To quote Linus: I'd rather listen to Newton than to Mundie. He may have been dead for almost three hundred years, but despite that he stinks up the room less.
This is a rather personal attack. I would concede that the rest of Linus' remarks were fine since he was responding to Microsoft's attitude towards open source development, but the last remark was at best childish. Stick with the issues. I don't believe Mundie/Microsoft made any such direct remarks about Linus...
Even Outlook Express allows you to set up rules to direct incoming mail. And don't come back to me saying "But I shouldn't have to set up a filter to block unsolicited mail blah blah blah" because that's exactly what filters are for. And, all you *nix gearheads probably have mail programs with a lot better filtering capablities than OE. Use 'em. IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
You're obviously not among the majority of the regular public (which is okay). Face it, anyone can use Windows. And that's because MS spends big money on usability testing. They want their stuff to be easy because easy sells.
Open file formats are great and all, but do they make money? No. If you ask me, Microsoft is the best example of capitalism in the 20th century in that they find ways to make more money off of something they created. I'm not saying it's right. I just think that if you are going to be successful and you make a product like software, you need to be able to "discontinue" it at anytime and put something new out there. This makes money. After all, if lightbulb companies made lightbulbs that lasted forever, do you think that they would still be in business?
When you buy the software, you are buying a lot more than the binaries on a CD. You are buying the license, the file formats, the bugs, and the privilege of using the software. MS can make their own rules for their software. You are, in essence, buying into an agreement. It is up to you on how you live up to that agreement.
Debating over who's better is a fruitless venture (Word vs. KOffice, Konquer vs IE). However, saying that $129k would have bought lots of Linux is not true. Who would run it? Who would retrain your people? Where would you find someone with the skills to maintain it? These folks won't work for free. You could spend at least half of that $129k on one person to set up and maintain a Linux network for a year.
Of course, that much money (just the money they're paying to take care of uncertain licenses) could probably also buy CD burners and enough blanks to create no-license-hassles copies of Linux or Free / Open / NetBSD for every computer the city owns.
Try running Office, or VB or any other MS tool that most entities running Windows uses. Linux is not the answer all the time, especially if you can't run the tools that run your business (or government) on it. And don't try to tell me "you can convert to StarOffice, blah, blah, blah" because if you have thousands of documents to convert, you'll end up spending a lot of money. And, if those documents have macros embedded in them that are written in VBA, you're really into a dilly of a pickle.
Face it, Virginia Beach got caught with their pants down and they knew it. Rather than face up to illegally (sp?) using Windows and other MS stuff, they paid the fiddler and called it even. Rules are rules. The GPL has rules and MS licenses have rules. Whether you like them or not, if you don't follow them, you'll get smacked! IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
I am a contract programmer who has had to carry the cell phone before. My client let me bill an additional 4 hours over the 2-week period I carried it. Plus, my company also gave me additional pay while I had it ($8/weekend day and $4/weekday).
It isn't much more, but it was nice to get both the overtime and the extra from my company. IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
I have a very strong understanding about how free enterprise works. But, you're right. It's the perfect model for big profits. IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
Shouldn't this be how any non-Microsoft system should be touted--an alternative way to get things done? It seems that a lot of energy is spent here focusing on Microsoft's foibles rather than Linux/BSD/BeOS/'s strengths. Microsoft is constrained by the public and it's investors (and the government, blah blah blah). Linux (and I'm talking the kernel and the GNU set of tools, not any particular distribution) is not and that's why it can advance so much more quickly.
Rather than tearing something down (which, by the way, gains you no credibility whatsoever), forums such as ACE2K should be brought up as a way to show everyone that anything is possible. If done right, people realize that there are other (sometimes better) ways of doing things. Isn't that what we're all after?
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
Then, don't you think that if it was a misquote that you shouldn't be jumping all over RH? Honestly, CmdrTaco's views aren't always the only ones (even he has amended his comments to a post every now and then--we're all human, though).
They went a lot further than any other distro to get Linux out there. And they themselves were a derivative of another distro (Slackware). They were the sweetheart of the Open Source movement. Now, because they are taking some credit for their efforts, they are the pariah (a bit strong, but you understand my point).
My point is that success shouldn't have to be met with disdain from the community. We should all be thrilled that OS has come this far and RH deserves some of the credit. The article makes it sound like they are saying that they are taking all of the credit. But, were we not all told as children to not believe everything that we read? There's a lot of biased reporters out there that can make anyone sound like they said anything (see ESR's post above). Do not let the views of CmdrTaco (that is, his point of view of the article) become yours. Don't be a sheep. IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
Every time a software company (and let's not forget that is what Red Hat is) is successful, zealots (like some of you) start bitching and whining about it when they take a little credit for it. You sit there and say, "Ya know, the last two versions really did start to kind of suck. RH is turning into Microsoft. I'm gonna use Debian from now on. Blah, Blah, Blah."
Red Hat was the first distribution that was really marketed to the general public. It was the first exposure to Linux I and my friends had and that was because we saw it sitting on the shelf at an electronics store three or four years ago. It was this kind of marketing that put Red Hat (and Linux) out there. That is how you become successful; you put what you have out there for sale. If it weren't for this kind of marketing, Linux would not be as far as it is today.
Just a summer ago, everyone here was sporting their collective woodies over Red Hat's IPO and everyone jumped on board singing the RH song. RH in turn supplied its own resources and money into making Linux and the tools that came with the kernel better. Granted, the tools they made were in their own distribution, but it's not like you couldn't get those very tools for free from any ftp site. Now, because they've been so successful and are taking the credit for it, some of you are shunning them.
Face it, folks. Red Hat is in it for the good of the community, but they also know that there is money to be had. Who would've thought a company could get rich from selling free software? Red Hat brought to Linux something that it needed to really get off of the ground: a brand. Brands bring with it success. If success comes at the price of the masses turning against you, then why would any distribution want to be successful? Some of you should really be ashamed of yourselves. IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
...because it sounds like his boss wasted a lot of money to send this guy to a 5-day seminar that he was not interested in going to or got anything out of. If I were his boss and came across his website, I'd have his desk cleared out tomorrow morning before he got in.
Honestly, people. Why are the majority of you afraid to stand up and say, "Hey, Microsoft may have actually come up with something that looks like it could do the job." Your bigotry against "the evil Microsoft" is more repelling than your fervor for an open-source world... IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
Stories like these always make me wonder if because we can be this connected, does it mean we should be this connected? Oh, how I long for the days of the tin-can telephone when I was a kid... IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
Slashdot Mirror
Whetherpeople will want to wear a device that shoots laser beams into their eyeballs remains to be seen. I laughed out loud at this...
To quote Linus: I'd rather listen to Newton than to Mundie. He may have been dead for almost three hundred years, but despite that he stinks up the room less.
This is a rather personal attack. I would concede that the rest of Linus' remarks were fine since he was responding to Microsoft's attitude towards open source development, but the last remark was at best childish. Stick with the issues. I don't believe Mundie/Microsoft made any such direct remarks about Linus...
You will see my email address above. Now, the question is why did you post anonymously?
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
You're right. I'll change it to the right one. Thank you for pointing that out.
I'm not against writing a rule to direct my mail. Anyone who complains about it should either
Again, I apologize for not practicing what I preach.
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
Even Outlook Express allows you to set up rules to direct incoming mail. And don't come back to me saying "But I shouldn't have to set up a filter to block unsolicited mail blah blah blah" because that's exactly what filters are for. And, all you *nix gearheads probably have mail programs with a lot better filtering capablities than OE. Use 'em.
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
You're obviously not among the majority of the regular public (which is okay). Face it, anyone can use Windows. And that's because MS spends big money on usability testing. They want their stuff to be easy because easy sells.
Open file formats are great and all, but do they make money? No. If you ask me, Microsoft is the best example of capitalism in the 20th century in that they find ways to make more money off of something they created. I'm not saying it's right. I just think that if you are going to be successful and you make a product like software, you need to be able to "discontinue" it at anytime and put something new out there. This makes money. After all, if lightbulb companies made lightbulbs that lasted forever, do you think that they would still be in business?
When you buy the software, you are buying a lot more than the binaries on a CD. You are buying the license, the file formats, the bugs, and the privilege of using the software. MS can make their own rules for their software. You are, in essence, buying into an agreement. It is up to you on how you live up to that agreement.
Debating over who's better is a fruitless venture (Word vs. KOffice, Konquer vs IE). However, saying that $129k would have bought lots of Linux is not true. Who would run it? Who would retrain your people? Where would you find someone with the skills to maintain it? These folks won't work for free. You could spend at least half of that $129k on one person to set up and maintain a Linux network for a year.
My $0.02
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
Try running Office, or VB or any other MS tool that most entities running Windows uses. Linux is not the answer all the time, especially if you can't run the tools that run your business (or government) on it. And don't try to tell me "you can convert to StarOffice, blah, blah, blah" because if you have thousands of documents to convert, you'll end up spending a lot of money. And, if those documents have macros embedded in them that are written in VBA, you're really into a dilly of a pickle.
Face it, Virginia Beach got caught with their pants down and they knew it. Rather than face up to illegally (sp?) using Windows and other MS stuff, they paid the fiddler and called it even. Rules are rules. The GPL has rules and MS licenses have rules. Whether you like them or not, if you don't follow them, you'll get smacked!
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
errr... No. I'm 28. And, no I'm no where near responsible for y2k (I just love COBOL--it rules).
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
I am a contract programmer who has had to carry the cell phone before. My client let me bill an additional 4 hours over the 2-week period I carried it. Plus, my company also gave me additional pay while I had it ($8/weekend day and $4/weekday). It isn't much more, but it was nice to get both the overtime and the extra from my company.
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
I have a very strong understanding about how free enterprise works. But, you're right. It's the perfect model for big profits.
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
Shouldn't this be how any non-Microsoft system should be touted--an alternative way to get things done? It seems that a lot of energy is spent here focusing on Microsoft's foibles rather than Linux/BSD/BeOS/'s strengths. Microsoft is constrained by the public and it's investors (and the government, blah blah blah). Linux (and I'm talking the kernel and the GNU set of tools, not any particular distribution) is not and that's why it can advance so much more quickly.
Rather than tearing something down (which, by the way, gains you no credibility whatsoever), forums such as ACE2K should be brought up as a way to show everyone that anything is possible. If done right, people realize that there are other (sometimes better) ways of doing things. Isn't that what we're all after?
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
Then, don't you think that if it was a misquote that you shouldn't be jumping all over RH? Honestly, CmdrTaco's views aren't always the only ones (even he has amended his comments to a post every now and then--we're all human, though).
They went a lot further than any other distro to get Linux out there. And they themselves were a derivative of another distro (Slackware). They were the sweetheart of the Open Source movement. Now, because they are taking some credit for their efforts, they are the pariah (a bit strong, but you understand my point).
My point is that success shouldn't have to be met with disdain from the community. We should all be thrilled that OS has come this far and RH deserves some of the credit. The article makes it sound like they are saying that they are taking all of the credit. But, were we not all told as children to not believe everything that we read? There's a lot of biased reporters out there that can make anyone sound like they said anything (see ESR's post above). Do not let the views of CmdrTaco (that is, his point of view of the article) become yours. Don't be a sheep.
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
Every time a software company (and let's not forget that is what Red Hat is) is successful, zealots (like some of you) start bitching and whining about it when they take a little credit for it. You sit there and say, "Ya know, the last two versions really did start to kind of suck. RH is turning into Microsoft. I'm gonna use Debian from now on. Blah, Blah, Blah."
Red Hat was the first distribution that was really marketed to the general public. It was the first exposure to Linux I and my friends had and that was because we saw it sitting on the shelf at an electronics store three or four years ago. It was this kind of marketing that put Red Hat (and Linux) out there. That is how you become successful; you put what you have out there for sale. If it weren't for this kind of marketing, Linux would not be as far as it is today.
Just a summer ago, everyone here was sporting their collective woodies over Red Hat's IPO and everyone jumped on board singing the RH song. RH in turn supplied its own resources and money into making Linux and the tools that came with the kernel better. Granted, the tools they made were in their own distribution, but it's not like you couldn't get those very tools for free from any ftp site. Now, because they've been so successful and are taking the credit for it, some of you are shunning them.
Face it, folks. Red Hat is in it for the good of the community, but they also know that there is money to be had. Who would've thought a company could get rich from selling free software? Red Hat brought to Linux something that it needed to really get off of the ground: a brand. Brands bring with it success. If success comes at the price of the masses turning against you, then why would any distribution want to be successful? Some of you should really be ashamed of yourselves.
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
Yay. Another deathmatch add-on. At least it's pretty to look at.
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
...because it sounds like his boss wasted a lot of money to send this guy to a 5-day seminar that he was not interested in going to or got anything out of. If I were his boss and came across his website, I'd have his desk cleared out tomorrow morning before he got in.
Honestly, people. Why are the majority of you afraid to stand up and say, "Hey, Microsoft may have actually come up with something that looks like it could do the job." Your bigotry against "the evil Microsoft" is more repelling than your fervor for an open-source world...
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
No one died during it's filming...
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
Stories like these always make me wonder if because we can be this connected, does it mean we should be this connected? Oh, how I long for the days of the tin-can telephone when I was a kid...
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.