Linux is amazingly fast and easy to install. Windows takes all day because the multiple updates, and reboots.
How is LibreOffice more difficult than MS-Office? At least LibreOffice does not *constantly* make radical changes in the interface. And LibreOffice does not have that awful "ribbon."
Consider Google's start page. It was around for years. Used, and relied upon, by millions. No doubt it was highly useful in getting people to use Google.
Then Google yanked it for absolutely no good reason.
I use Google apps all the time. I even got Google certified for Google apps.
I really want to like Google. I am sick to death of Microsoft's abusive monopoly.
But Google apps are poor quality. Google seems unwilling to fix serious bugs that have existed for years. Google drive does not sync worth a damn. And there is still no Linux client.
Again, I really want to like Google, but Google makes it more, and more, difficult.
Of course Gates, and his laptop, are going to spew the same old propaganda. That is only to be expected.
The shame is: STEM workers have no voice, no place at the table.
The public can hear *one* side of this discussion, and that's it.
Lou Dobbs was one of the few reporters who had anything to say about the massive abuses of visa workers, and illegal immigrants; now he has totally sold out to Fox news.
If STEM workers want to save their careers, they need to organize, raise money, lobby, and speak out.
Increasing the supply of trained workers lowers the cost - economics 101.
Of course tech companies always more workers, even if they are looking to offshore as much as they can, and replace the rest with visa workers. But, just in case, doesn't hurt to lower the cost of domestic workers.
Forget the situation today, look towards the future. There is no way for western workers to compete with third world wages.
I am sorry, but I don't understand: why is it okay for Microsoft to use to BSD code, without giving BSD any credit, but not Linux?
My understanding is: the ISC, MIT and BSD-licenses allow for sublicensing without making any modifications so the Linux devs are perfectly within the license when they sublicense the original code under the GPL. Theo de Raadt is wrong here.
Also, my understanding is: Theo is wrong about the license change only affecting source changes. It also affects the original source code because the licenses explicitly allow for this. If the licenses did not explicitly allow for this, he might have had a point here.
Also, I am not sure that Theo is justified in ranting about "the Linux people" when this was one incident that happened about 15 years ago, and was corrected.
And that's not the only article I've seen about BSD advocates bitching about BSD code being put into GPL code.
I don't get it. BSD advocates are fine with MS taking BSD code, and claiming it as MS code, and releasing only in binary. But, the BSD advocates bitch about BSD code being put into GPL open-source? WTF?
As I understand it, BSD is almost public domain. I can take BSD code, and relicense it any way I please. If I don't want my code relicensed, then I shouldn't release it BSD.
When you release your code BSD, you allow relicensing. That's why MS prefers the BSD license.
I just don't get it. If you want kernel improvements to be implemented back, why license your code under the BSD to begin with?
I took a look at the BSD license, and I don't see anything prohibiting anybody from taking BSD code and putting into a GPL project.
If BSD advocates want to thump their chests about their licence being so free, then why do they bitch when Linux - but not Microsoft - takes them up on their offer?
It does not seem to make sense to me.
BASIC has not been a "GOTO" language for 40 years
on
The New PHP
·
· Score: 1
Unknown to many slashdot posters (apparently).
For about 40 years now:
1) There have been versions of BASIC that can be complied 2) BASIC has had FOR loops, WHILE loops, procedures, and functions 3) Line numbers have not been needed in many versions of BASIC
Sadly, most slashdot posters do not know BASIC beyond GW-BASIC.
BTW: for over 20 years, there have been object-oriented versions of BASIC.
Slashdot Mirror
Pay people enough and there will not be a shortage.
Make it understood that the developer's job is not constantly threatened by cheaper offshore workers.
Linux is amazingly fast and easy to install. Windows takes all day because the multiple updates, and reboots.
How is LibreOffice more difficult than MS-Office? At least LibreOffice does not *constantly* make radical changes in the interface. And LibreOffice does not have that awful "ribbon."
We should all give in, and help perpetuate Microsoft's abusive monopoly.
We should absolutely insure that nobody else ever gets a chance to penetrate Microsoft's market.
Isn't that what you are really saying?
BTW: I use Google apps, LibreOffice, and MS-Office. I have no problem with it.
Microsoft is losing market share like mad. Everybody hates their new OSos.
In the most dynamic part of the market: tablets and phones, Microsoft is totally failing.
We may be *finally* seeing an end to Microsoft's abusive stranglehold on the industry.
Maybe we should be teaching kids iOS and Android?
Having recently gone from a Ford, to a Nissan, I can assure you: you do not know what you are posting about.
Consider Google's start page. It was around for years. Used, and relied upon, by millions. No doubt it was highly useful in getting people to use Google.
Then Google yanked it for absolutely no good reason.
Please do not post incorrect information.
I use Google apps all the time. I even got Google certified for Google apps.
I really want to like Google. I am sick to death of Microsoft's abusive monopoly.
But Google apps are poor quality. Google seems unwilling to fix serious bugs that have existed for years. Google drive does not sync worth a damn. And there is still no Linux client.
Again, I really want to like Google, but Google makes it more, and more, difficult.
Maybe you need to educate yourself.
Another Microsoft injustice.
Of course Gates, and his laptop, are going to spew the same old propaganda. That is only to be expected.
The shame is: STEM workers have no voice, no place at the table.
The public can hear *one* side of this discussion, and that's it.
Lou Dobbs was one of the few reporters who had anything to say about the massive abuses of visa workers, and illegal immigrants; now he has totally sold out to Fox news.
If STEM workers want to save their careers, they need to organize, raise money, lobby, and speak out.
Does that just mean anything the government does not like? Would a video of police beating an innocent man be considered "unsavory?'
As I understand it:
A long time ago, Google made some books public.
Not just any books, books that had nobody to send royalties to. Books which have been out of print a long time. Nobody was hurt.
Google competitors used shills to manufacturer a big fuss about it. People who don't know about believed the shills.
Increasing the supply of trained workers lowers the cost - economics 101.
Of course tech companies always more workers, even if they are looking to offshore as much as they can, and replace the rest with visa workers. But, just in case, doesn't hurt to lower the cost of domestic workers.
Forget the situation today, look towards the future. There is no way for western workers to compete with third world wages.
If it's 100,000 years from now, I won't lose any sleep over it.
Of course! Magic coconuts! Why didn't we think of this sooner?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/malaysia-recruits-witch-doctors-find-missing-passenger-jet-article-1.1720770
These MS shills comparing the cost of online storage, to the cost of local storage, must think we're idiots.
Why not compare apples to apples?
Compare google cloud storage, with other cloud storage. Maybe google will win, maybe not. But at least that is a valid comparison.
You MS shills are so transparent.
There have been several recent postings about MS dumping it's price for it's OS. Why not bitch about that?
Why not compare the price of google cloud storage, with the cost of cloud storage from google competitors?
Don't you think that would be a meaningful comparison?
I don't want to get all my stuff loaded on google, and then have them jack up the price.
How does that help raise salaries for techies? Seems to me it would do the opposite.
Unless you believe that bullshit about h1bs creating jobs for Americans (even though h1bs are not legally allowed to do that).
I am sorry, but I don't understand: why is it okay for Microsoft to use to BSD code, without giving BSD any credit, but not Linux?
My understanding is: the ISC, MIT and BSD-licenses allow for sublicensing without making any modifications so the Linux devs are perfectly within the license when they sublicense the original code under the GPL. Theo de Raadt is wrong here.
Also, my understanding is: Theo is wrong about the license change only affecting source changes. It also affects the original source code because the licenses explicitly allow for this. If the licenses did not explicitly allow for this, he might have had a point here.
Also, I am not sure that Theo is justified in ranting about "the Linux people" when this was one incident that happened about 15 years ago, and was corrected.
Theo de Raadt: why the bitching about BSD code put in GPL?
http://kerneltrap.org/OpenBSD/Atheros_Driver_Developments
And that's not the only article I've seen about BSD advocates bitching about BSD code being put into GPL code.
I don't get it. BSD advocates are fine with MS taking BSD code, and claiming it as MS code, and releasing only in binary. But, the BSD advocates bitch about BSD code being put into GPL open-source? WTF?
As I understand it, BSD is almost public domain. I can take BSD code, and relicense it any way I please. If I don't want my code relicensed, then I shouldn't release it BSD.
When you release your code BSD, you allow relicensing. That's why MS prefers the BSD license.
I just don't get it. If you want kernel improvements to be implemented back, why license your code under the BSD to begin with?
I took a look at the BSD license, and I don't see anything prohibiting anybody from taking BSD code and putting into a GPL project.
If BSD advocates want to thump their chests about their licence being so free, then why do they bitch when Linux - but not Microsoft - takes them up on their offer?
It does not seem to make sense to me.
Unknown to many slashdot posters (apparently).
For about 40 years now:
1) There have been versions of BASIC that can be complied
2) BASIC has had FOR loops, WHILE loops, procedures, and functions
3) Line numbers have not been needed in many versions of BASIC
Sadly, most slashdot posters do not know BASIC beyond GW-BASIC.
BTW: for over 20 years, there have been object-oriented versions of BASIC.
BTW also: other languages also have GOTOs.
BASIC is not perfect, but then, what is?
Thanks for letting me know, it's even worse than I thought.
Maybe women want no part of IT because women are smarter than men.