Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:This is why Globalization won't matter (Score 1) 474

macroeconomically it doesnt have to create new jobs. It can literally leave no jobs left to do, so any freed up consumer money basically just has no where to go. IF the jobs do not increase proportionally to demand, its true, i mean, if 0 jobs are being created by demand, its technically possible to have really no need for humans. As well, if consumers decide they have enough things, they will just stop buying so even money freed up by automation just wont be spent.

Comment Where do the profits go (Score 1) 474

I think a good question is where do the increased profits go? If it goes to a lower cost product maybe it will create new jobs by freeing up more consumer money. If it goes to executives, it wont.

Another piece of advice, want this sugary stuff without supporting these big corps? Go to a locally run bakery and buy their pastries, if you still have them. They probably sell healthy products too perhaps.

Comment Never got embrace and extend (Score 1) 170

Some compare this to embrace and extend. Some IE features such as XMLHTTPRequest that Microsoft added to the web actually made interactive web possible for things like messaging apps. Instead of balking at Microsoft's ideas, why not adopt them into open source projects? If microsoft had not adopted Web technology it would have instead made its own entirely proprietary protocol. I dont know, it sounds like its much easier to emulate a few Microsoft extensions to an open protocol than to try to emulate an entirely proprietary protocol. Why not emulate Microsofts extensions instead of just complain? Thats what doesnt make sense about the embrace extend argument, if they make entirely their own proprietary protocol, does that make things easier for you to support? It was a while before Linux could support additional filesystem permissions like inherited permissions and a seperate create and modify bit, does it today, even, features found in Windows for some time.

Fortunately much of Linux userland is under GPL so if Microsoft does make any change to a Linux userland tool, it would have to contribute it.

I am undecided on the effect this could cause. On one hand, it might make it easier for more people to get used to using Linux apps as a stepping stone to going with a Linux system. On the other hand, it allows people to get a Linux userland without the Linux kernel, perhaps reducing usage of the Linux kernel.

Instead of working with Microsoft. I think Canonical should be working with Dell, Lenovo, HP etc to get Linux to support more PC hardware adn get Linux installed as an alternative on off the shelf computers. These makers could also fund WINE and a Windows driver compatability layer for Linux, which would eventually payoff in freeing them from MS royalties.

Comment $1 billion and still no sandbox (Score 1) 144

These people have so much money yet they cannot get multi-proc and sandbox to work. Tottally and utterly negligent. Really security features like this need to come first to protect the users. You would think they could also keep XUL for backward compatability, with more security and user control for security purposes

Comment Re:It's Like (Score 1) 74

They cant do their own OS, it was too expensive and was damaging the company. When they can get the enormous android ecosystem for basically free, its a no brainer for them to join the android ecosystem. If they had done this years ago when everyone else did, they wouldnt be in the fix they are in. IT was the blackberry OS that was really doing in the company.

Comment Re:Way to become irrelevant (Score 1) 74

Tryinbg to do their own OS was killing the company. This was a major reason that they were getting nowhere. They cant benefit from the google app ecosystem. Too much inertia behind Android than to try to compete with it. When they can go android for free, it makes no sense to do their own OS. They could if they want do their own UI on android. A popout key board is a great idea which is what they should do, wont reduce the area for the screen since the keyboard pops out from the side.

Comment Should have gone android years ago (Score 1) 74

Its unbelievable that they didnt move to Android years ago given they get app compatability with the enormous android ecosystem, for free. Trying to develop their own OS was insane. The company would be in better shape had it done this years ago. I think the min keyboard idea is also good, after using on screen keyboards, i cannot believe there is no demand for a physical one.

Comment Will create problems (Score 4, Insightful) 378

So much for Linux being "great for old hardware". This is really just an dubious move by distros and really just ignores a huge area where Linux can see use: Old hardware where Windows wont run. You also have another aspect of this which is your basically trashing 32 bit app support if you do not include 32 bit libraries, or, providing a thunk between 32 bit apps and 64 bit libraries.

Even if 32 bit libraries are not built, you should be able to run a 32 bit app by compiling the libraries yourself, so distros could at least allow people to build 32 bit libraries easily from source packages, (with the benefit of automatically building all dependancies).

Another area this will create problems is with VMs on even recent hardware, Intel chips up to just a year or two ago didnt include VT-x or a Ring 2, which means that virtualization of 64 bit OSs will not work.

Comment Re:new MS? nothings changed. (Score 1) 123

Companies that use .NET are not smart but we have a lot of dumb companies. Would be better to use an open source toolkit rather than to make oneself hostage of MS, but these kinds of decisions are made by execs rather than techies too often. Unfortunately NET is everywhere, doesnt mean its good to use it.

Slashdot Top Deals

I just asked myself... what would John DeLorean do? -- Raoul Duke