This should be open to any US citizen who wants to review the system. Why should only/a/ University get to review this? What are they afraid of? After all this is supposed to be the equivalent of a phone tap. I don't recall there being anything at all secretive about a phone tap short of the order itself. This is a double standard, and the Justice Dept expects people to accept that it is ok because they, and one elite university "said so".
The secrecy sorrounding the entire sordid affair needs to go to the wayside. If they have no dirty secrets to hide, they should willingly expose carnivores innards for review. Especially when viewed with their logic that only "criminals" need to be concerned about privacy.
We don't hire serial killers to catch serial killers, do we?
Really? The FBI sure as hell interviews them, utilizes and implements what they have to say. They also interview, and occasionally hire people convicted of computer crime. Take the recent ex-disney exec for example. It often takes a crook to catch a crook. Knowing how a hacker/thinks/ is as important as modus operandi.
While I certainly agree with you that you that getting convicted of a serious crime demonstrates a profound lack of judgement, I think dismissing someone who was convicted of such out of hand also exhibits a profound lack of judgement. People complain that they don't want an ex-con working with them. So where do these people want ex-cons working? As Reagan put it, "trust, but verify". I'm not saying to go light on these people or the like, but take advantage of what they know. They'll be the first person to thank you for doing so.
Why do I think the poster is from Stream or a similar dirtbag outsourcer? Look at his stupid excuse:
Hate to dissapoint you, but I have not worked at this "stream" place of yours. You sound like a disgruntled employee that somehow connected an answer to industry sales and support policies to somehow relate to me. I'm sorry that you had a bad experience, but your attack was unneccasary and offtopic. Or were you denied support after calling in when you had an OS that was unsupported?
I have known several people over the years that work at outsourcing places, I even once worked at Wang. I understand the process they use on things quite well. I do not see how any of this relates to what I was talking about.
As for this "half baked double talk", it sounds like you don't have a lot of industry experience. So I'll fill you in on the status qou. If you start supporting a certain configuration that hasn't been advertised, people will find out about it. Once people start to find out about it, they can demand it. Computer companies have lost in court over this before. You cannot differentiate between different customers who/bought/ the same service contracts. You must provide them with the same level of service. This is one of the primary reasons that call support centers must keep permanent records of their calls.
Yes, I know about their system, I got my laptop through them not too long ago. Their system does tell them which OS was shipped on the computer. So they can filter out these calls, which they happen to have a support mechanism for fairly easily. In Dell's case, I imagine they probably rely on the Red Hat guys to tell them when a piece of hardware goes out. Anyone from Dell/Red Hat care to comment?
As for contradicting myself, please keep in mind most companies aren't going to have a Red Hat waiting in the wings to take those Linux calls. Any tech worth his salt is going to test hardware under certain known conditions before he sends out a replacement. It's just a matter of having the support staff/expertise to know what those/known/ conditions are. I would imagine the Red Hat people do have their own standard test conditions that they use. I hope that clarifies things.
Microsoft charges computer manufatures based on the number of units sold for a given time frame. The OEM is charged just as much for a computer with Windows as without. This does not cover Office though. You should be able to order your computer without Office for a reduced savings. Check out their different models for different pricing structures.
The second reason comes down to support costs. Yes, you might be able to get Linux, FreeBSD etc on a system, but Joe Shmoe sure as hell can't. At least not without some tech support. When he can't get his winmodem working under FreeBSD he's likely to demand a replacement. Having Windows on the computer allows the tech staff to test something under known standards.
Save the flames please. The cost to train an entire phone support staff on another OS is astronomical. I believe IBM spent several million dollars to get their staff ready for W2K. And they had the advantage of being familiar with NT 4. There is no carryover like that from a Windows OS to something like Linux. You have to know it well enough to walk someone else through troubleshooting it.
It is not uncommon to have people who have decided to load another OS onto their system to call tech support and lie about what OS is installed. It is usually glaringly obvious when this happens. This creates difficult situations, as you must deny someone support who just spent thousands of dollars on a computer. If you do go ahead and help them you will have created a precedent that could be legally binding to help out other people with that OS.
It's not about making money for MS, they are going to get theirs regardless. It's about support costs. The average computer maker will lose money if a customer has to call tech support 3 times in the life of the computer. This is why Compaq decided to start charging for tech support years ago. Like it or not, Linux is not ready for the mainstream of America (something I think is liked by most of the open source community to be perfectly honest).
As for charging more for a computer with a free OS, remember it's the support costs that your paying for. After all you can install Linux or whatnot on your own and not get the support costs. Most IT depts budget more over the lifetime of a desktop computer to support it than they do it for purchasing it. This is where the real expenses and profits are to be made. If I understand correctly Dell farms their Linux support out to Red Hat. That means those support calls are more than they would for an internal solution.
Hardware companies like to contiously upgrade the hardware available to the consumer. They do this because their competition does this. I understand that hardware companies that don't do this tend to have negative reflections listed in their stock price. Sometimes they get really sneaky and get togethor on things. This can result in things like the development of the PCI standard or waiting until a standard is released before selling hardware for that standard. These conspiricies are often wrapped up into coded documents called "RFC's"
The hardware you buy will in fact become obsolete before you can "give" it to your kids. Sorry to dissapoint you after that peptalk you from the local big box salesman about "that top end computer will last you for 5 years!"
They're used to making things up as they go along. After all if you can make up your own endings for a movie, why not real life? I wonder how much this production cost them? Tell me, how much does it cost to have made to order legislation passed? How long until board room edicts become felony offenses? If they can interpert the law, and have courts force it in their view, what precedents does that set?
This makes sense, it really does. Look at the following, and I think you'll see where I am coming from.
1. PR. The whole monopoly thing is starting to get to them. They face formal scrutiny in the US, Europe and India. If they do this, they can look and say "but we really do have competition". "We did a port at X number of millions of dollars to take advantage of this competitive market".
2. They are a business, something that a lot of people seem to forget. If they can make money on this up and coming OS (now that it is starting to break out of geekdom), why not? People seem to forget that they also make Office (and other products) for the Mac.
3. StarOffice. People use and buy Office (which is far more profitable for them than their OS's), because it is the defacto standard. Aside from a few die-hard types, it is accepted worldwide (except for China - different standard). StarOffice is being given away for free, and MS doesn't want people to get in the "habit" of using something else. Remember they considered Sun's intro into the browser market seriously enough to spend half a billion dollars (US DOJ figure) to combat it.
4. They need to show the world that they can play nice. MS settled the lawsuit with Mac based on a cash investment (non voting stock) and a willingness to make MS Office 98. Without MS Office 98 (pre iMac), it is was widely considered that Apple would have gone belly up. MS had more to risk by Apple going belly up than Apple did. Take Apple out of the picture at that time, and their would be no perceivable possible competition (Linux was not nearly as popular than, keep in mind.)
5. Market penetration. There are *nix shops that don't use MS. Once you port to Linux, it isn't that great of a leap to port to *nix. MS wants these markets, and this is a way to gain a foothold there. Regardless of what you think about the company, this would sell like crazy.
6. Microsoft.Net. This is another way to sell monthly licenses. Once people start to see some of the "features" that work with Office, they will want access to the rest of the features. It's the "collection" syndrome, people can't stand to know something is available, and they don't have it. Enough users start to demand features that would work with say, MS Exchange 2000, and management just might listen.
7. They are losing some customers to Linux. A lot of these people despise the MS OS's, but like the office suite. If they can see a familiar face in their new unfamiliar OS, many people would jump at the chance. I think that a significant number of the people who are former windows users would say that office is the 1 thing they miss most.
8. If they are building MSLinux (which they certainly could), this would be a way to get people to switch to "their" flavor of Linux. Make the desktop similiar to Windows, maintain the "look and feel" that someone who has used Windows knows, and they could easily become bigger than Redhat. They maintain their standards and control, and the masses would flock. Before you bash this statement, look at the first fundamental rule of marketing. Brand recognition is what counts. It is well established that the masses will flock to a brand that they know. Remember this would not be ported for the geeks that use Linux, this would be ported for the masses.
Well, the other side of it is that the Japanese have an affinity for management and control systems that's far more efficient than ours.
Actually it is ours, your referring to TQM (Total Quality Mangement). This was invented by an American who was scoffed at by various American manufactures (GM, Ford, General Electric, etc) for the ludicrous nature of the idea. He went to the Japanese with his idea and they took it hook line and sinker. This combined with the arrogance of our own manufacturing base (Ford Mustang designed to start leaking oil after 66 months comes to mind), is what enabled the Japanese to become such an international powerhouse. For those who are skeptical about the TQM bit, keep in mind they/fully/ integrated TQM at all levels with a commitment from management. Something (total commitment) American companies have sometimes painfully learned really was neccasary.
I agree with many of your points. I have earned the MCSE and feel nothing but disparity when I see "NT boot camps". That the test has been cheapened by MS, I do not dispute at all. I just get irritated when I see companies hire these people and complain about "paper mcse's". People need to understand that the best combination is going to involve school, training, certification, experience, and willingness to learn. I have seen NT techs that could not pass any MS test, yet run well oiled IT depts. I have also seen paper mcse's, cne's, a+, etc. There is nothing unique about this to M$. I do not know that I would renew my certification, honestly I do not know how much it has done for me. I do not consider myself a MS person by any means.
As for different depts running better, if yours is running better, good training and management are responsible for that as well, so compliment intended. If people want good techs, there is no reason they should not be able to grow and train their own. Nobody wants to invest in someone's training anymore it seems. When the employees finally take the steps to train themselves, they are often forced to leave to get "experience". I agree completely about cookie cutter technicians. I'm not even saying that there is a lower TCO one way or another (Something I think is impossible to qualitatively determine).
What I am trying to say is that no tech is "better" than another because they specialize is Sun, NT, Linux or whatever else. To compare a 14 year industry veteran who runs the unix boxes to a 3 year NT admin is never going to a fair comparison. You need to compare based on total experience. I would like to see some of these companies that are complaining about a lack of technicians do something about it.
PS, time to get the HR dept out of the hiring process.
Low-level NT techs are not much cheaper to hire, they generally got their MCSE from a 2 week cram course that did not cover Event Viewer,
Why are you hiring techs that went through a 2 week cram course? Would you hire a *nix tech who went through a 2 week cram course?
Low-level linux techs on the other hand are generally people who like to tinker with computers (that's why they got linux in the first place),
And people who are MS techs don't? Come on, what are you thinking? I think it is very safe to say that the/vast/ majority of *nix techs started out with MS. Certainly the vast majority of Linux techs. There are certainly a few technicians that have started out directly, with *nix. And chances are that they also started in the industry 15 years ago.
The last three MCSE's that our companies hired honestly did not know what Event Viewer was. Mind you, we are not one of the better paying industries, but...
Again, why are you hiring technicians that don't know something that basic? This is a problem with the hiring practices of the company. The company that is doing the hiring should do things like reference checks and their own skill tests.
The hidden cost of deploying NT is the cost of hiring unqualified people to maintain it.
Why are you hiring unqualified people? More to the point, if they are unqualified, and your paying them a salary consumerate with this fact, why aren't you training them? Why not train your own people internally? If your not paying a salary, work environment, and beneifts that are going to draw qualified technicians, that is nobodies fault but your companies. I don't care who you are, at one point/you/ too were also unqualified.
The sad truth is that our *nix department experiences better uptime by far, is better run, is better documented, and runs for less doing more.
Sounds like a management problem. When people don't document, or run things as well, this is a problem that only comes from the top. Documention is a skill and process, and has nothing what-so-ever to do with the OS at hand.
Our NT department always looks busy at least... when they're not over here asking us to take a look at something.
Are your techs more experienced than theirs? Do you have a better manager? If they are constantly reacting to problems, putting out fires, that is a managerial problem, and has nothing to do with the OS at hand.
I am not saying that MS is better than *nix, or that *nix sucks are any such thing. But comments like yours garner no sympathy at all. This is no different than buying a used packard bell and complain when it breaks. If your going to complain, complain about your companies hiring practices, training policies, and management. At least than you won't be calling the kettle black.
This is going to be marked as a troll, but it is not meant in that light
Can your mom use your system? Can she do more than browse the web with it? Does she know how to "just" add a printer, or install a NIC? How about that uncle who is a mechanic? When is the last time he recompiled the kernel without your help? The hard reality is that M$ gained mass acceptance through ease of usability and training costs (they maintained this through lot's of illegal practices of course). It's one of the most basic marketing lessons you learn. Have you tried to find a vcr w/o vcr+ lately?
Until usability becomes point and click (and I'm including kernel recompiles) GNU/Linux will not become a viable desktop replacement for 99% of users. Learning how to do something in one distro doesn't help much as others have different layouts. Effort should be exerted to "standardize" graphical methods of doing some things. Save the flames, I'm not talking about getting rid of command prompt. Just because geeks can use it (Linux, FreeBSD etc.) with ease does not mean other people can. If the community wants to give the masses an alternative to M$ they are going to have to address these issues. Geeks can worship Linux all day, but the masses have no reason to do so yet.
"The notion of copyright was not invented by artists to protect themselves from honest individuals sharing their enthusiasm about their work," he writes. "It was invented by artists to protect themselves from dishonest and hypocritical individuals and companies exploiting their work without their consent."
I couldn't put it better. It isn't the technology of Napster that is feared, it's the distribution channel.
Sounds like you supported Milosovic and his ethnic "cleansing". Tell me, do you also support the Nazi's "cleansing", how about Stalins or Chariman Mao's? Don't suppose you could name what international law was broken? Are nations supposed to stand by while innocents are slaughtered, or should they intervene? I know, we could bomb them with flowers and smiley faces. Maybe that would convince them to all love each other, and stop digging mass graves...
Funny, government was just cleared of that one today. Pick your choice of zeen's, you'll find it at at the top. Seems something about tapes of people inside talking about "lighting the fire" or some such influenced the judge.
"I" don't decide what is and isn't fair use. I think it needs to resolved with the input of the public, corps, libraries, music industry, and music lovers. As for giving Orrin Hatch "control" I haven't done that, Congress did. He is the one person who is more than capable of making things misreble for the RIAA, MPAA or the consumer. I just stated that I agreed with his idea. Do you want to be arrested for having a "backup" copy of a cd you own in your car? I'd rather "fair use" be defined before some overzelous cop decides to define it for me.
Do you work for the MPAA, RIAA, or Microsoft? Notice, large quantities of screen real estate being taken up by "nothing", serving no purpose, obstructing the view of useful material. Just curious. As for my stuff, anyone who can succeed in making a digital copy of my stereo, is more than welcome too.
Your basically right. They just changed the copy rights of music and such back to 75 years a few years ago. It seem certain English rock bands were having expring copyrights. As a result, there were people making their "own" version of popular music and selling it. This of course changed.
Now I think were looking at an all out war. Witness Windows Media Player 7. This is being "given" away. How generous of MS to do this. Do they really think people will shell out 15 bucks to download a cd when they could get the shiny package and disk for that? The management and distribution of rights and intellectual property is going to define how our society operates, quickly taking over "service" as the chief industry.
I think Orrin Hatch is right, we need legislation defining what is and isn't fair use. We also need practical limits of copyright lengths. Without this a few key players will have the ability to lock in and control critical parts of society. Do you really want to exist in a world where you have to pay a $200 "licensing" fee every month just to function? This is where things like microsoft.net come in. Recurring revenues, and license (no piracy) control, and marketing information. I agree 10 years should be an adequate length of time to profit off of your work before turning it over to the public domain.
The translation may or may not be on track. That doesn't matter though. You can't say that only "certain people" should get the benefits of open source software. People complain about people using MS products, well when these people are willing to look at other options, they sould not be criticized. If anything, people should be more willing to help these people. Saying that "they don't know *nix, why should i help them" is nothing more than elitism. Same thing on coding, do you think that only programmers should be able to ask questions and do research? Last I checked, most programmers write software that isn't used by programmers.
As for "giving your best damn software" for free, I believe that often/is/ the point. Especially where it concerns getting people off of M$ products. Give the guy a break, he's trying to break his Microsoft habit.
Seriously, how do they choose who gets what first, a lottery? You know there are going to be countless squatters ready with scripts to register anything in the english language in the first three hours. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that names are not simply auctioned or held on to by the domain registrars (network solutions come to mind?) instead of the public.
I apologize, I think I was harsher than I should have been. I certainly do not dispute your reasoning for avoiding SUV's yourself (I drive a Saturn). I also think cars like the new hybrid gas/electrics deserve a serious look by government, manufactures, and the public. My concern is that their are people who like to try to force such choices on others. I understand the fuel concerns, and wonder about a hybrid gas/electic SUV. If I remember correctly, Jeep has a prototype (based on the Cherokee) of just such a vehicle.
As for safety issues, that is a debate (larger vs smaller vs moose vs etc) that is quite up in the air as I understand it. From my understanding the primary reason SUV owners have higher insurance rates is the risk of rollovers. I have certainly passed many a SUV in the ditch or snowbank is my Saturn. This is due to a careless attitude that many people seem to develop when driving these vehicles. These vehicles are certainly/far/ more capable of handling bad conditions than my Saturn, but only if the driver knows how to use the vehicle. It would be my guess that it is the attitude of these drivers that is more bothersome to the majority of those who don't like SUV's than the gas mileage issue.
First off, I drive a Saturn SC2. As for Insurance companies charging SUV owners more for insurance, they already do. I do not think this is justified though. Larger vehicles like SUV's are far safer in an accident than a car like my Saturn. Typically most of the expense of an accident is not the car, but the medical bills. Larger car = less bodily damage = lower medical bills.
How do you define what a person needs? In the example of the soccer mom you gave, their are 3 types of alternatives.
1. The full size van, which is terrible for mileage.
2. The mini-van, these don't typically get much that much better mileage than a SUV. (24 MPG Villager, 20 MPG Exlorer) They also don't hold up well in accidents (personal experience).
3. The station wagon. These also don't tend to do that well in accidents. While they are better for mileage than they used to be, they have significant disadvantages.
Since mileage isn't that much better, it is often an issue of safety. And let's face it, most people are far more concerned about the occupants in their vehicle.
That leads to some of the advantages of the SUV, first it has more headroom, and more cargoroom. Second, it fares better in bad weather. I live in Minnesota, this can be a/significant/ issue. Third, it can go off road. We have some 12,000 lakes in Minnesota, and typically only the ones in the metro have paved roads.
My point is that you should not berate someone for the type of vehicle they drive. Chances are they picked it based on their needs and wants. It's a free country, this choice is for each person to make, not some special interest group. They pay the price (quite literally at the gas pump) for their choice. Nobody is better than someone else for the vehicle they drive.
Slashdot Mirror
The secrecy sorrounding the entire sordid affair needs to go to the wayside. If they have no dirty secrets to hide, they should willingly expose carnivores innards for review. Especially when viewed with their logic that only "criminals" need to be concerned about privacy.
Really? The FBI sure as hell interviews them, utilizes and implements what they have to say. They also interview, and occasionally hire people convicted of computer crime. Take the recent ex-disney exec for example. It often takes a crook to catch a crook. Knowing how a hacker /thinks/ is as important as modus operandi.
While I certainly agree with you that you that getting convicted of a serious crime demonstrates a profound lack of judgement, I think dismissing someone who was convicted of such out of hand also exhibits a profound lack of judgement. People complain that they don't want an ex-con working with them. So where do these people want ex-cons working? As Reagan put it, "trust, but verify". I'm not saying to go light on these people or the like, but take advantage of what they know. They'll be the first person to thank you for doing so.
Why do I think the poster is from Stream or a similar dirtbag outsourcer? Look at his stupid excuse:
Hate to dissapoint you, but I have not worked at this "stream" place of yours. You sound like a disgruntled employee that somehow connected an answer to industry sales and support policies to somehow relate to me. I'm sorry that you had a bad experience, but your attack was unneccasary and offtopic. Or were you denied support after calling in when you had an OS that was unsupported?
I have known several people over the years that work at outsourcing places, I even once worked at Wang. I understand the process they use on things quite well. I do not see how any of this relates to what I was talking about.
As for this "half baked double talk", it sounds like you don't have a lot of industry experience. So I'll fill you in on the status qou. If you start supporting a certain configuration that hasn't been advertised, people will find out about it. Once people start to find out about it, they can demand it. Computer companies have lost in court over this before. You cannot differentiate between different customers who /bought/ the same service contracts. You must provide them with the same level of service. This is one of the primary reasons that call support centers must keep permanent records of their calls.
As for contradicting myself, please keep in mind most companies aren't going to have a Red Hat waiting in the wings to take those Linux calls. Any tech worth his salt is going to test hardware under certain known conditions before he sends out a replacement. It's just a matter of having the support staff/expertise to know what those /known/ conditions are. I would imagine the Red Hat people do have their own standard test conditions that they use. I hope that clarifies things.
The second reason comes down to support costs. Yes, you might be able to get Linux, FreeBSD etc on a system, but Joe Shmoe sure as hell can't. At least not without some tech support. When he can't get his winmodem working under FreeBSD he's likely to demand a replacement. Having Windows on the computer allows the tech staff to test something under known standards.
Save the flames please. The cost to train an entire phone support staff on another OS is astronomical. I believe IBM spent several million dollars to get their staff ready for W2K. And they had the advantage of being familiar with NT 4. There is no carryover like that from a Windows OS to something like Linux. You have to know it well enough to walk someone else through troubleshooting it.
It is not uncommon to have people who have decided to load another OS onto their system to call tech support and lie about what OS is installed. It is usually glaringly obvious when this happens. This creates difficult situations, as you must deny someone support who just spent thousands of dollars on a computer. If you do go ahead and help them you will have created a precedent that could be legally binding to help out other people with that OS.
It's not about making money for MS, they are going to get theirs regardless. It's about support costs. The average computer maker will lose money if a customer has to call tech support 3 times in the life of the computer. This is why Compaq decided to start charging for tech support years ago. Like it or not, Linux is not ready for the mainstream of America (something I think is liked by most of the open source community to be perfectly honest).
As for charging more for a computer with a free OS, remember it's the support costs that your paying for. After all you can install Linux or whatnot on your own and not get the support costs. Most IT depts budget more over the lifetime of a desktop computer to support it than they do it for purchasing it. This is where the real expenses and profits are to be made. If I understand correctly Dell farms their Linux support out to Red Hat. That means those support calls are more than they would for an internal solution.
Hope this answers your question
The hardware you buy will in fact become obsolete before you can "give" it to your kids. Sorry to dissapoint you after that peptalk you from the local big box salesman about "that top end computer will last you for 5 years!"
Bad Mojo
This makes sense, it really does. Look at the following, and I think you'll see where I am coming from.
1. PR. The whole monopoly thing is starting to get to them. They face formal scrutiny in the US, Europe and India. If they do this, they can look and say "but we really do have competition". "We did a port at X number of millions of dollars to take advantage of this competitive market".
2. They are a business, something that a lot of people seem to forget. If they can make money on this up and coming OS (now that it is starting to break out of geekdom), why not? People seem to forget that they also make Office (and other products) for the Mac.
3. StarOffice. People use and buy Office (which is far more profitable for them than their OS's), because it is the defacto standard. Aside from a few die-hard types, it is accepted worldwide (except for China - different standard). StarOffice is being given away for free, and MS doesn't want people to get in the "habit" of using something else. Remember they considered Sun's intro into the browser market seriously enough to spend half a billion dollars (US DOJ figure) to combat it.
4. They need to show the world that they can play nice. MS settled the lawsuit with Mac based on a cash investment (non voting stock) and a willingness to make MS Office 98. Without MS Office 98 (pre iMac), it is was widely considered that Apple would have gone belly up. MS had more to risk by Apple going belly up than Apple did. Take Apple out of the picture at that time, and their would be no perceivable possible competition (Linux was not nearly as popular than, keep in mind.)
5. Market penetration. There are *nix shops that don't use MS. Once you port to Linux, it isn't that great of a leap to port to *nix. MS wants these markets, and this is a way to gain a foothold there. Regardless of what you think about the company, this would sell like crazy.
6. Microsoft.Net. This is another way to sell monthly licenses. Once people start to see some of the "features" that work with Office, they will want access to the rest of the features. It's the "collection" syndrome, people can't stand to know something is available, and they don't have it. Enough users start to demand features that would work with say, MS Exchange 2000, and management just might listen.
7. They are losing some customers to Linux. A lot of these people despise the MS OS's, but like the office suite. If they can see a familiar face in their new unfamiliar OS, many people would jump at the chance. I think that a significant number of the people who are former windows users would say that office is the 1 thing they miss most.
8. If they are building MSLinux (which they certainly could), this would be a way to get people to switch to "their" flavor of Linux. Make the desktop similiar to Windows, maintain the "look and feel" that someone who has used Windows knows, and they could easily become bigger than Redhat. They maintain their standards and control, and the masses would flock. Before you bash this statement, look at the first fundamental rule of marketing. Brand recognition is what counts. It is well established that the masses will flock to a brand that they know. Remember this would not be ported for the geeks that use Linux, this would be ported for the masses.
Well, the other side of it is that the Japanese have an affinity for management and control systems that's far more efficient than ours.
Actually it is ours, your referring to TQM (Total Quality Mangement). This was invented by an American who was scoffed at by various American manufactures (GM, Ford, General Electric, etc) for the ludicrous nature of the idea. He went to the Japanese with his idea and they took it hook line and sinker. This combined with the arrogance of our own manufacturing base (Ford Mustang designed to start leaking oil after 66 months comes to mind), is what enabled the Japanese to become such an international powerhouse. For those who are skeptical about the TQM bit, keep in mind they /fully/ integrated TQM at all levels with a commitment from management. Something (total commitment) American companies have sometimes painfully learned really was neccasary.
As for different depts running better, if yours is running better, good training and management are responsible for that as well, so compliment intended. If people want good techs, there is no reason they should not be able to grow and train their own. Nobody wants to invest in someone's training anymore it seems. When the employees finally take the steps to train themselves, they are often forced to leave to get "experience". I agree completely about cookie cutter technicians. I'm not even saying that there is a lower TCO one way or another (Something I think is impossible to qualitatively determine).
What I am trying to say is that no tech is "better" than another because they specialize is Sun, NT, Linux or whatever else. To compare a 14 year industry veteran who runs the unix boxes to a 3 year NT admin is never going to a fair comparison. You need to compare based on total experience. I would like to see some of these companies that are complaining about a lack of technicians do something about it.
PS, time to get the HR dept out of the hiring process.
Low-level NT techs are not much cheaper to hire, they generally got their MCSE from a 2 week cram course that did not cover Event Viewer,
Why are you hiring techs that went through a 2 week cram course? Would you hire a *nix tech who went through a 2 week cram course?Low-level linux techs on the other hand are generally people who like to tinker with computers (that's why they got linux in the first place),
And people who are MS techs don't? Come on, what are you thinking? I think it is very safe to say that the /vast/ majority of *nix techs started out with MS. Certainly the vast majority of Linux techs. There are certainly a few technicians that have started out directly, with *nix. And chances are that they also started in the industry 15 years ago.
The last three MCSE's that our companies hired honestly did not know what Event Viewer was. Mind you, we are not one of the better paying industries, but...
Again, why are you hiring technicians that don't know something that basic? This is a problem with the hiring practices of the company. The company that is doing the hiring should do things like reference checks and their own skill tests.The hidden cost of deploying NT is the cost of hiring unqualified people to maintain it.
Why are you hiring unqualified people? More to the point, if they are unqualified, and your paying them a salary consumerate with this fact, why aren't you training them? Why not train your own people internally? If your not paying a salary, work environment, and beneifts that are going to draw qualified technicians, that is nobodies fault but your companies. I don't care who you are, at one point /you/ too were also unqualified.
The sad truth is that our *nix department experiences better uptime by far, is better run, is better documented, and runs for less doing more.
Sounds like a management problem. When people don't document, or run things as well, this is a problem that only comes from the top. Documention is a skill and process, and has nothing what-so-ever to do with the OS at hand.
Our NT department always looks busy at least... when they're not over here asking us to take a look at something.
Are your techs more experienced than theirs? Do you have a better manager? If they are constantly reacting to problems, putting out fires, that is a managerial problem, and has nothing to do with the OS at hand.
I am not saying that MS is better than *nix, or that *nix sucks are any such thing. But comments like yours garner no sympathy at all. This is no different than buying a used packard bell and complain when it breaks. If your going to complain, complain about your companies hiring practices, training policies, and management. At least than you won't be calling the kettle black.
This is going to be marked as a troll, but it is not meant in that light
Can your mom use your system? Can she do more than browse the web with it? Does she know how to "just" add a printer, or install a NIC? How about that uncle who is a mechanic? When is the last time he recompiled the kernel without your help? The hard reality is that M$ gained mass acceptance through ease of usability and training costs (they maintained this through lot's of illegal practices of course). It's one of the most basic marketing lessons you learn. Have you tried to find a vcr w/o vcr+ lately?
Until usability becomes point and click (and I'm including kernel recompiles) GNU/Linux will not become a viable desktop replacement for 99% of users. Learning how to do something in one distro doesn't help much as others have different layouts. Effort should be exerted to "standardize" graphical methods of doing some things. Save the flames, I'm not talking about getting rid of command prompt. Just because geeks can use it (Linux, FreeBSD etc.) with ease does not mean other people can. If the community wants to give the masses an alternative to M$ they are going to have to address these issues. Geeks can worship Linux all day, but the masses have no reason to do so yet.
"The notion of copyright was not invented by artists to protect themselves from honest individuals sharing their enthusiasm about their work," he writes. "It was invented by artists to protect themselves from dishonest and hypocritical individuals and companies exploiting their work without their consent."
I couldn't put it better. It isn't the technology of Napster that is feared, it's the distribution channel.
New form of artificial intelligence. DNA evolves with useage. Computer refuses to run Windows and won't take input from user attached to keyboard.
only criminals need privacy!
I believe you forgot the "and anonymous cowards"Sounds like you supported Milosovic and his ethnic "cleansing". Tell me, do you also support the Nazi's "cleansing", how about Stalins or Chariman Mao's? Don't suppose you could name what international law was broken? Are nations supposed to stand by while innocents are slaughtered, or should they intervene? I know, we could bomb them with flowers and smiley faces. Maybe that would convince them to all love each other, and stop digging mass graves...
You don't mind if I open your mail at home then I take it?
Funny, government was just cleared of that one today. Pick your choice of zeen's, you'll find it at at the top. Seems something about tapes of people inside talking about "lighting the fire" or some such influenced the judge.
"I" don't decide what is and isn't fair use. I think it needs to resolved with the input of the public, corps, libraries, music industry, and music lovers. As for giving Orrin Hatch "control" I haven't done that, Congress did. He is the one person who is more than capable of making things misreble for the RIAA, MPAA or the consumer. I just stated that I agreed with his idea. Do you want to be arrested for having a "backup" copy of a cd you own in your car? I'd rather "fair use" be defined before some overzelous cop decides to define it for me.
Do you work for the MPAA, RIAA, or Microsoft? Notice, large quantities of screen real estate being taken up by "nothing", serving no purpose, obstructing the view of useful material. Just curious. As for my stuff, anyone who can succeed in making a digital copy of my stereo, is more than welcome too.
Now I think were looking at an all out war. Witness Windows Media Player 7. This is being "given" away. How generous of MS to do this. Do they really think people will shell out 15 bucks to download a cd when they could get the shiny package and disk for that? The management and distribution of rights and intellectual property is going to define how our society operates, quickly taking over "service" as the chief industry.
I think Orrin Hatch is right, we need legislation defining what is and isn't fair use. We also need practical limits of copyright lengths. Without this a few key players will have the ability to lock in and control critical parts of society. Do you really want to exist in a world where you have to pay a $200 "licensing" fee every month just to function? This is where things like microsoft.net come in. Recurring revenues, and license (no piracy) control, and marketing information. I agree 10 years should be an adequate length of time to profit off of your work before turning it over to the public domain.
As for "giving your best damn software" for free, I believe that often /is/ the point. Especially where it concerns getting people off of M$ products. Give the guy a break, he's trying to break his Microsoft habit.
Seriously, how do they choose who gets what first, a lottery? You know there are going to be countless squatters ready with scripts to register anything in the english language in the first three hours. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that names are not simply auctioned or held on to by the domain registrars (network solutions come to mind?) instead of the public.
As for safety issues, that is a debate (larger vs smaller vs moose vs etc) that is quite up in the air as I understand it. From my understanding the primary reason SUV owners have higher insurance rates is the risk of rollovers. I have certainly passed many a SUV in the ditch or snowbank is my Saturn. This is due to a careless attitude that many people seem to develop when driving these vehicles. These vehicles are certainly /far/ more capable of handling bad conditions than my Saturn, but only if the driver knows how to use the vehicle. It would be my guess that it is the attitude of these drivers that is more bothersome to the majority of those who don't like SUV's than the gas mileage issue.
How do you define what a person needs? In the example of the soccer mom you gave, their are 3 types of alternatives.
1. The full size van, which is terrible for mileage.
2. The mini-van, these don't typically get much that much better mileage than a SUV. (24 MPG Villager, 20 MPG Exlorer) They also don't hold up well in accidents (personal experience).
3. The station wagon. These also don't tend to do that well in accidents. While they are better for mileage than they used to be, they have significant disadvantages.
Since mileage isn't that much better, it is often an issue of safety. And let's face it, most people are far more concerned about the occupants in their vehicle.
That leads to some of the advantages of the SUV, first it has more headroom, and more cargoroom. Second, it fares better in bad weather. I live in Minnesota, this can be a /significant/ issue. Third, it can go off road. We have some 12,000 lakes in Minnesota, and typically only the ones in the metro have paved roads.
My point is that you should not berate someone for the type of vehicle they drive. Chances are they picked it based on their needs and wants. It's a free country, this choice is for each person to make, not some special interest group. They pay the price (quite literally at the gas pump) for their choice. Nobody is better than someone else for the vehicle they drive.