It more than just getting it to the mirrors. They also want to get it to the distributors and package builders. Imagine poor RedmudLinux now being indundated with whiney lusers demanding KDE2 packages.
Nice diatribe, but you're ignoring one important point. "Laissez faire" has never existed in California in the power industry. Deregulation is a myth. It never happened in California. I have a dictionary, so I know what "deregulation" means. To call the California power industry "deregulated" is absurd since it is the most regulated industry in the state.
What is this rumor going around that deregulation was even involved in the process? There was no deregulation. It is a fairy tale. The very use of the word is an implementation of Orwellian NewSpeak. It ranks right up there with called NAFTA a free trade agreement. Bogus.
Taking the shackles off of the left ankle of a prisoner, but keeping the shackles on the right ankle and both wrists does not qualify as "freedom". But somehow in my Home State of Fruits and Nuts, removing one regulation out of the millions regulating the power industry is called "deregulation."
So, you're running Civ3 under Wine, with no native Window in site. Good for you. I've tried that but I can't get it to work right. I still need a native Windows to get Civ3 operating correctly.
Oh! Civ3 is available for Mac. Thought you might want to know.
I would be slightly wary of posting links to a thousand different unices. The impression given would be that Unix is not standardized. After all, the people that are going to be most influenced by this will be the marketroids who already believe the Microsoft drivel.
Instead, I would categorize the various flavors of Unix, such as:
Free Unix: Linux, xBSD Industrial Strength Unix: Solaris, IRIX, HPUX Unix at Home: Linux, xBSD, OSX etc.
Oh great! Now I can purchase software that only works in my mailbox. If I take it five hundred feet away to my residence it won't work because it's too far away.
Microsoft has made a big push towards component architectures. Everywhere you look in the Microsoft world they are pushing components of some kind. Talking with some Windows fans at work, they have convinced me that components (if done right) are an excellent idea.
Fine. Then why not make Windows a component/modular system? If it's not possible to remove IE from the base system, then it's not modular. Making Windows into a truly modular system would be a very good thing for the quality of the OS, as well as injecting some bits of competition back into the equation.
Unix is already a very modular system, particularly the Free unices. Use a different file system. Use a different desktop. Use a different MTA. Etc. At the risk of sounding like I support Microsoft, I think a true componentized Windows would be a good thing.
What I meant about Open Source not being relevant to internal software is that it is irrelevant if the software produced internally is Open Source or not.
Of course an internal developer is going to use external Open Source software. That goes without saying. But software used internally is unpublished software. Copyright of any kind is simply irrelevant. Think about it. If you write a quick little test tool for your QA group, and only your QA group uses it, then who gives a rat's ass if it's GPL, BSD, EULA or under an NDA?
Now the external Open Source software is a different story. That's why I said I expect Open Source to find its niche in infrastructure. I expect nuts, screws, hammers and wrenches to be Open Source, but I really don't expect garden sheds and bicycles to be.
I wrote a spreadsheet fifteen years ago! And I was using spreadsheets five years before that. What's truly amazing, is that beyond the idea of linking spreadsheets together, no one has ever improved on the idea. Oh, they've wrapped it up in nice GUIs and formatting, but overall, they do exactly the same thing they've always done.
Replace the word "StarOffice" with "Redhat Linux".. why does the same logic not apply?
It does apply. The tiny profit that Redhat has finally managed to make after years of burning the investors' money in huge blazing bonfires comes form people ignorant of the fact that its free. It comes from corporate purchasers who buy a Redhat box for each workstation. It comes from Joe Sixpack browsing the racks at CompUSA. It comes from managers paying for basic Redhat support when they already have Unix sysadmins in IT. It comes from people who somehow think that Official Redhat in crinkly shrinkwrap is different from downloaded for free Redhat.
Take a good look and see whose making money in Open Source. I count about five companies. Four out of those five companies actually make their money off of closed source addons or extensions. The fifth is on pretty shaky ground.
That's not a good track record. Reality trumps theory every day of the week.
You can talk all you want about giving away the software and selling the service, but I still don't see any companies profiting off of open source support. You can talk about contractors selling their labor and expertise, but Open Source is irrelevant for software that's only used internal to a company.
I suspect that Open Source will find its niche in infrastructure software (servers, operating systems), but that end user applications will remain largely closed sourced. The reasoning is simple. No one will buy a product if it is free.
A truly portable program should already be building under FreeBSD. I can grab 99% of Open Source projects out there and build by hand on my FreeBSD box with little problem.
The big issue on BSD is the lack of standard kernel threads...
That very well may be the problem. You see, FreeBSD already has POSIX standard pthreads. Even more compliant with the standard than Linux. If OO isn't building because of the threads on FreeBSD, then OO needs to start using the standard. If they can't be bothered with POSIX, then the least they could do is use a good cross platform thread library like Boost or ACE/CCPP.
I know you're joking, but that's the sort of attitude, but with Windows, that's the problem with many ISPs. Once you tell a customer he must use something other than his favorite [OS/browser/client] you'll be lucky to keep him.
Frankly, if I were told to use Linux to get support I'd find another company, even if I were already using Linux.
This is a tough question. I would like to see ISPs support my OS which is FreeBSD. In fact, my ISP even uses FreeBSD. But are they going to support Mozilla, Galeon or Konqueror? KMail or pine? They can't support them all. It irks me to no end when they choose to only support the top 95% of systems and browsers, but I can't blame them. That means Windows, Mac, IExplorer and Netscape. Sigh.
It's not that their helpdesk guys are stupid. It's that the customers are ignorant. Imagine the following scenario:
"I can't connect." "What OS are you using?" "Linux 8.1" [sigh] "Which Linux distribution is that?" "Huh? It's Linux. I just bought it at a yardsale." [assumes Redhat] "Okay, are you using KDE or Gnome?" "I just done told ya I'm using Linux!" "Yes sir, I know that." "You guys said you support Linux, so support it!" "What's on your screen right now?" "It says 'please insert CD number two to continue installation." ...
But there is a solution. For some strange reason ISPs are marketing two services packaged as one product. Connectivity and support. I don't see why they can't split up the package if necessary. Let's say the price of the normal service is $50. For a Windows user that includes connectivity and support of Explorer, Netscape and Outlook. But if you're using Linux, BSD, BeOS, etc., they can't effectively support you. So you don't pay for support. Your price just dropped to $40. I can live with that.
It's deeper than that. The real problem is that companies (and stockholders) do not understand that the value of a stock is not its price.
Chasing after a stock price is a losing proposition. People who wouldn't waste one buck on the lottery will gladly fork over their life savings hoping for an equally impossible payoff.
Instead, you want a stock with a stable price in a company that is making a profit. Roll your dividends back into more stock. Diversify into other stable companies. Buy when the prices seem too low. Sell when they get too high.
Find out about the internal workings of the company. If they aren't hiring expensive experts, sell, sell, sell...
Does it matter? What are they going to do, put Arthur Andersen, the Company, in a cell with Bubba at Leavenworth? The actual perpetrators of the crime, human beings, are getting off scott free.
Slashdot Mirror
It more than just getting it to the mirrors. They also want to get it to the distributors and package builders. Imagine poor RedmudLinux now being indundated with whiney lusers demanding KDE2 packages.
Nice diatribe, but you're ignoring one important point. "Laissez faire" has never existed in California in the power industry. Deregulation is a myth. It never happened in California. I have a dictionary, so I know what "deregulation" means. To call the California power industry "deregulated" is absurd since it is the most regulated industry in the state.
And their government is certainly worthy of condemnation.
You mean Berkeley's, don't you?
What is this rumor going around that deregulation was even involved in the process? There was no deregulation. It is a fairy tale. The very use of the word is an implementation of Orwellian NewSpeak. It ranks right up there with called NAFTA a free trade agreement. Bogus.
Taking the shackles off of the left ankle of a prisoner, but keeping the shackles on the right ankle and both wrists does not qualify as "freedom". But somehow in my Home State of Fruits and Nuts, removing one regulation out of the millions regulating the power industry is called "deregulation."
Or, k) go the Apple route and make the core OS open and the the GUI and office suite closed.
So, you're running Civ3 under Wine, with no native Window in site. Good for you. I've tried that but I can't get it to work right. I still need a native Windows to get Civ3 operating correctly.
Oh! Civ3 is available for Mac. Thought you might want to know.
I don't need to make Toy Story 3 on my computer, just recompile a kernel and play Civ3.
So, right after saying you want a free OS and that Linux is coolor than Steve, you admit to running a Windows game.
I would be slightly wary of posting links to a thousand different unices. The impression given would be that Unix is not standardized. After all, the people that are going to be most influenced by this will be the marketroids who already believe the Microsoft drivel.
Instead, I would categorize the various flavors of Unix, such as:
Free Unix: Linux, xBSD
Industrial Strength Unix: Solaris, IRIX, HPUX
Unix at Home: Linux, xBSD, OSX
etc.
Oh great! Now I can purchase software that only works in my mailbox. If I take it five hundred feet away to my residence it won't work because it's too far away.
Microsoft has made a big push towards component architectures. Everywhere you look in the Microsoft world they are pushing components of some kind. Talking with some Windows fans at work, they have convinced me that components (if done right) are an excellent idea.
Fine. Then why not make Windows a component/modular system? If it's not possible to remove IE from the base system, then it's not modular. Making Windows into a truly modular system would be a very good thing for the quality of the OS, as well as injecting some bits of competition back into the equation.
Unix is already a very modular system, particularly the Free unices. Use a different file system. Use a different desktop. Use a different MTA. Etc. At the risk of sounding like I support Microsoft, I think a true componentized Windows would be a good thing.
What I meant about Open Source not being relevant to internal software is that it is irrelevant if the software produced internally is Open Source or not.
Of course an internal developer is going to use external Open Source software. That goes without saying. But software used internally is unpublished software. Copyright of any kind is simply irrelevant. Think about it. If you write a quick little test tool for your QA group, and only your QA group uses it, then who gives a rat's ass if it's GPL, BSD, EULA or under an NDA?
Now the external Open Source software is a different story. That's why I said I expect Open Source to find its niche in infrastructure. I expect nuts, screws, hammers and wrenches to be Open Source, but I really don't expect garden sheds and bicycles to be.
I wrote a spreadsheet fifteen years ago! And I was using spreadsheets five years before that. What's truly amazing, is that beyond the idea of linking spreadsheets together, no one has ever improved on the idea. Oh, they've wrapped it up in nice GUIs and formatting, but overall, they do exactly the same thing they've always done.
Replace the word "StarOffice" with "Redhat Linux".. why does the same logic not apply?
It does apply. The tiny profit that Redhat has finally managed to make after years of burning the investors' money in huge blazing bonfires comes form people ignorant of the fact that its free. It comes from corporate purchasers who buy a Redhat box for each workstation. It comes from Joe Sixpack browsing the racks at CompUSA. It comes from managers paying for basic Redhat support when they already have Unix sysadmins in IT. It comes from people who somehow think that Official Redhat in crinkly shrinkwrap is different from downloaded for free Redhat.
Take a good look and see whose making money in Open Source. I count about five companies. Four out of those five companies actually make their money off of closed source addons or extensions. The fifth is on pretty shaky ground.
That's not a good track record. Reality trumps theory every day of the week.
You can talk all you want about giving away the software and selling the service, but I still don't see any companies profiting off of open source support. You can talk about contractors selling their labor and expertise, but Open Source is irrelevant for software that's only used internal to a company.
I suspect that Open Source will find its niche in infrastructure software (servers, operating systems), but that end user applications will remain largely closed sourced. The reasoning is simple. No one will buy a product if it is free.
A truly portable program should already be building under FreeBSD. I can grab 99% of Open Source projects out there and build by hand on my FreeBSD box with little problem.
The big issue on BSD is the lack of standard kernel threads...
That very well may be the problem. You see, FreeBSD already has POSIX standard pthreads. Even more compliant with the standard than Linux. If OO isn't building because of the threads on FreeBSD, then OO needs to start using the standard. If they can't be bothered with POSIX, then the least they could do is use a good cross platform thread library like Boost or ACE/CCPP.
OS: Mac OS, Solaris, Linux, Windows 98 / XP /2k
I don't know anyone using Solaris at home. But I know dozens using FreeBSD.
They should be required to install Linux.
I know you're joking, but that's the sort of attitude, but with Windows, that's the problem with many ISPs. Once you tell a customer he must use something other than his favorite [OS/browser/client] you'll be lucky to keep him.
Frankly, if I were told to use Linux to get support I'd find another company, even if I were already using Linux.
This is a tough question. I would like to see ISPs support my OS which is FreeBSD. In fact, my ISP even uses FreeBSD. But are they going to support Mozilla, Galeon or Konqueror? KMail or pine? They can't support them all. It irks me to no end when they choose to only support the top 95% of systems and browsers, but I can't blame them. That means Windows, Mac, IExplorer and Netscape. Sigh.
It's not that their helpdesk guys are stupid. It's that the customers are ignorant. Imagine the following scenario:
"I can't connect."
"What OS are you using?"
"Linux 8.1"
[sigh] "Which Linux distribution is that?"
"Huh? It's Linux. I just bought it at a yardsale."
[assumes Redhat] "Okay, are you using KDE or Gnome?"
"I just done told ya I'm using Linux!"
"Yes sir, I know that."
"You guys said you support Linux, so support it!"
"What's on your screen right now?"
"It says 'please insert CD number two to continue installation."
...
But there is a solution. For some strange reason ISPs are marketing two services packaged as one product. Connectivity and support. I don't see why they can't split up the package if necessary. Let's say the price of the normal service is $50. For a Windows user that includes connectivity and support of Explorer, Netscape and Outlook. But if you're using Linux, BSD, BeOS, etc., they can't effectively support you. So you don't pay for support. Your price just dropped to $40. I can live with that.
"A buck today is worth more than a buck tommarow"
Absolutely true. But the following adages (which I just made up) are equally true:
"A buck today and a buck tomorrow is worth more than a buck today and nothing tomorrow."
"A buck today is not necessarily worth more than two bucks tomorrow."
It's deeper than that. The real problem is that companies (and stockholders) do not understand that the value of a stock is not its price.
Chasing after a stock price is a losing proposition. People who wouldn't waste one buck on the lottery will gladly fork over their life savings hoping for an equally impossible payoff.
Instead, you want a stock with a stable price in a company that is making a profit. Roll your dividends back into more stock. Diversify into other stable companies. Buy when the prices seem too low. Sell when they get too high.
Find out about the internal workings of the company. If they aren't hiring expensive experts, sell, sell, sell...
Your datacenter is the lifeblood of your company. And you don't want to hire an expensive expert to administer it? Fool!
Still is. The changed over the front end machines of Hotmail to W2K to avoid the embarrassment, but the back end machines still run FreeBSD.
But he did lay the "intellectual" foundation for Keynesian Economics, so he is the core of the reason why we are all dead in the long run.
Does it matter? What are they going to do, put Arthur Andersen, the Company, in a cell with Bubba at Leavenworth? The actual perpetrators of the crime, human beings, are getting off scott free.
Gee, you sort of missed the whole point of the post, didn't you?