Why do companies think that purchasing a successful company and then changing the basics around how they operate will make them grow?!?
My company was number one in the field, with twice the sales than the next two guys combined. We did one thing and we did it well. Which means we didn't have as much money as those guys that did a thousand things poorly. So we got bought out by a competitor (number seven in the field).
The parent company has changed the basics of how we operate. But we're doing so much better than all the other divisions. Why? Because we're still operating under inertia. But we're slowing down and slowing down fast. It's quickly becoming Dilbertsville around here, and the customers are starting to suspect.
You're wrong about intelligence. Your story of the blind man is a *trick* question. Questions like these have been tricking geniuses for centuries. They prove nothing.
The reason it is a trick question is because you spent four paragraphs talking about a deaf mute and impromptu sign language. You've prepared the listener to think "mute" when he hears "blind".
SYNOPSIS
ee [-eih] [+#] [file...]
ree [-eih] [+#] [file...]
DESCRIPTION
The ee utility is a simple screen oriented text editor. It is always in
text insertion mode unless there is a prompt at the bottom of the termi-
nal, or a menu present (in a box in the middle of the terminal). The ree
utility is the same as ee, but restricted to editing the named file (no
file operations, or shell escapes are allowed).
What I've never figured out is why they don't simply split up libc/glibc/uclibc/etc into separate libraries like it should be.
The Standard C Library should be a distinct library from the rest of the stuff. The reason they're together is historical. They don't need to be together today.
And in any case, Microsoft's legal victory does not necessarily mean much...
Amen! How soon do people forget their history. We do not live in a static universe. It's very dynamic. A monopoly cannot long survive in the face of constantly changing economics and technologies. IBM was already losing its monopoly on the mainframe before the government stepped in, because the mainframe was already being relegated to a niche.
Microsoft is in the same situation. It may look like they have a monopoly on the desktop, but what they really have is a monopoly on new users. That stream of new users is now drying up. For the first time, they now have to market to their existing customer base. That customer base might not migrate to Linux, BSD or Mac, but a heck of a lot of them are choosing not to upgrade.
Microsoft is losing the power of its monopoly. That's why they're so desperate to branch out into new fields like DRM, tablets, and services.
I doubt that we will see any of the big OEM's offering their products with Linux this Christmas. They still have to contend with the law of supply and demand, which trumps both Microsoft and the DOJ.
But we might see many more opportunities to buy a big-name system without any OS at all. I also suspect that we'll see more offerings with Mozilla and OpenOffice.
p.s. I'm talking about the large OEMs. Many smaller players never entered into exclusive contracts. I've always bought my computers from small mom-and-pop shops, and I always got them Windows-free with a discount.
While I'm glad that Nvidia is broadening their base, I can't wonder if more people wouldn't benefit from new drivers for the new releases from Red Hat and Mandrake.
While I'm glad that Nvidia is broadening their base by providing Linux drivers, I can't wonder if more people wouldn't benefit from new drivers for Windows XP.
I mean, if you're going to make business decisions for them based solely on the number of users...
If GNOME is a part of the GNU operating system, then what operating system does KDE belong to? Methinks your definition of operating system is much too broad...
I didn't say that the kernel was the only component of an operating system. You also need some infrastructure around it, and the ability to run an executable. It's entirely possible, and somewhat common, to have a usuable Linux system without GNU. Throw linux, some minimal infrastructure, and BusyBox on an embedded device and you have an operating system without one GNU utility.
The problem is that there is no commonly accepted and *specific* definition of operating system. I've talked to CS professors who say that a kernel fits their definition. I've also heard lawyers swear before worldwide TV that Internet Explorer is a part of an operating system. The truth lies somewhere in between.
My definition is the bare minimum software necessary to manage the hardware and direct the processing of other software. This would include a file system, boot/init structure, process infrastructure, and the like. Excluded is bash, emacs, gcc, ls and tar. They may be damned useful, but they are no more part of the operating system than XFree86 or Perl.
Even if you don't like my definition, you still have to admit that a complete Linux distro that can fit on a single floppy counts as an operating system. There's a lot of these single floppy distros, and none of them come with much GNU software.
If they can demonstrate to the US congress... that copy protection keeps getting defeated and therefore they are "losing" lots of sales, they will be able to get legislation passed that requires CD-RW manufacturers to build in copy-protection.
There are two major influences on the US congress. Money is one. Votes is another. All the monetary donations to the campaign fund is worthless if reelection is impossible.
One rich RIAA lobbyist is more powerful than one poor Joe Bob from Peoria. But one rich RIAA lobbyist is hopelessly outnumbered when ten thousand Joe Bobs start screaming.
Let your neighbors and friends know about this issue. Write your congressman and senator. Write your local party representatives. Get involved. These aren't technical people, so explain the issue in terms that they can understand.
Example: My mother is the head of the local Demopublican/Republicrat central committee. She has the ear of the two state congressmen and one senator. She can make or break their local campaigns. I've made sure she understands the issue. You might not be able to bend the ear of your representative, but I suspect you know someone who can. That is the person you need to be talking to.
It's taken me a few years to understand RMS' perspective on the issue. But just because I can understand it does not make it right.
From his viewpoint, linux was merely dropped into The GNU System. But from the perspective of the rest of the world, Linus made an OS and a the Linux distributions added a bunch of userland stuff from different projects, GNU being a major supplier.
To use an analogy, Linus built an internal combustion engine, then his friends when to the local AutoParts and built a car. The name of the completed vehicle is not AutoParts/Linux.
If you take a look from any perspective but Mr. Stallman's, a heck of a lot of GNU was adjusted to fit the Linux kernel. Linux was not adjusted to fit GNU. Just browse through the glibc ChangeLog for proof.
So in other words, when the GNU project finally produces a complete operating system with all the operating environment trimmings, the correct name will be "The GNOME/GNU/Hurd/Mach System"?
A lot of Linux-based OSes contain very healthy doses of GNU software and are compiled with GCC, one of the first major contributions of GNU.
Most of that GNU software is not a part of the OS. Certainly a compiler is not. It may be useful to you, and necessary to build the OS, but it is no more a part of the OS than a screwdriver is part of a car.
GNU follows Microsoft's erroneous definition of "operating system". Just because it ships with the OS does not make it the OS.
Windows did not come with my computer. It wasn't hidden in the invoice. When I received it, the harddrive was empty but for a small burn-in test suite.
Yes, it's hard buying a compute without Windows. But it can be done. The first thing you need to do is to realize that it is possible. Once you get past that hurdle, the rest isn't so bad. Tell the salesman you don't want Windows on your system, and want an appropriate reduction in price. If he or she refuses, go elsewhere. If all else fails, there are a million mom-and-pops that will be perfectly willing to build you one to exact specifications.
You are in control of your own life. If it seems like Microsoft is running it instead, blame yourself for handing over the reins.
I can actually choose OpenOffice without going to jail. I can use Mozilla without violating the Internet Explorer licensing. I could install Linux or *BSD without having to register as an OS offender. I can even use KDE instead of GNOME!
Nah... Too much responsibility. I'll just join a class action suit against Microsoft.
Re:Assuming this is real...
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 2
if you have code in your app that might infringe on someone elses copyright, or anything else that might be an IP issue, get it outta there now.
But that would be all the code! The USPTO has demonstrated time and again that they will issue a patent for anything. Companies have demonstrated time and again that they will stretch the meaning of their patents to cover anything that they don't want you to do.
The only guarantee against not being sued (regardless of your field) is to never crawl out of your cave, and even that is risky. I would rather code than hide.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but the computer support arena is FULL of trick questions.
Yeah, but the original post called this a test of intelligence. Albert Einstein would make a lousy computer support monkey.
free-as-in-beer public domain routines ... The original inventors of ARC sued him
Then it wasn't public domain then, was it? Duh!
Why do companies think that purchasing a successful company and then changing the basics around how they operate will make them grow?!?
My company was number one in the field, with twice the sales than the next two guys combined. We did one thing and we did it well. Which means we didn't have as much money as those guys that did a thousand things poorly. So we got bought out by a competitor (number seven in the field).
The parent company has changed the basics of how we operate. But we're doing so much better than all the other divisions. Why? Because we're still operating under inertia. But we're slowing down and slowing down fast. It's quickly becoming Dilbertsville around here, and the customers are starting to suspect.
You're wrong about intelligence. Your story of the blind man is a *trick* question. Questions like these have been tricking geniuses for centuries. They prove nothing.
The reason it is a trick question is because you spent four paragraphs talking about a deaf mute and impromptu sign language. You've prepared the listener to think "mute" when he hears "blind".
"Customers who shopped for this item also wear:
My Unix comes with ee by default...
...] ...]
NAME
ee - easy editor
SYNOPSIS
ee [-eih] [+#] [file
ree [-eih] [+#] [file
DESCRIPTION
The ee utility is a simple screen oriented text editor. It is always in
text insertion mode unless there is a prompt at the bottom of the termi-
nal, or a menu present (in a box in the middle of the terminal). The ree
utility is the same as ee, but restricted to editing the named file (no
file operations, or shell escapes are allowed).
FreeBSD 4.7 August 30, 1995 FreeBSD 4.7
What I've never figured out is why they don't simply split up libc/glibc/uclibc/etc into separate libraries like it should be.
The Standard C Library should be a distinct library from the rest of the stuff. The reason they're together is historical. They don't need to be together today.
Conversely, you would be surprised at how many people would have taken the great-grandparent post as fact if left unmoderated.
Think of it as evolution in action...
And in any case, Microsoft's legal victory does not necessarily mean much...
Amen! How soon do people forget their history. We do not live in a static universe. It's very dynamic. A monopoly cannot long survive in the face of constantly changing economics and technologies. IBM was already losing its monopoly on the mainframe before the government stepped in, because the mainframe was already being relegated to a niche.
Microsoft is in the same situation. It may look like they have a monopoly on the desktop, but what they really have is a monopoly on new users. That stream of new users is now drying up. For the first time, they now have to market to their existing customer base. That customer base might not migrate to Linux, BSD or Mac, but a heck of a lot of them are choosing not to upgrade.
Microsoft is losing the power of its monopoly. That's why they're so desperate to branch out into new fields like DRM, tablets, and services.
I doubt that we will see any of the big OEM's offering their products with Linux this Christmas. They still have to contend with the law of supply and demand, which trumps both Microsoft and the DOJ.
But we might see many more opportunities to buy a big-name system without any OS at all. I also suspect that we'll see more offerings with Mozilla and OpenOffice.
p.s. I'm talking about the large OEMs. Many smaller players never entered into exclusive contracts. I've always bought my computers from small mom-and-pop shops, and I always got them Windows-free with a discount.
Of course the FSF has no claims to these packages! Sometimes I think Slashdot readers check their sense of humour at the door.
Now I can run this operating system without one byte of GNU software. But I'll still have to call it GNU/Linux. That's progress!
That's the big difference between the US and Europe. The US thinks "free to" (liberty). Europe thinks "free from" (security).
While I'm glad that Nvidia is broadening their base, I can't wonder if more people wouldn't benefit from new drivers for the new releases from Red Hat and Mandrake.
While I'm glad that Nvidia is broadening their base by providing Linux drivers, I can't wonder if more people wouldn't benefit from new drivers for Windows XP.
I mean, if you're going to make business decisions for them based solely on the number of users...
Bzzzt! Userland is not the same as userspace.
If GNOME is a part of the GNU operating system, then what operating system does KDE belong to? Methinks your definition of operating system is much too broad...
I didn't say that the kernel was the only component of an operating system. You also need some infrastructure around it, and the ability to run an executable. It's entirely possible, and somewhat common, to have a usuable Linux system without GNU. Throw linux, some minimal infrastructure, and BusyBox on an embedded device and you have an operating system without one GNU utility.
The problem is that there is no commonly accepted and *specific* definition of operating system. I've talked to CS professors who say that a kernel fits their definition. I've also heard lawyers swear before worldwide TV that Internet Explorer is a part of an operating system. The truth lies somewhere in between.
My definition is the bare minimum software necessary to manage the hardware and direct the processing of other software. This would include a file system, boot/init structure, process infrastructure, and the like. Excluded is bash, emacs, gcc, ls and tar. They may be damned useful, but they are no more part of the operating system than XFree86 or Perl.
Even if you don't like my definition, you still have to admit that a complete Linux distro that can fit on a single floppy counts as an operating system. There's a lot of these single floppy distros, and none of them come with much GNU software.
If they can demonstrate to the US congress ... that copy protection keeps getting defeated and therefore they are "losing" lots of sales, they will be able to get legislation passed that requires CD-RW manufacturers to build in copy-protection.
There are two major influences on the US congress. Money is one. Votes is another. All the monetary donations to the campaign fund is worthless if reelection is impossible.
One rich RIAA lobbyist is more powerful than one poor Joe Bob from Peoria. But one rich RIAA lobbyist is hopelessly outnumbered when ten thousand Joe Bobs start screaming.
Let your neighbors and friends know about this issue. Write your congressman and senator. Write your local party representatives. Get involved. These aren't technical people, so explain the issue in terms that they can understand.
Example: My mother is the head of the local Demopublican/Republicrat central committee. She has the ear of the two state congressmen and one senator. She can make or break their local campaigns. I've made sure she understands the issue. You might not be able to bend the ear of your representative, but I suspect you know someone who can. That is the person you need to be talking to.
It's taken me a few years to understand RMS' perspective on the issue. But just because I can understand it does not make it right.
From his viewpoint, linux was merely dropped into The GNU System. But from the perspective of the rest of the world, Linus made an OS and a the Linux distributions added a bunch of userland stuff from different projects, GNU being a major supplier.
To use an analogy, Linus built an internal combustion engine, then his friends when to the local AutoParts and built a car. The name of the completed vehicle is not AutoParts/Linux.
If you take a look from any perspective but Mr. Stallman's, a heck of a lot of GNU was adjusted to fit the Linux kernel. Linux was not adjusted to fit GNU. Just browse through the glibc ChangeLog for proof.
They already did provide a great userland. Heck, everything BUT the Hurd is userland.
So in other words, when the GNU project finally produces a complete operating system with all the operating environment trimmings, the correct name will be "The GNOME/GNU/Hurd/Mach System"?
A lot of Linux-based OSes contain very healthy doses of GNU software and are compiled with GCC, one of the first major contributions of GNU.
Most of that GNU software is not a part of the OS. Certainly a compiler is not. It may be useful to you, and necessary to build the OS, but it is no more a part of the OS than a screwdriver is part of a car.
GNU follows Microsoft's erroneous definition of "operating system". Just because it ships with the OS does not make it the OS.
But you still have to pay for Windows.
Windows did not come with my computer. It wasn't hidden in the invoice. When I received it, the harddrive was empty but for a small burn-in test suite.
Yes, it's hard buying a compute without Windows. But it can be done. The first thing you need to do is to realize that it is possible. Once you get past that hurdle, the rest isn't so bad. Tell the salesman you don't want Windows on your system, and want an appropriate reduction in price. If he or she refuses, go elsewhere. If all else fails, there are a million mom-and-pops that will be perfectly willing to build you one to exact specifications.
You are in control of your own life. If it seems like Microsoft is running it instead, blame yourself for handing over the reins.
The implications are staggering!
I can actually choose OpenOffice without going to jail. I can use Mozilla without violating the Internet Explorer licensing. I could install Linux or *BSD without having to register as an OS offender. I can even use KDE instead of GNOME!
Nah... Too much responsibility. I'll just join a class action suit against Microsoft.
if you have code in your app that might infringe on someone elses copyright, or anything else that might be an IP issue, get it outta there now.
But that would be all the code! The USPTO has demonstrated time and again that they will issue a patent for anything. Companies have demonstrated time and again that they will stretch the meaning of their patents to cover anything that they don't want you to do.
The only guarantee against not being sued (regardless of your field) is to never crawl out of your cave, and even that is risky. I would rather code than hide.