Re:I see the idea behind it...
on
Laptop Exams?
·
· Score: 1
The idea behind this and other open-boot tests is that you still have to come prepared, because if you have to look up every answer you won't have time to finish the test.
They're also to see how well you prepared for the task, how well you can pick the important stuff out from the chaff, and the like. Believe it or not, these are also important skills.
I really couldn't agree more. I've been to a number of open exams (though not net-open - I would've had the chance to take those, too), and they are really not fundamentally different from normal exams. You still have to be able to apply the knowledge you find. If you don't know your stuff, you won't survive the exam. Really.
As for the ability to search for information quickly..there was this crap TV show in Finland (I'm sure the idea of it was leeched from somewhere else, as usual) where the contestants search for stuff from the web. One time, when I was sick and thus didn't really have anything else to do but watch tv, one pair of contestants in the show was an overweight net freak and a medical student. The former admitted that he was addicted to the net, the latter was not.
I'm sure you may be able to guess the result. The net freak had no chance at all, and this does show something.. It doesn't really help even if you spend all your days at net, it doesn't help you with applying your knowledge. This is what college (and university) is (or should be). You learn to learn. You learn to apply your knowledge. Regardless of the type of exam, good students will always best the bad ones.
Linux represents a very big threat to Microsoft.. Why would they allow important software like this to be ported to Linux, if they can stop it ? It is very much possible that the licensing terms specify that the WMF format shouldn't be made available to Linux.
The idea of an AI becoming more intelligent than human is by no means new. It may sound sensationalist to the mainstream audience, but the subject has been approached and evaluated many times (we've all read/seen our Asimov, Terminator, Blade Runner, Neuromancer, Matrix, not to mention less known works, don't we ?)
If we don't - intentionally or accidentally - relegate ourselves to the equivalent of a technological stone age, I consider the emergence of AI - or machines - superior to humans an inevitability. The question is not if, but when.
Are we to fear buggy software because of this - yes. Think of the security bugs in today's software, and Asimov's laws of robotics. If we were to create an intelligent being like that, we would want it to always be controlled by us. The trouble is that the software in a robot like that would be very complex - and buggy, thus it would be possible for it to override its instructions.
In a way, by trying to create an AI humans are trying to be gods themselves - to create life. Is it possible to create a life form superior to humans without completely understanding life itself ? If so, the life so created - like humans themselves - would be imperfect, and with its faults, without full knowledge of the consequences of its acts, might end up destroying humans . And if they didn't.. it might be The End Of Humanity As We Know It. Whether that would be Armageddon or just the next step in evolution towards a higher consciousness.. well, that is up to you.
Lately, though, I've tried to avoid British bookshops because the pound is quite strong compared to EMU currencies - so if you want to save money, you might want to try German bookshops, like Bol.de. The selection isn't that great, though.
ESR spoke of open source software using open services and protocols as commodities - everyone can use them, since they provide a level playing field.
Now we are seeing that Linux itself is becoming a commodity - a component which can be plugged in to use in a multitude of purposes. If you are using Linux, you get a solid, clean base that you can build your things on (this applies to other free unices, too, in a lesser extent).
By using Linux, you gain competitive advantage over your rivals who haven't embraced the open source phenomenon. It's only lately that the Big Boys of the industry have begun to understand this. IBM certainly knows it; they are very clearly committed to Linux. SCO got the message. Intel realizes this - and let's not forget the recent announcement by Motorola.
And - you can be very certain of this - Microsoft knows it too. You can be sure that the top heads of the corporation have thought of what Linux may become and how they might counter it. In the end, they, too, might have to submit.
As many others have pointed out, Microsoft is in a difficult situation. By not releasing Office for Linux, they are losing. By releasing Office for Linux, they are losing. The key point is to make the release at the time when they lose the least - or even better - when they have the opportunity to make an advantage of it. The time is certainly not now - and I don't think it's because they are incapable of producing software for Linux; such claims are ignorant FUD from the unwashed Linux advocates. It's not a far-fetched idea that they could release Office for Linux tomorrow if they wanted to - it just doesn't make sense for them.
If the near future goes as I think it will go - if Linux is being made a standard which everyone must (should) conform to (World Domination anyone ?:), Microsoft will start supporting Linux. And they are going to do it the same way as with any other commodity - embrace and extend. They will do everything in their power to corrupt Linux, while making a profit from their Office package.
The key argument of Jeff Bezos - the one that he's using to convince us to give him some slack - is that B&N copied their stuff. Yes, they did. But we should ask: so what ?
Let's face the truth: the idea behind behind 1-click is so extremely, obviously simple that it's also very easy to duplicate it, since it deals with software. Mind you, the ideas behind most patents are simple, but they involve operations in the hardware realm, so copying isn't necessarily that easy.
This argument leads us back to square one: software patents are evil. Amazon shouldn't have patented this thing in the place, since it isn't a very novel idea.
Of course, now that they do have the patent, they have to use it, because Amazon is accountable to their shareholders and has to do everything to give them more value. The purpose of the boycott is to convice not only Jeff, but also the shareholders, that by using the patents as a blunt weapon, Amazon is not increasing its value.
Sorry, Jeff, you got no points from me. You will remain in boycott. If you cannot stay ahead of your competition without patents, then you shouldn't be competing at all.
To see why color Palms are "useful" or "necessary", we must think of why computers in general are useful.
If you make a general purpose machine, you cannot possibly think of all the uses one might use it for. That is what makes computers so useful - people can make them do whatever they want them to do - many of them some very innovative and novel ideas that the manufacturers of the device could've never thought of.
I cannot see any immediate gain in using a color Palm instead of my regular b&w one, but that doesn't mean that someone else cannot come up with a use that makes the application of colors immediately painfully obvious.
In other words, I have no doubt that it will be useful.
What you're neglecting to consider, Charles, is that Linux cannot "fail".
This is what I totally agree with. I was writing a response to his previous article along the same lines, but unfortunately netscape then crashed.. Anyway, as there were many very good and valid points in his article, this is one he still misses - he still doesn't grok Linux.
Linux as a community is not a single entity with only one single goal and single thought. The community - if I may paraphrase ESR - speaks with a multitude of voices, each with individual needs and ideas. There are people who don't want Linux for the masses, but on the other hand , there are people who do - and I dare to suggest that the latter are more populous.
This is also has an impact on the humility note he had on his previous article, that is, if we don't watch out, Linux will be toppled. Well, there is no we to speak of. There are a lot of people who are already happy with Linux (me included), but there are also a lot of developers and companies who are making Linux go forward very fast. Linux was originally intended as a low-end unix server for i386 (a blatant over-simplification, I know), but it since warped itself to a multitude of architectures and a high variety of purposes, morphing (a shameless Transmeta plug;) itself to embedded computers, PDAs and so on. So, there is no single goal.
So, I would claim that based on the unique and diverse abilities of the Linux community, Linux cannot only not fail, it also cannot be killed.
slashdot has NEVER been completly without biases (indeed, I don't know if anything EVER has been). Rob and Co. have always had their own agendas, interests, and beliefs.
So very true. There is also something about my piece that should be noted: As the phrase 'editorial independence' was thrown around, of course I had to attack that. In reality (and this only occurred to me afterwards) I didn't want to question their editorial independence as much I wanted to question their integrity, for no publication is ever without a bias.
So, VA Linux will have its effect, and Slashdot is going to change, whether its moderators want it or not. What direction this change will take, and whether it is good or bad, I cannot comment on.
Editorial independence went out the window the minute Andover.net bought Slashdot. This is not meant as a flame towards the slashdot people, because I do think they have been doing a good job, and I believe Rob & folks strive to keep their independence (and as defined in their contract, they do have it). But no matter how hard they try, they cannot be as independent as they were before - not because anyone is pressuring them, but because they start seeing things the same way the company does. This doesn't have to be deliberate, but it is bound to happen with companies that have a vision.
I'll start with a few examples - the best is by the CEO of F-Secure (that produces F-Secure SSH, for example), Risto Siilasmaa. At a recent presentation, he talked about how they talk about their vision to their employees (even temporarily hired folks like telephone operators) . If the vision is believable, the people will buy it, and spread it forward (!) and even defend the company. Thus, it spreads like a virus. Is this a bad thing ? Not necessarily.
I, too, realized, that a certain vision has been sold to me. I used to work at Nokia - where the mantra "Nokia values" is highly valued. While I no longer work there, those "values" are the one thing I remember best. Have I been brainwashed ? No. It is simply that when you see these values applied to your workplace, you can see that they work. Regardless of whether those values are true or not, I nowadays speak positively of my former employer, and I am definitely biased.
Another example is, of course, our favorite software company - you know it - Microsoft. I might not like their vision - but they do have one. And you might have noticed that there are Microsoft employees that fiercly defend their employer.
So, we enter Andover.net and VA Linux. The latter is certainly doing brilliant stuff (well, the former doesn't really exist anymore) and certainly has a bright future ahead. I like that, and I am sure Rob, Hemos and folks like it too. But, taken into account what I said above, they already see things the VA Linux way. Knowing what is happening inside the company, some of the criticism that flows around seems very invalid. And they defend VA Linux. A little switch has been flipped in their brains, and it cannot be flipped back.
I do not think Slashdot will become a VA Linux marketing bulletin, but Slashdot is not, and will never be, independent.
I think you may be less knowledgeable about Usenet than you think. Here is some news for you: moderation controls do exist in Usenet. A very small minority of groups use them, though, and it's nothing like what we have on slashdot. Reasons why it isn't widely used are the effort it takes to implement it, and - of course - the effect it might on free speech (with incompetent moderators the thing might turn into censorship, which is not what is wanted !)
The system works as follows (I am not an expert on this, so minor errors may exist - my apologies to those who are offended by this or by naked flying turtles): User posts to a moderator newsgroup. The post is then forwarded to the moderator, who either disapproves it (does nothing) or approves it and posts it to the newsgroup with an Approved-by header. Moderation bots exist that automate this process as much as possible.
Most of the newsgroups I read are relatively spam-free. None of the moderated newsgroups are controlled because of spam. One example is the local babylon 5 newsgroup, which is moderated because the readers are very sensitive to spoilers.
As for the issue at hand (Usenet being dead), I disagree. It is used by many people, and just because most people don't doesn't mean that it's dead or useless.
Gee, that actually does make a lot of sense. I haven't bought a portable mp3 player yet, because - like you said - the amount of songs that you can put on them is ridiculously small. That is why I have been waiting for one that uses normal CD's.
Now, I've never thought much of MD's before - my impression has been that they are a failed technology. Add the mp3 aspect, and I might actually buy one instead of an mp3/cd-player.
If anyone has doubts about Linux companies making big bucks and then dumping Linux - consider what Linus said. In the open source world, reputation is everything.
RedHat et al have obligations to their shareholders - that is - they need to keep doing stuff that benefits their owners and increases the company value. Microsoft does this, too - their way is trying to lock everyone into a Windows-only world. Fortunately for us, the success of Linux companies relies (at least partly) on the community, so they need to maintain good relations with the people. And this also that the best thing they can do, from the shareholders' view, is to embrace the open source community with open arms - which is what they have do, have done, and will be doing.
Of course, this characterization only includes companies whose sole business idea rests on Linux. The attitudes of others (like Sun) may be different, as is proper, considering what they have to do in order to satisfy their shareholders.
There always exists a need for good books, and I don't doubt that this book could be classified in this category. However, I have to criticize the premise that software is now somehow mature. New tools are and will be developed, new techniques and theories are thought of, the industry will get forward. But it doesn't really get easier, because software engineering is conceptually hard. I know Hemos mentioned this too, which indicates that he has done his homework;) but I'll say it anyway: There is no "silver bullet", which would suddenly solve all problems. Proclaiming that software industry is somehow a mature art isn't that either.
Some have wondered how OSS fits into this. Well - it doesn't really make any difference from the software engineering point whether the piece of code is open source or not. Good software engineering techniques can be applied for open source as well - and it is certainly being done. See Mozilla, for example. It should be noted, though, that most open source projects, especially smaller ones, aren't really disciplined with regard to software engineering, which makes them inefficient. On the other hand, for commercial software this is not acceptable; in the industry such projects get the axe, one way or the other.
Linux beginning to outlive its usefulness for Sun
on
Free Solaris 8
·
· Score: 2
Sun's comments about Linux are rather sad, but not really surprising, as Linux does directly compete with Solaris (even though the performance of latter compared to Linux is stellar is some areas). Sun is a difficult position here, because it is both a competitor and ally to Linux (which is not an unusual situation in the computer industry in general).
Compare this to, for example, IBM, where Linux is starting to became an integral part of the corporate strategy; a vessel through which IBM tries to gain ground in the software world (and they do make some amazing software). There are surprises here; IBM supports Linux because it makes sense for them to do so, whereas Sun supports Linux because they can't afford not to.
The problem with trying to achieve the maximum theoretical speed is essentially the same as with cable modems; the capacity is shared between different users. Because the radio frequencies are limited, for the end user - in the best case - the maximum theoretical speed is around 100 kbs.
It would possible (in theory, that is) for the telecom company to guarantee that bandwidth, but it would be extremely expensive and nowhere near profitable. It is feasible to get a speed around 30-40 kbs, which is still considerably more than what current GSM data gives.
So, whenever you hear 100 kbs, repeat the word marketing to yourself.
After 1 day, Microsoft fixed 42% of their bugs. Red Hat only 29%.
That is your interpretation, and I choose to disagree with it. Do you really believe that either of these companies could fix an unknown bug in just one day ? Really ? These are the bugs that the vendor knew about and had a fix ready when they announced the bug.
What the results seem to be saying is that Microsoft is faster on simple bugs (probably better distribution channels) though they fail on the more difficult bugs (probably more complex code, but who can tell without the source).
Even a "simple" bug must be tested, and that takes longer than one day. Average statistics tell nothing, that is true. If we don't take those vendor-announced bugs into account, the statistics actually show RedHat in better, not worse light, as the new numbers show how fast the vendor responds to unknown bugs.
Otherwise, in an act of spectacular defiance, even heroism, tens of millions of people all over the earth gathered in urban centers to celebrate the new century. They did not stockpile food and water, as they were advised to by many newspapers, TV stations, government agencies, and local Red Cross chapters. They did not hoard cash. Much more than their pundits or elected leaders, they put their faith in technology.
I see no reason why I should've hidden under a mattress or really prepared for the worst. If the end of the world was really coming, I would've wanted to go down with my head up, celebrating. I might have been disappointed, though, since I might not have had time to drink the expensive bottle of champagne I had bought just for the occasion.. On the other hand, I wouldn't have had to pay my VISA bill.
As for the Millennium bug, some of us were hit by it. Shouldn't have drunk the cider we had; it was labeled "Y2K"...:)
It is true that I might not have given *BSD as much recognition as it would have deserved, and, yeah, of course Linux owes a lot to *BSD and Mother Unix in general - but that is not the issue.
Some *BSD people feel that *BSD would be right where Linux is now, had Linux never existed, and this is what I disagree with (for reasons that I outlined in my previous post). *BSD (and other unices) have been silently running the world - and that is what they would still be doing, had Linux never existed. Microsoft would be free to reign in the desktop world, eating away the UNIX dominance in the server realm.
As you can see, this has absolutely nothing to do with what *BSD had done before Linux entered the scene, and everything to do with what *BSD might have done if Linux hadn't done that. This is, of course, pure speculation.. but you should ask yourself: Would a BSD distribution be having billion-dollar IPOs ? I think not.
I am sure this will draw a few flames my way from *BSD advocates, but I consider BSD popular (a few million users ? Yes, that is popular to me) because of Linux, not despite Linux. Given that, I don't see *BSD folks have anything to complain about - except the fact that they're not leading the pack.
*BSD lacks several factors that made Linux the big success that it is today. Linus, the license that can be corrupted (theoretically, at least), fragmentation.. The FreeBSD IPO (?) I heard would not have happened if there hadn't been Linux IPOs first; people are only riding the wave; *BSD is coming in the wake of Linux and getting more publicity, not less.
Then there is the competition aspect.. *BSD is better because of Linux, and vice versa. Of course you might argue that *BSD would have more developers if it weren't for Linux, but that can't be proved.
I have great respect for *BSD - but Linux deserves respect, too. It does not deserve to bashed simply because it's more popular.
As a phenomenon, Linux is unique. *BSD would not have made it.
Slashdot Mirror
I really couldn't agree more. I've been to a number of open exams (though not net-open - I would've had the chance to take those, too), and they are really not fundamentally different from normal exams. You still have to be able to apply the knowledge you find. If you don't know your stuff, you won't survive the exam. Really.
As for the ability to search for information quickly..there was this crap TV show in Finland (I'm sure the idea of it was leeched from somewhere else, as usual) where the contestants search for stuff from the web. One time, when I was sick and thus didn't really have anything else to do but watch tv, one pair of contestants in the show was an overweight net freak and a medical student. The former admitted that he was addicted to the net, the latter was not.
I'm sure you may be able to guess the result. The net freak had no chance at all, and this does show something.. It doesn't really help even if you spend all your days at net, it doesn't help you with applying your knowledge. This is what college (and university) is (or should be). You learn to learn. You learn to apply your knowledge. Regardless of the type of exam, good students will always best the bad ones.
Linux represents a very big threat to Microsoft.. Why would they allow important software like this to be ported to Linux, if they can stop it ? It is very much possible that the licensing terms specify that the WMF format shouldn't be made available to Linux.
If we don't - intentionally or accidentally - relegate ourselves to the equivalent of a technological stone age, I consider the emergence of AI - or machines - superior to humans an inevitability. The question is not if, but when.
Are we to fear buggy software because of this - yes. Think of the security bugs in today's software, and Asimov's laws of robotics. If we were to create an intelligent being like that, we would want it to always be controlled by us. The trouble is that the software in a robot like that would be very complex - and buggy, thus it would be possible for it to override its instructions.
In a way, by trying to create an AI humans are trying to be gods themselves - to create life. Is it possible to create a life form superior to humans without completely understanding life itself ? If so, the life so created - like humans themselves - would be imperfect, and with its faults, without full knowledge of the consequences of its acts, might end up destroying humans . And if they didn't.. it might be The End Of Humanity As We Know It. Whether that would be Armageddon or just the next step in evolution towards a higher consciousness.. well, that is up to you.
I've used Countrybookshop and The Internet Bookshop myself.
Lately, though, I've tried to avoid British bookshops because the pound is quite strong compared to EMU currencies - so if you want to save money, you might want to try German bookshops, like Bol.de. The selection isn't that great, though.
Now we are seeing that Linux itself is becoming a commodity - a component which can be plugged in to use in a multitude of purposes. If you are using Linux, you get a solid, clean base that you can build your things on (this applies to other free unices, too, in a lesser extent).
By using Linux, you gain competitive advantage over your rivals who haven't embraced the open source phenomenon. It's only lately that the Big Boys of the industry have begun to understand this. IBM certainly knows it; they are very clearly committed to Linux. SCO got the message. Intel realizes this - and let's not forget the recent announcement by Motorola.
And - you can be very certain of this - Microsoft knows it too. You can be sure that the top heads of the corporation have thought of what Linux may become and how they might counter it. In the end, they, too, might have to submit.
As many others have pointed out, Microsoft is in a difficult situation. By not releasing Office for Linux, they are losing. By releasing Office for Linux, they are losing. The key point is to make the release at the time when they lose the least - or even better - when they have the opportunity to make an advantage of it. The time is certainly not now - and I don't think it's because they are incapable of producing software for Linux; such claims are ignorant FUD from the unwashed Linux advocates. It's not a far-fetched idea that they could release Office for Linux tomorrow if they wanted to - it just doesn't make sense for them.
If the near future goes as I think it will go - if Linux is being made a standard which everyone must (should) conform to (World Domination anyone ? :), Microsoft will start supporting Linux. And they are going to do it the same way as with any other commodity - embrace and extend. They will do everything in their power to corrupt Linux, while making a profit from their Office package.
Let's face the truth: the idea behind behind 1-click is so extremely, obviously simple that it's also very easy to duplicate it, since it deals with software. Mind you, the ideas behind most patents are simple, but they involve operations in the hardware realm, so copying isn't necessarily that easy.
This argument leads us back to square one: software patents are evil. Amazon shouldn't have patented this thing in the place, since it isn't a very novel idea.
Of course, now that they do have the patent, they have to use it, because Amazon is accountable to their shareholders and has to do everything to give them more value. The purpose of the boycott is to convice not only Jeff, but also the shareholders, that by using the patents as a blunt weapon, Amazon is not increasing its value.
Sorry, Jeff, you got no points from me. You will remain in boycott. If you cannot stay ahead of your competition without patents, then you shouldn't be competing at all.
I disagree. A person can be both an extremely brilliant programmer and on the other hand, extremely stupid. Intelligence does not equal wisdom.
It's not that the courage - it's just that this Slade guy is too dumb and clueless.
If you make a general purpose machine, you cannot possibly think of all the uses one might use it for. That is what makes computers so useful - people can make them do whatever they want them to do - many of them some very innovative and novel ideas that the manufacturers of the device could've never thought of.
I cannot see any immediate gain in using a color Palm instead of my regular b&w one, but that doesn't mean that someone else cannot come up with a use that makes the application of colors immediately painfully obvious.
In other words, I have no doubt that it will be useful.
This is what I totally agree with. I was writing a response to his previous article along the same lines, but unfortunately netscape then crashed .. Anyway, as there were many very good and valid points in his article, this is one he still misses - he still doesn't grok Linux.
Linux as a community is not a single entity with only one single goal and single thought. The community - if I may paraphrase ESR - speaks with a multitude of voices, each with individual needs and ideas. There are people who don't want Linux for the masses, but on the other hand , there are people who do - and I dare to suggest that the latter are more populous.
This is also has an impact on the humility note he had on his previous article, that is, if we don't watch out, Linux will be toppled. Well, there is no we to speak of. There are a lot of people who are already happy with Linux (me included), but there are also a lot of developers and companies who are making Linux go forward very fast. Linux was originally intended as a low-end unix server for i386 (a blatant over-simplification, I know), but it since warped itself to a multitude of architectures and a high variety of purposes, morphing (a shameless Transmeta plug ;) itself to embedded computers, PDAs and so on. So, there is no single goal.
So, I would claim that based on the unique and diverse abilities of the Linux community, Linux cannot only not fail, it also cannot be killed.
So very true. There is also something about my piece that should be noted: As the phrase 'editorial independence' was thrown around, of course I had to attack that. In reality (and this only occurred to me afterwards) I didn't want to question their editorial independence as much I wanted to question their integrity, for no publication is ever without a bias.
So, VA Linux will have its effect, and Slashdot is going to change, whether its moderators want it or not. What direction this change will take, and whether it is good or bad, I cannot comment on.
I'll start with a few examples - the best is by the CEO of F-Secure (that produces F-Secure SSH, for example), Risto Siilasmaa. At a recent presentation, he talked about how they talk about their vision to their employees (even temporarily hired folks like telephone operators) . If the vision is believable, the people will buy it, and spread it forward (!) and even defend the company. Thus, it spreads like a virus. Is this a bad thing ? Not necessarily.
I, too, realized, that a certain vision has been sold to me. I used to work at Nokia - where the mantra "Nokia values" is highly valued. While I no longer work there, those "values" are the one thing I remember best. Have I been brainwashed ? No. It is simply that when you see these values applied to your workplace, you can see that they work. Regardless of whether those values are true or not, I nowadays speak positively of my former employer, and I am definitely biased.
Another example is, of course, our favorite software company - you know it - Microsoft. I might not like their vision - but they do have one. And you might have noticed that there are Microsoft employees that fiercly defend their employer.
So, we enter Andover.net and VA Linux. The latter is certainly doing brilliant stuff (well, the former doesn't really exist anymore) and certainly has a bright future ahead. I like that, and I am sure Rob, Hemos and folks like it too. But, taken into account what I said above, they already see things the VA Linux way. Knowing what is happening inside the company, some of the criticism that flows around seems very invalid. And they defend VA Linux. A little switch has been flipped in their brains, and it cannot be flipped back.
I do not think Slashdot will become a VA Linux marketing bulletin, but Slashdot is not, and will never be, independent.
Well, here is the MPAA member Sony making a MP3 player. Now all we need is a free DVD player from RIAA..
The system works as follows (I am not an expert on this, so minor errors may exist - my apologies to those who are offended by this or by naked flying turtles): User posts to a moderator newsgroup. The post is then forwarded to the moderator, who either disapproves it (does nothing) or approves it and posts it to the newsgroup with an Approved-by header. Moderation bots exist that automate this process as much as possible.
Most of the newsgroups I read are relatively spam-free. None of the moderated newsgroups are controlled because of spam. One example is the local babylon 5 newsgroup, which is moderated because the readers are very sensitive to spoilers.
As for the issue at hand (Usenet being dead), I disagree. It is used by many people, and just because most people don't doesn't mean that it's dead or useless.
Now, I've never thought much of MD's before - my impression has been that they are a failed technology. Add the mp3 aspect, and I might actually buy one instead of an mp3/cd-player.
RedHat et al have obligations to their shareholders - that is - they need to keep doing stuff that benefits their owners and increases the company value. Microsoft does this, too - their way is trying to lock everyone into a Windows-only world. Fortunately for us, the success of Linux companies relies (at least partly) on the community, so they need to maintain good relations with the people. And this also that the best thing they can do, from the shareholders' view, is to embrace the open source community with open arms - which is what they have do, have done, and will be doing.
Of course, this characterization only includes companies whose sole business idea rests on Linux. The attitudes of others (like Sun) may be different, as is proper, considering what they have to do in order to satisfy their shareholders.
Some have wondered how OSS fits into this. Well - it doesn't really make any difference from the software engineering point whether the piece of code is open source or not. Good software engineering techniques can be applied for open source as well - and it is certainly being done. See Mozilla, for example. It should be noted, though, that most open source projects, especially smaller ones, aren't really disciplined with regard to software engineering, which makes them inefficient. On the other hand, for commercial software this is not acceptable; in the industry such projects get the axe, one way or the other.
Compare this to, for example, IBM, where Linux is starting to became an integral part of the corporate strategy; a vessel through which IBM tries to gain ground in the software world (and they do make some amazing software). There are surprises here; IBM supports Linux because it makes sense for them to do so, whereas Sun supports Linux because they can't afford not to.
It would possible (in theory, that is) for the telecom company to guarantee that bandwidth, but it would be extremely expensive and nowhere near profitable. It is feasible to get a speed around 30-40 kbs, which is still considerably more than what current GSM data gives.
So, whenever you hear 100 kbs, repeat the word marketing to yourself.
That is your interpretation, and I choose to disagree with it. Do you really believe that either of these companies could fix an unknown bug in just one day ? Really ? These are the bugs that the vendor knew about and had a fix ready when they announced the bug.
Even a "simple" bug must be tested, and that takes longer than one day. Average statistics tell nothing, that is true. If we don't take those vendor-announced bugs into account, the statistics actually show RedHat in better, not worse light, as the new numbers show how fast the vendor responds to unknown bugs.
Incidentally, this is the reason why Nokia has no cell phones starting with the digit 4 - all other digits are covered (except for 0, of course ;)
Does this mean we get to see more of Petro Tysh.. Tsch.. Chech.. Tsych.. Ahtsye.. ah, never mind.
I see no reason why I should've hidden under a mattress or really prepared for the worst. If the end of the world was really coming, I would've wanted to go down with my head up, celebrating. I might have been disappointed, though, since I might not have had time to drink the expensive bottle of champagne I had bought just for the occasion.. On the other hand, I wouldn't have had to pay my VISA bill.
As for the Millennium bug, some of us were hit by it. Shouldn't have drunk the cider we had; it was labeled "Y2K"... :)
Some *BSD people feel that *BSD would be right where Linux is now, had Linux never existed, and this is what I disagree with (for reasons that I outlined in my previous post). *BSD (and other unices) have been silently running the world - and that is what they would still be doing, had Linux never existed. Microsoft would be free to reign in the desktop world, eating away the UNIX dominance in the server realm.
As you can see, this has absolutely nothing to do with what *BSD had done before Linux entered the scene, and everything to do with what *BSD might have done if Linux hadn't done that. This is, of course, pure speculation.. but you should ask yourself: Would a BSD distribution be having billion-dollar IPOs ? I think not.
*BSD lacks several factors that made Linux the big success that it is today. Linus, the license that can be corrupted (theoretically, at least), fragmentation.. The FreeBSD IPO (?) I heard would not have happened if there hadn't been Linux IPOs first; people are only riding the wave; *BSD is coming in the wake of Linux and getting more publicity, not less.
Then there is the competition aspect.. *BSD is better because of Linux, and vice versa. Of course you might argue that *BSD would have more developers if it weren't for Linux, but that can't be proved.
I have great respect for *BSD - but Linux deserves respect, too. It does not deserve to bashed simply because it's more popular.
As a phenomenon, Linux is unique. *BSD would not have made it.