Judging from the responses to this article, I must not be a geek. After all, I enjoy living in Idaho, I go outside ocassionally, I don't steal software or music, and I have never used drugs.
Heck, I am even (gasp) a Mormon.
On the other hand, my computers are on all of the time, and they certainly do run a wide variety of software (none of it happens to be creating false ID's at the moment, but that is something to look into:).
I would submit that perhaps a more fitting description is Computer-Nerd. It's the same sort of thing as Jon's 'Geek,' but without all of the the negative social connotations.
RMS deserves his place in history. He gave us a great big whopping pile of nifty utilities that hackers world-wide use everyday. Every Linuxer who can read (which probably covers us all) knows who RMS is, and what he stands for.
Even more importantly, however, RMS gave us the GPL, which allows us to write software and give it away without fear of having our contributions hijacked. The GPL is one seriously cool hack, and for this contribution, perhaps more than anything, RMS should be thanked.
But the only thing worse for marketing than GNU/Linux would be if Linus's original name "Freax" would have stuck. RMS may not care about this, but some of us want to use Linux and still have a life.
The second Linux is ubiquitous I will be the first to praise Saint Ignucious as the saviour of all computerkind. I will even promise to use words like gnu-riffic and gnu-licious. In the meantime it's all about marketing, and GNU/Linux doesn't stand a chance.
Tip #1: Go to a bookstore and see for yourself!
on
Learning Perl/Tk
·
· Score: 1
I couldn't disagree more with your evaluation of Learning Perl. It had me writing working (albeit goofy) perl scripts before I even got out of the first chapter.
All in all, I would say that it was the best programming language book that I have ever read.
Of course, it goes without saying that everyone is different. That's why I would recommend going to a bookstore and checking things out for yourself.
If you don't want the cutting edge releases then stick with BeOS 4.0. No one is forcing you to upgrade. It's no different than with Linux. I still have a RedHat 4.2 box ticking away.
But if you really needed to use Blender, then you would be screwed (and you would pretty much be FORCED to use Linux), and it is all because some company won't give you access to one library.
This might not even be Be's fault. They may have a licensing agreement from SGI that requires that they not distribute the library themselves. Either way, however, BeOS users who want to use Blender are out in the cold, despite the fact that the principal developer is ready for release.
I don't have anything against good software whether it is commercial or open source, but there is a definite advantage to having the freedom to choose for yourself.
The difference is that if there is an app that only runs with the "development" libraries you can get them. I don't have anything against Be, but this is one area where Linux really shines. There isn't anyone that can keep you from accessing the programs you want.
Be is doing what companies do, they are trying to protect their reputation by making sure that everyone runs tested applications. In the meantime there are people who can't get the application they need because they can't get access to the development libraries.
Linux has the best of both worlds, tested stable releases AND the ability to run cutting edge (read un-tested) code if you absolutely have to (or want to).
I wish the best of luck to Be, but they are not only competing with the Microsoft and their desktop monopoly, but also with Linux, the most open operating system ever.
It's a hard world, Jason
You need to have permissions to mod the kernel.
on
MS Office for Linux
·
· Score: 1
This isn't something regular users can do (unless they have root or root rights).
Actually it is very possible to install most Linux software in the users home directory. I personally have installed whole window managers, and their accompanying applications in my home directory. At the very least it shouldn't have to install anything outside of/usr/local . You would have to be crazy to install a Microsoft application as root.
Embrace & Extend - Windows API and MFC on Linux
on
MS Office for Linux
·
· Score: 1
The good news is that if Microsoft did try to embrace and extend Linux they would have to do a good job of it. None of the current Linuxers would tolerate Linux middleware that was worse than the tools we already have for Linux.
Or in other words, Microsoft's stuff would have to be very good, or it wouldn't get used. It would, at the very least, have to be as good (or at least less expensive) than the Windows tools. Basically, Microsoft would probably have to give up it's current desktop monopoly for a piece of Linux's future.
This would actually be good for several reasons
1) Hardware manufacturers would HAVE to give out programming specs (Linux would be the dominant platform).
2) Microsoft would have to compete on a more level playing field. It wouldn't be completely level (as they would undoubtedly have their own secret libraries), but it would be world's better.
3) People forced to use MS software would at least have a stable platform on which to run it.
I must admit that I have gotten pretty relaxed about letting software install itself where it wants. Most times I don't even look at the Makefile unless It doesn't compile. Of course, this really isn't a big deal with OSS apps (and even closed WordPerfect was at least well-behaved).
There is no way that I would install MS Office 2000 for Linux as root, however. I have had enough of DLL Hell to last me a lifetime. If the operating system needs to be modified to run Office then thanks, but no thanks.
Not that Microsoft is seriously considering porting to Linux. They wouldn't have a chance of competing if it weren't for the OS leverage.
Not to mention the fact that people like winners, and Microsoft is the biggest winner of all (right now). If Microsoft ceded the desktop to Linux they would undoubtedly be perceived as having lost. Their stock price would drop. Their most talented programmers would look for work elsewhere (it's the stock options that's got them tied down), and Microsoft would cease to be king.
Of course, they would still have a big pile of money:). They wouldn't go away, they would just have to play fair.
Never fear, brave Linuxers. Microsoft isn't going to port Office to Linux until it becomes completely apparent to everyone and their dog that Windows 2000 won't fly. This sort of announcement is the sort of completely deniable statement that Microsoft has always used to lock down the consumers and keep them from buying into a competitors product.
"Don't switch to Corel PerfectOffice under Linux just yet," says Bill Gates, "If you wait just a little bit I will port Office to Linux." This way Microsoft keeps people from shying, if just for the short term, and gets them to create just one more big spreadsheet, or application that would need to be ported.
By the time the customer realizes that Microsoft has been pulling their chain, it's too late. They have all of a sudden made an even more significant investment to Microsoft's closed architecture.
This isn't about Microsoft feeling out the Linux waters. This is about Microsoft keeping people from trying Wordperfect 8 running on top of an operating system that isn't going to crash on them 4 times in a hour. After all, in the software business it is almost as important to make sure that your competitors _don't_ get customers as it is important that you round up customers for your own product.
This would certainly hurt RedHat, but there is nothing that says that RedHat is Linux. Not only that, but the two competing ideas might actually help Linux overall. After all, it would all be open source, and all of us would be free to choose which version of Linux we ran. So we would get more source, and more freedom into the community.
The reason that Intel is pushing ODI is they think that they can get the Open Source community to write drivers for all of the *nixes (both open and closed). If ODI is really cool, it could happen. If it sucks, it won't.
This is exactly right. No one is going to go through all of the trouble (and expense) to patent something just so they can give it away.
The best defense, at this point, is to simply write a lot of software so that other people can't claim copyrights due to your already existing "prior art."
Or better yet, we can simply crush commercial software beneath our heels so that all software is free:).
Red Hat has lost sight of what is important
on
Red Hat Backlash?
·
· Score: 1
If there is one thing that ticks me off about KDE, it is the Harmony project. Geez, you would think that after all this time the Free Software Community would get it through their heads that they needed a widget set of their own. The Harmony Project will almost assuredly end up like Lesstif perpetually close but not done. GTK, on the other hand, is clearly Free Software. It can't be co-opted, embraced and extended, and it doesn't have to spend eternity trying to mimic some other toolkit's bugs.
This is not to say that KDE isn't good software. I was impressed, and I am sure that Harmony has some talented people working on it as well. It just pains me to see talent being wasted on a toolkit when it could just as easily be used on a widget set that it already free software. The fact of the matter is that GTK development (and Gnome development as well) is moving along at a frightening pace. Troll Tech had better look lively if they don't want to get completely outmaneuvered.
In the world of computers (especially in Unix) the most open standards tend to win out, and there is no more open standard than GTK.
While it may be true that the GPL doesn't sit well with big SOFTWARE companies. I think you will find that it is starting to sit increasing well with non-software companies.
After all, the real clients are IBM, HP, and Oracle, but rather Free Software needs to sell to people at Nike, Sears, or McDonalds. Non-software companies potentially have a great deal to gain from free software (no more client licenses, no more downtime). After all there are way more programmers working outside the computer industry than inside.
Building on the success of others is part of the joy of Open Source software. OSS allows me to use tools and libraries created by people all around the world (for free). You don't even HAVE to give your enhancements back to the community, but if you do, then someone will probably add something cool that you hadn't thought of to the mix.
It's commercial software that requires you to start over from scratch.
Just remember the vast majority of programmers don't work creating commercial software. Most programmers are already hired by companies to create software for their own use in house. None of these people are worried about how much money they can make off of their software, because the software doesn't belong to them, and software is not part of their company's product line. They just want something that works.
I would really like to know which community you are a "Proud" member of so that I can make sure that I am not a member of the same community.
Personally Jon strikes me as a pretty genuine person, and while not all of his articles are solid gold, he has made several excellent points (unlike certain random Anonymous Cowards I can think of).
No one is forcing you to read the Katz articles. In fact I imagine that will a little bit of perl scripting you could be free of Katz forever.
Unfortunately I can't hardly do the same thing to get rid of your silly posts. I might want to read what the more enlightened Anonymous Cowards have to say.
Jason
Which Unemployment Figures is Katz Reading
on
Why Work Sucks
·
· Score: 1
There is no question that corporate America is changing. It is no longer probable that you will spend your entire life working for one single company. The question is whether or not this is inherently a bad thing. Katz clearly assumes that no one would ever leave their current job except under duress, but (from my experience) much of the current job hopping is voluntary. The chances of getting fired are higher than they were 30 years ago, but there is also less of a stigma placed on those workers who have worked in several different companies.
In fact, in many cases the experience is seen as desirable by employers.
The fact of the matter is that it is hard to complain about the state of the job market (at least in the United States) with the current economy. This is especially true in the computer industry. We have some of the most sought after skills in the country. And it is really the skills that are valuable.
Even if Katz did have a point, what would he propose we do about this "dilemna." Our employers are plotting to screw us, are they? How is that different from how it has always been?
Slashdot Mirror
Judging from the responses to this article, I must not be a geek. After all, I enjoy living in Idaho, I go outside ocassionally, I don't steal software or music, and I have never used drugs.
:).
Heck, I am even (gasp) a Mormon.
On the other hand, my computers are on all of the time, and they certainly do run a wide variety of software (none of it happens to be creating false ID's at the moment, but that is something to look into
I would submit that perhaps a more fitting description is Computer-Nerd. It's the same sort of thing as Jon's 'Geek,' but without all of the the negative social connotations.
RMS deserves his place in history. He gave us a great big whopping pile of nifty utilities that hackers world-wide use everyday. Every Linuxer who can read (which probably covers us all) knows who RMS is, and what he stands for.
Even more importantly, however, RMS gave us the GPL, which allows us to write software and give it away without fear of having our contributions hijacked. The GPL is one seriously cool hack, and for this contribution, perhaps more than anything, RMS should be thanked.
But the only thing worse for marketing than GNU/Linux would be if Linus's original name "Freax" would have stuck. RMS may not care about this, but some of us want to use Linux and still have a life.
The second Linux is ubiquitous I will be the first to praise Saint Ignucious as the saviour of all computerkind. I will even promise to use words like gnu-riffic and gnu-licious. In the meantime it's all about marketing, and GNU/Linux doesn't stand a chance.
I couldn't disagree more with your evaluation of Learning Perl. It had me writing working (albeit goofy) perl scripts before I even got out of the first chapter.
All in all, I would say that it was the best programming language book that I have ever read.
Of course, it goes without saying that everyone is different. That's why I would recommend going to a bookstore and checking things out for yourself.
If you don't want the cutting edge releases then stick with BeOS 4.0. No one is forcing you to upgrade. It's no different than with Linux. I still have a RedHat 4.2 box ticking away.
But if you really needed to use Blender, then you would be screwed (and you would pretty much be FORCED to use Linux), and it is all because some company won't give you access to one library.
This might not even be Be's fault. They may have a licensing agreement from SGI that requires that they not distribute the library themselves. Either way, however, BeOS users who want to use Blender are out in the cold, despite the fact that the principal developer is ready for release.
I don't have anything against good software whether it is commercial or open source, but there is a definite advantage to having the freedom to choose for yourself.
Jason
The difference is that if there is an app that only runs with the "development" libraries you can get them. I don't have anything against Be, but this is one area where Linux really shines. There isn't anyone that can keep you from accessing the programs you want.
Be is doing what companies do, they are trying to protect their reputation by making sure that everyone runs tested applications. In the meantime there are people who can't get the application they need because they can't get access to the development libraries.
Linux has the best of both worlds, tested stable releases AND the ability to run cutting edge (read un-tested) code if you absolutely have to (or want to).
I wish the best of luck to Be, but they are not only competing with the Microsoft and their desktop monopoly, but also with Linux, the most open operating system ever.
It's a hard world,
Jason
Actually it is very possible to install most Linux software in the users home directory. I personally have installed whole window managers, and their accompanying applications in my home directory. At the very least it shouldn't have to install anything outside of /usr/local . You would have to be crazy to install a Microsoft application as root.
The good news is that if Microsoft did try to embrace and extend Linux they would have to do a good job of it. None of the current Linuxers would tolerate Linux middleware that was worse than the tools we already have for Linux.
Or in other words, Microsoft's stuff would have to be very good, or it wouldn't get used. It would, at the very least, have to be as good (or at least less expensive) than the Windows tools. Basically, Microsoft would probably have to give up it's current desktop monopoly for a piece of Linux's future.
This would actually be good for several reasons
1) Hardware manufacturers would HAVE to give out programming specs (Linux would be the dominant platform).
2) Microsoft would have to compete on a more level playing field. It wouldn't be completely level (as they would undoubtedly have their own secret libraries), but it would be world's better.
3) People forced to use MS software would at least have a stable platform on which to run it.
Jason
Checkout ftp://ftp.replay.com
It's safely offshore, and has all the crypto you could possibly want.
I must admit that I have gotten pretty relaxed about letting software install itself where it wants. Most times I don't even look at the Makefile unless It doesn't compile. Of course, this really isn't a big deal with OSS apps (and even closed WordPerfect was at least well-behaved).
:). They wouldn't go away, they would just have to play fair.
There is no way that I would install MS Office 2000 for Linux as root, however. I have had enough of DLL Hell to last me a lifetime. If the operating system needs to be modified to run Office then thanks, but no thanks.
Not that Microsoft is seriously considering porting to Linux. They wouldn't have a chance of competing if it weren't for the OS leverage.
Not to mention the fact that people like winners, and Microsoft is the biggest winner of all (right now). If Microsoft ceded the desktop to Linux they would undoubtedly be perceived as having lost. Their stock price would drop. Their most talented programmers would look for work elsewhere (it's the stock options that's got them tied down), and Microsoft would cease to be king.
Of course, they would still have a big pile of money
Never fear, brave Linuxers. Microsoft isn't going to port Office to Linux until it becomes completely apparent to everyone and their dog that Windows 2000 won't fly. This sort of announcement is the sort of completely deniable statement that Microsoft has always used to lock down the consumers and keep them from buying into a competitors product.
"Don't switch to Corel PerfectOffice under Linux just yet," says Bill Gates, "If you wait just a little bit I will port Office to Linux." This way Microsoft keeps people from shying, if just for the short term, and gets them to create just one more big spreadsheet, or application that would need to be ported.
By the time the customer realizes that Microsoft has been pulling their chain, it's too late. They have all of a sudden made an even more significant investment to Microsoft's closed architecture.
This isn't about Microsoft feeling out the Linux waters. This is about Microsoft keeping people from trying Wordperfect 8 running on top of an operating system that isn't going to crash on them 4 times in a hour. After all, in the software business it is almost as important to make sure that your competitors _don't_ get customers as it is important that you round up customers for your own product.
Jason
My time is too valuable...
/. so you can get first post.
Yeah, right. You don't have enough time to read, but you do have enough time to sit there reloading
According to O'Henry this next line is the most amazing literary work ever:
Plonk!
This would certainly hurt RedHat, but there is nothing that says that RedHat is Linux. Not only that, but the two competing ideas might actually help Linux overall. After all, it would all be open source, and all of us would be free to choose which version of Linux we ran. So we would get more source, and more freedom into the community.
The reason that Intel is pushing ODI is they think that they can get the Open Source community to write drivers for all of the *nixes (both open and closed). If ODI is really cool, it could happen. If it sucks, it won't.
This is exactly right. No one is going to go through all of the trouble (and expense) to patent something just so they can give it away.
:).
The best defense, at this point, is to simply write a lot of software so that other people can't claim copyrights due to your already existing "prior art."
Or better yet, we can simply crush commercial software beneath our heels so that all software is free
If there is one thing that ticks me off about KDE, it is the Harmony project. Geez, you would think that after all this time the Free Software Community would get it through their heads that they needed a widget set of their own. The Harmony Project will almost assuredly end up like Lesstif perpetually close but not done. GTK, on the other hand, is clearly Free Software. It can't be co-opted, embraced and extended, and it doesn't have to spend eternity trying to mimic some other toolkit's bugs.
This is not to say that KDE isn't good software. I was impressed, and I am sure that Harmony has some talented people working on it as well. It just pains me to see talent being wasted on a toolkit when it could just as easily be used on a widget set that it already free software. The fact of the matter is that GTK development (and Gnome development as well) is moving along at a frightening pace. Troll Tech had better look lively if they don't want to get completely outmaneuvered.
In the world of computers (especially in Unix) the most open standards tend to win out, and there is no more open standard than GTK.
Wait a second, on all my RedHat 5.1 and 5.2 boxes it _is_ /var/spool/mail . In fact, I think it has been since 4.0 (I would have to check to find out).
While it may be true that the GPL doesn't sit well with big SOFTWARE companies. I think you will find that it is starting to sit increasing well with non-software companies.
After all, the real clients are IBM, HP, and Oracle, but rather Free Software needs to sell to people at Nike, Sears, or McDonalds. Non-software companies potentially have a great deal to gain from free software (no more client licenses, no more downtime). After all there are way more programmers working outside the computer industry than inside.
Just something to think about.
Building on the success of others is part of the joy of Open Source software. OSS allows me to use tools and libraries created by people all around the world (for free). You don't even HAVE to give your enhancements back to the community, but if you do, then someone will probably add something cool that you hadn't thought of to the mix.
It's commercial software that requires you to start over from scratch.
Just remember the vast majority of programmers don't work creating commercial software. Most programmers are already hired by companies to create software for their own use in house. None of these people are worried about how much money they can make off of their software, because the software doesn't belong to them, and software is not part of their company's product line. They just want something that works.
I would really like to know which community you are a "Proud" member of so that I can make sure that I am not a member of the same community.
Personally Jon strikes me as a pretty genuine person, and while not all of his articles are solid gold, he has made several excellent points (unlike certain random Anonymous Cowards I can think of).
No one is forcing you to read the Katz articles. In fact I imagine that will a little bit of perl scripting you could be free of Katz forever.
Unfortunately I can't hardly do the same thing to get rid of your silly posts. I might want to read what the more enlightened Anonymous Cowards have to say.
Jason
There is no question that corporate America is changing. It is no longer probable that you will spend your entire life working for one single company. The question is whether or not this is inherently a bad thing. Katz clearly assumes that no one would ever leave their current job except under duress, but (from my experience) much of the current job hopping is voluntary. The chances of getting fired are higher than they were 30 years ago, but there is also less of a stigma placed on those workers who have worked in several different companies.
In fact, in many cases the experience is seen as desirable by employers.
The fact of the matter is that it is hard to complain about the state of the job market (at least in the United States) with the current economy. This is especially true in the computer industry. We have some of the most sought after skills in the country. And it is really the skills that are valuable.
Even if Katz did have a point, what would he propose we do about this "dilemna." Our employers are plotting to screw us, are they? How is that different from how it has always been?