Do NOT give a company any more than it needs to know to sell you a product. In the case of in internet based company, they need a name, credit card number (and expiration date), and address. That is IT. If they insist on getting more information, do business with a less intrusive company.
I'm not sure where this trend started, but this business of a company not only taking your money for a product/service, but also demanding personal information for marketing purposes is outragous. If a book from Amazon costs $30.00, that is all they are getting for it, I refuse pay them more by giving them valuable marketing info that they in turn can use as currency with another company.
So don't fill in false info or get around the "Bold means required" fields of an order form, simple take your business elsewhere, and make sure to inform them why you are taking your business elsewhere. If enough people refuse to hand over personal info, they will take a hint. Unfortunatly, people have been trained by these companies to fill out surveys every time they buy something.
By the way, while I can certainly see how you would have inferred from the author's phrasing that he thought Linux was created in '95, if you read carefully, you will see that another interpretation is possible: that Linux first started to reach a critical mass of popularity in '95. That's certainly consistent with my recollection.
I had actually thought of that too, but it sounds to me like he is using the date to suggest that linux is too "young and immature" to compete with the older OSs. If that is what he was getting at, the popularity is irrevelant.
I suppose it depends on your point of view with regards to "winning". If we are talking about winning on a corporate level, then yes, the "best" OS is the one with the best marketing.
However, when I think "winning" I equate that with providing choices to the consumer rather than the current "computer=windows" system. Even if all the Linux related businesses fail, Linux can still win by becoming a viable contender (which is has).
Arguably, there is no concept of "winning" and "losing" in OSS, just existing or not existing:)
offer "hack insurance" to companies that pass a strict audit.
What would this audit include? Exploits for both OSS and closed source software appear on a daily basis. Passing an audit today means nothing about your security tomorrow or next week. How does Lloyd's plan to ensure companies keep up with patches (or service packs for those dumb enough to trust that other OS's security)?
Also will there be an "approved" list of software and anything that doesn't appear on that list cannot be used in any way? I can see a certain large software company kicking enough money Lloyd's way to ensure its software is on the list and competitors are deemed "insecure".
There's a reason why the front windshild of cars are not allowed to be tinted. Imagine if I could drive around town and run over old ladies with there being no way for me to be discoverd?
Actually, it is all irrevelant when you consider that the author has NO complaints about Linux, only XWindows (the GUI) which was devloped completly seperate from and long before Linux.
I remain uncertain as to the link between age-consistancy-quality-and ease of use. He says nothing about it being too new.
From the article: Linux, on the other hand, pops up around 1995 after the GUI market had twelve years of development - and promptly reinvents the wheel and badly at that.
By this criteria Windows is the best program in the world, and Microsoft writes all the best software in the world.
MS has a huge commercial marketing team, plus they have been found to be an illegal monopoly using monopolistic practices to kill competiton. Perl is a free scripting language that gained ALL it's popularity by word of mouth between programmers. Apples and oranges.
True- please start distributing your Linux Kernal with all the modifications that Linus et al do not want
There is nothing stopping anyone from doing so. As you say the good projects do not have people branching off from them. They are GOOD projects. That is what makes OSS great, the best software wins, not the best marketing team.
I'd be beyond surprised if the author didn't realize that Xwindows is, in fact, not technically a part of Linux. It's OK to refer to a Linux distro as "Linux".
I understand that, but his complaints had nothing to do with anything BUT the GUI. No other componants of a "linux" system were mentioned. That, and he falsly suggested Linux's failings were a result of being so new. He somehow got the idea that Linux was created in 95 (1.1.72 was released that year), but linux's age has nothing to do with the GUI, which was created long before.
Xwindows is certainly one of the oldest GUIs on the market. It's also one of the crappiest out there, too. How long did it take to get anti-aliased fonts in Xwindows again? Why hasn't Xwindows, one of the longest-lived GUIs still in use today, far eclipsed the younger entries of the group? Can you think of a _single_ major modern GUI that doesn't surpass Xwindows?
For what it is mainly used for by home users? No. however, XWindows was written to be a client-server application. Do you know another GUI that lets you do that? I agree it's got problems, but thay have nothing to do with Linux OR open source, since XWindows is NOT an opensource development project. Their devlopment is done by a closed committee using a very restrictive license.
As you you complaint about how I dealt with his article. I feel he HAS ignorant. His conclusions were build on false pretences and incorrect assumptions. He DID have good points (I admitted that), but the sloppy research and factual errors (I felt) detracted from them.
The truth about Linux sysadmining on your own machine is that you don't have as much control as you think.
For the people 'playing' sysadmin with their home computers, you are right. However that is also how they learn.
For those who are responsible for servers and clusters, you are way off. The strength to these people is that they have both the knowhow, and the tools to completly customize their system to their needs. Linux is NOT just a hobby, it's used in production enviorments everywhere.
I've never had trouble finding software for my Mac, and there seem to be plenty of developers around.
That it great, but many have. And that is one of the main reasons for Mac's low market share, lack of software. There are not as many devlopers for Mac as there are for Windows and Linux.
It's not easy to use, and nearly every program has its own little way of doing things. Gnome and KDE may be pretty, but they don't address that fundamental problem.
What is the fundamental problem you speak of? That there isn't consistant interface? That is EXACTALLY what KDE and (to a lesser extent) GNOME address.
Perl may be powerful, but it is a very poor design.
I think the underlying problem here is the assumption that everything has to be simple and easy to be "good". Perl was DESIGNED to be powerful, the trade off us ease of use. You don't buy a S/390 to do word processing, so why use Perl if you want a simple, easy to learn/understand scripting language? Use VB if that is your need.
Xerox may have made the first vaguely-practical GUI system, but they couldn't market it worth a damn.
Neither could Apple, that is why Microsoft REALLY made the computer the household appliance it is today and nearly destroyed Apple in the process. Sure Mac has it's nitch and it's even making a pretty impressive comeback, but for all it's userfriendlyness and technical superiourity, it was beaten by Microsoft's marketing machine.
This guy really seems to have some deep anger towards critics of OSS
I do, when they use blatent false statements (Linus was the only one who wrote Linux, it wasn't reliased until 1995, commercial software is more customer driven, etc) as their basis for finding fault with it.
and the success of Apple
Please....
and while he makes one or two good points, they are overshadowed by his inaccurate claims.
That's a very humerous turnaround of my words, but humor aside, what innacurate claims did I make? Aside from correcting the author on his innacurate claims the only one I made that is questionable is about Mac not having many developers. By comparison to Windows and *nix, it doesn't.
Eric Raymond's comments at MacHack were wonderfully telling in several ways. He criticised Mac programmers for being too focussed on user interface and criticised MacOS for intertwining the UI with system functionality, making it harder for new programmers to get on board writing MacOS apps.
Well, maybe that is why there aren't that many devlopers for MAC. Maybe that is why there is such a small base of software for the MAC.
Linux has been around for five or six years.
Really, try to do some homework when writing articles.
Linux, on the other hand, pops up around 1995 after the GUI market had twelve years of development
That's right folk, the very first version of linux (version 1.1.76) was released in 1995.
The other serious mistake the author makes is somehow equating Linux as a GUI, then the GUI is xfree86. Ironically, X Windows is one of the oldest GUI's in existance, and the author is trying to make the point that it is too "new" to be mature and compete.
Perl itself is a testimony to the OpenSource mindset - it's a gruesome mishmash of inconsistent syntax and function calls - definitely a product designed by committee - but one wherein each member clearly wasn't listening to anyone else.
And yet it's one of the most popular OSS programs today. Not a very good example of OSS failing is it?
Raymond touts the stability of Linux as proof of the OpenSource concept, but that's a bit misleading. The core of Linux was written by one person - Linus Torvalds.
As if we needed more evidence that the author did no research in writing this article. Alan Cox and dozens of others would take exception to this insane statement.
If you check into each successful OpenSource project, you see the same thing: a small group of referees who filter the input and weed out the bad ideas. The bazaar has cops. The chaos is contained.
This truely is misleading, anyone can take a project and branch off of it is they feel the maintainer is not doing a good job.
See, when commercial developers create a product, they start by trying to solve a problem that customers need solved. The focus is always on the customer.
Really, who was the one who asked AOL to put piracy protection into Winamp? The customer? Did MS's customers ask that each version of Word contain an different and incompatible file format?
Sorry, but the focus is not on the customer, that is for the marketers to worry about. The focus is on making the company money, and that sometimes forgoing customer wishes in order to leverage market share.
See, when commercial developers create a product, they start by trying to solve a problem that customers need solved.
Like that pesky bug we call "compatibility". Microsoft has been trying to fix that one for years.
Apple has taken the fruit of the OpenSource movement - BSD Unix
Don't get me wrong, I love *BSD, but what qualifies it as the fruit of OSS? I would put Apache or Linux in that slot, hell Perl has more of a claim to that title.
This same 'elitism' is what pulled us into a GUI based world of computing.
I believe Xerox was the one who did that. You "elitism" is showing simply by insuating that Apple invented the GUI.
This guy really seems to have some deep anger towards OSS and the success of Linux, and while he makes one or two good points, they are overshadowed by his inaccurate claims.
Bowie, for every one open source developer that gives into greed, or sells out, or whatever you predict happens, there will be several more to replace him/her. The movement is growing, not just on the corporate end of things, every time I turn around there is another OSS project begining. Yes, many of them will fail and disappear, but with all the devlopers moving to Linux daily, how can you begin predicting the end while everything is growing?
If Linux fails COMPLETLY on the commerical front, who cares? RHAT, LNUX, Corel, they cal all disappear and it wouldn't affect the community that much. We already have a usable base of software and many of us have invested years of "fun" into devloping programs for Linux, those people wont stop.
Perhaps I get a little riled up when people judge Linux's success and future by corporate standards, but let's face it, we were here before the Linux commercialism and we will be here after it. I personally could care less about how Linux stocks are doing, I care about how my server is doing. That's MY movitation, and many others like me. If you believe that OSS will die if the corporate support vanishes, then you must not realise that OSS existed before RedHat and VA.
You know, I always remember the alians in the Mos Eisly Catana to be much more 'real' looking than the ones in the last film. Even though they were just people wearing corny costumes, they still 'acted' like real people gave a 'real' presence. Computer generated alians may look accurate, but they still don't 'move' convincingly or act alive.
I don't know why, but they way you wrote p-p-p-lease made it sounds like roger rabit was saying it when I read it:) Now THERE was an annoying animated character, imagine how much worse (or perhaps better) E1 would be with him in place of Jar Jar?
You hit it right on the mark for me also. The 'old' (as in episode 4-6) just looked more 'real'. You believed that these beat up, used ships really worked and the technology surrounding them was just a given. The story worked because the people acted like real people around what was normal technology for them.
The first starwars trilogy is the only SCI-FI I've seen (well, maybe Dune) that really looks believable. A lot had to do with the fact that every piece of new technology wasn't shiney and brand new.
The new special effects just look to perfect, and thus, fake.
That must be a huge blow to them, who are used to being able to dictate to people what they would use and what standards would be supported. Imagine their fear that they are losing that control and must actually play nice with other operating systems and programs.
Slashdot Mirror
Do NOT give a company any more than it needs to know to sell you a product. In the case of in internet based company, they need a name, credit card number (and expiration date), and address. That is IT. If they insist on getting more information, do business with a less intrusive company.
I'm not sure where this trend started, but this business of a company not only taking your money for a product/service, but also demanding personal information for marketing purposes is outragous. If a book from Amazon costs $30.00, that is all they are getting for it, I refuse pay them more by giving them valuable marketing info that they in turn can use as currency with another company.
So don't fill in false info or get around the "Bold means required" fields of an order form, simple take your business elsewhere, and make sure to inform them why you are taking your business elsewhere. If enough people refuse to hand over personal info, they will take a hint. Unfortunatly, people have been trained by these companies to fill out surveys every time they buy something.
Finkployd
By the way, while I can certainly see how you would have inferred from the author's phrasing that he thought Linux was created in '95, if you read carefully, you will see that another interpretation is possible: that Linux first started to reach a critical mass of popularity in '95. That's certainly consistent with my recollection.
I had actually thought of that too, but it sounds to me like he is using the date to suggest that linux is too "young and immature" to compete with the older OSs. If that is what he was getting at, the popularity is irrevelant.
Finkployd
I suppose it depends on your point of view with regards to "winning". If we are talking about winning on a corporate level, then yes, the "best" OS is the one with the best marketing.
:)
However, when I think "winning" I equate that with providing choices to the consumer rather than the current "computer=windows" system. Even if all the Linux related businesses fail, Linux can still win by becoming a viable contender (which is has).
Arguably, there is no concept of "winning" and "losing" in OSS, just existing or not existing
Finkployd
He's arguing against OSS, not Linux.
Assuming that's the case, he probably shouldn't have used Linux in every paragraph and focus on it almost primarily.
Finkployd
offer "hack insurance" to companies that pass a strict audit.
What would this audit include? Exploits for both OSS and closed source software appear on a daily basis. Passing an audit today means nothing about your security tomorrow or next week. How does Lloyd's plan to ensure companies keep up with patches (or service packs for those dumb enough to trust that other OS's security)?
Also will there be an "approved" list of software and anything that doesn't appear on that list cannot be used in any way? I can see a certain large software company kicking enough money Lloyd's way to ensure its software is on the list and competitors are deemed "insecure".
Finkployd
There's a reason why the front windshild of cars are not allowed to be tinted. Imagine if I could drive around town and run over old ladies with there being no way for me to be discoverd?
A. That law varies state to state.
B. License plate anyone?
Finkployd
Actually, it is all irrevelant when you consider that the author has NO complaints about Linux, only XWindows (the GUI) which was devloped completly seperate from and long before Linux.
Finkployd
I remain uncertain as to the link between age-consistancy-quality-and ease of use. He says nothing about it being too new.
From the article:
Linux, on the other hand, pops up around 1995 after the GUI market had twelve years of development - and promptly reinvents the wheel and badly at that.
By this criteria Windows is the best program in the world, and Microsoft writes all the best software in the world.
MS has a huge commercial marketing team, plus they have been found to be an illegal monopoly using monopolistic practices to kill competiton.
Perl is a free scripting language that gained ALL it's popularity by word of mouth between programmers. Apples and oranges.
True- please start distributing your Linux Kernal with all the modifications that Linus et al do not want
There is nothing stopping anyone from doing so. As you say the good projects do not have people branching off from them. They are GOOD projects. That is what makes OSS great, the best software wins, not the best marketing team.
Finkployd
I'd be beyond surprised if the author didn't realize that Xwindows is, in fact, not technically a part of Linux. It's OK to refer to a Linux distro as "Linux".
I understand that, but his complaints had nothing to do with anything BUT the GUI. No other componants of a "linux" system were mentioned.
That, and he falsly suggested Linux's failings were a result of being so new. He somehow got the idea that Linux was created in 95 (1.1.72 was released that year), but linux's age has nothing to do with the GUI, which was created long before.
Xwindows is certainly one of the oldest GUIs on the market. It's also one of the crappiest out there, too. How long did it take to get anti-aliased fonts in Xwindows again? Why hasn't Xwindows, one of the longest-lived GUIs still in use today, far eclipsed the younger entries of the group? Can you think of a _single_ major modern GUI that doesn't surpass Xwindows?
For what it is mainly used for by home users? No. however, XWindows was written to be a client-server application. Do you know another GUI that lets you do that?
I agree it's got problems, but thay have nothing to do with Linux OR open source, since XWindows is NOT an opensource development project. Their devlopment is done by a closed committee using a very restrictive license.
As you you complaint about how I dealt with his article. I feel he HAS ignorant. His conclusions were build on false pretences and incorrect assumptions. He DID have good points (I admitted that), but the sloppy research and factual errors (I felt) detracted from them.
Finkployd
The truth about Linux sysadmining on your own machine is that you don't have as much control as you think.
For the people 'playing' sysadmin with their home computers, you are right. However that is also how they learn.
For those who are responsible for servers and clusters, you are way off. The strength to these people is that they have both the knowhow, and the tools to completly customize their system to their needs. Linux is NOT just a hobby, it's used in production enviorments everywhere.
Finkployd
I've never had trouble finding software for my Mac, and there seem to be plenty of developers around.
That it great, but many have. And that is one of the main reasons for Mac's low market share, lack of software. There are not as many devlopers for Mac as there are for Windows and Linux.
It's not easy to use, and nearly every program has its own little way of doing things. Gnome and KDE may be pretty, but they don't address that fundamental problem.
What is the fundamental problem you speak of? That there isn't consistant interface? That is EXACTALLY what KDE and (to a lesser extent) GNOME address.
Perl may be powerful, but it is a very poor design.
I think the underlying problem here is the assumption that everything has to be simple and easy to be "good". Perl was DESIGNED to be powerful, the trade off us ease of use. You don't buy a S/390 to do word processing, so why use Perl if you want a simple, easy to learn/understand scripting language? Use VB if that is your need.
Xerox may have made the first vaguely-practical GUI system, but they couldn't market it worth a damn.
Neither could Apple, that is why Microsoft REALLY made the computer the household appliance it is today and nearly destroyed Apple in the process. Sure Mac has it's nitch and it's even making a pretty impressive comeback, but for all it's userfriendlyness and technical superiourity, it was beaten by Microsoft's marketing machine.
This guy really seems to have some deep anger towards critics of OSS
I do, when they use blatent false statements (Linus was the only one who wrote Linux, it wasn't reliased until 1995, commercial software is more customer driven, etc) as their basis for finding fault with it.
and the success of Apple
Please....
and while he makes one or two good points, they are overshadowed by his inaccurate claims.
That's a very humerous turnaround of my words, but humor aside, what innacurate claims did I make? Aside from correcting the author on his innacurate claims the only one I made that is questionable is about Mac not having many developers. By comparison to Windows and *nix, it doesn't.
Finkployd
Eric Raymond's comments at MacHack were wonderfully telling in several ways. He criticised Mac programmers for being too focussed on user interface and criticised MacOS for intertwining the UI with system functionality, making it harder for new programmers to get on board writing MacOS apps.
Well, maybe that is why there aren't that many devlopers for MAC. Maybe that is why there is such a small base of software for the MAC.
Linux has been around for five or six years.
Really, try to do some homework when writing articles.
Linux, on the other hand, pops up around 1995 after the GUI market had twelve years of development
That's right folk, the very first version of linux (version 1.1.76) was released in 1995.
The other serious mistake the author makes is somehow equating Linux as a GUI, then the GUI is xfree86. Ironically, X Windows is one of the oldest GUI's in existance, and the author is trying to make the point that it is too "new" to be mature and compete.
Perl itself is a testimony to the OpenSource mindset - it's a gruesome mishmash of inconsistent syntax and function calls - definitely a product designed by committee - but one wherein each member clearly wasn't listening to anyone else.
And yet it's one of the most popular OSS programs today. Not a very good example of OSS failing is it?
Raymond touts the stability of Linux as proof of the OpenSource concept, but that's a bit misleading. The core of Linux was written by one person - Linus Torvalds.
As if we needed more evidence that the author did no research in writing this article. Alan Cox and dozens of others would take exception to this insane statement.
If you check into each successful OpenSource project, you see the same thing: a small group of referees who filter the input and weed out the bad ideas. The bazaar has cops. The chaos is contained.
This truely is misleading, anyone can take a project and branch off of it is they feel the maintainer is not doing a good job.
See, when commercial developers create a product, they start by trying to solve a problem that customers need solved. The focus is always on the customer.
Really, who was the one who asked AOL to put piracy protection into Winamp? The customer? Did MS's customers ask that each version of Word contain an different and incompatible file format?
Sorry, but the focus is not on the customer, that is for the marketers to worry about. The focus is on making the company money, and that sometimes forgoing customer wishes in order to leverage market share.
See, when commercial developers create a product, they start by trying to solve a problem that customers need solved.
Like that pesky bug we call "compatibility". Microsoft has been trying to fix that one for years.
Apple has taken the fruit of the OpenSource movement - BSD Unix
Don't get me wrong, I love *BSD, but what qualifies it as the fruit of OSS? I would put Apache or Linux in that slot, hell Perl has more of a claim to that title.
This same 'elitism' is what pulled us into a GUI based world of computing.
I believe Xerox was the one who did that. You "elitism" is showing simply by insuating that Apple invented the GUI.
This guy really seems to have some deep anger towards OSS and the success of Linux, and while he makes one or two good points, they are overshadowed by his inaccurate claims.
Finkployd
Bowie, for every one open source developer that gives into greed, or sells out, or whatever you predict happens, there will be several more to replace him/her. The movement is growing, not just on the corporate end of things, every time I turn around there is another OSS project begining. Yes, many of them will fail and disappear, but with all the devlopers moving to Linux daily, how can you begin predicting the end while everything is growing?
If Linux fails COMPLETLY on the commerical front, who cares? RHAT, LNUX, Corel, they cal all disappear and it wouldn't affect the community that much. We already have a usable base of software and many of us have invested years of "fun" into devloping programs for Linux, those people wont stop.
Perhaps I get a little riled up when people judge Linux's success and future by corporate standards, but let's face it, we were here before the Linux commercialism and we will be here after it. I personally could care less about how Linux stocks are doing, I care about how my server is doing. That's MY movitation, and many others like me. If you believe that OSS will die if the corporate support vanishes, then you must not realise that OSS existed before RedHat and VA.
Finkployd
so what would happen if you really pissed her off
:)
Same thing she always does. Kill people.
Finkployd
Oh god, I hope this doesn't mean DSharpe is going to start posting on slashdot :)
:)
If you know what I'm talking about, you spent too much time on amp-f years ago
Finkployd
I like:
"They call me the king of the spreadsheets, gottem all printed out on my bedsheets
Just provides some wierd mental imagery.
Finkployd
The thought that tomorrow's kids could be created as perfect, attractive, genious, and physically superior scares the crap out of me.
Imagine how we will look by comparison.
Finkployd
You know, I always remember the alians in the Mos Eisly Catana to be much more 'real' looking than the ones in the last film. Even though they were just people wearing corny costumes, they still 'acted' like real people gave a 'real' presence. Computer generated alians may look accurate, but they still don't 'move' convincingly or act alive.
Finkployd
"Information Superhighway Collides with Real Highway"
Finkployd
I'll be able to watch 16 different MST3K episodes at the same time!!!
Finkployd
P-P-Please .... NO JAR JAR!
:)
I don't know why, but they way you wrote p-p-p-lease made it sounds like roger rabit was saying it when I read it
Now THERE was an annoying animated character, imagine how much worse (or perhaps better) E1 would be with him in place of Jar Jar?
Finkployd
You hit it right on the mark for me also. The 'old' (as in episode 4-6) just looked more 'real'. You believed that these beat up, used ships really worked and the technology surrounding them was just a given. The story worked because the people acted like real people around what was normal technology for them.
The first starwars trilogy is the only SCI-FI I've seen (well, maybe Dune) that really looks believable. A lot had to do with the fact that every piece of new technology wasn't shiney and brand new.
The new special effects just look to perfect, and thus, fake.
Finkployd
No, they just doctor video tapes for court evidence :)
Finkployd
No, Gates only wants towell boys who know that humans are primates :)
Finkployd
That must be a huge blow to them, who are used to being able to dictate to people what they would use and what standards would be supported. Imagine their fear that they are losing that control and must actually play nice with other operating systems and programs.
Finkployd