I'm not sure why this is funny. I mean, I know it's from the "Is your wife sporty?" Monty Python sketch. But what has this got to do with UK uptake of Linux?
OK, I get it, Monty Python is the only recognisable UK comedy in the world. Right.
I know you yanks like the Python; I'm a fan myself. But there are many other British comedy talents, in general far superior to what I've seen coming from the states (of course, we brits do have the worlds most refined sense of humour).
Steve Coogan (Alan Partridge) and Eddie Izzard spring to mind for a start. Kenneth Williams, Peter Cook, Eric Morcambe... what can I say, as a nation we produce peerless wits. The Pythons were unique but by no means "the best" or "the most British"; in fact, I think you'll find their following is bigger in the States than it is over here.
Management didn't ask "where's the support contract", they asked "where's the support coming from?".
No, I should have been more clear. They asked "where's the support contract".
I said, "I'm speaking to OpenCare [in France] and Cendio Systems [in Sweden]".
OpenCare went bust shortly after I received the "We'll get back to you soon!" email.
Cendio wanted about £5000 to "do a feasibility study" and there was no guarantee, or even a positive feeling, of support after that; if they decided they could support it, we were looking at several thousand pounds a year. That would be OK, but wanting £5000 up front with no firm return was unacceptable.
Re:I blame the British 'techie' environment.
on
Linux Usage in the UK
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I was going to argue with you, but after editing and re-editing and eventually deleting, I think you have some very good points. Unfortunately I've posted here already so I can't use my mod points.
I would add: conservatism. A breed of conservatism that I don't think exists elsewhere. I mean, look at our judicial system, we've only just got rid of the 1,400 year old post of Lord High Chancellor.
Seriously, how many of these same people have support contracts for their Windows systems?
What we're talking about here is places like my day job, where we have someone from Microsoft on-site full time. I was most upset when I found out, I mean, how pathetic, but there you are.
Support matters when you're a large company who is in it "for the long run" as I've been told.
Yes, we use Linux, but we have support from the supplier (SuSE just now, RedHat to come).
I can't implement software without a support contract! Isn't it insane? I was going to install a little GPL'd FTP proxy because our Microsoft proxies were failing, first thing management ask is "where's the support coming from?" Heh, a couple of hundred lines of C but it needs supported.
IBM know that in five years the Linux kernel will have more features and be more stable than AIX.
For administrators, who cares what kernel your running? Most AIX admins I know use smit, not much training required there.
The interim step is to provide the ABI so AIX can run Linux apps. Eventually Linux ABI becomes the industry standard. Then Linux replaces proprietary unix. You do know that Linux runs natively on PPC, don't you?
IBM aren't stupid, they can see Linux is the path of least resistance.
But what do I know, I've beem drinking absinthe and the walls are breathing.
New Scientist is really a "Popular Science" publication. Don't expect too much from it. The problem is they do cover some science topics very well, so really it's a consistency problem.
Anyway, I used to work in a team responsible for Internet access and browsing, and my colleagues routinely confused Java and Javascript. It's not restricted to journalist.
I'm obliged to point out that in the UK, cupboards refer to those kitchen storage units, and also to storage units everywhere else.
Particularly common is the "cupboard under the stairs" or the "airing cupboard" where electric immersion heaters can often be found.
These are by no means restricted to the containment of cups.
Those clothing storage units that things hang in are called wardrobes. The thing with drawers is called a chest.
The word cabinet is generally restricted to the phrase "display cabinet" and includes those old glass-fronted storage units containing your mother's finest china and so on. The other common use of the word cabinet is in reference to a tradesmans storage unit, where he might keep his planes and rasps on different shelves.
I've had a look at some of those sites that look like Windows and they are written using FrontPage. I don't have FrontPage but my guess is Microsoft provide a "Windows" template for royalty free use.
Why anyone would choose to use such a template I don't know... I was most surprised to find the Richard Feynman official website using this design. If I were him, I'd be spinning in my grave.
You¦can't¦do¦that¦with¦a¦microwave,¦everything¦t ur ns¦into¦a¦bland,¦limp,¦wet¦pizza-like¦substance¦wi th¦flavouring.
Nor¦can¦you¦stir-fry¦in¦either¦a¦microwave¦or¦a¦ to aster¦oven.¦Stir-fries¦should¦be¦cooked¦quickly¦-¦ briefly¦seared¦to¦heat¦and¦trap¦in¦the¦moisture.
Thanks for the logic lesson. I was expecting an argument which missed the semantic nuances of the words in question, and that's what you seem to have posted.
Simply note the words appreciation and pride.
One can have a surfeit of these despite correctly measuring one's talents.
Note I made no commentary on how this applies to you. I don't know you and I have no opinion about your talents or skills. The only information I have about you is the content of your posts here, which I can't fairly call typical of you.
Dictionaries are not the final arbiter of semantics. English is not a standard defined by ANSI. A dictionary simply matches words with other combinations of words in the same language. It gives your mind hings. It holds no meaning. Meaning is only present within the sociolinguistic environment of the meaner.
Yes, I am guilty of using dictionary definitions as final authority, but so are you in your defence of your own "modesty".
I don't want to assist the troll but I feel driven to point out that the meaning of modesty is not "knowing one's abilities" but is in fact "freedom from conceit or vanity".
Reminds me of the morons who object to liquor or tobacco ads, because they don't present "the whole picture". Why should they?
Well, I couldn't care less about adverts for booze; it has uses. But cigarettes are pointlessly harmful.
You ask why adverts should present the whole picture, or be banned. The answer is that, as a society, we don't want to encourage their use.
Certainly, there is nothing positive that comes from cigarette advertising (apart from the lining a few pockets). In a world without cigarette advertising, what argument would you put forth for it's introduction?
Note that I wouldn't advocate banning of cigarettes themselves. Decisions people make in awareness of the facts are their own choice.
Well the broadest definition of Music is controlled sounds.
That would include the beeping sound HGVs make when they're reversing, or the siren on a police car, or a fire alarm, or me swearing under my breath.
I was going to say "make that 'controlled sounds whose main purpose is non-functional'" but entertainment could be a function, or persuasion; that depends on the creator. Of course, not all music aims to entertain or persuade.
Defining music by it's sound itself is useless; artists like Aube or Oval prove that. The uninitiated might think the stereo was broken (I quite like it...).
Perhaps music is what the listener calls music. Of course, that's a cop out. An unreasonable listener could call everything (or nothing) music.
I think that the essence of music lies in the intent of the creator. This also covers the case of a functional sound being listened to for musical purposes; in this case the intent lies with the listener and therefore they are also the creator.
The intent must be to create a work of sound to be listened to as an aesthetic experience. This distinguishes between non-musical works of sound, like audio books and speeches, and music. This needn't be the sole aim of the sound; music can be created as propoganda where the main intent is to foster allegiance to a political doctrine. But it won't work if there is no aesthetic content.
In summary: Music is works of sound created with an aesthetic intent.
Defining aesthetic is a bit trickier (unless you want to revert to that obnoxious brand of ignorance, behaviouralism).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure why this is funny. I mean, I know it's from the "Is your wife sporty?" Monty Python sketch. But what has this got to do with UK uptake of Linux?
OK, I get it, Monty Python is the only recognisable UK comedy in the world. Right.
I know you yanks like the Python; I'm a fan myself. But there are many other British comedy talents, in general far superior to what I've seen coming from the states (of course, we brits do have the worlds most refined sense of humour).
Steve Coogan (Alan Partridge) and Eddie Izzard spring to mind for a start. Kenneth Williams, Peter Cook, Eric Morcambe... what can I say, as a nation we produce peerless wits. The Pythons were unique but by no means "the best" or "the most British"; in fact, I think you'll find their following is bigger in the States than it is over here.
What are you saying, that you want a giant monopoly doing free software support staffed by a handfull of techies?
How about just "let's have some companies offering support"?
Management didn't ask "where's the support contract", they asked "where's the support coming from?".
No, I should have been more clear. They asked "where's the support contract".
I said, "I'm speaking to OpenCare [in France] and Cendio Systems [in Sweden]".
OpenCare went bust shortly after I received the "We'll get back to you soon!" email.
Cendio wanted about £5000 to "do a feasibility study" and there was no guarantee, or even a positive feeling, of support after that; if they decided they could support it, we were looking at several thousand pounds a year. That would be OK, but wanting £5000 up front with no firm return was unacceptable.
I was going to argue with you, but after editing and re-editing and eventually deleting, I think you have some very good points. Unfortunately I've posted here already so I can't use my mod points.
I would add: conservatism. A breed of conservatism that I don't think exists elsewhere. I mean, look at our judicial system, we've only just got rid of the 1,400 year old post of Lord High Chancellor.
Seriously, how many of these same people have support contracts for their Windows systems?
What we're talking about here is places like my day job, where we have someone from Microsoft on-site full time. I was most upset when I found out, I mean, how pathetic, but there you are.
Support matters when you're a large company who is in it "for the long run" as I've been told.
Yes, we use Linux, but we have support from the supplier (SuSE just now, RedHat to come).
I can't implement software without a support contract! Isn't it insane? I was going to install a little GPL'd FTP proxy because our Microsoft proxies were failing, first thing management ask is "where's the support coming from?" Heh, a couple of hundred lines of C but it needs supported.
Yeah, your full of nonsense.
IBM know that in five years the Linux kernel will have more features and be more stable than AIX.
For administrators, who cares what kernel your running? Most AIX admins I know use smit, not much training required there.
The interim step is to provide the ABI so AIX can run Linux apps. Eventually Linux ABI becomes the industry standard. Then Linux replaces proprietary unix. You do know that Linux runs natively on PPC, don't you?
IBM aren't stupid, they can see Linux is the path of least resistance.
But what do I know, I've beem drinking absinthe and the walls are breathing.
That's right, but nobody buys AIX without buying the maintenance, as they don't have the source.
In the cases that I know, maintenance for IBM software in large organisations runs into the millions of pounds.
That may be the case but, who spends thousands of pounds to run Solaris on x86 in production systems?
Shrimps, that's who. The apes spend hundreds of thousands, or millions, running Solaris on SPARC or AIX on RS/6000.
My mod points dissolved unused yesterday; in their place, well said.
Well said, I've been making this point in various guises for a large part of my life.
The tool you seek is called Heinz.
New Scientist is really a "Popular Science" publication. Don't expect too much from it. The problem is they do cover some science topics very well, so really it's a consistency problem.
Anyway, I used to work in a team responsible for Internet access and browsing, and my colleagues routinely confused Java and Javascript. It's not restricted to journalist.
I'm obliged to point out that in the UK, cupboards refer to those kitchen storage units, and also to storage units everywhere else.
Particularly common is the "cupboard under the stairs" or the "airing cupboard" where electric immersion heaters can often be found.
These are by no means restricted to the containment of cups.
Those clothing storage units that things hang in are called wardrobes. The thing with drawers is called a chest.
The word cabinet is generally restricted to the phrase "display cabinet" and includes those old glass-fronted storage units containing your mother's finest china and so on. The other common use of the word cabinet is in reference to a tradesmans storage unit, where he might keep his planes and rasps on different shelves.
Isn't the English language strange?
One presumes Alan has taken a trip.
I've had a look at some of those sites that look like Windows and they are written using FrontPage. I don't have FrontPage but my guess is Microsoft provide a "Windows" template for royalty free use.
Why anyone would choose to use such a template I don't know... I was most surprised to find the Richard Feynman official website using this design. If I were him, I'd be spinning in my grave.
For the images, the referer is the page itself.
Browser loads html, parses html, html references images, browser loads images. Therefore the referer is set correctly.
You've¦never¦eaten¦properly¦cooked¦food,¦by¦the¦so unds¦of¦it.
r ow ave¦and¦the¦oven.¦I'm¦a¦vegeterian,¦but¦I'm¦thinki ng¦of¦a¦lovely¦piece¦of¦brisket,¦crispy¦at¦the¦edg es¦where¦the¦oven¦has¦gently¦seared¦the¦surface¦of ¦the¦cut¦of¦meat¦without¦turning¦it¦to¦carbon.
t ur ns¦into¦a¦bland,¦limp,¦wet¦pizza-like¦substance¦wi th¦flavouring.
¦ to aster¦oven.¦Stir-fries¦should¦be¦cooked¦quickly¦-¦ briefly¦seared¦to¦heat¦and¦trap¦in¦the¦moisture.
Contrast¦the¦subtle¦textural¦nuances¦of¦the¦mic
You¦can't¦do¦that¦with¦a¦microwave,¦everything¦
Nor¦can¦you¦stir-fry¦in¦either¦a¦microwave¦or¦a
It gives your mind hings should read It gives your mind hints. I really should spellcheck....
Thanks for the logic lesson. I was expecting an argument which missed the semantic nuances of the words in question, and that's what you seem to have posted.
Simply note the words appreciation and pride.
One can have a surfeit of these despite correctly measuring one's talents.
Note I made no commentary on how this applies to you. I don't know you and I have no opinion about your talents or skills. The only information I have about you is the content of your posts here, which I can't fairly call typical of you.
Dictionaries are not the final arbiter of semantics. English is not a standard defined by ANSI. A dictionary simply matches words with other combinations of words in the same language. It gives your mind hings. It holds no meaning. Meaning is only present within the sociolinguistic environment of the meaner.
Yes, I am guilty of using dictionary definitions as final authority, but so are you in your defence of your own "modesty".
I don't want to assist the troll but I feel driven to point out that the meaning of modesty is not "knowing one's abilities" but is in fact "freedom from conceit or vanity".
Conceit is "excessive appreciation of one's own worth or virtue" and vanity is "inflated pride in oneself or one's appearance".
Reminds me of the morons who object to liquor or tobacco ads, because they don't present "the whole picture". Why should they?
Well, I couldn't care less about adverts for booze; it has uses. But cigarettes are pointlessly harmful.
You ask why adverts should present the whole picture, or be banned. The answer is that, as a society, we don't want to encourage their use.
Certainly, there is nothing positive that comes from cigarette advertising (apart from the lining a few pockets). In a world without cigarette advertising, what argument would you put forth for it's introduction?
Note that I wouldn't advocate banning of cigarettes themselves. Decisions people make in awareness of the facts are their own choice.
But what do I know, I'm a moron.
To avoid confusion: Polyx.
Ummm... MS Project for Mac 4.0?
What's that got to do with the price of cheese?
Therefore, anything with access to reading some memory from the video card (not too uncommon I'd imagine)
Is this really true? To get access to video RAM you would need high privileges (i.e. be a video driver / X-server / root privileges).
Surely that's "wrapped into the security model".
Well the broadest definition of Music is controlled sounds.
That would include the beeping sound HGVs make when they're reversing, or the siren on a police car, or a fire alarm, or me swearing under my breath.
I was going to say "make that 'controlled sounds whose main purpose is non-functional'" but entertainment could be a function, or persuasion; that depends on the creator. Of course, not all music aims to entertain or persuade.
Defining music by it's sound itself is useless; artists like Aube or Oval prove that. The uninitiated might think the stereo was broken (I quite like it...).
Perhaps music is what the listener calls music. Of course, that's a cop out. An unreasonable listener could call everything (or nothing) music.
I think that the essence of music lies in the intent of the creator. This also covers the case of a functional sound being listened to for musical purposes; in this case the intent lies with the listener and therefore they are also the creator.
The intent must be to create a work of sound to be listened to as an aesthetic experience. This distinguishes between non-musical works of sound, like audio books and speeches, and music. This needn't be the sole aim of the sound; music can be created as propoganda where the main intent is to foster allegiance to a political doctrine. But it won't work if there is no aesthetic content.
In summary: Music is works of sound created with an aesthetic intent.
Defining aesthetic is a bit trickier (unless you want to revert to that obnoxious brand of ignorance, behaviouralism).