> You're assuming the outsourced jobs are going to less competent people.
No I'm not. I'm saying that it doesn't matter if they are or not.
>It's been stated that the typical Indian IT worker, for example, is just as qualified as your average US IT worker.
Being "qualified" is not just about education. This is not about india vs US. I'd say the same thing if companies were firing their seasoned employees and giving them to people fresh out of college. When you work in your particular field, there's a lot of domain expertise that needs to be built up. For instance you may develop a suite of products, and know their history, quirks, design goals, requirements, etc. This domain expertise should, if your management has their heads out of their asses, make you VERY valuable to the company. If I give my job to someone with twice as much education, but lacking this domain expertise, they're still going to be much less productive than me. I don't think that observation is closed minded at all.
>If you looked at it objectively, you'd realise why the jobs are going, and who they're going to.
The almighty buck is not objective enough for you? I have seen no evidence to lead me to believe that jobs get outsourced for higher quality work. If you have some case studies in which that has happened, I'd love to see them.
>have caused most of the distress over this situation. I think american workers should be distressed over this. Losing our white collar "knowledge jobs" is incredibly bad for the economy, not to mention bad for the people that lose their livelihood. Perhaps we need to unionize? Perhaps the US is doomed to do nothing but sell pizza to each other, with a completely service-based economy, but I think IT workers are within their rights to slow this process down by unionizing and striking.
Yes, I'm US centric. That's where I live, and don't want to have to move away to earn a living. It's a pro-US stance.. I have nothing against India or China or the fine people that live there.
>If your job is so valuable that it takes a few days to train someone to be as competent as you, then how does that reflect upon your job?
The key phrase here is "as competent as you". If you're being outsourced, that's not the goal. It's a minor consideration. The company is not trying to buy competence... they've already got it (or one would hope). They're trying to buy a cheap warm body to make next year's balance sheets look a little better. Competence doesn't factor into the equation. The company hopes that eventually this new person will perform as well as the one they let go, but in the meantime they're quite happy to have significantly less productivity if it means they can pay them a small fraction of what they pay their current employee.
>I will have to compromise and add non-free software to my computer, for now.
Boo hoo. Yes, Ogg would be cool, but complaining about the station offering MP3 will only make them think "man these open source guys are a bunch of FREAKS. We can't please them anyway, so we might as well work with Microsoft". The idea that "all software should be free" is not the philosophy of the majority of the IT community, or even the majority of the OSS community. I'd say that you definately ARE in the minority. You're certianly entitled to that opinion, as long as you don't ascribe it to the rest of the OSS comunity.
I would argue that being able to sell software is good for the economy, as long as there is free and open competition. MP3 can give us exactly that. Many companies can produce an MP3 player, so there will be no vendor lock-in. There are already a huge number of hardware vendors that support it as well. Quite frankly I fail to see what's so bad about that. Yes, it's not "free as in speech", but it's probably because I don't buy the idea that "all software should be free". I say that free software and commercial software can co-exist. I want my MP3.
>you could have the greatest plot in the world, but if your actors suck, your movie will suck
The converse is also true
you could have the greatest actors in the world, but if your writing sucks, your movie will suck.
I think this is what causes 70-80% of movies and TV out there unwatchable, and why I have a hard time watching the Simpsons today. I'd argue that good writing is MUCH harder to come by than good acting, or there might be a couple of shows still worth watching on TV.
>Apparently, Walmart doesn't have to deal with "the fact" of AOL not running, or "massive returns". Walmart has been selling Lindows on Microtel, and possibly several other Linux distros for over 2 1/2 years now, possibly as much as 3 years.
In the stores or just on the web? My impression was that WalMart selling Linux PCs in their stores was a new thing.
I suspect the same people that will buy these systems are the people that use AOL as their internet provider. I doubt the geek crowd will buy them because they're underpowered. The office "power user" crowd won't buy them because they're not loaded with Windows and Office. The remainder are casual internet users. These people don't know what Windows is, yet alone Linux. Many of these same people also use AOL as their internet provider.
How is Walmart/Sun/Etc... going to deal with the fact that AOL does not run on Linux? I expect massive returns of these computers if that issue isn't solved.
>This may surprise you but some people actually think diamonds are nice to look at and that's why they buy them. It has nothing to do with status symbols.
Yeah right. Diamonds look nice, but so do countless other less expensive gemstones. Diamonds do have status associated with them, and that status and "tradition" is due to being propped up by DeBeers. If people just wanted to buy something that looked nice, why do wedding rings always have to have diamonds in them? Surely a few people must think a ring looks just fine without having to be diamond-encrusted, or perhaps prefer emeralds, opals, or rubies.
The previous poster is quite right about the diamond cartel, your positive feelings about diamonds are in no small part due to their propoganda.
>Then again, you've probably never even spoken to a girl so you have no idea.
It's possible the previous poster has never spoken to a girl. It's also possible he talks to intelligent women instead of wasting his time on materialistic girls.
How many times have you heard the F-Word on the Howard Stern show? Really, how many? I'd wager to say you never heard any "profanity" because it WAS BLEEPED OUT. I've never heard a curse word on that show. That said, I don't agree with the bleeping. If someone is so sensitive that they get offended by the use of a common word , they deserve to be offended.
Why are you making your kids listen to Howard Stern anyway? I'm not saying that show is for kids, it isn't.. but to say that you can't turn on the radio because of all the profanity...what planet are you living on? Why can't you turn the dial to NPR? Is working the dial too complicated?
I agree that profanity isn't funny anymore, but when did we get so sensitive that words could hurt us so much? Who made up the list of which words are taboo? Why are they taboo? Why should we perpetuate that? There will always be illiterate people, and there will always be snobs that look down on them. That has nothing to do with indecency or profanity.
There are some real problems on this planet that are worth solving. Get some perspective.
DON'T harass this guy. If you do, you're certainly worse than any spammer.
Yes, he's contributing to the spam problem (probably without realizing it), but it's not like he's going around clubbing baby seals. He just has an unhealthy shopping addiction. Calling and harassing people is not going to solve anything. Instead, write an article on "why responding to SPAM is BAD" and get it printed. Do something constructive.
Editors: Please remove the post containing his phone number. This kind of crap is giving Slashdot a bad name.
>has there been any talk of removing the alleged SCO code?
If there were any SCO code, I'm sure Linus would love to remove it. The only code SCO has shown has been header files specified by POSIX and IBM copyrighted code. Never any SCO code.
Repeat after me: There is no SCO code in the Linux kernel. There never was. There never will be. Darl McBride and Chris Sontag are trying to take money from the gullible.
>If SCO wins, neither you nor very many people at all will be using Linux for awhile.
Why not? Neither of these suits continges that there is SCO IP in Linux, and that end users are liable for it. That's just what SCO is saying publicly. Their suits. however, are about something else. They're suing AutoZone for potentially using UnixWare SHARED LIBRARIES in Linux. They're suing DiamlerChrysler for NOT CERTIFYING that they don't use Linux, as per their strange interpretation of their UnixWare contract.
Incidentally, I don't see how SCO can win either of these suits. But even if they did, it wouldn't mean that there's anything wrong with Linux.
Even if all the suits SCO has filed (IBM, Novell, etc) are ruled in their favor (one chance in a septillion), there's still no proof that end users are liable for any purported SCO "IP" in Linux. Perception is, of course, a problem. It's up to every one of us to declare that SCO is full of shit. There never was any illegally obtained SCO code in Linux, and there never will be. End users with no prior SCO relationship simply have nothing to worry about.
>pulling SCO's right to distribute the Linux kernel does them no harm whatsoever.
Yes and no. They still need to support SCO/Caldera OpenLinux.
Not having the right to re-distribute the Linux kernel would make them unable to fix any security vulnerabilities found therein. Users could still download and install the new kernel themselves, but it would make them look bad. I guess you're right that it would do them no harm then : They couldn't POSSIBLY look any worse to Linux users, even if they advocated the clubbing of baby seals.
It works OK for me. I have a G400 and kernel 2.6.2. I do get a bit of visual oddness when I run X, then switch to the FB virtual console, but this is not a showstopper in my opinion. I did notice that my system responsiveness increased greatly due to kernel preemption, GART support, and better SATA drivers. It was worth it.
>I think you'd see a huge resurgence in MS-Windows popularity among geeks. Its current popularity could be further reinforced.
Possibly. As as someone with a strong technical background, most of what I don't like about windows has nothing to do with the fact that it's not open source. Mostly, I hate the fact that to do anything of significance, you're required to use a GUI. I'd rather be able to SSH in and use vi. Anything multi-user is tacked on, and security is practically non-existant. Making Windows OSS would not make me want to switch. I've already got something better.
>It's probably only a matter of time before Ballmer finally grasps the true benefits of Open Source.
I doubt MS would gain much by Open Sourcing Windows... for a few reasons:
1) OSS would put Windows on the same playing field as Linux and BSD. On the same playing field, Linux is just flat out superior to Windows in most respects.
2) It would be easy to make Windows API clones, given that there could be no more secret APIs. Microsoft would no longer have platform "lock in" to force things like Internet Explorer
3) The code is likely just plain bad. It may need a major rewrite before others in the community could start to contribute.
4) Making something OSS does not necessarily reduce your payroll. Someone has to do the development in OSS, and quite often those people are paid. Witness RedHat, VA, and IBM contributing to Linux.
I don't see MS open sourcing Windows until they're smaller in market share than Linux. Then they'll get desperate, but it will be too late.
Not familiar with the EPIA... It's cool that VIA is making their source code and documentation available. That makes me more willing to try a board with one of their chipsets on it, as long as it has an easy return policy. It's just hard to get past the memories of VIA chipsets past. I'm glad you're not having any trouble.
>those that need hardware that actually works properly with Linux.
>The result of this is that I'll never recommend that anyone gets a Nvidia motherboard and I'll never buy one, it's far too much hassle.
Initially I had some trouble with my NForce2 board... it was a replacement for an absolutely horrible VIA chipset board that just crapped out. I too impressed with Ali chipsets either, as that's what I had on my other box. AMD chipsets, though stable are a bit behind. I'm glad to say that although some of the features were a bit lagging in support, it is rock solid and stable. (much unlike the VIA board)
I just installed Linux 2.6.2... it recognized all my hardware and just worked! I'm not using any proprietary drivers (not even for video). Perhaps upcoming distributions will use the 2.6 series and better support NForce.
I'd say that NForce2 presents a fine alternative to VIA for those that need better stability.
Slashdot Mirror
> You're assuming the outsourced jobs are going to less competent people.
No I'm not. I'm saying that it doesn't matter if they are or not.
>It's been stated that the typical Indian IT worker, for example, is just as qualified as your average US IT worker.
Being "qualified" is not just about education. This is not about india vs US. I'd say the same thing if companies were firing their seasoned employees and giving them to people fresh out of college. When you work in your particular field, there's a lot of domain expertise that needs to be built up. For instance you may develop a suite of products, and know their history, quirks, design goals, requirements, etc. This domain expertise should, if your management has their heads out of their asses, make you VERY valuable to the company. If I give my job to someone with twice as much education, but lacking this domain expertise, they're still going to be much less productive than me. I don't think that observation is closed minded at all.
>If you looked at it objectively, you'd realise why the jobs are going, and who they're going to.
The almighty buck is not objective enough for you? I have seen no evidence to lead me to believe that jobs get outsourced for higher quality work. If you have some case studies in which that has happened, I'd love to see them.
>have caused most of the distress over this situation.
I think american workers should be distressed over this. Losing our white collar "knowledge jobs" is incredibly bad for the economy, not to mention bad for the people that lose their livelihood. Perhaps we need to unionize?
Perhaps the US is doomed to do nothing but sell pizza to each other, with a completely service-based economy, but I think IT workers are within their rights to slow this process down by unionizing and striking.
Yes, I'm US centric. That's where I live, and don't want to have to move away to earn a living.
It's a pro-US stance.. I have nothing against India or China or the fine people that live there.
>If your job is so valuable that it takes a few days to train someone to be as competent as you, then how does that reflect upon your job?
The key phrase here is "as competent as you". If you're being outsourced, that's not the goal. It's a minor consideration. The company is not trying to buy competence... they've already got it (or one would hope). They're trying to buy a cheap warm body to make next year's balance sheets look a little better. Competence doesn't factor into the equation. The company hopes that eventually this new person will perform as well as the one they let go, but in the meantime they're quite happy to have significantly less productivity if it means they can pay them a small fraction of what they pay their current employee.
>They TRIED to convert it to a more conventional system
:)
That's a very odd definition of conventional...
Mainframes are as conventional as you can get.
They're also old school beasts with more raw data processing power than you can dream of on a pansy PC or ordinary unix-like system.
>You apparently dont understand contract law.
A license is not a contract. They're legally two distinct things.
>I will have to compromise and add non-free software to my computer, for now.
Boo hoo. Yes, Ogg would be cool, but complaining about the station offering MP3 will only make them think "man these open source guys are a bunch of FREAKS. We can't please them anyway, so we might as well work with Microsoft". The idea that "all software should be free" is not the philosophy of the majority of the IT community, or even the majority of the OSS community. I'd say that you definately ARE in the minority. You're certianly entitled to that opinion, as long as you don't ascribe it to the rest of the OSS comunity.
I would argue that being able to sell software is good for the economy, as long as there is free and open competition. MP3 can give us exactly that. Many companies can produce an MP3 player, so there will be no vendor lock-in. There are already a huge number of hardware vendors that support it as well. Quite frankly I fail to see what's so bad about that. Yes, it's not "free as in speech", but it's probably because I don't buy the idea that "all software should be free". I say that free software and commercial software can co-exist. I want my MP3.
>you could have the greatest plot in the world, but if your actors suck, your movie will suck
The converse is also true
you could have the greatest actors in the world, but if your writing sucks, your movie will suck.
I think this is what causes 70-80% of movies and TV out there unwatchable, and why I have a hard time watching the Simpsons today. I'd argue that good writing is MUCH harder to come by than good acting, or there might be a couple of shows still worth watching on TV.
>Apparently, Walmart doesn't have to deal with "the fact" of AOL not running, or "massive returns". Walmart has been selling Lindows on Microtel, and possibly several other Linux distros for over 2 1/2 years now, possibly as much as 3 years.
In the stores or just on the web? My impression was that WalMart selling Linux PCs in their stores was a new thing.
I suspect the same people that will buy these systems are the people that use AOL as their internet provider. I doubt the geek crowd will buy them because they're underpowered. The office "power user" crowd won't buy them because they're not loaded with Windows and Office. The remainder are casual internet users. These people don't know what Windows is, yet alone Linux. Many of these same people also use AOL as their internet provider.
How is Walmart/Sun/Etc... going to deal with the fact that AOL does not run on Linux? I expect massive returns of these computers if that issue isn't solved.
>This may surprise you but some people actually think diamonds are nice to look at and that's why they buy them. It has nothing to do with status symbols.
Yeah right. Diamonds look nice, but so do countless other less expensive gemstones. Diamonds do have status associated with them, and that status and "tradition" is due to being propped up by DeBeers. If people just wanted to buy something that looked nice, why do wedding rings always have to have diamonds in them? Surely a few people must think a ring looks just fine without having to be diamond-encrusted, or perhaps prefer emeralds, opals, or rubies.
The previous poster is quite right about the diamond cartel, your positive feelings about diamonds are in no small part due to their propoganda.
>Then again, you've probably never even spoken to a girl so you have no idea.
It's possible the previous poster has never spoken to a girl. It's also possible he talks to intelligent women instead of wasting his time on materialistic girls.
>GNOME's focus is on users, usability and simplicity, to mention a few. KDE's focus is on power, flexibility and reconfigurability, to mention a few.
Are you sure that's not backwards?
>Why can't we just experience the universe directly without the interference of sybols and concepts.
Absolutely. The invention of LANGUAGE has been a bad move.
How many times have you heard the F-Word on the Howard Stern show? Really, how many? I'd wager to say you never heard any "profanity" because it WAS BLEEPED OUT. I've never heard a curse word on that show. That said, I don't agree with the bleeping. If someone is so sensitive that they get offended by the use of a common word , they deserve to be offended.
Why are you making your kids listen to Howard Stern anyway? I'm not saying that show is for kids, it isn't.. but to say that you can't turn on the radio because of all the profanity...what planet are you living on? Why can't you turn the dial to NPR? Is working the dial too complicated?
I agree that profanity isn't funny anymore, but when did we get so sensitive that words could hurt us so much? Who made up the list of which words are taboo? Why are they taboo? Why should we perpetuate that? There will always be illiterate people, and there will always be snobs that look down on them. That has nothing to do with indecency or profanity.
There are some real problems on this planet that are worth solving. Get some perspective.
DON'T harass this guy. If you do, you're certainly worse than any spammer.
Yes, he's contributing to the spam problem (probably without realizing it), but it's not like he's going around clubbing baby seals. He just has an unhealthy shopping addiction. Calling and harassing people is not going to solve anything. Instead, write an article on "why responding to SPAM is BAD" and get it printed. Do something constructive.
Editors: Please remove the post containing his phone number. This kind of crap is giving Slashdot a bad name.
Or you can buy a cheap varaible resistor (such as those made by Zallman) and use your existing fan.
>look tree
You see nothing of interest
>look sky
You see nothing of interest
>go east
You can't go that way
>go west
You can't go that way
>quit
>has there been any talk of removing the alleged SCO code?
If there were any SCO code, I'm sure Linus would love to remove it. The only code SCO has shown has been header files specified by POSIX and IBM copyrighted code. Never any SCO code.
Repeat after me: There is no SCO code in the Linux kernel. There never was. There never will be. Darl McBride and Chris Sontag are trying to take money from the gullible.
>Eclipse, the IDE, keeps an internal history repository of my source code. Damn security breach!
Does it? I'm pretty sure you need to hook it up to CVS or ClearCase for that.
>If SCO wins, neither you nor very many people at all will be using Linux for awhile.
Why not? Neither of these suits continges that there is SCO IP in Linux, and that end users are liable for it. That's just what SCO is saying publicly. Their suits. however, are about something else. They're suing AutoZone for potentially using UnixWare SHARED LIBRARIES in Linux. They're suing DiamlerChrysler for NOT CERTIFYING that they don't use Linux, as per their strange interpretation of their UnixWare contract.
Incidentally, I don't see how SCO can win either of these suits. But even if they did, it wouldn't mean that there's anything wrong with Linux.
Even if all the suits SCO has filed (IBM, Novell, etc) are ruled in their favor (one chance in a septillion), there's still no proof that end users are liable for any purported SCO "IP" in Linux. Perception is, of course, a problem. It's up to every one of us to declare that SCO is full of shit. There never was any illegally obtained SCO code in Linux, and there never will be. End users with no prior SCO relationship simply have nothing to worry about.
>pulling SCO's right to distribute the Linux kernel does them no harm whatsoever.
Yes and no. They still need to support SCO/Caldera OpenLinux.
Not having the right to re-distribute the Linux kernel would make them unable to fix any security vulnerabilities found therein. Users could still download and install the new kernel themselves, but it would make them look bad. I guess you're right that it would do them no harm then : They couldn't POSSIBLY look any worse to Linux users, even if they advocated the clubbing of baby seals.
Do you have the latest BINUTILS? That fixed the problem for me.
It works OK for me. I have a G400 and kernel 2.6.2. I do get a bit of visual oddness when I run X, then switch to the FB virtual console, but this is not a showstopper in my opinion. I did notice that my system responsiveness increased greatly due to kernel preemption, GART support, and better SATA drivers. It was worth it.
>I think you'd see a huge resurgence in MS-Windows popularity among geeks. Its current popularity could be further reinforced.
Possibly. As as someone with a strong technical background, most of what I don't like about windows has nothing to do with the fact that it's not open source. Mostly, I hate the fact that to do anything of significance, you're required to use a GUI. I'd rather be able to SSH in and use vi. Anything multi-user is tacked on, and security is practically non-existant. Making Windows OSS would not make me want to switch. I've already got something better.
>It's probably only a matter of time before Ballmer finally grasps the true benefits of Open Source.
I doubt MS would gain much by Open Sourcing Windows... for a few reasons:
1) OSS would put Windows on the same playing field as Linux and BSD. On the same playing field, Linux is just flat out superior to Windows in most respects.
2) It would be easy to make Windows API clones, given that there could be no more secret APIs. Microsoft would no longer have platform "lock in" to force things like Internet Explorer
3) The code is likely just plain bad. It may need a major rewrite before others in the community could start to contribute.
4) Making something OSS does not necessarily reduce your payroll. Someone has to do the development in OSS, and quite often those people are paid. Witness RedHat, VA, and IBM contributing to Linux.
I don't see MS open sourcing Windows until they're smaller in market share than Linux. Then they'll get desperate, but it will be too late.
Not familiar with the EPIA... It's cool that VIA is making their source code and documentation available. That makes me more willing to try a board with one of their chipsets on it, as long as it has an easy return policy. It's just hard to get past the memories of VIA chipsets past. I'm glad you're not having any trouble.
>those that need hardware that actually works properly with Linux.
Hmm.. Completely OSS. Firewire, UDMA, SATA, AGPGart.. I'd say that's quite proper.
Point taken that NVidia can be a bit secretive about specs, particularly on their graphics cards.
>The result of this is that I'll never recommend that anyone gets a Nvidia motherboard and I'll never buy one, it's far too much hassle.
Initially I had some trouble with my NForce2 board... it was a replacement for an absolutely horrible VIA chipset board that just crapped out. I too impressed with Ali chipsets either, as that's what I had on my other box. AMD chipsets, though stable are a bit behind. I'm glad to say that although some of the features were a bit lagging in support, it is rock solid and stable. (much unlike the VIA board)
I just installed Linux 2.6.2... it recognized all my hardware and just worked! I'm not using any proprietary drivers (not even for video). Perhaps upcoming distributions will use the 2.6 series and better support NForce.
I'd say that NForce2 presents a fine alternative to VIA for those that need better stability.