Think about it. If I have a grievance from 2006 then I was active on wikipedia then. Ergo it was substantially more gender balanced. And as a point of fact your psychic skills sucked. I could care less about userboxes I wasn't in to them then. But I did observe the change.
You still haven't told me why you chose to jump on to give me a lecture despite not actually reading more than the start of the post that was the target of your lecture. Are you the holder of both the narcc account and SuperKendall pretending to be an unrelated person? Are you the ten year old child of the actual owner of the narcc account? Is this some stupid Eliza script being run as a game? Either way, why do you feel that you are in a position where you are fit to lecture me when your own behaviour shows a distinct lack of maturity? Why should I roll over when some immature little shit attempts to bring me to task yet the little shit is in some way above criticism?
It is pretty easy to date the why. In 2006 there was a thing called the Userbox wars. There isn't a good page on wikipedia about this. Prior to 2006 Wikipedia user pages were sort of like myspace pages for wikipedia editors. They had lots of personal information and people chatted. Jimmy Wales wanted userspace to be about the encyclopedia. At the same time he didn't want mass deletions. There were mass deletions and the this wasn't easily reversed. The tone changed. This was one of the big steps towards the deletionists winning control of Wikipedia entirely. But if you want to know when the gender's changed this was a crucial moment.
Of course the deletionists winning even more battles probably didn't help
A few statements on Userboxes but not enough to understand what happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What "deletionists" are and what Wikipedia was like before them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And that's the real problem - how do you properly draw the line between apps that are legitimate but happen to be similar because one inspired the other, and apps that are pure scamware and trying to undermine the original developer?
That's what trademarks are for.
I'm an Apple user. I can accuse Microsoft of a lot but yes they are substantially more open than Apple:
a) Their hardware base system is extremely open. Apple provides very limited hardware choice
b) Their driver selection is 2nd to none. Incredible. Apple is far worse than Linux and might even be worse than other BSDs.
c) Azure (their cloud offering) is probably the most open cloud out there. Certainly among the big players. Apple's cloud is completely tied to their platform and they don't allow other clouds.
d) Their enterprise apps tend to play well with others and allow you to mix and match.
Microsoft sells computers without the crapware: www.microsoftstore.com/signature
On the one hand they hate what the crapware does to the entire experience. OTOH $75-90 in subsidies per machine per OEM translates into about $150 to the end customer in savings. At an ASP of $550 an increase to $700 would be a 27% increase in price which would definitely harm sales. The value trap is a disaster for Microsoft. One of the points of the new interface is to drive up the price of PCs by making better interface hardware worthwhile and thus cut that number down to a level where they might be able to get rid of crapware.
I completely fail to comprehend why most Slashdotters seem to push everyone towards DRM'ed iPads and Chromebooks that put Palladium to shame instead of more open Windows PCs.
They don't. This generation of
They've gotten bitter. Of course it was easier to be positive when
Obviously if Intel were to substantial cut prices that changes things. But at least the Power8 prices I saw were competitive. Their entire pitch is that Power8 is moderately better especially for virtualization. They have to know that moderately better doesn't cut it if they are way out of range on price.
Red Hat sells operating systems not development tools. The big initiative for RedHat is designing a cloud based operating system which is open and at the same time supports containers -- OpenStack and Docker. They are a major leader in the DevOps approach. But even in development JBoss is a huge suite of development tools.
In terms of the complaints regarding OSes. RedHat is fine with Developers using Ubuntu for their workstations. They are getting to need something to deploy in production on and that's not going to be Ubuntu most of the time. As far as MySQL, MongoDB, or PostgreSQL they've never been a database company but they support all 3 databases. And in terms of Mongo / Cassandra / Hadoop there is no question they are far far ahead of Ubuntu in terms of deployment technology.
The summary is ridiculous. The article linked is more balanced and mainly advice for RedHat doing partnerships / distribution deals.
Out of curiosity, why do you call it an "ADD comment"?
Attention deficit disorder - as in rushing in to post something without reading beyond the first sentence, as hilariously revealed above when you showed you'd entirely missed the "benefit of the doubt" in the second sentence.
I think you really need imaginary foes to fight against to make yourself feel important
That fits your ridiculous behaviour of jumping on my comment without even reading beyond the first few words to deliver some sort of lecture. I suggest you let it go instead of indulging in such petty bullying in the hope that I have a low enough self esteem for such a comment to gain traction.
So let's have a bit of truth from you now - why did you jump in too swiftly to even read my comment when I was being critical of a luddite rolling out an old and tired argument from the luddite's playbook?
why do you continue to engage me?
I found your "epic fail" above somewhat amusing and wish to know more about the clown who wrote it.
For all those "that just might work" people it would be a bit of a bastard of a job wrapping under the blocks even with enough rope.
There are plenty of good reasons but it's not as cut and dried as the post above. The biggest reason is capability - if the cheap box does not handle the job adequately or the architecture/platform is what you need to run your stuff then the expensive option can be more viable in the long run.