Slashdot Mirror
Would You Date Microsoft?
teslatug writes "Channel9 has an interview with Bill Hilf of the Open Source Software Lab at Microsoft. Hilf argues that the majority of companies advocate open source solely so that they can drive customers to their core business, which is not open source. He calls this his 'donut theory.' Hilf also sees RedHat in this model, with support being their core. He compares this to dating, where you have to offer your date value in order to entice them. In his view, Microsoft offers developers a platform where they can make money selling their software. The virtues of 'free as in freedom' and the value of open source to the desktop users are skirted, but he makes an interesting point about big businesses like IBM and Oracle."
Well folks, i've been meaning to write this down anyway; here seem's like the perfect place.
Now, I am a 100% Win fan. I love it; things just work. But, I have made the switch to Linux (Fedora Core 5) at home, seeing as it does 99% of what I want. After a couple of months of constant, un-interupted use, my biggest issues with Linux are broadly thus:
1. No fecking media support! I get XMMS inform me on first attempt at playing an MP3 that it won't because of licensing conflict. Wtf? Codecs for avi's and DVDs were a simular story; all had to be downloaded via yum (bloody excellent tool!). Seriously; not good, but fixed in the end.
2. Why the hell do I have to install a new kernel? Why? I've never had to on Windows - why is Linux different? Is it so buggy? I installed with a factory version something ending 054. Now I have something ending 122 I believe. I did it ok, but that's not the point I'm making; were there really 68 cock-ups so great in the kernel build from release-time until that now they had to re-release 68 times? I'm guessing probablly not, but still.
3. Point 2 also breaks my nvidia drivers. I don't want to re-compile new drivers everytime there's a new 'patch'. For the love of god, why?!
4. X-Windows. What a mess. Why do I have to tell it my x & y refresh rates for my monitor? Windows just 'knows'. Many more things here I feel that X-Windows should just 'know' - the number of buttons on my USB mouse for-instance. If Windows can do it, there's no reason why Linux can't. Also, X-Windows 'feels' slower than Windows. I'm sure there's good reasons for this, but I don't care; Windows is snappier.
5. Lack of decent file-browser. The best I've come across is Nautilus in a mode that resembles Windows Explorer. It'll do for now, but as far as I'm aware, offers no context-sensitive menus for applications (like the Winamp "Play in Winamp" right-click menu on folders.
Actually, I think that's largely it. In all, Linux has, and is continuing to be great fun to play with. So many cool tools - yum being one of them. I'll stick to Linux @ home; it can only get better, but I'd be interested to know what people think of the above points - any suggestions maybe? I want this to work after all...
How many people are employed worldwide producing commodity software? 0.01% That means this 'donut' model is an ideal fit for roughly 99.99% of the world's population. I guess that's tough luck to the unlucky few.
I guess I would have to ask Microsoft if she fucks on first dates.
-Sj53
Wow. So IBM only supports Linux because it thinks it'll make them money? Next you're going to tell me that Apple only sells iPods for the same reason. Or that the purpose of a business is to make a profit.
Property is theft.
Very few companies have an open source "core" business...
--exa--
...She has too many viruses :(
Only if i can get half of everything after it.
Curiosity killed the cat, but cats have 9 lives.
You ask questions like "Would You Date Microsoft?" in a Linux section?
Editors, don't you know, most of those linuxits are "OMG WTF closed source soockzorz!!" attitude.
Real numbers - MS is what 90%+ of the market? If I wouldn't date them then I would be limiting myself to less than %10 of the available dates? Of course I date MS, I want to work in the IT business and they are most of it. I'm not saying I would ignore the other insignificant share either. I'll date anyone who will put out. duh.
Well, I came here for the hilf jokes; don't disappoint me. :)
Only if it puts out on the first date...
Summation 2
Sorry, this is Slashdot. What is this concept of "date" you refer to?
micro-soft an indication of the size and quality of the expected aftermath of the date?
I don't know exactly what this is about since the article isn't loading, but here's my opinion.
Regardless of whatever the company does, it is very important they have a competent support staff.
Let us say you have a problem. You contact support. They answer but fail to resolve the issue. You Google the error, take a few minutes going to sites, and find the answer to your problem so easily. What does that say about the company?
(The above paragraph is more or less my experience with Microsoft's help staff after not being able to do Windows Update. A Google search found out that slow processors might not work with their latest Windows Update on the web.)
If you really, truly believe this, try installing a Win 95 driver on an XP system. I give even odds on that actually working. I'll give better odds that the hardware came with specialized XP drivers.
I'd just never let it drive my car
Would this "Microsoft" have big boobies? Everything hinges on this.
About violent chair-throwing temper being a turn off in 5..4..3..2..
Date Microsoft? Oh, you'd need to bring some protection, especially the first time. ;) (Antivirus, firewall, etc.)
Here it is
You don't date microsoft. Microsoft dates you.
You don't screw microsoft. Microsoft screws you.
You don't own microsofts' base. All your base are belong to microsoft.
You don't __ [And then Ballmer hits me with a chair]
I couldn't get the interview to play, but if the summary is accurate (yeah, I know...) then it sounds like we've moved from "companies will never use open source because it isn't profitable" a few years back to "companies only use open source because it's profitable!".
It's hard to imagine why the new version would be news to anyone, or in any way disturbing.
And not even before microsoft was a monopolistic behemoth... but now I'm dating myself.
The virtues of 'free as in freedom' and the value of open source to the desktop users
what virtues? He expects the article to touch upon these points, but to many people they have not been sufficiently justified.
I've been using open source software for years, and have heard many people talk as if there was some moral imperative to release software under the GPL, or other oss license. Catch phrases like "free as in freedom," and "information wants to be free" are bandied about, and it is generally implied that commercial software developers are evil in some unspecified manner. However, these attitudes have never been justified to me with anything more than rhetoric and metaphor.
Slashdotters, maybe I am a fool. It might be that the moral imperative behind open source is only so obvious that no one can be bothered to write it down. However, I beg your patience and ask that someone take the time to explain it to me.
Now, to be clear I am not asking how open source helps to develop high quality software. I am already convinced on this point. I am asking for a justification of the commonly observed attitude on slashdot that open source developers are "good" and closed source developers are "bad" in the moral sense. I am asking for a justification of Richard Stallman's position that, as I understand it, there is a moral imperative to develop software under the GPL (or similar license).
Furthermore, as some suspect that I am already clearly quite daft, let's avoid using metaphorical terms or similes in the argument, as they might confuse me. Instead let us use only actual terms. By this I mean that I ask that responders do not derive some moral truth about computer software design by comparing it to plumbing, or cars, or politics (all of which are popular patterns of argument on slashdot). In these forms of arguments we are expected to accept some truth about an unrelated subject as a premise (i.e. you shouldn't send someone to jail for speeding) and from this premise come to accept some truth about computer software that holds a somewhat similar form (i.e. you shouldn't send someone to jail for hacking into their computer). In my ignorance, I often fail to see how the one proposition follows from the other. Often I even imagine that I see semantic distinctions that render the similitude meaningless with respect to the subject at hand. To avoid wandering into these failings in my comprehension, I ask that responders simply tell me why something is directly, without comparison to other truths.
Have at it.
Nerds no nothing about dating
back in the day we didnt have no old school
The author make a very good point. Especially in the case of companies like IBM.
Always read the label on any product/girlfriend/date.
..... pass.
The Microsoft label states clearly.
May cause bloating and discomfort
right after she boils your pet rabbit and force feeds it to you.
Everytime a Linux article comes up, out comes loads of people who barely use Linux to its fulliest, or at least seems so by their comments. Yet they are more than happy to public bash it on problems that maybe never existed, or no longer. Exist. I use Linux as my primary operating system, and I know for a fact that at least 80% of the common complaints are pure horse manure. You guys can make a guy ashamed to call himself a geek. If Windows is your thing, then go right ahead, but leave the penguin in peace.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Let me just say this Bill Hilf has an internet persona of an assole. I hope he's a better person in "real life". But his comments seem to always have some overtone against what his official title should stand for. It's one thing to be against open source:that's one decision. But it is total rubbish to be in a team called under the title of an Open Source lab and always be spewing these rubbish sprinkled with some truths.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
About jokes about violent chair-throwing temper in 5..4..3..2...
Not that it's tiresome or lame, being only about the 99,000,000th time it's been done this week.
Maybe we need more "I, for one, welcome our [whatever] overlords!", "%$^#&$^$+++NO CARRIER+++", or 1. Something, 2. ??? 3. Profit!!!!" unfunny jokes.
MS is far too jealous. If I so much as look at another OS, he'll get all in their face, like "How DARE you look at my user base! I'll sue your ass for patent infringement!"
That's if I had to date any of them. The only OS I can think of as female is OS X, and she's an ice queen...
Wow. I need a life, don't I?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I've tried all kinds of protection but none of them work.
Hilf compares this to dating, where you have to offer your date value in order to entice them.
I feel sorry for the women who have been on dates with this guy...both of them!
Coming soon: "Increase your date value" spam.
No
"To be is to do." --Socrates
"To do is to be." -- Aristotle
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
which probably woudln't prevent such viral infections anyhow
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
Are you kidding?
I'd hit it!
Microsoft's real problem is the trap. They are trapped in a way that regardless what they do in the field of open source everyone believes it was pure propaganda. Which may well be the case.
.Net is a nice consolidation of the former plattform but... oh well... that is not exciting. "The better Java" so to speak.
Today more open source runs on windows than on Linux machines. Content Management means open source. Cluster computing means Linux. Webserver means Apache.
In some areas Open Source provides real advantage. Unlike its competitors Microsoft cannot run a real open source strategy. They cannot use open source for their own advantage.
And what is worse: Microsoft's policy making, its advocacy against open source, against interoperability, money for politicians, money for software patent lobbying and other dirty business provides them with nasty press coverage and they lost the support of the software elites.
What professional developer likes a company which fights for DMCA style laws and software patenting? Microsoft lost the support of developers. Its technology and progress does not excite us anymore. (Oh, I like MDX but that's very old.)
Open source values developers. Developers run open source. No marketing braggarts blur the field. That is why we love it.
I think the question is wrong. Since they compare FOSS to going on a date, then paying for software would be like going to a hooker, right? Would you "date" a hooker? I wouldn't.. :P
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
Wow. So IBM only supports Linux because it thinks it'll make them money? Next you're going to tell me that Apple only sells iPods for the same reason. Or that the purpose of a business is to make a profit.
In addition to trying to make open-source business models seem just like commercial ones, as in "they just change the core of their doughnut" (from intellectual property to support services), this Hilf fellow isn't very accurate (honest?) about the actual core of Microsoft's doughnut. Microsoft's core asset isn't Windows and Office. Microsoft's core asset is their monopoly, without which their whole model collapses (or, if you like his metaphor, their doughnut crumbles).
Their monopoly is based on their core values of non-interoperability, embrace-and-extinguish methods, and so forth. Now, this Hilf seems like a friendly guy, and he does make some good points. So I would like to believe him when he says that OpenXML and the ODF plugin are Microsoft 'opening up'; I would like to believe him when he says Microsoft intends to compete in some areas, cooperate in other ones, with Linux. I would like to, but I'm not sure I can. Still, my cynicism is a bit milder after seeing this interview, I'm not sure exactly why.
I cant be bothered to watch the interview. I don't trust M$ to talk and act straight.
You tell of the bugs. Not to worry... out comes the bug spray which is sprayed into your face, leaving the bugs intact.
Get into car. It's hot. Window doesn't open.....etc etc for a couple of hours.... Get back to His Place. He pulls out a condom with a bunch of holes in it (Expires in 1998, but patched to 2000...). Before you get any action he has a buffer overflow.....
As you run screaming down the street you see a Knoppix CD. Pick it up and take it home... manybe tomorrow night will be better.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I can't think of any reason to Date MS!
If RedHat's method of getting you as a customer can be compared to dating, then Microsoft's method would be rape.
What's the word for dating for the purpose of receiving payment?
As a windows developer of course I will date Microsoft. On the other hand I will also date Linux, Apple, Java, open source, propriety software. I watch the entire 59 minute video which I though was pretty good. The best part is the reason why the Mozilla(Firefox) team came over. I remember reading about that article on Slashdot. It was classic and quite entertaining to read the responses. At the time I agreed with the responses and would be very afraid to be a Firefox developer inside Microsoft. But this video shed some light on the incident and explain the motive of "headlines" in articles. I watch a lot of Channel 9 's videos although I spend the majority of my time on Slashdot. It's was quite predictable of the responses from both sides. On channel 9 the responses were like "Oh great video", "This is cool. Shows why Microsoft is leaders in the software industry" And then I read the responses from Slashdot. Total opposite.
Yeah - by cutting them in half and counting the rings...
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
And since most here would go as far as to say MS swallows, and we all know if you deal with MS you'll eventually get screwed. I'd say go for it (but remember to bring you're own condoms)
...but I know it says that you can find the answer in minutes online; so why would you pay that $250/year support contract, again? ;)
So much for the "give the software away, charge for support" meme
( yes, yes.. I know 'support' is a broad term and could include making special extensions to the code for just that company blabla. )
I don't like the large and bloated ones.
When I read the title I thought it was something about carbon dating or something.
Sharp knees, sharp knees! But I'd still hit it.
'Same speed C but faster'
Before asking us "Would you date Microsoft," you need to ask Slashdotters questions like "Do you actually date?" or "Do you know what 'dating' is?"
1) Date MS? Many thanks, but there are other ways to get f*cked..
2) Donut Theory. Wow. Here's a general rule: When you run a OSS lab and start likening OSS development to a donut, you don't get to be an OSS lab any more.
If Redhat is like "dating, where you have to offer your date value in order to entice them". then isn't Microsoft like prostition, where you pay up front, don't know what you'll get till you open the package, and never know what kind of virus you could walk away with?
10b||~10b -- aah, what a question!
You have to install new kernels for the same reasons that you have to buy new versions of windows. (You're not still running Windows 3.1, are you?) You get new drivers, methods, and all those fun things you expect from your operating system. I can write you scripts to mostly automate the process of building new kernels, which should take 94% of the pain out of the process, but it will involve answering stupid questions about new drivers. It doesn't know. Hotplugging is our weakness right now.
I haven't built a kernel from source in almost three years. Most desktop oriented distros provide "kernel header packages" which are basically #include files that match your running kernel. From time to time, I have built third party drivers from source. If a third party driver will build against the "kernel headers", you can build and install it without rebooting; most times it is just the "./configure, make, checkinstall" routine. I used to regularly build the nVidia drivers this way but Ubuntu is good about providing "restricted driver" packages that match their supplied end-user kernels (which are pretty much built in "kitchen sink mode" so you don't have to rebuild to get some obscure option). But even if they didn't, automating nVidia driver build-and-install wouldn't be too hard.
VMware Player is another third party item that works just fine with kernel-header packages. Come to think of it, the only thing I've seen lately that won't build without patching kernel source and forcing a kernel rebuild on you are new versions of the sky2 driver. Even there I managed to get things working without resorting to a full kernel rebuild.
Rebuilding kernels is something I used to futz with a lot. It just isn't as necessary these days, especially if your distro pays good attention to end-user issues.
The reason that I generally trust IBM's support of Linux in a way that I would never trust MS's support of Linux is that IBM has shown that they don't expect any quid pro quo with respect to features being included into mainline or receiving any sort of special privileges. While their broad goal may be to maximize profit, they don't require that each factor of their participation maximizes their profit or give them a competitive advantage. The kernel developers that they employ work on a lot of features that benefit their competitors. Look at the on-again-off-again relationship that MS has with its Services for Unix. Another way to look at this is "How would IBM react if Linus suddenly dropped JFS from mainline?" compared to "How would MS react if NTFS was suddently dropped from mainline?" My instinctive answer is that MS would withdraw any funding and create a private fork, never releasing any improvements back into the kernel while IBM would maintain a patchset while fixing the problems that caused the exclusion.
Disclaimer: Yes, I know MS did not write the Linux NTFS code. Yes, I know the NTFS code is lacking compared to JFS. Yes, I know that IBM is just as much a part of the Evil Empire at it's heart. And finally, Yes, I know Services for Unix is not open source and does not run on an open source OS. Unfortunately, since MS doesn't have much Open Source software and does not support Linux development, there are no concrete examples to start with.
...you fuck Microsoft!
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
The virtues of 'free as in freedom' and the value of open source to the desktop users are skirted
Which I will point out as the single most revealing point, by virtue of its absence, of the entire link.
Virtually every criticism I've seen about open source, "free" software, and Linux in general, centers around a single (irrelevant) point: Not business-friendly.
You also hear "not ready for the desktop" or "too focused on developers", but those only matter in relation to the POV of trying to sell a product, in that they reduce the potential customer base. Thus even those classics reduce to "not business-friendly".
Well, I have news for Hilf, and Roland, and IDC, and all the rest who go on about why Linux and open source will fail - open source doesn't exist in a form that can fail. Yes, you have assorted groups with the goal of advancing open source (RMS, Debian), and various companies who have pretended to embrace the idea (IBM), but as much as they may contribute to the underlying idea of free software, they don't embody it in some mortality-inducing way. They can vanish tomorrow, and I can still build my own Linux distro from sources.
So, when any criticism of open source "skirts" the issue of free-as-in-freedom, you can ignore that criticism without a second thought. Because "open source" MEANS free-as-in-freedom. It doesn't depend on any company or person or government. Laws and patents and liabilities can make it harder to obtain and contribute to, but NOTHING can ever eliminate it completely. As long as a single fourth-world geek with a bicycle-powered laptop can compile a "hello world" program, open source will remain.
I thank IBM for its massive contributions of code and ideas. I thank RedHat for its PR work. I thank Linus for the kernel itself. But the abstraction doesn't need any of them to survive. Making a profit counts as a nice side effect, not the goal, of open source.
Ya know ive met Bill Hilf before.. he probbly buys dates. Typical for Microsoft.
Nope. A date with Microsoft is like a date with Kobe Bryant. Sooner or later you're gonna be on the receiving end....
I used to write software using Microsoft tools. The tools were expensive, and sometimes buggy. And when I encountered bugs in visual foxpro, I couldn't fix them. They were usually fixed in the next version, which had a new set of bugs. It's not terribly buggy, but sometimes one bug can really cause problems.
I also did some VB stuff. They went through three different, slightly incompatible database access classes during my use of it. All were written by committee.
Note that these were the cheap tools, too, I wasn't using sql server or such.
The world of Free software is completely different. I have control. I cannot stress this enough: I HAVE CONTROL. It's considered a myth that anyone can fix bugs, but I have more than once. I remember well fixing a bug in the pop server that I'm using. It would have taken Microsoft or a company such as that a month or more to fix a bug like that. It took me 30 minutes from never having looked at the code to having the bug fixed, patch sent to maintainer.
Now, for the stuff that I do nowadays, not only is the control factor large, so is the cost factor. They are correct that Microsoft provides a platform where you can make money. But that means you have to give Microsoft some of your money. If free Free software didn't exist, that would make sense. However, in the presence of an equal or better alternative that costs no money, it makes absolutely no sense to give Microsoft money for their often inferior offerings.
I have a particular client that I took from another company. It was an ecommerce site, nothing special, frankly. The other company had already billed the client $40,000 and the product wasn't yet working. The client brought me in to help the other bozos with some html. Yes, you read that correctly. So I asked the client for their data set, and three days later showed them a prototype that was more functional than what the other guys had spent three months and $40,000 to accomplish.
I then made them an offer. They hadn't paid for the Microsoft licenses yet, which were going to run about $15K. I told them that I could deliver the entire thing for less than the up-front cost of the Microsoft licenses. In other words, they could abandon everything that the other guys had charged them so much for and still save money. They decided to play both sides, and a month later I delivered the completed site, under budget. The other guys charged them another $40,000 for time they had spent since the last bill, but still no completed site. I don't know if they paid it.
I have found that most companies like those do not inform their clients ahead of time that there are going to be Microsoft license fees to pay. They rather find out afterward. In this case, when the guys found out what I was doing, they went to the client and told them falsely that they didn't have to pay for those licenses, that they could just use a free test license.
There's a lesson there, though. For most larger projects, those license fees are laid out up front (although they are usually dishonest about the ongoing costs, I've found). But think about it. If a client is going to spend $50K on a project, my choice as the vendor is either $50K in my pocket or $40K in my pocket and $10K in Microsoft's pocket. Again, for what? Better yet, I can "undercut" at $45K, still make more money than the other guy and save my client money.
Note to other vendors: keep pushing Microsoft crap at people. I love it when you do. Seriously.
Do you have ESP?
...given the opportunity, no one here should deny a date with anyone, evil or not.
"Hilf argues that the majority of companies advocate open source solely so that they can drive customers to their core business, which is not open source"
This doesn't make sense. Most companies are not in the software business. Companies advocate Open Source to get customers - yes. Very presient of you to have spotted that. Business are in the business of making money. Is such revenue somehow different that that made by selling solutions to other developers. It's interesting that you are able to divine their motives. Other reasons they advocate Open Source is to not get locked into a single vendor and the massive benefit they get in sharing development with the Open Source community.
"Microsoft offers developers a platform where they can make money selling their software"
Yet again the 'you can't make money out of Open Source' fud. Red Hat also offer developers a platform where they can make money selling their solutions. Red Hat also makes money offering support contracts. The down stream developers also makes money. Everybody makes money. Do you somehow claim that the Microsoft model is the only valid way of making money out of software. I can't comment on the rest of the interview. Is there a transcript somewhere.
davecb5620@gmail.com
No thanks. I prefer to remain gonnhosyphiherpilesmonkeyvirus-free, thank you.
I Am Not A Palaeontologist, but I'd date Microsoft at about 1997.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Feel free to formulate your own thoughts and opinions - you are allowed, assuming you are capable.
throw new NoSignatureException();
OK, we know about free speech vs. free as beer. But there is another model,"free as peanuts in a bar". You enter a bar, order a beer, and are served free peanuts with it. You enjoy the peanuts, but they are very salty, so pretty soon you feel compelled to buy more beer. One can argue that IBM consulting busines is much like that. They will provide free software, support Linux, etc, in much the same way the bar tender provides free peanuts. But you end up paying for a lot of expensive beer, in that case consulting services.
I dunno...
Vista kinda showed me how MS handles dates.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
You have - inadvertently, I'm certain - pointed out the most important bit:
With Microsoft, I'm getting fucked on the first date.
Not getting laid, but getting fucked.
Sounds like I'm the passive party there.
And not just on the first date, but for ever and ever.
Like a newbie in prison. Ass-raped.
Thanks, but no, thanks.
As for your vision of OSS... ever heard of Stephen Lynch?
"She's part girl
She's part boy
She has parts everyone can enjoy"
Your vision lacks... scope.
Ignore this signature. By order.
"Hilf also sees RedHat in this model, with support being their core. He compares this to dating, where you have to offer your date value in order to entice them."
Offering the customer value for their money! I'm shocked!!!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Only if I thought I could fuck her in the ass.
But google and I have been seeing each other lately -- I think it might be serious too, we've gone out every night this week.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
as long as she crashes at my place its all good
(yes i know i suck at spelling fell free to correct my grammar and/or spellin i dont care, im still not going to change
>> Well folks, i've been meaning to write this down anyway; here seem's like the perfect place.
They still accept anonymous postings... I wonder for how long. Not perfect, though, few read AC posts since that f* automatic level 1 threshold.
>> Now, I am a 100% Win fan. I love it; things just work.
I won't debate XP. Heck, even 2000 offered a reasonable experience. Mind you, at work I'm now forced to use Win 98, which obviously sucks, because that's all a 10+ year PC will handle.
Differently from your opinion I _think_ M$ software doesn't usually "just work". Example: I wanted to send home some links I've put in IE's Favorites and couldn't find a way to do it! One has to use programs to do this! I just wanted the links on notepad; is that asking too much?
Anyway, I wanted to install Opera, Opera imports IE favorites and Opera bookmarks are easy to handle. End of story.
Also, changing resolution is very easy in Windows. Wait, it's not! I had to lie about my monitor, saying I have a better one than that crappy CRT I got, just to get access to better refresh rates... which are selected in the videocard tab! See it: changing the monitor driver to get the videocard to show up more resolutions. Is this idiotic or what? I have years of computing experience, so I figured this out, but how would I explain this to a noobie? Windows is _very_ difficult, it's not easy at all.
> But, I have made the switch to Linux (Fedora Core 5) at home, seeing as it does 99% of what I want.
Me, too. Oh, wait, I didn't have the money to buy Windows...
> After a couple of months of constant, un-interupted use, my biggest issues with Linux are broadly thus:
Let us see...
>> 1. No fecking media support! I get XMMS inform me on first attempt at playing an MP3 that it won't because of licensing conflict. Wtf? Codecs for avi's and DVDs were a simular story; all had to be downloaded via yum (bloody excellent tool!). Seriously; not good, but fixed in the end.
Mplayer. Usually plays everything, but I don't know if it is legal to use it in USA. I am not in USA, so I am not worried. But then again, I'm kind of a GPL-fan, so I generally despise proprietary works. YMMV.
Some swear by that VLC thing, I have yet to try it.
>> 2. Why the hell do I have to install a new kernel? Why? I've never had to on Windows - why is Linux different?
You don't have to! I'm using Mandrake 10.1. After that, came 10.2, 2005 final edition and Mandriva 2006 and there's a new version (2007?) coming up just now. Ubuntu is released twice a year, if you skip one you get to install a new one once a year. Some people like to live on the edge. I just want to use the browser and OpenOffice. And yes, this might be dangerous. Some updates are mandatory, but I generally reinstall the whole thing.
>> Is it so buggy?
Yes, it is. And there are also some security flaws, which make news now and then. But it has less bugs than competitors (you know who). Did you know even hardware has bugs? Well, using Windows you'll never know, but Linux says what bugs your processor has right at boot.
>> I installed with a factory version something ending 054. Now I have something ending 122 I believe. I did it ok, but that's not the point I'm making; were there really 68 cock-ups so great in the kernel build from release-time until that now they had to re-release 68 times? I'm guessing probablly not, but still.
That is the beauty of free/open source: it's got lots of steam to burn. It's rather costly to prepare so many releases, but it happens in this model -- because it can! Doing this in a company would be a waste of money, because clients accept long delays for patches. Doing a better work is uncalled for and is a sure way to get fired. But _you_ don't have to install the last version (see above).
>> 3. Point 2 also breaks my nvidia drivers. I don't want to re-compile new drivers everytime there's a new 'patch'. For the love of
I only have three complaints about Windows, so Windows must be better:
http://outcampaign.org/
Windows: very pretty, kind of dumb, gets along well with others, but maybe a little too well because she probably has some social diseases
vs
Linux: built like a tank, takes a while to get to know well, will get freaky if you ask her too, of course disease-free, but downright buggly
vs
OSX: freaking hot, no diseases, but man does she like diamonds
I'd say it's a matter of taste.
He compares this to dating, where you have to offer your date value in order to entice them.
Microsoft (to date): "I've got a surprise for you, baby! I hope you like blue."
As Joel pointed out ( http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLet terV.html ) you want your product's companion-products to be commodities. People can buy your thing knowing they can get the rest of the kit cheaply from various other places - then you compete just in terms of your own product, not in terms of other stuff you have no control over.
-- All your bass are below two Hz
that it is hardly worth while to post that hoary old joke here.
still, got to keep it alive for the h4x0r5
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
... with Billy encased in a block of cement, 1 m above his head, ... would be the
1 m below his feet and 1 m at the shoulders
cloest approach that I would ever comtemplate to that Homo.
Toodles
Mmmmm... donuts....
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Irrespective of claims about morality, I believe that software using a free-to-derive license (which lets modifications remain private) is not as communally-beneficial or good for the program itself as software using a free-the-program license (where the modifications must be freely available to improve the original).
WTF! you pay for support at Microsoft too. Call them and ask for help and see if they don't ask for a credit card number. With MS you pay for the OS. You pay for the applications, You pay for help. You pay when the tech shows up to remove the STD's you caught when you went on that date.
So what RedHat charges for support. They still give back a free product. What does MS give up for free? The bottom line is all of us that work in the business are in it to make money. Yours truly included. So is it so bad that ReadHat chanrges for support when you don't have to pay if you are willing to pick up a book and do it yourself. Or if you don't want to pay RedHat there are other companies that support RH products. You could hire them. At least you are getting something for your money. With MS you pay for LOUSEY support or you pay and get NO answer to your problem. (OH it a feature not a bug! Its more open and easier to use not less secure!) Like another poster said this is like dating a whore that is a lousy lay and has STD's to top it off.
Personally I don't need a date that bad.
Big deal Open Source has developing platforms that don't cost money that you can develop your software to sell.
Besides a compnay with the right business model makes more profit offering great support to the public. There isn't enough profit margin to make any real money reselling MS products. The real profit is in support. Why all but about 12% of the money you sell MS products for go back to MS. Where support is labor and around 40% of this is straight profit. Lets face it this guys article is about how MS doesn't like a company like ours to give away a free product and make a profit selling support for that product. They lose and the customer and our company wins. Yes we support Open Source products. Yes we support Open Source OS's just as well as support for MS OS's. The support is the same the only differance is you PAY for the broken MS OS. It could even be the same person that comes out and puts in a new NIC card in your RedHat box and cleans the worms off of you XP machine. The hourly rate is even the same. So did you save any money using MS? Was it harder to get support for the RedHat machine? NO!
A customer calls. They need a new app to store and check out documents and they are thinking about SharePoint Portal Service. You show them. You PAY for Win2003 server. You PAY for the client license. You PAY for Share Point and you haven't even started on setting up the box yet. Then you pay for my time to set up and configure the machine. This doesn't include the fact I can't promise the box the box won't get hacked.
Or
You show them either Owl or Knowledge Tree both are a Open Source portal service. They pay for the machine (the same machne) and the time to set up and configure the software. The company I work for still makes the same amount of money basically. The customer has saved loads of money and the system is much more secure and stable. The customer still has an app that does the job. Who lost here?? Microsoft. They are the only loser and this is why articles such as this are written by their Lackies.
We maintain and co-locate servers for our customers at a flat rate a month. As Senior Engineer I look at the work orders at the end of each month. The work orders are catagorizes by work preformed and OS of the machine. We spend on an average 60% more time maintaining the Windows servers. The FC4 boxes they just sit there and run. Every time a tech puts their hands on a box we lose profit. So if a tech is in the Exchange server every day to tweek it of kick in in the ass to keep it running and doesn't have to touch the IMAP box except to add an account which is more profitable? Remember it is a flat rate on these machines. If the