seems to stick just to MS products for it's examples? I don't know about you guys, but I've only seen software which locks up and takes my whole machine with it from MS.
The only time GNU/Linux ever goes down is when I shut it down.
At the University I went to we were urged to do a careful design, *then* code. At different Universities you'll see different attitudes.
The "code now and fix it later" attitude is a prevalent approach in commercial software companies which are:
a) Only interested in making a buck and b) Don't give a damn about whether it's "done right" just so long as it "sort of" works so they can sell it and c) have revenue schedules to meet which drive the, sometimes unreasonable, deadlines developers must meet which may result in corner cutting.
The result is incomplete, poorly tested, or just plain bad software.
Given than *everything* "The Onion" publishes is trumped up false, or just downright humerous, the fact that China (see previous article on slashdot) mistook a story from the Onion as real might mean that the staff of the The Onion could be looking at serious time if they every go to Zimbabwe.:)
> #1 - Accept the fact that you'll most likely make less money... > #2 - Don't accept less money than you're worth...
So, from these two assertions, it sounds like you would like to have someone who only asks for *exactly* what they're worth, no more no less.
What kind of docile person is going to do this?
TWO WORDS: "Counter offer". If a company has neither the gumption nor the balls to make a good counter offer, it's not really worth coming to work for that company, since it would be immediately obvious that you wouldn't get much more than what you started with...
> #3 - Be assertive, but not forceful...
This one I understand..
> #4 - Focus on my needs. I don't want to hear about....
i.e. I don't want to hear that you are so into what you do that you also do it outside of work, 'cuz God knows I don't want someone who counts themselves amoungst the most talented programmers around to work for me. And, oh yeah, subjugate yourself to my will since I might ultimately be paying your paycheck... muhwwhahahahahaaaaa...
> #5 - Dress and act appropriately. Don't show up in a suit unless...
Bad advice. You should *ALWAYS* put your best foot forward. People remember the first impression you make on them, so it might as well be a good one. Try the suit sans the jacket. Well dressed, but not *over* dressed.
> #6 -
Agree
> #7 - Avoid the startup...
Disagree wholeheartedly. Startups are risky, but they teach a great deal about business and what it's like in the *real* world.
Employers should also resist taking the "I've got all of the marbles and you don't" approach with prospective employees otherwise they will get what they pay for.
I hope you enjoyed the film as some of the money will ultimately end up in the hands of terrorists. My hat is off to you, Sir, for showing the aggregious stupidity to post a confession of your crime to a public forum such as this. The MPAA's goons will be with you shortly.
Please get it through your heads fellow slashdotters: BY DOING THIS TYPE OF THING YOU ARE GIVING THE POWERS THAT BE *EVERY RIGHT* UNDER CURRENT LAWS TO COME AFTER YOU. You are also giving, through your actions, the impetus for laws like the CBDTPA and the DMCA. To a very large, and I am convinced unrealized, degree we have ourselves to blame for our current predicament.
To fight unjust laws like the ones mentioned above you should write your congressman. They should also be challenged in court when borderline cases (like the one involving Digital Books) arise. VIOLATING THE LAW after after it is passed only convinces the "powers that be" that they were correct in the first place.
STOP IT... YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO FREE CONTENT IF THE CONTENT OWNER HASN'T LICENSED IT TO YOU FOR FREE. PERIOD.
Moderator: Go ahead... have your way with me. I just had to get this off my chest.
1) Hurd is the kernel of the *GNU* Operating System. No further qualification is necessary GNU/Linux which is mainly comprised of the GNU OS with Linux acting as the kernel.
Most patent lawyers try to make the wording of the patent as broad as possible to:
1) expand the companies monopoly and 2) allow lawsuits against practically anyone who uses anything even remotely resembling the "present invention".
Patent litigation is extremely expensive and, most of the time, the courts err in favor of the patent holder rather than the infringer.
Not only that. There is this troublesome trend towards large companies using patents as a barrier of entry to smaller companies who lack the resources to fight a frivolous suit and must simply pay the royalties right or wrong.
Patent law is being abused in a number of ways in this country. So, I assure you, patents are VERY VERY real and extremely effective in blocking progress when the USPTO is granting patents on things like sideways swinging (check out the slashdot story on that).
Part of the problem with Apple is that Steve actually believes that everyone will wake up one morning and come running to Apple. It hasn't happened yet and it's not going to happen anytime soon.
This is a company which produces *great* tech, but has no idea how to market it.
but only entitled to what you pay for, if the content is sold under a license. If only more people agreed w/ this statement we might not be in this predicament. What's happening here is largely our own fault. While a agree w/ fair use, I see too many posts saying "just downloaded LOTR from the internet" or "bootleg of Episode II released", which I'm sure represent just the *tip of the iceberg*, to think that the MPAA's fears are totally unfounded.
*COPYING* should be discouraged when it is in violation of the license for the material in question. *TOOLS* should *NOT* be made illegal. It is *actions* which should be made illegal.
Perhaps stuff like this wouldn't happen if there weren't so many people out there willing to make bootleg copies because they feel that the are "entitled" to it.
I am a Free Software advocate and contributor. I, personally, am totally *against* this and I intend to write my congressmen about it. But, I can't shake the feeling that to some degree we've only ourselves to blame.
GJC P.S. Go ahead... mod me down, I just needed to speak my mind here.:) P.P.S. I don't think that the MPAA has a chance in hell, since the entertainment industry is much smaller than the computer industry.
The other 90% you mention for your Windows box are games, not essential parts of the OS. If you got a copy of Windows where the bulk of the *operating system* software was written by another company, I would expect that the other company would want some recognition.
Before you say "but the OS *is* the kernel and the kernel *is* the OS" think about all of the other software outside of the kernel which makes GNU/Linux tick, stuff like the crond, getty, dhcpd, bash, tcsh, and etc. Not to mention gcc, ls, ld, and numerous other tools which are loaded standard with *every* GNU/Linux system.
My original assertion still stands: no one is *forcing* anyone to do anything they don't want to. Feel free to implement all of these tools for yourself and call the result whatever you wish.
The simple truth of the matter is this: Linus wrote the kernel, the FSF and it's volunteers wrote everything else. "Linux" would be *NOWHERE* without *GNU*, thus the impetus for calling it GNU/Linux.
He's not shoving anything down anyones throat. You don't need to listen to him or read any articles by him or even use softwre written by him or the FSF, if you don't want to.
Due credit is due credit. GNU source makes up 90% of the code on a GNU/Linux system. It's only fair.
Condsidering that I can have 1000 or 10000 machines installed w/ the same copy of Linux versus buying a copy of MS Windows for every last one of those computers, the costs seem to even out rather quickly.;)
College is more than just learning a trade or a skill, it's about learning to think. There are problems you might face which will require a mature approach, and that's what you get in college.
If you're 110% certain that all you want to do is system administration, then you should get certified and try to find a position. Keep in mind, however, that most employers will choose the guy who has a college degree over the person who doesn't.
You obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about.
>Every Unix ever made was by this or anyone's >definition 'open source' enough. This is absolutely, positively, the most incorrect statement in your entire post. Yes, UNIX started out this way, but when AT&T realized that they could sell licenses, they closed the source. Try getting the source for AT&T unix now.
BSD did the same thing. Once the University of Berkeley closed the source, the FreeBSD and OpenBSD project sprang up. The original *BSD* is still closed source.
>Stallman's genius, if you can call it that, is to >get his name and not just his freaking acronym >associated with things that already exist (yes, >Linux logically speaking 'already' existed) and >for which HRH Stallman wouldn't have the first >clue or inclination of how to create, contribute >or proceed. If you choose, you can continue to live in this dreamworld where Linus and his intrepid cohorts wrote all of the tools you get with a GNU/Linux distribution or you can come back to reality and acknowledge the fact the 90% of all of the programs you have on your precious box were written by the FSF, it's up to you.
Linux is just a kernel. GNU is the rest of the system. The combined *distribution* should rightfully be called GNU/Linux. period. >Stallman is a demagogue. In any other place and >time he would be ignored. And yes, you can >interpret that exactly as you read it.
The demagogue here is not Stallman, but people like yourself who are fostering the myth that GNU/Linux has nothing to do with the myriad of programs which come from the FSF.
Most of the programs installed on your GNU/Linux:) box were not written by Linus. 90% of the remaining programs on your machine were written by voluteers or by people working for the FSF on the GNU project. A number of the *central* tools (ie. GCC, gdb and emacs to name a few) were written by RMS himself.
Anyone who decries RMS for trying to gain some recognition for the FSFs contribution should think twice. How would many of you feel if you created a vast set of tools and released them as free software only to have someone else write the *one missing element* then release it before you? Effectively, if not intentionally, stealing the credit for the entire thing.
For those who are thinking "we should re-write all of the GNU tools from scratch": I'll see you in about 8-10 years. Have a nice time, 'cuz there's a whole lotta man/years of code out there to write.
> Sure the linux kernel is complex. A complex > hack job, to which there are better > alternaitves.
Most OSes are *highly* complex and not just "lots of code". You seem to be trying to dismiss complexity by name-calling (e.g. "Hack Job").
> My original point is that something like Shake > would not exist in the OSS world. My support of > this statement is the fact that nothing like > Shake DOES exist in the OSS world. If OSS is so > great and spiffy when it comes to cranking out > highly complex rendering tools, why is there no > open source version of Shake?
Perhaps not because it such a "highly complex" tool, but because, as you yourself pointed out, there's only a *small* market for it.
No one said, myself included, that Free Software is a panacea. It shouldn't be considered one. It's wrong, however, to say that just because a tool like Shake doesn't exist now as free software that the entire methodology is "not good at such things".
If there were a community of sufficient size whose need for such a tool was great enough that they decided to collaborate one, there would be a free software equivalent. This is how Apache got started, BTW.
> Perhaps because it takes money to develop > these tools.
My point in mentioning all of those companies which "use" GNU/Linux was also to point out that they also *contribute* to it. There is plenty of money in Open Source software/Free Software. Free Software is not about free beer.
> As for your comment about server software, I > said open source DOES work very well in these > applications, but DOES NOT work well in complex > desktop applications. Try actually reading my > post next time before trying to claim the non- > existant moral high ground in a debate by > spewing a bunch of names of large corporations > who use linux at me.
I must have *misread* that part, but please see my above point which indicates why I mentioned those companies.
So you're saying that the Linux kernel is not complex? For most of it's history it was non-commercial.
What about the Gimp? The Gimp is used by a number of people professionally and is widely recognized as a very useful 2D drawing tool rivalling even photoshop. It too is free software.
I am not going to waste my time looking for additional examples to prove my point.
You're reply reveals two things:
1) You're missing the point of my original post
2) You don't understand free software.
Free software is not about money, but about the freedom of the *software itself* and your freedom to use it. People have been developing and selling free software for a profit for many years Red Hat, SuSE, Cygnus, IBM, and soon to come HP/Compaq & Sun to name a few.
So, you see, there *IS* money in free software and plenty of it. Free software alternatives to programs on the shelf *do not need* to be done by people sitting in thier basement in their spare time, but can and are being done by big business. If Free Software doesn't do servers well, why is Linux being sold on IBM mainframes and as thier default server system to large companies? Go figure..:) GJC
Slashdot Mirror
seems to stick just to MS products for it's examples? I don't know about you guys, but I've only seen software which locks up and takes my whole machine with it from MS.
The only time GNU/Linux ever goes down is when I shut it down.
GJC
At the University I went to we were urged to do a careful design, *then* code. At different Universities you'll see different attitudes.
The "code now and fix it later" attitude is a prevalent approach in commercial software companies which are:
a) Only interested in making a buck and
b) Don't give a damn about whether it's "done right" just so long as it "sort of" works so they can sell it and
c) have revenue schedules to meet which drive the, sometimes unreasonable, deadlines developers must meet which may result in corner cutting.
The result is incomplete, poorly tested, or just plain bad software.
GJC
Given than *everything* "The Onion" publishes is trumped up false, or just downright humerous, the fact that China (see previous article on slashdot) mistook a story from the Onion as real might mean that the staff of the The Onion could be looking at serious time if they every go to Zimbabwe. :)
GJC
> #1 - Accept the fact that you'll most likely make less money...
> #2 - Don't accept less money than you're worth...
So, from these two assertions, it sounds like you would like to have someone who only asks for *exactly* what they're worth, no more no less.
What kind of docile person is going to do this?
TWO WORDS: "Counter offer". If a company has neither the gumption nor the balls to make a good counter offer, it's not really worth coming to work for that company, since it would be immediately obvious that you wouldn't get much more than what you started with...
> #3 - Be assertive, but not forceful...
This one I understand..
> #4 - Focus on my needs. I don't want to hear about....
i.e. I don't want to hear that you are so into what you do that you also do it outside of work, 'cuz God knows I don't want someone who counts themselves amoungst the most talented programmers around to work for me. And, oh yeah, subjugate yourself to my will since I might ultimately be paying your paycheck... muhwwhahahahahaaaaa...
> #5 - Dress and act appropriately. Don't show up in a suit unless...
Bad advice. You should *ALWAYS* put your best foot forward. People remember the first impression you make on them, so it might as well be a good one. Try the suit sans the jacket. Well dressed, but not *over* dressed.
> #6 -
Agree
> #7 - Avoid the startup...
Disagree wholeheartedly. Startups are risky, but they teach a great deal about business and what it's like in the *real* world.
Employers should also resist taking the "I've got all of the marbles and you don't" approach with prospective employees otherwise they will get what they pay for.
GJC
I hope you enjoyed the film as some of the money will ultimately end up in the hands of terrorists. My hat is off to you, Sir, for showing the aggregious stupidity to post a confession of your crime to a public forum such as this. The MPAA's goons will be with you shortly.
Please get it through your heads fellow slashdotters: BY DOING THIS TYPE OF THING YOU ARE GIVING THE POWERS THAT BE *EVERY RIGHT* UNDER CURRENT LAWS TO COME AFTER YOU. You are also giving, through your actions, the impetus for laws like the CBDTPA and the DMCA. To a very large, and I am convinced unrealized, degree we have ourselves to blame for our current predicament.
To fight unjust laws like the ones mentioned above you should write your congressman. They should also be challenged in court when borderline cases (like the one involving Digital Books) arise. VIOLATING THE LAW after after it is passed only convinces the "powers that be" that they were correct in the first place.
STOP IT... YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO FREE CONTENT IF THE CONTENT OWNER HASN'T LICENSED IT TO YOU FOR FREE. PERIOD.
Moderator: Go ahead... have your way with me. I just had to get this off my chest.
GJC
Imagine being the CIA and saying "there's no one spying on us". It's about the same as being the BSA and saying "no one is pirating software".
Whether the threat is real or not: You can't have a crusade w/o someone to crusade against.
GJC
Sigh.. such silliness...
Two things:
1) Hurd is the kernel of the *GNU* Operating System. No further qualification is necessary GNU/Linux which is mainly comprised of the GNU OS with Linux acting as the kernel.
2) It's *RMS* not RSM.
GJC
Most patent lawyers try to make the wording of the patent as broad as possible to:
1) expand the companies monopoly and
2) allow lawsuits against practically anyone who uses anything even remotely resembling the "present invention".
Patent litigation is extremely expensive and, most of the time, the courts err in favor of the patent holder rather than the infringer.
Not only that. There is this troublesome trend towards large companies using patents as a barrier of entry to smaller companies who lack the resources to fight a frivolous suit and must simply pay the royalties right or wrong.
Patent law is being abused in a number of ways in this country. So, I assure you, patents are VERY VERY real and extremely effective in blocking progress when the USPTO is granting patents on things like sideways swinging (check out the slashdot story on that).
GJC
Part of the problem with Apple is that Steve actually believes that everyone will wake up one morning and come running to Apple. It hasn't happened yet and it's not going to happen anytime soon.
;)
This is a company which produces *great* tech, but has no idea how to market it.
GJC
Posting anoymously is for wimps!!
but only entitled to what you pay for, if the content is sold under a license. If only more people agreed w/ this statement we might not be in this predicament. What's happening here is largely our own fault. While a agree w/ fair use, I see too many posts saying "just downloaded LOTR from the internet" or "bootleg of Episode II released", which I'm sure represent just the *tip of the iceberg*, to think that the MPAA's fears are totally unfounded.
:)
*COPYING* should be discouraged when it is in violation of the license for the material in question. *TOOLS* should *NOT* be made illegal. It is *actions* which should be made illegal.
Perhaps stuff like this wouldn't happen if there weren't so many people out there willing to make bootleg copies because they feel that the are "entitled" to it.
I am a Free Software advocate and contributor. I, personally, am totally *against* this and I intend to write my congressmen about it. But, I can't shake the feeling that to some degree we've only ourselves to blame.
GJC
P.S. Go ahead... mod me down, I just needed to speak my mind here.
P.P.S. I don't think that the MPAA has a chance in hell, since the entertainment industry is much smaller than the computer industry.
No, they don't. This is why it's called the Free **SOFTWARE** Foundation.
:)
GJC
The other 90% you mention for your Windows box are games, not essential parts of the OS. If you got a copy of Windows where the bulk of the *operating system* software was written by another company, I would expect that the other company would want some recognition.
Before you say "but the OS *is* the kernel and the kernel *is* the OS" think about all of the other software outside of the kernel which makes GNU/Linux tick, stuff like the crond, getty, dhcpd, bash, tcsh, and etc. Not to mention gcc, ls, ld, and numerous other tools which are loaded standard with *every* GNU/Linux system.
My original assertion still stands: no one is *forcing* anyone to do anything they don't want to. Feel free to implement all of these tools for yourself and call the result whatever you wish.
The simple truth of the matter is this: Linus wrote the kernel, the FSF and it's volunteers wrote everything else. "Linux" would be *NOWHERE* without *GNU*, thus the impetus for calling it GNU/Linux.
GJC
He's not shoving anything down anyones throat. You don't need to listen to him or read any articles by him or even use softwre written by him or the FSF, if you don't want to.
Due credit is due credit. GNU source makes up 90% of the code on a GNU/Linux system. It's only fair.
GJC
Perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us. What barrier does calling the OS GNU/Linux present?
why my sister in law didn't believe me when I told her I was *actually* sick on Wednesday and Thursday.
Really... I was!!
GJC
Condsidering that I can have 1000 or 10000 machines installed w/ the same copy of Linux versus buying a copy of MS Windows for every last one of those computers, the costs seem to even out rather quickly. ;)
GJC
that there is no such thing as good and evil, just different points of view.
GJC
College is more than just learning a trade or a skill, it's about learning to think. There are problems you might face which will require a mature approach, and that's what you get in college.
If you're 110% certain that all you want to do is system administration, then you should get certified and try to find a position. Keep in mind, however, that most employers will choose the guy who has a college degree over the person who doesn't.
GJC
Philips owns the trademark on the CD labeling. Even if the disc is round and shiny, if it doesn't have "CD" printed on it, it's not a "CD".
GJC
It's just too much!! :)
You obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about.
>Every Unix ever made was by this or anyone's
>definition 'open source' enough.
This is absolutely, positively, the most incorrect statement in your entire post. Yes, UNIX started out this way, but when AT&T realized that they could sell licenses, they closed the source. Try getting the source for AT&T unix now.
BSD did the same thing. Once the University of Berkeley closed the source, the FreeBSD and OpenBSD project sprang up. The original *BSD* is still closed source.
>Stallman's genius, if you can call it that, is to
>get his name and not just his freaking acronym
>associated with things that already exist (yes,
>Linux logically speaking 'already' existed) and
>for which HRH Stallman wouldn't have the first
>clue or inclination of how to create, contribute
>or proceed.
If you choose, you can continue to live in this dreamworld where Linus and his intrepid cohorts wrote all of the tools you get with a GNU/Linux distribution or you can come back to reality and acknowledge the fact the 90% of all of the programs you have on your precious box were written by the FSF, it's up to you.
Linux is just a kernel. GNU is the rest of the system. The combined *distribution* should rightfully be called GNU/Linux. period.
>Stallman is a demagogue. In any other place and
>time he would be ignored. And yes, you can
>interpret that exactly as you read it.
The demagogue here is not Stallman, but people like yourself who are fostering the myth that GNU/Linux has nothing to do with the myriad of programs which come from the FSF.
GJC
Most of the programs installed on your GNU/Linux :) box were not written by Linus. 90% of the remaining programs on your machine were written by voluteers or by people working for the FSF on the GNU project. A number of the *central* tools (ie. GCC, gdb and emacs to name a few) were written by RMS himself.
Anyone who decries RMS for trying to gain some recognition for the FSFs contribution should think twice. How would many of you feel if you created a vast set of tools and released them as free software only to have someone else write the *one missing element* then release it before you? Effectively, if not intentionally, stealing the credit for the entire thing.
For those who are thinking "we should re-write all of the GNU tools from scratch": I'll see you in about 8-10 years. Have a nice time, 'cuz there's a whole lotta man/years of code out there to write.
GJC
> Sure the linux kernel is complex. A complex
> hack job, to which there are better
> alternaitves.
Most OSes are *highly* complex and not just "lots of code". You seem to be trying to dismiss complexity by name-calling (e.g. "Hack Job").
> My original point is that something like Shake
> would not exist in the OSS world. My support of
> this statement is the fact that nothing like
> Shake DOES exist in the OSS world. If OSS is so
> great and spiffy when it comes to cranking out
> highly complex rendering tools, why is there no
> open source version of Shake?
Perhaps not because it such a "highly complex" tool, but because, as you yourself pointed out, there's only a *small* market for it.
No one said, myself included, that Free Software is a panacea. It shouldn't be considered one. It's wrong, however, to say that just because a tool like Shake doesn't exist now as free software that the entire methodology is "not good at such things".
If there were a community of sufficient size whose need for such a tool was great enough that they decided to collaborate one, there would be a free software equivalent. This is how Apache got started, BTW.
> Perhaps because it takes money to develop
> these tools.
My point in mentioning all of those companies which "use" GNU/Linux was also to point out that they also *contribute* to it. There is plenty of money in Open Source software/Free Software. Free Software is not about free beer.
> As for your comment about server software, I
> said open source DOES work very well in these
> applications, but DOES NOT work well in complex
> desktop applications. Try actually reading my
> post next time before trying to claim the non-
> existant moral high ground in a debate by
> spewing a bunch of names of large corporations
> who use linux at me.
I must have *misread* that part, but please see my above point which indicates why I mentioned those companies.
GJC
One correction: GNU/Linux is still non-commercial free software. It's just being sold and backed by a number of large corporations.
GJC
So you're saying that the Linux kernel is not complex? For most of it's history it was non-commercial.
:)
What about the Gimp? The Gimp is used by a number of people professionally and is widely recognized as a very useful 2D drawing tool rivalling even photoshop. It too is free software.
I am not going to waste my time looking for additional examples to prove my point.
You're reply reveals two things:
1) You're missing the point of my original post
2) You don't understand free software.
Free software is not about money, but about the freedom of the *software itself* and your freedom to use it. People have been developing and selling free software for a profit for many years Red Hat, SuSE, Cygnus, IBM, and soon to come HP/Compaq & Sun to name a few.
So, you see, there *IS* money in free software and plenty of it. Free software alternatives to programs on the shelf *do not need* to be done by people sitting in thier basement in their spare time, but can and are being done by big business.
If Free Software doesn't do servers well, why is Linux being sold on IBM mainframes and as thier default server system to large companies? Go figure..
GJC