They brought over and improved the best bits from OS 9,
Apple *threw out* the best bits of OS 9. Right into a dumpster. Oh, they half-heartedly pretended to care for a short while (re-adding some features like Labels in Finder), but it was obvious they did not. They certainly didn't "improve" Labels when they *finally* got around to porting it. And many OS 9 Finder features they never bothered to port in the first place.
Not to mention abandoning the entire philosophy OS 9 was based around-- a spatial GUI. Not just the code itself, but the entire underlying development philosophy was chucked in a bin.
Pretty much every point in that paragraph is false. Wrongness like that pisses me off.
And when did it ship by default, and enabled, on a popular Linux distro? *That* is the equivalent date to Vista's release, and that's the date I'm referring to.
Make no mistake, I think everything else you said is also wrong, but I though this deserved special attention. Of course, "carbon offsets" are a way to monetize a problem. It's quite obviously a bribe to capitalists to get them to support reducing CO2 by monetizing the problem.
You miss the point.
If the government gets money from CO2, the government will do everything it can to *encourage* the use of more CO2 so that it can get more money. As another poster further up in the thread said, this is like trying to make cows go extinct by opening hamburger restaurants-- it simply does not make sense.
The problem here is that you recognize that capitalists will (generally) take whatever action makes them the most money, but what you don't seem to realize is that the government will do the exact same thing.
4) Tax the people who release the CO2.
If you don't like option #4, what would you choose instead and why?
The only realistic option is to make "green" energy sources either cheaper, better, or both than existing carbon-based energy sources. Note: it will probably have to be both cheaper and better. After all, Linux is significantly cheaper than Windows, but even that isn't enough to get it widely adopted.
Now I'm not going to comment on *how* that should be done, because frankly I don't know. But any band-aid you put on the problem before "green" energy can effectively replace carbon-based energy is a costly waste of time-- it won't solve the problem, it *will* cost us all a buttload of money.
300,000 people is on par with the state of Wyoming, except they're all using the same set of forums and actively engaged with one another. We have a hard time getting 50% of the population in the real world to vote, or send back census forms; these people are all actively engaged.
You're making huge assumptions here. The vast majority of them are people who only keep their subscription open to train new skills and aren't engaged in any meaningful fashion.
"300,000 subscribers" doesn't mean "300,000 players."
Users were NEVER clamouring for Trusted Path. DRM on physical media is a media cartel creation of no benefit whatsoever, and please don't ever forget it.
You're missing the point. Obviously, users never said, "give me DRM!" That's retarded. But users want to play blu-ray disks on their computers. Right now, that requires Trusted Path. Thus, Windows has Trusted Path and is the *only* OS currently available that can play blu-ray disks.
Look, in any case, right or not, that post certainly isn't "insightful" for anybody with an IQ above that of a liver fluke. The mods are completely on crack today.
This couldn't work for most games, anyway. Probably nearly all games.
EVE is very, very divisive-- people either love it, or can't stand it. Because of that: 1) It's playership is limited to a relatively low number 2) They all think alike (they all have the "I like EVE" mindset)
Take a game like World of Warcraft, in comparison, and this would be a complete waste of time.
you havent whored yourselves out to music and media cartels to accommodate them with their draconian DRM wishes and user control schemes maybe ?
+5 Insightful?
Please point out a single action Microsoft has taken that "whores themselves out to music and media cartels". Please point out the "draconian DRM" and "user control schemes" that comes with Microsoft products.
(You're going to bring up Trusted Path, of course, and completely ignore the fact that Microsoft put in support for that because their customers wanted it to be able to play Blu-Rays. Admittedly, it is DRM. But, on the other hand, if the users are clamoring for it, you can hardly make a case that Microsoft is colluding with media cartels.)
Oh, and mods? Please, please, stop pissing all over the meaning of the word "insightful." You're worse than Microsoft with "innovative." This post isn't insightful; it makes a stupid argument, not backed-up by any evidence, that isn't even close to original.
Innovation? Part of the big problem was that there weren't killer features worth upgrading for. You could cite Aero, but it was a massive resource hog and is chasing the tail of Mac OS X and Linux. It wasn't innovation.
I love revisionism.
You are correct that Aero came after OS X's GPU-powered windowing, but Linux's was not even close to ready for prime-time until about a year after Vista had been out.
What's stupid is calling it "dangerous" because a miss from this system leaves the missile warhead intact.
Seriously, are they claiming that that's somehow more "dangerous" than not attempting to intercept the ICBM at all? "Well, this system could potentially fail, so we better just let those nukes fall unopposed!" That's the worst kind of idiocy.
Here's my brief assessment of most to least dangerous results:
1) Don't attempt to intercept the nuke at all 2) Interception completely fails 3) Interception knocks the missile off course, doesn't shatter the warhead 4) Interception shatters the warhead 5) Nobody fires the fucking nuke in the first place
Is Windows 7 still running the graphics driver in Ring 0? They moved it from Ring 3 (least privileged) to the most privileged mode in NT 4.0 as a performance hack.
Windows Vista and 7 only run a small portion of the video driver in Ring 0... just the part that directly talks to the hardware. The rest runs in the same abstraction layer as the rest of the drivers on the system. That's why Vista and 7 can reboot a crashed video driver most of the time without requiring a reboot.
BTW, NT4? Seriously? Why don't you update your knowledge, THEN come here and post? You sound like a grumpy old man obsessed over some trivial thing that happened decades ago. Yeah, guess what? Hamburgers don't cost a quarter anymore either!
Still reaping the 'benefits' of that decision today.
Considering how many copies of Windows 2000 and up have been sold primarily to play video games, I'm thinking Microsoft got their money's worth on that decision.
And last time I used Linux it wouldn't freakin' send jack to the projector at all without a reboot. And if you put the laptop to sleep, it'd crash when it tried to wake up.
LET'S HAVE A WAR OF THE ANECDOTES! Har har har har!
I guess I prefer a system that I know I can get working if I try to one that should work but is totally opaque when it does not.
When I used Linux, I didn't get any more error messages from apps than I did from Windows apps. Usually they just crashed and made a core dump. I think you're deluding yourself a bit here.
But none of that has anything to do with my original statement, as I wasn't talking about the stability of the system-- both Linux and Windows are rock-solid, there's no point in comparing stability.
I was talking about how you need to know about 26 completely different formats of config file to make your goddamned Linux server do what you want in the first place. Most of which had either no documentation. And the ones that had documentation, didn't have examples of how to use the most common features, rendering them mostly useless. I can't keep that kind of shit in my head. More power to you if you can.
Sure, OS X and Windows have assloads of config files, but: 1) There's a GUI to edit them (unless you're doing something really, really obscure) 2) All the config files are the same format: XML
Could I *get* Linux working? Yes, I could. I did for several years. Was it extremely unpleasant and time-consuming? Yes, it was.
IE might be losing marketshare, but even IE has features that Firefox doesn't. For example, process separation between tabs. And IE9 is quickly bringing the JS performance and standards compliance up to par with Firefox.
I mean, feel free to hate Microsoft, but there has to be something wrong at Mozilla if even Microsoft's slow, super-careful, backwards-compatible development methods are caught up so quickly.
The thing is, what most Linux people don't realize, is that the price for Microsoft products is pretty goddamned cheap when compared to almost any other cost of doing business. So while it's true that Linux is a cheaper solution, it's still not cheap enough for most organizations.
(Here's a hint, though: if you want to increase Linux adoption, increase Linux's usability. Both for server configurations and client configurations. When Linux experts aren't demanding as high of salaries, then the cost equation drifts back to neutral and you'll have a lot more companies pulling the trigger on Linux installs.)
So wait, this guy commits a crime (and let's be honest here: it is a crime), and he's not going to be punished for it because the UK doesn't want to be seen as "America's lap dog?"
Look, I can understand the sentiment, but letting people who commit actual crimes off completely free isn't really the right way to do that. How about you, for example, stop showing so much US TV on your networks? Or you could withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are examples of ways to separate yourself from the US *without* letting criminals go free.
If you weren't trying to come across as an insufferable condescending prick, then you failed.
But, all else aside, you said that someone saying "fuck" (as in "CannonballHead is a fucking racist") is equivalent to a racist epithet. That was typed, by you. It cannot be untyped.
I decided to annotate some of your post with the implicit meaning made explicit. Look for the parentheticals.
Certain words have crept into vocabulary and are now used to the exclusion of other words. It seems young folks are unable, now, to express themselves without swear words. (I'm better than those people.) It seems that they are completely unaware that there are actual words that actually MEAN what they are trying to say; but since they don't know them, they attach the same word that everyone else attaches for emphasis. (I have a better vocabulary than they do.) So we end up with sentences that include the same word, for emphasis, three times... when all they really mean to say is "I was astounded."
To me, people who use swear words for pretty much everything sound uneducated and... well, the follow-the-crowd type... someone who is clearly influenced, in the way they talk, by whoever is around them at the time. (I'm obviously educated and borderline genius.)
It's also interesting to me that people argue that words have no meaning out of context, etc., and typically argue that with someone who is offended by that kind of speech... and yet, then they use those same words specifically to offend or be abrasive. (I write these big academic sentences because they make me feel like a big man.) That's not out-of-context, that is a very specific context. If you are using a word specifically to offend me while claiming I shouldn't be offended because it's out of context, you're being rather rude. (Being so vastly superior to you, I'm never rude.)
I personally dislike swearing. I find it... well, vulgar and uneducated:) (Unlike me; I fart perfume and shit roses while creating new branches of mathematics on a daily basis.) Here's my actual "political" response though: as long as I am not allowed to use certain terms for people because it's "politically incorrect" or "offensive" to them, etc - for example, "black" or "gay" or perhaps saying that some act or sexual orientation is a "sin" - then I don't see why you should be allowed to swear and cuss under to offend someone under the guise of free speech. (Also I'm apparently a huge racist.)
Somebody should introduce these lots of corporations to the concept of a "server." When I worked at a Windows 2000-using company, we bought as small as possible internal drives-- everything of value was supposed to be stored in the Active Directory anyway! If people ran out of space, they were doing something wrong.
Yeah, I guess so, but I wouldn't put it the same way:
I admined Linux servers for several years, and it did nothing but piss me off. Since moving to Windows servers, I've experienced zero change in functionality or stability, but I get a lot less pissed off on a daily basis. So I believe that's a good thing.
The thing with Linux servers, is if you learn to do things the way they work, you're fine-- you need "telepathy" with whoever wrote the software, because it's nothing but dozens of undocumented assumptions. If you have, or can develop, that, then good for you. I can't. I don't think like the average Linux admin, and I just never will.
Moreover, I don't see why I should have to: it's not hard to build usable software, Linux server app developers just... don't do it. Heck, usability aside, they can't even develop consistent interfaces for that matter.
None of this is to say that Windows is a great server environment... it also has poor usability in several key areas. But its much, much better at both presenting the status of the system, and allowing configuration of the system. (And hey, if you want to do the telepathy thing, you can still drop into a console and do it all that way.)
Well, those driver developers are obviously doing a bang-up job is the quality of the driver goes down over time. Kudos, anonymous heroes! Continue to make our software worse! Soon you will have banished the scourge of usable, stable software forever!
The ones who can't or don't want to learn end up on windows eventually.
That's the dumbest fucking thing I have ever read in my life.
You're seriously delusional if you think that Windows servers are inferior to Linux servers in any way. (Well, "any" way is an overstatement, but any practical way.) If you're doing communication, Exchange is great. If you're doing filesharing/single sign-on, Active Directory is also great. IIS is as good, or better, than Apache at all benchmarks, and has more features. Decent support for technologies like OLAP pretty much only exist on Windows at the moment.
Nobody's going to argue that Windows is cheaper than Linux. But arguing that it's worse, that's harder to make-- unless of course you know fuck-all about Windows and just repeat FUD on Slashdot all day.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention:
They brought over and improved the best bits from OS 9,
Apple *threw out* the best bits of OS 9. Right into a dumpster. Oh, they half-heartedly pretended to care for a short while (re-adding some features like Labels in Finder), but it was obvious they did not. They certainly didn't "improve" Labels when they *finally* got around to porting it. And many OS 9 Finder features they never bothered to port in the first place.
Not to mention abandoning the entire philosophy OS 9 was based around-- a spatial GUI. Not just the code itself, but the entire underlying development philosophy was chucked in a bin.
Pretty much every point in that paragraph is false. Wrongness like that pisses me off.
And when did it ship by default, and enabled, on a popular Linux distro? *That* is the equivalent date to Vista's release, and that's the date I'm referring to.
Make no mistake, I think everything else you said is also wrong, but I though this deserved special attention. Of course, "carbon offsets" are a way to monetize a problem. It's quite obviously a bribe to capitalists to get them to support reducing CO2 by monetizing the problem.
You miss the point.
If the government gets money from CO2, the government will do everything it can to *encourage* the use of more CO2 so that it can get more money. As another poster further up in the thread said, this is like trying to make cows go extinct by opening hamburger restaurants-- it simply does not make sense.
The problem here is that you recognize that capitalists will (generally) take whatever action makes them the most money, but what you don't seem to realize is that the government will do the exact same thing.
4) Tax the people who release the CO2.
If you don't like option #4, what would you choose instead and why?
The only realistic option is to make "green" energy sources either cheaper, better, or both than existing carbon-based energy sources. Note: it will probably have to be both cheaper and better. After all, Linux is significantly cheaper than Windows, but even that isn't enough to get it widely adopted.
Now I'm not going to comment on *how* that should be done, because frankly I don't know. But any band-aid you put on the problem before "green" energy can effectively replace carbon-based energy is a costly waste of time-- it won't solve the problem, it *will* cost us all a buttload of money.
300,000 people is on par with the state of Wyoming, except they're all using the same set of forums and actively engaged with one another. We have a hard time getting 50% of the population in the real world to vote, or send back census forms; these people are all actively engaged.
You're making huge assumptions here. The vast majority of them are people who only keep their subscription open to train new skills and aren't engaged in any meaningful fashion.
"300,000 subscribers" doesn't mean "300,000 players."
Users were NEVER clamouring for Trusted Path. DRM on physical media is a media cartel creation of no benefit whatsoever, and please don't ever forget it.
You're missing the point. Obviously, users never said, "give me DRM!" That's retarded. But users want to play blu-ray disks on their computers. Right now, that requires Trusted Path. Thus, Windows has Trusted Path and is the *only* OS currently available that can play blu-ray disks.
Look, in any case, right or not, that post certainly isn't "insightful" for anybody with an IQ above that of a liver fluke. The mods are completely on crack today.
This couldn't work for most games, anyway. Probably nearly all games.
EVE is very, very divisive-- people either love it, or can't stand it. Because of that:
1) It's playership is limited to a relatively low number
2) They all think alike (they all have the "I like EVE" mindset)
Take a game like World of Warcraft, in comparison, and this would be a complete waste of time.
you havent whored yourselves out to music and media cartels to accommodate them with their draconian DRM wishes and user control schemes maybe ?
+5 Insightful?
Please point out a single action Microsoft has taken that "whores themselves out to music and media cartels". Please point out the "draconian DRM" and "user control schemes" that comes with Microsoft products.
(You're going to bring up Trusted Path, of course, and completely ignore the fact that Microsoft put in support for that because their customers wanted it to be able to play Blu-Rays. Admittedly, it is DRM. But, on the other hand, if the users are clamoring for it, you can hardly make a case that Microsoft is colluding with media cartels.)
Oh, and mods? Please, please, stop pissing all over the meaning of the word "insightful." You're worse than Microsoft with "innovative." This post isn't insightful; it makes a stupid argument, not backed-up by any evidence, that isn't even close to original.
Innovation? Part of the big problem was that there weren't killer features worth upgrading for. You could cite Aero, but it was a massive resource hog and is chasing the tail of Mac OS X and Linux. It wasn't innovation.
I love revisionism.
You are correct that Aero came after OS X's GPU-powered windowing, but Linux's was not even close to ready for prime-time until about a year after Vista had been out.
Well keep using your fucking Vax then and leave the rest of us alone, k?
HEY YOU GUYZ Windoze had a bug 15 fucking years ago I have to immediately post it for everybody to fucking see!!!
What's stupid is calling it "dangerous" because a miss from this system leaves the missile warhead intact.
Seriously, are they claiming that that's somehow more "dangerous" than not attempting to intercept the ICBM at all? "Well, this system could potentially fail, so we better just let those nukes fall unopposed!" That's the worst kind of idiocy.
Here's my brief assessment of most to least dangerous results:
1) Don't attempt to intercept the nuke at all
2) Interception completely fails
3) Interception knocks the missile off course, doesn't shatter the warhead
4) Interception shatters the warhead
5) Nobody fires the fucking nuke in the first place
Is Windows 7 still running the graphics driver in Ring 0? They moved it from Ring 3 (least privileged) to the most privileged mode in NT 4.0 as a performance hack.
Windows Vista and 7 only run a small portion of the video driver in Ring 0... just the part that directly talks to the hardware. The rest runs in the same abstraction layer as the rest of the drivers on the system. That's why Vista and 7 can reboot a crashed video driver most of the time without requiring a reboot.
BTW, NT4? Seriously? Why don't you update your knowledge, THEN come here and post? You sound like a grumpy old man obsessed over some trivial thing that happened decades ago. Yeah, guess what? Hamburgers don't cost a quarter anymore either!
Still reaping the 'benefits' of that decision today.
Considering how many copies of Windows 2000 and up have been sold primarily to play video games, I'm thinking Microsoft got their money's worth on that decision.
Anti-virus software can't do anything about your busted-ass overheating video card. (Which is exactly what you're describing.)
You can automate a GUI. AppleScript on Mac Classic used to be brilliant for this-- I'm not sure if it's still good or not.
And last time I used Linux it wouldn't freakin' send jack to the projector at all without a reboot. And if you put the laptop to sleep, it'd crash when it tried to wake up.
LET'S HAVE A WAR OF THE ANECDOTES! Har har har har!
I guess I prefer a system that I know I can get working if I try to one that should work but is totally opaque when it does not.
When I used Linux, I didn't get any more error messages from apps than I did from Windows apps. Usually they just crashed and made a core dump. I think you're deluding yourself a bit here.
But none of that has anything to do with my original statement, as I wasn't talking about the stability of the system-- both Linux and Windows are rock-solid, there's no point in comparing stability.
I was talking about how you need to know about 26 completely different formats of config file to make your goddamned Linux server do what you want in the first place. Most of which had either no documentation. And the ones that had documentation, didn't have examples of how to use the most common features, rendering them mostly useless. I can't keep that kind of shit in my head. More power to you if you can.
Sure, OS X and Windows have assloads of config files, but:
1) There's a GUI to edit them (unless you're doing something really, really obscure)
2) All the config files are the same format: XML
Could I *get* Linux working? Yes, I could. I did for several years. Was it extremely unpleasant and time-consuming? Yes, it was.
IE might be losing marketshare, but even IE has features that Firefox doesn't. For example, process separation between tabs. And IE9 is quickly bringing the JS performance and standards compliance up to par with Firefox.
I mean, feel free to hate Microsoft, but there has to be something wrong at Mozilla if even Microsoft's slow, super-careful, backwards-compatible development methods are caught up so quickly.
Except I did mention the price.
The thing is, what most Linux people don't realize, is that the price for Microsoft products is pretty goddamned cheap when compared to almost any other cost of doing business. So while it's true that Linux is a cheaper solution, it's still not cheap enough for most organizations.
(Here's a hint, though: if you want to increase Linux adoption, increase Linux's usability. Both for server configurations and client configurations. When Linux experts aren't demanding as high of salaries, then the cost equation drifts back to neutral and you'll have a lot more companies pulling the trigger on Linux installs.)
Or maybe he is a terrorist and just a good actor, pretending to be a UFO nut. We have these things called "trials" for purposes like these.
So wait, this guy commits a crime (and let's be honest here: it is a crime), and he's not going to be punished for it because the UK doesn't want to be seen as "America's lap dog?"
Look, I can understand the sentiment, but letting people who commit actual crimes off completely free isn't really the right way to do that. How about you, for example, stop showing so much US TV on your networks? Or you could withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are examples of ways to separate yourself from the US *without* letting criminals go free.
It's also hideous. I mean, not that 737s belong in an art museum, but at least they got an appealing shape.
If you weren't trying to come across as an insufferable condescending prick, then you failed.
But, all else aside, you said that someone saying "fuck" (as in "CannonballHead is a fucking racist") is equivalent to a racist epithet. That was typed, by you. It cannot be untyped.
I decided to annotate some of your post with the implicit meaning made explicit. Look for the parentheticals.
I hope that this clears up any misunderstanding.
And then buying 3TB drives for them?
Somebody should introduce these lots of corporations to the concept of a "server." When I worked at a Windows 2000-using company, we bought as small as possible internal drives-- everything of value was supposed to be stored in the Active Directory anyway! If people ran out of space, they were doing something wrong.
Yeah, I guess so, but I wouldn't put it the same way:
I admined Linux servers for several years, and it did nothing but piss me off. Since moving to Windows servers, I've experienced zero change in functionality or stability, but I get a lot less pissed off on a daily basis. So I believe that's a good thing.
The thing with Linux servers, is if you learn to do things the way they work, you're fine-- you need "telepathy" with whoever wrote the software, because it's nothing but dozens of undocumented assumptions. If you have, or can develop, that, then good for you. I can't. I don't think like the average Linux admin, and I just never will.
Moreover, I don't see why I should have to: it's not hard to build usable software, Linux server app developers just... don't do it. Heck, usability aside, they can't even develop consistent interfaces for that matter.
None of this is to say that Windows is a great server environment... it also has poor usability in several key areas. But its much, much better at both presenting the status of the system, and allowing configuration of the system. (And hey, if you want to do the telepathy thing, you can still drop into a console and do it all that way.)
Well, those driver developers are obviously doing a bang-up job is the quality of the driver goes down over time. Kudos, anonymous heroes! Continue to make our software worse! Soon you will have banished the scourge of usable, stable software forever!
Wow, two wooshes in one thread.
Also:
The ones who can't or don't want to learn end up on windows eventually.
That's the dumbest fucking thing I have ever read in my life.
You're seriously delusional if you think that Windows servers are inferior to Linux servers in any way. (Well, "any" way is an overstatement, but any practical way.) If you're doing communication, Exchange is great. If you're doing filesharing/single sign-on, Active Directory is also great. IIS is as good, or better, than Apache at all benchmarks, and has more features. Decent support for technologies like OLAP pretty much only exist on Windows at the moment.
Nobody's going to argue that Windows is cheaper than Linux. But arguing that it's worse, that's harder to make-- unless of course you know fuck-all about Windows and just repeat FUD on Slashdot all day.