They've clearly done a lot for linux and OSS in general. It doesn't mean I have to like them. They're not doing any of it out of altruism.
Are you saying you only like altruistic people?
Plenty of people join Red Hat out of love for Free/Open Source Software. Very few people join Red Hat just for a paycheck. There are generally easier jobs that pay more.
I'm supporting Ubuntu instead, because they're making actual promises not to change the entire way they do business overnight.
Promising not to change business methods is either disingenuous or foolhardy. Do you really think businesses in the tech industry can just keep doing the same thing for ten years and expect to survive? The world changes out from underneath if you stand still. Canonical just hasn't been around long enough yet to notice this.
As for trying to poach developers, you don't think the like of Novell and RedHat aren't doing that all the time?
What makes you think Novell and Red Hat are "doing that all the time"? Have you gotten unsolicited offers from them or known someone who did?
I have news for you, recruiters work for themselves. You don't point them at specific people; you wouldn't need them if you could do that. The point of paying headhunters is that they go out and find people you wouldn't.
Re:Does any major site use pure CSS?
on
CSS Cookbook
·
· Score: 1
yes; have a look at http://www.redhat.com/ - you'll find some nooks and crannies left from a previous table-based design, but the majority of the site is pure css with not a table to be seen.
Red Hat really needs to enter a joint venture with or sell out to nother bigger company who is or wants to get into the linux business.
Which bigger company would that be, exactly? And what would they get from their purchase that they don't already get from the existance of Linux and Red Hat? How would they assimilate Red Hat's radically different culture and ideology without destroying all the value they've purchased?
Please be specific. There are a very limited number of bigger tech companies with any interest in linux, so you can't apply generalizations here.
Otherwise, admit you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
i should say; what does oracle get by buying red hat that would still be worth anything after the purchase? after the employees flee their proprietary overlords and the red hat brand has been subsumed in the giant sucking sound of oracle's corporate engine?
the death or purchase (same thing, really) of red hat does not benefit oracle in any way. and it's going to be interesting to see if oracle can actually deliver linux support that anyone wants, even if it is cheaper. compare the customer satisfaction for the two companies and make up your own mind.
Waiting for? This has been around for years. I personally was in a startup doing this in 1999. Performics, Commission Junction, LinkShare... these guys will all be wiped out by Google.
A nit, if I may. Fedora is not "RHEL testing" at all. Fedora (Core and especially Fedora Extras) is an open development project with everything and the kitchen sink. Some of the improvements and other interesting bits are lifted from Fedora and ported into the next RHEL, but Fedora stands on its own as a distro.
I want the hypertext to be the most appropriate 2-3 words that tell you exactly what you're clicking on. I think that is absolutely essential. Every URL should matter, and every bit of hypertext should tell you exactly what it is you're going to get when you click that mouse button.
You (CmdrTaco) and the other editors are completely inconsistent about this -- possibly my single largest complaint about slashdot, even though I'm a grammar nazi and bothered by lots of things. If the article summary is borked, so what? -- as long I can get to the actual article. But many posts seemed to be linked in a way that obfuscates what the relevant article is.
Here's one you personally posted today:A test carried out by Pegasus Lab on account for Swedish magazine PC För alla showed that a normal PC keyboard was infected by more bacteria than a normal toilet seat. More specific it contained 33000 bacteria per square centimeter, compared to 130 on a ordinary toilet seat. The tests also showed occurrence of up to 3100 fungi per square centimeter.
You'll note that doesn't follow your standard of linking what the article is about, rather than the article provider.
How about this one that just popped up: Pennies, pipes, untold miles of CAT5 - they tie up a lot of copper. Unlike abundant iron and aluminum, copper is relatively scarce. But it's vital to electricity generation/transmission, plumbing, and other uses central to a modern standard of living. Scientific American is providing a quick overview of the situation. They report the conclusion that there simply isn't enough available....
Now surely that was not the relevant phrase. Surely the link is about SciAm's "quick overview of the situation" or their "conclusion." In this case it's the only link in the post so it's not hard to find, but in posts with multiple links it would be confusing to find a link to SciAm before actually mentioning it -- I would assume it's background.
This has gotten better in recent years; links used to be placed seemingly at random.
Few companies want to actually let their employees share their thoughts with the general public.
Traditional companies, maybe. Companies of the future will have to support at least the appearance of openness. See blogs at Google, Red Hat, Amazon... See also the Cluetrain Manifesto.
A mature, thoughtful organization would realize a couple of things. First, he is sitting with a whole lot of implicit knowledge about the current assignments.
And being mature and thoughtful, they would already have required him to document that knowledge as explicitly as possible, in the even he was hit by a beer truck or otherwise unavailable. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.
I'm amazed nobody seems to have commented on why the designers would want a system that can be tinkered with.
It's not so kids can recompile their kernel. It's so the *designers* can mod the system in whatever way they see fit. In a system with resources as constrained as this one, that's not zealoutry, it's just an absolute necessity. It's the same reason why so many supercomputers run Linux: because you can mold it to your will. You certainly can't do that with OS X.
he came out to the TriLug meeting in Raleigh in september. he made it sound like he was pretty much an honorary member of the board filled with brighter business people, which is no doubt just him being humble, but nevertheless this isn't a surprise.
btw, i think what he's doing with lulu is fairly interesting stuff.
Once someone starts making analogies between building software and building bridges or cars or houses, you can pretty much ignore what they have to say. Engineering software is unlike any other form of engineering in almost every way. All of your cost is in the design and test cycle. Prototypes are available to test for free as development occurs. Building and distributing the finished product is incredibly cheap. Replacing faulty software is typically inexpensive for both parties.
The economies of the situation provide completely different motivations from the realities of engineering a physical product, so there's just not much point in the analogy.
If you could buy a version of Windows without the disclaiming of all liability, but it cost $10K and was tied to a very specific set of hardware from ten years ago (forget about choosing an LCD monitor, or plugging in a USB card reader, gigahertz CPUs, playing games, etc), would you buy it? No, I don't think so. But that's basically the option you're looking at.
Anyone who wants to can develop software and market it without disclaiming liability. But they would be used as floor mops by companies that disclaim liability. The only places that write that kind of software are those that can afford to spend exorbitant amounts on mission-critical software development because the possibility of failure is even more exorbitantly expensive. Check out what it costs NASA to build software for their space shuttles, and the kind of hardware they run it on; I think it will be illuminating.
Government could write a law prohibiting liability disclaimers. This would kill most software for its jurisdiction. I'm sure the carmakers made the same argument, but here's the difference: software is cheap and easy to develop, virtually free to distribute, and exorbitantly expensive to prove fitness for a given purpose (especially given the possible variety of configurations typically expected of software). Perhaps most significantly, in most cases it's generally cheap to replace when it's proven unfit. In this environment, focusing on guaranteeing fitness brings very rapidly diminishing returns.
"what if you're a college student and you live in, say California, so your billing address is there. You use, say, Amazon.com to order a gift for someone's wish list who lives in MD, but you go to school in Texas, so that's where the transaction took place.
Texas, because that is where the transaction took place. Texas would also be where you are living, unless of course you are doing distance learning or have one hell of a commute.
and, where is amazon supposed to put the box for "the address where i really am," and what would keep people from claiming to "really" be in the lowest-tax location they can make up?
this whole problem is way more complex than it might seem.
what if you are buying an online porn subscription, and there is no shipping address? i imagine they tax according to the billing address, but it really should be the "service" address where you're receiving the actual porn. which, if you have a laptop and plane tickets, could be in quite a few places.
the whole thing is insane, and probably costs more in implementation costs than it raises in revenue.
For a supported version of the highly-regarded LDAP formerly known as Netscape Directory Server that runs on Linux, see Red Hat Directory Server. And to try before you buy, you can check it out on Fedora as the parent suggested.
In other words, get good techies, then get the fuck out of the way and let them do their job.
Not only that; be proactive about keeping the other idiots out of their way so they can do their job. You will be considered a god by the techies you manage.
glad to know i'm not the only one who gets lost and confused every time i try to twiddle apache config. some sanity, consistency and useful error messages would do wonders. it's frustrating to know that you CAN do just about anything with apache and not be able to figure out how.
You've obviously never read what Ken Thompson actually said. He postulated that such a thing could be done. No one has ever claimed that he or anyone else actually did it, except, well, you.
That would be an incredibly clever hack, much harder to implement than just to talk about.
Open Source guarantees nothing, of course, except the ability to examine and modify source code to your heart's content. But that ability does give you (and, more importantly, other security-conscious geeks of the world) many more opportunities to check on the integrity of a program than you get in a closed source situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Do what I do. Just join in on the conversation as if you were obviously intended to be included.
They've clearly done a lot for linux and OSS in general. It doesn't mean I have to like them. They're not doing any of it out of altruism.
Are you saying you only like altruistic people?
Plenty of people join Red Hat out of love for Free/Open Source Software. Very few people join Red Hat just for a paycheck. There are generally easier jobs that pay more.
I'm supporting Ubuntu instead, because they're making actual promises not to change the entire way they do business overnight.
Promising not to change business methods is either disingenuous or foolhardy. Do you really think businesses in the tech industry can just keep doing the same thing for ten years and expect to survive? The world changes out from underneath if you stand still. Canonical just hasn't been around long enough yet to notice this.
As for trying to poach developers, you don't think the like of Novell and RedHat aren't doing that all the time?
What makes you think Novell and Red Hat are "doing that all the time"? Have you gotten unsolicited offers from them or known someone who did?
I have news for you, recruiters work for themselves. You don't point them at specific people; you wouldn't need them if you could do that. The point of paying headhunters is that they go out and find people you wouldn't.
yes; have a look at http://www.redhat.com/ - you'll find some nooks and crannies left from a previous table-based design, but the majority of the site is pure css with not a table to be seen.
Red Hat really needs to enter a joint venture with or sell out to nother bigger company who is or wants to get into the linux business.
Which bigger company would that be, exactly? And what would they get from their purchase that they don't already get from the existance of Linux and Red Hat? How would they assimilate Red Hat's radically different culture and ideology without destroying all the value they've purchased?
Please be specific. There are a very limited number of bigger tech companies with any interest in linux, so you can't apply generalizations here.
Otherwise, admit you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
what exactly does oracle get by buying red hat?
really. think about it.
i should say; what does oracle get by buying red hat that would still be worth anything after the purchase? after the employees flee their proprietary overlords and the red hat brand has been subsumed in the giant sucking sound of oracle's corporate engine?
the death or purchase (same thing, really) of red hat does not benefit oracle in any way. and it's going to be interesting to see if oracle can actually deliver linux support that anyone wants, even if it is cheaper. compare the customer satisfaction for the two companies and make up your own mind.
I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who doesn't even take the time to discover that their sig is a misquote.
Waiting for? This has been around for years. I personally was in a startup doing this in 1999. Performics, Commission Junction, LinkShare... these guys will all be wiped out by Google.
Then with my 11 GMail accounts I get something like 10GB of free, secure, offsite data backup!
A nit, if I may. Fedora is not "RHEL testing" at all. Fedora (Core and especially Fedora Extras) is an open development project with everything and the kitchen sink. Some of the improvements and other interesting bits are lifted from Fedora and ported into the next RHEL, but Fedora stands on its own as a distro.
I want the hypertext to be the most appropriate 2-3 words that tell you exactly what you're clicking on. I think that is absolutely essential. Every URL should matter, and every bit of hypertext should tell you exactly what it is you're going to get when you click that mouse button.
You (CmdrTaco) and the other editors are completely inconsistent about this -- possibly my single largest complaint about slashdot, even though I'm a grammar nazi and bothered by lots of things. If the article summary is borked, so what? -- as long I can get to the actual article. But many posts seemed to be linked in a way that obfuscates what the relevant article is.
Here's one you personally posted today:A test carried out by Pegasus Lab on account for Swedish magazine PC För alla showed that a normal PC keyboard was infected by more bacteria than a normal toilet seat. More specific it contained 33000 bacteria per square centimeter, compared to 130 on a ordinary toilet seat. The tests also showed occurrence of up to 3100 fungi per square centimeter.
You'll note that doesn't follow your standard of linking what the article is about, rather than the article provider.
How about this one that just popped up: Pennies, pipes, untold miles of CAT5 - they tie up a lot of copper. Unlike abundant iron and aluminum, copper is relatively scarce. But it's vital to electricity generation/transmission, plumbing, and other uses central to a modern standard of living. Scientific American is providing a quick overview of the situation. They report the conclusion that there simply isn't enough available....
Now surely that was not the relevant phrase. Surely the link is about SciAm's "quick overview of the situation" or their "conclusion." In this case it's the only link in the post so it's not hard to find, but in posts with multiple links it would be confusing to find a link to SciAm before actually mentioning it -- I would assume it's background.
This has gotten better in recent years; links used to be placed seemingly at random.
Few companies want to actually let their employees share their thoughts with the general public.
Traditional companies, maybe. Companies of the future will have to support at least the appearance of openness. See blogs at Google, Red Hat, Amazon... See also the Cluetrain Manifesto.
A mature, thoughtful organization would realize a couple of things. First, he is sitting with a whole lot of implicit knowledge about the current assignments.
And being mature and thoughtful, they would already have required him to document that knowledge as explicitly as possible, in the even he was hit by a beer truck or otherwise unavailable. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.
I'm amazed nobody seems to have commented on why the designers would want a system that can be tinkered with.
It's not so kids can recompile their kernel. It's so the *designers* can mod the system in whatever way they see fit. In a system with resources as constrained as this one, that's not zealoutry, it's just an absolute necessity. It's the same reason why so many supercomputers run Linux: because you can mold it to your will. You certainly can't do that with OS X.
Does someone have a source that tells what OS these things run? I'm not seeing it in either article.
Next you'll be telling me Ice-9 can't exist.
he came out to the TriLug meeting in Raleigh in september. he made it sound like he was pretty much an honorary member of the board filled with brighter business people, which is no doubt just him being humble, but nevertheless this isn't a surprise.
btw, i think what he's doing with lulu is fairly interesting stuff.
Once someone starts making analogies between building software and building bridges or cars or houses, you can pretty much ignore what they have to say. Engineering software is unlike any other form of engineering in almost every way. All of your cost is in the design and test cycle. Prototypes are available to test for free as development occurs. Building and distributing the finished product is incredibly cheap. Replacing faulty software is typically inexpensive for both parties.
The economies of the situation provide completely different motivations from the realities of engineering a physical product, so there's just not much point in the analogy.
If you could buy a version of Windows without the disclaiming of all liability, but it cost $10K and was tied to a very specific set of hardware from ten years ago (forget about choosing an LCD monitor, or plugging in a USB card reader, gigahertz CPUs, playing games, etc), would you buy it? No, I don't think so. But that's basically the option you're looking at.
Anyone who wants to can develop software and market it without disclaiming liability. But they would be used as floor mops by companies that disclaim liability. The only places that write that kind of software are those that can afford to spend exorbitant amounts on mission-critical software development because the possibility of failure is even more exorbitantly expensive. Check out what it costs NASA to build software for their space shuttles, and the kind of hardware they run it on; I think it will be illuminating.
Government could write a law prohibiting liability disclaimers. This would kill most software for its jurisdiction. I'm sure the carmakers made the same argument, but here's the difference: software is cheap and easy to develop, virtually free to distribute, and exorbitantly expensive to prove fitness for a given purpose (especially given the possible variety of configurations typically expected of software). Perhaps most significantly, in most cases it's generally cheap to replace when it's proven unfit. In this environment, focusing on guaranteeing fitness brings very rapidly diminishing returns.
"what if you're a college student and you live in, say California, so your billing address is there. You use, say, Amazon.com to order a gift for someone's wish list who lives in MD, but you go to school in Texas, so that's where the transaction took place.
Texas, because that is where the transaction took place. Texas would also be where you are living, unless of course you are doing distance learning or have one hell of a commute.
and, where is amazon supposed to put the box for "the address where i really am," and what would keep people from claiming to "really" be in the lowest-tax location they can make up?
this whole problem is way more complex than it might seem.
what if you are buying an online porn subscription, and there is no shipping address? i imagine they tax according to the billing address, but it really should be the "service" address where you're receiving the actual porn. which, if you have a laptop and plane tickets, could be in quite a few places.
the whole thing is insane, and probably costs more in implementation costs than it raises in revenue.
For a supported version of the highly-regarded LDAP formerly known as Netscape Directory Server that runs on Linux, see Red Hat Directory Server. And to try before you buy, you can check it out on Fedora as the parent suggested.
RH Personal? Never heard of that one. Maybe you meant Fedora Core.
Doesn't look like there's a SUSE Personal Edition either. Perhaps you meant Professional Edition. Don't see anything like Trial Edition...??
Sounds like you need to get your facts straight, not straight out of your ass.
In other words, get good techies, then get the fuck out of the way and let them do their job.
Not only that; be proactive about keeping the other idiots out of their way so they can do their job. You will be considered a god by the techies you manage.
glad to know i'm not the only one who gets lost and confused every time i try to twiddle apache config. some sanity, consistency and useful error messages would do wonders. it's frustrating to know that you CAN do just about anything with apache and not be able to figure out how.
You've obviously never read what Ken Thompson actually said. He postulated that such a thing could be done. No one has ever claimed that he or anyone else actually did it, except, well, you.
That would be an incredibly clever hack, much harder to implement than just to talk about.
Open Source guarantees nothing, of course, except the ability to examine and modify source code to your heart's content. But that ability does give you (and, more importantly, other security-conscious geeks of the world) many more opportunities to check on the integrity of a program than you get in a closed source situation.