Re:Support is the usual reason given ...
on
Opposing Open Source?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It is FUD, and lack of support for open source is a myth. I've found better, faster support for Linux through newsgroups, the web, and from other developers, than support for Windows 2000. I just wiped Win2K from several machines and replaced it with Mandrake for that very reason- it's easier and cheaper to keep running. There's nothing worse than having to fix some trivial networking issue with Windows, and the docs tell you to "consult your network administrator." Dammit, I *am* the administrator!
There's a mountain of DSL research that says Bubba was buying DSL (when he bought it at all) primarily for the always-on feature, not for the speed. Folks don't like the dial-up process. Well, Microsoft is heading down a path that will force a lot more dialing up, so it's a safe bet there might be a lot more interest in always-on connections.
Nonsense. I'd like to see your "mountain of DSL research." Most DSL setups are PPPoE, using Microsoft Dial Up Networking, or something like it. So the experience of getting online with DSL is about the same as with a phone line, just a bit quicker. Very few services are "always on," and if you leave them connected, they'll drop you when your connection is idle for awhile, to make room for someone else.
And just because it's advertised that way, doesn't mean it's true (imagine that). Companies ultimately need to find out how customers repond to the product, not just how they respond to the advertising. Perhaps that's why the broadband industry is in trouble. Their marketing departments are incompetent.
"Why does Microsoft care about 5-year-old software anyway? I think they want to prevent people from selling used software so others have to buy the latest and greatest from Microsoft."
Well, sort of, but not really. Here's really why they care: they don't want potential new users investing their time learning "old" skills. They don't want to create new Windows 3.1 users, or Word 5 users. But they'd love it if more people became Win98/2K/XP users, or Office 2000 users. It's the old network effect, which Microsoft knows all too well. Microsoft wants whatever they're selling now to be the standard.
There are a lot of companies using Staroffice instead of Office now. Most of them are run by young people with limited budgets, who haven't yet been brainwashed into thinking they need Office for everything. They fill the office with cheap Emachines boxes that have Staroffice already on them, and find that it's plenty for what most companies need to do. Others know about it and load it.
There's no doubt people have been brainwashed into thinking they need Office. While other things may work just as well, employees may have come to expect Office as a job perk. People feel that anything other than Office is a second-rate alternative, along with crappy office furniture, etc.
I haven't tried the Windows version of Apache. I see no reason it wouldn't work OK. But then again, I don't know why anyone would bother with Windows, when better server software is available!
The trouble with mass media like TV and radio is that it's ratings driven to the point where its whole purpose is just to catch your attention- it acts like a bunch of kids playing a game of "made you look." If it can distract you for just a few seconds, it has done its job. So it doesn't matter if stories are factual, intelligent, or whatever. Producers can go back and correct themselves later, but as long as they got your attention the first time, they've "won." Even newspapers are like this- a story may have the exact opposite point of the first, catch-your-eye paragraph.
But the 'net isn't like that. People must actively seek information from it. They have to click on something, ot type an URL. It's not continually running in the background, trying to catch their attention. Secondly, people can seek out and take what they want from the 'net- the choice of what to read is theirs, not some producer's at CNN. Readers can keep looking around the 'net until they're satisfied what they see is a definitive answer.
So whether or not the 'net has become the definitive source of news, readers feel like they're getting what they want, so they're accepting it that way more and more.
Well, RAM isn't quite as cheap as hard drive space yet, but I see where this is going. I guess everything you can't fit into solid state memory could be stored on a network, or the 'net. Your MP3s, apps, whatever. Yes, it would take a fast connection, but most of us are getting that anyway. Long live the Network Computer!
There is a work-around to AOL's proprietary email protocol. I think it's called e-netbot, and it works by connecting to AOL webmail, and downloading messages into Outlook Express. The program itself uses Internet Explorer components.
It's very expensive to be in the chip business, which these days is best left to chip specialists like Intel. A decade ago, hardware was key to being able to provide enterprise solutions, a mainstay of HP's business. But now, solutions can be based on all kinds of already available hardware. The keys to success are implementation and service, not which chip is under the hood. So at this point, the chip business is just an expensive diversion for HP. It ought to be whacked.
A few days ago, the big news was that Mandrake had fired everybody in a last ditch costcutting move to save the company. Now we have this story, and all these comments, about new Mandrake products for everything from Macs to garage door openers. I don't get it.
If Be were open sourced, it would be the greatest gift ever. Be is the ultimate workstation/desktop OS. It really is easier to use, for beginnners and experts alike, and the performance is outstanding. If everyone could just download it, use it, and hack it for free, we might actually see all the new apps and ports Be has been lacking all along. All we can do is hope...
I was looking for something like this to ressurrect junk computers and put them to use at a seniors' center, so people could learn how to use the web, email, and maybe a word processor. The idea was to not ever have to pay for software. I came upon Learnux, a Canadian distribution based on Debian, with a lightweight window manager (I think it was IceWM). It was designed to be able to run Netscape on a 486 with 16MB. My own experiments showed that was fine. It sounded great, but I was never able to find a working copy. I don't think the project ever came to fruition. Anyway, this sounds similar, and I think it's a great idea.
Something to think about: cheapo Wintel boxes, like eMachines, are cheaper to buy than "cheap" X terminals; unless you want to get really basic, like an i-Opener.
I'd moderate you up if I had points. This is exactly how I feel. I even gloat over big websites' having problems. If all they can do is scrape together piles of passionless, meaningless, useless crap, then they get what they deserve. Every article on ZDnet or Cnet now reads like a bad marketing brochure, written by a clock-punching dweeb who collected a bunch of other brochures and rephrased them. Who wants to read that?
The best thing about the internet is *still* that anyone with something to say can afford to publish it, and without having to get past corporate gatekeepers. Whether Cnet or whoever make money or not, or survive or not, is irrelevent. Phillip Greenspun will still be publishing photo.net and his travel stories, Slashdot and its cousins will still be around, and the brilliant articles I write will still bring me lots of clients!
So, let the corporations do what they want (and suck at it). It doesn't affect the rest of us one bit. Despite the appearance of having been taken over, the real internet is still there, bigger, stronger, and better than ever. Every day, there's more good stuff for readers to read, and a bigger audience for real writers wanting to be heard (rather than just paid).
Someone has to protect us against this shit. I hear the pay over at the Patent Office really isn't too bad, and that they *are* hard up for good people.
I wish they'd all just can rpm and use Debian...
on
RPM Package Manager
·
· Score: 1
Redhat and rpm sucks. Debian's packaging system is way better. Mandrake does the best job bundling and configuring their distribution, but alas, it's rpm-based. What I really wish is that Mandrake was Debian based, or that someone would build something as well thought out as Mandrake using Debian. Maybe this new thing will bring Debian-class ease of administration to rpm-based systems, that is, if it actually works.
Why does someone else always have to fix it? Vendors and support contractors are usually no better at fixing things than in house people, especially at the enterprise level, where there are usually highly trained, smart poeple in the IT department. In fact, these IT departments are often bigger and potentially better equipped than the companies or divisions supplying enterprise software. The folks in these IT departments are usually of a higher caliber than tech support drones, plus they're intimately familiar with the particular deployment (and moreso if they wrote it themselves). So most big companies are better off being self sufficient. Support is expensive, and often useless. Hiring smart people who can handle whatever problem might come up is a better deal.
Another thing to consider is that big companies could develop their own software, then sell it to others as well. They could grow the software development dept. into a new division, which could be sold off later at a profit.
That's true on paper, but it doesn't always translate to the screen. If you have a good monitor and an OS with good anti-aliasing, fonts like Times read well. Otherwise, newer sans-serif fonts like Verdana, which were specifically designed for screen readability, are much better.
I think the trouble is that people's impression of wireless is the shitty service Direct PC has been slinging for the last few years. The public just doesn't know you can now get something that doesn't tie up a phone line, doesn't have horrible network latency, uploads fast, doesn't have a laughably low monthly traffic limit, doesn't cost a fortune to install, and actually works more often than not. It also probably doesn't help that the current major high profile distributor is Radio Shack, a name synonymous with "cheesy," and "fine print."
Ah, but it will be turned on by default, so the average Joe will feel his arm being twisted every time he runs something that bully Billy doesn't own a piece of.
I doubt it. Judging by the posts on Slashdot every time this subject comes up, people are offended by any attempt to make cases aesthetically pleasing. They demand bland cases, so they can advertise to the world that they're not some fluff-loving, technically illiterate consumer, but a "real" computer person, who's "serious" about their equipment.
What's being overlooked here is that the executives of these companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximize share value and profit. They personally may like to see open access, but as executives they are pretty much required not to pass up an opportunity to control, in this case, practically the whole damned internet.
It's a nice thought, but if you've ever tried to get anything done with a homeowners' asscociation, school district, or other local snakepit, you'd know it wouldn't work.
Don't be such a nebbish. TW/AOL has the potential to influence and warp the entire economy, and society, culture, and the future of the internet along with it. That's the issue, and the reason for applying antitrust laws. What you're talking about is less significant than the merging of three competing bagel shops in El Paso, Texas.
Slashdot Mirror
It is FUD, and lack of support for open source is a myth. I've found better, faster support for Linux through newsgroups, the web, and from other developers, than support for Windows 2000. I just wiped Win2K from several machines and replaced it with Mandrake for that very reason- it's easier and cheaper to keep running. There's nothing worse than having to fix some trivial networking issue with Windows, and the docs tell you to "consult your network administrator." Dammit, I *am* the administrator!
Nonsense. I'd like to see your "mountain of DSL research." Most DSL setups are PPPoE, using Microsoft Dial Up Networking, or something like it. So the experience of getting online with DSL is about the same as with a phone line, just a bit quicker. Very few services are "always on," and if you leave them connected, they'll drop you when your connection is idle for awhile, to make room for someone else.
And just because it's advertised that way, doesn't mean it's true (imagine that). Companies ultimately need to find out how customers repond to the product, not just how they respond to the advertising. Perhaps that's why the broadband industry is in trouble. Their marketing departments are incompetent.
Well, sort of, but not really. Here's really why they care: they don't want potential new users investing their time learning "old" skills. They don't want to create new Windows 3.1 users, or Word 5 users. But they'd love it if more people became Win98/2K/XP users, or Office 2000 users. It's the old network effect, which Microsoft knows all too well. Microsoft wants whatever they're selling now to be the standard.
There's no doubt people have been brainwashed into thinking they need Office. While other things may work just as well, employees may have come to expect Office as a job perk. People feel that anything other than Office is a second-rate alternative, along with crappy office furniture, etc.
I haven't tried the Windows version of Apache. I see no reason it wouldn't work OK. But then again, I don't know why anyone would bother with Windows, when better server software is available!
But the 'net isn't like that. People must actively seek information from it. They have to click on something, ot type an URL. It's not continually running in the background, trying to catch their attention. Secondly, people can seek out and take what they want from the 'net- the choice of what to read is theirs, not some producer's at CNN. Readers can keep looking around the 'net until they're satisfied what they see is a definitive answer.
So whether or not the 'net has become the definitive source of news, readers feel like they're getting what they want, so they're accepting it that way more and more.
Well, RAM isn't quite as cheap as hard drive space yet, but I see where this is going. I guess everything you can't fit into solid state memory could be stored on a network, or the 'net. Your MP3s, apps, whatever. Yes, it would take a fast connection, but most of us are getting that anyway. Long live the Network Computer!
There is a work-around to AOL's proprietary email protocol. I think it's called e-netbot, and it works by connecting to AOL webmail, and downloading messages into Outlook Express. The program itself uses Internet Explorer components.
It's very expensive to be in the chip business, which these days is best left to chip specialists like Intel. A decade ago, hardware was key to being able to provide enterprise solutions, a mainstay of HP's business. But now, solutions can be based on all kinds of already available hardware. The keys to success are implementation and service, not which chip is under the hood. So at this point, the chip business is just an expensive diversion for HP. It ought to be whacked.
A few days ago, the big news was that Mandrake had fired everybody in a last ditch costcutting move to save the company. Now we have this story, and all these comments, about new Mandrake products for everything from Macs to garage door openers. I don't get it.
...all evening.
If Be were open sourced, it would be the greatest gift ever. Be is the ultimate workstation/desktop OS. It really is easier to use, for beginnners and experts alike, and the performance is outstanding. If everyone could just download it, use it, and hack it for free, we might actually see all the new apps and ports Be has been lacking all along. All we can do is hope...
Something to think about: cheapo Wintel boxes, like eMachines, are cheaper to buy than "cheap" X terminals; unless you want to get really basic, like an i-Opener.
The best thing about the internet is *still* that anyone with something to say can afford to publish it, and without having to get past corporate gatekeepers. Whether Cnet or whoever make money or not, or survive or not, is irrelevent. Phillip Greenspun will still be publishing photo.net and his travel stories, Slashdot and its cousins will still be around, and the brilliant articles I write will still bring me lots of clients!
So, let the corporations do what they want (and suck at it). It doesn't affect the rest of us one bit. Despite the appearance of having been taken over, the real internet is still there, bigger, stronger, and better than ever. Every day, there's more good stuff for readers to read, and a bigger audience for real writers wanting to be heard (rather than just paid).
Someone has to protect us against this shit. I hear the pay over at the Patent Office really isn't too bad, and that they *are* hard up for good people.
Redhat and rpm sucks. Debian's packaging system is way better. Mandrake does the best job bundling and configuring their distribution, but alas, it's rpm-based. What I really wish is that Mandrake was Debian based, or that someone would build something as well thought out as Mandrake using Debian. Maybe this new thing will bring Debian-class ease of administration to rpm-based systems, that is, if it actually works.
Another thing to consider is that big companies could develop their own software, then sell it to others as well. They could grow the software development dept. into a new division, which could be sold off later at a profit.
That's true on paper, but it doesn't always translate to the screen. If you have a good monitor and an OS with good anti-aliasing, fonts like Times read well. Otherwise, newer sans-serif fonts like Verdana, which were specifically designed for screen readability, are much better.
I think the trouble is that people's impression of wireless is the shitty service Direct PC has been slinging for the last few years. The public just doesn't know you can now get something that doesn't tie up a phone line, doesn't have horrible network latency, uploads fast, doesn't have a laughably low monthly traffic limit, doesn't cost a fortune to install, and actually works more often than not. It also probably doesn't help that the current major high profile distributor is Radio Shack, a name synonymous with "cheesy," and "fine print."
Ah, but it will be turned on by default, so the average Joe will feel his arm being twisted every time he runs something that bully Billy doesn't own a piece of.
They already have Barbie and Hot wheels computers...
I doubt it. Judging by the posts on Slashdot every time this subject comes up, people are offended by any attempt to make cases aesthetically pleasing. They demand bland cases, so they can advertise to the world that they're not some fluff-loving, technically illiterate consumer, but a "real" computer person, who's "serious" about their equipment.
I understand libertarianism just fine, probably better than most members of the Libertarian Party; who *are* mostly just stupid, sophomoric Randroids.
What's being overlooked here is that the executives of these companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximize share value and profit. They personally may like to see open access, but as executives they are pretty much required not to pass up an opportunity to control, in this case, practically the whole damned internet.
It's a nice thought, but if you've ever tried to get anything done with a homeowners' asscociation, school district, or other local snakepit, you'd know it wouldn't work.
Don't be such a nebbish. TW/AOL has the potential to influence and warp the entire economy, and society, culture, and the future of the internet along with it. That's the issue, and the reason for applying antitrust laws. What you're talking about is less significant than the merging of three competing bagel shops in El Paso, Texas.