«

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:51:11 +1300, Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:18:51 +1300, Waylon Kenning wrote:
>
>> To be honest, I'd like to see a Fedora Student Ambassador at Waikato.
>> It'd be good to chat and maybe run some joint presentations on common
>> technologies such as directory services, web services etc...
>
> If by "technology" you mean "software", then there is *nothing* "common"
> between Micro$oft software and Open Source software.
>
> Have A Nice Cup of Tea

Of course there is.
Otherwise how else could you send email from a Microsoft PC to a Linux PC?
Or how else could you view a web page on a Windows PC when it is served by
a Linux Web server?
How could you read a CD-ROM in a Linux PC that was burnt on a Windows PC?
How could you share a file between an NT server and a RedHat workstation?

It is the common technologies (such as Ethernet, TCP-IP, USB, POP3, etc.)
that allow such systems to co-exist and cooperate.

Murray.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:49:07 +1300, Murray Symon wrote:

>> If by "technology" you mean "software", then there is *nothing* "common"
>> between Micro$oft software and Open Source software.
>>
>> Have A Nice Cup of Tea
>
> Of course there is.
> Otherwise how else could you send email from a Microsoft PC to a Linux PC?
> Or how else could you view a web page on a Windows PC when it is served by
> a Linux Web server?
> How could you read a CD-ROM in a Linux PC that was burnt on a Windows PC?
> How could you share a file between an NT server and a RedHat workstation?
>
> It is the common technologies (such as Ethernet, TCP-IP, USB, POP3, etc.)
> that allow such systems to co-exist and cooperate.

What you mention are published standards, not software products.

And even then, Micro$oft does not properly support all standards that
apply to the WWW. (and I don't mean unimplemented features)


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 14:05:44 +1200, Murray Symon wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 12:02:41 +1200, Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:49:07 +1300, Murray Symon wrote:
>>
>>>> If by "technology" you mean "software", then there is *nothing*
>>>> "common" between Micro$oft software and Open Source software.
>>>>
>>>> Have A Nice Cup of Tea
>>>
>>> Of course there is.
>>> Otherwise how else could you send email from a Microsoft PC to a Linux
>>> PC? Or how else could you view a web page on a Windows PC when it is
>>> served by a Linux Web server?
>>> How could you read a CD-ROM in a Linux PC that was burnt on a Windows
>>> PC? How could you share a file between an NT server and a RedHat
>>> workstation?
>>>
>>> It is the common technologies (such as Ethernet, TCP-IP, USB, POP3,
>>> etc.) that allow such systems to co-exist and cooperate.
>>
>> What you mention are published standards, not software products.
>>
>>
>> Have A Nice Cup of Tea
>
> Yes, that's right.
> Maybe you don't understand what Waylon means by "common technologies"?

Well if Waylon meant "Open and published interoperability standards used
by all major platforms" then he should have said so.

But as for software, there is nothing "common" between Micro$oft's
enslaved close source code and the Free and Open code released under the
GNU GPL.


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 12:02:41 +1200, Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:49:07 +1300, Murray Symon wrote:
>
>>> If by "technology" you mean "software", then there is *nothing*
>>> "common" between Micro$oft software and Open Source software.
>>>
>>> Have A Nice Cup of Tea
>>
>> Of course there is.
>> Otherwise how else could you send email from a Microsoft PC to a Linux
>> PC? Or how else could you view a web page on a Windows PC when it is
>> served by a Linux Web server?
>> How could you read a CD-ROM in a Linux PC that was burnt on a Windows
>> PC? How could you share a file between an NT server and a RedHat
>> workstation?
>>
>> It is the common technologies (such as Ethernet, TCP-IP, USB, POP3,
>> etc.) that allow such systems to co-exist and cooperate.
>
> What you mention are published standards, not software products.
>
>
> Have A Nice Cup of Tea

Yes, that's right.
Maybe you don't understand what Waylon means by "common technologies"?

T'was the Sun, 19 Mar 2006 13:46:58 +1200 when I remembered Have A
Nice Cup of Tea <> saying something like this:

>Well if Waylon meant "Open and published interoperability standards used
>by all major platforms" then he should have said so.

Dude, wake up. I said exactly what I meant to say, no more and no
less. If you didn't understand what I meant, that's something I can
live with.

And for news in the real world, I've made some progress towards doing
some joint presentations at the university. Some things I'm interested
in covering would be authenticating Windows machines on a Linux domain
controller, and vice versa. Any other suggests for good joint topics
to be covered?
--
Cheers,

Waylon Kenning.
See my blog at http://spaces.msn.com/WaylonKenning/

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:57:56 +1200, Waylon Kenning wrote:

> Some things I'm interested
> in covering would be authenticating Windows machines on a Linux domain
> controller, and vice versa.

What is a "Linux domain controller"? Come to think of it, what is a "Linux
domain"?


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
"The key benefit of open technologies such as open source software is
freedom of choice."

T'was the Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:34:07 +1200 when I remembered Have A
Nice Cup of Tea <> saying something like this:

>> Some things I'm interested
>> in covering would be authenticating Windows machines on a Linux domain
>> controller, and vice versa.
>
>What is a "Linux domain controller"? Come to think of it, what is a "Linux
>domain"?

Google it.
--
Cheers,

Waylon Kenning.
See my blog at http://spaces.msn.com/WaylonKenning/

Daniel wrote:
> So now it looks like Sony will be playing the very very dangerous game
> of losing money (a *lot* of money) to make money in the long term.
>

Just seen an ad for a Sony blue-ray player here (courtesy of digg):-
http://tinyurl.com/hteza
(http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....19&lid=P1_m31a)

Initial impressions:-
1. $1000 USD!!! - ouch
2. Physically big - how they will fit that drive into the prototyped PS3
casing is beyond me

So, I guess Sony are going to be losing a lot more money that I first
thought.

Interesting comments at digg about the player especially, particularly
the negativity towards blu-ray DRM.