I have a hard time believing that you've ever read any SEC rules if you really think that the "general public" has an equal chance of grabbing the first shares offered for an IPO. If they want to, Intel can buy their shares well before you.
What does splitting the stock have to do with anything? The percentage of the company that you own will be the same after the split.
OK, first of all, when the report was done, both distributions used 2.0.x kernels. So there's one reason for low SMP scores. I won't delve into all the people around here who used to tell us how wonderful SMP was back in the 2.0.x days, and are now telling us how wonderful SMP is in 2.2.x.
Fact is, while the SMP is improved, it's still not there yet, and many people (people actually using the stuff for business, not all the uninformed zealots that you see ranting about MSNBC in this thread) have doubts that it's ready for the enterprise.
As for the SMP questions, they're legit. There are major functions within the Linux kernel which are still, even with 2.2.x, not reentrant. True asynchronous I/O is missing here, too, another strike against it. These things aren't really going to effect most people here in a big way, but they are areas that need to be improved (along with others) for more people to start seeing Linux as enterprise-ready -- and no, I don't think this report was aimed at the usual Slashdot audience: I imagine that the intended audience could give a rat's ass about KDE vs. GNOME, xamp, or themes.
If you honestly think that Linux equals the best commercial software, you really aren't looking very hard. It's a shame that I've seen so many similar (and equally uninformed) comments on this thread.
Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
"Linux is only free if your time has no value" -- JWZ, mozilla.org
I'd have to disagree with that part of your post. Just from reading Slashdot, it seems like almost every project that has garnered headlines lately is using any license but the GPL. See: QPL, APSL, NPL, NCL, whatever IBM's using, etc.
It doesn't even fully support HTML 3.2, much less 4.0, and it seems like it has a tendency to munge tables. which is not a good thing. Another big downside is that CNRI has announced that they're dropping the project.
I like Python and all, and I think Grail was an interesting work, but it's definitely not a realistic replacement for Netscape/IE.
Can't blame this one on AOL. By the time Navigator/Communicator and IE were both released as version 4 products, Netscape had lost the huge technical advantage that it originally held over the IE team. Now more people use IE than use Netscape, and the lead is only going to widen as long as Netscape/Mozilla delays in coming out with their version 5, which is almost certain to be too late to turn the tide. Also, you certainly can't blame AOL for all the carping that people have done about the state of the source code that Netscape originally released for Mozilla.org.
No, a yes/no answer is not the only thing. First I have to want to open the email, then I have to actually want to open the attachment before I even get to the yes/no question.
I don't want a restricted version of VBA. I don't want to not be able to have remote command execution on Unix. Why is it that Unix is lauded for the freedom it gives the user, but when it comes to the platform that you hate, you criticize it for giving the user too much freedom? I apologize to everyone for the language, but do you realize how much of a fucking hypocrite you are?
So the only thing that stands between your system and a remote user while you are reading an e-mail is a yes/no question?
And when I configure 2.2.x kernels for my machine, the only thing standing between the setup that I want and one without Networking or ELF Binaries support are yes/no questions. It's truly amazing that I can somehow manage to come up with a well functioning system. One can only imagine the flop sweat you produce when configuring yours.
As for macro viruses, I can hit "Yes, disable macros in this document" and Melissa can't do a damn thing to me. You already have to do three steps as it is: (1) Read the email, (2) open the attachment, (3) enable macros. How many hoops do you want users to have to jump through to get things done? If you're that worried, maybe you can hire an unemployed sysadmin to come to your house to read any warnings and type/click "yes/no" for you.
Along with the worm author, user education is the culprit here--it is not Microsoft allowing Office objects to be scripted. I think it's a shame to see so much bad information being tossed about on this topic here.
VBA macros are a good concept. It's an excellent way to tie different applications together, including a huge number of non-Microsoft applications. Hell, even bitter Microsoft rival WordPerfect makes use of VBA now. I'd be curious to know how many of the people who thought Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon excerpt was so spot-on are now bashing something that he roundly praised in it: VBA.
It's not a security hole: by default, users are warned upon opening the document that it may contain a macro virus and asks them if they want to run it anyway. There are only so many safeguards that you can take for the careless before you start making it a hassle for the users who know exactly what they're doing. People can also be burned by recklessly opening up an EPS document or via an unknown document in Emacs. Getting rid of those features that can burn lazy users isn't the answer--user education is.
I can tell you now that as time goes by, non-Microsoft users, including Linux users, are going to want a VBA analogue (using Perl, Python, etc.) to let their X apps interoperate in the same way. If the GNOME and KDE efforts aren't working on it now, they will be soon, and I'm sure that a good number of the people asking for it will be those who bash VBA at every opportunity; they won't even recognize that they're basically asking for something VBA-like for Linux. It just makes it too easy to tie different apps together to ignore. As long as the push for Linux to become easier continues, it's inevitable.
That last line leads to the main point that people need to keep in mind: the easier that you make computers to use in good ways, the easier it is for people to use them in bad ways.
Sure, anyone could write their own code to test other computers with all the exploits that they know, but using SATAN is much easier. Unfortunately, this makes it easier for the budding hacker (flames to/dev/null) to prey upon the uneducated/lazy user. Rather, the uneducated sysadmin in this case, who hasn't kept his system updated.
There are plenty of examples of this, in all facets of life, not just computer-related. Education is the key, blind Microsoft hatred isn't.
I'm sorry, but I just have to call bullshit on your post. You've been comfortably using a single OS for months now, but now you're going to just up and erase it all--I don't buy it.
I won't even go into at length how disgusting I find your hatred of people just for using Windows or IE. I'll just say this: Go ahead and blow NT off your system, but don't install Linux--get your Mac back. I'm a Linux and NT (among others) user, and neither OS has any need for users like you.
Hmm, wonder what he's planning to do. Fork the mozilla code, join the IE effort, start up something entirely new? It's hard to imagine that he left on good terms, since this had to put somewhat of a damper on the 2.0 party, if for no other reason than because of all the questions they're sure to be asked. The above is complete speculation--I certainly have no idea what he's doing and, ever since reading it on news.com hours ago, have been waiting for someone to tell me "April Fools!"
A couple of thoughts come to mind after reading Raymond's latest reply:
It's possible that I might have missed it, but I never see Raymond ever mention the possibility that people might have honest disagreements with him. No, if anyone has a disagreement, it's because they're a "Slashdot kiddie" or someone who doesn't take time out to think before they post. This is what gets him so roundly flamed; the audience starts to notice that no matter how politely their objections to one of Raymond's viewpoints are written, Raymond always takes it personally and can't manage a reply without throwing in some cheap shot or insult. Future writers are less likely to give him the benefit of the doubt, so they throw in insults of their own preemptively, knowing that they'll receive a snotty reply no matter what they write anyway.
The first point leads to a specific instance in his latest writings: his idea that all disagreements should be done behind closed doors instead of in public. To him, everyone who spoke out about his endorsement of the APSL was jumping in without thinking, and private email should have been used instead. This is wrong. Should there have been 100 posts here on Slashdot about how great the APSL is without any rational rebuttal? I'm sure that he would have preferred that all disapproval have been in the form of flames, instead of clear arguments like Perens's, so that they could be written of as written by immature flamers. Then again, it seems like he views any disagreement as a rash flame.
And that last point leads me to this aside: If the APSL did indeed meet the Open Source ideal, why is he still working on a new version of the APSL with them? There's nothing wrong with this, just like people tried working with TrollTech to improve the QPL. But how about having the intellectual honesty to admit that you were wrong about the original APSL meeting the Open Source ideal? Is it ego or Apple money that prevents this?
Lastly, I can only shake my head when I see him mentioning the importance of "look[ing] like sane, credible responsible adults to the non-hacker world." This from the person who proudly displayed the Bill Gates as Hitler/Microsoft as Nazi Germany image on the Open Source home page. This from the person who hijacked people's attempts to get companies to change their Windows preloading/licensing policies by running around in an Obi Wan Kenobi outfit.
In summary: Eric, look to how you might change your own behavior before lecturing the rest of the communinity on theirs.
I don't mean to offend Rowan--I actually appreciate his enthusiasm--but I'm not sure it's wise to turn every Tom, Dick, & Harry's rant into a Slashdot topic. Especially when it just isn't that well-written. If you get something like this, Rob, you should send it back to the author with a nice note asking him to clean it up a bit, not just in terms of spelling (I was just having some fun with my Subject:), but in terms of focus. I'm sure that a good portion of the readers never made it to the end of the article because it was a bit rambling and scattershot. Again, I don't see why this rated an entire topic of its own.
That, combined with a lot of clueless people around here learning what "context" means. It's really not that hard, folks, and you'll find yourselves much less stressed out.
Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Nice sour grapes rationalization
on
Wired on Kipling
·
· Score: 1
Sounds like revisionism to me. At the time, there were plenty of posters telling us how easy it would be for mighty Slashdotters to crack the code, but now after failing to do that, we hear "Aww shucks, nobody was really tryin'."
Puh-leeease. Damn fools talkin' the talk but they can't walk the walk. Oh yeah, and there's nothing at all wrong with the way that they're using the word "hacker." Give it up already.
I've never known anyone (except the ones who are downright anal about it, like you see in this thread, and even they accidently use "hacker" sometimes) use the word "cracker" to describe someone who illegally breaks into others' computers. Most computer people take the word cracker to mean someone cracking software (e.g., removing copy protection, figuring out registration key algorithms, etc.), not breaking into systems. I'll put forth that in their zeal to change the common definition of "hacker," these people are polluting the common definition of "cracker." Look, 95% of the time, you can tell whether it's a neutral hacker or a malicious hacker by the context of the words around it, so get over it already.
Or maybe I should just constantly bitch that people are giving Saltines and Ritz a bad name...
If Apple has no relevance to the industry, then why are you wasting your time talking about it?
The comic relief I get from watching Cupertino and its zealots is outta this world (Just like you said, fanatics are indeed an interesting bunch). So, I guess they are relevant in this way, which isn't so bad--every court needs a jester.
How could Intel and Microsoft be as much of a "closed" platform as Apple? Even in your imagined scenario, you'd still have two companies providing things, not the single source garbage that goes into Apple computers like the iMac. Of course, you fail to realize that Microsoft and Intel don't always agree on what's best for each other, so you have things like Intel investing in RedHat (not in Microsoft's best interest), and Microsoft using things like the Alpha CPU and 3Dnow! instructions (not in Intel's best interest).
Not surprisingly, you don't acknowledge the wealth of non-Microsoft OSes that will run on the PC. What else will run on the most modern Macs other than Linux and Apple OSes? And equally unsurprising is the fact that you must never have heard of Cyrix or AMD. After all, AMD supposedly did sell more chips in retail last month than Intel itself did.
Please return to your iMac and your bowing down to Steve Jobs and quit pretending that you know anything about the industry or that Apple has any relevance to it.
Seems like a lot of you really need to make up your minds. A great deal of the time you're saying, "Linux is so awesome, it's gonna destroy Microsoft, d00d!" Then by the time the next thread comes along, you're up in arms, screaming, "How dare Micro$uck say that they're not a monopoly! They have no competition!" Please make up your minds already. If Microsoft is really a monopoly, then you must believe that Linux will be relegated to irrelevancy unless the government wins this anti-trust suit. Given the odds that anything meaningful will happen to Microsoft as a result of this suit -- very small -- you guys really do have a lot to be worried about.
Bring on the spin.
Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
"Linux is only free if your time has no value" -- JWZ, mozilla.org
sometimes I tend to agree that being associated with the "typical image of a Linux user" is a little embarrasing, but then I think: no, this is the typical image of a *slashdot anonymous coward*.
I dunno, I see it as more of a slashdot user thing, than an AC thing, with the ACs looking to inflame, but some of the non-anonymous posters saying just as much nonsense but actually believing it. Not to say that my own original post wasn't a bit troll-y: I think if I had been the first poster, the tone would've been a lot nicer. After wading through a lot of what were IMO some very out-there ideas, I was ready to grab somebody by the lapels and snap them out of it.
As for the JavaLobby, I'm probably still listed as a member, but I don't consider myself part of it anymore -- I'm just not using Java that much. What would get me annoyed, though, was Rick's going to media outlets and then me reading about it later, presented as if every single member backed up Rick's views. Maybe it was just bad reporting, but it still grated. I had joined very early on, before it got political, but once it did, it ruined it for me. Any veneer of professionalism went out of it and the forums became more like alt.destroy.microsoft than anything actually useful to a developer. I'm sure that anyone who joins now knows what they're getting, but back in the beginning, a good many didn't.
As for Eric Raymond, I can't share your admiration. I think he's most interested in stroking his own ego. And the reason for my Raymond-Ross comparison had to do with me signing up for the JavaLobby, then being saddled with Ross's petty media bullshit by proxy, just as some people, especially the media, take Raymond's statements to be some sort of gospel representing Linux users everywhere. What I don't like is my guilt by association with what I deem as two unsavory characters. Out of your list, I'd say I hold Larry Wall in much higher esteem than any of the other people. Maybe it's just because I know less about him as a person than the rest, which has something to do with the ones that I dislike. Hmmm... Oh well, whether there's a deeper reason behind it or not, there's always been something about his attitude that I've admired.
Anyway, not to disparage your JavaLobby membership -- like I said, it's been a long time since I was active, so it (and Rick) might be completely different now for all I know.
Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
"Linux is only free if your time has no value" -- JWZ, mozilla.org
I'm not bitter about it. I use Linux, 'tho I haven't had the time to move up to the 2.2 final yet on my dual x86 or sparc box, yet. I'd be bitter if I used it and it wasn't stable, but Linux and NT don't give me any problems in that area. It's just hard not to do a big eyeroll at seeing people going ga-ga over announcements that, forget not even having taken place yet, haven't even been confirmed that they will take place. How 'bout supporting the vendors that already are supporting Linux? I'm sure they must feel pretty special to hear everyone drooling because Dell might ship Linux boxes, even though other companies have been doing it for years, and especially when Dell shows where their true heart is by announcing that they'll sell freakin' BETA OSes preloaded and still have said nothing about Linux, despite the big 2.2 hoo-haw. Okay, I've about run out of Bold, time for me to go.
Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
"Linux is only free if your time has no value" -- JWZ, mozilla.org
I mean, Hell, I actually use Linux, but it's just amazing to hear the delusionment that's afflicted the vocal majority of their supporters. I hear so many things that just fly in the face of what's going on in the real world, it's not even funny. It's so much to the point of a joke that many times I rarely mention that I use Linux unless I'm pressed because it's embarrassing to be associated with the typical image of a Linux user. Totally reminds me of what happened to the JavaLobby, 'though that might've been worse. Uh yeah, like I want Eric Raymond or Rick Ross to speak for me.
Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
"Linux is only free if your time has no value" -- JWZ, mozilla.org
Slashdot Mirror
I have a hard time believing that you've ever read any SEC rules if you really think that the "general public" has an equal chance of grabbing the first shares offered for an IPO. If they want to, Intel can buy their shares well before you.
What does splitting the stock have to do with anything? The percentage of the company that you own will be the same after the split.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
OK, first of all, when the report was done, both distributions used 2.0.x kernels. So there's one reason for low SMP scores. I won't delve into all the people around here who used to tell us how wonderful SMP was back in the 2.0.x days, and are now telling us how wonderful SMP is in 2.2.x.
Fact is, while the SMP is improved, it's still not there yet, and many people (people actually using the stuff for business, not all the uninformed zealots that you see ranting about MSNBC in this thread) have doubts that it's ready for the enterprise.
As for the SMP questions, they're legit. There are major functions within the Linux kernel which are still, even with 2.2.x, not reentrant. True asynchronous I/O is missing here, too, another strike against it. These things aren't really going to effect most people here in a big way, but they are areas that need to be improved (along with others) for more people to start seeing Linux as enterprise-ready -- and no, I don't think this report was aimed at the usual Slashdot audience: I imagine that the intended audience could give a rat's ass about KDE vs. GNOME, xamp, or themes.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
If you honestly think that Linux equals the best commercial software, you really aren't looking very hard. It's a shame that I've seen so many similar (and equally uninformed) comments on this thread.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
"Linux is only free if your time has no value" -- JWZ, mozilla.org
I'd have to disagree with that part of your post. Just from reading Slashdot, it seems like almost every project that has garnered headlines lately is using any license but the GPL. See: QPL, APSL, NPL, NCL, whatever IBM's using, etc.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
It doesn't even fully support HTML 3.2, much less 4.0, and it seems like it has a tendency to munge tables. which is not a good thing. Another big downside is that CNRI has announced that they're dropping the project.
I like Python and all, and I think Grail was an interesting work, but it's definitely not a realistic replacement for Netscape/IE.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Can't blame this one on AOL. By the time Navigator/Communicator and IE were both released as version 4 products, Netscape had lost the huge technical advantage that it originally held over the IE team. Now more people use IE than use Netscape, and the lead is only going to widen as long as Netscape/Mozilla delays in coming out with their version 5, which is almost certain to be too late to turn the tide. Also, you certainly can't blame AOL for all the carping that people have done about the state of the source code that Netscape originally released for Mozilla.org.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Sorry, it just didn't. Anarchy? Please.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
No, a yes/no answer is not the only thing. First I have to want to open the email, then I have to actually want to open the attachment before I even get to the yes/no question.
I don't want a restricted version of VBA. I don't want to not be able to have remote command execution on Unix. Why is it that Unix is lauded for the freedom it gives the user, but when it comes to the platform that you hate, you criticize it for giving the user too much freedom? I apologize to everyone for the language, but do you realize how much of a fucking hypocrite you are?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
And when I configure 2.2.x kernels for my machine, the only thing standing between the setup that I want and one without Networking or ELF Binaries support are yes/no questions. It's truly amazing that I can somehow manage to come up with a well functioning system. One can only imagine the flop sweat you produce when configuring yours.
As for macro viruses, I can hit "Yes, disable macros in this document" and Melissa can't do a damn thing to me. You already have to do three steps as it is: (1) Read the email, (2) open the attachment, (3) enable macros. How many hoops do you want users to have to jump through to get things done? If you're that worried, maybe you can hire an unemployed sysadmin to come to your house to read any warnings and type/click "yes/no" for you.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Along with the worm author, user education is the culprit here--it is not Microsoft allowing Office objects to be scripted. I think it's a shame to see so much bad information being tossed about on this topic here.
VBA macros are a good concept. It's an excellent way to tie different applications together, including a huge number of non-Microsoft applications. Hell, even bitter Microsoft rival WordPerfect makes use of VBA now. I'd be curious to know how many of the people who thought Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon excerpt was so spot-on are now bashing something that he roundly praised in it: VBA.
It's not a security hole: by default, users are warned upon opening the document that it may contain a macro virus and asks them if they want to run it anyway. There are only so many safeguards that you can take for the careless before you start making it a hassle for the users who know exactly what they're doing. People can also be burned by recklessly opening up an EPS document or via an unknown document in Emacs. Getting rid of those features that can burn lazy users isn't the answer--user education is.
I can tell you now that as time goes by, non-Microsoft users, including Linux users, are going to want a VBA analogue (using Perl, Python, etc.) to let their X apps interoperate in the same way. If the GNOME and KDE efforts aren't working on it now, they will be soon, and I'm sure that a good number of the people asking for it will be those who bash VBA at every opportunity; they won't even recognize that they're basically asking for something VBA-like for Linux. It just makes it too easy to tie different apps together to ignore. As long as the push for Linux to become easier continues, it's inevitable.
That last line leads to the main point that people need to keep in mind: the easier that you make computers to use in good ways, the easier it is for people to use them in bad ways.
Sure, anyone could write their own code to test other computers with all the exploits that they know, but using SATAN is much easier. Unfortunately, this makes it easier for the budding hacker (flames to /dev/null) to prey upon the uneducated/lazy user. Rather, the uneducated sysadmin in this case, who hasn't kept his system updated.
There are plenty of examples of this, in all facets of life, not just computer-related. Education is the key, blind Microsoft hatred isn't.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I'm sorry, but I just have to call bullshit on your post. You've been comfortably using a single OS for months now, but now you're going to just up and erase it all--I don't buy it.
I won't even go into at length how disgusting I find your hatred of people just for using Windows or IE. I'll just say this: Go ahead and blow NT off your system, but don't install Linux--get your Mac back. I'm a Linux and NT (among others) user, and neither OS has any need for users like you.
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Just for the record...
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Hmm, wonder what he's planning to do. Fork the mozilla code, join the IE effort, start up something entirely new? It's hard to imagine that he left on good terms, since this had to put somewhat of a damper on the 2.0 party, if for no other reason than because of all the questions they're sure to be asked. The above is complete speculation--I certainly have no idea what he's doing and, ever since reading it on news.com hours ago, have been waiting for someone to tell me "April Fools!"
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Damn slackers...
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
A couple of thoughts come to mind after reading Raymond's latest reply:
In summary: Eric, look to how you might change your own behavior before lecturing the rest of the communinity on theirs.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I don't mean to offend Rowan--I actually appreciate his enthusiasm--but I'm not sure it's wise to turn every Tom, Dick, & Harry's rant into a Slashdot topic. Especially when it just isn't that well-written. If you get something like this, Rob, you should send it back to the author with a nice note asking him to clean it up a bit, not just in terms of spelling (I was just having some fun with my Subject:), but in terms of focus. I'm sure that a good portion of the readers never made it to the end of the article because it was a bit rambling and scattershot. Again, I don't see why this rated an entire topic of its own.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
That, combined with a lot of clueless people around here learning what "context" means. It's really not that hard, folks, and you'll find yourselves much less stressed out.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Sounds like revisionism to me. At the time, there were plenty of posters telling us how easy it would be for mighty Slashdotters to crack the code, but now after failing to do that, we hear "Aww shucks, nobody was really tryin'."
Puh-leeease. Damn fools talkin' the talk but they can't walk the walk. Oh yeah, and there's nothing at all wrong with the way that they're using the word "hacker." Give it up already.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows
I've never known anyone (except the ones who are downright anal about it, like you see in this thread, and even they accidently use "hacker" sometimes) use the word "cracker" to describe someone who illegally breaks into others' computers. Most computer people take the word cracker to mean someone cracking software (e.g., removing copy protection, figuring out registration key algorithms, etc.), not breaking into systems. I'll put forth that in their zeal to change the common definition of "hacker," these people are polluting the common definition of "cracker." Look, 95% of the time, you can tell whether it's a neutral hacker or a malicious hacker by the context of the words around it, so get over it already.
Or maybe I should just constantly bitch that people are giving Saltines and Ritz a bad name...
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
The comic relief I get from watching Cupertino and its zealots is outta this world (Just like you said, fanatics are indeed an interesting bunch). So, I guess they are relevant in this way, which isn't so bad--every court needs a jester.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
How could Intel and Microsoft be as much of a "closed" platform as Apple? Even in your imagined scenario, you'd still have two companies providing things, not the single source garbage that goes into Apple computers like the iMac. Of course, you fail to realize that Microsoft and Intel don't always agree on what's best for each other, so you have things like Intel investing in RedHat (not in Microsoft's best interest), and Microsoft using things like the Alpha CPU and 3Dnow! instructions (not in Intel's best interest).
Not surprisingly, you don't acknowledge the wealth of non-Microsoft OSes that will run on the PC. What else will run on the most modern Macs other than Linux and Apple OSes? And equally unsurprising is the fact that you must never have heard of Cyrix or AMD. After all, AMD supposedly did sell more chips in retail last month than Intel itself did.
Please return to your iMac and your bowing down to Steve Jobs and quit pretending that you know anything about the industry or that Apple has any relevance to it.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Seems like a lot of you really need to make up your minds. A great deal of the time you're saying, "Linux is so awesome, it's gonna destroy Microsoft, d00d!" Then by the time the next thread comes along, you're up in arms, screaming, "How dare Micro$uck say that they're not a monopoly! They have no competition!" Please make up your minds already. If Microsoft is really a monopoly, then you must believe that Linux will be relegated to irrelevancy unless the government wins this anti-trust suit. Given the odds that anything meaningful will happen to Microsoft as a result of this suit -- very small -- you guys really do have a lot to be worried about.
Bring on the spin.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
"Linux is only free if your time has no value" -- JWZ, mozilla.org
As for the JavaLobby, I'm probably still listed as a member, but I don't consider myself part of it anymore -- I'm just not using Java that much. What would get me annoyed, though, was Rick's going to media outlets and then me reading about it later, presented as if every single member backed up Rick's views. Maybe it was just bad reporting, but it still grated. I had joined very early on, before it got political, but once it did, it ruined it for me. Any veneer of professionalism went out of it and the forums became more like alt.destroy.microsoft than anything actually useful to a developer. I'm sure that anyone who joins now knows what they're getting, but back in the beginning, a good many didn't.
As for Eric Raymond, I can't share your admiration. I think he's most interested in stroking his own ego. And the reason for my Raymond-Ross comparison had to do with me signing up for the JavaLobby, then being saddled with Ross's petty media bullshit by proxy, just as some people, especially the media, take Raymond's statements to be some sort of gospel representing Linux users everywhere. What I don't like is my guilt by association with what I deem as two unsavory characters. Out of your list, I'd say I hold Larry Wall in much higher esteem than any of the other people. Maybe it's just because I know less about him as a person than the rest, which has something to do with the ones that I dislike. Hmmm... Oh well, whether there's a deeper reason behind it or not, there's always been something about his attitude that I've admired.
Anyway, not to disparage your JavaLobby membership -- like I said, it's been a long time since I was active, so it (and Rick) might be completely different now for all I know.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
"Linux is only free if your time has no value" -- JWZ, mozilla.org
I'm not bitter about it. I use Linux, 'tho I haven't had the time to move up to the 2.2 final yet on my dual x86 or sparc box, yet. I'd be bitter if I used it and it wasn't stable, but Linux and NT don't give me any problems in that area. It's just hard not to do a big eyeroll at seeing people going ga-ga over announcements that, forget not even having taken place yet, haven't even been confirmed that they will take place. How 'bout supporting the vendors that already are supporting Linux? I'm sure they must feel pretty special to hear everyone drooling because Dell might ship Linux boxes, even though other companies have been doing it for years, and especially when Dell shows where their true heart is by announcing that they'll sell freakin' BETA OSes preloaded and still have said nothing about Linux, despite the big 2.2 hoo-haw. Okay, I've about run out of Bold, time for me to go.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
"Linux is only free if your time has no value" -- JWZ, mozilla.org
I mean, Hell, I actually use Linux, but it's just amazing to hear the delusionment that's afflicted the vocal majority of their supporters. I hear so many things that just fly in the face of what's going on in the real world, it's not even funny. It's so much to the point of a joke that many times I rarely mention that I use Linux unless I'm pressed because it's embarrassing to be associated with the typical image of a Linux user. Totally reminds me of what happened to the JavaLobby, 'though that might've been worse. Uh yeah, like I want Eric Raymond or Rick Ross to speak for me.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
"Linux is only free if your time has no value" -- JWZ, mozilla.org