I was talking about how dumb admin problems are caused by management buying the TCO argument. I didn't say whether it was valid.
I don't know that 99% case when everything works, because back in the day, when I found that 1%, it was too much for me, so I got rid of MS software. GNU rulz.
Microsoft imposes the culture of the point-and-click magic, through _marketing_, no whitepapers. Management is sold (by MS) on the idea that a 4 year old can run their network, so they hire one to do it. It's management fault, but Microsofts too.
(Checking...) No, I didn't say anything about Linux. I didn't think so, Linux can't be compared to WindowsXP it's a kernel. It's like comparing a Turbo Diesel motor to a scooter. They don't match. I could have spoken about RedHat, or SuSE, but I didn't.
I was talking about admins, dumbed down admins, and whose fault it is. I put the blame on people who buy dumber down software, and that promote dumbed down software culture, and hire dumbed down consulting firms that hire dumbed down admins.
Much of that blame is on Microsoft, for promoting that culture. Much is on stupid management, of course.
Bringing down an organization by mis-clicking checkboxes is responsability of the guy that provided the checkboxes, too.
So is it GM's fault if someone crashes and kills themselves (and others) by pushing the gas instead of the brake pedal by mistake?
------
No. I said "Bringing down an organization by mis-clicking checkboxes is responsability of the guy that provided the checkboxes, too. "
I mean that admin tools that are sold as easy to use do take the responsibility for the consequences. You cannot claim to do the work for the user, and then say you are not responsible.
Microsoft sells itself as easy to administer, what in management terms means that the systems are so/user friendly/ that any moron can administer them. So, admin stupidity can also be blamed on MS, it's part of the TCO studies that make the decision to buy MS.
Aside from that, a point-and-click update cannot fail so miserably. A script made by the admin, of course should, because you can assume that someone smart (and bold) enoguh to make a little script should be responsible for their decisions. Some guy clicking checkboxes shouldn't be allowed by those means to break 60000 computers, through a/user friendly/ GUI program. GUIs for dummies should have enough checks to prevent such underiable effects, they have a sufficiently constrained domain to be able to do so. If the guy wanted to do a legal task that the tools dosnt' allow, he could always write some Visual Basic Script, and then he would be on his own. Bringing down an organization by mis-clicking checkboxes is responsability of the guy that provided the checkboxes, too.
We mind. I don't like big cars, they are a bitch to park. There is no other reason but culture and tradition for transporting a huge pile of iron to work and back just because you like to carry luggage once in a while.
But the problem I see with open source is that people that know what free software (FSF, GPL) is, differ in the definition of open source. For me, typically, when I see someone call their software "open source", I tend to believe it's not free/GPL, because that's a common distinction.
Maybe the FSF could come up with another term, but anyway, once you tell someone that you talk about free software as in freedom, there's no confusion. With open source you get lots of different licenses with different restrictions. Free software is GPL, BSD, public domain, Apache. They have freedom in common. Once you learn what free software is, there's no confusion. Open source comprehends lots of licenses, restrictive or not, the only thing all of them have in common is that they show you the source and in general implement open technologies. Nothing about what I can do with that source. Even if I do understand what OSI stands for, Open Source means nothing to me.
Plus, BSD and GPL are both free software, from the point of view of the user. Copyleft goes further and takes away freedom from the middle-developer to give it to the end user. That doesn't make software less free. After all, everyone is a user, and just some of those users are developers.
But.. That makes no sense The idea of a Grand Unified Control Panel involves configuring lots of stuff. I don't confgure my kernel too often, I compile what I want, and then add some modules (DRM/DRI) and I'm done. The problem is that the systems that use a Linux kernel can be very heterogeneous, even without a display. Maybe the idea of a registry database would be nice, and there could be implementations of as many frontends as you like, all working on the same database.
That way you can keep the look and feel of your distro, and not lose compatibility and configurability.
the idea of imposng a client side app on everybody, good or bad, just doesn't work.
That's the difference, open source just means that you can see the source. Any implication on freedom is to be blamed on the reader. The difference comes from free software. When you know you are using free software, you are not subject to strange interpretations of the term. Free software ensures your freedom. Opensource doesn't make such promises.
WTF does Linus have to do with Gnome and KDE, and freedesktop??? Both Gnome and KDE are independent of Linux, and there is no need for them to unify. Distros are in the business of the desktop, and they already do a nice work of unifying. Well, most of them are choosing KDE, which I find sad, but logical given its MSWindows-familiar looks and dialogs.
I believe there is room for as many good desktops/graphical shells as there are (I'm still waiting for the Enlightenment shell!). Only distros need to standardize. And Linux has nothing to do with that! He maintains a (great, compatible, available, free) kernel! we don't even need that specific kernel to run Gnome and KDE, why would he be the one to choose and not us??
The issue here is that when you develop with Tomcat, for example, you have an easily deployable architecture, and not too much overhead, with scalability from the start. It's ok to do standalone java stuff, but it's ore trouble than it's worth. When I want to make a new tomcat project, it's a snap, to reuse lots of code, and to use a web client, and managing the libraries, and deploying. Stand alone is nice, but more complex.
While it's nice to have a single server solution, a scalable two-server solution that performed just as slow as the first, is a more sensible choice, because you can always add more hardware when you need it, with no re-programming and little re-configuring. Remember, hardware is cheap, labor is not, even where I live, with 4$/hour IT people.
You mean that they create the demand of the oil that you need to kill iraquis for?? I don't think that is enough, that is too intrincate a reasoning. I believe _(and the GP does, probably) that military vehicles are worse because they are an aid to kill people. I believe that people is one of the most important things I want to subsist in my environment, so they contribute to harming the environment.
The guy makes clear that he needs both OSs at the same time. Dual booting is an idea from the nineties, and there is no way he wouldn't have thought about it first. He says that he can't make it through software, and he tried. Plus, he doesn't need two HDs for dual booting.
It's easy to find or create insightful coincidences. Some people claimed that the mayan pyramid builders knew the value of Pi, and could easily predict solstices, so they should have some very advanced technology.
Those things are quite obvious. To measure a long distance it's nice to use a wheel -> Pi, and if you are going to build a monument to a deity related to the sun, you must be very interested in the sun, and know when it will be higher.
Mayans had a technology much more advanced compared to europeans of the time, in many regards, but inferior in the ones that did matter for their survival against aztecas, and spanish people. Some technology might have been lost with their destruction, but nothing advanced compared to what we have today.
"Ten times the speed of sound" is just a way of saying Mach 10, so people who don't know what Mach 10 is can understand. You must know what Mach 10 is.
Well, IP Rights do not deserve capitals, in my opinion.
If you are talking about copyrights, well, it can be argued that they should be respected by big players, at least in the current state of affairs.
If you refer to anything else that is not copyright by that "IP Rights" title, I disagree with you. Things like software patents and such should not be respected, because it is of no use.
On the other hand, although we would all be better off without copyrights in the first place, while we are forced to respected them, it would be good that companies are too.
The GPL, with it's copyleft, sort-of cancels out the copyright laws, making content free for the user. If we are forced to follow copyright rules, and companies aren't, there would be the risk of people taking chunks of copylefted code, and closing them again. We don't want that to happen. But failing to respect copyright is not bad in principle, it is bad just because it hurts our freedom.
Further in your post you talk about "Pirating Closed Source Software" being bad. You fail twice there.
Pirating is killing people, raping, and stealing, sinking ships, drowning people. Unauthorized copying of proprietary software is not pirating. Liberating would even be closer. Self-infringed punishment would be much closer, with respect to some software packages.
The difference between the two cases is that when you copy a CD of proprietary software, a publisher allegedly loses some amount of fictional money that you were not willing to spend anyway. When someone re-releases GPLed code, it's lots of people who lose their freedom, not money.
So, case 1 - some people lose some fictional money. Someone earns some aditional freedom. Case 2 - everybody loses freedom. Someone makes some money.
Both are copyright infringement. Only, one is bad for people, and the other is not.
In the end, thanks, I really enjoyed your troll-style capitalising of buzzwords.
I don't know about Statistica, but AutoCAD is one of the candidates to get serious competition from free software contenders, or at least open source. ArcGIS is nice, but GRASS is a tool that can give birth in the not-so-distant future, to serious competitors. There is a real trend to replace them, just because they are not there yet, you shouldn't dismiss them.
Slashdot Mirror
started year ago, but it was the first GNU/Linux distro, which is the most popular choice even nowadays.
I was talking about how dumb admin problems are caused by management buying the TCO argument. I didn't say whether it was valid.
I don't know that 99% case when everything works, because back in the day, when I found that 1%, it was too much for me, so I got rid of MS software. GNU rulz.
Microsoft imposes the culture of the point-and-click magic, through _marketing_, no whitepapers.
Management is sold (by MS) on the idea that a 4 year old can run their network, so they hire one to do it.
It's management fault, but Microsofts too.
No
(Checking...) No, I didn't say anything about Linux.
I didn't think so, Linux can't be compared to WindowsXP it's a kernel. It's like comparing a Turbo Diesel motor to a scooter. They don't match. I could have spoken about RedHat, or SuSE, but I didn't.
I was talking about admins, dumbed down admins, and whose fault it is.
I put the blame on people who buy dumber down software, and that promote dumbed down software culture, and hire dumbed down consulting firms that hire dumbed down admins.
Much of that blame is on Microsoft, for promoting that culture. Much is on stupid management, of course.
-----
Hold up.
Bringing down an organization by mis-clicking checkboxes is responsability of the guy that provided the checkboxes, too.
So is it GM's fault if someone crashes and kills themselves (and others) by pushing the gas instead of the brake pedal by mistake?
------
No.
I said "Bringing down an organization by mis-clicking checkboxes is responsability of the guy that provided the checkboxes, too.
"
I mean that admin tools that are sold as easy to use do take the responsibility for the consequences. You cannot claim to do the work for the user, and then say you are not responsible.
The first, the l33t35t, and probably one of the most important factor of widespread free software use.
Microsoft sells itself as easy to administer, what in management terms means that the systems are so /user friendly/ that any moron can administer them.
/user friendly/ GUI program.
So, admin stupidity can also be blamed on MS, it's part of the TCO studies that make the decision to buy MS.
Aside from that, a point-and-click update cannot fail so miserably. A script made by the admin, of course should, because you can assume that someone smart (and bold) enoguh to make a little script should be responsible for their decisions. Some guy clicking checkboxes shouldn't be allowed by those means to break 60000 computers, through a
GUIs for dummies should have enough checks to prevent such underiable effects, they have a sufficiently constrained domain to be able to do so. If the guy wanted to do a legal task that the tools dosnt' allow, he could always write some Visual Basic Script, and then he would be on his own. Bringing down an organization by mis-clicking checkboxes is responsability of the guy that provided the checkboxes, too.
We mind.
I don't like big cars, they are a bitch to park.
There is no other reason but culture and tradition for transporting a huge pile of iron to work and back just because you like to carry luggage once in a while.
In South America, it's Chevrolet. (like in "Chevrolet Corsa", or "Chevrolet Celta"
We call Opel the european imports, German maybe?
At least the other guy posted some source.
Wikipedia might be bad, but if you have something to back up your view, you can improve the article.
But the problem I see with open source is that people that know what free software (FSF, GPL) is, differ in the definition of open source.
For me, typically, when I see someone call their software "open source", I tend to believe it's not free/GPL, because that's a common distinction.
Maybe the FSF could come up with another term, but anyway, once you tell someone that you talk about free software as in freedom, there's no confusion. With open source you get lots of different licenses with different restrictions. Free software is GPL, BSD, public domain, Apache.
They have freedom in common. Once you learn what free software is, there's no confusion.
Open source comprehends lots of licenses, restrictive or not, the only thing all of them have in common is that they show you the source and in general implement open technologies. Nothing about what I can do with that source. Even if I do understand what OSI stands for, Open Source means nothing to me.
Plus, BSD and GPL are both free software, from the point of view of the user. Copyleft goes further and takes away freedom from the middle-developer to give it to the end user. That doesn't make software less free. After all, everyone is a user, and just some of those users are developers.
But..
That makes no sense
The idea of a Grand Unified Control Panel involves configuring lots of stuff.
I don't confgure my kernel too often, I compile what I want, and then add some modules (DRM/DRI) and I'm done. The problem is that the systems that use a Linux kernel can be very heterogeneous, even without a display.
Maybe the idea of a registry database would be nice, and there could be implementations of as many frontends as you like, all working on the same database.
That way you can keep the look and feel of your distro, and not lose compatibility and configurability.
the idea of imposng a client side app on everybody, good or bad, just doesn't work.
That's the difference, open source just means that you can see the source. Any implication on freedom is to be blamed on the reader.
The difference comes from free software.
When you know you are using free software, you are not subject to strange interpretations of the term. Free software ensures your freedom. Opensource doesn't make such promises.
WTF does Linus have to do with Gnome and KDE, and freedesktop???
Both Gnome and KDE are independent of Linux, and there is no need for them to unify.
Distros are in the business of the desktop, and they already do a nice work of unifying. Well, most of them are choosing KDE, which I find sad, but logical given its MSWindows-familiar looks and dialogs.
I believe there is room for as many good desktops/graphical shells as there are (I'm still waiting for the Enlightenment shell!). Only distros need to standardize.
And Linux has nothing to do with that! He maintains a (great, compatible, available, free) kernel! we don't even need that specific kernel to run Gnome and KDE, why would he be the one to choose and not us??
The issue here is that when you develop with Tomcat, for example, you have an easily deployable architecture, and not too much overhead, with scalability from the start.
It's ok to do standalone java stuff, but it's ore trouble than it's worth.
When I want to make a new tomcat project, it's a snap, to reuse lots of code, and to use a web client, and managing the libraries, and deploying.
Stand alone is nice, but more complex.
While it's nice to have a single server solution, a scalable two-server solution that performed just as slow as the first, is a more sensible choice, because you can always add more hardware when you need it, with no re-programming and little re-configuring.
Remember, hardware is cheap, labor is not, even where I live, with 4$/hour IT people.
You mean that they create the demand of the oil that you need to kill iraquis for??
I don't think that is enough, that is too intrincate a reasoning.
I believe _(and the GP does, probably) that military vehicles are worse because they are an aid to kill people.
I believe that people is one of the most important things I want to subsist in my environment, so they contribute to harming the environment.
The guy makes clear that he needs both OSs at the same time. Dual booting is an idea from the nineties, and there is no way he wouldn't have thought about it first.
He says that he can't make it through software, and he tried.
Plus, he doesn't need two HDs for dual booting.
And Hiroshima and Nagasaki are at the top of the atrocities humans commited to themselves.
It's easy to find or create insightful coincidences.
Some people claimed that the mayan pyramid builders knew the value of Pi, and could easily predict solstices, so they should have some very advanced technology.
Those things are quite obvious. To measure a long distance it's nice to use a wheel -> Pi, and if you are going to build a monument to a deity related to the sun, you must be very interested in the sun, and know when it will be higher.
Mayans had a technology much more advanced compared to europeans of the time, in many regards, but inferior in the ones that did matter for their survival against aztecas, and spanish people. Some technology might have been lost with their destruction, but nothing advanced compared to what we have today.
Remember to print on tissue paper.
"Ten times the speed of sound" is just a way of saying Mach 10, so people who don't know what Mach 10 is can understand.
You must know what Mach 10 is.
Well, IP Rights do not deserve capitals, in my opinion.
If you are talking about copyrights, well, it can be argued that they should be respected by big players, at least in the current state of affairs.
If you refer to anything else that is not copyright by that "IP Rights" title, I disagree with you. Things like software patents and such should not be respected, because it is of no use.
On the other hand, although we would all be better off without copyrights in the first place, while we are forced to respected them, it would be good that companies are too.
The GPL, with it's copyleft, sort-of cancels out the copyright laws, making content free for the user. If we are forced to follow copyright rules, and companies aren't, there would be the risk of people taking chunks of copylefted code, and closing them again. We don't want that to happen.
But failing to respect copyright is not bad in principle, it is bad just because it hurts our freedom.
Further in your post you talk about "Pirating Closed Source Software" being bad.
You fail twice there.
Pirating is killing people, raping, and stealing, sinking ships, drowning people. Unauthorized copying of proprietary software is not pirating. Liberating would even be closer. Self-infringed punishment would be much closer, with respect to some software packages.
The difference between the two cases is that when you copy a CD of proprietary software, a publisher allegedly loses some amount of fictional money that you were not willing to spend anyway.
When someone re-releases GPLed code, it's lots of people who lose their freedom, not money.
So, case 1 - some people lose some fictional money. Someone earns some aditional freedom.
Case 2 - everybody loses freedom. Someone makes some money.
Both are copyright infringement. Only, one is bad for people, and the other is not.
In the end, thanks, I really enjoyed your troll-style capitalising of buzzwords.
I don't know about Statistica, but AutoCAD is one of the candidates to get serious competition from free software contenders, or at least open source.
ArcGIS is nice, but GRASS is a tool that can give birth in the not-so-distant future, to serious competitors.
There is a real trend to replace them, just because they are not there yet, you shouldn't dismiss them.