They probably could have given a proper powerpoint presentation in addition to that with a Playbook, given that it has a full office suite on it. They really need to embrace this platform more and not let the bitter tech world scare them.
I, for one, look forward to quitting my job and simply setting myself on top of an inductive charging couch, watching TV, and eating as much fattening food as possible to sell my bio-power back to the grid. I aspire to one day becoming something like a defecating tree.
Believe it or not, there are actually many people who work at Microsoft. Some people are "Business" people. They're the people that pay you to do whatever it is you do and make decisions regarding your company's direction. These people can work to make such decisions as acquiring other companies. Other people are "Engineers". At a software company, they create and maintain software. Because there are MANY people at a big company (more kinds of people than you have fingers!), a company can both create software and purchase other companies at the same time. So, instead of thinking of a company like one person-- you should look at it as a _group_ of people (almost like a small town) who can do many things at once. Working in groups is how people accomplish big things! Think about how in your hometown there are people who sell groceries, people who deliver mail, AND people who fight fires-- but they're not necessarily the same people.
Okay... so you don't need social scientists because you're *so good* at mining electronic data... but they're already mining the data electronically, as stated in TFA.
The automated data collection system is to focus on patterns of communication, consumption and movement of populations. It will use publicly accessible data, including Web search queries, blog entries, Internet traffic flow, financial market indicators, traffic webcams and changes in Wikipedia entries.
What do you do with that data? How do you determine what data to collect and how to use it? Assuredly no one has expertise in this field because you don't explicitly understand it. Who do you think actually uses data?
An Android-based phone? You really don't know much about how this security stuff works, do you?
If a phone that needs to pass any level of non-casual security certifications is to be linux-based, it's going to imprisoned behind an extremely restrictive hypervisor. If the only thing separating the interface from the hardware is linux, it will never pass the requisite security certifications. No device like that has and none ever will lest Linux cease being Linux.
If people can run Linux on PS3's, then chances are pretty good they will find a way to insecurely boot Linux on their PC's if they would rather screw with conf files than study. On the other hand, there's still no indication that the ability to disable secure boot will be widely unavailable-- the only example you have of a computer with secure boot currently allows it to be disabled. Are you just anonymously angry about the way you imagine computing to be if it goes in such a way that might upset you?
So, a couple of small time vandals got arrested. The movement with which they are loosely affiliated is generally considered to be a national security threat. This doesn't mean that every single person is individually a security threat.. this means that a group of people getting organized to disrupt the military and government through cybercrime is a threat. This a big concept to swallow for reactionaries. If one person running down a street breaks a window, then he is a vandal. If a thousand people are running down the street breaking windows, then you have a riot-- and a riot is extremely dangerous. The drug trade is a national security threat. Some hippie who gets stoned and writes Ruby on Rails code while generating bitcoins on his hacked PS3 is not a national security threat-- yet the drug trade as a whole has elevated street criminals to royal status and nearly collapsed the Mexican government. When a politician lies about his personal life, he is dishonest. When he lies about policy, his intentions, and virtually everything else, then he is insidious and anti-social.
Arresting people and holding them accountable for the smaller crimes they commit is a necessary step toward maintaining a peaceful and safe society. If people believed they could do anything they wanted on the internet, even if it is disruptive, expensive, and widely coercive to others, then the activity would exacerbate and the people who would be victimized would feel unsafe. The same is true with hate crimes, rape, or theft. Degenerate people will do whatever they can get away with for attention, out of spite, or just because they feel vindicated by some perceived threat from society at large.
The FBI is extinguishing a lit wastebasket in an effort to prevent-- not directly but conceptually-- a forest fire, yet this forced narrative seems to suggest that they are calling the wastebasket fire a forest fire. There is no indication that they are.
Kind of like how the release of the Hybrid car eliminated car tuning and hot rod culture? If there's a market in selling computer components, it will remain. There's no dark force moving against that. It's just a business.
They didn't put that "work" into their code voluntarily. They were forced to do it because they were in violation of the GPL.
I don't see how that has anything to do with virtualization being a strategy for Microsoft. Whether linux kernel drivers are packaged or pushed upstream is just an operational consideration.
One might gather that it's not worth the trouble for NT to ape Unix anymore. Chances are pretty good Linux is the new SUA and virtualization will be the new supported solution to this problem. I mean, why should Microsoft bother maintaining its own Unix tools when they're actively maintained elsewhere? Given the work they've done on both virtualization and linux integration I would say that there's no great conspiracy here.
So, this school uses 100% open source software? I take it this particular school will not be producing any young graphical artists, filmmakers, or music producers, then?
For most tasks students complete on school computers, I would prefer to deploy Ubuntu Desktops instead of overhauled Windows XP workstations which need to be manually pampered into health. If everyone is using open office, all documents produced at the school will look god-awful, but this will be a grand equalizer between students, demonstrating to them that there is no place for presentation in academic content.
So, this will be fine for students in most subjects... but I have to feel bad for anyone with creative or artistic leanings. Linux is an engineer's world. While young programmers will be able "express themselves" with terrible unix code and tools, artists will be left learning with archaic and useless tools that have no bearing to professional software where they could be more productive on Macs or even Windows machines. They may not suffer from "vendor lock-in", but they will be subject to "industry lock-out". Ubuntu systems are really only pragmatic in some cases.
Wow, this seems surprisingly factual for an article on Roughly Drafted, but it basically loses it halfway through when he starts predicting the doom for all Microsoft products and brands as he tends to do in every article he writes.
It sounds to me like this is built off an angry and possibly drunken rant from a former Danger dev who felt somehow lost or screwed in the Microsoft enterprise atmosphere.
It sounds like Microsoft wants to leverage their software technologies more heavily (actually the Zune HD is a good example of this) in order to have mobile devices that have better interfaces and media capabilities and are more application-centric like the iphone. Chances are the Danger devs are frustrated with the loss of their cloud architecture and not receiving any proper vision from their management as to where their work is going. Microsoft is a power technology firm, after all, so they're going to want their various teams to utilize their core technologies to produce more powerful interfaces and usability paradigms. There's obviously a strong break in management. It's also possible that the Danger devs aren't taking the sort of leadership they should in this or not open-minded enough to learn new technologies.
If Danger really did build a phone on netbsd, then chances are Danger's servers are BSD servers. If Microsoft wasn't continuing the sidekick line or architecture, chances are these servers were still running BSD. There would be no reason to migrate them to Windows. That's likely why they were maintained by external contractors and not simply virtualized into the Microsoft cloud.
This is how I know something is seriously broken in the heads of people who argue for iron-clad copyright protection. As soon as I start arguing cogently with them they start calling me a pirate. The fact is I generally avoid being a pirate, and and much less of one than almost everybody else I know.
If you come off as a naive moron or hypocrite, then it doesn't really matter how patient you are. You're just bouncing along calm and oblivious, like a manatee or something. It's no fun to be a voice of reason in a giant crock of idiocy like slashdot, so I feel for the people who decided to argue with you.
I mean, talking software on slashdot is like talking religious with Jihadists. It's a wild ride. I wouldn't do it in person for fear of being suicide bombed by someone in a penguin shirt.
Watching your argument with the person who has the patience to argue with you is kind of amusing.
Arguing with the people on this site is like arguing with a brick wall. Arguing with that guy was like arguing with a brick wall that was masturbating furiously.
Of course, the fact that I would've happily bought Netgear's hardware had it actually delivered the goods doesn't mean a thing to you either. Somehow, the money I'm willing to spend is fictitious or something I guess.
It's just very limited. Besides this, you're walking on egg shells. If you can't meet a pretty extreme level of freetardism, then you will get negative press instead of your fringe market, such as TFA. As a hardware manufacturer, unless you're also producing chips and have no other markets where you sell your drivers/BSP's, then these standards can't always be met.
They would have been better off not targeting the segment at all.
I answer stupid people on the internet like this all the time. Don't credit yourself too much now. This is pretty much what I do on slashdot. You can check my comment history.
Do you fancy yourself some sort of puppet master or something?
I am not going to respond to you anymore. This isn't enlightening or entertaining... it's just creepy. You seem like you might be getting off to this.
Java sold services and hardware around java, that's where java made them money and open-sourcing java did not hurt that revenue one bit.
You're right. Sun's doing great now.
"freetard"
And what was your point? What were you saying this entire time? My point was not indefensible because you just blundered on about some vague point regarding open source while I maintained my original focus on netgear being stupid for trying to sell to people like you and Sun being stupid for thinking open source would work for them like it would for Red Hat. You haven't refuted anything I said, hell you just refuted something I didn't say and then started jerking yourself off over it. What a spectacle! The funny thing is that Netgear's going to lose money and you morons will blame it on their proprietary drivers.
What's important is that Sun drank the koolaid that morons like you dish out and that's a massive enterprise gone. They got taken for everything they're worth, and no shit eating freetard argument is going to change that.
I call you people freetards because that's what you are. Religious morons with a dire inability to view your market for what it is: a sham. The successful players in open source are just really good at rubbing your egos so that you'll dish out free labor and accept half-assed products because you think you're all part of some big happy family. Meanwhile, you software is shit, the market is tanking, and all the Linux jobs are in China because you don't need innovative people to recreate unix. The only companies that profit off the community are those that take more from it than they give, and that's the end of it. Sun gave a lot more than they took and now there's another vacuum in the market. Long live the open source fantasy!
This is just a fantasy. There is absolutely no conceivable reason to think that Android will overtake the iPhone. It hasn't been a market success in the slightest yet. Many companies are still hanging back from it and waiting until it has meaningful hardware acceleration for graphics and video. In this respect, this is a prediction that it will defeat a superior, cooler, and more popular product for absolutely no goddamn reason other than the analyst wants it to.
Oh wait, the article's in The Register. Nevermind. It is a fantasy.
Lol. Not. It was a halo product all along. If I'm wrong, let's see some numbers. Put up or shut up.
...Right. So, Sun did not build their technology platform and market position around Java? I am not going to go dig through quarterly investor reports to placate your smug ignorance. If you think Java was not a big thing for Sun, I am not going to bother trying to convince you otherwise.
Keep on moving those goalposts shitfucker. Redhat buys into all of that GNU stuff, they buy into it 10x more than Sun ever did. And now Redhat is "hiding" things on their site out in the open in their "about us" page and their marketing magazines and employee blogs. Rrrright.
...yes! Yes, moron! They keep it out of their marketing materials! Holy fucking goddamn. They talk about free software and gnu when talking with developers but not when communicating to customers.
Besides this, Red Hat doesn't spend as much on development as Sun did. Red Hat spends money developing projects that benefit their core server market ONLY like KVM or the kernel or GCC. Core technologies. They don't waste money on things like OpenOffice. Red Hat is more focused. They profiteer off the community while Sun gave finished software to the community. Sun was a technology developer and Red Hat is more of a technology packager. Open source makes some sense if you use it as a technology springboard-- but open sourcing Java was worthless to Sun. Same with Solaris. It was utterly pointless. So, instead of using the community to build their product, they merely lost their product to the community. Thus, Sun "believed" in open source. Red Hat is more pragmatic. For everything they give, they sell a massive platform that they only develop a small part of. Red Hat has more flexibility than Sun because they don't own the Linux platform.
Fuck this, it's a waste of time. You're like a child.
No, I get what you are saying. Your problem is, it has zilch to do with the premise you promoted and I disputed - that Sun markets to 'freetards' and Redhat doesn't. You make up bullshit about the original point and you muddy the waters with random unsupported assertions and blatant opinion on tertiary points that you desperately want to focus on in order to avoid admitting defeat on your original claim.
What the fuck are you talking about? What was that in reference to? When the fuck did I say Sun sold to freetards? Where did you get that? I was talking about Netgear selling to freetards. I was only referencing Sun as an example of a company that was bitten by embracing open source wholeheartedly.
Sun was strangled by open source, but for entirely different reasons. You're arguing with yourself, you twat.
I am not arguing with you anymore. You're dense as shit.
Why not? There wasn't any revenue being generated from java licensing anyway.
Then what does Sun do? Java was Sun's biggest most profitable venture. They literally changed their stock symbol to JAVA. So instead of adding value to the platform, you give it away so that the community can take all your resources and run with them?
Wait, wait, wait. So now Redhat is catering to the 'freetards' because they changed their mind about RHN? You can't have it both ways. EVERYTHING Redhat makes or buys is FREE and that's not catering to 'freetards' but when Sun does EXACTLY THE SAME THING and it is catering to freetards. Yeah, that's really complex dude.
Both Red Hat and Sun are offering Java as a platform, the difference is that Sun spent all the time and money developing, designing, and maintaining it while Red Hat is merely able to draw profit from selling the platform. What happened here is that one company made a proportionally larger investment than the other and then gave it away. So Sun's now pushing Java at a loss and Red Hat is selling Sun's work at a profit. Red Hat profits from open source and Sun loses. I'm sorry if this seems complicated to you. You seem to struggle with very basic monetary concepts.
Oh, so now you move the goal posts, if the marketing material says the name of the company before it says anything about being free, then it doesn't qualify as marketing to 'freetards.' Yeah, that's so obviously what you really meant when you said, "try to find this on redhat's website"
Listen, dumbass- they're not marketing the product as GNU Linux, they're not pushing the GPL first, they're not presenting that as the main selling point. There are no profitable ventures that sell you "software freedom". That's the realm of extremists. If your product is somehow connected to Stallman in any forward facing way, you'll look retarded. Marketing loses. Nobody who makes money on open source puts "software freedom" or the GPL or GNU or the FSF or anything on the front page of their site or their box or their marketing materials. Even with Red Hat, who broadcasts their open source affiliation louder than anyone, they hide these references in their site. You aren't marketing to freetards, but you're certainly using their work.
Sure, FEDORA is marketed to freetards-- but it's not for sale. So who cares? It's a giant test platform. It's not a product. If you're catering to freetards, you're doing so to get their labor, not their money.
Funny thing in this conversation, you toss slowballs, I hit them outta the park and you just keep making up brand new ones and pretending you haven't given up more than enough homeruns to have lost the game three posts ago.
Yeah, just keep jerking off. This is pointless. Not only are you failing to grasp the most basic foundation of what I am saying, but you're congratulating yourself over your ignorance. That's impressive.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not so much an issue with the features as it is an issue with OpenOffice formatting documents like a blind walrus vomiting words onto the tundra.
They probably could have given a proper powerpoint presentation in addition to that with a Playbook, given that it has a full office suite on it. They really need to embrace this platform more and not let the bitter tech world scare them.
Why would you be modifying the kernel/adding a system call? The kernel, in this case, is just a kernel.
webOS wasn't killed by patents. Neither was Blackberry. Both RIM and Palm had fantastic patent portfolios. They're untouchable compared to Google.
I, for one, look forward to quitting my job and simply setting myself on top of an inductive charging couch, watching TV, and eating as much fattening food as possible to sell my bio-power back to the grid. I aspire to one day becoming something like a defecating tree.
Believe it or not, there are actually many people who work at Microsoft. Some people are "Business" people. They're the people that pay you to do whatever it is you do and make decisions regarding your company's direction. These people can work to make such decisions as acquiring other companies. Other people are "Engineers". At a software company, they create and maintain software. Because there are MANY people at a big company (more kinds of people than you have fingers!), a company can both create software and purchase other companies at the same time. So, instead of thinking of a company like one person-- you should look at it as a _group_ of people (almost like a small town) who can do many things at once. Working in groups is how people accomplish big things! Think about how in your hometown there are people who sell groceries, people who deliver mail, AND people who fight fires-- but they're not necessarily the same people.
I hope this helps!
You don't see how social science comes into this?
Okay... so you don't need social scientists because you're *so good* at mining electronic data... but they're already mining the data electronically, as stated in TFA.
The automated data collection system is to focus on patterns of communication, consumption and movement of populations. It will use publicly accessible data, including Web search queries, blog entries, Internet traffic flow, financial market indicators, traffic webcams and changes in Wikipedia entries.
What do you do with that data? How do you determine what data to collect and how to use it? Assuredly no one has expertise in this field because you don't explicitly understand it. Who do you think actually uses data?
An Android-based phone? You really don't know much about how this security stuff works, do you?
If a phone that needs to pass any level of non-casual security certifications is to be linux-based, it's going to imprisoned behind an extremely restrictive hypervisor. If the only thing separating the interface from the hardware is linux, it will never pass the requisite security certifications. No device like that has and none ever will lest Linux cease being Linux.
If people can run Linux on PS3's, then chances are pretty good they will find a way to insecurely boot Linux on their PC's if they would rather screw with conf files than study. On the other hand, there's still no indication that the ability to disable secure boot will be widely unavailable-- the only example you have of a computer with secure boot currently allows it to be disabled. Are you just anonymously angry about the way you imagine computing to be if it goes in such a way that might upset you?
So, a couple of small time vandals got arrested. The movement with which they are loosely affiliated is generally considered to be a national security threat. This doesn't mean that every single person is individually a security threat.. this means that a group of people getting organized to disrupt the military and government through cybercrime is a threat. This a big concept to swallow for reactionaries. If one person running down a street breaks a window, then he is a vandal. If a thousand people are running down the street breaking windows, then you have a riot-- and a riot is extremely dangerous. The drug trade is a national security threat. Some hippie who gets stoned and writes Ruby on Rails code while generating bitcoins on his hacked PS3 is not a national security threat-- yet the drug trade as a whole has elevated street criminals to royal status and nearly collapsed the Mexican government. When a politician lies about his personal life, he is dishonest. When he lies about policy, his intentions, and virtually everything else, then he is insidious and anti-social.
Arresting people and holding them accountable for the smaller crimes they commit is a necessary step toward maintaining a peaceful and safe society. If people believed they could do anything they wanted on the internet, even if it is disruptive, expensive, and widely coercive to others, then the activity would exacerbate and the people who would be victimized would feel unsafe. The same is true with hate crimes, rape, or theft. Degenerate people will do whatever they can get away with for attention, out of spite, or just because they feel vindicated by some perceived threat from society at large.
The FBI is extinguishing a lit wastebasket in an effort to prevent-- not directly but conceptually-- a forest fire, yet this forced narrative seems to suggest that they are calling the wastebasket fire a forest fire. There is no indication that they are.
Maybe you should only buy computers that allow you to disable secure boot then. Or is that too obvious and uncontroversial?
Kind of like how the release of the Hybrid car eliminated car tuning and hot rod culture? If there's a market in selling computer components, it will remain. There's no dark force moving against that. It's just a business.
They didn't put that "work" into their code voluntarily. They were forced to do it because they were in violation of the GPL.
I don't see how that has anything to do with virtualization being a strategy for Microsoft. Whether linux kernel drivers are packaged or pushed upstream is just an operational consideration.
If you look at the kind of work Microsoft has put into the Linux kernel recently relating to Hyper-V...
https://lwn.net/Articles/451243/
One might gather that it's not worth the trouble for NT to ape Unix anymore. Chances are pretty good Linux is the new SUA and virtualization will be the new supported solution to this problem. I mean, why should Microsoft bother maintaining its own Unix tools when they're actively maintained elsewhere? Given the work they've done on both virtualization and linux integration I would say that there's no great conspiracy here.
So, this school uses 100% open source software? I take it this particular school will not be producing any young graphical artists, filmmakers, or music producers, then?
For most tasks students complete on school computers, I would prefer to deploy Ubuntu Desktops instead of overhauled Windows XP workstations which need to be manually pampered into health. If everyone is using open office, all documents produced at the school will look god-awful, but this will be a grand equalizer between students, demonstrating to them that there is no place for presentation in academic content.
So, this will be fine for students in most subjects... but I have to feel bad for anyone with creative or artistic leanings. Linux is an engineer's world. While young programmers will be able "express themselves" with terrible unix code and tools, artists will be left learning with archaic and useless tools that have no bearing to professional software where they could be more productive on Macs or even Windows machines. They may not suffer from "vendor lock-in", but they will be subject to "industry lock-out". Ubuntu systems are really only pragmatic in some cases.
Why did you even post this? You just posted that you had no reason for posting on this thread.
Wow, this seems surprisingly factual for an article on Roughly Drafted, but it basically loses it halfway through when he starts predicting the doom for all Microsoft products and brands as he tends to do in every article he writes.
It sounds to me like this is built off an angry and possibly drunken rant from a former Danger dev who felt somehow lost or screwed in the Microsoft enterprise atmosphere.
It sounds like Microsoft wants to leverage their software technologies more heavily (actually the Zune HD is a good example of this) in order to have mobile devices that have better interfaces and media capabilities and are more application-centric like the iphone. Chances are the Danger devs are frustrated with the loss of their cloud architecture and not receiving any proper vision from their management as to where their work is going. Microsoft is a power technology firm, after all, so they're going to want their various teams to utilize their core technologies to produce more powerful interfaces and usability paradigms. There's obviously a strong break in management. It's also possible that the Danger devs aren't taking the sort of leadership they should in this or not open-minded enough to learn new technologies.
If Danger really did build a phone on netbsd, then chances are Danger's servers are BSD servers. If Microsoft wasn't continuing the sidekick line or architecture, chances are these servers were still running BSD. There would be no reason to migrate them to Windows. That's likely why they were maintained by external contractors and not simply virtualized into the Microsoft cloud.
This is how I know something is seriously broken in the heads of people who argue for iron-clad copyright protection. As soon as I start arguing cogently with them they start calling me a pirate. The fact is I generally avoid being a pirate, and and much less of one than almost everybody else I know.
If you come off as a naive moron or hypocrite, then it doesn't really matter how patient you are. You're just bouncing along calm and oblivious, like a manatee or something. It's no fun to be a voice of reason in a giant crock of idiocy like slashdot, so I feel for the people who decided to argue with you.
I mean, talking software on slashdot is like talking religious with Jihadists. It's a wild ride. I wouldn't do it in person for fear of being suicide bombed by someone in a penguin shirt.
Watching your argument with the person who has the patience to argue with you is kind of amusing.
Arguing with the people on this site is like arguing with a brick wall. Arguing with that guy was like arguing with a brick wall that was masturbating furiously.
Of course, the fact that I would've happily bought Netgear's hardware had it actually delivered the goods doesn't mean a thing to you either. Somehow, the money I'm willing to spend is fictitious or something I guess.
It's just very limited. Besides this, you're walking on egg shells. If you can't meet a pretty extreme level of freetardism, then you will get negative press instead of your fringe market, such as TFA. As a hardware manufacturer, unless you're also producing chips and have no other markets where you sell your drivers/BSP's, then these standards can't always be met.
They would have been better off not targeting the segment at all.
I answer stupid people on the internet like this all the time. Don't credit yourself too much now. This is pretty much what I do on slashdot. You can check my comment history.
Do you fancy yourself some sort of puppet master or something?
I am not going to respond to you anymore. This isn't enlightening or entertaining... it's just creepy. You seem like you might be getting off to this.
Whatever, freetard. You're the one defending a defunct enterprise.
Java sold services and hardware around java, that's where java made them money and open-sourcing java did not hurt that revenue one bit.
You're right. Sun's doing great now.
"freetard"
And what was your point? What were you saying this entire time? My point was not indefensible because you just blundered on about some vague point regarding open source while I maintained my original focus on netgear being stupid for trying to sell to people like you and Sun being stupid for thinking open source would work for them like it would for Red Hat. You haven't refuted anything I said, hell you just refuted something I didn't say and then started jerking yourself off over it. What a spectacle! The funny thing is that Netgear's going to lose money and you morons will blame it on their proprietary drivers.
What's important is that Sun drank the koolaid that morons like you dish out and that's a massive enterprise gone. They got taken for everything they're worth, and no shit eating freetard argument is going to change that.
I call you people freetards because that's what you are. Religious morons with a dire inability to view your market for what it is: a sham. The successful players in open source are just really good at rubbing your egos so that you'll dish out free labor and accept half-assed products because you think you're all part of some big happy family. Meanwhile, you software is shit, the market is tanking, and all the Linux jobs are in China because you don't need innovative people to recreate unix. The only companies that profit off the community are those that take more from it than they give, and that's the end of it. Sun gave a lot more than they took and now there's another vacuum in the market. Long live the open source fantasy!
This is just a fantasy. There is absolutely no conceivable reason to think that Android will overtake the iPhone. It hasn't been a market success in the slightest yet. Many companies are still hanging back from it and waiting until it has meaningful hardware acceleration for graphics and video. In this respect, this is a prediction that it will defeat a superior, cooler, and more popular product for absolutely no goddamn reason other than the analyst wants it to.
Oh wait, the article's in The Register. Nevermind. It is a fantasy.
2012: Year of the Linux Desktop.
Lol. Not. It was a halo product all along. If I'm wrong, let's see some numbers. Put up or shut up.
...Right. So, Sun did not build their technology platform and market position around Java? I am not going to go dig through quarterly investor reports to placate your smug ignorance. If you think Java was not a big thing for Sun, I am not going to bother trying to convince you otherwise.
Keep on moving those goalposts shitfucker. Redhat buys into all of that GNU stuff, they buy into it 10x more than Sun ever did. And now Redhat is "hiding" things on their site out in the open in their "about us" page and their marketing magazines and employee blogs. Rrrright.
...yes! Yes, moron! They keep it out of their marketing materials! Holy fucking goddamn. They talk about free software and gnu when talking with developers but not when communicating to customers.
Besides this, Red Hat doesn't spend as much on development as Sun did. Red Hat spends money developing projects that benefit their core server market ONLY like KVM or the kernel or GCC. Core technologies. They don't waste money on things like OpenOffice. Red Hat is more focused. They profiteer off the community while Sun gave finished software to the community. Sun was a technology developer and Red Hat is more of a technology packager. Open source makes some sense if you use it as a technology springboard-- but open sourcing Java was worthless to Sun. Same with Solaris. It was utterly pointless. So, instead of using the community to build their product, they merely lost their product to the community. Thus, Sun "believed" in open source. Red Hat is more pragmatic. For everything they give, they sell a massive platform that they only develop a small part of. Red Hat has more flexibility than Sun because they don't own the Linux platform.
Fuck this, it's a waste of time. You're like a child.
No, I get what you are saying. Your problem is, it has zilch to do with the premise you promoted and I disputed - that Sun markets to 'freetards' and Redhat doesn't. You make up bullshit about the original point and you muddy the waters with random unsupported assertions and blatant opinion on tertiary points that you desperately want to focus on in order to avoid admitting defeat on your original claim.
What the fuck are you talking about? What was that in reference to? When the fuck did I say Sun sold to freetards? Where did you get that? I was talking about Netgear selling to freetards. I was only referencing Sun as an example of a company that was bitten by embracing open source wholeheartedly.
Sun was strangled by open source, but for entirely different reasons. You're arguing with yourself, you twat.
I am not arguing with you anymore. You're dense as shit.
Why not? There wasn't any revenue being generated from java licensing anyway.
Then what does Sun do? Java was Sun's biggest most profitable venture. They literally changed their stock symbol to JAVA. So instead of adding value to the platform, you give it away so that the community can take all your resources and run with them?
Wait, wait, wait. So now Redhat is catering to the 'freetards' because they changed their mind about RHN? You can't have it both ways. EVERYTHING Redhat makes or buys is FREE and that's not catering to 'freetards' but when Sun does EXACTLY THE SAME THING and it is catering to freetards. Yeah, that's really complex dude.
Both Red Hat and Sun are offering Java as a platform, the difference is that Sun spent all the time and money developing, designing, and maintaining it while Red Hat is merely able to draw profit from selling the platform. What happened here is that one company made a proportionally larger investment than the other and then gave it away. So Sun's now pushing Java at a loss and Red Hat is selling Sun's work at a profit. Red Hat profits from open source and Sun loses. I'm sorry if this seems complicated to you. You seem to struggle with very basic monetary concepts.
Oh, so now you move the goal posts, if the marketing material says the name of the company before it says anything about being free, then it doesn't qualify as marketing to 'freetards.' Yeah, that's so obviously what you really meant when you said, "try to find this on redhat's website"
Listen, dumbass- they're not marketing the product as GNU Linux, they're not pushing the GPL first, they're not presenting that as the main selling point. There are no profitable ventures that sell you "software freedom". That's the realm of extremists. If your product is somehow connected to Stallman in any forward facing way, you'll look retarded. Marketing loses. Nobody who makes money on open source puts "software freedom" or the GPL or GNU or the FSF or anything on the front page of their site or their box or their marketing materials. Even with Red Hat, who broadcasts their open source affiliation louder than anyone, they hide these references in their site. You aren't marketing to freetards, but you're certainly using their work.
Sure, FEDORA is marketed to freetards-- but it's not for sale. So who cares? It's a giant test platform. It's not a product. If you're catering to freetards, you're doing so to get their labor, not their money.
Funny thing in this conversation, you toss slowballs, I hit them outta the park and you just keep making up brand new ones and pretending you haven't given up more than enough homeruns to have lost the game three posts ago.
Yeah, just keep jerking off. This is pointless. Not only are you failing to grasp the most basic foundation of what I am saying, but you're congratulating yourself over your ignorance. That's impressive.