Basically, what i'm saying is that in an industry where margins are already thin, doubling the price of the server because of the software, when a.) it used to be free, and b.) there are free alternatives will kill the profit margin, and simply dosen't make sense, even at $349/year. What's wrong with $100/year with unlimited licences (put it on as many computers you want) and you get to download updates, but as far as human support, you're SOL? I'd go for that.
Anyway, it's just frustrating. I agree with most of your points, except those regarding assumptions about customers. Customers, in my general expierence, don't see value, they only see bottom line. $349/12 comes out to $30 extra a month, and on a server that's $119, that's quite an increase (~20%?). Not to mention that we have to front the cash up front.
...was to be able to cut and paste between applications. A unified API for a clipboard system that uses a unified set of keys to cut and paste.
Alpha blending should be miles and miles behind the development of a window system that actually works.
But, this looks to be more typical X development. No brake pedal, but you can shift gears via the steering wheel, the stereo, or a series of buttons on the sunroof; it has 539 airbags, each requiring a different pressure to go off, and there's a seatbelt interface for every previous seatbelt in existance. Plus it has the most efficient 46 horse power engine ever made, even though opening the glove compartment causes it to stall, or at least backfire.
You people just refuse to get it, don't you? Good lord, I'll do a blow by blow for you.
1) Red Hat has the Fedora project. That is more or less the same thing.
1a) If you don't know how to use Fedora then please don't suggest you don't need support in your post.
Wait... let me get this straight. The end of the line for products that I already know how to use is comming soon. So, what you want me to do is to upgrade everyone to Fedora, which is relatively unstable, bleeding edge software, and which has a *SHORTER* life span than the redhat products already out there?? What the hell...? Of course I know how to use Fedora, as much as I know how to use redhat. I'm using redhat because I need to get the security updates. The reason I'm pissed is that now I'll have to do my own security updates, which will be next to impossible to un-install the RPM, download the source, and figure out where redhat had everything installed and configured. You first, buddy. But, wait, you want me to switch to Fedora, where the problem will only hit me quicker (shorter lifespan of support releases) and more often (bleeding edge software; sure to contain holes)? No thanks.
2) Perhaps more important, Linux does not need to compete with Microsoft on price point alone. The Open Source model is about freedom.. not free cost. Nevermind the politics, Linux works good and is stable - not to say Win2000/2003 isn't - but Linux can compete on technical merit.
But, if Linux is more free, then why do I have to agree to a terrible EULA from redhat, wich includes giving them the right to ENTER MY FACILITY AND AUDIT MY COMPUTERS? Read the EULA from RedHat, and tell me you still think you're buying free software. Now, I will grant you that Linux is more stable, less buggy, more secure, and I wouldn't run anything but for my servers and my customers, but that isn't to say redhat is the only game in town. But, that's what they want you to think. Think linux, think redhat. That's what redhat wants.
3) You can get RHEL 3.0 ES Basic for $349/year. A good value if you ask me. Regarding your existing customers (who you presumably installed), Red Hat announced ages ago that they were moving to a different maintenance cycle. Not to mention it has been plastered all over the red hat website, it was also on slashdot. So you sold them the wrong stuff (you COULD have sold RHEL) - now you are discovering there's a value to security updates, bug fixes, and what not. But since you want no service/support from Red Hat, happy compiling! (Yes, you can make the updates yourself, you do have the source..... well unless you want someone else to, in which case I'd guess you'd expect to pay them... OH WAIT, that's of no value to you).
3a) I know you want free. You said so most politely. Suck it up dumbass:p $349/year buys just over 2 hours service where I live - I definitely get that in the timely security updates alone - not to mention the enhancements. Stop thinking like a weenie and think like a business:p If you were stupid enough to think that Red Hat Linux was worth nothing because they charged $0 for it... see #4a; or you are large enough that these costs mean HUGE dollars for you... see #4b.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NO ONE THAT HAS REPLIED TO MY POST UNDERSTANDS!!! The profit margins in this game are thin. It's really hard for the small business to compete with the big guns like rackshack. We have a dedicated server that has an AMD 1800+, 256MB of ram, and a 40GB hard drive. We can get this server for less than $349 shipped. Adding $349 would double the cost of the machine. Now, understanding that, I assume you can see how we can't just switch.
About what we sold customers: We offer redhat because people want redhat. We found out about the end of the line for redhat products about 6 months ago, and we have a lot of servers that are a lot older than that. What do
It's not even that. It's that I've got customers who want hummer H2's for free, because they're used to them being free, or at the most costing $4. But, then, Hummer Co. all of a sudden wants to charge $18,000 for an H2.
It's not that I'm a cheapass (as I said in the great-grandparent post). It's that my customers expect something to be free because it always has been free, and they're not going to like it when I tell them it costs a firstborn child.
I wish you people would stop pinning this on me whining about wanting it cheap. I hate redhat. I don't want it at all. My customers want it cheap. I could give a shit less if they paid me $100 to run it, or if it cost $28934.58. But, I am here to serve the desires of the customers. Some customers will understand the idea of moving to debian. Some will be like "but, redhat is linux. and it's free" and it's these that redhat has left me twiddling my balls about.
It is time consuming, but definitely do-able. If your time is too valuable to compile and test your own errata, stop being such a cheapass and go pay for it.
Dude, you're missing my whole point. I'm not going to compile the thing for free on my own time, and it would cost my employer a lot of money to pay for me to compile and test it myself.
AND: stop being a cheapass and pay for it? Dude, it's not me that's a cheapass. It's the customers. If we offer servers for $699.99/month, with redhat enterprice, and 30GB of bandwidth, we'd be out of business. Everyone wants a $99/month server, but NEWS FLASH $99/month x12 doesn't even cover redhat, much less the server, bandwidth, or support.
Same reason I've been bitching about for months on slashdot (if you've read my comments, about 1 in 10 is bitching about being in the webhosting biz, and all of your customers wanting redhat, and having to tell them that it's not free anymore).
The name redhat is now worth money to them.
They want people to do exactly what is happening. They want people to call up and say "i want that thar red hat linux" because it's synonymous with linux, the same way office is synonymous with "microsoft office" at the managemen level, and at the average customer level.
So, now we say that we can get them redhat, but it's cheaper to run windows2003 web edition. By a good margin. Oh, and we now have to tell people running redhat 8.0 (which came out in, what, feb?) that the next time that they have a security problem with their 10 month old linux distro, they're SOL, because it's past it's end of line date.
I'm seriously pissed off at redhat. Enterprise my ass. For the same price as windows server 2003 web edition, you can get redhat enterprise, but *without support*. What the blue fuck are you paying for then? It's only the name.
Now, I know a lot of people are going to say "but but but but but". Arguement #1.) Management types want to pay a lot of money for an OS that runs on their big hard ware. Answer: I don't give a fuck. I want it for free, or next to free. I don't want support. I want it for $49.99, or $99.99, not goddamn $1249.99. Arguement #2.) It's GPL'd, so buy one copy and just put it on all your customer's computers. Answer: HAHA! Redhat is fucking you the same way Microsoft wants to fuck you - YOU'RE NOT BUYING SOFTWARE, YOU'RE BUYING A SUBSCRIPTION. More at http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html! You can't install it on more than one computer! Arguement #3.) The source is free, download and compile it yourself. Answer: HAHA, you first, doogie howser. They give out the source, but I bet you can't just compile it all together! I bet you have to mess with and tweak and change --config-with-blah=18934 a billion times, and you'd still not be half way there.
Bottom line: RedHat has gotten popular enough that they're tired of being a good corporation, and, while they think they're spreading the good name of linux, what they're really doing is fucking the small business who relies on the name "redhat" for profit.
Cause, hey, folks. When Linux is more expensive than windows, who will buy it? Say what you will about stability and security, and I agree, but given the choice between redhat advanced server premium for $18,000 and a solution from the other side of the fense for $6000, who's manager is going to pick linux, especially when they heard it was supposed to be free?
HERE'S THE ANSWER, REDHAT: RELEASE YOUR PRODUCTS FOR FREE, AND OFFER SUPPORT FOR THEM OPTIONALLY. Do what you've been doing for years. Oh, but too late.
Your search - "KDE 3.2 beta KWin C++ API" - did not match any documents.
Suggestions: - Make sure all words are spelled correctly. - Try different keywords. - Try more general keywords. Also, you can try Google Answers for expert help with your search.
While I'd like to see SCO go down as much as everyone else (perhaps more, see sig), I think I may have found a reason that major news sources aren't picking this up.
You non-Americans who read NewsForge can move on to the next story right now. We know you don't hold our Constitution dear and don't understand the ideals that make the United of States of America the greatest nation on earth, so there is no reason for you to read this.
Ahh. The same reason people get turned off to Linux - stupid, stubborn eliteism, or mabey it's just an attempt at humor that doesn't work (at all). This is a quote from the Newsforge article. I mean, obviously, it's satire, but it's poorly done satire. And by the way, articles written in this manner hardly ever make news, because they're just too pretentious to be quoted on CNN.
Come on, people. Release real news, not "HAHAHA, SCO S|_|X0Rz!!!".
Actually, a much bigger problem is people who rox-in-the-box stuff.
If you know how the system works, it's very friendly to people who do things like mod playstations.
Step 1.) Buy playstation. Step 2.) fuck up putting the mod chip in. Step 3.) Buy another playstation. Step 4.) put fucked up playstation in new playstation's box, return to the store with new receipt. Step 5.) try again.
I thought the usual game was for these kinds of retailers to sell model numbers that don't exist anywhere else, but have the same specs as a commonly available one, so that they can "honestly" deny any compettitive pricing claims.;-)
Having worked at best buy, in the audio department, I can tell you that this is a fact. We sold products that other people did not sell; in fact, it was fairly rare to find products from well known manufacturers that had the same model number at Circut City and at Best Buy. It was done so that we could a.) say that we had exclusive products, and b.) say that we weren't doing competative pricing, but the much bigger one was 3.) when the models had different features, some people want the one from CC, some want the one from best buy. If they had Identical features, people would just go the place with the lower price, but because one may have an extra S-video input or what-have-you, they're willing to shell out the extra $20 for the extra stuff. The trick is for the corporation to get the model that looks more desireable to consumers.
But, yeah, the main reason for the similar-but-different model numbers for similar-but-different products is to keep people from being able to compare identical products, and thus, simply wait for the sale. It's perfectly legal, and when you think about it, pretty smart.
There is a difference between Blank CD-R's and Music CD-R's. I'm not sure I've got the links right, but if you go into best buy, over in the computer section, there's the computer CD-R's, and over near the CD's and Movies, there's the blank Audio CD-R's, which usually come in 30 packs and are more expensive. It's the "audio CD-R's" that you are paying the premium for recording music on. So unless you've been buying the more expensive kind of CD-R's, you haven't been stacking up credit towards downloading music.
The catch is that (as I'm sure most everyone on slashdot knows) CD-R's and Music CD-R's are identical, or virtually identical. I think since the higher spindle speeds of CD-R/W drives for comptuers, they have had to mess with the computer CD-R's, as the Music ones were origionally designed to be used in the "dual deck duplicators" over near the CD players in the Audio section, which burn at about 2x or 4x. But, we all know that almost every CD player will read a CD-R, even if it's been burned at 52x.
The riaa should learn from this lesson, too. If you try to charge someone more for a product because you assume they're going to do something illegal, people will find a way to get around the higher price. Proactive high prices don't fly in a capitalist society where everyone is waiting for the sale price, and unwilling to believe bullshit about "these are for data, those are for music" when they're identical except for the price.
I love having to buy a whole CD when I just want one song for $12!
Just to make sure, does every one know why this is a problem?
The big record lables, in conjunction with the RIAA, MTV, Clear Channel, et. al. etc, market a product which DOES NOT EXIST!
They market the one or two good songs on the CD. However, they make no product by which you can purchase the one or two good songs. It's like marketing a wheel and requiring you to purchase a car in order to get it.
I know that, technically, there are CD singles, but they're hard as crap to find, they're still $5, and most of them are import bootlegs.
I don't mean to sound like some astroturfer, but RedHat has definitely brought Linux to the fore of server operating systems.
I'm with you as far as this goes.
With the rapid decline of AIX and Solaris, Win2K and RedHat Linux are making steady gains in the server market.
Ok, I can still agree with that. When most people think linux, they think redhat linux.
What's more, with Linux you don't need to have a server farm like NT requires, so in the long run you save your company money by choosing to go with RedHat.
This is where your post breaks down. Redhat is DAMNED EXPENSIVE. The server stuff is like $699 for even the cheapest variety, and that's with limited support (which is what I thought you were paying for). Of course, this was no big deal when you were content to do your own tech support. HOWEVER, now, they're not even supporting their own stuff!
I remember, does anyone else remember, when Microsoft stopped supporting windows 95 in 2000? That caused a big stir in the slashdot community about all those millions of computers out there still running windows 95 who are going to have no support! Well, I advise you to take a look at the end-of-the-line dates for RedHat. Redhat 8 was release, what, about a year ago? Mabey 14 months? And it's end of the line is December 31st of this year?
See, another problem that's going to hit redhat is that, until now, they had planned on releasing a free product called redhat and a pay-for-support-in-order-to-get-the-CD's product, also called redhat (enterprise). But, the way I understand it now, it's looking like the enterprise product is going to be called redhat and the free one is going to be called something else (fedora?). Well, that's just great for redhat, but what about me? I'm in the webhosting business. What do I say when customers call and ask about the $119/month dedicated server? Does it come with redhat? And I have to tell them No, becuase it quite simply costs too much. In fact, sir, it's more expensive that windows server 2003, if all you want to do is webhosting.
Redhat is the sleaze of the Linux community. They are the windows of linux. They have come into the business and made a name for themselves by making a great product, regardless of it's cost. But, then, they got greedy. It's been a while since they put out a good version of RedHat (7.3 being the last useable one for a server platform), and now, in order to get the stuff that actually works, they expect you to pay not $100, but $1499??
But, we can't jump ship from redhat because that's what everyone wants. When you think linux, you think redhat. So, they'll manage to squeek by for another few years selling a product that they used to give away, because they've got people hooked on the name.
Just because it brought linux into the public eye doesn't mean it's out to pet your dog and buy you christmas presents.
Not that I like to support people who make the internet annoying, but I actually wanted to buy one of those little cameras! I'm completely serious; everyone I talked to that knew someone that had one said they work exactly as advertised and they work great.
At Netmar, we have an ongoing debate about whether or not to implement a specific rule in sendmail's config file.
It takes the hostname of the server that the email was received from, and checks to make sure that the hostname has a valid reverse DNS zone configured.
This honestly stops a lot of spam. Exceptions being exchange servers set to world relay, but the amount of spam is drastically cut down.
What sucks is all the little mom and pop ISP's and offices with their own internet who don't know how to configure a reverse zone. It gets a lot of false posatives.
We still haven't found a solution. And we've reached the 50% mark for spam.
Interesting note, at Netmar last year, we were doing spring cleaning, and we unearthed an old sun system, the kind that looks like a dorm fridge. Well, to our surprise, it had a quad proc hypersparc board on it's backplane. We were thrilled to death, so we immediately tried to turn it on. Only problem? Even after multiple years of not being in service, the PROM still had a password on it to make it boot.
What was the solution? After poking around google groups forever, we came across a page that had a tip on how to reset PROM passwords for Sun machines. Your mileage may vary, but what solved it for us was to unplug the prom during bootup, turn computer off, wait 5 minutes, plug PROM back in, and *bam* no password!
Just goes to show... If you unplug things that aren't hotpluggable, the terrorists haven't already become our overlords, or something.
What's happening right now is an exponential growth in the number of pieces of junk out there
counteracted by the fact that anything smaller than a basketball will burn up in decaying orbit, and that all orbits decay, so after a few years (30 or so) nothing that was in space in anything but an extremely high orbit that can't move it's self is still there.
I won't even consider it until it's ($CURRENT_PRICE/2) and until the files are ($CURRENT_BITRATE*2). And until it's in (!($CURRENT_MEDIA_FORMAT)). Plus it only is going to have bands $BAD_BANDS[1]..$BAD_BANDS[134], which I don't listen too anyway.
And they should have thought of this ($DATE-(rand())) ago.
Ok, fair enough. But, i seem to remember some discussion on some debian message boards where some of the debian users were concerned that they were losing a lot of people to gentoo, and most people thought it was because debian only releases a 386 distro, and a lot of people want them to release a 686. I don't know if debian does the multiple kernel thing with the distro.
I'd really love to see some benchmarks that show that you can get much of any performance boost from recompiling your distro kernel. I'd be very surprised to see any difference at all.
Eh, i think that you could get some added performance. Like, if you changed your compiler optimization settings such that you compiled for -march=athlonxp instead of 386 or even 686. And if you took a bunch of stuff out, like (heh) module support and filesystem types you don't use and initrd if you're not using it... If you tried to go through and make it smaller, it might help. Also, does anyone else hate redhat's kernel configs? tab-M-tab-M-tab-M-tab-M - let's make it a module!
I will not deny that this technique will be used to make copies of music but I refuse to consider that "piracy" or immoral.
It's not even that! He bought the damn thing, he wanted to make a backup of it. He is legally entitled to do so. It just so happens that he wanted his backup in.mp3 and not.suck, or whatever proprietary, non portable, encrypted bullshit they put on the CD.
Well if his paper is wrong then it should be simple to find out by trying to repeat his experiment.
This is EXACTLY the point that needs to be made. In light of this from the press release:
SunnComm believes that by making erroneous assumptions in putting together his critical review of the MediaMax CD-3 technology, Mr. Halderman came to false conclusions concerning the robustness and efficacy of SunnComm's MediaMax technology.
Erroneous assumptions about the robustness? Well, he beat it with the shift key, it could only be WORSE than you assert it is.
They're claiming his assumptions are false. Well, a repeat of the expierement would be the way to prove it.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, tell me about this "innovater's delima". I'd like to take a look at it.
~Will
I respect your views.
3 85 862
Please read my other reply in this thread, where I give more specifics about my arguement.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=84550&cid=7
Basically, what i'm saying is that in an industry where margins are already thin, doubling the price of the server because of the software, when a.) it used to be free, and b.) there are free alternatives will kill the profit margin, and simply dosen't make sense, even at $349/year. What's wrong with $100/year with unlimited licences (put it on as many computers you want) and you get to download updates, but as far as human support, you're SOL? I'd go for that.
Anyway, it's just frustrating. I agree with most of your points, except those regarding assumptions about customers. Customers, in my general expierence, don't see value, they only see bottom line. $349/12 comes out to $30 extra a month, and on a server that's $119, that's quite an increase (~20%?). Not to mention that we have to front the cash up front.
~Will
...was to be able to cut and paste between applications. A unified API for a clipboard system that uses a unified set of keys to cut and paste.
Alpha blending should be miles and miles behind the development of a window system that actually works.
But, this looks to be more typical X development. No brake pedal, but you can shift gears via the steering wheel, the stereo, or a series of buttons on the sunroof; it has 539 airbags, each requiring a different pressure to go off, and there's a seatbelt interface for every previous seatbelt in existance. Plus it has the most efficient 46 horse power engine ever made, even though opening the glove compartment causes it to stall, or at least backfire.
~Wx
You people just refuse to get it, don't you? Good lord, I'll do a blow by blow for you.
.. not free cost. Nevermind the politics, Linux works good and is stable - not to say Win2000/2003 isn't - but Linux can compete on technical merit.
... OH WAIT, that's of no value to you).
:p $349/year buys just over 2 hours service where I live - I definitely get that in the timely security updates alone - not to mention the enhancements. Stop thinking like a weenie and think like a business :p If you were stupid enough to think that Red Hat Linux was worth nothing because they charged $0 for it... see #4a; or you are large enough that these costs mean HUGE dollars for you... see #4b.
1) Red Hat has the Fedora project. That is more or less the same thing.
1a) If you don't know how to use Fedora then please don't suggest you don't need support in your post.
Wait... let me get this straight. The end of the line for products that I already know how to use is comming soon. So, what you want me to do is to upgrade everyone to Fedora, which is relatively unstable, bleeding edge software, and which has a *SHORTER* life span than the redhat products already out there?? What the hell...? Of course I know how to use Fedora, as much as I know how to use redhat. I'm using redhat because I need to get the security updates. The reason I'm pissed is that now I'll have to do my own security updates, which will be next to impossible to un-install the RPM, download the source, and figure out where redhat had everything installed and configured. You first, buddy. But, wait, you want me to switch to Fedora, where the problem will only hit me quicker (shorter lifespan of support releases) and more often (bleeding edge software; sure to contain holes)? No thanks.
2) Perhaps more important, Linux does not need to compete with Microsoft on price point alone. The Open Source model is about freedom
But, if Linux is more free, then why do I have to agree to a terrible EULA from redhat, wich includes giving them the right to ENTER MY FACILITY AND AUDIT MY COMPUTERS? Read the EULA from RedHat, and tell me you still think you're buying free software. Now, I will grant you that Linux is more stable, less buggy, more secure, and I wouldn't run anything but for my servers and my customers, but that isn't to say redhat is the only game in town. But, that's what they want you to think. Think linux, think redhat. That's what redhat wants.
3) You can get RHEL 3.0 ES Basic for $349/year. A good value if you ask me. Regarding your existing customers (who you presumably installed), Red Hat announced ages ago that they were moving to a different maintenance cycle. Not to mention it has been plastered all over the red hat website, it was also on slashdot. So you sold them the wrong stuff (you COULD have sold RHEL) - now you are discovering there's a value to security updates, bug fixes, and what not. But since you want no service/support from Red Hat, happy compiling! (Yes, you can make the updates yourself, you do have the source..... well unless you want someone else to, in which case I'd guess you'd expect to pay them
3a) I know you want free. You said so most politely. Suck it up dumbass
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NO ONE THAT HAS REPLIED TO MY POST UNDERSTANDS!!!
The profit margins in this game are thin. It's really hard for the small business to compete with the big guns like rackshack. We have a dedicated server that has an AMD 1800+, 256MB of ram, and a 40GB hard drive. We can get this server for less than $349 shipped. Adding $349 would double the cost of the machine. Now, understanding that, I assume you can see how we can't just switch.
About what we sold customers: We offer redhat because people want redhat. We found out about the end of the line for redhat products about 6 months ago, and we have a lot of servers that are a lot older than that. What do
It's not even that. It's that I've got customers who want hummer H2's for free, because they're used to them being free, or at the most costing $4. But, then, Hummer Co. all of a sudden wants to charge $18,000 for an H2.
It's not that I'm a cheapass (as I said in the great-grandparent post). It's that my customers expect something to be free because it always has been free, and they're not going to like it when I tell them it costs a firstborn child.
I wish you people would stop pinning this on me whining about wanting it cheap. I hate redhat. I don't want it at all. My customers want it cheap. I could give a shit less if they paid me $100 to run it, or if it cost $28934.58. But, I am here to serve the desires of the customers. Some customers will understand the idea of moving to debian. Some will be like "but, redhat is linux. and it's free" and it's these that redhat has left me twiddling my balls about.
~Wx
It is time consuming, but definitely do-able. If your time is too valuable to compile and test your own errata, stop being such a cheapass and go pay for it.
Dude, you're missing my whole point. I'm not going to compile the thing for free on my own time, and it would cost my employer a lot of money to pay for me to compile and test it myself.
AND: stop being a cheapass and pay for it? Dude, it's not me that's a cheapass. It's the customers. If we offer servers for $699.99/month, with redhat enterprice, and 30GB of bandwidth, we'd be out of business. Everyone wants a $99/month server, but NEWS FLASH $99/month x12 doesn't even cover redhat, much less the server, bandwidth, or support.
~Will
Why?
Same reason I've been bitching about for months on slashdot (if you've read my comments, about 1 in 10 is bitching about being in the webhosting biz, and all of your customers wanting redhat, and having to tell them that it's not free anymore).
The name redhat is now worth money to them.
They want people to do exactly what is happening. They want people to call up and say "i want that thar red hat linux" because it's synonymous with linux, the same way office is synonymous with "microsoft office" at the managemen level, and at the average customer level.
So, now we say that we can get them redhat, but it's cheaper to run windows2003 web edition. By a good margin. Oh, and we now have to tell people running redhat 8.0 (which came out in, what, feb?) that the next time that they have a security problem with their 10 month old linux distro, they're SOL, because it's past it's end of line date.
I'm seriously pissed off at redhat. Enterprise my ass. For the same price as windows server 2003 web edition, you can get redhat enterprise, but *without support*. What the blue fuck are you paying for then? It's only the name.
Now, I know a lot of people are going to say "but but but but but". Arguement #1.) Management types want to pay a lot of money for an OS that runs on their big hard ware. Answer: I don't give a fuck. I want it for free, or next to free. I don't want support. I want it for $49.99, or $99.99, not goddamn $1249.99. Arguement #2.) It's GPL'd, so buy one copy and just put it on all your customer's computers. Answer: HAHA! Redhat is fucking you the same way Microsoft wants to fuck you - YOU'RE NOT BUYING SOFTWARE, YOU'RE BUYING A SUBSCRIPTION. More at http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html! You can't install it on more than one computer!
Arguement #3.) The source is free, download and compile it yourself. Answer: HAHA, you first, doogie howser. They give out the source, but I bet you can't just compile it all together! I bet you have to mess with and tweak and change --config-with-blah=18934 a billion times, and you'd still not be half way there.
Bottom line: RedHat has gotten popular enough that they're tired of being a good corporation, and, while they think they're spreading the good name of linux, what they're really doing is fucking the small business who relies on the name "redhat" for profit.
Cause, hey, folks. When Linux is more expensive than windows, who will buy it? Say what you will about stability and security, and I agree, but given the choice between redhat advanced server premium for $18,000 and a solution from the other side of the fense for $6000, who's manager is going to pick linux, especially when they heard it was supposed to be free?
HERE'S THE ANSWER, REDHAT: RELEASE YOUR PRODUCTS FOR FREE, AND OFFER SUPPORT FOR THEM OPTIONALLY. Do what you've been doing for years. Oh, but too late.
Crash and burn.
Your search - "KDE 3.2 beta KWin C++ API" - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.
Also, you can try Google Answers for expert help with your search.
heh.
Never using google again?
I wonder if I can get them to back down from using the name??
http://www.claryia.com/
It's a hosting company my friend and I were going to start, but never got off the ground.
~Will
Ahh. The same reason people get turned off to Linux - stupid, stubborn eliteism, or mabey it's just an attempt at humor that doesn't work (at all). This is a quote from the Newsforge article. I mean, obviously, it's satire, but it's poorly done satire. And by the way, articles written in this manner hardly ever make news, because they're just too pretentious to be quoted on CNN.
Come on, people. Release real news, not "HAHAHA, SCO S|_|X0Rz!!!".
~Wx
Actually, a much bigger problem is people who rox-in-the-box stuff.
If you know how the system works, it's very friendly to people who do things like mod playstations.
Step 1.) Buy playstation.
Step 2.) fuck up putting the mod chip in.
Step 3.) Buy another playstation.
Step 4.) put fucked up playstation in new playstation's box, return to the store with new receipt.
Step 5.) try again.
~Will
I thought the usual game was for these kinds of retailers to sell model numbers that don't exist anywhere else, but have the same specs as a commonly available one, so that they can "honestly" deny any compettitive pricing claims. ;-)
Having worked at best buy, in the audio department, I can tell you that this is a fact. We sold products that other people did not sell; in fact, it was fairly rare to find products from well known manufacturers that had the same model number at Circut City and at Best Buy. It was done so that we could a.) say that we had exclusive products, and b.) say that we weren't doing competative pricing, but the much bigger one was 3.) when the models had different features, some people want the one from CC, some want the one from best buy. If they had Identical features, people would just go the place with the lower price, but because one may have an extra S-video input or what-have-you, they're willing to shell out the extra $20 for the extra stuff. The trick is for the corporation to get the model that looks more desireable to consumers.
But, yeah, the main reason for the similar-but-different model numbers for similar-but-different products is to keep people from being able to compare identical products, and thus, simply wait for the sale. It's perfectly legal, and when you think about it, pretty smart.
~Will
There is a difference between Blank CD-R's and Music CD-R's. I'm not sure I've got the links right, but if you go into best buy, over in the computer section, there's the computer CD-R's, and over near the CD's and Movies, there's the blank Audio CD-R's, which usually come in 30 packs and are more expensive. It's the "audio CD-R's" that you are paying the premium for recording music on. So unless you've been buying the more expensive kind of CD-R's, you haven't been stacking up credit towards downloading music.
The catch is that (as I'm sure most everyone on slashdot knows) CD-R's and Music CD-R's are identical, or virtually identical. I think since the higher spindle speeds of CD-R/W drives for comptuers, they have had to mess with the computer CD-R's, as the Music ones were origionally designed to be used in the "dual deck duplicators" over near the CD players in the Audio section, which burn at about 2x or 4x. But, we all know that almost every CD player will read a CD-R, even if it's been burned at 52x.
The riaa should learn from this lesson, too. If you try to charge someone more for a product because you assume they're going to do something illegal, people will find a way to get around the higher price. Proactive high prices don't fly in a capitalist society where everyone is waiting for the sale price, and unwilling to believe bullshit about "these are for data, those are for music" when they're identical except for the price.
~Will
I love having to buy a whole CD when I just want one song for $12!
Just to make sure, does every one know why this is a problem?
The big record lables, in conjunction with the RIAA, MTV, Clear Channel, et. al. etc, market a product which DOES NOT EXIST!
They market the one or two good songs on the CD. However, they make no product by which you can purchase the one or two good songs. It's like marketing a wheel and requiring you to purchase a car in order to get it.
I know that, technically, there are CD singles, but they're hard as crap to find, they're still $5, and most of them are import bootlegs.
~Will
I don't mean to sound like some astroturfer, but RedHat has definitely brought Linux to the fore of server operating systems.
I'm with you as far as this goes.
With the rapid decline of AIX and Solaris, Win2K and RedHat Linux are making steady gains in the server market.
Ok, I can still agree with that. When most people think linux, they think redhat linux.
What's more, with Linux you don't need to have a server farm like NT requires, so in the long run you save your company money by choosing to go with RedHat.
This is where your post breaks down. Redhat is DAMNED EXPENSIVE. The server stuff is like $699 for even the cheapest variety, and that's with limited support (which is what I thought you were paying for).
Of course, this was no big deal when you were content to do your own tech support. HOWEVER, now, they're not even supporting their own stuff!
I remember, does anyone else remember, when Microsoft stopped supporting windows 95 in 2000? That caused a big stir in the slashdot community about all those millions of computers out there still running windows 95 who are going to have no support! Well, I advise you to take a look at the end-of-the-line dates for RedHat. Redhat 8 was release, what, about a year ago? Mabey 14 months? And it's end of the line is December 31st of this year?
See, another problem that's going to hit redhat is that, until now, they had planned on releasing a free product called redhat and a pay-for-support-in-order-to-get-the-CD's product, also called redhat (enterprise). But, the way I understand it now, it's looking like the enterprise product is going to be called redhat and the free one is going to be called something else (fedora?). Well, that's just great for redhat, but what about me? I'm in the webhosting business. What do I say when customers call and ask about the $119/month dedicated server? Does it come with redhat? And I have to tell them No, becuase it quite simply costs too much. In fact, sir, it's more expensive that windows server 2003, if all you want to do is webhosting.
Redhat is the sleaze of the Linux community. They are the windows of linux. They have come into the business and made a name for themselves by making a great product, regardless of it's cost. But, then, they got greedy. It's been a while since they put out a good version of RedHat (7.3 being the last useable one for a server platform), and now, in order to get the stuff that actually works, they expect you to pay not $100, but $1499??
But, we can't jump ship from redhat because that's what everyone wants. When you think linux, you think redhat. So, they'll manage to squeek by for another few years selling a product that they used to give away, because they've got people hooked on the name.
Just because it brought linux into the public eye doesn't mean it's out to pet your dog and buy you christmas presents.
~Will
Not that I like to support people who make the internet annoying, but I actually wanted to buy one of those little cameras! I'm completely serious; everyone I talked to that knew someone that had one said they work exactly as advertised and they work great.
~Wx
At Netmar, we have an ongoing debate about whether or not to implement a specific rule in sendmail's config file.
It takes the hostname of the server that the email was received from, and checks to make sure that the hostname has a valid reverse DNS zone configured.
This honestly stops a lot of spam. Exceptions being exchange servers set to world relay, but the amount of spam is drastically cut down.
What sucks is all the little mom and pop ISP's and offices with their own internet who don't know how to configure a reverse zone. It gets a lot of false posatives.
We still haven't found a solution. And we've reached the 50% mark for spam.
~Will
Heh.
Interesting note, at Netmar last year, we were doing spring cleaning, and we unearthed an old sun system, the kind that looks like a dorm fridge. Well, to our surprise, it had a quad proc hypersparc board on it's backplane. We were thrilled to death, so we immediately tried to turn it on. Only problem? Even after multiple years of not being in service, the PROM still had a password on it to make it boot.
What was the solution? After poking around google groups forever, we came across a page that had a tip on how to reset PROM passwords for Sun machines. Your mileage may vary, but what solved it for us was to unplug the prom during bootup, turn computer off, wait 5 minutes, plug PROM back in, and *bam* no password!
Just goes to show... If you unplug things that aren't hotpluggable, the terrorists haven't already become our overlords, or something.
~Will
I feel obligated, gentlemen, to have been the person who started one of the most intellectually rich threads ever to have graced slashdot.
I humbly bow to you all. Thank you for reaffirming my faith in humanity.
(completely serious)
~Will
What's happening right now is an exponential growth in the number of pieces of junk out there
counteracted by the fact that anything smaller than a basketball will burn up in decaying orbit, and that all orbits decay, so after a few years (30 or so) nothing that was in space in anything but an extremely high orbit that can't move it's self is still there.
Way to be a doomsday buzzkill.
~Will
I won't even consider it until it's ($CURRENT_PRICE/2) and until the files are ($CURRENT_BITRATE*2). And until it's in (!($CURRENT_MEDIA_FORMAT)). Plus it only is going to have bands $BAD_BANDS[1]..$BAD_BANDS[134], which I don't listen too anyway.
And they should have thought of this ($DATE-(rand())) ago.
~will
Ok, fair enough. But, i seem to remember some discussion on some debian message boards where some of the debian users were concerned that they were losing a lot of people to gentoo, and most people thought it was because debian only releases a 386 distro, and a lot of people want them to release a 686. I don't know if debian does the multiple kernel thing with the distro.
I'd really love to see some benchmarks that show that you can get much of any performance boost from recompiling your distro kernel. I'd be very surprised to see any difference at all.
Eh, i think that you could get some added performance. Like, if you changed your compiler optimization settings such that you compiled for -march=athlonxp instead of 386 or even 686. And if you took a bunch of stuff out, like (heh) module support and filesystem types you don't use and initrd if you're not using it... If you tried to go through and make it smaller, it might help. Also, does anyone else hate redhat's kernel configs? tab-M-tab-M-tab-M-tab-M - let's make it a module!
~Will
I will not deny that this technique will be used to make copies of music but I refuse to consider that "piracy" or immoral.
.mp3 and not .suck, or whatever proprietary, non portable, encrypted bullshit they put on the CD.
It's not even that! He bought the damn thing, he wanted to make a backup of it. He is legally entitled to do so. It just so happens that he wanted his backup in
~Will
Well if his paper is wrong then it should be simple to find out by trying to repeat his experiment.
This is EXACTLY the point that needs to be made. In light of this from the press release:
SunnComm believes that by making erroneous assumptions in putting together his critical review of the MediaMax CD-3 technology, Mr. Halderman came to false conclusions concerning the robustness and efficacy of SunnComm's MediaMax technology.
Erroneous assumptions about the robustness? Well, he beat it with the shift key, it could only be WORSE than you assert it is.
They're claiming his assumptions are false. Well, a repeat of the expierement would be the way to prove it.