|
Yes, I used a 1-based index.
(1) (2) and (3)
Nish
Regards,
Nish
Native CPian.
Born and brought up on CP.
With the CP blood in him.
|
|
|
|
|
I think a company should be able to make whatever kind of software they want and if someone doesn't like it they don't have to buy it. If the non-modular OS were so evil, MS would have never gained so many users and would be losing a lot more than they are to Linux. Don't get me wrong, I do think Linux is a better OS, but MS is obviously making a product that a lot of people like. I don't see how this is any of the government's business.
-Jack
To an optimist the glass is half full.
To a pessimist the glass is half empty.
To a programmer the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
Well stated.
Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day
Light a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life!
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Handy wrote:
If the non-modular OS were so evil, MS would have never gained so many users and would be losing a lot more than they are to Linux.
I disagree. Windows got big with Windows 3.1. There were not a lot of apps integrated, other than simple stuff like Notepad and Solitare, and most of those were optional anyway.
No generalization is 100% true.
Not even this one.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with you, Nish.
99% of the time, adding extra apps to the OS just makes it bigger and slower. Sometimes these extra apps introduce dangerous security holes.
My biggest pet peeve with Windows is the inclusion of a bunch of crap that I never use and can't uninstall. Outlook express is a good example - there may be some home users that use it, but I don't know of one corporation that does. Even if you use Outlook, you generally have a copy of Outlook Express and Outlook both on the same machine. How useful is that?
Windows didn't start out that way. In 3.1, most of the components to install were optional. XP is the other extreme - I am forced to have MSN messenger, Outlook express, media player, etc., on my system.
If I could at least opt not to install these, or to uninstall them later, I'd feel much better.
No generalization is 100% true.
Not even this one.
|
|
|
|
|
The rumour is that with XP service pack 1, you will be able to uninstall many of the non-business related pieces (Messenger, games, movie maker, media player, etc.). This is because many companies have refused to install Win XP (or even Win 2000) until some of that crap can easily be removed.
-Sean
----
"I'm a breast man."
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't it be OSes? What am i missing?
take the high road; don't reply "intelligence".
--------
I am not a connoisseur. --Shog9 --
|
|
|
|
|
Are you trying to replace Ravi aka Spell-O-Matic ?
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me 
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Davies wrote:
Are you trying to replace Ravi aka Spell-O-Matic ?
No, this is one of those "You're appostrophe bug's me" things. I honestly want to know if this is wrong, or if it just looks wrong.
--------
I am not a connoisseur. --Shog9 --
|
|
|
|
|
Oh Ok, I cna't give you acorrect answer, as both look right and wrong to me.
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me
|
|
|
|
|
Right - so in this instance the apostrophe is marking the suppression of the 'e'
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
ah. ok. thanks
--------
I am not a connoisseur. --Shog9 --
|
|
|
|
|
So do you pronounce it the same ?
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if I buy that one. Which two words are you concatenating, OS and es?
Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day
Light a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life!
|
|
|
|
|
er...
Look over there! <runs the other direction quickly>
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apostrophes have two purposes:
1) For use in contractions, to represent a missing letter or letters. For instance, the apostrophe in "I'm" represents the missing "a" ("I am"); the apostrophe in doesn't" represents the missing "o" in "does not."
2) To show possession. To make a noun (or nonpossessive pronoun) that does not end in "s" possessive, add apostrophe and "s" ['s]. If the word does end in "s," simply add an apostrophe after it.
Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day
Light a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life!
|
|
|
|
|
When one is referring to multiple operating systems, one should use "OSes" to indicate the plurality. One could argue, though, that "OSs" is also a valid plural. "OS's" indicates a possession of an operating system.
|
|
|
|
|
... really i'd vote 2 AND 3 if there was such an option. An OS should be modular; but i don't see how it is possible to force MS er, companies to Do The Right Thing.
--------
I am not a connoisseur. --Shog9 --
|
|
|
|
|
As I read it the options 2, and 3 are exclusive.
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Davies wrote:
As I read it the options 2, and 3 are exclusive.
Probably they are meant to be. All i meant was:
The company writing the OS should be free include any functionality and modularity they choose. And they should choose to write an OS that comes with helpful applications that can be replaced by others.
Wishful thinking, i know. 
--------
I am not a connoisseur. --Shog9 --
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that two questions are being asked in the one survey:
1) Wouldn;t it be nice if companies did ________.
2) The law should make a company do ________.
So really the survey is asking us to choose between preference, and what we think the law states.
Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day
Light a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life!
|
|
|
|
|
It's deliberately slightly ambiguous. Here's 2 ways of thinking about it:
2) I want companies to willingly make modular operating systems
3) I want companies to be free to build and market as they choose
or
2) There should be laws forcing modular OSs
3) There should not be laws producting the rights to development freely
There are so many ways to look at this: from issues involving the freedom to create your products as you choose, anti-trust and the power of a monopoly, whether or not you want your government to decide what sort of software you can buy, and fears of potential code bloat, version fragmentation and potential instability, reduced functionality and performance if all companies are forced to create modular operating systems.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote:
It's deliberately slightly ambiguous.
I think that will make for a controversial and interesting survey this week then. Everybody will be arguing apples and oranges.
Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day
Light a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life!
|
|
|
|
|
My work is done then
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
