No it's not Sir William's, the one I'm referring to seems to have been sometime in early 1999. His seems to be mid 2000 (I'm going on dates reported on the BBC news site). Can't get into the NewScientist archives as I'm not a subscriber.
The blood-brain barrier one is more worrying as far as I can tell, though IANABP (bio-physicist:) )
No, I think you misunderstand. The phrase (and concept related to) "surf the web" is in the vocabulary of a large proportion of the general public. Your desire to discard it seems to be driven by elitism. When did nerd become synonymous with snob?
Amazing, isn't it? An article is posted about the latest Microsoft hole or the latest RIAA/MPAA engagement and the slashdot rabble section will harp on about how wonderful OSS is. Then an article extolling the benefits of OSS comes along that, more than likely, adds to the potential for global adoption of OSS. The result; the rabble section heaps mind-numbing stereotpyes upon the article killing useful discussion of the subject.
Any chance people could be vaguely consistent and get behind OSS for reasons other than elitism.
Yes, let's get rid of a phrase that the general public are happy using and understand what it implies. Then we replace it with some obscure, from their point of view, recursive acronym to satisfy your ego. Much as you might dislike the term it's now in common use and dismissing it solely because you think it is passe isn't a great reason.
This was the one that showed extended mobile phone usage could heat your brain fractionally? This being, in theory, a major issue for kids whose brains were still developing. I thought NewScientist released a study discounting this. Haven't got a link at the moment as my googling returned 404s on the likely leads.
Why would a country pump billions into another independent country, one where the interference wouldn't be welcomed, instead of ensuring the economic prosperity of its' own people?
Sounds interesting and I'm sure the quality of the music is good, however I'm not convinced that subscription based is the best. I prefer pay per song. But $10 isn't that bad...
Very good point. However, I do disagree. I think the difference between then (i.e. home computers leaving geekdom and entering the home) and now (Linux leaving geekdom and hitting the home desktop) is that home computing has become a consumer item, an entertainment machine. Home computers moved from being complicated setups to plug and play (in the sense of give the machine some power and off you go). Linux isn't at the stage where an average user can throw the CD and know everything is just going to work. I found RedHat 9 very close (that's all the Linux I've user for the past while) but did get tired of hunting down problems (I enjoyed it for awhile but other things became a priority). When people can just plug devices into a Linux box and have them just work then people won't care if they're running Linux or not.
I was going to mod you down but decided to reply instead. I really would like to take issue with Redhat has chosen to abandon its tens of thousands of box sales per year for a dozen "enterprise" contracts. Redhat was making way more selling cardboard boxes at Best Buy and Walmart, minus the cost of their bandwidth for free downloads, than they have ever made from 'enterprise linux.'
Please, back this up! I went over to the Investor Relations section of the Redhat site and had a look at the 2003 FY report. Please take a look at it for yourself. IANAA, however they seem to be doing much better in the Enterprise arena than in the Retail arena. N.B. As per their conventions I'm going to quote numbers in thousands. They declare revenue as derived from either Subscription or Services. For FY 2003; Enterprise Subscriptions + Services = 68,960(30,438 + 38,522 respectively)
Retail Subscriptions (No Services) = 14,833
Now split the cost of subscriptions 2/1 between Enterprise & Retail (Total: 8,625) and then take cost of servies into account. N.B. Subscription costs split is best guess assuming the subscriptions costs are distributed in proportion to revenue. Costs are:
Enterprise: 24,288
Retail: 2,846
Net position is:
Enterprise: 44,672
Retail: 11,987
Then take a look at the trends over the three financial years and the money is in enterprise not retail, especially looking to the future. Redhat is a business and has to look to the market.
However, others have raised the issue of the effect that the Redhat move will have on perception in the marketplace. That remains to be seen but I would think that Redhat has a sufficiently strong image in the Enterprise market to cut loose the free offering from the core business. Continuing to work on Fedora should sustain sufficient goodwill, where the money is.
While there may be a lot of x86 boxes out there, the PPC is a decent chip installed in quite a few boxes, other than Apple boxen. Getting a solid OS (NetBSD) with widespread compatibility (across various areas) may spur on take-up of the PPC platform. It's not going to appeal to all x86 users but there are likely some who would want to switch to PPC.
It's all about the feel-good factor. I've seen the way MS operate and everything is done with a marketing spin. Give an IT Manager, like any other manager, something they can take to their manager (non-techie) that sounds good and keeps them happy and they will stay with you.
That's better, your original post suggested that just about anyone could gain citizenship of Ireland. There is a very simple reason for the Irish government adopting a policy similar to what you outlined. A large number of people left Ireland when they wouldn't necessarily have chosen to do so. This gives them something along the lines of a 'right of return'.
Perhaps you should read the article and then think through what they are actually saying. They are not arguing against OSS, they are arguing against the new, inflexible, policy that allows only OSS.
They argue that the costs may increase because of the change in skillset required to manage an entirely OSS based solution. They want the procurement policy to choose the best job for the task based on all factors, not just OSS versus proprietary. In addition they criticise the methods of their local government.
None of this is M$ FUD, it's simply a non-partisan, non-profit lobbying group asking government to behave in a transparent and equitable manner.
Now turning to your post.
How many companies can provide the Windows set of "solutions": 1.
How many companies can provide OSS solutions? many. And new entrants have very low barriers of entry to try to do so if they feel so inclined.
Let's compare like with like here:
How many companies can provide the operating system? Windows 1, OSS many
How many companies can provide a solution based on a particular OS, or a combination?
Windows many, OSS many.
Why is this difference important? Simple, there are many IT companies who can provide the required solution and quality of service. However, those who base it on Windows have been automatically excluded. Not a monopoly but it's still anti-competitive.
Send them the documented cases and maybe they will see the benefit of OSS. However, that still doesn't change their core argument; the new procurement policy is biased and poorly thought out.
I'm not some M$ apologist, I just believe that the best practices to find the best solution should be used.
I'd be more worried about people with no concept of past, present or future; "next time I should have". Maybe he was being hired as a programmer for the Matrix, though.
Slashdot Mirror
No it's not Sir William's, the one I'm referring to seems to have been sometime in early 1999. His seems to be mid 2000 (I'm going on dates reported on the BBC news site). Can't get into the NewScientist archives as I'm not a subscriber.
:) )
The blood-brain barrier one is more worrying as far as I can tell, though IANABP (bio-physicist
Concise and decisive at least.. :)
No, I think you misunderstand. The phrase (and concept related to) "surf the web" is in the vocabulary of a large proportion of the general public. Your desire to discard it seems to be driven by elitism. When did nerd become synonymous with snob?
Amazing, isn't it? An article is posted about the latest Microsoft hole or the latest RIAA/MPAA engagement and the slashdot rabble section will harp on about how wonderful OSS is. Then an article extolling the benefits of OSS comes along that, more than likely, adds to the potential for global adoption of OSS. The result; the rabble section heaps mind-numbing stereotpyes upon the article killing useful discussion of the subject.
Any chance people could be vaguely consistent and get behind OSS for reasons other than elitism.
Yes, let's get rid of a phrase that the general public are happy using and understand what it implies. Then we replace it with some obscure, from their point of view, recursive acronym to satisfy your ego. Much as you might dislike the term it's now in common use and dismissing it solely because you think it is passe isn't a great reason.
.. at least you corrected yourself ;)
This was the one that showed extended mobile phone usage could heat your brain fractionally? This being, in theory, a major issue for kids whose brains were still developing. I thought NewScientist released a study discounting this. Haven't got a link at the moment as my googling returned 404s on the likely leads.
.... how on earth will they co-ordinate a bunch of curry munchers who can't speak english hardly at all?
One would do well to proofread criticism of linguistic ability before posting it.
You must live in one of the areas with low internet penetration ... I've had the shit kicked out of me several times just for my /. password
Why would a country pump billions into another independent country, one where the interference wouldn't be welcomed, instead of ensuring the economic prosperity of its' own people?
Sounds interesting and I'm sure the quality of the music is good, however I'm not convinced that subscription based is the best. I prefer pay per song. But $10 isn't that bad ...
Very good point. However, I do disagree. I think the difference between then (i.e. home computers leaving geekdom and entering the home) and now (Linux leaving geekdom and hitting the home desktop) is that home computing has become a consumer item, an entertainment machine. Home computers moved from being complicated setups to plug and play (in the sense of give the machine some power and off you go). Linux isn't at the stage where an average user can throw the CD and know everything is just going to work. I found RedHat 9 very close (that's all the Linux I've user for the past while) but did get tired of hunting down problems (I enjoyed it for awhile but other things became a priority). When people can just plug devices into a Linux box and have them just work then people won't care if they're running Linux or not.
This was in response to 'ahdeoz' however /. seems to have screwed up the posting level while I spent a rather long time composing my post, above.
I was going to mod you down but decided to reply instead. I really would like to take issue with
Redhat has chosen to abandon its tens of thousands of box sales per year for a dozen "enterprise" contracts. Redhat was making way more selling cardboard boxes at Best Buy and Walmart, minus the cost of their bandwidth for free downloads, than they have ever made from 'enterprise linux.'
Please, back this up! I went over to the Investor Relations section of the Redhat site and had a look at the 2003 FY report. Please take a look at it for yourself. IANAA, however they seem to be doing much better in the Enterprise arena than in the Retail arena. N.B. As per their conventions I'm going to quote numbers in thousands.
They declare revenue as derived from either Subscription or Services. For FY 2003;
Enterprise Subscriptions + Services = 68,960(30,438 + 38,522 respectively)
Retail Subscriptions (No Services) = 14,833
Now split the cost of subscriptions 2/1 between Enterprise & Retail (Total: 8,625) and then take cost of servies into account. N.B. Subscription costs split is best guess assuming the subscriptions costs are distributed in proportion to revenue.
Costs are:
Enterprise: 24,288
Retail: 2,846
Net position is:
Enterprise: 44,672
Retail: 11,987
Then take a look at the trends over the three financial years and the money is in enterprise not retail, especially looking to the future. Redhat is a business and has to look to the market.
However, others have raised the issue of the effect that the Redhat move will have on perception in the marketplace. That remains to be seen but I would think that Redhat has a sufficiently strong image in the Enterprise market to cut loose the free offering from the core business. Continuing to work on Fedora should sustain sufficient goodwill, where the money is.
While there may be a lot of x86 boxes out there, the PPC is a decent chip installed in quite a few boxes, other than Apple boxen. Getting a solid OS (NetBSD) with widespread compatibility (across various areas) may spur on take-up of the PPC platform. It's not going to appeal to all x86 users but there are likely some who would want to switch to PPC.
10.2.8 did that to my powerbook, among other nasty things. Panther has been a joy for me thus far.
Wrong on both counts. Congratulations.
And then when she gives you a dollar, so you can go to the store and buy some candy for yourself, you run all the way there
It's all about the feel-good factor. I've seen the way MS operate and everything is done with a marketing spin. Give an IT Manager, like any other manager, something they can take to their manager (non-techie) that sounds good and keeps them happy and they will stay with you.
Damn, my mod points expired a few hours ago :)
That's better, your original post suggested that just about anyone could gain citizenship of Ireland. There is a very simple reason for the Irish government adopting a policy similar to what you outlined. A large number of people left Ireland when they wouldn't necessarily have chosen to do so. This gives them something along the lines of a 'right of return'.
Perhaps you should read the article and then think through what they are actually saying. They are not arguing against OSS, they are arguing against the new, inflexible, policy that allows only OSS.
They argue that the costs may increase because of the change in skillset required to manage an entirely OSS based solution. They want the procurement policy to choose the best job for the task based on all factors, not just OSS versus proprietary. In addition they criticise the methods of their local government.
None of this is M$ FUD, it's simply a non-partisan, non-profit lobbying group asking government to behave in a transparent and equitable manner.
Now turning to your post.
How many companies can provide the Windows set of "solutions": 1.
How many companies can provide OSS solutions? many. And new entrants have very low barriers of entry to try to do so if they feel so inclined.
Let's compare like with like here:
How many companies can provide the operating system?
Windows 1, OSS many
How many companies can provide a solution based on a particular OS, or a combination?
Windows many, OSS many.
Why is this difference important? Simple, there are many IT companies who can provide the required solution and quality of service. However, those who base it on Windows have been automatically excluded. Not a monopoly but it's still anti-competitive.
Send them the documented cases and maybe they will see the benefit of OSS. However, that still doesn't change their core argument; the new procurement policy is biased and poorly thought out.
I'm not some M$ apologist, I just believe that the best practices to find the best solution should be used.
I'd be more worried about people with no concept of past, present or future; "next time I should have". Maybe he was being hired as a programmer for the Matrix, though.
Don't worry, people will just assume it's American English :)
Perhaps you would like to explain: "Gain EU Citizenship through the liberal citizenry laws in the Republic of Ireland."
I think there are quite a few people who would disagree with you on that one.