The person I was responding to was arguing that Red Hat should do what benefits the community and I pointed out that Red Hat is rightfully more concerned with what it's customers want than what the community wants. In the end, if they don't make money they cease to exist.
And I did indicate that backporting helped the community in that it makes enterprises more comfortable with upgrading to 2.6 if they have already been running 2.4 kernel patched with 2.6 enhancements.
What I don't understand is that he tried every major distro except Red Hat, the single largest distribution in the world with one of the most professional QA processes. My guess is that Red Hat did work but he didn't report it because it would ruin his Linux bashing.
This custom backporting IMO is work spent by Red Hat which, instead, does not at all benefit the community. For the same money they could work on 2.6 instead, then move their customers to 2.6 sooner and everyone would benefit.
So what Red Hat is doing doesn't benefit you. Boo hoo hoo.
Red Hat does not exist to "benefit the community". They are a public company that answers to it's shareholders and customers. You complain that you don't agree with the choices that Red Hat makes but it's Red Hat's right to decide for itself how it deploys it's resources and provides for it's paying customers. If you don't like it then you're free to choose someone else.
Besides, every commercial vendor does the same thing. IBM, Microsoft and Sun (to name a few) have made features from current releases available in previous releases through their various service packs, fix packs and PTFs.
Red Hat is only doing what any OS vendor would do. In fact, backporting 2.6 features into 2.4 would likely give their customers more confidence in 2.6 and make them more likely to upgrade to 2.6 sooner.
What I don't understand is that ever since the first ad was put in a magazine it was just fine to have the ads appear above, below or beside an article. Print advertisers never felt the need to infest the content with ads the way web advertisers do.
I guess it's because, unlike print ads, we can measure how successful a web ad is by how many times the link is clicked and they now realize that people have been ignoring print ads for years.
I know we need advertisers so we can pay for the content and delivery but there has to be a better way than the annoying, in-your-face techniques they have come up with so far. I don't know about anyone else but slapping me in the face to get my attention is not going to make me buy your product/service. In fact, it will have to opposite effect.
Sad to say I have run into people who believe that Al Gore invented the internet. I've also met people who believe Bill Gates invented it. Since I didn't know the poster I simply asked them to clarify.
Sorry, I didn't realize you were the sarcasm cop around here.
Being unable to "hear" the sarcasm, there was nothing in the post that indicated that it was sarcasm. I was concerned that the person in question actually believed what they wrote.
they'll still, in the long haul, get 4 times as many real dollars out of you.
I think you forgot about inflation. All you need is one or two decades with double digit inflation like we had in the 70's and you'll be lucky if the "real dollars" break even.
It was intended as a joke. I don't think relocating tech-savvy people to influence local politics is either practical or desirable. I think a better approach is to educate the general public so that they better understand the issues and what's at stake.
The SCO case is a perfect example. I've mentioned the SCO case to a few friends who aren't in the "industry" and they didn't know who SCO was, that they were suing IBM for $5B and they only had a vague idea of what Linux was. With that level of knowledge there is no hope that they could understand what's at stake if SCO were to prove any part of their case.
Of course I did my part and educated them so now whenever I talk to them they ask how the case is going.
The original says to distribute the special ink to unfavourable districts and not read that type of ink. Cut and pasted from the original (emphasis added):
"pass out pens of a certain type in districts unfavorable to your candidate, then calibrate the machine not to read that type of ink."
Your "correction" changes "unfavourable" to "favourable" but leaves the "not". Cut and pasted (emphasis added):
"It also suggests a new strategy for rigging the vote: pass out pens of a certain type in districts FAVORABLE to your candidate, then calibrate the machine not to read that type of ink"?
Your suggestion is that in districts that are favourable (i.e. more votes for you) you would use an ink that could not be read (i.e. votes not counted)
Your latest version is correct:
"pass out pens of a certain type in districts favorable to your candidate, then calibrate the machine to read that type of ink."
However, it is no different than the original. Whether you ensure that more favourable districts are counted more accurately or less favourable districts are counted less accurately the result is the same, with a different type of ink you can alter the outcome of an election.
You might want to brush up on your boolean algebra.
We could even start a geek relocation program for areas that don't have enough geek influence in their area. Slowly infiltrating at the municipal level until we control all the key economic and industrial centers. Then quietly moving up the levels of government until we control the world! Mwa ha ha ha!
Geeks of the world unite!!!! Throw off the pocket protectors of your oppressors and rise up!.
Your approach would mean that the votes in the favourable district would not be counted because the ink used on the ballots would not be readable (i.e. they would show up as blank).
I dont see what the big deal with Microsoft shipping their OS with Windows media player is.
Then apparently you're not familiar with product tying in a monopoly.
If people dont like it they shouldn't use Windows then!
If people were allowed to buy a PC without Windows then they could.
It's their freaking product, they should be able to do what they want with it.
There is virtually no product that is sold that does not have some sort of government influence. Whether it be safety standards, product labelling standards or limitations on the age of the purchaser to name a few.
You also don't have to look far to find cases of a government being forced to breakup a monopoly to correct the situation. AT&T and Standard Oil come to mind.
Anyone whose taken introductory economics understands what's wrong with Microsoft being able to include their media player while excluding others but I'll sum it up for you in four words: Monopoly bad, competition good.
Monopolies cause prices to be high and stifle innovation. Of the price you pay for MS Office 75% of that is profit. For Windows it's something like 50%. How can a company continue to get away with those kind of profit margins? Because they have no competition to undercut them. The only real innovation Microsoft has come up with is incompatibility with previous releases. That innovation keeps people upgrading their software so they can continue to function but provides no net new value.
At this point, I'm sure someone's going to mention Eclispse. Well, I've had a look at Eclipse, and it's a very nicely done IDE, but I don't know if it has the equivalent of visual components. (Disclaimer: I don't know much about Java)
You might want to check out the Visual Editor Project for Eclipse. Even though it's only at 0.5 it's already pretty usable. They have an online interactive tutorial that shows off the features of the tool by walking you through creating a simple GUI. You can even watch the code being written in sort of real time as you drop components onto the editor. And it's open source.
There may be a lot of 3rd party apps that use it but do they use it because they feel it's the best tool for the job or do they use it just because it's already there.
If Microsoft were to make WMP a plugable component that would not break when another player was plugged in in it's place it would allow vendors and consumers to choose the best player. Microsoft cares nothing for the consumer so they make WMP such a pain to remove that most people give up trying, effectively removing their right to choose.
Regardless of the license software can be copied in a matter of minutes. The last time I checked a carrot takes a bit more time.
Yes you can "use" a carrot in many ways but nature has placed limitations, or a license if you will, on how you use it. For instance, you can't use a carrot to hammer in a nail. Maybe you should sue Mother Nature for imposing limitations on how you can use your carrot.
To use your bastardized version of my analogy in the same way inane way you used mine, since you consider carrots and software the same why don't you just plant your software in the ground and see what you get.
Slashdot Mirror
The person I was responding to was arguing that Red Hat should do what benefits the community and I pointed out that Red Hat is rightfully more concerned with what it's customers want than what the community wants. In the end, if they don't make money they cease to exist.
And I did indicate that backporting helped the community in that it makes enterprises more comfortable with upgrading to 2.6 if they have already been running 2.4 kernel patched with 2.6 enhancements.
What I don't understand is that he tried every major distro except Red Hat, the single largest distribution in the world with one of the most professional QA processes. My guess is that Red Hat did work but he didn't report it because it would ruin his Linux bashing.
So what Red Hat is doing doesn't benefit you. Boo hoo hoo.
Red Hat does not exist to "benefit the community". They are a public company that answers to it's shareholders and customers. You complain that you don't agree with the choices that Red Hat makes but it's Red Hat's right to decide for itself how it deploys it's resources and provides for it's paying customers. If you don't like it then you're free to choose someone else.
Besides, every commercial vendor does the same thing. IBM, Microsoft and Sun (to name a few) have made features from current releases available in previous releases through their various service packs, fix packs and PTFs.
Red Hat is only doing what any OS vendor would do. In fact, backporting 2.6 features into 2.4 would likely give their customers more confidence in 2.6 and make them more likely to upgrade to 2.6 sooner.
I'm sure there was some porn cave paintings.
What I don't understand is that ever since the first ad was put in a magazine it was just fine to have the ads appear above, below or beside an article. Print advertisers never felt the need to infest the content with ads the way web advertisers do.
I guess it's because, unlike print ads, we can measure how successful a web ad is by how many times the link is clicked and they now realize that people have been ignoring print ads for years.
I know we need advertisers so we can pay for the content and delivery but there has to be a better way than the annoying, in-your-face techniques they have come up with so far. I don't know about anyone else but slapping me in the face to get my attention is not going to make me buy your product/service. In fact, it will have to opposite effect.
True, but considering the deal was between two U.S. companies it's likely they would use the value generally accepted in North America.
To avoid this confusion maybe we should use the SI prefixes and call it 2 Gigadollars.
Actually, 2 billion = 2,000,000,000,000
Try reading a dictionary sometime.
2 billion = 2 x 10^9 (that's a two with 9 zeroes after it)
Maybe you should try reading a math book sometime instead of a dictionary.
Sad to say I have run into people who believe that Al Gore invented the internet. I've also met people who believe Bill Gates invented it. Since I didn't know the poster I simply asked them to clarify.
Sorry, I didn't realize you were the sarcasm cop around here.
Being unable to "hear" the sarcasm, there was nothing in the post that indicated that it was sarcasm. I was concerned that the person in question actually believed what they wrote.
I hope you're not seriously suggesting that Al Gore invented the internet.
they'll still, in the long haul, get 4 times as many real dollars out of you.
I think you forgot about inflation. All you need is one or two decades with double digit inflation like we had in the 70's and you'll be lucky if the "real dollars" break even.
It was intended as a joke. I don't think relocating tech-savvy people to influence local politics is either practical or desirable. I think a better approach is to educate the general public so that they better understand the issues and what's at stake.
The SCO case is a perfect example. I've mentioned the SCO case to a few friends who aren't in the "industry" and they didn't know who SCO was, that they were suing IBM for $5B and they only had a vague idea of what Linux was. With that level of knowledge there is no hope that they could understand what's at stake if SCO were to prove any part of their case.
Of course I did my part and educated them so now whenever I talk to them they ask how the case is going.
FYI, one of my friends was even an IBM employee.
The original says to distribute the special ink to unfavourable districts and not read that type of ink. Cut and pasted from the original (emphasis added):
Your "correction" changes "unfavourable" to "favourable" but leaves the "not". Cut and pasted (emphasis added):
Your suggestion is that in districts that are favourable (i.e. more votes for you) you would use an ink that could not be read (i.e. votes not counted)
Your latest version is correct:
However, it is no different than the original. Whether you ensure that more favourable districts are counted more accurately or less favourable districts are counted less accurately the result is the same, with a different type of ink you can alter the outcome of an election.
You might want to brush up on your boolean algebra.
We could even start a geek relocation program for areas that don't have enough geek influence in their area. Slowly infiltrating at the municipal level until we control all the key economic and industrial centers. Then quietly moving up the levels of government until we control the world! Mwa ha ha ha!
Geeks of the world unite!!!! Throw off the pocket protectors of your oppressors and rise up!.
...Sorry. I got a bit carried away.
Your approach would mean that the votes in the favourable district would not be counted because the ink used on the ballots would not be readable (i.e. they would show up as blank).
The original approach is correct.
I dont see what the big deal with Microsoft shipping their OS with Windows media player is.
Then apparently you're not familiar with product tying in a monopoly.
If people dont like it they shouldn't use Windows then!
If people were allowed to buy a PC without Windows then they could.
It's their freaking product, they should be able to do what they want with it.
There is virtually no product that is sold that does not have some sort of government influence. Whether it be safety standards, product labelling standards or limitations on the age of the purchaser to name a few.
You also don't have to look far to find cases of a government being forced to breakup a monopoly to correct the situation. AT&T and Standard Oil come to mind.
Anyone whose taken introductory economics understands what's wrong with Microsoft being able to include their media player while excluding others but I'll sum it up for you in four words: Monopoly bad, competition good.
Monopolies cause prices to be high and stifle innovation. Of the price you pay for MS Office 75% of that is profit. For Windows it's something like 50%. How can a company continue to get away with those kind of profit margins? Because they have no competition to undercut them. The only real innovation Microsoft has come up with is incompatibility with previous releases. That innovation keeps people upgrading their software so they can continue to function but provides no net new value.
At this point, I'm sure someone's going to mention Eclispse. Well, I've had a look at Eclipse, and it's a very nicely done IDE, but I don't know if it has the equivalent of visual components. (Disclaimer: I don't know much about Java)
You might want to check out the Visual Editor Project for Eclipse. Even though it's only at 0.5 it's already pretty usable. They have an online interactive tutorial that shows off the features of the tool by walking you through creating a simple GUI. You can even watch the code being written in sort of real time as you drop components onto the editor. And it's open source.
There may be a lot of 3rd party apps that use it but do they use it because they feel it's the best tool for the job or do they use it just because it's already there.
If Microsoft were to make WMP a plugable component that would not break when another player was plugged in in it's place it would allow vendors and consumers to choose the best player. Microsoft cares nothing for the consumer so they make WMP such a pain to remove that most people give up trying, effectively removing their right to choose.
But then the evolutionists would respond with, "10 planets, ten fingers. Coincidence?"
Here's two more: book.mobile and pimp.mobile
or snow.mobile
MSN for high speed and dialup access and HotMail for email.
If that's the case, why go through a third party anonymously.
If that's the case, why go through a third party anonymously.
Regardless of the license software can be copied in a matter of minutes. The last time I checked a carrot takes a bit more time.
Yes you can "use" a carrot in many ways but nature has placed limitations, or a license if you will, on how you use it. For instance, you can't use a carrot to hammer in a nail. Maybe you should sue Mother Nature for imposing limitations on how you can use your carrot.
To use your bastardized version of my analogy in the same way inane way you used mine, since you consider carrots and software the same why don't you just plant your software in the ground and see what you get.