Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:What year is this? (Score 1) 559

For example, under a policy originally introduced during the Franco era, a company must pay a laid-off long-term worker 1.5 months of salary for every year he's been employed at the company. (If he's been there for 8 years, the company must pay him a full year's salary as severance pay.) Especially during the downturn, that policy has made companies loath to hire employees on anything other than temp contracts, contributing to Spain's massive 50% unemployment rate for workers under 26.
Your reasoning is completely arse about face. A policy like that should discourage companies from firing people, not hiring them (unless, of course, they are planning to fire them in the future).
In any event, this is not a policy that impacts "flexibility", it's just an operating expense (ie: you tack another 1.5 months worth of salary onto your costs for hiring an employee).

Comment Re:nope (Score 1) 737

Windows NT did not exist when OS/2 was being developed.
Yes it did. Windows NT development started in 1988, and was being worked on alongside OS/2 1.x.
Microsoft started it because they did not like working on OS/2 yet losing full control over it.
No, Microsoft and IBM agreed to work on OS/2 NT _together_ as a replacement (long term) for OS/2.
But it wasn't. At the time of release OS/2 was only adopted on small servers (as an alternative to Netware, but also for purposes that otherwise required Unix or mainframe) and semi-embedded devices (as an alternative to DOS). On desktops, Windows 3.1 - 3.11 was so entrenched, nothing was capable of displacing it.
OS/2 was primarily for clients, not servers, especially in the 1.x and 2.x days. NT was going to be the server.
I remember all this fairly well because I watched it unfold. Even the wiki pages cover most of the high level stuff, however.

Comment Re:nope (Score 1) 737

OS/2 was promoted for very large enterprises and competed with Unix, mainframes (from the same IBM), etc. on the server side, and in "thick embedded" devices.

Rubbish. Originally (ie: pre-IBM/Microsoft breakup):

Windows NT (OS/2 NT at the time) was designed and built to compete with UNIX and Netware.

OS/2 was going to be the high-end (ie: "business") user desktop.

DOS+Windows was going to be the low-end (ie: "home") user desktop.

Comment Re:Other roadblocks (Score 1) 352

If I get stuck in a traffic jam that I could have found out about on the radio (had I been manually driving), I'd be pretty pissed off.

1. Not driving does not prevent you from listening to the radio and telling the car to avoid a specific area.
2. Even cheap GPSes these days will receive and account for automated traffic reports.

Comment Re:Whats the alternative? (Score 1) 863

I don't have a Windows 7 machine in front of me to check, but I can't recall any ambiguity about whether or not a program is running. The icon changes to indicate the status.
Of course, I haven't really cared about whether or not programs are running for 15+ years, even since I've had OSes with (varying levels of) competent process scheduling and virtual memory management. Nor should anyone else today, when 2/4 HT-core machines with 2-4GB of RAM and SSDs mundane.

Comment Re:have you tried it? (Score 1) 863

What I don't get is why people aren't all raging about how broken window focus management has been since Windows 7. It used to be you could <alt>+<tab> and cycle through windows in a predictable manner, so you weren't required to remove your hands from the freakin' keyboard when you're working at 90 miles an hour. Or is this just a dual-monitor fsckup?

Can you be a little more specific ? I've been using Windows 7 for quite some time on multi-monitor setups and don't see anything that's changed with Alt+Tab behaviour.

Slashdot Top Deals

Practical people would be more practical if they would take a little more time for dreaming. -- J. P. McEvoy