So? If it can be cheapened, it will be cheapened. That's economics.
No, economics is supply and demand of softare. RMS is saying make it free - not because the demand is free, but because it's the Right Thing to do. No one is screaming "software is too expensive", except for the people who's bread and butter is coming from it. I find this extremely odd - you won't find this in any other industry.
What's the big deal with Free Software? Why can't he broaden his focus to other area's of engineering and intellectual property? Why is software the only profession that has a foundation (FSF) to make it free.
My theory is that other professions have a much larger barrier of entry then software development. It's easy as a software developer to cheapen the value of the time it takes to write code, whereas with an airplane you can't cheapen the value of raw materials. It's sad to see that the most valuable aspect of any product - the time put in by people - is the least valued by RMS (from my perspective).
Cool - I was curious because I work for Cybercamps. Although we are an all Windows shop, we do teach some non-MS technologies, but for the most part it's Windows because we know that the kid will generally have everything at home to continue the experience (as opposed to having to install a whole new OS). I do know that many of the college age counselors mention how C can be used in other OS's other than Windows, and I think they try to be ANSI C compliant.
This sounds like a great thing. Too many schools are only teaching Windows as if it's the only operating system in the world, and that's simply not true.
That's how it was when I was in elemtary school, except that it was those small Apple's. I still ended up running Linux by Junior High, and then eventually Windows (once Win95 came out).
We all have our anecdotal evidence. I work in a company that had to downsize 2 years ago so it can only maintain one sysadmin who's not even full time. We have 40+ desktops, multiple staging and development servers, 2 exchange servers (internal and external), and at least 8 servers that run our public websites, databases, file servers, etc. We also have one unix based NAS unit and one Linux box (used for our corporate firewall). So, although you can only reasonably manage 5 or 6 Windows servers, someone who actually knows how to manage said servers can manage a heck of a lot more to the point that it becomes a part time position. If your Forte is Linux, don't exepct to be a great Windows admin (and visa versa).
This all said, I'll agree that the scriptable nature inherent in unix based systems makes them a bit more intuitive to manage. However, Windows is a lot more scriptable than many people in the unix world think. There are rich API's that allow one to access almost anything, whereas on a Unix system I have to write Yet Another Shell or Perl script to parse Yet Another Config File format. In Windows.NET server, virtually everything is XML based, all with nicely documented XSD's. Hopefully unix based systems will follow suit.
The other edge that unix based systems currently have is overall stability. Although from a maintenance standpoint the bottom line is nominally affected due to "self healing" management systems (aka. auto-reboot:-).
So although we can argue about the merits of each system, the bottom line is that in most cases a competent Windows admin can administer as many servers as a Linux admin can, aside from larger installations where unix based systems may have a small advantage.
Actually, according to the IBM study I linked to...
Actually, according to the Microsoft study that says Windows is better. Come on, an IBM study that concludes Linux's TCO is like Philip Morris's study that claims that smoking is good for your health.
The point is that Microsoft is not forcing an upgrade every five years like the parent post incorrectly asserted. Obviously, as with any technology, you eventually have to upgrade.
Windows 2000 is all of 2 years old, not 5 years. So any estimations of 5-year costs on Win2k are based off of 2-year studies and 3-year projections.
Actually, the study is closer to a 2.5-3 year period, with a 2-2.5 year estimation. It's true that this isn't as accurate as the Linux study, but projections do not invalidate a study.
The best comparison would be between WinXP and the latest release of Debian or Redhat.
No, businesses are buying 2K. XP has only recently stabalized enough for business use. This "study" seems to completely ignore the fact that one Linux admin can attend to many Linux workstations
Only because it's a moot point since a Windows admin can do the same.
is the cost of a BSA lawsuite and the cost of remaining compliant wit the BSA
If you don't steal software then it doesn't matter. The BSA is not my friend by any means, but I know that it doesn't go after a company unless it has strong reason to believe that it is in serious violation of the law. Since our company refrains from illegal practices, we have never had any issues with the BSA.
Let's not forget that Linux can run better on cheaper hardware
Although it's common knowledge that Linux can be faster, my personal observation is that a properly configured Windows box comes nominally close.
Linux admins may be more expensive than Win2k admins -- but because they can administer many systems at once through automated methods
Windows admins can administer just as many boxes as Linux admins. Everything can be done via the CLI or script. The problem is these MCSE's (nothing against cert's in general) don't have any knowledge beyond their MCSE so all they know how to do is click through menus, which as we know is not a very efficient means of administration.
Technical Support
The costs associated with this were considered in the report, and it's the bottom line that counts.
Don't get me wrong, this study definitely has some flaws, but your contentions were generally without merit.
Still running NT3.51 and 4.0 over here and I have yet to see the gun pointed at me forcing me to upgrade. I still get support from my vendor, and the machines are (surprisingly) running so well that we rarely touch them.
Perhaps Redhat isn't supporting some of their old products, but the software that's running on it probably is.
But that's the problem. I don't care if some kernal hackers are still working on it. As a business I need my support contracts to support what I'm running. If Redhat or whoever I have my support contract with won't support me because of an old version, I'm in the exact same boat. The whole reason that I pay for support is because I'm not in the business of dealing with patching my own OS, or extensively testing upgrades.
NT3.51 and NT4 Sp3 (a popular SP) systems are still running alive and well. For many corporations running internal servers the support from MS is not necessary after 5 years as they are purchasing support from their vendor. The same goes for Linux based distro's. Just because Linux has moved on to the 2.6 kernal doesn't mean that you have to. You keep paying RH your yearly support contract and you'll get support (although you have to maintain a reasonably upgraded version).
The only time I've seen a good manager virtually require a degree (except for rare exception) is when the job requires a lot of math and CS theory (eg: biometric security in embedded systems with relatively slow hardware). This makes sense as this is more of a research position, and research is a very academic decipline, which IMHO requires a certain academic background. Although, we all know what kind of an academic background Einstien had.
We run an 80% Microsoft tech department and not one of us has a certification. Although certifications are a legitimate way of showing that you have a certain set of knowledge, it does not show the intelligence of a person. The same goes for CS types. It takes an intelligent person to truely take advantage of a college degree or certification.
Anyway, my point is that just because we run "proprietary systems" doesn't mean that we look for certifications of those systems.
In other words, it's *not* useful to the end user - it's useful to the service providers.
Sure it is. We implemented a passport-like service for all of our corporate systems. This way, you change your password once, and it changes everywhere. It has reduced the "I forgot my password" requests considerably, and allows us to enfoce regular password changes on a global level, instead of having each system deal with passwords differently.
The percieved problem of central systems on a global scale is simply that once the password is compromised, the whole system is compromised. Remember when car makers used to make one key for the door, and the other to the ignition? In the end it was proven that this generally added little to no security because both keys were on the same key ring. The same goes for passwords. I personally use 2 - 3 passwords accross all sites. You get one of my passwords and you can access almost half of the sites that I visit. Furthermore, most people that I talk to already use one password anyway.
My biggest concern for security is not the concept of centralized passwords, rather, it revolves around Microsoft's ability to design a secure protocol, and if that protocol becomes an industry standard so that Microsoft doesn't have Ultimate Power over the system.
If you don't like your pay, renegotiate, quit, or SHUT UP.
No problem. I'll just quit, lose my health insurance, my paycheck that feeds my family, and risk a poor reference because my boss doesn't want me to quit. Oh, and in this great economy I'm sure I'll find a better job right away. Of course the founder is allowed to make more money, like you said, that doesn't mean he's "exploting". However, don't act like employees have the power to renegotiate resonable wages, because most of the time they don't. Sure, his personal capital may have started the company, but the ongoing contributions of employees is what grows it and what really generates the profit.
Also, Opera has a much smaller user base, which means less testing and bug reporting.
Yeah, I mean, they're only available on almost every possible OS for almost every possible platform. Seriously, you make like all of those features, and that's your opinion. I personally measure Opera's superiority by it's small footprint, fast rendering, and usability (Moz generally copies Opera after a few months. eg: mouse gestures). Yes, Opera is Commercial, and that's why it's so successfull. OSS has done some incredible things (Perl being one of my favorites), but I've still found that commercial software is generally a notch or two above OSS, and Opera is no exception.
Then why is Mozilla, after all these years, STILL inferior to Opera? Opera has a very small group of developers, and especially before Moz 1.x was faster, more stable, and rendered properly. Now, after many years, Moz has almost caught up, but we'll just have to see wwith Opera 7.
Could someone explain to me why this is so great (spare me the "MS is Evil" drivel). From my perspective, this is yet another business profiting off of the backs of developers who work for free. I Still Don't Get It(tm).
... for creating a non-unique product name. If they want to control branding, then they better make sure to label the product "Microsoft Windows", or next time they can be a bit more creative.
Actually this is incorrect. The SEC filings are incredibly misleading. For example, Windows XP get's all of it's technology from the server team, so it therefore doesn't have to do a whole lot of R&D for the kernal and things like that. That's just one of many examples of how it's difficult to track profits within each MS department.
Slashdot Mirror
So? If it can be cheapened, it will be cheapened. That's economics.
No, economics is supply and demand of softare. RMS is saying make it free - not because the demand is free, but because it's the Right Thing to do. No one is screaming "software is too expensive", except for the people who's bread and butter is coming from it. I find this extremely odd - you won't find this in any other industry.
What's the big deal with Free Software? Why can't he broaden his focus to other area's of engineering and intellectual property? Why is software the only profession that has a foundation (FSF) to make it free.
My theory is that other professions have a much larger barrier of entry then software development. It's easy as a software developer to cheapen the value of the time it takes to write code, whereas with an airplane you can't cheapen the value of raw materials. It's sad to see that the most valuable aspect of any product - the time put in by people - is the least valued by RMS (from my perspective).
Cool - I was curious because I work for Cybercamps. Although we are an all Windows shop, we do teach some non-MS technologies, but for the most part it's Windows because we know that the kid will generally have everything at home to continue the experience (as opposed to having to install a whole new OS). I do know that many of the college age counselors mention how C can be used in other OS's other than Windows, and I think they try to be ANSI C compliant.
This sounds like a great thing. Too many schools are only teaching Windows as if it's the only operating system in the world, and that's simply not true.
That's how it was when I was in elemtary school, except that it was those small Apple's. I still ended up running Linux by Junior High, and then eventually Windows (once Win95 came out).
I speak from experience, having been a camp counsellor at a computer camp for two summers.
Which computer camp?
'cause they include clever spam filters.
As does Outlook.
We all have our anecdotal evidence. I work in a company that had to downsize 2 years ago so it can only maintain one sysadmin who's not even full time. We have 40+ desktops, multiple staging and development servers, 2 exchange servers (internal and external), and at least 8 servers that run our public websites, databases, file servers, etc. We also have one unix based NAS unit and one Linux box (used for our corporate firewall). So, although you can only reasonably manage 5 or 6 Windows servers, someone who actually knows how to manage said servers can manage a heck of a lot more to the point that it becomes a part time position. If your Forte is Linux, don't exepct to be a great Windows admin (and visa versa).
:-).
This all said, I'll agree that the scriptable nature inherent in unix based systems makes them a bit more intuitive to manage. However, Windows is a lot more scriptable than many people in the unix world think. There are rich API's that allow one to access almost anything, whereas on a Unix system I have to write Yet Another Shell or Perl script to parse Yet Another Config File format. In Windows.NET server, virtually everything is XML based, all with nicely documented XSD's. Hopefully unix based systems will follow suit.
The other edge that unix based systems currently have is overall stability. Although from a maintenance standpoint the bottom line is nominally affected due to "self healing" management systems (aka. auto-reboot
So although we can argue about the merits of each system, the bottom line is that in most cases a competent Windows admin can administer as many servers as a Linux admin can, aside from larger installations where unix based systems may have a small advantage.
Actually, according to the IBM study I linked to...
Actually, according to the Microsoft study that says Windows is better. Come on, an IBM study that concludes Linux's TCO is like Philip Morris's study that claims that smoking is good for your health.
The point is that Microsoft is not forcing an upgrade every five years like the parent post incorrectly asserted. Obviously, as with any technology, you eventually have to upgrade.
Windows 2000 is all of 2 years old, not 5 years. So any estimations of 5-year costs on Win2k are based off of 2-year studies and 3-year projections.
Actually, the study is closer to a 2.5-3 year period, with a 2-2.5 year estimation. It's true that this isn't as accurate as the Linux study, but projections do not invalidate a study.
The best comparison would be between WinXP and the latest release of Debian or Redhat.
No, businesses are buying 2K. XP has only recently stabalized enough for business use.
This "study" seems to completely ignore the fact that one Linux admin can attend to many Linux workstations
Only because it's a moot point since a Windows admin can do the same.
is the cost of a BSA lawsuite and the cost of remaining compliant wit the BSA
If you don't steal software then it doesn't matter. The BSA is not my friend by any means, but I know that it doesn't go after a company unless it has strong reason to believe that it is in serious violation of the law. Since our company refrains from illegal practices, we have never had any issues with the BSA.
Let's not forget that Linux can run better on cheaper hardware
Although it's common knowledge that Linux can be faster, my personal observation is that a properly configured Windows box comes nominally close.
Linux admins may be more expensive than Win2k admins -- but because they can administer many systems at once through automated methods
Windows admins can administer just as many boxes as Linux admins. Everything can be done via the CLI or script. The problem is these MCSE's (nothing against cert's in general) don't have any knowledge beyond their MCSE so all they know how to do is click through menus, which as we know is not a very efficient means of administration.
Technical Support
The costs associated with this were considered in the report, and it's the bottom line that counts.
Don't get me wrong, this study definitely has some flaws, but your contentions were generally without merit.
Still running NT3.51 and 4.0 over here and I have yet to see the gun pointed at me forcing me to upgrade. I still get support from my vendor, and the machines are (surprisingly) running so well that we rarely touch them.
Perhaps Redhat isn't supporting some of their old products, but the software that's running on it probably is.
But that's the problem. I don't care if some kernal hackers are still working on it. As a business I need my support contracts to support what I'm running. If Redhat or whoever I have my support contract with won't support me because of an old version, I'm in the exact same boat. The whole reason that I pay for support is because I'm not in the business of dealing with patching my own OS, or extensively testing upgrades.
Draw your own conclusions...
NT3.51 and NT4 Sp3 (a popular SP) systems are still running alive and well. For many corporations running internal servers the support from MS is not necessary after 5 years as they are purchasing support from their vendor. The same goes for Linux based distro's. Just because Linux has moved on to the 2.6 kernal doesn't mean that you have to. You keep paying RH your yearly support contract and you'll get support (although you have to maintain a reasonably upgraded version).
The only time I've seen a good manager virtually require a degree (except for rare exception) is when the job requires a lot of math and CS theory (eg: biometric security in embedded systems with relatively slow hardware). This makes sense as this is more of a research position, and research is a very academic decipline, which IMHO requires a certain academic background. Although, we all know what kind of an academic background Einstien had.
We run an 80% Microsoft tech department and not one of us has a certification. Although certifications are a legitimate way of showing that you have a certain set of knowledge, it does not show the intelligence of a person. The same goes for CS types. It takes an intelligent person to truely take advantage of a college degree or certification.
Anyway, my point is that just because we run "proprietary systems" doesn't mean that we look for certifications of those systems.
In other words, it's *not* useful to the end user - it's useful to the service providers.
Sure it is. We implemented a passport-like service for all of our corporate systems. This way, you change your password once, and it changes everywhere. It has reduced the "I forgot my password" requests considerably, and allows us to enfoce regular password changes on a global level, instead of having each system deal with passwords differently.
The percieved problem of central systems on a global scale is simply that once the password is compromised, the whole system is compromised. Remember when car makers used to make one key for the door, and the other to the ignition? In the end it was proven that this generally added little to no security because both keys were on the same key ring. The same goes for passwords. I personally use 2 - 3 passwords accross all sites. You get one of my passwords and you can access almost half of the sites that I visit. Furthermore, most people that I talk to already use one password anyway.
My biggest concern for security is not the concept of centralized passwords, rather, it revolves around Microsoft's ability to design a secure protocol, and if that protocol becomes an industry standard so that Microsoft doesn't have Ultimate Power over the system.
+5 Funny
If you don't like your pay, renegotiate, quit, or SHUT UP.
No problem. I'll just quit, lose my health insurance, my paycheck that feeds my family, and risk a poor reference because my boss doesn't want me to quit. Oh, and in this great economy I'm sure I'll find a better job right away. Of course the founder is allowed to make more money, like you said, that doesn't mean he's "exploting". However, don't act like employees have the power to renegotiate resonable wages, because most of the time they don't. Sure, his personal capital may have started the company, but the ongoing contributions of employees is what grows it and what really generates the profit.
Also, Opera has a much smaller user base, which means less testing and bug reporting.
Yeah, I mean, they're only available on almost every possible OS for almost every possible platform. Seriously, you make like all of those features, and that's your opinion. I personally measure Opera's superiority by it's small footprint, fast rendering, and usability (Moz generally copies Opera after a few months. eg: mouse gestures). Yes, Opera is Commercial, and that's why it's so successfull. OSS has done some incredible things (Perl being one of my favorites), but I've still found that commercial software is generally a notch or two above OSS, and Opera is no exception.
What I'd like to know (and this is NOT meant as a flame any way, I love mozilla), is HOW exactly do big bugs like this get into final releases?
Because you see with OSS there's way more eyeballs looking at the code.... oh, nevermind.
Then why is Mozilla, after all these years, STILL inferior to Opera? Opera has a very small group of developers, and especially before Moz 1.x was faster, more stable, and rendered properly. Now, after many years, Moz has almost caught up, but we'll just have to see wwith Opera 7.
Could someone explain to me why this is so great (spare me the "MS is Evil" drivel). From my perspective, this is yet another business profiting off of the backs of developers who work for free. I Still Don't Get It(tm).
... for creating a non-unique product name. If they want to control branding, then they better make sure to label the product "Microsoft Windows", or next time they can be a bit more creative.
The lack of MS source has not in any way slowed the discovery/exploitation of Windows flaws
This can not be said absolutely by anyone, one way or the other. It may be your opinion, but you then need to substantiate it.
Actually this is incorrect. The SEC filings are incredibly misleading. For example, Windows XP get's all of it's technology from the server team, so it therefore doesn't have to do a whole lot of R&D for the kernal and things like that. That's just one of many examples of how it's difficult to track profits within each MS department.