I got one thing to say to you buddy. Watch your back. Chewie might bite the big one, but that doesn't mean a big posse of pissed of Wookie's won't come looking for you and rip your arms off. And while they're at it, I hope they hang you on a hook so more wookies can come by and grab you for no reason other than wookie hunger.
We all know Chewie was one Bad Mother-Shut your mouth!
I have to say that my favorite aspect of this essay is the ABM/BTM (Anything But Microsoft/Better than Microsoft) attitude it points out. Microsoft is a company. They make products. People use them. Just because they are commercial and closed doesn't mean they do not offer viable solutions. Too often I see an entire group of intelligent, pro-Linux people become very obsessed with `fighting back' against MS. Why? Has Net/Open/Free-BSD had to turn MS into Satan in order to feel good about itself? When this is done, it makes Linux no better than OS/2 to quite a few people out there. Linux is good. OS is good. They work. They work very well. That alone is enough to ensure that Linux is taken seriously.
I guess if I could fix one thing that the article mentions, it's the anti-MS stumbling block that I see in front of us.
I am interested in starting a group that would publicly be a good contact point/web site/information warehouse for those who wish to be advocate of Linux, as well as a place for the press to get reliable, good information. If anyone wants to send me some e-mail about current advocacy sites/newsgroups/mailing lists, I would really appreciate it. I don't want to duplicate effort or step on toes here. If anyone is interested in this idea, shoot me some e-mail and we can discuss ideas on how to build an Open Source media force.
For every 100 or so pony-tails, there is a guy with short hair who wears a tie to work and knows his shit. He wants to keep America safe and still think the US Government is the most powerful ally he has to do it. It happens. They didn't think the hackers messing with his mainframe were funny. Everyone laughed at him. And now he's keeping cyber-terrorists at bay. Or so he thinks... Bad Mojo
Think more complex. Let's not limit this to `terrorists'. Small countries with gorilla(sp) militaries could use this in conjuction with conventional military strikes to maximize their effectiveness. You could knock out security systems or create havoc before entering a site you want to caputure or destroy. As people start to use computer based tools defensivly, their will be more and more offensive tools designed to overcome them.
As I read over the responses to this article, I find the two typical responses very funny. It seems some people shout "Don't get all worked up, nanotech is a long way off, but won't it be great?" Then others post, "You people aren't worked up enough, the implications of nanotech are horrible." Ahhh, the future. Won't it be nice and... middle of the road like it always is?;)
I have extensive knowledge of the IBM main lobby. I would NOT, I repeat, NOT go with a flame thrower. It would be a bit too tacky. Perhaps a water cooled 50" from out front of the lobby? It would really work with the glass and hanging wood structures. Really much nicer, especially if you ever record it and watch it in slow motion.
Just my advice when that whole software patent thing gets brought up next time. Good luck!
I recall my days of being seriously addicted to MUDs and MUSHes. Now THAT was addiction. People walked into the lab and said `Hey, want some crack?' And I'de say `Want some MUSH?' Two hours later they'de be all jacked up on MUSH. 4 hours a day sounds like a good, well rounded number for those people who aren't connected. 12... that's when addiction should be considered.
Perhaps the MS Instant Messenger sends default HTML encoded messages. These show up as attachments in other IM software and in general are just a pain. That would suck. Oh! Wait! It ALLREADY does suck!
All things being equal (which I know they are not), who cares if we teach evolution as fact or not? Does anyone KNOW how things ended up the way they are today? Sure, I beleive in natural selection, but evolution? I'm not totally convinced yet. It's got a lot of credability, but is it fact? Who knows?
I know there is an Open Source IM project out there. I wish I could recall the name. In any case I feel that AOL is unable to advance it's products technologically. MS has an agenda, and IBM is frankly... inept at this sort of thing.
An OS IM would mean anyone could have a client and anyone could integrate the IM into other OS applications. It would be nice. I say we find that IM OS Project and start to push it instead of clinging to ICQ or AIM.
The only way to save yourself from this is to try and seek out the jobs where you don't start in a bad position. The two things I run from are large company positions (where you fight existing methods and beurocratic policy) and small companies who are unwilling to let you actually change anything.
I recently started working for a Linux-centric company who had some serious security and maintenance issues. The solution was to start from scratch. Sure, it seems like a waste of time to them, but for my sake as an admin and theirs as a company, it was the best solution. It's a good place to work if you aren't fighting a company or put into poor situations.
You can't always pick the perfect job, but weighing that in advance can help keep you from watching your life get sucked into a job.
The article seems to state that Europe is trying to land a probe on a comet first in 2011. But the US is attempting it in 2005. Then they bring up the issue about the US always missing out on stuff. Last I checked, we landed a probe on Mars and if the 2005 comet landing works out, the US will have beat the 2011 landing. Maybe I just missed the point.
Ugh. Maybe lots of people like to be told their news but I have music to listen to! Plus, reading is so much cooler. Plus, I get to write back. The Linux Today mp3 broadcast works fine technically... but I felt like I was listening to CNET radio. A couple of sappy, happy, bubbly freaks telling me how `COOL' Linux is.
If there is one thing I've noticed about the Open Source/Linux movement, it's the ability to see us get close to the edge of some bad things and correct ourselves. OS/2 is notorious for having such a violently over-reactive following and we have begun to swing that was in the public light. Yet somehow, people stand up, see the errors, and remind us to suck it up and cut it out. We seem to be gifted with the ability to not only code around anyone else out there, but we also seem to think around them too. We second guess and anylize Microsofts posible strategies and examine opponents arguments with the same vigor and attitude that we scour each others code, looking for errors and better methods.
All in all, it's articles like these that confirm my belief that this `movement' is clearly self-correcting (as long as people care about it) and each person is just as capable of finding problems to fix as those who actually fix them.
1) The in-house software is closed-source. The enemy gets a hold of it and the source and use it. They violated the law. Too bad, go cry.
2) The in-house software is open-source. You don't sell or release it. The enemy gets a hold of it and the source and use it. They violated the law. Too-bad, go cry.
At least with option 2, when you decide to sell it to another company, they can actually fix it and keep using it when your company goes under. Adds a lot of incentive to buy it, doesn't it?
Upon first look, I wouldn't think most people would buy NT for mission critical enterprise class computing. But they do.
I've come to realize recently that while the typical person thinks the majority of the other people are rational, the majority of the other people aren't being rational at all.
Why do people read tabloids and watch Jerry Springer? Because if it's on the web, or TV and it's exciting enough, it's true.
I run a web page and even I get e-mail like that. And I don't even do anything offensive. I get e-mail telling me I suck, or that I'll go to hell. Blah blah blah. So who's to say that mindcraft isn't just posting their choice of e-mail to make it appear that Linux users hate them? I'm sure I could prove that people over 70 hate me by publishing just those hate mails about my disrespect for adults or something. Geesh.
If anything bothers me with this page, it's that the general public will swallow it, hook, line, sinker, and boat. Perhaps Mindcraft would like to publish ALL of their e-mail instead of being a typical information manipulator.
It seems this is another article that offers nothing to either side of the linux argument. Besides being vague to the point of using obtuse analogies, Metcalfe doesn't offer any reason why Linux really sucks. He is like a cow, eaitng grass, passing gas all day. (How's that for an analogy?)
Those who do not want Linux to win, will be silent. They will not help us by pointing out Linux's flaws. Those who want attention will either tout or slander Linux. These people are useless and should be ignored by all. Those who are proponents of Linux will point out flaws and nitpick, showing us where Linux needs attention, these people need to be heeded.
People have been making new people for quite some time now. The advent of a new way to create people should not surprise us. We humans are rather clever.
BUT! If we do create new people via cloning, I know it would be WRONG to not grant them the same level of rights as a normally created human. Would you create another person to harvest his organs? Would it matter if that person was cloned or born via natural pregnancy? It should not matter. I don't fear cloning. I fear the extreme abuse and reaction to it.
I am also not too keen on cloning human embryo's, then destroying them. I feel uneasy about it, while I do understand the reasons behind it.
This is a really good analogy to the overclocking situation. The reason engine manufacturers design their engines a certain way is similar to why processors are made. They aren't `slower' for no reason. Cylinder wall thinknesses and other things are designed in such a manner to make sure the optimum power is provided at the safest and most ecenomical level. Sure, you can bore out your cylinder walls, but when they get too thin and you ruin your engine, oh well.
If you don't know what you're doing, and you push too hard, you'll end up with a broken engine (or processor). Hence the saying... "You rush the miracle man, you get rotten miracles."
One of my largest concerns about this article is that it seems poised to force Publishers into making a certain type of software. Simple, un-complicated, SAFE software. Things that are technically close to perfect yet lacking in content and features. If you wanted to publish a fantastic piece of software, you would have to pay incredible amounts of money in making sure your coders wrote the whole thing, and they can fix everything, and that everything IS fixed. Suddenly anything as spiffy as Quake III Arena or Adobe Photoshop 5 has it's price tripled. And once it's out, forget about customer feedback. They met their requirement, you purchased it, end of story. Right now software publishers and developers have some vested interest in making the customer happy. But if the regulatory comittee is happy, why bother making the customer happy, right? I mean, the regulatory comittee represents the customer doesn't it? I feel like a regulatory would drive a wedge between customer and company that doesn't need to be there.
I have several other problems, but MAN! I have to stew on it more.
I get the feeling that this is the current paradigms method of trying to appear FREE when in fact, someone is footing a bill. In this situation you are being asked to pay with your time and attention just to get to something that the majority of the world may feel is worthwhile. Basically giving rich companies an even larger voice than they have with TV, Radio, etc.
It reminds me of the free long distance service in other countries where you have to stop and listen to an add every so many minutes of usage. Pain in the butt, but it gets used alot.
Personally, I think it's a waste of time for people. I would rather pay for OSS than get a crappy advertising vessel for free.
Slashdot Mirror
I got one thing to say to you buddy. Watch your back. Chewie might bite the big one, but that doesn't mean a big posse of pissed of Wookie's won't come looking for you and rip your arms off. And while they're at it, I hope they hang you on a hook so more wookies can come by and grab you for no reason other than wookie hunger.
We all know Chewie was one Bad Mother-Shut your mouth!
Bad Mojo
I have to say that my favorite aspect of this essay is the ABM/BTM (Anything But Microsoft/Better than Microsoft) attitude it points out. Microsoft is a company. They make products. People use them. Just because they are commercial and closed doesn't mean they do not offer viable solutions. Too often I see an entire group of intelligent, pro-Linux people become very obsessed with `fighting back' against MS. Why? Has Net/Open/Free-BSD had to turn MS into Satan in order to feel good about itself? When this is done, it makes Linux no better than OS/2 to quite a few people out there. Linux is good. OS is good. They work. They work very well. That alone is enough to ensure that Linux is taken seriously.
I guess if I could fix one thing that the article mentions, it's the anti-MS stumbling block that I see in front of us.
Bad Mojo
I am interested in starting a group that would publicly be a good contact point/web site/information warehouse for those who wish to be advocate of Linux, as well as a place for the press to get reliable, good information. If anyone wants to send me some e-mail about current advocacy sites/newsgroups/mailing lists, I would really appreciate it. I don't want to duplicate effort or step on toes here. If anyone is interested in this idea, shoot me some e-mail and we can discuss ideas on how to build an Open Source media force.
Bad Mojo
For every 100 or so pony-tails, there is a guy with short hair who wears a tie to work and knows his shit. He wants to keep America safe and still think the US Government is the most powerful ally he has to do it. It happens. They didn't think the hackers messing with his mainframe were funny. Everyone laughed at him. And now he's keeping cyber-terrorists at bay. Or so he thinks...
Bad Mojo
What does everyone think about an Open Source military? Can we do that? It might help us get more sway in the real world.
Bad Mojo
Think more complex. Let's not limit this to `terrorists'. Small countries with gorilla(sp) militaries could use this in conjuction with conventional military strikes to maximize their effectiveness. You could knock out security systems or create havoc before entering a site you want to caputure or destroy. As people start to use computer based tools defensivly, their will be more and more offensive tools designed to overcome them.
Bad Mojo
As I read over the responses to this article, I find the two typical responses very funny. It seems some people shout "Don't get all worked up, nanotech is a long way off, but won't it be great?" Then others post, "You people aren't worked up enough, the implications of nanotech are horrible." Ahhh, the future. Won't it be nice and ... middle of the road like it always is? ;)
Bad Mojo
I have extensive knowledge of the IBM main lobby. I would NOT, I repeat, NOT go with a flame thrower. It would be a bit too tacky. Perhaps a water cooled 50" from out front of the lobby? It would really work with the glass and hanging wood structures. Really much nicer, especially if you ever record it and watch it in slow motion.
Just my advice when that whole software patent thing gets brought up next time. Good luck!
Bad Mojo
4 hours? That's it? Hahahah!
... that's when addiction should be considered.
I recall my days of being seriously addicted to MUDs and MUSHes. Now THAT was addiction. People walked into the lab and said `Hey, want some crack?' And I'de say `Want some MUSH?' Two hours later they'de be all jacked up on MUSH. 4 hours a day sounds like a good, well rounded number for those people who aren't connected. 12
Perhaps the MS Instant Messenger sends default HTML encoded messages. These show up as attachments in other IM software and in general are just a pain. That would suck. Oh! Wait! It ALLREADY does suck!
All things being equal (which I know they are not), who cares if we teach evolution as fact or not? Does anyone KNOW how things ended up the way they are today? Sure, I beleive in natural selection, but evolution? I'm not totally convinced yet. It's got a lot of credability, but is it fact? Who knows?
I know there is an Open Source IM project out there. I wish I could recall the name. In any case I feel that AOL is unable to advance it's products technologically. MS has an agenda, and IBM is frankly ... inept at this sort of thing.
An OS IM would mean anyone could have a client and anyone could integrate the IM into other OS applications. It would be nice. I say we find that IM OS Project and start to push it instead of clinging to ICQ or AIM.
The only way to save yourself from this is to try and seek out the jobs where you don't start in a bad position. The two things I run from are large company positions (where you fight existing methods and beurocratic policy) and small companies who are unwilling to let you actually change anything.
I recently started working for a Linux-centric company who had some serious security and maintenance issues. The solution was to start from scratch. Sure, it seems like a waste of time to them, but for my sake as an admin and theirs as a company, it was the best solution. It's a good place to work if you aren't fighting a company or put into poor situations.
You can't always pick the perfect job, but weighing that in advance can help keep you from watching your life get sucked into a job.
The article seems to state that Europe is trying to land a probe on a comet first in 2011. But the US is attempting it in 2005. Then they bring up the issue about the US always missing out on stuff. Last I checked, we landed a probe on Mars and if the 2005 comet landing works out, the US will have beat the 2011 landing. Maybe I just missed the point.
Ugh. Maybe lots of people like to be told their news but I have music to listen to! Plus, reading is so much cooler. Plus, I get to write back. The Linux Today mp3 broadcast works fine technically ... but I felt like I was listening to CNET radio. A couple of sappy, happy, bubbly freaks telling me how `COOL' Linux is.
I don't need that CRAP! Sorry, just bothered.
If there is one thing I've noticed about the Open Source/Linux movement, it's the ability to see us get close to the edge of some bad things and correct ourselves. OS/2 is notorious for having such a violently over-reactive following and we have begun to swing that was in the public light. Yet somehow, people stand up, see the errors, and remind us to suck it up and cut it out. We seem to be gifted with the ability to not only code around anyone else out there, but we also seem to think around them too. We second guess and anylize Microsofts posible strategies and examine opponents arguments with the same vigor and attitude that we scour each others code, looking for errors and better methods.
All in all, it's articles like these that confirm my belief that this `movement' is clearly self-correcting (as long as people care about it) and each person is just as capable of finding problems to fix as those who actually fix them.
Be cool.
Party on.
We have to scenarios here...
1) The in-house software is closed-source. The enemy gets a hold of it and the source and use it. They violated the law. Too bad, go cry.
2) The in-house software is open-source. You don't sell or release it. The enemy gets a hold of it and the source and use it. They violated the law. Too-bad, go cry.
At least with option 2, when you decide to sell it to another company, they can actually fix it and keep using it when your company goes under. Adds a lot of incentive to buy it, doesn't it?
Hehehe.
Upon first look, I wouldn't think most people would buy NT for mission critical enterprise class computing. But they do.
I've come to realize recently that while the typical person thinks the majority of the other people are rational, the majority of the other people aren't being rational at all.
Why do people read tabloids and watch Jerry Springer? Because if it's on the web, or TV and it's exciting enough, it's true.
I hate that crap.
I run a web page and even I get e-mail like that. And I don't even do anything offensive. I get e-mail telling me I suck, or that I'll go to hell. Blah blah blah. So who's to say that mindcraft isn't just posting their choice of e-mail to make it appear that Linux users hate them? I'm sure I could prove that people over 70 hate me by publishing just those hate mails about my disrespect for adults or something. Geesh.
If anything bothers me with this page, it's that the general public will swallow it, hook, line, sinker, and boat. Perhaps Mindcraft would like to publish ALL of their e-mail instead of being a typical information manipulator.
It seems this is another article that offers nothing to either side of the linux argument. Besides being vague to the point of using obtuse analogies, Metcalfe doesn't offer any reason why Linux really sucks. He is like a cow, eaitng grass, passing gas all day. (How's that for an analogy?)
Those who do not want Linux to win, will be silent. They will not help us by pointing out Linux's flaws. Those who want attention will either tout or slander Linux. These people are useless and should be ignored by all. Those who are proponents of Linux will point out flaws and nitpick, showing us where Linux needs attention, these people need to be heeded.
People have been making new people for quite some time now. The advent of a new way to create people should not surprise us. We humans are rather clever.
BUT! If we do create new people via cloning, I know it would be WRONG to not grant them the same level of rights as a normally created human. Would you create another person to harvest his organs? Would it matter if that person was cloned or born via natural pregnancy? It should not matter. I don't fear cloning. I fear the extreme abuse and reaction to it.
I am also not too keen on cloning human embryo's, then destroying them. I feel uneasy about it, while I do understand the reasons behind it.
Be cool.
This is a really good analogy to the overclocking situation. The reason engine manufacturers design their engines a certain way is similar to why processors are made. They aren't `slower' for no reason. Cylinder wall thinknesses and other things are designed in such a manner to make sure the optimum power is provided at the safest and most ecenomical level. Sure, you can bore out your cylinder walls, but when they get too thin and you ruin your engine, oh well.
... "You rush the miracle man, you get rotten miracles."
If you don't know what you're doing, and you push too hard, you'll end up with a broken engine (or processor). Hence the saying
One of my largest concerns about this article is that it seems poised to force Publishers into making a certain type of software. Simple, un-complicated, SAFE software. Things that are technically close to perfect yet lacking in content and features. If you wanted to publish a fantastic piece of software, you would have to pay incredible amounts of money in making sure your coders wrote the whole thing, and they can fix everything, and that everything IS fixed. Suddenly anything as spiffy as Quake III Arena or Adobe Photoshop 5 has it's price tripled. And once it's out, forget about customer feedback. They met their requirement, you purchased it, end of story. Right now software publishers and developers have some vested interest in making the customer happy. But if the regulatory comittee is happy, why bother making the customer happy, right? I mean, the regulatory comittee represents the customer doesn't it? I feel like a regulatory would drive a wedge between customer and company that doesn't need to be there.
I have several other problems, but MAN! I have to stew on it more.
I get the feeling that this is the current paradigms method of trying to appear FREE when in fact, someone is footing a bill. In this situation you are being asked to pay with your time and attention just to get to something that the majority of the world may feel is worthwhile. Basically giving rich companies an even larger voice than they have with TV, Radio, etc.
It reminds me of the free long distance service in other countries where you have to stop and listen to an add every so many minutes of usage. Pain in the butt, but it gets used alot.
Personally, I think it's a waste of time for people. I would rather pay for OSS than get a crappy advertising vessel for free.
No, I didn't. Actually, it helped me think of the analogy. I can expect a bunch of robots to do it. But we're not robots ... are we?