The situation you describe is not at all unlike how the mafia cargo-theft operations run (or used to run...the people I know are all ex-OCTF types). Basically they'd find some truck driver who had a gambling problem, and make him a deal: he parks his truck at a certain rest area on a certain night, and goes into the restaurant to have dinner. When he gets out, his truck is missing. Sometimes they'd even arrange it so that the cargo in question that night would be particularly high-value (load of VCRs, whatever), or easy to fence merchandise.
Hey, 1990 called, and it wants its high-value electronics back! Who would place an order for a truckload of Video Cassete Recorders in 2006?? I bet it would be half a truckload of VCRs, plus a quarter of PS/2 computers, and the rest of Michael Jackson audio tapes.
I'm not supporting the idea of creating a new OS, at least it could be a way of getting a microkernel architecture.
AST used your same argument, saying that Linux wouldn't be popular, partly because only people with 386 processors could use it. You just need to make it available for reasonably widespread hardware.
Bitching but buying and keeping stuff anyway doesn't amount to anything. XP was a commercial success despite its lack of hardware support.
I think people should stop saying that frees sfotware is not ready for them, and start accepting that fact that only _they_ are not ready, or willing to change, is the main issue hindering adoption. Not that _I_ care a lot.
So to summarise: games, hardware drivers, a good mp3 player, no command line and not too expensive. That's what we need! So what's the choice again?
All that, and a pony.
Years ago, the problem was the GUI. Then, it was the web browser. Then, the Office compatibility. Then, driver support for old stuff. Then modem drivers. OpenGL.
Now, support for old hardware is no longer important (XP does not support my old tv-card and modem, and I didn't hear anyone complain) . Of course, everybody has ADSL right now, they don't need no freakin' modems. You need support for some wifi card you didn't care to inspect for Linux support.
Hardware driver support is no longer an important issue. There are manufacturers that make Linux-compatible hardware, and there are those who don't, but that's an issue with those manufacturers, you can get Linux compatible versions of anything right now.
And when you say: "And without having to touch the command line to register illegal repositories. That would be cool.", what do you mean exactly?
What is the definition of "illegal" you are using? Adding non-free universe/multiverse repositories through synaptic doesn't involve illegal activities, at least to get mp3 and games. And about the command line... there is no need for command line, but WTF is the problem? The command line does actually suit much better to installation and configuration, because it's much easier to follow instructions on a command line than on a dialog.
Right now is when I come to know I have been trolled, but I no longer care about that.
Nonsense. A slashdot poster is, by default, not a lawyer. We could have an acronym to clarify when people don't have an IT-related job, but that whole IANAL thing is just stupid. People here are usually not lawyers, obviously. There's no need to state that we are no lawyers. I post about Linux, and I'm no kernel expert, although I use it, and I know some things about them.
Right now we're seeing an explosion in the number of patents on what we currently consider high-tech inventions. These, however, are starting to expire. Somewhere on the order of 1000 patents expire every week -- and that number is rising. In a few years, we can expect to see a couple of thousand inventions come into the public domain every week -- and they'll all include directions about how to build them, put them to use, etc. Without the patent system, or something very similar to it, we could not expect such a thing to happen.
duh! HTTP specs didn't come from the patent office. CVS didn't, either. Autoconf, and the autoconf HOWTO were not the produt of the great petenting inventors. Newtonian physics don't come from patents, and neither do mathematics. The greek didn't have patents, either.
It's an insult to humanity to say that patents are the only way people can share their ideas to improve their surroundings. That's nonsense. Patents were a somewhat good solution to a problem that doesn't exist anymore. Right now, innovation is hindered, rather than prepeled, by patents, because at the current rate, it can only be stopped by legal ways such as patents. There is enough incentive to develop all kinds of stuff, even if you don't get a monopoly on production.
Of course so-called "intellectual property" is another issue.
For me, it's an oxymoron, you can't own ideas. You can control them, somewhat, but they are not yours. Intellectual stuff is not property. Property is finite, and ideas are infinite.
If "IP" was regarded the same as actual property, there's the issue of people using that infine "wealth" to buy actual wealth. The big problem that comes from this is that the owners of _some_ "IP" could become the owners of _all_ actual property. That is one main issue why it would be a bad thing to think of "IP" as property.
About people having no incentive... well, you are posing corporations as the only actors in society. There's academics, there's corporations that wouldn't benefit from patents, there's ad-hoc organizations, individuals, even governments.
Einstein didn't get a patent on quantum physics. Fourier didn't get a patent on his mathematics. Cervantes didn't write "El quijote" because of copyright law.
The so called "intellectual property" laws did have some use, but right now, their benefits are greatly surpassed by their shortcommings, and treaties that try to give them more releveance instead of less, can only hurt the global economy as a whole, if you count everybody involved.
Well, I live in Uruguay. Uruguay is not a country with famine problems. We have a big problem with poverty, and the social effects it has over the long run, for example some young people that don't see a future in getting a job, and stuff.
I said : "Responsible governments are more important for developing nations, and more important than that would be an international community that tries to help them grow more or less together, instead of just keeping living off of them, and trying to extend that situation into the future."
What I mean here is something like this: The US right now wants a free trade treaty with Uruguay. They will let us sell more beef (a very important Uruguayan export, very good quality) in exchange of our respect for their "IP" laws. The problem is that this export doesn't have real future, and their "IP" laws are the shot of developed countries to own *everything* . Of course, we can sell more meat, maybe even soy, but we will have to pay royalties every time we re-plant soy, or every time our cattle get medicine shots (made by _our_ laboratories). Of course, we have other possible exports, but agricultural products can't be sold to the US in general, because they have subsidies. But they won't let us have subsidies, because that way they won't trade with us.
That's living off us, and trying to extend that situation into the future. Trying to help other countries would be to respect actual free trade, stop their own agricultural subsidies, or at least not forcing other countries to get rid of them, so they can trade on equal grounds. Of course, the US has earned their position as a world power, and so they can use that power as they please, but that has direct consequences, and it's more important than corrupt governments.
For example, Uruguay has some sorruption issues, but, at least since 1985, we have democratic governments, and they have been, for instance, not more corrupt than US government or enterprises, or some European governments. Corruption is a problem for growth, but when your country is too small in power compared to other, then the actions of the other countries surpass your own, good or bad.
Ok. Microsoft is not directly responsible by "evil" stuff. That word, "evil" is even stupid.
One problem I can tell you about is a problem with lots of first world organizations. The big problem is that they are too good as salesmen. They get great deals with governments, that end up spending lots of money for example licensing software, or you can choose any other bad investment.
Of course it's not _that_ simple, foreign corporations _should_ play a role in developing nations, but right now they have it too easy, at least here in Latin america. They get too much money they shouldn't be getting. It is OK for a US government agency to spend money licensing microsoft office. At least, the money kind of stays in the country.
It's only stupid, for a country where MSOffice costs four minimum wages, to spend money on it, when there are free alternatives. You can pay one month of the salary of a junior IT employee for the cost of a MSOffice license. If there _were_ any issues because of not using the "standard" software, you could even hire people to fix them, and still save money!
The problem is that third world governments don't get that money for free, more money in the arcs of foreign corporations equals almost directly less money for social programs. And there you have those health issues, and kids without the right vaccines and stuff. And don't get me started about people behind Intellectual Property stuff, that push legislation that ends up making medicine more expensive, and then they force that legislation through trade treaties with the US.
So _maybe_, even counting charity, the effect of Bill Gates in some third world countries is not that great. I'm not saying that it's not much better than nothing, but I strongly believe that the solution for third world issues is orthogonal to charities.
Responsible governments are more important for developing nations, and more important than that would be an international community that tries to help them grow more or less together, instead of just keeping living off of them, and trying to extend that situation into the future.
The guy is reporting exactly what Google told him, and used that fact (the fact that google told him somthing), to infere that they are 1337. When you want to nitpick on people, at least make the effort to find someone who said something wrong.
Contacts are acceptable, but they are not innocuous for your eyes. I use contacts, and I don't get surgery only because it has some potential for error, while my contacts don't have any,...
When I say they are "not innocuous" I mean "they _can_ harm you". Of course, when I say they don't have potential for errors, next to that statement, I obviously mean errors regarding accuracy, not safety.
About that statement that I am an idiot, you are not alone. But you should research more to fund it.
Glasses are just not good enough for the real life. Your can't see stuff coming on to you. Contacts are acceptable, but they are not innocuous for your eyes. I use contacts, and I don't get surgery only because it has some potential for error, while my contacts don't have any, and the money might be an issue, too. Aside from that, my eye allergies behave better when wearing my acuvues than when I am not wearing them.
On the other hand, I did all my Numeric Methods, and Numerical Methods for Differential Calculus homework on Octave. I even used it lightly for Automated Learning, in order to solve QR systems within a Java program. No problems whatsoever. Of course, people who need Matlab, do need Matlab, for example for binary compatibility, or running existing programs, but Octave is worth a try, if you need a package for numerical stuff, and you know Matlab.
There a nice community at http://octave.sourceforge.net/ where you can find implementations of common algorithms, when you find the base package lacking.
Brazil was bad, but a bad Brazil should always be able to score. Australia had a great defense, and were very good at the counter-strike, trying to gain the backs of Cafu and Roberto Carlos, two great players, that are just too old to run the whole field for every play. They only lacked class at the front, Viduka may be good, but he is not world class. Bresciano maybe has the potential, but he should do like Romario, and stay after practice, just shooting at the goal. Australia showed better football than Brazil, but they lacked strength and effectiveness to score. They also showed too many "blackboard" plays (that didn't work in the field) , and lacked at least some creativity. I am from Uruguay, and these bastards kicked us out of the world cup, playing much worse, kicking our players as their best argument (and they called _us_ "animals"). In this half a year, they really improved their play, specially in the defense. They just need a world-class 9, and they could go far.
You can always use Octave( http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/ ). It works great, I did most of my numeric methods assignments with Octave on Slackware, with no issues.
You gave a fine explanation, but you missed a key point. Licenses are not restrictions.
Copyright takes care of restrictions, granting a monopoly on distribution of software to the guy who writes it, or at least the guy who pays to get it written.
The whole motivation of the GPL is "copylefting" the software, that is, reversing the effect of copyright on the users, and taking away from further distributors, the possibility of imposing the copyright restrictions again. The whole idea is a reverse-copyright.
In a world without the restrictions imposed by copyright, the GPL would be non-enforcible, as it is not binding. The whole idea is that it uses the restrictions related to copyright to minimize their effect. It grants you _more_ freedom than no license at all, but it chooses wisely which freedoms it grants, it doesn't give you the freedom to further restrict the software distribution.
In contrast, for example, Sun Java license grants you little freedom on distributing, and BSD license grants you the freedom to restrict the distribution rights of people that get the software from you. Proprietary licenses in general don't grant you freedom to distribute, plus they require that you do some other stuff contained in EULAS.
You are missing the point. That's why you are losing your jobs. Indians can do the job better than you. There's nothing inherent to been born in the US that makes you capable of anything. If anything, you have to face lots of challenges, for example a culture that praises money, and not skill, or knowledge.
The way to face the outsourcing "problem" is first to accept that they can work as good as you. Don't try to diss them on that grounds, because managers are not _that_ dumb, and they do know that an engineer is an engineer, in most places.
Of course, they have some handicaps compared to you. The time difference is an issue, the accent is an issue. Enlgish is not _that_ much of an issue in India. Outsourcing is costly, even if you don't do it overseas.
That should be your point, maybe fight outsourcing, but don't fight indians. Indians are as capable as you are of doing your job, and everyone knows that.
And watch out for people in South America. We are great developers, we live in the same timezone you live, we speak english OK, and some of us even don't seem foreigners to US people. Maybe that's why indians are moving their companies here.
Don't worry about me though, I'm not after your job. I like my job here in the Uruguayan telecommunications company, thank you very much.
Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important
on
Apache down, IIS up
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If you don't have the time to check your facts, you shouldn't be saying that another guy is wrong.
Open source: Source is available to some people, at least. Closed source: Source is not available.
Free software: Software license doesn't restrict your freedom to use, change, distribute the software and your changes. Proprietary software: The softwares license does restrict your freedom in some way.
Commercial: A money-making endeavor... (ref: wiktionary)
MSWindows: an OS by Microsoft GNU/Linux: an OS by the FSF + Linux Torvalds, at the least.
For example: MySQL is a commercial database, which happens to be free, open source, and runs on Windows, GNU/Linux, and others. Java is a commercial platform, proprietary, could be called open source, and runs on Windows, GNU/Linux, and others. FoldingAtHome is probably non-commercial, proprietary, closed-source, and runs on Windows. GCC is non commercial (if you don't count redhat developers patches), is free, open source and runs everywhere.
That is only to state the importance of not mixing theses concepts (open-source, commercial, "for Linux", free), because they define orthogonal concepts, and interchaging them leads to confusion, and does no good to a good discussion.
I use the preview, my camera doesn't have a viewfinder. And it's not awful. It's beautiful. It's a slim Sony T7 (or something, I didn't actually buy it, my father gave it to me as a gift) You can say it takes bad pictures, or that the viewfinder is better or taking pictgures, but you can't deny its beauty.
And the preview screen looks great even in the sunlight.
Re:Dapper is good, but it's not there yet.
on
Ubuntu 6.06 Reviewed
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You are a troll, whether you know it, or not.
I could tell, because you highlight "./configure; make install" In fact, if it was _that_ simple, it would just be "make install", but it isn't.
About clicking the "setup.exe" , well, someone need to tell you to do that. People don't know by default that they need to click that to install. Plus, they can't se the ".exe" in XP, because file extensions are hidden. So they need to click the "setup" file with the flashy icon. And with no help whatsoever, of course. Plus, the CD with the software popped out of nowhere. Or maybe "grandma" went to best-buy and bought the software.
Let's talk a little bit about me. I use Ubuntu, and I didn't use./configure;make;make install since I am using Ubuntu. It has _all_ the software I need. I'm very confident that "grandma" doesn't need more software than I do. If she has more esoterical needs, maybe she could get someone to help her, but then your user is not "grandma" anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, 1990 called, and it wants its high-value electronics back! Who would place an order for a truckload of Video Cassete Recorders in 2006??
I bet it would be half a truckload of VCRs, plus a quarter of PS/2 computers, and the rest of Michael Jackson audio tapes.
I'm not supporting the idea of creating a new OS, at least it could be a way of getting a microkernel architecture.
AST used your same argument, saying that Linux wouldn't be popular, partly because only people with 386 processors could use it.
You just need to make it available for reasonably widespread hardware.
Ok.
But bear in mind that the GNU system _was_ made in order to protect freedom.
Free Software _is_ about protecting freedom.
Open Source isn't, it's about writing software, for fun _or_ profit.
I care more about free software, but I think it's great when people do it for the money, but don't choose to restrict your freedom.
Bitching but buying and keeping stuff anyway doesn't amount to anything.
XP was a commercial success despite its lack of hardware support.
I think people should stop saying that frees sfotware is not ready for them, and start accepting that fact that only _they_ are not ready, or willing to change, is the main issue hindering adoption. Not that _I_ care a lot.
All that, and a pony.
Years ago, the problem was the GUI. Then, it was the web browser. Then, the Office compatibility. Then, driver support for old stuff. Then modem drivers. OpenGL.
Now, support for old hardware is no longer important (XP does not support my old tv-card and modem, and I didn't hear anyone complain) . Of course, everybody has ADSL right now, they don't need no freakin' modems. You need support for some wifi card you didn't care to inspect for Linux support.
Hardware driver support is no longer an important issue. There are manufacturers that make Linux-compatible hardware, and there are those who don't, but that's an issue with those manufacturers, you can get Linux compatible versions of anything right now.
And when you say: "And without having to touch the command line to register illegal repositories. That would be cool.", what do you mean exactly?
What is the definition of "illegal" you are using? Adding non-free universe/multiverse repositories through synaptic doesn't involve illegal activities, at least to get mp3 and games. And about the command line... there is no need for command line, but WTF is the problem?
The command line does actually suit much better to installation and configuration, because it's much easier to follow instructions on a command line than on a dialog.
Right now is when I come to know I have been trolled, but I no longer care about that.
Nonsense.
A slashdot poster is, by default, not a lawyer.
We could have an acronym to clarify when people don't have an IT-related job, but that whole IANAL thing is just stupid. People here are usually not lawyers, obviously. There's no need to state that we are no lawyers. I post about Linux, and I'm no kernel expert, although I use it, and I know some things about them.
Chuck Norris would roundhouse-kick the gun, and it would fire the full charge at once, killing all the bad guys.
duh!
HTTP specs didn't come from the patent office. CVS didn't, either. Autoconf, and the autoconf HOWTO were not the produt of the great petenting inventors.
Newtonian physics don't come from patents, and neither do mathematics. The greek didn't have patents, either.
It's an insult to humanity to say that patents are the only way people can share their ideas to improve their surroundings. That's nonsense. Patents were a somewhat good solution to a problem that doesn't exist anymore.
Right now, innovation is hindered, rather than prepeled, by patents, because at the current rate, it can only be stopped by legal ways such as patents. There is enough incentive to develop all kinds of stuff, even if you don't get a monopoly on production.
Of course so-called "intellectual property" is another issue.
For me, it's an oxymoron, you can't own ideas. You can control them, somewhat, but they are not yours. Intellectual stuff is not property. Property is finite, and ideas are infinite.
If "IP" was regarded the same as actual property, there's the issue of people using that infine "wealth" to buy actual wealth. The big problem that comes from this is that the owners of _some_ "IP" could become the owners of _all_ actual property. That is one main issue why it would be a bad thing to think of "IP" as property.
About people having no incentive... well, you are posing corporations as the only actors in society. There's academics, there's corporations that wouldn't benefit from patents, there's ad-hoc organizations, individuals, even governments.
Einstein didn't get a patent on quantum physics. Fourier didn't get a patent on his mathematics. Cervantes didn't write "El quijote" because of copyright law.
The so called "intellectual property" laws did have some use, but right now, their benefits are greatly surpassed by their shortcommings, and treaties that try to give them more releveance instead of less, can only hurt the global economy as a whole, if you count everybody involved.
Well, I live in Uruguay. Uruguay is not a country with famine problems. We have a big problem with poverty, and the social effects it has over the long run, for example some young people that don't see a future in getting a job, and stuff.
I said : "Responsible governments are more important for developing nations, and more important than that would be an international community that tries to help them grow more or less together, instead of just keeping living off of them, and trying to extend that situation into the future."
What I mean here is something like this:
The US right now wants a free trade treaty with Uruguay. They will let us sell more beef (a very important Uruguayan export, very good quality) in exchange of our respect for their "IP" laws.
The problem is that this export doesn't have real future, and their "IP" laws are the shot of developed countries to own *everything* . Of course, we can sell more meat, maybe even soy, but we will have to pay royalties every time we re-plant soy, or every time our cattle get medicine shots (made by _our_ laboratories).
Of course, we have other possible exports, but agricultural products can't be sold to the US in general, because they have subsidies. But they won't let us have subsidies, because that way they won't trade with us.
That's living off us, and trying to extend that situation into the future.
Trying to help other countries would be to respect actual free trade, stop their own agricultural subsidies, or at least not forcing other countries to get rid of them, so they can trade on equal grounds. Of course, the US has earned their position as a world power, and so they can use that power as they please, but that has direct consequences, and it's more important than corrupt governments.
For example, Uruguay has some sorruption issues, but, at least since 1985, we have democratic governments, and they have been, for instance, not more corrupt than US government or enterprises, or some European governments.
Corruption is a problem for growth, but when your country is too small in power compared to other, then the actions of the other countries surpass your own, good or bad.
Ok.
Microsoft is not directly responsible by "evil" stuff. That word, "evil" is even stupid.
One problem I can tell you about is a problem with lots of first world organizations.
The big problem is that they are too good as salesmen. They get great deals with governments, that end up spending lots of money for example licensing software, or you can choose any other bad investment.
Of course it's not _that_ simple, foreign corporations _should_ play a role in developing nations, but right now they have it too easy, at least here in Latin america. They get too much money they shouldn't be getting. It is OK for a US government agency to spend money licensing microsoft office. At least, the money kind of stays in the country.
It's only stupid, for a country where MSOffice costs four minimum wages, to spend money on it, when there are free alternatives. You can pay one month of the salary of a junior IT employee for the cost of a MSOffice license. If there _were_ any issues because of not using the "standard" software, you could even hire people to fix them, and still save money!
The problem is that third world governments don't get that money for free, more money in the arcs of foreign corporations equals almost directly less money for social programs.
And there you have those health issues, and kids without the right vaccines and stuff. And don't get me started about people behind Intellectual Property stuff, that push legislation that ends up making medicine more expensive, and then they force that legislation through trade treaties with the US.
So _maybe_, even counting charity, the effect of Bill Gates in some third world countries is not that great. I'm not saying that it's not much better than nothing, but I strongly believe that the solution for third world issues is orthogonal to charities.
Responsible governments are more important for developing nations, and more important than that would be an international community that tries to help them grow more or less together, instead of just keeping living off of them, and trying to extend that situation into the future.
The guy is reporting exactly what Google told him, and used that fact (the fact that google told him somthing), to infere that they are 1337. When you want to nitpick on people, at least make the effort to find someone who said something wrong.
When I say they are "not innocuous" I mean "they _can_ harm you". Of course, when I say they don't have potential for errors, next to that statement, I obviously mean errors regarding accuracy, not safety.
About that statement that I am an idiot, you are not alone. But you should research more to fund it.
Glasses are just not good enough for the real life. Your can't see stuff coming on to you.
Contacts are acceptable, but they are not innocuous for your eyes.
I use contacts, and I don't get surgery only because it has some potential for error, while my contacts don't have any, and the money might be an issue, too. Aside from that, my eye allergies behave better when wearing my acuvues than when I am not wearing them.
Of course, heavy usage could be difficult.
On the other hand, I did all my Numeric Methods, and Numerical Methods for Differential Calculus homework on Octave.
I even used it lightly for Automated Learning, in order to solve QR systems within a Java program. No problems whatsoever. Of course, people who need Matlab, do need Matlab, for example for binary compatibility, or running existing programs, but Octave is worth a try, if you need a package for numerical stuff, and you know Matlab.
There a nice community at http://octave.sourceforge.net/ where you can find implementations of common algorithms, when you find the base package lacking.
Brazil was bad, but a bad Brazil should always be able to score.
Australia had a great defense, and were very good at the counter-strike, trying to gain the backs of Cafu and Roberto Carlos, two great players, that are just too old to run the whole field for every play.
They only lacked class at the front, Viduka may be good, but he is not world class. Bresciano maybe has the potential, but he should do like Romario, and stay after practice, just shooting at the goal. Australia showed better football than Brazil, but they lacked strength and effectiveness to score. They also showed too many "blackboard" plays (that didn't work in the field) , and lacked at least some creativity.
I am from Uruguay, and these bastards kicked us out of the world cup, playing much worse, kicking our players as their best argument (and they called _us_ "animals"). In this half a year, they really improved their play, specially in the defense. They just need a world-class 9, and they could go far.
You can always use Octave( http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/ ).
It works great, I did most of my numeric methods assignments with Octave on Slackware, with no issues.
You gave a fine explanation, but you missed a key point.
Licenses are not restrictions.
Copyright takes care of restrictions, granting a monopoly on distribution of software to the guy who writes it, or at least the guy who pays to get it written.
The whole motivation of the GPL is "copylefting" the software, that is, reversing the effect of copyright on the users, and taking away from further distributors, the possibility of imposing the copyright restrictions again. The whole idea is a reverse-copyright.
In a world without the restrictions imposed by copyright, the GPL would be non-enforcible, as it is not binding. The whole idea is that it uses the restrictions related to copyright to minimize their effect. It grants you _more_ freedom than no license at all, but it chooses wisely which freedoms it grants, it doesn't give you the freedom to further restrict the software distribution.
In contrast, for example, Sun Java license grants you little freedom on distributing, and BSD license grants you the freedom to restrict the distribution rights of people that get the software from you.
Proprietary licenses in general don't grant you freedom to distribute, plus they require that you do some other stuff contained in EULAS.
You are missing the point.
That's why you are losing your jobs.
Indians can do the job better than you. There's nothing inherent to been born in the US that makes you capable of anything.
If anything, you have to face lots of challenges, for example a culture that praises money, and not skill, or knowledge.
The way to face the outsourcing "problem" is first to accept that they can work as good as you. Don't try to diss them on that grounds, because managers are not _that_ dumb, and they do know that an engineer is an engineer, in most places.
Of course, they have some handicaps compared to you. The time difference is an issue, the accent is an issue. Enlgish is not _that_ much of an issue in India. Outsourcing is costly, even if you don't do it overseas.
That should be your point, maybe fight outsourcing, but don't fight indians. Indians are as capable as you are of doing your job, and everyone knows that.
And watch out for people in South America. We are great developers, we live in the same timezone you live, we speak english OK, and some of us even don't seem foreigners to US people. Maybe that's why indians are moving their companies here.
Don't worry about me though, I'm not after your job. I like my job here in the Uruguayan telecommunications company, thank you very much.
If you don't have the time to check your facts, you shouldn't be saying that another guy is wrong.
I feel insulted by your portrayal of me. You said a lie.
I'm no Linux fanatic. I'm a GNU fanatic, thank you very much. I just _like_ GNU/Linux.
Open source: Source is available to some people, at least.
... (ref: wiktionary)
Closed source: Source is not available.
Free software: Software license doesn't restrict your freedom to use, change, distribute the software and your changes.
Proprietary software: The softwares license does restrict your freedom in some way.
Commercial: A money-making endeavor
MSWindows: an OS by Microsoft
GNU/Linux: an OS by the FSF + Linux Torvalds, at the least.
For example:
MySQL is a commercial database, which happens to be free, open source, and runs on Windows, GNU/Linux, and others.
Java is a commercial platform, proprietary, could be called open source, and runs on Windows, GNU/Linux, and others.
FoldingAtHome is probably non-commercial, proprietary, closed-source, and runs on Windows.
GCC is non commercial (if you don't count redhat developers patches), is free, open source and runs everywhere.
That is only to state the importance of not mixing theses concepts (open-source, commercial, "for Linux", free), because they define orthogonal concepts, and interchaging them leads to confusion, and does no good to a good discussion.
I use the preview, my camera doesn't have a viewfinder.
And it's not awful. It's beautiful. It's a slim Sony T7 (or something, I didn't actually buy it, my father gave it to me as a gift)
You can say it takes bad pictures, or that the viewfinder is better or taking pictgures, but you can't deny its beauty.
And the preview screen looks great even in the sunlight.
You are a troll, whether you know it, or not.
./configure;make;make install since I am using Ubuntu. It has _all_ the software I need. I'm very confident that "grandma" doesn't need more software than I do. If she has more esoterical needs, maybe she could get someone to help her, but then your user is not "grandma" anymore.
I could tell, because you highlight "./configure; make install"
In fact, if it was _that_ simple, it would just be "make install", but it isn't.
About clicking the "setup.exe" , well, someone need to tell you to do that. People don't know by default that they need to click that to install. Plus, they can't se the ".exe" in XP, because file extensions are hidden. So they need to click the "setup" file with the flashy icon. And with no help whatsoever, of course. Plus, the CD with the software popped out of nowhere. Or maybe "grandma" went to best-buy and bought the software.
Let's talk a little bit about me. I use Ubuntu, and I didn't use