I do not think in my post I said that Open Source was failing. I said that Open Source is having some problems. And LWN is just one of the latest. My point is that I have absolutely nothing against Open Source and I am user of it. But having come from the Microsoft World I have to say that while it costs, it also makes money.
Co-operation is nice, but money is nicer. And lets be very real. Today IBM supports LINUX, tomorrow who knows. Redhat on the other hand is and will be a LINUX and Open Source supporter.
Well it really depends how you look at things. In one country one does one thing and another one does another.
For example, drugs are illegal, death penalty is legal, carrying a machine gun is legal in the USA. In Holland drugs are legal, most other "western" countries death penalty is illegal, machine guns in most places are illegal.
Now before you say this is stealing, it depends what you consider software to be. Is it a product or is copyright. If it is a product then by American definition there must be consumer protection against defects. Oh yeah wait, if you have bugs, tough! Therefore it is not a product, but copyright. And in copyright there is a concept such as fair use and host of other issues. And copyrights are held to different levels in different countries in different settings. Just like said here, education fine, corporate usage not!
So before you start comparing that quick lets first figure out what software really is!
Free Software is all good and dandy. But as is noticed by MANY Open Source Software, there are in fact mortgages to pay, taxes to pay, etc.
And what I see is that Open Source and etc individuals are cheap skates. Ok I donate 10 dollars, but is that really what our work is worth?
I think we need to get it through our heads that yes LINUX and Open Source did change the game. But the game is not free, just lower costs. So instead of paying 800 USD for a development environment, we need to start coughing up 99 USD for a development environment.
Imagine how much further Open Source would be IF everybody who uses Open Source were to donate 1000 USD per year. Why 1000 USD? MS developers typically pay about 3K for their MSDN, plus other extras. I just decided to put something that I think anybody who makes a living from software could afford, EVEN when unemployed.
When you do that type of math then Open Source does make economic sense...
Ok as much as some people are going to hate this point of view, but I think it is ok for the American Ambassador to talk to the Peruvian government. But and this is where I think the ambassador went over the line, the ambassador should not have an opinion. The ambassador represents a country and yes Microsoft belongs to a specific country. Hence it is the job of the ambassador to help Microsoft. But I think only insofar to open doors so that Microsoft can talk to the right people. Likewise the ambassador should do the same if Richard Stallman were to have an opinion and what to express it to the Peruvian government. Richard Stallman is an American and has as much right as Microsoft.
But sadly this American Administration is more interested in serving big business and not the people. Was that to be expected? Yes after Bush received 350 million in support what else could you expect? Talk about "Indulgence"!!!
When paper newspapers did classifieds, was that not the same result? I thought newspapers made quite a bit of money from classifieds, hence why every newspaper has them. And the Toronto Saturday Star is TONS FILLED with them.
Typing error.... Yeah I realized that after I hit submit... But thanks for point that out.
I wanted to highlight that a ver large chunk of the car market is owned by the European car makers. And then I added Japan for further effect, but forgot to remove the European bit...
Yes there is being a country and managed the flow of knowledge and jobs.
Let me give you a VERY CLEAR example of how this works. In the early 20th century the car industry was owned and dominated by the US. But then years passed. Now the car industry is owned by the Europeans, namely the German, French and Japanese. On a global and local level add up where the cars come from and about 66% of all cars will come from those countries. The Americans have only two car makers left Ford and GM and one of them looks very unhealthy indeed (GM).
Sure the car makers have car building plants in the US, but only if the conditions are good. If the conditions are not good then the car makers pick up and move production elsewhere. However, the one place where the car makers will always build cars is in their home country, which is Germany, France and Japan.
My point is that in this global world having backassed imigration policies hurts the country in the long run. And this is where the problem is. Immigration is a long term issue, but politics are short term based.
In the case as shown if get copies data to s then it will crash, because s is not initialized and points to nothing legit.
If however get has an internal buffer that it allocates (like some routines do) then that is not the correct syntax because s is not a pointer to a pointer. For that to work then you would have to use the notation get( &s).
But in either case the program is wrong and you do not need to know about the implementation of get at all and you do not need to care how get works.
Yeah, but VA is run like the shitter. Have you seen their SEC filing?
Income 51 million, Expenses Marketing 57, R&D 26, General and Administrative 51 million...
EXCUSE ME! But this company is run like a joke. Marketing ok that could be trimmed back. But what gets me is the GandA expense of 51 million. If you look at where this money is going it is going solely into administrative and legal expenses. OR MORE LIKELY, somebody is cashing in before the company folds entirely.
You know it pisses me because these are the same folks that want us to buy their stock, but yet they scam us. Let them fold, serve them right!
Re:Why do interviewers use "riddles"?
on
Tech-Interview Riddles
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Actually you do not need the man pages. Correct me if I am wrong here... BUT...
char *s; get(s); put(s);
Well s is not initialized and pointing at anything. Hence even if get allocated a buffer that value will not be carried back since it is a single pointer. For that to work you would need write get( &s) and then that would work.
You hit the nail on the head there. Cooking is nothing more than understanding what works together and how it reacts to being cooked.
Following receipes is ok, but it does not give you that extra umph that when you know how to cook does.
I find it funny that to cook quick you have to open a can. For the past six years I have basically extremely rarely eaten processed food (I cook and my wife eats). Everything is made from scratch outside of a couple basics. And even then I will depending on the receipe cook from scratch.
What is the trick? Cook like a maniac on the weekend and then eat throughout the week. Or prepare the food to be finished and eaten throughout the week. It is a habit, but the Southern European folks understand this well.
Nobody gives a damm about China and the WTO. It is a Red Herring issue. Why? Because there are 1 billion Chinese.
Do the math. You have 3 percent of their population using your product. That translates into 30 million buyers. Even if the local market copyrights, steals, etc your product. If you get the equivalent of 3 percent income then you are making big bucks. Push a bit and you could get 10 percent, which is 100 million and that translates to ~50% of the US market buying your product.
China knows this and as the saying goes "There is a sucker born every minute", companies want access to the Chinese market. If the US has trade embargo's then Europeans will sell. If the Europeans do not sell then the Russian's will. The point is that somebody will want to sell something to China.
And this is why I like Quebec. Quebec has privacy rules identical to Europe. While it is painful for somethings, it is in moments like this I say.
Vive l'Quebec libre....;)
And since I also live part of the time in Switzerland, which also has strict privacy laws the result is that I get very little spam.
As a sidenote in Switzerland to tempt you to use their products companies give away full products. IE at Christmas time I always get a full Lindt Christmas flavour chocolate bar. Yum....
This leads quickly into discussion of the paradigm shift we're starting to see in capitalism as we shift from economies of scarcity to economies of surfeit. Capitalism requires economies of scarcity to function and so what happens when things are no longer scarce? We're in for a long period of bad law, bad politics and bad times until capitalism either evolves into something workable or is replaced by something will work with economies of surfeit.
Agree and disagree
I actually do not think that we are moving from scarcity to surfeit. I think we are moving into a society where we are going back to bater. Way back when people used to bater and something that seemed interesting was driven up in value. Tulips, gold, rice, etc. All of these products had no value other than what people thought would be interesting. The value of the product was determined by the eco-system around it. In other words so long as profit was part of the equation due to a eco-system all were happy.
And here is where a product like Linux has issues. It is not the free price, but the eco-system. Sure you may see jobs, but there are very little other pieces of the eco-system around it. That is my point. Value is determined by the eco-system that supports it. LINUX by its nature of no cost and very techie people has no eco-system that can be used to pay for a mortage. There will be a few, but that cannot be used to support an entire industry.
Compare it to the fashion industry. The models walking down the cat walk do not actually make money for the individual companies. It is pure show and massive costs. Why do they do it? For show. The individual companies make their money by taking other designs and bringing it to the market
Put this into the LINUX perspective. LINUX and GNU are the models walking down the catwalk. And everybody wants to be the model or the designer. But the reality is that the money is made elsewhere.
And in the case of PERL, Larry Wall is Claudia Shiffer and O'Reilly and ActiveState the actual companies making the products for everybody
Sure you can argue that Redhat is the product maker for everybody. But that is only a very small piece and the rest are not making money. Compare the profititability of O'Reilly and ActiveState vs the profitability of Redhat, Mandrake, etc. From there it should become pretty clear that LINUX REALLY needs to figure out how to become a profitable ecosystem.
And here is the problem with Open Source and specifically LINUX.... There is no $$$ in Open Source because of the lack of ecosystem.
Let me explain this point a bit.
In a closed source environment like one built up by Microsoft and AutoDesk the objective is to suck as much out of the client without actually killing the client. So yes this is a parasitic scenario. But the scenario is not just about selling a piece of software. It is about selling a solution based on multiple peoples input. Training, Consulting, Service, etc an eco-system where money is fluid.
And here the Microsoft and AutoDesk empire rules in sheer momentum of their third parties. People know they can make money at selling their services or whatever.
In Open Source and specifically LINUX this is not the case. People who in Open Source tend to be two things; cheap and farily intelligent coders. Two things that keep the ecosystem small. Fairly intelligent coders tend not to hire as many consultants, contractors, buy books, etc.
While many may say that it is good that people do not have to hire "leech" consultants or contractors. I tend to argue back that those "leech" consultants and others keep money moving and that moving money can be used to pursue activities to increase the eco-system.
I am not saying that Open Source could never develop a rich eco-system (examples of eco-systems being setup are PERL, PHP, etc). But notice that those Open Source environments allow closed source implementations AND they are NOT specific to LINUX. If LINUX wants to succeed then there need to be many more footing the bill of developing since there is not that much financial incentive. BTW I am not referring to simple domination, I am talking about survival. PERL and PHP will survive without LINUX, but can LINUX survive without PERL and PHP?
Oddly these things keep coming out on what is good for you. Guess what, that is called the Italian and French lifestyle. And generally coffee is not as good as espresso is.
Also if you look at France and Italy they drink fresh coffee in those neat single serving machines and Italians love their espresso machines.
No the system in Germany is not the same as in the UK. The camera only go off when you actually break the law. If you break the law then no picture.
Now about the camera's. They are being taken down because of the problems of not getting the right photo with the right data (Remember the trucks that speed through town at 180 KPM). And too many people actually confront the ticket in court and win.
Now about the person owning the car being responsible. Not true. Sure in essence this is the case, but if you can get a friend in another country to legally say they were driving the car then you are not responsible anymore. Another scam, which is causing the police to chase law breakers like in good'ol North America.
So in the end the camera's may still exist, but more and more police throughout Europe (outside the UK) are actually stopping people physically so that they cannot scam out of a ticket. Even in Switzerland where there are camera's everywhere they have switched over to using the physical presence of the police.
But that is for Outlook only. As such I have been using Spam Dectective and have to say I am impressed. It is nice because it sits like a tray on my desktop and periodically checks my email.
I would not exactly say pussy. But if you look at the commentary he wrote in ZDNet "The last chapter" he was massively depressed.
I think he is part of a generation that now has to come to grips with a word called "Recession". This guy was 25. He developed tech, became king of the world. Then the bubble burst and folks like him were jettisoned. As they say easy come easy go. Of course since we are talking about human emotions this has the result that it becomes difficult to cope with.
Unless of course you are a few years older and have lived through a recession already...
And here is the thing that you cannot do in football. Out tech them! There is no tech to football. You could give a team more endurance, but at the end of the day it relies on the individual, team and trainer.
Otherwise Brazil would not dominate the way it does. Brazil has no tech, just cut throat competition and the football lifestyle. I watched how Brazilian players are trained and it starts when they are seven or eight. It is in their "blood". The truly elite players in football, live, breath and eat football. And more often than not they come from poor areas, eg Zidane...
I totally agree with that. Yes I use LINUX, but I recently installed XP and have to say, wow...
Linux is fantastic as a Server OS. I use Unix as a server OS all the time. But a client OS, it aint...
Here are my problems, Scanner, Printer, Digital Camera, MP3's and Pictures. Yes there is LINUX software, but it requires massive tweaking. And the quality is not that great in terms of encoding - decoding of media. XP has incredible jpeg, MP3, DVD, etc encoding, decoding.
And now with runtime based languages and environments (Java, Python, PERL,.NET / Mono), it really does not matter what the client OS is since deploying on the server can be a UNIX box. And in those cases I use the OS that gives me the least amount of headache, Windows....
I think I tend to agree with Redhat, LINUX lost the desktop... On the server, well that is an entirely different scenario...
As a side note, I have noticed that people use MS on the client side, but are starting to use WAMP (Windows, Apache, MySQL, and PHP) to develop and UNIX to deploy. And even with those that use.NET they often want to use Apache and MySQL... Interesting...
I find this funny. Most people say, sure lets use ads when it doesn't bug me.
Knock, knock, the point of advertisements is to get to bug you to buy their product. If the ad does not bug you then you do not want to buy the product...
Folks lets face it. We have been dancing around the issue. Paying money for software promotes further development. It is that simple!
And yet again another reason why the Founding Fathers of the US knew what they were talking about when they created the constitution. I am not American, but I keep seeing the "old establishment" trying to take over.
This reminds me of the times when Catholic leaders tried to stop Copernicus and other thinkers, etc.
I am not saying that the websites are in good taste or even right. But to say the sites are blasphemous and restrict the right to make up one's own mind is thinking straight from 1200's.
There is a German saying "Money does not stink". It is in reference to the fact that Money is the only meaningful way we have devised that formalizes a barter system. No other barter system will improve this because money is neutral and does not rely on age, or other factors.
For example in Japan money was rice. The more rice you had the richer you were. Problem though is that rice spoiled and rice could be grown. And at some point more rice does not matter anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
I do not think in my post I said that Open Source was failing. I said that Open Source is having some problems. And LWN is just one of the latest. My point is that I have absolutely nothing against Open Source and I am user of it. But having come from the Microsoft World I have to say that while it costs, it also makes money.
Co-operation is nice, but money is nicer. And lets be very real. Today IBM supports LINUX, tomorrow who knows. Redhat on the other hand is and will be a LINUX and Open Source supporter.
Well it really depends how you look at things. In one country one does one thing and another one does another.
For example, drugs are illegal, death penalty is legal, carrying a machine gun is legal in the USA. In Holland drugs are legal, most other "western" countries death penalty is illegal, machine guns in most places are illegal.
Now before you say this is stealing, it depends what you consider software to be. Is it a product or is copyright. If it is a product then by American definition there must be consumer protection against defects. Oh yeah wait, if you have bugs, tough! Therefore it is not a product, but copyright. And in copyright there is a concept such as fair use and host of other issues. And copyrights are held to different levels in different countries in different settings. Just like said here, education fine, corporate usage not!
So before you start comparing that quick lets first figure out what software really is!
Free Software is all good and dandy. But as is noticed by MANY Open Source Software, there are in fact mortgages to pay, taxes to pay, etc.
And what I see is that Open Source and etc individuals are cheap skates. Ok I donate 10 dollars, but is that really what our work is worth?
I think we need to get it through our heads that yes LINUX and Open Source did change the game. But the game is not free, just lower costs. So instead of paying 800 USD for a development environment, we need to start coughing up 99 USD for a development environment.
Imagine how much further Open Source would be IF everybody who uses Open Source were to donate 1000 USD per year. Why 1000 USD? MS developers typically pay about 3K for their MSDN, plus other extras. I just decided to put something that I think anybody who makes a living from software could afford, EVEN when unemployed.
When you do that type of math then Open Source does make economic sense...
Ok as much as some people are going to hate this point of view, but I think it is ok for the American Ambassador to talk to the Peruvian government. But and this is where I think the ambassador went over the line, the ambassador should not have an opinion. The ambassador represents a country and yes Microsoft belongs to a specific country. Hence it is the job of the ambassador to help Microsoft. But I think only insofar to open doors so that Microsoft can talk to the right people. Likewise the ambassador should do the same if Richard Stallman were to have an opinion and what to express it to the Peruvian government. Richard Stallman is an American and has as much right as Microsoft.
But sadly this American Administration is more interested in serving big business and not the people. Was that to be expected? Yes after Bush received 350 million in support what else could you expect? Talk about "Indulgence"!!!
When paper newspapers did classifieds, was that not the same result? I thought newspapers made quite a bit of money from classifieds, hence why every newspaper has them. And the Toronto Saturday Star is TONS FILLED with them.
Typing error.... Yeah I realized that after I hit submit... But thanks for point that out.
I wanted to highlight that a ver large chunk of the car market is owned by the European car makers. And then I added Japan for further effect, but forgot to remove the European bit...
Yes there is being a country and managed the flow of knowledge and jobs.
Let me give you a VERY CLEAR example of how this works. In the early 20th century the car industry was owned and dominated by the US. But then years passed. Now the car industry is owned by the Europeans, namely the German, French and Japanese. On a global and local level add up where the cars come from and about 66% of all cars will come from those countries. The Americans have only two car makers left Ford and GM and one of them looks very unhealthy indeed (GM).
Sure the car makers have car building plants in the US, but only if the conditions are good. If the conditions are not good then the car makers pick up and move production elsewhere. However, the one place where the car makers will always build cars is in their home country, which is Germany, France and Japan.
My point is that in this global world having backassed imigration policies hurts the country in the long run. And this is where the problem is. Immigration is a long term issue, but politics are short term based.
Lets go through the source again
char *s;
get(s);
put(s);
In the case as shown if get copies data to s then it will crash, because s is not initialized and points to nothing legit.
If however get has an internal buffer that it allocates (like some routines do) then that is not the correct syntax because s is not a pointer to a pointer. For that to work then you would have to use the notation get( &s).
But in either case the program is wrong and you do not need to know about the implementation of get at all and you do not need to care how get works.
Yeah, but VA is run like the shitter. Have you seen their SEC filing?
Income 51 million, Expenses Marketing 57, R&D 26, General and Administrative 51 million...
EXCUSE ME! But this company is run like a joke. Marketing ok that could be trimmed back. But what gets me is the GandA expense of 51 million. If you look at where this money is going it is going solely into administrative and legal expenses. OR MORE LIKELY, somebody is cashing in before the company folds entirely.
You know it pisses me because these are the same folks that want us to buy their stock, but yet they scam us. Let them fold, serve them right!
Actually you do not need the man pages. Correct me if I am wrong here... BUT...
char *s; get(s); put(s);
Well s is not initialized and pointing at anything. Hence even if get allocated a buffer that value will not be carried back since it is a single pointer. For that to work you would need write get( &s) and then that would work.
Yes?
You hit the nail on the head there. Cooking is nothing more than understanding what works together and how it reacts to being cooked.
Following receipes is ok, but it does not give you that extra umph that when you know how to cook does.
I find it funny that to cook quick you have to open a can. For the past six years I have basically extremely rarely eaten processed food (I cook and my wife eats). Everything is made from scratch outside of a couple basics. And even then I will depending on the receipe cook from scratch.
What is the trick? Cook like a maniac on the weekend and then eat throughout the week. Or prepare the food to be finished and eaten throughout the week. It is a habit, but the Southern European folks understand this well.
Can you say .NET? Seriously though, making a runtime will make this simpler...
Nobody gives a damm about China and the WTO. It is a Red Herring issue. Why? Because there are 1 billion Chinese.
Do the math. You have 3 percent of their population using your product. That translates into 30 million buyers. Even if the local market copyrights, steals, etc your product. If you get the equivalent of 3 percent income then you are making big bucks. Push a bit and you could get 10 percent, which is 100 million and that translates to ~50% of the US market buying your product.
China knows this and as the saying goes "There is a sucker born every minute", companies want access to the Chinese market. If the US has trade embargo's then Europeans will sell. If the Europeans do not sell then the Russian's will. The point is that somebody will want to sell something to China.
And this is why I like Quebec. Quebec has privacy rules identical to Europe. While it is painful for somethings, it is in moments like this I say.
;)
Vive l'Quebec libre....
And since I also live part of the time in Switzerland, which also has strict privacy laws the result is that I get very little spam.
As a sidenote in Switzerland to tempt you to use their products companies give away full products. IE at Christmas time I always get a full Lindt Christmas flavour chocolate bar. Yum....
Agree and disagree
I actually do not think that we are moving from scarcity to surfeit. I think we are moving into a society where we are going back to bater. Way back when people used to bater and something that seemed interesting was driven up in value. Tulips, gold, rice, etc. All of these products had no value other than what people thought would be interesting. The value of the product was determined by the eco-system around it. In other words so long as profit was part of the equation due to a eco-system all were happy.
And here is where a product like Linux has issues. It is not the free price, but the eco-system. Sure you may see jobs, but there are very little other pieces of the eco-system around it. That is my point. Value is determined by the eco-system that supports it. LINUX by its nature of no cost and very techie people has no eco-system that can be used to pay for a mortage. There will be a few, but that cannot be used to support an entire industry.
Compare it to the fashion industry. The models walking down the cat walk do not actually make money for the individual companies. It is pure show and massive costs. Why do they do it? For show. The individual companies make their money by taking other designs and bringing it to the market
Put this into the LINUX perspective. LINUX and GNU are the models walking down the catwalk. And everybody wants to be the model or the designer. But the reality is that the money is made elsewhere.
And in the case of PERL, Larry Wall is Claudia Shiffer and O'Reilly and ActiveState the actual companies making the products for everybody
Sure you can argue that Redhat is the product maker for everybody. But that is only a very small piece and the rest are not making money. Compare the profititability of O'Reilly and ActiveState vs the profitability of Redhat, Mandrake, etc. From there it should become pretty clear that LINUX REALLY needs to figure out how to become a profitable ecosystem.
And here is the problem with Open Source and specifically LINUX.... There is no $$$ in Open Source because of the lack of ecosystem.
Let me explain this point a bit.
In a closed source environment like one built up by Microsoft and AutoDesk the objective is to suck as much out of the client without actually killing the client. So yes this is a parasitic scenario. But the scenario is not just about selling a piece of software. It is about selling a solution based on multiple peoples input. Training, Consulting, Service, etc an eco-system where money is fluid.
And here the Microsoft and AutoDesk empire rules in sheer momentum of their third parties. People know they can make money at selling their services or whatever.
In Open Source and specifically LINUX this is not the case. People who in Open Source tend to be two things; cheap and farily intelligent coders. Two things that keep the ecosystem small. Fairly intelligent coders tend not to hire as many consultants, contractors, buy books, etc.
While many may say that it is good that people do not have to hire "leech" consultants or contractors. I tend to argue back that those "leech" consultants and others keep money moving and that moving money can be used to pursue activities to increase the eco-system.
I am not saying that Open Source could never develop a rich eco-system (examples of eco-systems being setup are PERL, PHP, etc). But notice that those Open Source environments allow closed source implementations AND they are NOT specific to LINUX. If LINUX wants to succeed then there need to be many more footing the bill of developing since there is not that much financial incentive. BTW I am not referring to simple domination, I am talking about survival. PERL and PHP will survive without LINUX, but can LINUX survive without PERL and PHP?
I think the key here is moderation...
Oddly these things keep coming out on what is good for you. Guess what, that is called the Italian and French lifestyle. And generally coffee is not as good as espresso is.
Also if you look at France and Italy they drink fresh coffee in those neat single serving machines and Italians love their espresso machines.
No the system in Germany is not the same as in the UK. The camera only go off when you actually break the law. If you break the law then no picture.
Now about the camera's. They are being taken down because of the problems of not getting the right photo with the right data (Remember the trucks that speed through town at 180 KPM). And too many people actually confront the ticket in court and win.
Now about the person owning the car being responsible. Not true. Sure in essence this is the case, but if you can get a friend in another country to legally say they were driving the car then you are not responsible anymore. Another scam, which is causing the police to chase law breakers like in good'ol North America.
So in the end the camera's may still exist, but more and more police throughout Europe (outside the UK) are actually stopping people physically so that they cannot scam out of a ticket. Even in Switzerland where there are camera's everywhere they have switched over to using the physical presence of the police.
Ok...
But that is for Outlook only. As such I have been using Spam Dectective and have to say I am impressed. It is nice because it sits like a tray on my desktop and periodically checks my email.
Nice application...
I would not exactly say pussy. But if you look at the commentary he wrote in ZDNet "The last chapter" he was massively depressed.
I think he is part of a generation that now has to come to grips with a word called "Recession". This guy was 25. He developed tech, became king of the world. Then the bubble burst and folks like him were jettisoned. As they say easy come easy go. Of course since we are talking about human emotions this has the result that it becomes difficult to cope with.
Unless of course you are a few years older and have lived through a recession already...
And here is the thing that you cannot do in football. Out tech them! There is no tech to football. You could give a team more endurance, but at the end of the day it relies on the individual, team and trainer.
Otherwise Brazil would not dominate the way it does. Brazil has no tech, just cut throat competition and the football lifestyle. I watched how Brazilian players are trained and it starts when they are seven or eight. It is in their "blood". The truly elite players in football, live, breath and eat football. And more often than not they come from poor areas, eg Zidane...
I totally agree with that. Yes I use LINUX, but I recently installed XP and have to say, wow...
.NET / Mono), it really does not matter what the client OS is since deploying on the server can be a UNIX box. And in those cases I use the OS that gives me the least amount of headache, Windows....
.NET they often want to use Apache and MySQL... Interesting...
Linux is fantastic as a Server OS. I use Unix as a server OS all the time. But a client OS, it aint...
Here are my problems, Scanner, Printer, Digital Camera, MP3's and Pictures. Yes there is LINUX software, but it requires massive tweaking. And the quality is not that great in terms of encoding - decoding of media. XP has incredible jpeg, MP3, DVD, etc encoding, decoding.
And now with runtime based languages and environments (Java, Python, PERL,
I think I tend to agree with Redhat, LINUX lost the desktop... On the server, well that is an entirely different scenario...
As a side note, I have noticed that people use MS on the client side, but are starting to use WAMP (Windows, Apache, MySQL, and PHP) to develop and UNIX to deploy. And even with those that use
I find this funny. Most people say, sure lets use ads when it doesn't bug me.
Knock, knock, the point of advertisements is to get to bug you to buy their product. If the ad does not bug you then you do not want to buy the product...
Folks lets face it. We have been dancing around the issue. Paying money for software promotes further development. It is that simple!
And yet again another reason why the Founding Fathers of the US knew what they were talking about when they created the constitution. I am not American, but I keep seeing the "old establishment" trying to take over.
This reminds me of the times when Catholic leaders tried to stop Copernicus and other thinkers, etc.
I am not saying that the websites are in good taste or even right. But to say the sites are blasphemous and restrict the right to make up one's own mind is thinking straight from 1200's.
There is a German saying "Money does not stink". It is in reference to the fact that Money is the only meaningful way we have devised that formalizes a barter system. No other barter system will improve this because money is neutral and does not rely on age, or other factors.
For example in Japan money was rice. The more rice you had the richer you were. Problem though is that rice spoiled and rice could be grown. And at some point more rice does not matter anymore.