I think you're just going to have to get used to the fact that some guys know how to treat a lady right, yeah, even for 90 minutes at a stretch:) Although at age 15, that's a little hard to believe...
FUD, FUD, FUD. All of those things are true if you are using Linux-From-Scratch, of course. None of them are true if you are using a distribution like RedHat, where you pay for centralized support, get documentation, and click on config tools to have RedHat do it all for you.
I can't believe you haven't figured out a new troll yet - it's practically 2002 already.
The biggest part of the decision should be decided by what is actually the best product for the job. In many
companies, MS is the best solution, simply because that is what the company (both IT and non-IT know).
That is only the case if learning new things is not part of the job. I think that learning new tools and technologies is part of the IT job. It's true that Linux may not be the right tool, but "because we don't already know it" is not the right reason - it's more complicated than that.
It's a law of Microsoft - most of the rest of the software world is pretty predictable, really, or at least it's possible to discover why it's not. It's only in cases where the software creator hides information from the user that there is some question of what's been going on behind the scenes.
Silly vendor, don't you know that the entire software industry is Microsoft's turf, and you've only been granted a short lease on your involvement in their world? You're lucky that they don't just fix Exchange to not work at all with your product.
Anyone who paid attention to the antitrust trial shouldn't be too surprised by this particular anecdote.
Any more Google has a neato "translate this" link for some foreign language results that often gets close enough that you can tell what's going on. I don't know if it's available for Flemish, though:)
If IT students aren't interested in how things work, then they deserve to fail. This is not a discipline where we want to encourage only-pointy-and-clicky admins; that's how we got Cod Red, etc.
Wanting stuff to work is for PHBs. Getting stuff to work, and knowing what to do if it doesn't, is for IT-folk.
Unless things have changed alot in the last six months, settin up Oracle in Linux was a
pain in the ass - since I did not use the SUSE distro... For me, it was hard. I won't pretend to know DB's either, I
almost always work on the other side of the interface.... after much RTFM, newsgroups, reading, and messing
with glibc I got it to work.
Access and SQL server for that matter was point and shoot. Run the setup.exe and you were ready to go. Much
lower cost of entry. You can get the easy part up and running with very little work.
The whole point of labeling Oracle as "works on SuSe" is so that you know you'll have problems if you're not installing it on SuSe. Did you complain when you couldn't install Access and SQL Server properly on Win 3.1? No - you installed them on the recommended version of the OS. Thus it is with Linux - install on the recommended version of the OS (SuSe v.whatever, etc.) or else it's your problem, not theirs. I would say that Linux still came out ahead - there's probably no way that you could fiddle Win 3.1 to run SQL Server, but you were eventually able to fiddle some other Linux distribution to run Oracle. The only question is whether it was worth the time you spent, or whether it would have been better to just go with SuSe in the first place.
Now, you may have a legitimate complaint that Oracle isn't available for your distribution version, but that's Oracle's problem, not SuSe's.
Most commercial packages like Oracle really are point-and-click if you satisfy their requirements, but you have to understand that commercial software on Linux is not as forgiving as GNU software on Linux, and thus will not work on all the myriad different Linusx variants that are possible.
I think you're selling Outlook Express a little short there - it also helped your coworkers delete their files too. Let's hear it for freedom to innovate!
I dunno, I don't think this thread is particularly offtopic - we're talking about Japanese gear that we can't get in the States, and positing reasons why we can't get it. Oh well.
So torments your with funky stuff then hands you shit.
Wow, that sentence was right out of Zero Wing. So your point is that we can get Japanese stuff, but it's mistranslated so as to be rather unintentionally humorous?:)
And it took how long and how much wasted money to realize a principle that a 8 year-old with a lemonade stand
has figured out?
Well, but that's a business risk, though. If you have a chance to grab a large market share by growing quickly on credit, rather than growing slowly based on current profits, then sometimes you take the gamble that the market will be there when you grab for it.
Not that I know all the ins and outs of Covad's business to be able to say whether they executed properly or not, but Wall Street reward businesses that get big fast, and it's not surprising to see that sometimes the gambles taken to meet those goals don't succeed.
I'm glad they're still in business, because I'd be stuck with an ILEC and no servers if they weren't. Go Covad go!
In some cases the Linux/Open Source alternatives are better, in some cases they are not as good but still viable alternatives. But as long as Microsoft has monopoly control of the software industry, quality won't matter anyway, because Microsoft is large and in charge enough to prevent even a competitor with a better product from succeeding.
There's a reason why really the only successful software industry strategy is to come up with an idea that Microsoft hasn't had yet or skipped over and then flog the hell out of it for a couple years until Microsoft figures out a response and/or buys you out.
Fun exercize: write or adapt an open source word processor so that it's better than Microsoft Word. Go seek VC funding. Here's what you'll find: no one will fund a business plan that involves direct conflict with Microsoft in a field that Microsoft has staked out, no matter how good the product is. The VC's know it, the businessmen know it, and the folks in the trenches are learning: you can't compete with an 800-ton gorilla that refuses to play fair.
With apologies to the good folks at Penny Arcade, of course. If their archive search wasn't a Windows-only executable (whatever happened to web-based searching, guys?) then I'd even link to the right comic. But alas, it was not meant to be.
Look at this the other way - pretty much the only successful competitor to Microsoft is giving away their product for free. The big reason that Linux is such a competitor is because the normal Microsoft tactic has failed: undercutting the competition by subsidizing their new market-breaker with money from the other parts of their empire. Also, there's no way for Microsoft to completely buy up Linux and Open Source, so they can't remove a competitor that way. You can't undercut or buy out "free", and so Microsoft is temporarily stymied, but they still have vast marketing and lobbying muscle.
Does it strike you as a particularly healthy industry if you can only gain marketshare by giving your product away? Is it reasonable that the only way to protect your product is to create it via a group of people who aren't even a company, just to avoid being swallowed by Microsoft?
Now, of course I know that RedHat charges money for some things, and they may even make a profit pretty soon, and Red Hat is in fact a company that Microsoft could buy. But Microsoft's competition isn't so much Red Hat as it is the Linux and Open Source movement. And taken overall, Linux and Open Source are largely free, and are largely producted by individuals and representatives of many companies who collectively could not be bought out. Those are the only reasons that Microsoft has any competition, and those reasons still do not add up to a healthy software industry.
Good point about how the names of the ideas change - just like the Republicans were founded as the party to abolish slavery, but now it's the Democrats who have assumed the mantle of civil rights. Of course, if we had more than two big parties, then maybe the labels would match up more closely with the reality and people could make informed choices. As it is now, both parties are so vast, bland, and all-inclusive that really your vote for one rather than the other doesn't carry a whole lot of weight in a policy sense, since there are members in each party who are entirely antithetical to any particular policy that a voter might espouse.
And yes, John Locke is exactly who I'm thinking of. Although if I could elect anyone it would probably be Francois-Marie Arouet Voltaire. Too bad he's foreign-born (not to mention dead).
For some reason I can never remember that console game makers also made arcade machines - a sign of a misspent youth, one that wasn't spent in the arcades like it should have been:)
I used to have a cable modem connection, which prohibited servers. I didn't run any, mostly because even though they didn't normally enforce it, if they did decide to shut me down I couldn't have gotten a different broadband connection (because of kickbacks from the cable modem company to my landlord at the time).
Now that I live somewhere else, I got a DSL connection that allows servers (speakeasy.net - recommended), I have a couple servers, and I'm not worried about them being shut down.
But I wouldn't depend on the "they've never enforced it before" argument - that sounds like the making of a "your rights online" sob article in a few months:)
Not necessarily - the user could just choose whether to use software from an accredited source, or not. I can design bridges in my basement all I want, I just can't sell those designs to anybody or represent myself as a professional civil engineer.
Huh, which Sega machines are those? Is my Genesis affected? It seems like you'd hear about all sorts of old game systems dying at about the same time if this were the case.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're just going to have to get used to the fact that some guys know how to treat a lady right, yeah, even for 90 minutes at a stretch :) Although at age 15, that's a little hard to believe...
FUD, FUD, FUD. All of those things are true if you are using Linux-From-Scratch, of course. None of them are true if you are using a distribution like RedHat, where you pay for centralized support, get documentation, and click on config tools to have RedHat do it all for you.
I can't believe you haven't figured out a new troll yet - it's practically 2002 already.
That is only the case if learning new things is not part of the job. I think that learning new tools and technologies is part of the IT job. It's true that Linux may not be the right tool, but "because we don't already know it" is not the right reason - it's more complicated than that.
It's a law of Microsoft - most of the rest of the software world is pretty predictable, really, or at least it's possible to discover why it's not. It's only in cases where the software creator hides information from the user that there is some question of what's been going on behind the scenes.
Silly vendor, don't you know that the entire software industry is Microsoft's turf, and you've only been granted a short lease on your involvement in their world? You're lucky that they don't just fix Exchange to not work at all with your product.
Anyone who paid attention to the antitrust trial shouldn't be too surprised by this particular anecdote.
Any more Google has a neato "translate this" link for some foreign language results that often gets close enough that you can tell what's going on. I don't know if it's available for Flemish, though :)
If IT students aren't interested in how things work, then they deserve to fail. This is not a discipline where we want to encourage only-pointy-and-clicky admins; that's how we got Cod Red, etc.
Wanting stuff to work is for PHBs. Getting stuff to work, and knowing what to do if it doesn't, is for IT-folk.
The whole point of labeling Oracle as "works on SuSe" is so that you know you'll have problems if you're not installing it on SuSe. Did you complain when you couldn't install Access and SQL Server properly on Win 3.1? No - you installed them on the recommended version of the OS. Thus it is with Linux - install on the recommended version of the OS (SuSe v.whatever, etc.) or else it's your problem, not theirs. I would say that Linux still came out ahead - there's probably no way that you could fiddle Win 3.1 to run SQL Server, but you were eventually able to fiddle some other Linux distribution to run Oracle. The only question is whether it was worth the time you spent, or whether it would have been better to just go with SuSe in the first place.
Now, you may have a legitimate complaint that Oracle isn't available for your distribution version, but that's Oracle's problem, not SuSe's.
Most commercial packages like Oracle really are point-and-click if you satisfy their requirements, but you have to understand that commercial software on Linux is not as forgiving as GNU software on Linux, and thus will not work on all the myriad different Linusx variants that are possible.
It's pretty sad that this is the first thing I thought of upon reading the headline :(
P.S. If you're too stupid to mouse over the link and see what it is before clicking, please get off the 'net. Don't think, just go.
I think you're selling Outlook Express a little short there - it also helped your coworkers delete their files too. Let's hear it for freedom to innovate!
OK, I give up trying to guess. Why on earth would people hang CDs from their mirrors? Is this a big thing to do in Cuba or something?
Sorry, I didn't mean to dig up a touchy subject there - I was really feeling sorry for Mr. Ballmer's wife, on account of his monkey-antics.
Although it's nice to see an interviewee paying such close attention to the give-and-take here. Good luck on your candidacy for this committee.
It's all fun until he starts yelling out in bed:
"developers developers Developers Developers Developers DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERSDEVELOPERSDEVELOPERSDEVELOPERS".
Hmmm, all of the sudden I pity his wife :)
I dunno, I don't think this thread is particularly offtopic - we're talking about Japanese gear that we can't get in the States, and positing reasons why we can't get it. Oh well.
Wow, that sentence was right out of Zero Wing. So your point is that we can get Japanese stuff, but it's mistranslated so as to be rather unintentionally humorous? :)
That's how you can tell it's all a simulation - there's no way real people are built like that :)
Well, but that's a business risk, though. If you have a chance to grab a large market share by growing quickly on credit, rather than growing slowly based on current profits, then sometimes you take the gamble that the market will be there when you grab for it.
Not that I know all the ins and outs of Covad's business to be able to say whether they executed properly or not, but Wall Street reward businesses that get big fast, and it's not surprising to see that sometimes the gambles taken to meet those goals don't succeed.
I'm glad they're still in business, because I'd be stuck with an ILEC and no servers if they weren't. Go Covad go!
In some cases the Linux/Open Source alternatives are better, in some cases they are not as good but still viable alternatives. But as long as Microsoft has monopoly control of the software industry, quality won't matter anyway, because Microsoft is large and in charge enough to prevent even a competitor with a better product from succeeding.
There's a reason why really the only successful software industry strategy is to come up with an idea that Microsoft hasn't had yet or skipped over and then flog the hell out of it for a couple years until Microsoft figures out a response and/or buys you out.
Fun exercize: write or adapt an open source word processor so that it's better than Microsoft Word. Go seek VC funding. Here's what you'll find: no one will fund a business plan that involves direct conflict with Microsoft in a field that Microsoft has staked out, no matter how good the product is. The VC's know it, the businessmen know it, and the folks in the trenches are learning: you can't compete with an 800-ton gorilla that refuses to play fair.
Again: this is not a healthy industry.
"Like my hat? It's made of MONEY!"
With apologies to the good folks at Penny Arcade, of course. If their archive search wasn't a Windows-only executable (whatever happened to web-based searching, guys?) then I'd even link to the right comic. But alas, it was not meant to be.
Look at this the other way - pretty much the only successful competitor to Microsoft is giving away their product for free. The big reason that Linux is such a competitor is because the normal Microsoft tactic has failed: undercutting the competition by subsidizing their new market-breaker with money from the other parts of their empire. Also, there's no way for Microsoft to completely buy up Linux and Open Source, so they can't remove a competitor that way. You can't undercut or buy out "free", and so Microsoft is temporarily stymied, but they still have vast marketing and lobbying muscle.
Does it strike you as a particularly healthy industry if you can only gain marketshare by giving your product away? Is it reasonable that the only way to protect your product is to create it via a group of people who aren't even a company, just to avoid being swallowed by Microsoft?
Now, of course I know that RedHat charges money for some things, and they may even make a profit pretty soon, and Red Hat is in fact a company that Microsoft could buy. But Microsoft's competition isn't so much Red Hat as it is the Linux and Open Source movement. And taken overall, Linux and Open Source are largely free, and are largely producted by individuals and representatives of many companies who collectively could not be bought out. Those are the only reasons that Microsoft has any competition, and those reasons still do not add up to a healthy software industry.
Good point about how the names of the ideas change - just like the Republicans were founded as the party to abolish slavery, but now it's the Democrats who have assumed the mantle of civil rights. Of course, if we had more than two big parties, then maybe the labels would match up more closely with the reality and people could make informed choices. As it is now, both parties are so vast, bland, and all-inclusive that really your vote for one rather than the other doesn't carry a whole lot of weight in a policy sense, since there are members in each party who are entirely antithetical to any particular policy that a voter might espouse.
And yes, John Locke is exactly who I'm thinking of. Although if I could elect anyone it would probably be Francois-Marie Arouet Voltaire. Too bad he's foreign-born (not to mention dead).
Yes, it's official, I am a moron.
For some reason I can never remember that console game makers also made arcade machines - a sign of a misspent youth, one that wasn't spent in the arcades like it should have been :)
I used to have a cable modem connection, which prohibited servers. I didn't run any, mostly because even though they didn't normally enforce it, if they did decide to shut me down I couldn't have gotten a different broadband connection (because of kickbacks from the cable modem company to my landlord at the time).
Now that I live somewhere else, I got a DSL connection that allows servers (speakeasy.net - recommended), I have a couple servers, and I'm not worried about them being shut down.
But I wouldn't depend on the "they've never enforced it before" argument - that sounds like the making of a "your rights online" sob article in a few months :)
Not necessarily - the user could just choose whether to use software from an accredited source, or not. I can design bridges in my basement all I want, I just can't sell those designs to anybody or represent myself as a professional civil engineer.
Huh, which Sega machines are those? Is my Genesis affected? It seems like you'd hear about all sorts of old game systems dying at about the same time if this were the case.