Re: Microsoft IS a tech disaster....
Probably helps to UNMOUNT the file system first before running an fsck. A fool with a tool is a dangerous fool. Don't blame the hammer when you whack your thumb.
60 posts • joined 3 Jun 2008
TFA mentions: "to make Windows inter-operate with Linux and open source."
Don't think that making Windows interoperable with FOSS is a big issue. The hard work is usually making FOSS work with Windows. Not because of a problem with FOSS projects themselves, but because MS does everything in its power to make it difficult and file formats and protocols need to be reverse-engineered.
So now MS want to actually be able to use FOSS, but still not make it easier for others to use their stuff.
Most likely they'll use FOSS projects that operate under an OpenBSD licence, so they can make changes to 'their' versions of the software to ensure that MS's version of a piece of FOSS will work on their OS, but not (properly) on any other OS.
Look Windows is running Apache fine, only thing is we bastardised it to such an extent that you can only browse webpages served by it through Internet Explorer. It's still OPEN SOURCE software...
This is more like this person was placed blindfolded in the middle of the motorway.
No harm has been done by the company that actually placed him there. The harm will be done by the bus who will eventually hit the person standing in the middle of the road, after which that person can try to connect him being hit by a bus with the fact of this company actually placing him in the middle of the road to begin with (if he survives).
On the other hand, the cars may evade this person for quite some time.
"Flash is hard to shift, with greater penetration in web browsers, much better device support, and a strong industry alliance in the form of its Open Screen Project."
Forgot the strongest point; Adobe has every reason in the world to make Flash work on as many platforms as possible, while MS has as strong reasons to ensure Silverlight does NOT run (properly) on non-windows platforms.
"Should be more like Windows where ANYONE can develop any application if they wish to."
As much as I dislike MS for their unsavoury business practices. I don't see the problem here. It's true.
Unsure what the effect will be for the Xbox though or the PS3 for that matter. If MS and Sony have the same requirements, they need to open up their consoles as well. This can only be a good thing.
"The effort with Intel has nothing to do with the developer community of broad Linux,"
Which of course has nothing to do with the licencing or more precisely with the ability to drop linux support once people are suckered into using Silverlight. What? Your Silverlight apps don't work anymore on your Linux platform? Don't worry, it's still completely supported on Windows.
"Goldfarb says the announcement is part of a high-level strategy in which Microsoft aims to bring Silverlight to "as many platforms and as many devices as possible," "
Yep, just like we brought Windows NT to the Alpha platform.
FSF don't get it #
>" Those who run Fortune 500 companies really don't care about 'how it works inside', any more >than they care how their office lifts function." They just want to know there's someone they can >call when it goes wrong who'll fix it for them. That's why they're CEOs and not lift engineers."
If you're lifts need to be replaced every couple of years, because the current 'version' stops working (not because the lifts are not ok anymore, but because the vendor decided to make them stop working past a certain date, then I'd bet they would be very interested in having a lift vendor that doesn't place those restrictions on lifts.
It's not a matter of 'knowing' how it works, it's about business continuity and saving money so the business can make more profit. That's usually something CEOs are interested in.
>" They don't care about lock-in and 'antifeatures', or questionable behaviour over intellectual >property, because they're Big Business who do absolutely the same to their customers."
Any company really interested in business continuity, shouldn't place all its eggs in one basket. Placing vital infrastructure in the hands of only one vendor is asking for trouble. Doing business with companies that have dubious business ethics is another thing that's not good for (regular) businesses. In this case the business with the dubious business ethics is a multi-billion dollar company.
BTW this doesn't mean that companies should completely NOT use MS, only that real competition is good for the market, which is something lacking at the moment, due to MS having a monopoly.
Oh God not that lot again. #
>" Their (FSF) definition of 'free software' is completely rediculous. Basically you can change for >your free software, but then the person you sell it to can then give it to as many people as they >like free of charge thus neatly putting the people developing the software out of business."
Yes, that is really ridiculous, just imagine Red Hat and Novell giving all their free software away for no money at all.
Please get a clue. The F in FOSS is for free as in 'freedom' (of use) not free as in gratis/no money.
>" Full time developers working on free software can only really secure their jobs in one of four >ways:"
> 1) Find a big sponsor that uses your product and pays for its development.
What? You mean a sponsor like IBM, Redhat, Novell or SUN/Oracle? Yes, must be tough for all those developers working for free (as in no money) for big fortune 500 companies.
> 2) Rely on donations.
Yes, mostly from large companies who have a stake in Open Source software. Usually they're not called 'donations', but 'wages' though.
> 3) Make the software so complicated, unintuitive or poorly documented that people (or more >often companies where time is money) have to pay for overpriced support and training.
Something that would NEVER happen with proprietary software, I am sure.
> 4) Support your product with advertising.
I think you're confusing open source software with your regular email updates on where to buy the cheapest cyalis. Don't recall ever seeing spam come from any open source project, so please don't spread bullshit.
> No lets contrast this with the traditional approach:
> Everyone that wants to use the software pays the same, or pays an amount appropriate for >the features of that product they want to use.
Unlike open source software, where you get all the features for the same price (which is usually also free (as in gratis)). Yes, paying money for software, then paying more money for extra features is so much more appealing to me. Hang on, let me whip out my creditcard...
> Now that seems much more fair, and keeps lots of people employed too. Double win! >Furthermore with everyone willing to pay some money you should be able to get some decent >competition going too.
Yes, because all those open sauce developers are not earning anything people, just as the companies employing those same developers. Buy some software save a developer. Better yet, buy your software from a convicted monopolist to get better competition.
Any more FUD you'd like to share?
This type of idiocy will only push corporations away #
> @COG +1
> Linux has a LONG way to go before it can ever "Replace [ing] all your desktop systems with >GNU/Linux".
> Sorry to the Linux crowd, but Windows and OSX are years ahead, especially in usability. You
> won't get any mass exodus from Windows/OSX until you provide a comparable platform.
You really haven't been using any linux distribution the last few years have you? Although Ubuntu linux is far from perfect, working with Ubuntu on my desktop is a relief compared with running windows XP. Things actually work all the time and I can configure my desktop the way *I* want to configure my desktop, not the way MS thinks I should have my desktop configured.
> The only people that I recommend Linux distros to are home desktop "enthusiasts" who want >to do nothing but surf, email, run OpenOffice and GiMP. There literally is nothing else you can do >with it other than specialized educational/gov stuff or web/file servers, and most corporate >desktops do not fit into those categories.
The major part of regular users fall into that category; you must be recommending Linux quite often then. Literally can't do anything else with linux? Like developing in any of the non-MS specific languages, running multiple guest OS-es in a VM, playing games, running Windows applications (like photoshop? Yes, that's literally NOTHING.
> And for corporate desktops OO is NOT MSO and doesn't even compare.
Indeed the completely predictable behaviour of text formatting in OO Writer completely blows MSO's Word endless format tweaking out of the water, as does the ability to export my documents in PDF format without having to pay extra money. As for the price, wow, zero dollars for OO compared to $$ for MSO, whose older file formats don't even open properly in newer versions. I am so with you on that, it really doesn't compare.
> Linux devs needs to get their head out of the GNU and actually create some desired >applications if they wish to increase their share. Sending around letters like the FSF did is just >really lame.
Yes, linux devs should listen to you and develop what YOU want. Not what they find useful. Sending letters around is a bit lame, yes, but nothing MS wouldn't (and didn't stoop to) and might be one of the few methods available to get someone's attention at board room level (even if it's dismissed outright). Not a lot of alternatives for that amount of money.
> "Investing in Microsoft's Windows 7 will only get you more stuck and more dependent on >them..."
> And Ubuntu for example would be different how?...
Are you dense, or just trolling. Which bit of OPEN SOURCE do you NOT understand. Software running on your RedHat desktop will run fine on your Novell OpenSuse desktop or your Gentoo desktop. Still not clear what's meant or do you need a Powerpoint presentation to explain further?
> "... Linux doesn't tie you into the Microsoft treadmill because the raw code is openly available
> so that you or third parties can keep systems going and not rely on one company."
> Yeah, and I know lots of IT people who have nothing but free time to modify/compile custom >code all of the time. :-/
Yes, because you need to modify and compile FOSS all the time before it's usable. Wish someone would package all that software together in something called a distribution.... o wait... someone's already gone out a done that. GIT.
> This is so totally stupid I just can't fathom it. "We be hackerz., so should u..."
This is so totally stupid and I actually can fathom it. "We be morons and spreaders of FUD, join us and be a mindless FUD regurgitating GIT like us".
> Most corporations are not going to hire a $100k+/yr programmer on-staff. Time is money,
> it's way cheaper to invest in Windows than to spend days hacking linux code.
Depending on which type of $, but in US$, average wage for programmers is around 80k (just in case, that's 80,000 (US)dollars). And as a user of FOSS, a company doesn't have to hire programmers, they just need to purchase a support contract from a vendor who supports FOSS, like say, RedHat, IBM, Novell or SUN. Just like... proprietary software, only without the forced upgrade every couple of years.
You make such eloquent and educated statements that am just completely blown away by your intellect. Kudos to you Steve, next time please don't try to feel too bad if you didn't get a letter and the other 499 other CEOs did, it's nothing personal.
" The laws create the playing field and the rules ... the companies then have to figure out how to play the game to their best advantage."
In case of the US, it's big corporations (like MS) who make laws by lobbying. So if the laws are completely fscked up, they have themselves to blame.
The whole patent circus in the US is put in place by big business there to stifle any sort of real competition.
"The logic was simple: Linux freed Oracle from depending on a single company for operating system - that company was Microsoft."
Yes, because Oracle databases don't run on anything else (like a multitude of Unix flavours).
And that's where I stopped reading...
Where's the icon for the +5 cluestick.
These machines are behind a firewall right
They only have official paid for software installed
They are only used for official government business, no looking at dodgy websites.
USB keys aren't allowed anymore.
They are managed by expensive EDS/Cap Gemini/IBM etc consultants.
Shouldn't somebody be fired when a machine gets a virus?"
You must be new here... (i.e. on this planet).
Of course it's nice to have choice and SLED might be a good choice to use for businesses as a transitional desktop to completely move away from MS proprietary .NET solutions, while still being able to use the old proprietary solution while a new solution is being built that is based on truly open standards.
This is the only reason I can think of that might persuade me to use SLED instead of any other Linux distro. Of course, once the proprietary solution has been migrated to a truly open solution, there's nothing that SLED can offer that Ubuntu can't match for $120 a seat less, which would still not be good for Novell.
Still feel that Microsoft made the deal with Novell hurt Novell's position in the Open Source community and eliminate a competitor, but it might just have the opposite effect of what they intended.
So essentially MS is moaning about the usage of FAT in TomTom's devices. Don't know what the compelling reason was to use an antiquated file system with seriously restrictive 'options' in the first place, but suspect it was accessibility for windows users to data on TomTom devices.
Does this mean that if TomTom starts to use ext2/ext3 file systems, then makes sure that a windows ext2/ext3 driver is supplied with their software so windows users can actually access data on TomTom devices from their windows PC, the problem will essentially go away?
" I laugh at everyone now still running XP, they doom themselves to a lifetime of playing with fisher-price toys"
I laugh at everyone now still running Windows (any version), they doom themselves to a lifetime of playing with fisher-price toys"
There fixed that for you.
No, there's no need to thank me.
Sorry Charles, but it's you, who evidently doesn't understand copyright law. Or worse try to bend its meaning in such a way that it benefits your views.
You are however very good in manipulating meaning by copying and pasting pieces of text without displaying the entire context.
">Copyright was never intended to generate income for artists"
" Yes, yes it was."
The bit of text you copied was from a sentence that has a completely different meaning than what you are suggesting.
The who sentence was : "Copyright was never intended to generate income for artists for the rest of their lives and the current situation is completely skewed and not in the public interest."
With the emphasis on the 'for the rest of their lives' bit, although that might not be completely clear to you, reading can be quite a chore when your mind is already made up about something before you start reading.
"An artist is more useful and has a better skill set than a sys admin. Tens of thousands of people can reset passwords; who can sing like Nina Simone?"
Really, I could argue that a rubbish collector is more useful than an artist. But in reality, they both have their uses and they're both needed for a healthy society. Does that mean that the artist is more 'useful' and has 'better skill'. Please don't be that arrogant.
"Should Bill Gates not be able to retire then? Should he have to continue to create new work?"
Can you please hold off with the ludicrous assumptions? If an artist uses their copyright period to actually make money and the copyrighted product is actually something people would buy, then a period of 10 years is more than enough to make enough money. Bill Gates would have been able to retire 100x even if the copyright period for winDOS was only 10 years. Now he can retire about a 1000x, so what was actually the point you were making? If someone is stupid enough to blow all their money on parties and would have ended up with nothing to live on after the copyright expired, then yes that person should bloody well work keep a living.
I am all for copyright, just not in its current form and period.
"Regardless of your vision of utopia, thieves who steal from people should not do it."
Yes, completely agree. Unfortunately it appears that in your 'utopia' extraordinary long terms for copyright makes people into criminals, in cases where 'stolen' works should be in the public domain. B.t.w. it's not 'stealing', the proper term is 'copyright infringement'.
The price for being granted a government endorsed monopoly is that works will eventually end up in the public domain. 'Eventually' being an artists' lifetime, is not a valid option for a large part of the population (you know the same population that essentially granted the copy'right' in the first place).
Hope you'll have a good time in your version of society where you feel that some people are apparently more 'useful' than others. I can really recommend reading George Orwell next time you pick up a book.
And all the other people moaning about 'pirates' stealing the bread from artist's mouths.
Copyright is a right granted by the government to stimulate the creation of (in this case) music and is essentially a government granted monopoly to the creator to be able to make money and as an incentive to create more.
When the copyright is extended to such a long period that someone only needs to create one hit song, then live off of the royalties that are brought in to be set up for life, that breaks the original purpose of copyright and is not in the public interest (who are essentially the ones who gave out the copyright to begin with by proxy).
Copyright was never intended to generate income for artists for the rest of their lives and the current situation is completely skewed and not in the public interest.
If artists want to keep continue to make money, they should continue to create new work, just like everyone else in society.
Instead it looks like some people (read: artists) in society really feel like they are more equal than others, then moan if other people remind them they are actually not.
Some artists should come off of their bloody high horse and start to appreciate that they have been granted a period of monopoly by their fellow citizens.
" Imagine if these moaners were "sold" a Linux system instead (like the woman who bought the Dell PC) would they a. give up and install windows or b. try and sue somebody? some people have no perspective."
You are so right.
Looks like not all MS apologists respond as 'anonymous coward'.
My 'perspective' would be c) customer happily runs Ubuntu linux, has no viruses, all their hardware works out of the box and at a very nice pace as well. Customer then trades in the unused Vista licence at the newly opened MS Store around the corner to get their MS tax back.
" When MS offered one version of their OS with everything built in for everyone, people took them to court. Presumably that cost more than supporting six versions. Be careful what you wish for"
Yes, I can still vividly remember all those cases going to court over MS-DOS (version whatever), windows 3.x and window 95/98.
I suppose you mean the integration of the mediaplayer and internet browser in the software. Which wasn't about one flavour of windows not being ok, but about antitrust regulation for companies that have a monopoly. Plus essentially, that was about windows XP, which had at least two flavours.
Please don't pull stuff out of context, when it suits your purpose (or go into politics, not IT).
" Well, first of all, you could call every new Ubuntu or Fedora a "service pack", since it always uses the older version as a basis. But here, nobody has a problem with calling it a successor."
Well quite frankly I don't give a toss whether a new 'version' of Ubuntu is called service pack or a complete new version, since I don't have to pay £99, whether it *is* or *isn't* considered one. Unlike the situation where MS makes the differentiation and you do need to pay over the distinction. So your invalid argument only diverts attention from the real issue.
" And even if Windows 7 is really only a "service pack", then it is still understandable that MS won't call it that way, because Vista's reputation is already as low as it can get. No wonder that they'll use a new name for it."
Which bit of my comment gave you the impression that there's a lack of understanding on *why* they're doing this. You don't get kudos for stating the obvious.
Understanding *why* they do it, doesn't make it easier to swallow, quite the contrary actually.
" Maybe people want to call it a service pack because of its shorter development time. But if they'd need another 5 years to develop it, only to justify it being a really new release, people would be unsatified as well."
Really? Again I couldn't give a toss if they did; looking at all the people sticking to XP, it doesn't look like even the crowd sticking to would XP care either.
"Microsoft has announced how it will package Windows Vista's successor, Windows 7."
Microsoft has announced how it will package Windows Vista's service pack, Windows 7.
There fixed that for you. Really wonder how there are still people out there who (some of those a second time) happily fork over their hard earned cash to MS for something that should have been a service pack.
Hey, whether it's a service pack is debatable; shame there's generally two opinions on whether it's a service pack or a completely new release and those opinions are directly linked to the person working for MS or not (mind that the key word here is 'generally').
For the amount of different versions; it still appears that MS haven't been beaten with a cluestick yet, even adding an extra version for netbooks.
Happy to be using Ubuntu, which is the same version for all types of workstations and isn't crippled when I don't fork over enough dosh.
"why didn't they just pony up the cash to have a 50+ year cert created for this game, especially when it raked in several million..."
Even if they did fork over the cash to get a 50+ year cert, it would still be a nuisance. If I buy a book, I'd expect to be able to use it until it literally falls apart from use (which is a LOT longer than 50 years if it's a hardcover). If I buy game software I wouldn't expect a kill switch after any amount of time, even if it is 50 years.
Software is digital information, which in itself is not limited to the lifetime of the media it was distributed on. Usually using DRM and binding the information to the media (i.e. the customer is unable to copy this information), the lifetime of the information is artificially reduced, because the CDs and DVDs *do* have a maximum lifespan.
Though this (seems) not to be the case here, this situation is actually even worse, since the software loses all value to the customer once the company who sold it in the first place goes out of business.
Using DRM is only a nuisance to your PAYING customers. By using this, they just managed to piss off their entire customer base (Only people who use the pirated version will likely have no problem whatsoever and wouldn't be a paying customer anyway).
"While the feat of downing a UAV is impressive, it was only a standard UAV. Wouldn't it be more useful to have thought one step ahead and tested it against targets with laser armour?
The moment such a weapon is put into service there will be laser counter-measures available to the arms market.
Where does that leave the situation?"
A very profitable (for some) arms race? (hence the flames).
Since Bill G. apparently already admitted that windows 7 is an incremental improvement upon windows Vista, I can only deduce that they actually had about 3 years of beta testing in the wild, with quite a lot of their beta testers actually paying for the 'privilege', either directly by purchasing a boxed version or indirectly through the windows tax.
Good show. MS, the only company that can sell beta state software at overinflated prices...
" I was just wondering how stupid are some of your readersThey dont understand the gravity of the situation and doesnt realy know what difference it can make with an arial view of strategic places ending up in wrong hands.The first thing shoud be banned is not the gadgets,but the holy mouths of your idiotic readers for being ridiculously miopic."
Well for blaming others to be nearsighted (myopic), you might want to learn how to use punctuation and proper spelling first. As others have pointed out, there are lots of other ways to get an aerial view (like maps).
Yes, we 'shoud' ban free speech (and definitely holy mouths), thank you for pointing that out. While we're doing that, we might also want to ban coherent thought, punctuation and tolerance as well.
"Why should a consumer be allowed to get a refund for PART of a purchase, which they bought knowing that they didn't want!"
That's because selling a notebook with windows installed is like going to the supermarket and being forced to buy eggs if you want to buy a loaf of bread.
"If I go into a shop and buy a tin of baked beans with hot dogs in it ("because there's no plain tins of beans available" - to use the normal justification here) and then take it home, fish out all the hot dogs and send them back to the manufacturer with a demand to be refunded the value of the sausages, would I get it? Would I bo**ocks.:"
You're either ignorant or just trolling. For baked beans you can go to any shop other shop and get exactly the baked beans you want. If you were looking for a particular piece of hardware that's only sold by one vendor, you can't go to another vendor and ask for the same hardware.
"Could I buy a Ford Focus and then send the engine back because I wanted to put a V8 in it? No."
Nice broken car analogy. The OS is not the 'engine' of a laptop, the CPU is.
"Could I buy a package holiday and then demand a refund on the cost of the flight because I decided to drive and just stay in the hotel? No."
O my, you really are a dense git aren't you?!
" If there is a substantial market for non-Windows laptops (which there isn't, besides Macbooks), then the manufacturers will make them. Why wouldn't they? It's more profit for them! At the same time, why should a manufacturer be forced into providing something it doesn't want to provide? Where does it end? Can I buy a PC from Dell and send the hardware back because I only wanted the software?!
OMFG, you must be working in marketing.
"If you want a fully-customised computer, build it yourself. Anyone who has enough nouse to use Linux should be more than capable of slotting together what is essentially digital Lego."
Yes, please take a Dell Inspiron body, then place a HP branded notebook DVD drive in it, now just add a T61 mainboard and hey presto. Your own personalised notebook.
The reason for a lot of anti-MS feeling with lots of people isn't just because they're think that Vista is crap, it's because of everything surrounding MS and its behaviour.
- Killing standards
- Strong arming competitors out of business
- Pushing DRM on users
- Customer lock in with proprietary file formats
- Intentionally breaking technology so competitors are not able to compete.
- Steve Ballmer's monkey dance
- Overinflated prices for buggy beta quality software (usually servicepack 2 should have been the first stable release).
- Falsely accusing customers of having a pirated Windows copy (WGA)
- Forcing unwanted software 'updates' or disguising it as a critical patch (WGA).
- Holding back technology for 20 years to make a buck.
- Having to reboot your windows box if you fart.
- Somehow needing a GUI, 12GB of diskspace and same amount of RAM on a box that only run a webserver.
- Not being able to produce a native SSH service (for free).
- Not understanding basic computer security, but somehow slapping it on top of the OS as an afterthought.
- Not being able to play nice with any non-MS technology and standards.
and that's just off the top of my head.
So actually the 'Vista is crap', is just another argument to show disgruntlement with MS as a whole for a large part of the anti-MS crowd (which includes me as well). This doesn't mean that it's not crap, it's just one more floater on the pile of dung.
"As of late I had to use 5 different software packages to make sure it was truly clean virus/malware/trojan free."
The only thing that springs to my mind is OMFG.
Either Microsoft's software must be some alien conspiracy to hamper humankind's technological progress or it's just plain human blind greed and lack of standards.
Don't know which would be worse...
"The patch does NOT address the case where the attacker relays the connection to a third-party host that the victim has access to," Metasploit said."
So, first they need 7 years to fix the issue, probably with the help of the Samba team, which MS embraced not too long ago, but still manage not to fix the issue completely.
Wanted to say "I told you so", but somehow can't seem to bother. Which is actually a good tactic often employed by politicians as well. Fsck thing's up and continue on that path until the people affected just don't care any more...
"I don't know why they say Aero doesn't run properly on a 915 chipset. It runs fine on my backup system's Gigabyte GPNXP Duo which has the 915 chipset."
Sure you're not running Ubuntu with a Vista theme? If your Aero does wobbly windows, sticky windows, multiple desktops and a 3d desktop cube, you have the Aero skin.
If you have the awesome window 'train' and transparant static windows, you are actually running Vista (did I miss any other awesome Aero features here?).
When you have to start paying people to use your product, you know it's crap. Maybe they should start doing that for Vista as well?
If they really were betting their future on just the search engine, MS wouldn't be around much longer. Instead they'll just use this as a means to try and stifle competition, while making bundles of money from their (near) monopolistic business in OS and Office crapware.
Although with Vista SE (aka Windows 7) they might start losing their monopoly, which increases competition, which is good for consumers. Maybe MS will even start pushing out products that aren't Defective By Design(tm) and that people actually want and sell these at a reasonable price.
I hear odds on that are the same as a mass-extinction size meteor hitting Earth, but it's not impossible.
"Microsoft demonstrated an Asus EEE S101 with a 1GB RAM, 16GB solid-state drive and a dual-core ATOM processor running the full Windows 7 at WinHEC"
And after installing windows 7 and Office, you'll have a whopping 2MB free for your word document (please ignore the error about some temporary file that can't be written, you don't really need that anyway).
"Ozzie said Microsoft would charge by resource consumption"
That's a good explanation why their OS has become such a resource hog... first they give customers a bloated OS that runs like a one-legged dog, then they start charging their cloud customers for the resources that are required to run all that bloat...
Cue Baldrick... "I have a cunning plan milord"...
Companies who are willing to give up their data and business processes for ransom to MS, don't deserve any better.
Paris, 'cause there's no Baldrick icon.
"In Vista it would have been much harder to convince senior management to abandon features," Osterman reckoned.
I thought that shitloads of useful promised features actually had been abandoned in Vista and were replaced with lots of not so useful features that was the actual problem with Vista.
"One of the messages that management has consistently driven home to the teams is 'cutting is shipping', and they're right. If a feature isn't coming together, it's usually far better to decide NOT to deliver a particular feature then to have that feature jeopardize the ability to ship the whole system," he said."
So what he's essentially saying is that Windows 7 will also not have the features promised in windows Vista. Cutting useful features and shipping a bloated OS full of unwanted features is what the problem was to begin with.
Now coming to you in versions :
- Instant On
- Well done
- Super Duper
- Cloud (or strata, stratum, strati, whatever)
"not to ruin too many people's good for the goose == good for the gander fun, but he (or rather his campaign) is not asking to be exempt from the law,"
Sorry to ruin your world view, but if he's asking YouTube not act on DMCA notices, because his videos are 'fair use'. He IS asking to be exempt from the rules.
Rules are, YouTube receives DMCA, YouTube takes down video until further notice. Same rule for everyone. If he doesn't like it, he should make offer to make amendments to the rules. Not ask for exemptions.
If this guy doesn't understand this, he should definitely not be fit to be in any position of government (not in anything that's supposed to be a democracy anyway).
"But his campaign's general counsel, Trevor Potter, insists that the video site's DMCA takedown policy is "silencing political speech" by removing non-infringing political videos."
No, their 'political speech' is silenced by the person(s) that issued the DMCA takedown. The proper way to get their political video reinstated is to just follow the procedure (issue a counterclaim and later possibly sue the person(s) that issued the take down).
If they don't like it, they should change the rules (or shouldn't have been sleeping when these rules were voted into existence in the first place).
If this is the level of integrity and intellect of government to be in the US, I'm really glad I'm not living there and it goes a long way in explaining the current financial crisis.
"They've all bought new machines with (much, in one case) higher specs than their old XP machines, but they still get the same performance... oh, and none of them do anything that particularly stresses their machines either."
So your point was???
Right, my point exactly. Spend more money to get the 'same' performance. People who are into that sort of thing have more money than brains.
"just that I know three families using it happily..."
Yes, ignorance is bliss.
Paris, because she's like that as well.
"could result in Department of Justice prosecutors serving as pro bono lawyers for private copyright holders regardless of their resources."
So now they'll have tax-payers paying for the RIAA's dirty work.
Used to be 'Land of the free (as in freedom), now it's become 'Land of the free (as in free beer, or in this case a free ride) at least if you're a big corporate.
I would have expected them to already start PAYING developers to use their tools. They must actually be feeling the pressure from OSS tools then.
That's the beauty of using OSS tools; even if you develop on a windows platform now, it's easy to switch to another platform with little or no hassle. So instead of being a skilled 'windows developer' using tools that only work on windows, developing window based apps, you actually add value to your skill set beyond just the MS platform.
Wouldn't want to waste disk space downloading their proprietary tools, even if they were paying me to download it.
" You said it. Without MS you wouldn't have a job. MS may be lacking on some technical fronts but lets face it - without MS none of the people reading this site would have IT jobs..."
Quit wrong; without MS you would still have a job, but you would be spending your time being productive instead of wasting your time with 'reboot schedules', antivirus software and reimaging your servers regularly because they're buggered.
All that money that's spent on that crap, could be spent on actually something that's economically beneficial to someone else than MS. Like actually improving your IT infrastructure, instead of just 'keeping it working'.
" It's quite techie/gay what you said about stealing designs. MS isn't doing anything that isn't accepted, and acknowledged, by the vast majority of computer users. Your analogy is sort of like saying "Ford stole the design for cars" or "Apple stole the design for iPod's". You're way out of your league pal."
Alas, MS hasn't 'invented' anything. Ford created the first affordable standard car, Apple designed the iPod themselves. DOS was just a feeble attempt at copying CP/M. Windows a crappy attempt at what Apple was doing with the MAC. Try reading 'The barbarians of Bill' if you can get hold of a copy and read how Bill was ordering everyone to 'make windows look more like MAC'.
MS hasn't had an innovative idea in its entire existence (well maybe that's not entirely true, there's still MS Bob and Clippy).
" @ Aero-y: What in the name of Christ are you talking about? I don't know what Beryl or Compidsapf-fcuked is; and that's where OSS drops the ball for major adoption. They have no idea how to market their products successfully. So you can Beryl on down the road and feel good knowing that 1.73 people feel you.
Yes, it's so much better to eat what you're fed and keep the MS executives in a job, instead of using stable, fast and free technology to actually get some work done.
Be a sheep if you like. Just don't bleat at other people if they don't want to hang out with the herd and run away if the MS herder comes around with his gumboots. Please do your thing and let people with at least half a brain do theirs. That's the problem with IT nowadays. Any moron who can alter the background of his XP desktop is considered an IT professional.
And about the "We''d all be living in our Mums basement and masturbating to the cover of Foxy."
Please don't confuse yourself with other people.
Well actually, I think he is right on that bit. Most computer users will still accept sub-standard products, but an increasingly number is discovering that what gets shoved down their throat for an operating system, isn't what they have to put up with.
Even though it's been made quite difficult for the average user to move for instance to desktop linux (which is quite definitely similar or better than XP in usability at the moment), an increasing number of people find out that you actually don't have to shell out wads of dosh to be able to process documents, create presentations and surf the net.
MS see that number growing by the day and is probably EXTREMELY worried about this movement. Once this catches on with larger businesses, the MS business model of 'renting' out software is obsolete.
MS will probably need to change with the times to remain in their position. Problem is, the money is still flowing in right now and nobody who can really make any changes, will actually change course until it's too late (which is just fine by me, since I prefer real interoperability instead of what we have now).
Mine's the one with the MSFT put options in the pocket.
> Have any of you actually tried to use it for anything important?
> Didn't think so.
Use it all the time. Especially for technical documentation. Used to use Word for that, but actually spend more time getting the document formatting consistent all over the document, than actually writing document content.
Using OpenOffice Writer now and all formatting headaches are a thing of the past. Good thing is that even exporting the doc to Office format retains the formatting I intended the document to have, something that doesn't appear to work with Word.
Apart from that, I can export customer viewable documents in PDF format without having to resort to a very expensive third party tool.
> Besides, how is MS giving cheap software to education a BAD THING? Or, at least a worse > thing that indoctrinating them with OSS/Linux instead?
How is giving FREE (as in free beer) software to education a worse thing than selling it for cheap?! Part of FOSS is about learning people to think for themselves, not what others want to force feed them, that's what the 'F' in FOSS is for. Doesn't stand for 'free' (as in free beer), it stands for 'free' as in 'FREEDOM'.
Sort of defeats the purpose of virtualisation. You'd actually would like the host OS to be stable and put less stable stuff as a virtual server on top of that.
Even if running images can be moved to another server temporarily, while patch Tuesday roars past every month, I'd prefer not having to do that.
The only problem I see is a lot of people who make laws and interpret laws, who are basically clueless on the topic at hand and apparantly either don't get good advise or are too overconfident of their own actual knowledge of the topic to actually be able to make any informed decision on the topic.
Being top of your field in a certain area does not make one all-knowing in other 'lesser' affairs, although quite a lot of pompous asses seem to think so.
Actually... nothing out of the ordinary to see here. Move along...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020