Comment Re:Morons (Score 1) 564
A proper ultrabook is missing.
A proper ultrabook is missing.
The below are extremely misleading if not a lie, as it pertained only to a late beta and not the final version.
Personally, I still resent the AARD code that contributed to the collapse of DRDOS.
That AARD code I mentioned above - have you ever looked at it? A few lines that instruct Microsoft software to check for the underlying operating system on which it is to be installed. If any system fails to report that it is a Microsoft system, the software simply refuses to install. There was no good reason for that - it was just anti-competitive bullshit.
I do believe you're mistaken though and probably not lying, because such urban legends are regulaly posted as gospel truth around these parts(imagine someone who didn't know anything about these reading up your modded up posts) and then start to spread these things in their posts as the truth. The cycle of ignorance continues, but in case of Google and Apple, this effect is not that bad, so they get away because people are simply not even aware of their shortcomings most of the time.
FUD against MS? Don't forget that MS is the MASTER of FUD.
Those are not mutually exclusive, and the second doesn't justify the first, it only make people doing it look like ignorant folks with an agenda to push.
Unless you're admitting that you're spreading FUD because MS spread FUD
A reference would be much appreciated, or else I'll have to assume that you had buggy software or h/w, or that you don't remember correctly, or...making things up.
Video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2pBdoo2TgI
From http://drdosprojects.de/forum/drp_forum/posts/8863.html
All 7.0x versions of DR-DOS can run Windows up to Windows for
Workgroups 3.11; this includes Enhanced DR-DOS. I don't know about
v8.0, but DR-DOS 8.1 should be able to run it, too, since it uses
the v7.01.06 kernel.
The AARD never worked in a shipped version of Windows. Stop getting worked up.
And Netscape made plenty of big mistakes, including this one http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
Not to mention that the code was hugely bloated, that Mozilla Firefox is still trying to fix, after ~15 years. An OS that didn't ship with a browser would be laughed out of the market.
There are plenty of such stories about Apple or Google too, but they're not pushed like the MS ones seem to be.
For example, see how Google squashed Skyhook
http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung/
Aliyun and Acer prevented from launching a phone because of the secret rules of the "Open" Handset Alliance.
http://www.zdnet.com/cn/report-google-stops-acer-from-launching-aliyun-phone-in-china-7000004246/
Apple and the famed 30% cut of even sales from Apps, an example of how they used someone's OSS code in Safari and then banned them from the app store:
http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/
Yet you hate on MS and think of Google as a savior. Tell us, what is YOUR interest against Microsoft that you're spreading lies and FUD? The fact that your posts are modded up is the reason that Slashdot is losing readership as even the circlejerk echochamber gets bored with the same hating posts and posters.
Personally, I still resent the AARD code that contributed to the collapse of DRDOS. DRDOS was superior to most other DOS operating systems in some ways - among others, it was the first to achieve 32 bit disk access.
Everytime I dig into claims like this, I come away disappointed in the abject FUD that was both absorbed by such posters and the propagation of it, resulting in more people believing it.
AARD was activated only in a late beta. It didn't do anything in the final version
From Wiki:
Since December 1991 a pre-release version of Windows 3.1 was designed to return a non-fatal error message if it detected a non-Microsoft DOS.[5] This check came to be known as the AARD code.[6] With the detection code disabled, Windows ran perfectly under DR DOS and its successor Novell DOS. The code was present but disabled in the released version of Windows 3.1[7]
How exactly did this contribute to the collapse of DR-DOS when it never stopped one DR-DOS copy in the final Windows 3.1 version that actually shipped? Hurt contributions to Computer Science? Hyperbole much?
It's sad that your post is modded up by clueless moderators, and it will continue to propagate ignorant lies and FUD that Slashdot is known for. Not sure if you're just ignorant or just spreading FUD, and I don't know which is worse.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Android-Rooted-best-apps-superuser,18313.html
Users who have rooted are comparatively very less, so it's an uphill battle if you're trying to make money from your apps that need root.
Nice joke. Chromebooks are "selling" because Google is giving them away.
If MS really wants to push the OEMs, they'll just make Surface laptops, desktops and Ultrabooks and then double the OEM prices for Windows. If you think the OEMs are hurting now, you should see what happens then.
It isn't necessarily better. For example, you have a lot of system level software under Windows that you can't even sell for iOS and on Chromebooks. And on Android, your users need root before using them, which very few people have. Not to mention the 30% cut of all revenue on both the big mobile stores. In people's rush to hate MS, everyone's promoting even more restrictive software and data being stored in the cloud which users have no control over.
Linus says it best: Microsoft hatred is a disease
http://www.osnews.com/story/21887/Linus_Microsoft_Hatred_is_a_Disease
I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease. I believe in open development, and that very much involves not just making the source open, but also not shutting other people and companies out.
There are 'extremists' in the free software world, but that's one major reason why I don't call what I do 'free software' any more. I don't want to be associated with the people for whom it's about exclusion and hatred."
Right, and Apple is infringing and not paying the licensing fees. So, why do they get a free pass? Their products should be banned just the same.
They don't get a free pass, just wait for the court to set a rate, and Apple will pay Samsung the amount that the court decides, including past damages. Part of the FRAND obligation is to make it difficult to ban products.
The reason was that Samsung's patents were standards essential FRAND, which means they agreed to allow them to be part of a standard in exchange for lesser royalties and harder to seek injunctions. Apple's patents were not FRAND.
How can I replace my OS X trashcan icon with a small Mac Pro?
Read the links I posted. Google has no say in what Jolla does, but it potentially stop certifying or revoke access to OHA to any OEM that ships Jolla phones.
Thought it was going to get banned like Aliyun because of the stories below.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/14/3335204/google-statement-acer-smartphone-launch-aliyun-android
http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung/
Anyone know if Jolla phones are banned from being made by the Android OEMs because they're using a third party jvm for compatibility?
"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity." - Oscar Wilde
