Over time, the business rules/knowledge might be turn out to be the most valuable asset, leading others to make a GNUe module for your vertical market.
Likely? Honestly not. Though I'd check with them just in case there might be a match.
I attempted to set up Twiki since it seems to have the best feature set...and I gave up after 4 tries over 2 weeks. The biggest problem was attempting to get it to behave with other existing web apps without reconfiguring all of them to Twiki's preferences.
Too bad, too. I'm slowly dragging the 'openly ignorant' into seeing that there's something beyond either rolling your own or buying and living with bad investments. Twiki raised quite a few eyebrows, though not enough to get a spare machine just for it.
PeopleSoft don't sell pre-made applications that require no configuration changes, and document creators don't write your content, so expecting that open source project should is highly unrealistic.
(old man voice) "No global warming? Deception and lies! That's just the kind of plot the reds would think of!
One day they're frozen solid, next thing you know they'll be putting up palm trees and we'll be importing ice from them. Mark my words, boy! Mark my woooooords!"
Thats GNOME for you, who persue idealistic usability instead of pragmatic usability.
Gnome is damn nice in parts... much more polished than KDE which tends towards excessive extentions. That said, both Gnome and KDE are missing little things that the other tends to do well. I tend to use KDE, though most of my applications are based on the Gnome toolkit and for now that is a good ballence... though I'm '' close to switching to Gnome entirely.
To me, Windows is too limiting. I tend to encounter intense hassles each time I use it. For example, it comes with so few programs that there isn't a good core set you can rely on. Instead, you have to dig up extras, and drag them along to get anything done. Another nit: Windows and Windows programs tend to rely too heavily on file extentions, leading to quite a few oddities and inconsistancies in both the interface and in how programs behave.
I could go on, though most Windows users aren't aware of the limitations or the possibilities... even of Windows itself. The registry is underused, and installation programs are seen as the begining and end of setting up any new program. Neither are true for Windows or any of the X-based desktops.
It's not 100% clear that Linuxant is in the clear here - you can make a pretty good case that DriverLoader is a derivative of the Linux kernel and thus subject to the GPL.
If they are doing what NVidia is doing -- open loader based on GPLed headers with binary propriatory part -- then they are in the clear.
Besides, they can still sell the GPLed part...it's just that they can't restrict redistribution. Any binary bridge (like NVidia's) isn't under the GPL, so that part can be under whatever licence they choose.
This has probably been mentioned before, but that attitude is very dangerous. All it takes is countless managers thinking the ol' Linux box sitting in the corner doesn't need maintenance, when a new Apache vulnerability is discovered.
To patch a typical Linux program -- partially because like other versions of Unix it uses inodes on the file system -- all you have to do is upgrade and optionally restart the server.
Patching Linux is almost always trivial and can be automated using a variety of tools, some wrapped entirely in a point-and-click interface.
...when it comes to a bias in favor of free (as in freedom, not beer) then all of a sudden it becomes so taboo - not even Linus wants to have that bias. I think that is such a shame, hasn't history shown that it's a worthy and rational bias by now?
I take the stance that you have to look at base motivations. For some things, propriatory wins out...others, open and free. People make propriatory software for a reason, while open software is usually made with a different set of goals.
That said, it is not a dichotomy since there are dozens of other types of licences and subsets (ex: GPL, MPL,...). Those who aren't aware of the differences tend to think that open software is "freeware" or even "shareware"/"demoware" -- and it's not -- though on a practical level the immediate use (not distribution) of either may have the same consequences.
Free-as-in-beer (freeware) is worth less than propriatory over time since the expectation of future updates or compatability fixes is lower than propriatory-with-a-purchase/lease-price.
Propriatory is worth less than free-as-in-freedom because if the group/company/person providing it decides not to maintain it or breaks compatability, you're stuck. The free-as-in-freedom software always has the potential to be maintained and updated.
Where people who are new to the whole open source world make a mistake is that they think "freeware" (as in not supported) instead of open (as in it can always be supported -- though not necessarily practical).
What I do is try to describe what the differences are though it is a hard slog. If you start out with "free-as-in-freedom" most people won't take you seriously because they are not knowledgeable in what the tradeoffs are and consider "free-as-in-freedom" a revolutionary stance involving granola, tie died shirts, and nerds with broken glasses.
That there are practical issues with the availability of massive amounts of open source hasn't been understood by many yet. If you can distribute something to someone without incuring a per-copy fee, most people think that *you* own it and are then willing to pay for it. Hmmm...think about that for a few moments if you haven't already.
The attitude that some have that "being a geek" is a bad thing fits in the same category, though being proud of your geekyness is less of a problem and most people can be made to understand it in short order.
I helped out a coworker a few weeks ago, by pointing out the benifits of using a compressed loss-less format (PNG) over an uncompressed one (BMP). For one image, the size was reduced down to 5% of the original size -- surprising even me (large areas were one color).
While I used Pngcrush to squeek out the last few %, even the moderate compression offered by Photoshop was enough to make her happy for a week.
One of the benefits that Microsoft gets by being the market leader is that software is written for it. StarOffice/OpenOffice has a large hurdle to overcome there.
StarOffice and OpenOffice also support StarBASIC (built-in VBA syntax compatible), C++, Java, as well as Python.
Adding Python, though, has shown that the base API needs to be cleaned up to make it simpler. I expect interesting things to happen on this end between now and the next release, though it's usable right now.
If StarOffice, with Sun's clout behind it, can't make a dent in the MS Office monopoly, what makes anyone think a tiny house like Ability will be able to.
While I like StarOffice and OpenOffice, I haven't started to strongly recommend it and pass OpenOffice on to friends till the 1.1 release because of the substantial improvements and a few nifty features.
Sun's serious sales and marketing efforts only started with the build up and release of StarOffice 6.0 -- mainly as a way to sell more Sun hardware on the back end.
When people change jobs, employers and the employee do not want to have to learn something new.
And yet, people learn 'new' programs all the time...on the Internet. Not counting that, there are still other applications that are typically propriatory to a company that the new employees won't automatically know how to use.
When people go home, they don't ask for photo editor X over photo editor Y -- they generally 'pick' the one that is bundled or buy the one they see in the store.
The learning curve is basically lazyness...if it weren't, there would be a drive across many different companies to pick one specific program for each of the other applications that are in use.
MS Office is used primarily because of cut-throat pricing a few years ago, site licences, and OEM bundling deals.
But it can't be true. Someone must be responding to this stuff by spending their money.
Unfortunately, a few years ago, that someone was probably my father.
I got a clue that he was responding (if not buying) things from SPAMed adds when he started to ask about some super-fancy-printer utility -- exactly the thing he would never stumble uppon all by himself.
When I said he didn't need it, he said that it's cheap, and that he might just get it anyway. Curious -- since the program was such an odd thing -- I asked where he was getting the offer from. "I got this email." Do you know the company? "No." That's spam. Never EVER reply or buy ANY of that stuff. "Why? They're just trying to make a living, and who knows maybe I can use the program." (GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR...)
Well, after a talk with him he *said* that he didn't reply to the message and would take my advice to delete the messages unread...but I know my dad. After about 6 months he finally got a clue, and joined the annoyed masses who dispise and know what SPAM is. In those first few months, though, I can't tell you how many messages he replied to and if he bought anything.
Everyone is ASSUMING that there's this other license out there that is a great big GPL violation and the Register has accused SCO straight out for that, but no one (including the article) can actually PRODUCE THIS LICENSE!
As time goes on, there will be two categories of things that need documentation, since almost everything else will be handled automatically;
The truely difficult (can't be automated)
The trivial (the basic commands to tell the software what you want done)
For the difficult tasks (ex: showing how LVM works and how to implement it across a RAID array) you'll just have to slog through the hard parts from concepts through implementation to understand why you want to do it in the first place and what your specfic goals are. With dificult tasks, there usually isn't a one-size-fits-all result everyone wants so you need to know the details or it just won't work well.
For trivial tasks, there typically is one good way to do it, and there will always be novices. For them, 'Mr. Video' is the way to go.
This is one thing I'd *love* to do for either OpenOffice or Mozilla/Firebird. Not to show all possible uses of those programs -- they can be complex at the edges -- but to show the basics quickly, plus a few important specifics ('tabbed browsing is valuable...let's see how'). Some of the existing tutorials for OpenOffice are quite good and within minutes can show a novice how to use the program. What is needed are more of the 'move the mouse this way and press this button to turn the text into a BOLD font'; teach the very basic basics to a stone cold novice.
However, since it's "M$", you refuse to even look and discover that, hey, their documentation is actually pretty damn good.
Microsoft documentation;
Technically correct, practically useless
That said, after 7 years man pages are just now starting to make sense reflexively. I understand the reasoning behind man pages, though they start and end dense with few helpful examples.
Clarification: If they follow the GPL -- yet in public say they do not -- they are not in violation of the GPL.
If in both act and deed they do not follow the GPL and still distribute the software that has a GPL licence, then they are in breach and you are correct.
My point was that they may say one thing and do another.
What I've read is that they are in violation of the GPL right now. The main reason is that they have an additional SCO licence that attempts to cover the GPLed software as well as non-GPLed software and that licence claims ownership of the GPLed code and attempts to ignore the GPL.
If we are not going to rely on perfect code but expect firewalls to catch the problems, then what do we do if the code in the firewalls aren't perfect?
The function of a firewall is to selectively open and close ports. The service on the other end of that port still needs to be secure; the firewall can't make other software secure.
If you know what 'answers' on each port, and you turn those services off, then you've implemented a crude but largely effective firewall without the overhead of a firewall. (Yes, I know there are exceptions.)
His argument is an interesting point of view though. It sounds to me like he's saying microsoft doesn't need perfect code because people can just install firewalls. What if the code in the firewalls in turn isn't perfect though? Doesn't that leave us in an insecure position again? What about the e-mail scanning software? What if it misses a virus? Shouldn't you have layers of protection, instead of an outer layer of protection and a soft underbelly?
More importantly; A firewall -- depending on the situation -- prevents access to some ports, and allows access to others.
When data can be transfered through the firewall, you now depend on the program servicing the port to be secure. If it's not, the fact that there is a firewall in place won't matter since it's out of the picture.
Re:Much of this could be done in linux...
on
Microsoft's new CLI
·
· Score: 1
So why not use perl from the command line??
Why not Python or Ruby or (flash back) REXX instead?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the help. JSPWiki looks good...I'll try it out this weekend.
Over time, the business rules/knowledge might be turn out to be the most valuable asset, leading others to make a GNUe module for your vertical market.
Likely? Honestly not. Though I'd check with them just in case there might be a match.
Too bad, too. I'm slowly dragging the 'openly ignorant' into seeing that there's something beyond either rolling your own or buying and living with bad investments. Twiki raised quite a few eyebrows, though not enough to get a spare machine just for it.
Do you have any alternate WikiWiki suggestions?
If that's his point he's not looking very hard.
While there are a few others listed here, such as this little one, many applications do require customization though typically they aren't bare generic web services like Apache.
PeopleSoft don't sell pre-made applications that require no configuration changes, and document creators don't write your content, so expecting that open source project should is highly unrealistic.
Like CERN, but for dyslexics.
One day they're frozen solid, next thing you know they'll be putting up palm trees and we'll be importing ice from them. Mark my words, boy! Mark my woooooords!"
Gnome is damn nice in parts ... much more polished than KDE which tends towards excessive extentions. That said, both Gnome and KDE are missing little things that the other tends to do well. I tend to use KDE, though most of my applications are based on the Gnome toolkit and for now that is a good ballence ... though I'm '' close to switching to Gnome entirely.
To me, Windows is too limiting. I tend to encounter intense hassles each time I use it. For example, it comes with so few programs that there isn't a good core set you can rely on. Instead, you have to dig up extras, and drag them along to get anything done. Another nit: Windows and Windows programs tend to rely too heavily on file extentions, leading to quite a few oddities and inconsistancies in both the interface and in how programs behave.
I could go on, though most Windows users aren't aware of the limitations or the possibilities ... even of Windows itself. The registry is underused, and installation programs are seen as the begining and end of setting up any new program. Neither are true for Windows or any of the X-based desktops.
If they are doing what NVidia is doing -- open loader based on GPLed headers with binary propriatory part -- then they are in the clear.
Besides, they can still sell the GPLed part...it's just that they can't restrict redistribution. Any binary bridge (like NVidia's) isn't under the GPL, so that part can be under whatever licence they choose.
To patch a typical Linux program -- partially because like other versions of Unix it uses inodes on the file system -- all you have to do is upgrade and optionally restart the server.
Patching Linux is almost always trivial and can be automated using a variety of tools, some wrapped entirely in a point-and-click interface.
I take the stance that you have to look at base motivations. For some things, propriatory wins out...others, open and free. People make propriatory software for a reason, while open software is usually made with a different set of goals.
That said, it is not a dichotomy since there are dozens of other types of licences and subsets (ex: GPL, MPL, ...). Those who aren't aware of the differences tend to think that open software is "freeware" or even "shareware"/"demoware" -- and it's not -- though on a practical level the immediate use (not distribution) of either may have the same consequences.
Free-as-in-beer (freeware) is worth less than propriatory over time since the expectation of future updates or compatability fixes is lower than propriatory-with-a-purchase/lease-price.
Propriatory is worth less than free-as-in-freedom because if the group/company/person providing it decides not to maintain it or breaks compatability, you're stuck. The free-as-in-freedom software always has the potential to be maintained and updated.
Where people who are new to the whole open source world make a mistake is that they think "freeware" (as in not supported) instead of open (as in it can always be supported -- though not necessarily practical).
What I do is try to describe what the differences are though it is a hard slog. If you start out with "free-as-in-freedom" most people won't take you seriously because they are not knowledgeable in what the tradeoffs are and consider "free-as-in-freedom" a revolutionary stance involving granola, tie died shirts, and nerds with broken glasses.
That there are practical issues with the availability of massive amounts of open source hasn't been understood by many yet. If you can distribute something to someone without incuring a per-copy fee, most people think that *you* own it and are then willing to pay for it. Hmmm...think about that for a few moments if you haven't already.
The attitude that some have that "being a geek" is a bad thing fits in the same category, though being proud of your geekyness is less of a problem and most people can be made to understand it in short order.
While I used Pngcrush to squeek out the last few %, even the moderate compression offered by Photoshop was enough to make her happy for a week.
On that note, the StarOffice and OpenOffice SDK now has support for Python development.
StarOffice and OpenOffice also support StarBASIC (built-in VBA syntax compatible), C++, Java, as well as Python.
Adding Python, though, has shown that the base API needs to be cleaned up to make it simpler. I expect interesting things to happen on this end between now and the next release, though it's usable right now.
While I like StarOffice and OpenOffice, I haven't started to strongly recommend it and pass OpenOffice on to friends till the 1.1 release because of the substantial improvements and a few nifty features.
Sun's serious sales and marketing efforts only started with the build up and release of StarOffice 6.0 -- mainly as a way to sell more Sun hardware on the back end.
And yet, people learn 'new' programs all the time...on the Internet. Not counting that, there are still other applications that are typically propriatory to a company that the new employees won't automatically know how to use.
When people go home, they don't ask for photo editor X over photo editor Y -- they generally 'pick' the one that is bundled or buy the one they see in the store.
The learning curve is basically lazyness...if it weren't, there would be a drive across many different companies to pick one specific program for each of the other applications that are in use.
MS Office is used primarily because of cut-throat pricing a few years ago, site licences, and OEM bundling deals.
Mine has doubled (at a minimum) over the last 6 months. I regularly purge 100-200 spam messages a day, though some days it's much lighter.
Unfortunately, a few years ago, that someone was probably my father.
I got a clue that he was responding (if not buying) things from SPAMed adds when he started to ask about some super-fancy-printer utility -- exactly the thing he would never stumble uppon all by himself.
When I said he didn't need it, he said that it's cheap, and that he might just get it anyway. Curious -- since the program was such an odd thing -- I asked where he was getting the offer from. "I got this email." Do you know the company? "No." That's spam. Never EVER reply or buy ANY of that stuff. "Why? They're just trying to make a living, and who knows maybe I can use the program." (GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR...)
Well, after a talk with him he *said* that he didn't reply to the message and would take my advice to delete the messages unread...but I know my dad. After about 6 months he finally got a clue, and joined the annoyed masses who dispise and know what SPAM is. In those first few months, though, I can't tell you how many messages he replied to and if he bought anything.
Point taken. I'm curious myself.
I didn't say otherwise. Sorry for any confusion.
For the difficult tasks (ex: showing how LVM works and how to implement it across a RAID array) you'll just have to slog through the hard parts from concepts through implementation to understand why you want to do it in the first place and what your specfic goals are. With dificult tasks, there usually isn't a one-size-fits-all result everyone wants so you need to know the details or it just won't work well.
For trivial tasks, there typically is one good way to do it, and there will always be novices. For them, 'Mr. Video' is the way to go.
This is one thing I'd *love* to do for either OpenOffice or Mozilla/Firebird. Not to show all possible uses of those programs -- they can be complex at the edges -- but to show the basics quickly, plus a few important specifics ('tabbed browsing is valuable...let's see how'). Some of the existing tutorials for OpenOffice are quite good and within minutes can show a novice how to use the program. What is needed are more of the 'move the mouse this way and press this button to turn the text into a BOLD font'; teach the very basic basics to a stone cold novice.
Microsoft documentation;
Technically correct, practically useless
That said, after 7 years man pages are just now starting to make sense reflexively. I understand the reasoning behind man pages, though they start and end dense with few helpful examples.
True...and only if the people who they distribute to ask for the source.
So how is this incorrect?
You're not. For some reason, most people don't get this specific detail of the GPL.
If in both act and deed they do not follow the GPL and still distribute the software that has a GPL licence, then they are in breach and you are correct.
My point was that they may say one thing and do another.
What I've read is that they are in violation of the GPL right now. The main reason is that they have an additional SCO licence that attempts to cover the GPLed software as well as non-GPLed software and that licence claims ownership of the GPLed code and attempts to ignore the GPL.
The function of a firewall is to selectively open and close ports. The service on the other end of that port still needs to be secure; the firewall can't make other software secure.
If you know what 'answers' on each port, and you turn those services off, then you've implemented a crude but largely effective firewall without the overhead of a firewall. (Yes, I know there are exceptions.)
More importantly; A firewall -- depending on the situation -- prevents access to some ports, and allows access to others.
When data can be transfered through the firewall, you now depend on the program servicing the port to be secure. If it's not, the fact that there is a firewall in place won't matter since it's out of the picture.
Why not Python or Ruby or (flash back) REXX instead?