All the interesting positions in Linux are taken?
on
Tridge Speaks Out
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
All the interesting positions in Linux are taken?
In the kernel, perhaps, and low-level network services. The barrier to entry is high there, and for the best possible reasons. The OS has become a phenomenon - and very very bright people continue to contribute. Lesser lights need not apply until they're more seasoned.
But that doesn't mean that there are applications out there. Many beautiful tools exist - but truly widespread adoption of Linux will require not just killer applications, but also many, many mundane little applications to fill all the niches where little Windows apps fit.
We all know about StarOffice/OpenOffice. But. . .
A really nice accounting package? A little one, like QuickBooks? Contact managers like GoldMine? Bigger CRM applications with all the bells and whistles?
These are projects that are begging to worked on, and completed. (And yes, I know that good work is being done on all these fronts already).
And these are just the sorts of projects that would convince people (at my company at least) to ditch Windows on the desktop once and for all. Even management is becoming painfully aware of Microsoft's hardball tactics, with this latest round of forced upgrades.
There are plenty of crucial positions left in Linux development. Only the shift is now moving away from the kernel and services, and toward real business applications.
Truly an exciting time. And we're only in the 2nd inning of the revolution.
Whoops.... if this really is the applicable license (I couldn't find the XP EULA anywhere on the microsoft site - maybe I'm not looking hard enough?) - then perhaps I was a little hasty.
But the fact is that the no benchmarking clause caused a bit of a stir with (IIRC) SQL Server; and the "No saying bad things about Microsoft" clause in the Frontpage product was the subject of a story here recently.
Forgive me for making the assumption that it was becoming a standard part of their licensing... I think you'll agree that it was a reasonable assumption to make for an off-the-cuff comment.
I don't exactly understand why people think this site is so violently anti-Microsoft. Fact is, there are as many posts here defending them as there are bashing them.
(Then again, perhaps we're being astroturfed. Wouldn't be the first time for that with Microsoft either, now would it? Dead people sending petitions, anyone? Hey - an opposing viewpoint adds plenty to the discussion though.)
I don't foam at the mouth when I think about their products (as I'm sure some do) - but I find some of their business practices and licensing clauses to be quite offensive. Hence, my post.
You know, if you want to come off as being fair and circumspect about these things - and not as a flame or troll - you might want to reconsider that last paragraph.
Successful business(sic) don't use linux?
Please - you're as guilty of the bias you're complaining about as the story is.
One has to wonder how long it'll be before the Microsoft army tries to quash this story.
Isn't there some clause in the license that prevents publishing benchmarks and reviews that are somehow negative towards the product?
'Course, this is IBM, and Billy G. might think twice about causing a dust-up over this. IBM isn't going to fold quickly nor quietly - and thereby give this story a much larger mindshare than it would get otherwise.
Umm... I really didn't see any evidence of irony in the original post. Perhaps I'm just too intellectually challenged to see it in a single misspelled word.
In which case this place is just dripping with irony.
And while we're at it, maybe the original poster is the one who should "chill out." I mean - (s)he was the one proclaiming intolerance for those poor intellectually inferior dum-dums.
I agree - there's enough tension and hatred in the world. A little self-proclaimed intolerance is nothing to be defended.
Well... you paid for it, you can choose what you want to do with it... I'll agree.
But your having paid for it doesn't give you the right to degrade the experience for other people in class. My school had plenty of rules about disruptive students being able to be kicked at the prof's discretion... if typing, surfing (knowing that the student behind you is drawn to whatever you're looking at), IM'ing, etc. is - in the prof's judgement - disrupting his/her class - he should have the right to bounce you for the benefit of the other students (who paid the same as you did.)
If close to half the class did not learn what they needed to in order to successfully complete the class, then there is a problem - that much I'll agree with.
But a blanket condemnation of the professor doesn't account for the lazy students who never showed up, the students who were unmotivated or intellectually unable or unprepared . ..
I saw a lot of this, especially in low-level calculus classes. Freshmen who had a little calculus in high-school, so they decided after the first class or two not to show up until the first exam. Needless to say, a nasty surprise awaited them there.
There are college deans that deal with professors that teach and test poorly, and grades can always be appealed.
But just saying that everyone failed because the teacher sucked is as unfair as simply calling all the students stupid.
If the rules are - no net access in the classroom, and you're required to be there... well... tough. You'll have to sit for a boring hour without your precious distractions.
When you get out into the real world, you'll find most business meetings to be just as much a waste of time. And yes, you'll sit through them. And no, diddling on the net isn't an option there either.
If this is the way things are going... I really fear for the future of computing. Especially if they pass the Bill for requiring digital content controls.
No reason to fear for the future of computing.
Even the most casual users will find this sort of crap so repugnant that either (1) Microsoft will have to reverse it, or (2) they will find a free (as in speech, literally) alternative.
When you read stuff like this, it really makes you wonder whether or not they are just borrowing verbiage/arguments from the very people that ramrodded the DMCA through.
I mean, I'm sure that the MPAA/RIAA/intellectual-property-nazi-du-jour would love to have legislators believe that it's a VHS-Betamax issue, or document-tethering is uncommon today so it should be ignored.
Legislation is drafted by corporations for government rubber-stamping; this smells awfully like the same thing happening at the review phase.
I mean, if you can't trust your congressman, can you really trust the copyright office?
More like the million-monkeys million-typewriters approach.
Re:It's not quite so bad
on
Hotmail Hacked
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Exactly.
This isn't the "major" security hole that the slashdot submission suggested.
It would take a minor miracle to guess a message number correctly.
And considering what *I* use hotmail for, namely, a spam catcher, any hacker that got lucky enough would probably discover yet another way to get rich quick. If someone really wanted to read my email there, they could keep trying - but their hotmail username (at very least) would be recorded.
I don't mean to pooh-pooh this issue; but I think editorializing this into a *major* security problem (a la Code Red) is a little disingenuous, and misguided.
I believe that the "ideals of Free software" allow the developers to code whatever they like - even if the primary purpose was to run proprietary software. p?
Am I wrong?
An Apache server is more than twice as common as one running IIS - hard to imagine any web server higher profile than that.
And hubris? People have been talking smack about IIS for years here. But that mythical guy "enjoys dealing with hubris" will never find an example more egregious or tempting than the Gates/Ballmer/Mundie/Microsoft machine.
I couldn't agree more with the reasons you cite for open-source advocates being marginalized in this study.
When these matters come up, we (as a community) should be able to state our case without foaming at the mouth, without resorting to childish namecalling, and without necessarily advocating tearing down the establishment in a violent manner.
Politicians - it's no secret - have a vested interest in keeping corporations happy.
Our task is to frame the discussion not in terms of Big Corporations vs. Open Source Hippies and Academics (as the report seems to), but rather to frame the discussion in terms of what will truly foster innovation, while protecting the legitimate intellectual property of the creators.
Only if we can convince legislators that they are doing what's right for the advancement of society and the economy will we allow them to see past their corporate contributors' interests.
We need the so-called open-source leadership to collate their arguments against software patents, present them in a manner that reflects well on the community, and encourage open-source advocates to use the arguments when communicating with legislators.
I know it sounds like placing a premium on groupthink (which is something that open-source tends not to encourage), but until we get organized about our message with respect to software patents and intellectual property matters, we will continue to be marginalized as crackpots, academics and children.
Actually, when reading an article profiling Gates' personal financial manager in Fortune(?) some time ago, the manager said that one of his daily tasks was to sell about 80K shares of MSFT from Gates' portfolio in an attempt to diversify it.
I think I remember that correctly.
Anyway, the point is that I'm sure he's selling MSFT stock almost constantly.
Slashdot Mirror
All the interesting positions in Linux are taken?
In the kernel, perhaps, and low-level network services. The barrier to entry is high there, and for the best possible reasons. The OS has become a phenomenon - and very very bright people continue to contribute. Lesser lights need not apply until they're more seasoned.
But that doesn't mean that there are applications out there. Many beautiful tools exist - but truly widespread adoption of Linux will require not just killer applications, but also many, many mundane little applications to fill all the niches where little Windows apps fit.
We all know about StarOffice/OpenOffice. But. . .
A really nice accounting package? A little one, like QuickBooks? Contact managers like GoldMine? Bigger CRM applications with all the bells and whistles?
These are projects that are begging to worked on, and completed. (And yes, I know that good work is being done on all these fronts already).
And these are just the sorts of projects that would convince people (at my company at least) to ditch Windows on the desktop once and for all. Even management is becoming painfully aware of Microsoft's hardball tactics, with this latest round of forced upgrades.
There are plenty of crucial positions left in Linux development. Only the shift is now moving away from the kernel and services, and toward real business applications.
Truly an exciting time. And we're only in the 2nd inning of the revolution.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course.
Me? I choose to avoid them precisely because of their business practices.
Their products are good - and in some cases great - but if there's an alternative I use it wherever possible because of their behavior as a business.
Isn't freedom to choose great?
Whoops.... if this really is the applicable license (I couldn't find the XP EULA anywhere on the microsoft site - maybe I'm not looking hard enough?) - then perhaps I was a little hasty.
But the fact is that the no benchmarking clause caused a bit of a stir with (IIRC) SQL Server; and the "No saying bad things about Microsoft" clause in the Frontpage product was the subject of a story here recently.
Forgive me for making the assumption that it was becoming a standard part of their licensing... I think you'll agree that it was a reasonable assumption to make for an off-the-cuff comment.
I don't exactly understand why people think this site is so violently anti-Microsoft. Fact is, there are as many posts here defending them as there are bashing them.
(Then again, perhaps we're being astroturfed. Wouldn't be the first time for that with Microsoft either, now would it? Dead people sending petitions, anyone? Hey - an opposing viewpoint adds plenty to the discussion though.)
I don't foam at the mouth when I think about their products (as I'm sure some do) - but I find some of their business practices and licensing clauses to be quite offensive. Hence, my post.
You know, if you want to come off as being fair and circumspect about these things - and not as a flame or troll - you might want to reconsider that last paragraph.
Successful business(sic) don't use linux?
Please - you're as guilty of the bias you're complaining about as the story is.
One has to wonder how long it'll be before the Microsoft army tries to quash this story.
Isn't there some clause in the license that prevents publishing benchmarks and reviews that are somehow negative towards the product?
'Course, this is IBM, and Billy G. might think twice about causing a dust-up over this. IBM isn't going to fold quickly nor quietly - and thereby give this story a much larger mindshare than it would get otherwise.
It'll be interesting to watch.
In which case this place is just dripping with irony.
And while we're at it, maybe the original poster is the one who should "chill out." I mean - (s)he was the one proclaiming intolerance for those poor intellectually inferior dum-dums.
I agree - there's enough tension and hatred in the world. A little self-proclaimed intolerance is nothing to be defended.
But your having paid for it doesn't give you the right to degrade the experience for other people in class. My school had plenty of rules about disruptive students being able to be kicked at the prof's discretion... if typing, surfing (knowing that the student behind you is drawn to whatever you're looking at), IM'ing, etc. is - in the prof's judgement - disrupting his/her class - he should have the right to bounce you for the benefit of the other students (who paid the same as you did.)
If close to half the class did not learn what they needed to in order to successfully complete the class, then there is a problem - that much I'll agree with.
But a blanket condemnation of the professor doesn't account for the lazy students who never showed up, the students who were unmotivated or intellectually unable or unprepared . .
I saw a lot of this, especially in low-level calculus classes. Freshmen who had a little calculus in high-school, so they decided after the first class or two not to show up until the first exam. Needless to say, a nasty surprise awaited them there.
There are college deans that deal with professors that teach and test poorly, and grades can always be appealed.
But just saying that everyone failed because the teacher sucked is as unfair as simply calling all the students stupid.
If the rules are - no net access in the classroom, and you're required to be there... well... tough . You'll have to sit for a boring hour without your precious distractions.
When you get out into the real world, you'll find most business meetings to be just as much a waste of time. And yes, you'll sit through them. And no, diddling on the net isn't an option there either.
No reason to fear for the future of computing.
Even the most casual users will find this sort of crap so repugnant that either (1) Microsoft will have to reverse it, or (2) they will find a free (as in speech, literally) alternative.
I mean, I'm sure that the MPAA/RIAA/intellectual-property-nazi-du-jour would love to have legislators believe that it's a VHS-Betamax issue, or document-tethering is uncommon today so it should be ignored.
Legislation is drafted by corporations for government rubber-stamping; this smells awfully like the same thing happening at the review phase.
I mean, if you can't trust your congressman, can you really trust the copyright office?
More like the million-monkeys million-typewriters approach.
This isn't the "major" security hole that the slashdot submission suggested.
It would take a minor miracle to guess a message number correctly.
And considering what *I* use hotmail for, namely, a spam catcher, any hacker that got lucky enough would probably discover yet another way to get rich quick. If someone really wanted to read my email there, they could keep trying - but their hotmail username (at very least) would be recorded.
I don't mean to pooh-pooh this issue; but I think editorializing this into a *major* security problem (a la Code Red) is a little disingenuous, and misguided.
I believe that the "ideals of Free software" allow the developers to code whatever they like - even if the primary purpose was to run proprietary software. p? Am I wrong?
Hehe. . . maybe that self-professed geeks can do a simple math conversion?
An Apache server is more than twice as common as one running IIS - hard to imagine any web server higher profile than that.
And hubris? People have been talking smack about IIS for years here. But that mythical guy "enjoys dealing with hubris" will never find an example more egregious or tempting than the Gates/Ballmer/Mundie/Microsoft machine.
When these matters come up, we (as a community) should be able to state our case without foaming at the mouth, without resorting to childish namecalling, and without necessarily advocating tearing down the establishment in a violent manner.
Politicians - it's no secret - have a vested interest in keeping corporations happy.
Our task is to frame the discussion not in terms of Big Corporations vs. Open Source Hippies and Academics (as the report seems to), but rather to frame the discussion in terms of what will truly foster innovation, while protecting the legitimate intellectual property of the creators.
Only if we can convince legislators that they are doing what's right for the advancement of society and the economy will we allow them to see past their corporate contributors' interests.
We need the so-called open-source leadership to collate their arguments against software patents, present them in a manner that reflects well on the community, and encourage open-source advocates to use the arguments when communicating with legislators.
I know it sounds like placing a premium on groupthink (which is something that open-source tends not to encourage), but until we get organized about our message with respect to software patents and intellectual property matters, we will continue to be marginalized as crackpots, academics and children.
I think I remember that correctly.
Anyway, the point is that I'm sure he's selling MSFT stock almost constantly.
grep -c NNNNN access_log
Gives a neat little count.
Actually, patents are only granted on genes as chemical compounds - not on anything as they exist in nature.
If a drug company decodes a gene to the point that they can come up with a nifty test to detect a genetic disorder, it's patentable.
And apparently the USPTO is raising the bar for getting genetic patents approved as well. (See the new criterion for "utility").
I'm (perhaps naively) confident that the people over there in the Treasury dept know a little something about managing debt appropriately, even in the face of strong future U.S. economic growth and substantial budget surpluses "as far into the future as the eye can see."
I believe the word you're looking for is tantamount - Equivalent in effect or value
Give up the points, moderators.
If so, then I stand corrected. And kinda sit back wondering what the hoopla is about.
Cheers - and thanks for the correction.
Here is a little article about it.
You (the site maintainer) would have to put metatags in all your pages in order to turn it OFF.
Personally, if it were opt-in rather than opt-out, I'd see no problem with this at all.