Did you know that property values are highest where roads are the narrowest?
Roads are narrowest where rich landowners can fight the expansion of the road. You have mixed correlation with causation. Remember, you have to add capacity at the same rate you add load. When you can't do that anymore you have to redistribute the load to where the capacity is available. Houston and Los Angeles are examples of poor load distribution, not failures of capacity.
Most traffic is from ring point to ring point and has been for many years. Most jobs are from ring point to ring point as well, this is where additional lanes are needed the most.
Since most highways from one suburb to another are only two lanes it results in too much traffic for the capacity of the road. I've traveled quite a bit over the years and this is something I have seen in a lot of major metropolitan areas.
Really, European cars get the same mileage in city or highway driving? Wow, how come your own mileage ratings argue with you? Even if you shut off your engine (start stop has been common in the US for the last several years as well), you still have to accelerate to speed. Acceleration is the part that creates the most pollution and burns the most fuel. The idea that simply shutting off your engine for a few seconds is going to negate this is laughable. Please, just do a little bit of googling first, is that too much to ask?
Your own study refutes your claim that mass transit is somehow better than traditional road capacity with the following wording:
"These ïndings suggest that both road capacity expansions and extensions to public transit are not appropriate policies with which to combat trafïc congestion".
Mass transit works well within a limited context, outside of the limited context mass transit's effectiveness starts to fall apart quickly. If you live within a core city and are traveling to another part of a core city it can work well. If your in a suburb and traveling to another suburb your trip could easily take a day or more, if it is even possible. Once your outside the suburbs mass transit is simply non-existent.
Additional lanes are needed for all of the places that traditional mass transit doesn't work well. This means most suburban environments, especially those that go from one suburb to another. The day of everyone traveling from the suburbs to downtown and back was dead and buried decades ago. It simply isn't viable to provide mass transit at the levels people need in the suburbs.
Population distribution. We have moved away from many small and medium sized towns to smaller number of larger towns. Visit a small to mid size town sometime and you'll discover their idea of rush hour is about 15 minutes long.
If you were to think in terms of computers our current model in the US and Canada lacks load distribution. We're trying to process too much data (traffic) with too little I/O bandwidth (lanes) available to do it with. We also have a significantly increasing load (population) with no good way to redistribute (force people to move back to towns and smaller cities) the load and our expected volume is only going up (genocide is frowned upon).
In short we're adding capacity slower than we're adding load. If the system were a computer you'd be talking about trying to run modern loads on a 386 with 4 MB of RAM and a 20 GB hard drive. The bottom line is you have a choice, reduce the load or upgrade capacity. Since it's politically impractical to reduce the load that means we/have/ to upgrade the roads.
More congestion = more pollution, so are the greens always the ones fighting improved roadworks that will relieve congestion? Seriously, the more clogged traffic is, the worse your mileage, the more wear and tear on your car, the more pollution, the more time you waste, the more accidents and more people are hurt and killed in accidents. Free flowing consistent traffic is always safer, less polluting, faster, less wasteful from early wear and tear on the car and so on....
What possible real reason can there be to fight things like expanding roadworks from 2 lanes to 3 lanes other than a desire to tell other people how to live their lives. If your entire argument depends on trying to make something suck for someone else to gain converts, chances are pretty good your on the wrong side of the argument.
This has everything to do with marketing and the value of information and jack to do with anything else. Accounts under pseudonyms simply aren't as valuable to marketers as people real names.
Marketers know people make fake accounts and don't want to have their ad dollars put into accounts for a 23 year old female who is actually a 37 year old man. By insisting on real names Facebook justifies increased ad rates about the value of their data. That is why Facebook will take a 'policy' change to court.
I have seen this kind of thing justified by upper management more times than I can count. The problem is that upper management literally does a Fight Club style calculation that says the costs of data breaches will be less than the costs of security. They/expect/ to have computers routinely hacked and owned by people with malicious intent.
Until the values assigned to the cost of data breaches go up or unless you have some kind of law (HIPAA, SOX etc) this kind of thing will only continue. Public notification laws are one the best things that can be done to prevent this. It's not that the IT pros don't know better, are unwilling to follow best practices or don't care. The problem is that the IT pros that secure these environments aren't allowed to do their job.
When upper management thinks that computer management and security have no value and that security breaches cost less than security this kind of thing is inevitable.
I like solar and geothermal energy sources for home based power. I am also a pragmatist that realizes simply legislating that everyone install solar panels for a wide scale would be financially ruinous. I think you could go about this with a hybrid approach that could allow the market to do what it does best while steering people to a greener future.
Start by saying that all new (and remodeled) buildings must includes support for 10% of their anticipated energy needs from a renewable source (let the source be up to the customer) and the switching equipment required for the grid. This will be a small enough amount that it can be met with a minimal number of solar panels or other sources. Importantly this will allow time for electricians, home builders, retailers and the like to start getting to understand renewable energy without being overwhelming. It will also allow for things like the switching equipment for the grid to start getting put in place.
Every four years after this starts you increase the amount of energy required by 10%. The increase is slow enough to give the market time to react and bring products, expertise and the like to bear. This is also slow enough to allow competition to build and for prices to benefit from economies of scale.
By the time the rate increases from 10% to 20% the market will have had time to develop skills, materials and everything else that is needed. This avoids a crisis that would come from simply mandating a significant amount come from renewable energy to begin with when the present market can't possibly meet that demand. This also allows for retrofitting with additional capacity by owners that want to ramp up from 10% to a higher percent.
You finally had the epiphany to realize that not all treaties are good treaties. Now if Obama could get his head out of his ass about all the various **AA treaties that he keeps trying to get everyone to sign.
It's from people like my ex-wife. She committed fraud to get on welfare permanently. She gets $600 a month in cash. She gets food covered by the government. She gets medical insurance paid for by the government. She has a brand new three bedroom townhouse that is paid for by the government for housing. Her expenses consist of nothing but her car costs.
She get's secondary benefits as well. All told she gets $2500 plus in benefits every month and doesn't work or contribute to society in anyway. She routinely takes vacations and weekend trips to places like resorts. She also works freelance cash jobs that pay cash and supplement her income knowing her fraud will never be prosecuted. She has more disposable income every month than I do and I work a full time and part time job. She lives a life of government paid leisure which she feels entitled too.
She's a welfare queen and blatantly abuses the system knowing that no one will ever hold her accountable. People talk about welfare queens because they know welfare queens.
Your on the right track, the Tea Party led a purge of the moderates from the party a couple years back. The result was that the shifted even further to the right and lost a bunch of moderates in the middle of the political spectrum. The result was to also chase away a lot of the moderates / independent voters as well.
Since there are more independents in the US than there are Democrats or Republicans this is what cost them the election. Independents/always/ decide the winner of the presidential election.
They need to have a hard look at their internal hard line on political issues. Even Reagan would fail to meet most of the current Republican agenda and would be cast out (as would a number of other historically significant Republicans). The net effect is to ostracize younger voters and the result is costing them future voters. It's not that moderates were voting for Obama and the Democrats nearly as much as they were voting against Romney and the Republicans.
The Republicans need to go back to giving the general population something to believe in. Study Reagan and you will see that he did that so well the term "Reagan Democrats" was coined to describe the effect. People can't believe in tax cuts for corporates and the rich, it's too abstract for their day to day life. Unless they regain the moderates and start giving people something to believe they will continue to lose more and more voters.
I see a lot of people here talking about encrypting the laptop using truecrypt. live boot cd's etc or any number of other 'technical' solutions. Depending on the country you go to that could get you thrown in jail.
Remember, guns and jail time trump policy and technical expertise.
There are some practical consideration to take such as reviewing whether or not you have anything in terms of software or data that could run foul of export controls. You also need to assume that any data on your laptop will be copied. You also need to assume that your password will be obtained by a key logger or other means.
The easiest way to do things is to have a loaner pool of laptops that/never/ touch the corporate network. To make it easier to differentiate them I would suggest using a different model or make than you use elsewhere in your company. When it comes time to travel you have a laptop pre-configured by your IT department with only the bare minimum software and data that you need and is safe for legal purposes (foreign and domestic).
When you return the laptop is wiped and BIOS reset and it never touches the corporate network. Same thing for flash drives. The same thing/needs/ to happen with any passwords that you have.
If your extra paranoid you can weigh your laptop before and after the trip to see if a hardware keylogger is installed. Laptop models vary but the components inside are often common and a keylogger for one keyboard ribbon would likely work on a wide range of models from multiple vendors.
You can also configure your VPN to bring you to a sandbox server that is firewalled off from the rest of the network. That way if someone gains your credentials or steals your laptop they can't log in as you and start wholesale downloads of data using your credentials.
Remember as well that all of this advice applies just as much to your cell phone as it does to your laptop!
My point isn't so much on paid web sites, (which I oppose) but on success. I am not endorsing paid web sites. I picked one liberal and one conservative site to show both political slants could make money.
The WSJ embraces both rules I talk about. They also get away with charging for content without being a porn site. You would think Murdoch would have learned from the WSJ?
If he was able to get Terabytes of data out with impunity and walk out with it in a back pack than he was right that things weren't being done right. If they had been working with best practices he never would have been able to pull the data out.
Read the article, sounds like the only reason the data didn't go to the highest bidder is he hadn't sold it yet. They said he was disgruntled, perhaps he was willing to sacrifice his career to make a point about things not being done right?
He'll get (and should get) time in prison for this and he's a fool for having done it. Lesson to learn from this for those new in their career and who see problems and find management unwilling to do anything about them. Document them in an email at some point to make sure you can't be blamed for ignoring an issue. Once you've done that drop it and let it go, because it isn't worth your career or prison time to prove your right. Let it go, let it go.
No people pay for the Wall Street Journal over the daily because of the *unique* content it offers.
By definition anything you "create" is going to be unique.
"Pretty and Experience" bullshit is part of the reason it failed.
I never said anything about "pretty", I talked about the user experience. Simply hosting high definition content is not enough, the user experience has to be a good one. Ad infested, slow, hard to use and annoying all trump content.
This is good news, and not because of the politics of News Corp. If this had been 'successful' you would be seeing a/lot/ more companies charging for online content. As anyone who has ever subscribed to a magazine, paid for a newspaper or bought cable knows, paying for your media doesn't save you from advertising.
The news has become a commodity, and with media sites outsourcing most of their work with Reuters and the Associated Press they have also outsourced their identity. Frankly for most people it doesn't matter whether they get their news from Toledo or Seattle because it's all the same news.
I've said before and I'll say again that there are two ways for a media site to succeed on the Internet. Two rules - eight words. 1. Your user experience matters. 2. Create relevant quality content.
If you obey those two rules you can and will do well online. Look at the Wall Street Journal, they charge for a lot of their content and still make money, why? The user experience isn't user hostile and the experience of using their web site is fairly pleasant. They also create unique content through their own journalism with quality stories. The New York Time is in a similar situation.
By following these two simple adages they make a lot of money compared to their competitors. One of these publications leans left politically, the other leans right and yet they both succeed where others fall flat.
Why are we giving a world class attention whore attention for something that's elementary? What's next, it's cheaper to make Toyota Corolla's than Ferrari Enzo's? Are we going to get articles on his bathroom habits after this? The best thing you can do with an attention whore is ignore them.
That's exactly the way it should be done. Your a develop developing for people in your company. If you machine isn't reflective of the douchebags in marketing your going to develop for an environment that your company doesn't have. The net result is that once your code hits production your code behaves differently for your users than it does for you.
Developer personal machines require management, security needs, software, patches, get viruses, have licensing needs and everything else that every other computer does. If your developing for servers than the same logic and rules apply for your development servers as well. There is no credible reason to treat developer machines any different from any other computer the company has.
/The IT guy that has won this argument against the developers at more than one fortune 500.
I think if you tried really, really, really hard you could make a more biased story submission. Can the crowd here come up with something even more biased (on either side) than this?
First, the are losing the revenue from bloatware, no sympathy there. More to the point they have added costs of driver development and support for an additional model. That means additional staff, resources, time and so on.
More to the point they have to support the thing for people that/aren't/ the slashdot Linux using crown (who would have simply installed Linux on their own anyways and is unlikely to contact them for anything other than a hardware failure to begin with). These support costs involve training staff on a new operating system and how to troubleshoot it. There are also far fewer customers to distribute these costs to.
To be frank it wouldn't surprise me if Dell loses money on these laptops for a few years while they build up the resources, staff, KB's and the like to get the program going to begin with. That being said it's a good sign that Dell is making a long term commitment to Linux as it otherwise wouldn't make sense to do this at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you know that property values are highest where roads are the narrowest?
Roads are narrowest where rich landowners can fight the expansion of the road. You have mixed correlation with causation. Remember, you have to add capacity at the same rate you add load. When you can't do that anymore you have to redistribute the load to where the capacity is available. Houston and Los Angeles are examples of poor load distribution, not failures of capacity.
Most traffic is from ring point to ring point and has been for many years. Most jobs are from ring point to ring point as well, this is where additional lanes are needed the most.
Since most highways from one suburb to another are only two lanes it results in too much traffic for the capacity of the road. I've traveled quite a bit over the years and this is something I have seen in a lot of major metropolitan areas.
Really, European cars get the same mileage in city or highway driving? Wow, how come your own mileage ratings argue with you? Even if you shut off your engine (start stop has been common in the US for the last several years as well), you still have to accelerate to speed. Acceleration is the part that creates the most pollution and burns the most fuel. The idea that simply shutting off your engine for a few seconds is going to negate this is laughable. Please, just do a little bit of googling first, is that too much to ask?
Your own study refutes your claim that mass transit is somehow better than traditional road capacity with the following wording:
"These ïndings suggest that both road capacity expansions and extensions to public transit are not appropriate policies with which to combat trafïc congestion".
Mass transit works well within a limited context, outside of the limited context mass transit's effectiveness starts to fall apart quickly. If you live within a core city and are traveling to another part of a core city it can work well. If your in a suburb and traveling to another suburb your trip could easily take a day or more, if it is even possible. Once your outside the suburbs mass transit is simply non-existent.
Additional lanes are needed for all of the places that traditional mass transit doesn't work well. This means most suburban environments, especially those that go from one suburb to another. The day of everyone traveling from the suburbs to downtown and back was dead and buried decades ago. It simply isn't viable to provide mass transit at the levels people need in the suburbs.
By the way I take mass transit to work.
Population distribution. We have moved away from many small and medium sized towns to smaller number of larger towns. Visit a small to mid size town sometime and you'll discover their idea of rush hour is about 15 minutes long.
If you were to think in terms of computers our current model in the US and Canada lacks load distribution. We're trying to process too much data (traffic) with too little I/O bandwidth (lanes) available to do it with. We also have a significantly increasing load (population) with no good way to redistribute (force people to move back to towns and smaller cities) the load and our expected volume is only going up (genocide is frowned upon).
In short we're adding capacity slower than we're adding load. If the system were a computer you'd be talking about trying to run modern loads on a 386 with 4 MB of RAM and a 20 GB hard drive. The bottom line is you have a choice, reduce the load or upgrade capacity. Since it's politically impractical to reduce the load that means we /have/ to upgrade the roads.
More congestion = more pollution, so are the greens always the ones fighting improved roadworks that will relieve congestion? Seriously, the more clogged traffic is, the worse your mileage, the more wear and tear on your car, the more pollution, the more time you waste, the more accidents and more people are hurt and killed in accidents. Free flowing consistent traffic is always safer, less polluting, faster, less wasteful from early wear and tear on the car and so on....
What possible real reason can there be to fight things like expanding roadworks from 2 lanes to 3 lanes other than a desire to tell other people how to live their lives. If your entire argument depends on trying to make something suck for someone else to gain converts, chances are pretty good your on the wrong side of the argument.
This has everything to do with marketing and the value of information and jack to do with anything else. Accounts under pseudonyms simply aren't as valuable to marketers as people real names.
Marketers know people make fake accounts and don't want to have their ad dollars put into accounts for a 23 year old female who is actually a 37 year old man. By insisting on real names Facebook justifies increased ad rates about the value of their data. That is why Facebook will take a 'policy' change to court.
Interesting claim, since I know girlingtraining. I would be curious to see if you can identify alternate accounts girlintraining has used.
I have seen this kind of thing justified by upper management more times than I can count. The problem is that upper management literally does a Fight Club style calculation that says the costs of data breaches will be less than the costs of security. They /expect/ to have computers routinely hacked and owned by people with malicious intent.
Until the values assigned to the cost of data breaches go up or unless you have some kind of law (HIPAA, SOX etc) this kind of thing will only continue. Public notification laws are one the best things that can be done to prevent this. It's not that the IT pros don't know better, are unwilling to follow best practices or don't care. The problem is that the IT pros that secure these environments aren't allowed to do their job.
When upper management thinks that computer management and security have no value and that security breaches cost less than security this kind of thing is inevitable.
I like solar and geothermal energy sources for home based power. I am also a pragmatist that realizes simply legislating that everyone install solar panels for a wide scale would be financially ruinous. I think you could go about this with a hybrid approach that could allow the market to do what it does best while steering people to a greener future.
Start by saying that all new (and remodeled) buildings must includes support for 10% of their anticipated energy needs from a renewable source (let the source be up to the customer) and the switching equipment required for the grid. This will be a small enough amount that it can be met with a minimal number of solar panels or other sources. Importantly this will allow time for electricians, home builders, retailers and the like to start getting to understand renewable energy without being overwhelming. It will also allow for things like the switching equipment for the grid to start getting put in place.
Every four years after this starts you increase the amount of energy required by 10%. The increase is slow enough to give the market time to react and bring products, expertise and the like to bear. This is also slow enough to allow competition to build and for prices to benefit from economies of scale.
By the time the rate increases from 10% to 20% the market will have had time to develop skills, materials and everything else that is needed. This avoids a crisis that would come from simply mandating a significant amount come from renewable energy to begin with when the present market can't possibly meet that demand. This also allows for retrofitting with additional capacity by owners that want to ramp up from 10% to a higher percent.
You finally had the epiphany to realize that not all treaties are good treaties. Now if Obama could get his head out of his ass about all the various **AA treaties that he keeps trying to get everyone to sign.
Politics should be left out of this. Like telemarketing some things should be banned because they are annoying as hell.
It's from people like my ex-wife. She committed fraud to get on welfare permanently. She gets $600 a month in cash. She gets food covered by the government. She gets medical insurance paid for by the government. She has a brand new three bedroom townhouse that is paid for by the government for housing. Her expenses consist of nothing but her car costs.
She get's secondary benefits as well. All told she gets $2500 plus in benefits every month and doesn't work or contribute to society in anyway. She routinely takes vacations and weekend trips to places like resorts. She also works freelance cash jobs that pay cash and supplement her income knowing her fraud will never be prosecuted. She has more disposable income every month than I do and I work a full time and part time job. She lives a life of government paid leisure which she feels entitled too.
She's a welfare queen and blatantly abuses the system knowing that no one will ever hold her accountable. People talk about welfare queens because they know welfare queens.
Your on the right track, the Tea Party led a purge of the moderates from the party a couple years back. The result was that the shifted even further to the right and lost a bunch of moderates in the middle of the political spectrum. The result was to also chase away a lot of the moderates / independent voters as well.
Since there are more independents in the US than there are Democrats or Republicans this is what cost them the election. Independents /always/ decide the winner of the presidential election.
They need to have a hard look at their internal hard line on political issues. Even Reagan would fail to meet most of the current Republican agenda and would be cast out (as would a number of other historically significant Republicans). The net effect is to ostracize younger voters and the result is costing them future voters. It's not that moderates were voting for Obama and the Democrats nearly as much as they were voting against Romney and the Republicans.
The Republicans need to go back to giving the general population something to believe in. Study Reagan and you will see that he did that so well the term "Reagan Democrats" was coined to describe the effect. People can't believe in tax cuts for corporates and the rich, it's too abstract for their day to day life. Unless they regain the moderates and start giving people something to believe they will continue to lose more and more voters.
I see a lot of people here talking about encrypting the laptop using truecrypt. live boot cd's etc or any number of other 'technical' solutions. Depending on the country you go to that could get you thrown in jail.
Remember, guns and jail time trump policy and technical expertise.
There are some practical consideration to take such as reviewing whether or not you have anything in terms of software or data that could run foul of export controls. You also need to assume that any data on your laptop will be copied. You also need to assume that your password will be obtained by a key logger or other means.
The easiest way to do things is to have a loaner pool of laptops that /never/ touch the corporate network. To make it easier to differentiate them I would suggest using a different model or make than you use elsewhere in your company. When it comes time to travel you have a laptop pre-configured by your IT department with only the bare minimum software and data that you need and is safe for legal purposes (foreign and domestic).
When you return the laptop is wiped and BIOS reset and it never touches the corporate network. Same thing for flash drives. The same thing /needs/ to happen with any passwords that you have.
If your extra paranoid you can weigh your laptop before and after the trip to see if a hardware keylogger is installed. Laptop models vary but the components inside are often common and a keylogger for one keyboard ribbon would likely work on a wide range of models from multiple vendors.
You can also configure your VPN to bring you to a sandbox server that is firewalled off from the rest of the network. That way if someone gains your credentials or steals your laptop they can't log in as you and start wholesale downloads of data using your credentials.
Remember as well that all of this advice applies just as much to your cell phone as it does to your laptop!
My point isn't so much on paid web sites, (which I oppose) but on success. I am not endorsing paid web sites. I picked one liberal and one conservative site to show both political slants could make money.
The WSJ embraces both rules I talk about. They also get away with charging for content without being a porn site. You would think Murdoch would have learned from the WSJ?
If he was able to get Terabytes of data out with impunity and walk out with it in a back pack than he was right that things weren't being done right. If they had been working with best practices he never would have been able to pull the data out.
Read the article, sounds like the only reason the data didn't go to the highest bidder is he hadn't sold it yet. They said he was disgruntled, perhaps he was willing to sacrifice his career to make a point about things not being done right?
He'll get (and should get) time in prison for this and he's a fool for having done it. Lesson to learn from this for those new in their career and who see problems and find management unwilling to do anything about them. Document them in an email at some point to make sure you can't be blamed for ignoring an issue. Once you've done that drop it and let it go, because it isn't worth your career or prison time to prove your right. Let it go, let it go.
Which makes this a bit amusing.
By definition anything you "create" is going to be unique.
I never said anything about "pretty", I talked about the user experience. Simply hosting high definition content is not enough, the user experience has to be a good one. Ad infested, slow, hard to use and annoying all trump content.
This is good news, and not because of the politics of News Corp. If this had been 'successful' you would be seeing a /lot/ more companies charging for online content. As anyone who has ever subscribed to a magazine, paid for a newspaper or bought cable knows, paying for your media doesn't save you from advertising.
The news has become a commodity, and with media sites outsourcing most of their work with Reuters and the Associated Press they have also outsourced their identity. Frankly for most people it doesn't matter whether they get their news from Toledo or Seattle because it's all the same news.
I've said before and I'll say again that there are two ways for a media site to succeed on the Internet. Two rules - eight words.
1. Your user experience matters.
2. Create relevant quality content.
If you obey those two rules you can and will do well online. Look at the Wall Street Journal, they charge for a lot of their content and still make money, why? The user experience isn't user hostile and the experience of using their web site is fairly pleasant. They also create unique content through their own journalism with quality stories. The New York Time is in a similar situation.
By following these two simple adages they make a lot of money compared to their competitors. One of these publications leans left politically, the other leans right and yet they both succeed where others fall flat.
Why are we giving a world class attention whore attention for something that's elementary? What's next, it's cheaper to make Toyota Corolla's than Ferrari Enzo's? Are we going to get articles on his bathroom habits after this? The best thing you can do with an attention whore is ignore them.
That's exactly the way it should be done. Your a develop developing for people in your company. If you machine isn't reflective of the douchebags in marketing your going to develop for an environment that your company doesn't have. The net result is that once your code hits production your code behaves differently for your users than it does for you.
Developer personal machines require management, security needs, software, patches, get viruses, have licensing needs and everything else that every other computer does. If your developing for servers than the same logic and rules apply for your development servers as well. There is no credible reason to treat developer machines any different from any other computer the company has.
That has got to be one the most poignant and best written comments I've ever seen written on the whole Manning affair.
I think if you tried really, really, really hard you could make a more biased story submission. Can the crowd here come up with something even more biased (on either side) than this?
First, the are losing the revenue from bloatware, no sympathy there. More to the point they have added costs of driver development and support for an additional model. That means additional staff, resources, time and so on.
More to the point they have to support the thing for people that /aren't/ the slashdot Linux using crown (who would have simply installed Linux on their own anyways and is unlikely to contact them for anything other than a hardware failure to begin with). These support costs involve training staff on a new operating system and how to troubleshoot it. There are also far fewer customers to distribute these costs to.
To be frank it wouldn't surprise me if Dell loses money on these laptops for a few years while they build up the resources, staff, KB's and the like to get the program going to begin with. That being said it's a good sign that Dell is making a long term commitment to Linux as it otherwise wouldn't make sense to do this at all.