From the little bit of info in this Ask Slashdot question, it is
not clear why you are so focused on Dell. Have you already ruled out
other vendors?
Consider VA Linux or Cobalt. I bet they edge out Dell on TCO for
servers.
It seems that the only reason left to go with like Dell is
to pay relatively less money for the standard MSFT desktop
lock-in. Even there, I can say that their budget machines are a
bit crappy--oh well, at least a good match for the software
qualitywise.
And since you are considering a free software solution, you should pick
a more neutral vendor. In any context in which MSFT and free software are
being compared, Dell routinely implies that free software cannot hold a candle
to MSFT. The only time Dell does not badmouth free software is when it thinks
it cannot sell proprietary solutions.
In short, the best thing to do with the has-been DELL is to sell
them short, just like everybody else on Wall Street is doing right now.
And to people saying Windows 2000 crashes for them, your either doing something wrong, or your installing "crap" (i.e.
netscape, realplayer, etc.).
This not only makes me even more suspect of Win2K brain damage but also ruined what otherwise would have been a plausible comment--deserves no more than a zero for irresponsibility.
Agreed. But it was not the instability
and the unreliability of proprietary software that drove me to
GNU/Linux, but the fact that I could not modify it. You do not
have to be a geek to feel this way either: I did not even know
how to modify MacOS even if it was possible; but there is an
obvious hopelessness there that GNU/Linux is totally free of.
Yep, I bailed on Apple (MS was not even in the running)
and went to GNU--even though I knew little about it.
...is that MSWindows2000 is controlled by a monopolistic company located at the address 1 Microsoft Way in Redmond, WA, whereas Linux is controlled by its community of users and developers.
Now even those who do not mind being spoonfed by a single company must realize that greater technical merit will be found on the side of something such as GNU/Linux, and that this imbalance will only increase over time.
Even this corrupt corporation admitted as much in its leaked "Halloween" memo.
...here on the planet earth people have seen that MSFT has
this thing called a track record. Check into it sometime,
and you will learn not to trust them, too.
Good grief--you drone on about intelligibility and a half dozen other points all inside one paragraph! Is that a formatting problem? In any case it hardly speaks for your own intelligibility.
It seems to me that you are in part criticizing people that do not share your priorities.
For example, would you be content with proprietary software, or would you desire a free equivalent? Suppose RMS or Linus had been content. Where would that leave us?
Fortunately, not everyone believes in the kind of success at all costs as espoused by "well-run" companies such as Microsoft.
Reality Master 101 is a certified MS astroturfer
on
TurboLinux Layoffs
·
· Score: 1
I've never heard anyone use the word Microsoft as a generic term for software. And I suspect you haven't either. The idea is absurd.
All you ever do is apologize for Microsoft. How lame. Anyway, I hear people use "Microsoft" as a generic term for software all the time. Haven't you ever heard people say "Xerox" as a generic term for copy? Anyway, you are either lying or must not get out much.
Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as ``piracy.'' In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnaping and murdering the people on them.
If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnaping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word ``piracy'' to describe it. Neutral terms such as ``prohibited copying'' or ``unauthorized copying'' are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as ``sharing information with your neighbor.''
No, I do not copy illegally or advocate such (nor does RMS, BTW). But I resent the insidious implication that publishers are getting away with here--even Linus uses the term! This is just one more reason to boycott even beyond MSFT.
ESR talked to Thompson later on about this issue. I believe Thompson later backed down somewhat from this opinion. Sorry, I do not have any references on hand.
Meyer is hoping people will take his presentation as the last word.
Think about it: if civil disobediance is not breaking the law, then how do these people end up in jail?
Anyway, your position is the tired, old "I cannot attack any of RMS's substantive points, so instead I'll pull the classic take-him-out-of-context and nitpick an ethical dilemma he raises.
First, it is worthwhile to check on GNU's web site what their take on "piracy" is:
Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as ``piracy.'' In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnaping and murdering the people on them.
If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnaping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word ``piracy'' to describe it. Neutral terms such as ``prohibited copying'' or ``unauthorized copying'' are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as ``sharing information with your neighbor.''
Second, let us refer back to the original dilemma to show how Archie Bunker is taking RMS out of context. Now, Archie, if you are really so concerned about what RMS says, you will not mind this exerpt from the GNU web site:
As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary (18k characters) program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and this means saying ``No'' to proprietary software.
Clearly, RMS is not telling anyone to steal; instead, he asks, why put yourself in the dilemma in the first place? You lose, Archie, just like on TV.
I was considering your sentiment about how "fortunately" the world is not made up of the black and white represented by Meyer and RMS.
Maybe "compare" was not the right word, but I think we should still be careful: RMS seems to care not at all about being diplomatic. That is often mistaken for "extremism" that many of us successfully avoid the appearance of having by virtue of our own diplomacy. For myself RMS is a forceful advocate for freedom. Considering the many abuses in history that have resulted from missing freedoms, I think it is unfortunate that more people are not like RMS in that respect.
RMS's problem is that he is too honest, immediately getting to the heart of the matter and cutting no corners. You can feel the raw indignation, and no honest person could deny that considering the consequences of freedom can be uncomfortable. No wonder he irritates so many. Most people do not have this problem of being too honest.
Contrast this with, say, Bill Clinton, who probably could convince almost anyone of anything, and make them feel great in the process.
When I am looking for a reason why I use free software, a lukewarm view toward freedom such as this article fails to scare -- better leave that to MSFT's Chief Software Architect.
ObMSFT: Meyer's little point about MSFT is amusing:
9. For Microsoft, whose unique position in the community creates unique responsibilities: promote a more open attitude towards the rest of the world; open up; be less mean. You can afford to be.
Trusting MSFT to behave? At least Meyer has a sense of humor.
"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money it values more, it will lose that, too." -- W. Somerset Maugham
Second Point: reverse... It is not that simple. Consider the response, the implications of a monopoly that has been found guilty of market manipulation and monopolistic abuse, that holds the law in such contempt that it continues to attempt to subvert standards towards its own monopolistic ends and arrogantly attacks anyone who tries to stop them. _Of course_, it matters that it is MSFT here. If it were O'Reilly, who cares? Who are they, anyway? The global monopolies are a richer ground here. What a brilliant response, I say--full of heart and soul, too.
I agree that graphical browsing, like TV, is great, but only because other people may like them. You have got a good theory there, but the practice so far stinks. (Wasn't TV supposed to be great, too?)
Personally, I'll stick to a text-mode browser (that is capable of displaying images on demand, BTW) for the same reason that I'll avoid the boob tube--I want the steak not the sizzle.
Slashdot Mirror
I have relinquished my freedom...
Sorry, but you are wrong here. Consider all those who choose to "dual license" their product under GPL and something else.
From the little bit of info in this Ask Slashdot question, it is not clear why you are so focused on Dell. Have you already ruled out other vendors?
Consider VA Linux or Cobalt. I bet they edge out Dell on TCO for servers.
It seems that the only reason left to go with like Dell is to pay relatively less money for the standard MSFT desktop lock-in. Even there, I can say that their budget machines are a bit crappy--oh well, at least a good match for the software qualitywise.
And since you are considering a free software solution, you should pick a more neutral vendor. In any context in which MSFT and free software are being compared, Dell routinely implies that free software cannot hold a candle to MSFT. The only time Dell does not badmouth free software is when it thinks it cannot sell proprietary solutions.
In short, the best thing to do with the has-been DELL is to sell them short, just like everybody else on Wall Street is doing right now.
Please moderate that up to 5, Informative!! eom
And to people saying Windows 2000 crashes for them, your either doing something wrong, or your installing "crap" (i.e. netscape, realplayer, etc.).
This not only makes me even more suspect of Win2K brain damage but also ruined what otherwise would have been a plausible comment--deserves no more than a zero for irresponsibility.
Agreed. But it was not the instability
and the unreliability of proprietary software that drove me to
GNU/Linux, but the fact that I could not modify it. You do not
have to be a geek to feel this way either: I did not even know
how to modify MacOS even if it was possible; but there is an
obvious hopelessness there that GNU/Linux is totally free of.
Yep, I bailed on Apple (MS was not even in the running)
and went to GNU--even though I knew little about it.
...is that MSWindows2000 is controlled by a monopolistic company located at the address 1 Microsoft Way in Redmond, WA, whereas Linux is controlled by its community of users and developers.
Now even those who do not mind being spoonfed by a single company must realize that greater technical merit will be found on the side of something such as GNU/Linux, and that this imbalance will only increase over time.
Even this corrupt corporation admitted as much in its leaked "Halloween" memo.
...here on the planet earth people have seen that MSFT has this thing called a track record. Check into it sometime, and you will learn not to trust them, too.
...MSFT shareholder? :)
Should not "Bad" be his middle name? :^P
Good grief--you drone on about intelligibility and a half dozen other points all inside one paragraph! Is that a formatting problem? In any case it hardly speaks for your own intelligibility.
It seems to me that you are in part criticizing people that do not share your priorities.
For example, would you be content with proprietary software, or would you desire a free equivalent? Suppose RMS or Linus had been content. Where would that leave us?
Fortunately, not everyone believes in the kind of success at all costs as espoused by "well-run" companies such as Microsoft.
I've never heard anyone use the word Microsoft as a generic term for software. And I suspect you haven't either. The idea is absurd.
All you ever do is apologize for Microsoft. How lame. Anyway, I hear people use "Microsoft" as a generic term for software all the time. Haven't you ever heard people say "Xerox" as a generic term for copy? Anyway, you are either lying or must not get out much.
Taken from the GNU website:
No, I do not copy illegally or advocate such (nor does RMS, BTW). But I resent the insidious implication that publishers are getting away with here--even Linus uses the term! This is just one more reason to boycott even beyond MSFT.
ESR talked to Thompson later on about this issue. I believe Thompson later backed down somewhat from this opinion. Sorry, I do not have any references on hand.
Meyer is hoping people will take his presentation as the last word.
Think about it: if civil disobediance is not breaking the law, then how do these people end up in jail?
Anyway, your position is the tired, old "I cannot attack any of RMS's substantive points, so instead I'll pull the classic take-him-out-of-context and nitpick an ethical dilemma he raises.
First, it is worthwhile to check on GNU's web site what their take on "piracy" is:
Second, let us refer back to the original dilemma to show how Archie Bunker is taking RMS out of context. Now, Archie, if you are really so concerned about what RMS says, you will not mind this exerpt from the GNU web site:
Clearly, RMS is not telling anyone to steal; instead, he asks, why put yourself in the dilemma in the first place? You lose, Archie, just like on TV.
And what if everyone who practiced civil disobediance, breaking the law to get arrested, instead felt the way you do?
We would end up with a place Archie Bunker would be proud of. Give it up.
I was considering your sentiment about how "fortunately" the world is not made up of the black and white represented by Meyer and RMS.
Maybe "compare" was not the right word, but I think we should still be careful: RMS seems to care not at all about being diplomatic. That is often mistaken for "extremism" that many of us successfully avoid the appearance of having by virtue of our own diplomacy. For myself RMS is a forceful advocate for freedom. Considering the many abuses in history that have resulted from missing freedoms, I think it is unfortunate that more people are not like RMS in that respect.
Sorry for not being clearer earlier.
Be careful comparing RMS to Meyer.
Where does RMS engage in ad hominem attacks against individuals? I have never seen it.
So RMS thinks its alright to break laws because he doesn't like them?
So, All Knowing One, are all laws perfect in your country?
RMS's problem is that he is too honest, immediately getting to the heart of the matter and cutting no corners. You can feel the raw indignation, and no honest person could deny that considering the consequences of freedom can be uncomfortable. No wonder he irritates so many. Most people do not have this problem of being too honest.
Contrast this with, say, Bill Clinton, who probably could convince almost anyone of anything, and make them feel great in the process.
Thus, RMS is an easy target for Meyer.
When I am looking for a reason why I use free software, a lukewarm view toward freedom such as this article fails to scare -- better leave that to MSFT's Chief Software Architect.
ObMSFT: Meyer's little point about MSFT is amusing:
9. For Microsoft, whose unique position in the community creates unique responsibilities: promote a more open attitude towards the rest of the world; open up; be less mean. You can afford to be.
Trusting MSFT to behave? At least Meyer has a sense of humor.
"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money it values more, it will lose that, too." -- W. Somerset Maugham
Second Point: reverse... It is not that simple. Consider the response, the implications of a monopoly that has been found guilty of market manipulation and monopolistic abuse, that holds the law in such contempt that it continues to attempt to subvert standards towards its own monopolistic ends and arrogantly attacks anyone who tries to stop them. _Of course_, it matters that it is MSFT here. If it were O'Reilly, who cares? Who are they, anyway? The global monopolies are a richer ground here. What a brilliant response, I say--full of heart and soul, too.
"And P.S. I'm a nice guy, really!"
Translation: "Smile in the face, knife in the back!"
BTW, does anyone remember the Gates quote about Novell, smiling, and knives?
The US, and proud of it, though ashamed of rackets like MSFT. :'(
Therefore, it matters not how shady something is, right?
I agree that graphical browsing, like TV, is great, but only because other people may like them. You have got a good theory there, but the practice so far stinks. (Wasn't TV supposed to be great, too?)
Personally, I'll stick to a text-mode browser (that is capable of displaying images on demand, BTW) for the same reason that I'll avoid the boob tube--I want the steak not the sizzle.