Posted on 05/27/2008 10:31:41 PM PDT by HAL9000
Excerpt -
Switching gears. Walt asks about Vista and the lousy reception it’s been given. Is Vista a failure?Ballmer: Vista is not a failure. Is it something we’d like to improve? Of course. Is it something that with 20/20 hindsight we’d do differently? Sure, he confesses. But Vista has sold a lot of copies, he adds.
Walt jumps in and asks about the percentage of Vista sales that result in downgrades to XP. Ballmer dodges. Gates looking a little depressed.
Walt asks if Vista has damaged with Windows brand.
Gates says Microsoft’s philosophy is to “do things better.” And Vista has given us lots of opportunity to do that, he notes. (Audience laughter.) There are plenty of lessons out of Vista–compatibility and other issues vendors are concerned about.
Ballmer says that according to consumer research, the No. 1 complaint about Vista was the change to the Windows user interface.
The conversation turns to Windows 7, which Microsoft hasn’t said too much about. Clearly, the company has learned from the media beating it took over the defeatured and perennially delayed Windows Vista. Indeed, in a post to the Windows Vista blog today, Microsoft’s Chris Flore noted that Microsoft is being very careful about releasing details about Windows 7. “What is a little different today is when and how we are talking about the next version of Windows,” Flore wrote. “So, why the change in approach? We know that when we talk about our plans for the next release of Windows, people take action. As a result, we can significantly impact our partners and our customers if we broadly share information that later changes. With Windows 7, we’re trying to more carefully plan how we share information with our customers and partners. This means sharing the right level of information at the right time depending on the needs of the audience.”
Well, apparently this is the right time and the right audience, because we’re about to get a Windows 7 demo (Oh, one more thing …. Here’s hoping Microsoft shares only those aspects of the new OS that it doesn’t end up de-featuring at a later date.)
Ballmer says what we’re about to see is “just a snippet” of Windows 7.
~ snip ~
(Excerpt) Read more at allthingsd.com ...
This is the most obscene description of my position imaginable, of course. Unlike you, I clearly support the protection of US intellectual property rights, while you support foreign clones and hackers. And when you're not painting strawmen in defense of yourself, you like to accuse others of the exact position you're guilty of. So you're busted, again. Why you continue to create these confrontations, which expose your true motives is harder to explain, but it doesn't really matter. Feel free to talk in circles some more if you want, but until you can finally ever explain what your actual point supposedly is, there's nothing really else to say.
This all started because someone equated Linux with BSD (in response to you childishly taunting him) and I said I wish people would stop equating Linux with all UNIX. I don't like it when people say "Linux" instead of "UNIX" when talking about another UNIX operating system. I thought you'd agree with that sentiment. The only thing else I did in relation to UNIX was to state the three widely-accepted meanings of the word.
But then in response you had to go on an anti-IBM tirade that led to this.
Why you continue to create these confrontations
As shown, you created the confrontation.
LOL, you've spent the last ten posts trying to equate the two, whining that it's too hard for you to tell the difference. Another perfect example of circle speak.
But then in response you had to go on an anti-IBM tirade that led to this.
INTERNATIONAL Business Machines lost to Apple and Microsoft in the desktop computer wars, and their choice of Linux has solidified this. I understand this upsets you , but if you have some other reason you think I was unfair to IBM let's hear it. Is this finally the point you were trying to make? My quote "anti-IBM tirade" is what upset you, correct? Why?
Wrong, as usual. I've said Linux is a UNIX, as in UNIX-like. I have never used "Linux" when referring to another UNIX-like operating system or in reference to all UNIX operating systems. That is the practice I complained about. But instead of noticing a possible point of agreement between us you decided to attack.
I understand this upsets you , but if you have some other reason you think I was unfair to IBM let's hear it.
It doesn't upset me at all. I have no interest in IBM's success, except that they make the chips in my Wii, PS3 and 360. You were unfair to IBM about Project Monterey. Let's look at your post:
IBM almost single-handedly destroyed UNIX, dropping their development agreements with SCO while using some of those same developers to build equivalence in Linux.First, an already seriously hurting Old SCO dropped out of the UNIX business before IBM dropped out of Monterey. Second, SCO's successor-in-interest (Caldera/New SCO) also had developers already working with IBM, HP, Intel and others on a competing Linux IA-64 port (Monterey was initially an IA-64 project) and completed it before Monterey died. You also leave out that the software was already in beta but Intel wouldn't have the chip for which it was designed for another two years, thus no sales to recoup in the meantime.
So if indeed the death of Monterey almost killed UNIX, which is highly doubtful, there's plenty of blame to go around among the major players. Caldera/SCO's former CEO is even on record saying he was pleased Project Monterey died, letting IBM focus back on AIX-5L. Most definitely not even close to "single-handedly."
I don't like it when people say "Linux" instead of "UNIX"
Then in your very next post, quote:
I've said Linux is a UNIX
So, you "don't like it when people say 'Linux' instead of 'UNIX'," but you yourself have quote "said Linux is a UNIX." Quite obviously you have a confliction within yourself, no wonder you constantly talk in circles.
So, you "don't like it when people say 'Linux' instead of 'UNIX'," but you yourself have quote "said Linux is a UNIX."
Nice of you to distort my sentence by removing the emphasis on "a" and the meaning that comes with it, plus leave off the other text that clearly shows my meaning.
Very dishonest of you, but expected. It looks like you're back to your old tricks. Are you looking to get banned again?
I didn't distort anything, just another perfect example of your circle talk, you claim in back to back posts you supposedly don't like people who refer to Linux as UNIX but of course constantly do it yourself. Go cry to the mods now if you want, I don't see anybody else rushing to your defense.
I said that back in 2000. Well, actually I started thinking it back in 98 when I was forced to deal with IE and ActiveX.
It was a bad idea then, and it's still a bad idea now. I don't care what they say anymore. I've left the Winders reservation for good.
I might have known you'd be here.
Ben Franklin was a great American entrepreneur, and yet a few of his greatest inventions, that still impact our lives today in some way; that could have made him a very wealthy individual, he essentially open sourced; did not patent.
The Franklin Stove and the Lighting Rod. And I suppose BiFocals.
And yes, you are xenophobic. Your post scream it.
Gates and Balmer are sowing the seeds of their own demise, and sycophants such us yourself only serve to speed the process.
Keep going! Doing a great job! Don't stop!
So, we should put Linus Torvalds on our $20 dollar bills? Seriously, you should hear what you sound like. What exactly is wrong with people like me thinking of America first? You guys seem more interested in public welfare.
And while I would dearly love (really!) to sit here this fine and stormy evening, and engage in textual sparing with you; it is a Friday night after all, and I have places to go and people to meet, and I'm running late as it is.
Why don't you go back to Redmond and place your olfactory receptor in Mr. Bills waste port and breath deep that fine MS air.
Good riddance, you have nothing to but vile language and claims of pity to offer anyway.
Now you're just back to lying about my posts again. My how fast you degenerate. You were doing pretty well for a while, and in the last week you've fallen straight down to troll again.
We'll try it again for those with less than a first-grade comprehension level:
Linux is a UNIX. It is a subset of of the set of all UNIX-like operating systems. This is true.
Linux is not itself the set of all UNIX-like systems, thus to use the word Linux to reference all of UNIX is not correct. Neither is to use the word Linux in place of the proper name of another specific UNIX operating system. It is these uses that annoy me.
just another perfect example of your circle talk
Simple statements of fact can seem like "circle talk" to the confused and mentally disturbed. Just nod your head to yourself if you can understand this simple concept after being told a few times.
That is absolutely true. A while back in this thread he tried to blame the troubles of UNIX on IBM pulling out of Project Monterey. I showed him the facts and they just whizzed by above his head. Facts simply have no place in the mind of the ideologue. We see this with Democrats every day.
About Ben Franklin, it was nice of him to give his inventions to the public domain. In fact a good case can be made for his doing so helping us win the Revolutionary War. Franklin was the one mostly responsible for getting us support from France, and he was extremely well-liked in France because of his free inventions, especially the lightning rod. This had him immediately running in court circles schmoozing his way to the king, along the way gathering courtesan support that the king wouldn't be able to resist.
No it's not, it's a "Unix-like" clone comprised of a foreign built kernel and a userspace referred to as "GNU's NOT UNIX" (GNU). See that, NOT UNIX. You're simply wrong, and no one will apparently ever be able to explain it to you. And rather than admit your clear mistake, you'd obviously rather launch personal attacks and flop and flail about as if some cruel injustice has been done. But go ahead if you enjoy the punishment, cause it's a twofer for me.
According to Dennis Ritchie and one of the three definitions of "UNIX" it is. I think I'll give Ritchie's opinion on the subject just a little more credence than yours. I generally prefer to say "a UNIX" or "*NIX" to refer to one of these operating systems that isn't UNIX by codebase or certification.
You're simply wrong
Go tell Dennis Ritchie he's wrong about the operating system he wrote and tell me how that went. His definition is even more encompassing than the one I use. Since you are very, very often wrong with me catching you on it (see the recent IBM/Monterey issue), you are just so desperate to catch me in something wrong. It must be frustrating.
There are three generally accepted definitions of the word "UNIX" and not all within them are universally agreed: lineage from Bell, general functionality (looks like a duck) and certification. Just because you prefer the lineage definition does not make you right and me wrong. Sorry, thanks for playing.
Unfortunately for you your absolute hatred blinds you to the complex realities and that constantly trips you up and has you in contradictory positions. That's why you end up with lame arguments, like how you tried to justify giving open source BSD a pass while railing against the supposed national security implications of open source. You paint yourself into a corner.
Dennis Ritchie doesn't own that definition and never did, but I can see why he'd like to put what he percieves as his label on everything imaginable. As for the facts, Linux only meets one of your own three definitions LOL. How hilarious is that? But using them anyway, if you have all three you're bonafide UNIXtm. Two of the three is "Unix". One of the three is wannabe, "Unix-like".
you are just so desperate to catch me in something wrong. It must be frustrating.
Hardly. Considering your history of admitted lying to protect criminal foreign hackers, constant plugging of foreign products including cheap immitations, and most importantly routine attacks on Republicans and Christians, all by way of distorted facts and double speak, I see you as more of a punching bag.
So in this statement you say "Who owns it gets to define it." Good, then the certification (trademark) definition of UNIX is correct (the Open Group owns it and defines it) and your lineage definition is wrong.
s for the facts, Linux only meets one of your own three definitions LOL. How hilarious is that?
You only need to meet one definition. It is only your misunderstanding that is hilarious.
But using them anyway, if you have all three you're bonafide UNIXtm. Two of the three is "Unix". One of the three is wannabe, "Unix-like".
You are the only place I have ever heard that concept from. The fact is that you need to meet one to be UNIX™. That is certification. Although if you get certification you also de facto meet the functionality definition. Lineage from Bell/AT&T is not required.
Considering your history of admitted lying to protect criminal foreign hackers
Aside from the fact that your statement is false, that nmap thing exposing your ignorance really put a long-term thorn in your paw, didn't it?
Good for me, since that would obviously show my interpretation is more correct. Using the formal trademark Linux is definitely OUT. You can whine all you want about it, swear it's going to happen one day, but under the true definition your claim "Linux is a UNIX" is again bogus.
Lineage from Bell/AT&T is not required.
In a historical context it does, when you are describing "Unix". Linux is a different product, different name, mostly different development track until recently, and the copyright holder on most of the core O/S has labled it quote "NOT UNIX".
So most if not all of the copyright and trademark holders regarding Linux and the UNIX trademarks say Linux is not UNIX, yet you claim this somehow proves me wrong when it obviously blows your claim Linux IS UNIX completely out of the water.
From Kernel.Org, home of the Linux kernel. It clearly says quote “Linux is a clone of the operating system Unix” unquote, right on the front page. Whine some more but these are the facts.
What is Linux?
Linux is a clone of the operating system Unix, written from scratch by Linus Torvalds with assistance from a loosely-knit team of hackers across the Net. It aims towards POSIX and Single UNIX Specification compliance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.