yeah, I got one of these out of a Frosted Flakes box when I was a kid. It's a little plastic widget and you screw it in-between two 2-liter soda bottles, and when you flip them over, instant tornado! I don't know how you get power from it...
Linux isn't comparable to OS X. Red Hat is. But Linux is just a kernel, not an OS... so that doesn't count. If you had numbers that stated Red Hat had more installs than OS X, then I'd be convinced.
In any case, I said it is one of the biggest, which regardless is certainly true.
And I still think OS X is probably the biggest, and that anything else is either changing the rules of the game (saying Linux is an OS), or wishful thinking (OS X *can't* be the biggest! It's not 1337 enough!). All this pussyfooting (what, 6 replies now and not a single person correcting me?) makes me think that I'm right enough about it.
He's made a better argument than anybody so far this thread who's said that OS X *isn't* the biggest. Even though his numbers are very flawed. (I mean, he's assuming that no computers are ever thrown away or break.)
If he's wrong, then what IS the answer? You said that OS X isn't the biggest by *any* reckoning, which means it's not the biggest by number of users... so what is? Stop all this pussyfooting and just tell me.
What do you mean by "biggest"? Further, what do you mean by "Unix"? Depending on the answer to the previous two, the answer is likely Solaris, Linux, or FreeBSD. In any case, it's almost certainly NOT OS X, which is the least Unix-like of any of the other choices.
If you don't even know what I mean by "biggest" how can you declare that I'm wrong with such certainty? I think that's a more important question than yours.:)
By "biggest" I mean "most copies installed." But you say that in any case, OS X isn't the answer... so which Unix OS has more copies installed than OS X? Seriously! I want to know. I'm sick of people on Slashdot knee-jerking "you're wrong" without: 1) correcting me, and 2) (apparently) even understanding what I meant in the first place.
For the record, the more people dodge the question, the more I assume I was right in the first place and they're just dodging the question because they posted a reply to me without thinking.
As for the rest of your comment: if you install an HP printer driver, and it forces you to reboot, is it the driver installer's fault, or the OS? If the OS doesn't require it, and the driver installer does, will it work even if you don't? If your IBM printer works, the HP should also.
Probably it would work fine. It kind of depends on what HP's driver installer is doing. (Possibly, all it needs is a restart of the Print Spooler service, but a normal installer can do that without rebooting.) But there are some config changes in Windows XP that require a reboot, and it could be making one of those. Who knows? I don't own a HP printer.
Heh, ok I almost laughed at that. If you seriously think Apple is the biggest Unix distro, you have a seriously myopic view of the Unix world. Of course perhaps you were referring to *BSD (encompassing all derivatives) instead of "Apple".
What's the biggest then? So far two people have said this, and neither of them have corrected me.
On the flip side however is Windows, where when I installed my HP "plug-and-play" printer, it required rebooting -halfway- through the driver installation, and then again(!) after the drivers were fully installed.
Yes, but when I'm installing IBM printers at work, I haven't had to reboot 2000 Pro or XP Pro for it yet. Ditto with even obscure printers, like the EasyCoder 3400 label printer we support. I think all this says is that HP drivers suck ass. Or at least the installer does.
But that's neither here nor there. The entire point of this article is that Microsoft is reducing, and hopefully eliminating, the number of reboots required when patching. Chances are if HP's crappy driver installer reboots now, it'll reboot five years from now, no matter what technologies Microsoft creates. (After all, the ability to install a printer driver without a reboot already exists, HP just isn't using it.)
I said "every time I update" not "you have to reboot all the time." I think I can safely say that every single time I've run Software Update, one of the updates in there requires me to reboot. That's different from saying that every update Apple puts out requires a reboot. (Maybe it's just me, but it seems that Apple puts out the non-reboot updates at the same time as the reboot ones... at least, I've never seen a non-reboot update listed without a reboot one there, but I only check once a week anyway.)
What Unix has more users than OS X? Given, I haven't seen any studies on the subject, but a lot of people (judging from comments on the Internet) seem to believe it, enough so I've taken it as common knowledge. Does Solaris have more users than OS X? I've been in IT five years now, and I've seen exactly one Solaris box.
However, it's trivial to extract a package's components by hand, unlink any in use kexts or halt any processes with open files that need to be updated, and place the new files from the package where the belong. Then you can restart the updated kexts and launch the updated processes yourself.
Are you entirely sure you know what "trivial" means?
Bullshit. Everytime I update OS X it makes me reboot. If there was a way to do it without rebooting, don't you think Apple (one of the, if not *the* biggest Unix distro) would be taking advantage of it?
Sure it might be theoretically possible in some lab setting, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Unix distribution I use every day doesn't, and so it can't be nearly as simple to accomplish as you seem to assume it is.
This viewpoint is something we need to work on as a society, yet we won't because the current system (protected by copyright) puts the power of media in the **AA companies, not the bands.
Only true as long as the bands continue to sign contracts with the RIAA companies. They have the *true* power in this equation, after all, what would the RIAA sell with no bands? But so far, they have simply signed it away without a lot of consideration.
And you know people really pay attention to online petitions. You see articles all the time: "Online petition ends war in Iraq!" "Online petition lowers gas prices!" "Lindsay Lohan credits internet petition with ending her midguided hunger strike!"
Sarcasm aside, the only one who benefits from those petitions is PetitionOnline, who gets basically free ad revenue for providing little to nothing in return.
The MPAA didn't *prohibit* Linux users from playing DVDs. If any Linux software maker was willing to pay for the same license every other DVD software companies pays for, they'd have sold it. (In fact, they did to Linspire, I believe.)
This is all making a conspiracy theory out of nothing.
There's RealBasic, but their Linux support is still pretty immature. That said, it's definitely worth a try and it's great software for MacOS and Windows. (It's been MacOS forever, Windows for about five years, and Linux for less than a year.)
It's not a big deal... I don't think they're offering THAT much more than a hosting plan, MP3 client, and gallery-creating web page editor can do right now anyway.
Well, you may have a point, but on the other hand until the equation changes:
(revenue from Linux consumers) is less than (cost of producing Linux drivers)
There's not going to be any big explosion of hardware support for Linux. There are only two ways to change this equation... make the revenue from Linux consumers go up (which is impossible, because Linux users won't buy a device that has no driver) or make the cost of producing drivers go down.
Even if the performance suffers, wouldn't you rather have a driver than no driver at all? I disagree with a lot of what the kernel team does, because they seem to have very little, or no, concern for the end-user. This exact issue being a point in defense of that argument.
If you don't like it, don't buy a car from a dealership that uses it. It's that simple.
However, if you don't like it, *and* your credit is so bad that nobody else will give you a loan, you might have to become familiar with the bus routes... guess you should have paid more attention in high school civics class when they were talking about your credit rating!
What are you, an idiot? They already do this. If the rating is anything over E for Everyone, they always have a breakdown of exactly *why* it was rated that way.
Look, there's a high resolution scan of the GTA San Andreas box (the one that all these groups are up in arms about.) Look at that block of large easily-visible text on the back that reads:
Mature 17+ Blood and Gore Intense Violence Strong Language Strong Sexual Content Use of Drugs
You see that? The EXACT REASONS it got a M rating, right there printed on every copy on the shelves.
Slashdot needs the -1 Just Plain Wrong moderation implemented, methinks.
It's not like alcohol or tobacco, it's like movies.
I honestly don't get why video games stores don't card for rated M games, but DVD stores will card to rent/buy a rated R movie. And I think that's the same confusion the grandparent has... you'd think the game industry would be doing this if only to AVOID having laws passed that would force them to.
What really bothers me is this: The movie industry is trusted to enforce their own ratings system, why isn't the video game industry? Why is there a big call for laws preventing the sales of games instead of a call for video game retailers to check IDs?
The reports that Microsoft demanded bundling for pre-orders were just the usual Slashdot anti-Microsoft FUD. EBGames was solely responsible for any package deal requirement on pre-orders they sold.
But you do have a point, it does really skew their statistics.
If he thinks Microsoft is intentionally breaking compatibility, they he's in for a real shock if he ever tries, say, OS X. (Apple *does* intentionally break backwards compatibility, although not very often; Microsoft bends over backwards to keep older programs running. Read Raymond Chen's blog The Old New Thing http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/ and count how many postings there are about Microsoft fixing bugs in other vendors' programs, or adding in some new compatibility code to cope with assumptions made by some older program.)
That's not going to happen it's economically smart to produce drivers for Linux. And that's not going to happen until producing drivers for Linux is at least ten times easier than producing them for Windows.
If I were "running" Linux, and I knew how to program, I'd create a cross-platform driver abstration layer (make it free for commercial use, or open source) so that a company could develop a single driver, then use it for Windows, Linux, OS X all at the same time. If that existed, then there'd be no reason for hardware makers to *not* make Linux drivers, and you'd see the amount of supported hardware in Linux explode.
The only other way to change the economic equation is to get a huge number of Linux users, like a third of all computer users or more. But that hasn't happened in years and years, so making cross-platform drivers is a more likely solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I got one of these out of a Frosted Flakes box when I was a kid. It's a little plastic widget and you screw it in-between two 2-liter soda bottles, and when you flip them over, instant tornado! I don't know how you get power from it...
Linux isn't comparable to OS X. Red Hat is. But Linux is just a kernel, not an OS... so that doesn't count. If you had numbers that stated Red Hat had more installs than OS X, then I'd be convinced.
In any case, I said it is one of the biggest, which regardless is certainly true.
And I still think OS X is probably the biggest, and that anything else is either changing the rules of the game (saying Linux is an OS), or wishful thinking (OS X *can't* be the biggest! It's not 1337 enough!). All this pussyfooting (what, 6 replies now and not a single person correcting me?) makes me think that I'm right enough about it.
He's made a better argument than anybody so far this thread who's said that OS X *isn't* the biggest. Even though his numbers are very flawed. (I mean, he's assuming that no computers are ever thrown away or break.)
If he's wrong, then what IS the answer? You said that OS X isn't the biggest by *any* reckoning, which means it's not the biggest by number of users... so what is? Stop all this pussyfooting and just tell me.
What do you mean by "biggest"? Further, what do you mean by "Unix"? Depending on the answer to the previous two, the answer is likely Solaris, Linux, or FreeBSD. In any case, it's almost certainly NOT OS X, which is the least Unix-like of any of the other choices.
:)
If you don't even know what I mean by "biggest" how can you declare that I'm wrong with such certainty? I think that's a more important question than yours.
By "biggest" I mean "most copies installed." But you say that in any case, OS X isn't the answer... so which Unix OS has more copies installed than OS X? Seriously! I want to know. I'm sick of people on Slashdot knee-jerking "you're wrong" without: 1) correcting me, and 2) (apparently) even understanding what I meant in the first place.
For the record, the more people dodge the question, the more I assume I was right in the first place and they're just dodging the question because they posted a reply to me without thinking.
As for the rest of your comment: if you install an HP printer driver, and it forces you to reboot, is it the driver installer's fault, or the OS? If the OS doesn't require it, and the driver installer does, will it work even if you don't? If your IBM printer works, the HP should also.
Probably it would work fine. It kind of depends on what HP's driver installer is doing. (Possibly, all it needs is a restart of the Print Spooler service, but a normal installer can do that without rebooting.) But there are some config changes in Windows XP that require a reboot, and it could be making one of those. Who knows? I don't own a HP printer.
trivial (tr?v'?-?l)
adj.
1. Of little significance or value.
2. Ordinary; commonplace.
3. Concerned with or involving trivia.
So... no you don't then. Glad we cleared that up.
(Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=trivial )
Heh, ok I almost laughed at that. If you seriously think Apple is the biggest Unix distro, you have a seriously myopic view of the Unix world. Of course perhaps you were referring to *BSD (encompassing all derivatives) instead of "Apple".
What's the biggest then? So far two people have said this, and neither of them have corrected me.
On the flip side however is Windows, where when I installed my HP "plug-and-play" printer, it required rebooting -halfway- through the driver installation, and then again(!) after the drivers were fully installed.
Yes, but when I'm installing IBM printers at work, I haven't had to reboot 2000 Pro or XP Pro for it yet. Ditto with even obscure printers, like the EasyCoder 3400 label printer we support. I think all this says is that HP drivers suck ass. Or at least the installer does.
But that's neither here nor there. The entire point of this article is that Microsoft is reducing, and hopefully eliminating, the number of reboots required when patching. Chances are if HP's crappy driver installer reboots now, it'll reboot five years from now, no matter what technologies Microsoft creates. (After all, the ability to install a printer driver without a reboot already exists, HP just isn't using it.)
I said "every time I update" not "you have to reboot all the time." I think I can safely say that every single time I've run Software Update, one of the updates in there requires me to reboot. That's different from saying that every update Apple puts out requires a reboot. (Maybe it's just me, but it seems that Apple puts out the non-reboot updates at the same time as the reboot ones... at least, I've never seen a non-reboot update listed without a reboot one there, but I only check once a week anyway.)
What Unix has more users than OS X? Given, I haven't seen any studies on the subject, but a lot of people (judging from comments on the Internet) seem to believe it, enough so I've taken it as common knowledge. Does Solaris have more users than OS X? I've been in IT five years now, and I've seen exactly one Solaris box.
However, it's trivial to extract a package's components by hand, unlink any in use kexts or halt any processes with open files that need to be updated, and place the new files from the package where the belong. Then you can restart the updated kexts and launch the updated processes yourself.
Are you entirely sure you know what "trivial" means?
Except 95% of Windows installs don't have an "administrator." We're talking about home users here.
Bullshit. Everytime I update OS X it makes me reboot. If there was a way to do it without rebooting, don't you think Apple (one of the, if not *the* biggest Unix distro) would be taking advantage of it?
Sure it might be theoretically possible in some lab setting, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Unix distribution I use every day doesn't, and so it can't be nearly as simple to accomplish as you seem to assume it is.
Uh, well, he can't possibly have written all the episodes of season 5, *and* all the episodes in season 5 sans one at the same time, right?
So I'm not sure what the record is, but I think it involves bending time or alternate realities or something like that.
This viewpoint is something we need to work on as a society, yet we won't because the current system (protected by copyright) puts the power of media in the **AA companies, not the bands.
Only true as long as the bands continue to sign contracts with the RIAA companies. They have the *true* power in this equation, after all, what would the RIAA sell with no bands? But so far, they have simply signed it away without a lot of consideration.
And you know people really pay attention to online petitions. You see articles all the time: "Online petition ends war in Iraq!" "Online petition lowers gas prices!" "Lindsay Lohan credits internet petition with ending her midguided hunger strike!"
Sarcasm aside, the only one who benefits from those petitions is PetitionOnline, who gets basically free ad revenue for providing little to nothing in return.
How about fixing the "shift" key on your keyboard? How the hell did you get a job as editor?
The MPAA didn't *prohibit* Linux users from playing DVDs. If any Linux software maker was willing to pay for the same license every other DVD software companies pays for, they'd have sold it. (In fact, they did to Linspire, I believe.)
This is all making a conspiracy theory out of nothing.
There's RealBasic, but their Linux support is still pretty immature. That said, it's definitely worth a try and it's great software for MacOS and Windows. (It's been MacOS forever, Windows for about five years, and Linux for less than a year.)
Usually that's done to verify age.
It's not a big deal... I don't think they're offering THAT much more than a hosting plan, MP3 client, and gallery-creating web page editor can do right now anyway.
Well, you may have a point, but on the other hand until the equation changes:
(revenue from Linux consumers) is less than (cost of producing Linux drivers)
There's not going to be any big explosion of hardware support for Linux. There are only two ways to change this equation... make the revenue from Linux consumers go up (which is impossible, because Linux users won't buy a device that has no driver) or make the cost of producing drivers go down.
Even if the performance suffers, wouldn't you rather have a driver than no driver at all? I disagree with a lot of what the kernel team does, because they seem to have very little, or no, concern for the end-user. This exact issue being a point in defense of that argument.
If you don't like it, don't buy a car from a dealership that uses it. It's that simple.
However, if you don't like it, *and* your credit is so bad that nobody else will give you a loan, you might have to become familiar with the bus routes... guess you should have paid more attention in high school civics class when they were talking about your credit rating!
What are you, an idiot? They already do this. If the rating is anything over E for Everyone, they always have a breakdown of exactly *why* it was rated that way.
o x&gamename=Grand%20Theft%20Auto%20San%20Andreas&co vercode=Cover
http://www.covergalaxy.com/download.asp?system=XB
Look, there's a high resolution scan of the GTA San Andreas box (the one that all these groups are up in arms about.) Look at that block of large easily-visible text on the back that reads:
Mature 17+
Blood and Gore
Intense Violence
Strong Language
Strong Sexual Content
Use of Drugs
You see that? The EXACT REASONS it got a M rating, right there printed on every copy on the shelves.
Slashdot needs the -1 Just Plain Wrong moderation implemented, methinks.
It's not like alcohol or tobacco, it's like movies.
I honestly don't get why video games stores don't card for rated M games, but DVD stores will card to rent/buy a rated R movie. And I think that's the same confusion the grandparent has... you'd think the game industry would be doing this if only to AVOID having laws passed that would force them to.
What really bothers me is this: The movie industry is trusted to enforce their own ratings system, why isn't the video game industry? Why is there a big call for laws preventing the sales of games instead of a call for video game retailers to check IDs?
The reports that Microsoft demanded bundling for pre-orders were just the usual Slashdot anti-Microsoft FUD. EBGames was solely responsible for any package deal requirement on pre-orders they sold.
But you do have a point, it does really skew their statistics.
If he thinks Microsoft is intentionally breaking compatibility, they he's in for a real shock if he ever tries, say, OS X. (Apple *does* intentionally break backwards compatibility, although not very often; Microsoft bends over backwards to keep older programs running. Read Raymond Chen's blog The Old New Thing http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/ and count how many postings there are about Microsoft fixing bugs in other vendors' programs, or adding in some new compatibility code to cope with assumptions made by some older program.)
That's not going to happen it's economically smart to produce drivers for Linux. And that's not going to happen until producing drivers for Linux is at least ten times easier than producing them for Windows.
If I were "running" Linux, and I knew how to program, I'd create a cross-platform driver abstration layer (make it free for commercial use, or open source) so that a company could develop a single driver, then use it for Windows, Linux, OS X all at the same time. If that existed, then there'd be no reason for hardware makers to *not* make Linux drivers, and you'd see the amount of supported hardware in Linux explode.
The only other way to change the economic equation is to get a huge number of Linux users, like a third of all computer users or more. But that hasn't happened in years and years, so making cross-platform drivers is a more likely solution.
And who gives a crap?