 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
47b1b14c$1@news.povray.org...
> M$ is the largest and richest corporation ever to have existed in recorded
> human history.
Microsoft is the *** 139th *** global corporation in terms of revenue, right
after A.P. Moller-Maersk Group, which is a freight company, i.e. folks who
use big boats to transport bananas around the globe.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2007/full_list/index.html
That should keep Microsoft-themed hyperboles (and the relevance of the
software industry compared to the banana shipping industry) in check I
guess.
G.
--
*****************************
http://www.oyonale.com
*****************************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmail isthebestcom> wrote:
> > It requires you to connect to the
> > Internet, manually download a tar.gzip file, figure out how to unpack
> > it, do the whole configure/make/install trip,
>
> That's the *basic* installation method on Linux. If you don't even know
> how to unpack a .tar.gz... you don't know Linux.
so that's why he keeps crashing on Linux... :)
it's actually so basic I think the graphical program to unpack archives we'll
recognize it. But Invisible seems to want to do it the hard way, on the
command-line when he clearly isn't well acquainted with...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:47b1365a$1@news.povray.org...
> I took over (technically) at one place and made the rule that such was
> disallowed.
The last coding standard I wrote was 6 pages long. Included things like:
No cursors
Don't distinct every
Don't use functions on columns in the where clause
Don't use SELECT *
All tables shall have a primary key
Evaluate all new tables (and modified existing tables) for indexes
Pity none of the devs bother reading it. It would save them some time when I
review their code. <evil grin>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> it's actually so basic I think the graphical program to unpack archives we'll
> recognize it. But Invisible seems to want to do it the hard way, on the
> command-line when he clearly isn't well acquainted with...
The box I was trying to set up as a print server doesn't have X
installed. It's just a laptop that sits under the printer to allow it to
be networked. So, when you've finished being smart... :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gilles Tran" <gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:
> 47b1b14c$1@news.povray.org...
>
> > M$ is the largest and richest corporation ever to have existed in recorded
> > human history.
>
> Microsoft is the *** 139th *** global corporation in terms of revenue, right
> after A.P. Moller-Maersk Group, which is a freight company, i.e. folks who
> use big boats to transport bananas around the globe.
> http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2007/full_list/index.html
damn! I guess we IT geeks were in need of some perspective... :P
I'm going bananas!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> Microsoft is the *** 139th *** global corporation in terms of revenue, right
> after A.P. Moller-Maersk Group, which is a freight company, i.e. folks who
> use big boats to transport bananas around the globe.
> http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2007/full_list/index.html
>
> That should keep Microsoft-themed hyperboles (and the relevance of the
> software industry compared to the banana shipping industry) in check I
> guess.
That is the most bizzare thing I've read today.
So a company that transports a dirt-cheap commodity item that almost
nobody buys makes more money than the company that charges an absolute
fortune for it's products, which are used by the entire industrialised
world. How does *that* compute?! o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
>> They have succeeded in convincing the general public that it's
>> "normal" for software to not work properly, and there's no real
>> competition to illustrate the falsehood of this idea. So why bother
>> making a better product when you can just continue ripping people off?
>
> To be fair they've failed to pass the blame on to the faulty/cheating
> device drivers that are more often the cause of the problems, to be
> unfair they should have written an OS that didn't allow faulty/cheating
> device drivers to function.
You can't really prevent crappy software from being crappy. But when you
release crappy products yourself, and generally create the consumer
expectation that it's "normal" for software to not work correctly, why
are 3rd parties going to aim any higher?
>> If M$ suddenly started making really awsome products, people would
>> like it.
>
> Well yeah and as has been mentioned if Ford started making Rolls Royces
> at 'normal' prices then people would like that too.
Software that works properly is *not* Rolls Royce design. It's *basic*
design! You don't go to a watch shop and hear "well, you can have this
actually tells the right time", do you? In a watch shop, *ALL* the
watches WORK PROPERLY! Even the absurdly cheap ones. Sheesh...
>> What everybody hates is being forced to buy extortionately over-priced
>> crapware because somebody has illegally exterminated all competition.
>
> No-one's forcing you to buy a computer, no-one's forcing you to buy
> Microsoft products
No-one's forcing you to buy a computer. But IF you buy one, it's pretty
much a certain that you *will* have to run M$ software on it. I tried to
escape, but it just can't be done...
>>> At least we've LiveCDs now that helps so much.
>>
>> BTW, have you ever used a Windows Live CD?
>
> I've yet to be inflicted with the pleasure.
Norton Ghost.
The old version I've got at work boots into PC-DOS and lets you run the
software. However, the newer version my Dad has boots into a Live
Windows and only lets you perform restores, not backups. You must
install the bloatware onto your HD to perform backups. >_<
You know how CD-ROMs have a *really* long seek time? Well, for random
access, that's BAD.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:59:05 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> They have succeeded in convincing the general public that it's
>>> "normal" for software to not work properly, and there's no real
>>> competition to illustrate the falsehood of this idea. So why bother
>>> making a better product when you can just continue ripping people off?
>> To be fair they've failed to pass the blame on to the faulty/cheating
>> device drivers that are more often the cause of the problems, to be
>> unfair they should have written an OS that didn't allow faulty/cheating
>> device drivers to function.
>
> You can't really prevent crappy software from being crappy. But when you
> release crappy products yourself, and generally create the consumer
> expectation that it's "normal" for software to not work correctly, why
> are 3rd parties going to aim any higher?
As I implied a failure to educate users.
>>> If M$ suddenly started making really awsome products, people would
>>> like it.
>> Well yeah and as has been mentioned if Ford started making Rolls
>> Royces at 'normal' prices then people would like that too.
>
> Software that works properly is *not* Rolls Royce design. It's *basic*
> design! You don't go to a watch shop and hear "well, you can have this
> actually tells the right time", do you? In a watch shop, *ALL* the
> watches WORK PROPERLY! Even the absurdly cheap ones. Sheesh...
Er this from a guy whose sister bought him a new watch because the
batteries weren't lasting in his old one. Crappy watch = short lived life,
poor time keeping; quality watch = long life, perfect time keeping. Both
watches work for a given value of work.
>>> What everybody hates is being forced to buy extortionately over-priced
>>> crapware because somebody has illegally exterminated all competition.
>> No-one's forcing you to buy a computer, no-one's forcing you to buy
>> Microsoft products
>
> No-one's forcing you to buy a computer. But IF you buy one, it's pretty
> much a certain that you *will* have to run M$ software on it. I tried to
> escape, but it just can't be done...
Depends on what you want to run. Again, as has been pointed out before,
for basic clerical work Linux works. The problems can be summed up with
Nicholas's "That's the *basic* installation method on Linux. If you don't
even know how to unpack a .tar.gz... you don't know Linux."
>>>> At least we've LiveCDs now that helps so much.
>>>
>>> BTW, have you ever used a Windows Live CD?
>> I've yet to be inflicted with the pleasure.
>
> Norton Ghost.
>
> The old version I've got at work boots into PC-DOS and lets you run the
> software. However, the newer version my Dad has boots into a Live
> Windows and only lets you perform restores, not backups. You must
> install the bloatware onto your HD to perform backups. >_<
>
> You know how CD-ROMs have a *really* long seek time? Well, for random
> access, that's BAD.
Remind me, was Norton this bad before it was acquired by Symantec.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Software that works properly is *not* Rolls Royce design. It's *basic*
>> design! You don't go to a watch shop and hear "well, you can have this
>> actually tells the right time", do you? In a watch shop, *ALL* the
>> watches WORK PROPERLY! Even the absurdly cheap ones. Sheesh...
>
> Er this from a guy whose sister bought him a new watch because the
> batteries weren't lasting in his old one.
Well, for the previous 8 years it worked fine. Clearly something has
gone wrong with it now. Mechanical devices tend to wear out over time,
and 8 years is not an unreasonable time frame for a watch to work. If
I'd bought a more expensive watch, maybe it would have lasted longer.
Similarly, I doubt any software will ever be *completely* bug-free. The
point is that M$ isn't even trying. They can't be bothered.
>> No-one's forcing you to buy a computer. But IF you buy one, it's
>> pretty much a certain that you *will* have to run M$ software on it. I
>> tried to escape, but it just can't be done...
>
> Depends on what you want to run. Again, as has been pointed out before,
> for basic clerical work Linux works. The problems can be summed up with
> Nicholas's "That's the *basic* installation method on Linux. If you
> don't even know how to unpack a .tar.gz... you don't know Linux."
Partly it's the whole "everyone runs only Windows, so we only need to
develop for Windows", which creates the whole "people only develop for
Windows, so I can only run Windows". E.g., good luck finding any
headline games that run on Linux. And good luck finding Linux drivers
for game hardware.
Linux actually makes quite a sensible choice for servers. I mean, if
you've got a server, one would damn well *hope* you have an expert to
run it [no matter what software it runs]. So, assuming your software
runs there, it makes good sense.
[Random: Did you know, you can't play Team Fortress 2 on Linux, but you
*can* run a dedicated TF2 game server on it? OTOH, I guess the game
server only needs to send and receive UDP. The game itself needs to do
fancy DirectX stuff that would be a nightmare to port...]
I have, on several occasions, seriously considered moving to a Mac.
There are 2 real stopping points:
1. I don't have that kind of money.
2. None of my [very expensive] software would work any more.
>> Norton Ghost.
>>
>> The old version I've got at work boots into PC-DOS and lets you run
>> the software. However, the newer version my Dad has boots into a Live
>> Windows and only lets you perform restores, not backups. You must
>> install the bloatware onto your HD to perform backups. >_<
>>
>> You know how CD-ROMs have a *really* long seek time? Well, for random
>> access, that's BAD.
>
> Remind me, was Norton this bad before it was acquired by Symantec.
Both CDs have Symantec written on them. I've got Ghost 2003 at work.
[The one that actually lets you copy data.] My dad has something newer
[which doesn't].
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Austin wrote:
> IIRC Win95 ran on MS-DOS 7. It actually booted to DOS and then loaded
> windows. The reboot to DOS only set up the environment customized to
> the application you were trying to run.
>
> The same went for Win98 & ME. Just that DOS become less and less
> important. But I remember that they all ran on top of DOS.
AFAIK, Windows 3.1 was the last purely windows system for DOS. From W95
forward, Windows was already a full OS, though not 32 bits. But yes, I
think DOS booted and then booted Win. DOS became as irrelevant as the
old programs for it began being rewritten for true 32 bit OS. It then
run in emulated mode inside Windows...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
