Influential senior IT staff with a vested interest in keeping MS in the server room
If "senior IT staff" and their skillsets are so influential, how did MS get in the server room in the first place? MS servers are still a very new concept in the big picture.
I agree it would have to be a sufficiently big and painful bug to commit time to its resolution, but my real point is that with commercial software, you don't even have that option. To summarize, your options are:
Commercial software bug:
Wait for a fix that may or may not ever happen
OSS software:
Wait for a fix that may or may not ever happen
Fix it yourself, pay someone to fix it, etc.
See the difference?
And this applies to many areas, not just office suites. For example, if you find a bug in MS SQL Server or Oracle (yes, this does happen), all you can do is report it to the vendor and await a fix. If you find a bug in PostgreSQL, you can start a dialog with the core developers, and if they're not moving fast enough, you can do something about it yourself. And this could very well be close to your "core business".
Of course, if there's a bug that really hurts, and you have a competent IT staff (or even just one good programmer), you can fix it yourself. This advantage of OSS isn't stated often enough.
As an aside, the idea that this film is being re-released as "an alternative to the hype" of the Passion of Christ smacks of immaturity.
The Passion of the Christ thrives now due to a massive hype campaign. Mel essentially grabbed up a bunch of cheap unknowns, make this movie in Latin and Aramaic to give it an air of authenticity, added lots of gore to give it controversy, and cranked up an enormous hype machine which has allowed him to milk it for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars. Religious profiteering at its worst.
Rereleasing The Life of Brian, a masterpiece of satire of organized religion, is perfectly appropriate.
If you truly didn't care, you'd be apathetic about the whole thing . . . not reiterating the fact that you don't watch it.
I don't eat okra, because I don't like it. However, this is the first time I've ever told anyone outside of my family that fact, because (say it with me now) NO ONE GIVES a SHIT.
I'll bet most people only know how to use a microwave to 1/10 of its designed capability. And even then I suspect people don't use the features correctly.
The point you miss: those same people are perfectly happy with this state of affairs, and are not AT ALL interested in learning how to use the other features.
The idea of requiring a license to operate a computer is absurd. The solution is simple: companies that promote their products as being "for dummies" need to build them so that those same dummies can't break them/the Internet by trying to use them.
Do you believe Howard Stern should also be legally permitted to waggle his genitals in the face of a small child on the subway? Assuming your answer is no, that's just another degree of "legislation of morality".
The line will be drawn somewhere. Obscenity/profanity is an enormous gray area, not just a black and white "legislation of morality" issue. Jeez.
What if my software, downloaded with no warranty from Gnutella, displayed the weather conditions in Kenya?
If the file was being distributed as Kenya_Weather_Displayer.exe, I'm sure no one would have a problem with that.
Of course, no one would have downloaded your file if it were called "Bad_Bad_Software_Pirate_Rebuker.exe", hence you had to use the filename to lie about its function. You're attempting the "two wrongs make a right" ethical argument, which is pretty juvenile.
Slashdot Mirror
If "senior IT staff" and their skillsets are so influential, how did MS get in the server room in the first place? MS servers are still a very new concept in the big picture.
Right, that's what corporations are for.
I don't think Prothon counts as a "word".
Commercial software bug:
OSS software:
See the difference?
And this applies to many areas, not just office suites. For example, if you find a bug in MS SQL Server or Oracle (yes, this does happen), all you can do is report it to the vendor and await a fix. If you find a bug in PostgreSQL, you can start a dialog with the core developers, and if they're not moving fast enough, you can do something about it yourself. And this could very well be close to your "core business".
And how is this worse than simply waiting for Microsoft to push a fix that may or may not come in a future version? With OSS you have both options.
More like MS is running full-speed in the other direction.
Done and done. It works fine. Thanks for the FUD.
Of course, if there's a bug that really hurts, and you have a competent IT staff (or even just one good programmer), you can fix it yourself. This advantage of OSS isn't stated often enough.
If he did it, then yes.
So three hand-picked examples constitute proof of a trend. Glad to see the Libertarian line of thinking hasn't changed.
The Passion of the Christ thrives now due to a massive hype campaign. Mel essentially grabbed up a bunch of cheap unknowns, make this movie in Latin and Aramaic to give it an air of authenticity, added lots of gore to give it controversy, and cranked up an enormous hype machine which has allowed him to milk it for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars. Religious profiteering at its worst.
Rereleasing The Life of Brian, a masterpiece of satire of organized religion, is perfectly appropriate.
I don't eat okra, because I don't like it. However, this is the first time I've ever told anyone outside of my family that fact, because (say it with me now) NO ONE GIVES a SHIT.
ha, nice reference
No they don't. NO ONE GIVES a SHIT.
I think he meant "deceased", which is what will happen to your boot process if you muck with your BIOS uncarefully.
And the lawyers take $3000 from each of you. Who wins?
Don't you mean one polar ice cap would melt away, and the other would expand to cover half the planet?
It passes the Zawinski's Law test . . .
The point you miss: those same people are perfectly happy with this state of affairs, and are not AT ALL interested in learning how to use the other features.
The idea of requiring a license to operate a computer is absurd. The solution is simple: companies that promote their products as being "for dummies" need to build them so that those same dummies can't break them/the Internet by trying to use them.
You can prob'ly use the Linux port of Qtopia Desktop. It works swimmingly with the Zaurus.
This was, of all the responses to my post, the most insightful.
The line will be drawn somewhere. Obscenity/profanity is an enormous gray area, not just a black and white "legislation of morality" issue. Jeez.
That wasn't a denial.
If the file was being distributed as Kenya_Weather_Displayer.exe, I'm sure no one would have a problem with that.
Of course, no one would have downloaded your file if it were called "Bad_Bad_Software_Pirate_Rebuker.exe", hence you had to use the filename to lie about its function. You're attempting the "two wrongs make a right" ethical argument, which is pretty juvenile.
"Mislabeled" is not the same as "intentionally falsely labeled".