You're not getting what I'm saying. I have a text file of comma delimited things (something that looks exactly like a.csv file) but is named something else (ie, an export from Oracle Financials). If I open a.tsv or whatever file in calc, it stupidly opens it in writer.
Also, if I remember correctly, opening an excel file, but one that has been renamed to say,.stupid-extension, would open the damned binary file in writer. That is stupid - Unix has had "file" for umpteenth years. Why couldn't OO.o take a quick peek before stupidly deciding to open everything in writer?
Speaking as someone who learnt to install Solaris 2.4 and Linux before learning to install DOS or Windows, and someone who grew up on AppleWorks (Apple II version), Wordstar and WordPerfect (VMS version), I had no problem using MS Word. What did you see as the necessary "magic" that exposure to MS Word gives you so that they know what to expect?
You have too much faith in NDAs. non-profit price lists of MS (and actually, quite a few other vendors too) software is widely available. In fact, there's a CDW type store for non-profits to buy MS licenses and other software. I used to have access to it.
There's actually a CD/DVD out there for this. I forgot the name, but it was even posted to/. once, a long time ago. All OSS software, quite a bit win32 based for windows users. But also some osx, etc/
I will give you that visio and photoshop is currently better than the oss solutions, but how the hell is office better than openoffice (subject to my criticisms posted else where)? And what the fuck are you smoking when you tell me outlook and exchange is better than an OSS solution? What is in outlook that you *must have*?
I have OO.o installed in both my work and home computers. But I use it infrequently. The slow start up doesn't help. The inability to open a file in calc, and not have it go to writer simply because it has a non-excel or non-calc 3 letter extension is stupid. If I'm opening a file in calc, at least be smart enough to open up a dialog box and ask me if I want to import a comma delimited file.
Some lesser criticisms - not able to read complicated MS Office files (embedded stuff, etc). I recognize this as a reason to move to an open format, but I have to live in the real world, unfortunately. And not opening powerpoint files properly is a big thing too.
Dude, MS Office sucks, but for the most part it only sucks when you start doing things beyond typing up a memo. Say, futzing around with tables and so on.
OO.o sucks in other ways. Part of it may be due to my perception since the StarOffice days (when it tried to take over your desktop - how freaking obnoxious). But definitely opening a word or excel file is far faster than doing it in OO.o. Additionally, if you open anything other than a "calc" or "excel" file, it'll open it in writer, instead of giving you a chance to say, import it into calc as a comma or some other delimited file.
And I have used quite a few word processors in my life: AppleWorks (the original Apple II version), WordStar, WordPerfect (DOS/VMS/others), Wordperfect 6.0 (Linux), etc etc. Does OO.o suck as much as some of the others? No. But is it as good as it can be? Not close.
Umm... is learning "MS-Word" that much of a skill? I wonder what all those word processing software did before MS came out with Word.
What you want to do is teach word processing techniques. Which, for someone who came out of any high school - competently, is a couple of hours of work, at most.
So, while the answer to your question is "no", the bigger question is - is it good for humanity to train the "children" to think in a more advanced way "word processing" than a more specific "MS-Word processing"? I say yes to that.
good and sneaky. I have to wonder though - is Microsoft ever going to catch on, and if they do, is there anything they can do about it, short of calling the bluff?
One more thing - recognize the shortcomings of OSS too. Not everything that's OSS is perfect. There are shitty OSS things too. For example, openoffice sucks, compared to MS Office. Be open about things.
Also look at external offerings. Why run your own mail server, when you can do google apps - I think it's free for non-profits and.edus. Gmail, and instantly, you just saved a bunch of money, and a bunch of work. Now those people can be put to working on other higher priority stuff.
You won't be able to win this with the money argument. Microsoft will swarm all over you, giving free stuff away. They have a fund just to give away free licenses to anyone who's even thinking about trying open source.
No, since you're a university, the way to approach this is to let the undergrads explore. Sell it as a learning experience. Why is OSS so popular nowadays? Maybe the University itself, as a place of learning, should offer this? Don't limit it to just OSS, bring up OSX as well, to be fair. Let the students explore.
Now, how to get everything work well together? Why, we depend on open standards of course! The entire Internet is built on open standards, RFCs and so on. All the software must be open interfaces (exchange has imap, for example, and AD has ldap). Keep doing this. Get in touch with the contracting office, and ask them to consider putting language in for their RFPs and RFIs to include "must work with appropriate open standards".
Obviously you're unable to relate two separate concepts together.
I'm showing an example where you have shitloads of finegrained stuff, and how it is a failure.
The OP's point here is that a fine grained ACL system (that was copied from VMS) is superior to UGO on unix. My point is that it is not. And I used an example from another part of the system showing that it is a pain to do it properly.
And actually, I took it a lot further than it should have been - ACLs are useful too. But really, implementing on UGO or ACL requires a lot of planning and thought up front.
You're aware the access controls of the Windows NT line is MORE fine grained than UNIX, right?
indicating that more fine grained controls via ACLs etc is better than the ugo model that standard unix uses.
I'm merely pointing out that this is a beyond stupid argument, since Microsoft often claims that the registry is far better than/etc config files, and we all know how fucked up the registry can be. Here's an article on why Microsoft thinks the registry is better than/etc config files: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/21/ms_paper_touts_unix/
And for the morons who keep harping on SELinux, you either have not implemented this in production, so, stfu, or you're paid too much to screw around on slashdot, so go troll somewhere else. For the rest of us, selinux is a damned pain in the ass, and no sane person touches it.
Woz was always my hero. I was just a pimply faced kid when I first discovered Apple IIs (or more correctly, Apple II compatibles, since I was from a 3rd world country). Then I started reading about what he did, and his designs and so on. And when AAPL went public, he gave away his own shares to people who helped Apple get off the ground. Very very nice, very down to earth guy, from what I read about him. IIRC, he wanted to sell the Apple Is for $200 or so, and Jobs wanted $2000, and they settled on $666.66.
I was so disappointed when he left Apple and quit working on the Apple II series - that was such a great computer, and ahead of its times.
So, what's a good energy efficient athlon setup? With dual core? and 64 bit?
I used to know both intel and amd cpus quite well, but it was years and years ago when things still made sense. Nowadays, I keep putting off buying something because I can't figure out what's what!
Let's turn to the main point, to whit Putin. He has ruthlessly and systematically concentrated power just as much as any Tzar, (to be fair, so have others - think Burlusconi, Chavez...)
What about Bush? OK, he hasn't been ruthless against his own citizens, only a subset of foreign citizens, but he has systematically concentrated power too.
If all I need is a netbook running linux (cheaper), or a newer computer, again, with linux, in order to hit the citrix backend, isn't this a net win for linux?
Redhat has always been a bunch of fuckers who included shit that was not production ready (gcc 2.96, glibc 2, etc), but in this case, it is *YOU* don't does not get it. FEDORA IS NOT FOR PRODUCTION. How many times did Redhat say that? FEDORA IS RELEASE TO TEST NEW THINGS OUT. How many times did Redhat say that as well?
If you want a production ready redhat that you're not willing to pay for, you know where to find centos, else, STFU. Just because you can't understand simple concepts doesn't mean that others failed at communicating.
You must be new to IT if you haven't learnt that "suitable for early adopting users" means "hey, come be our guinea pigs, if you dare". If you consider that to be suitable for end users, you must hate your end users a lot.
His point is that you have false expectations. Why should 1.0 have any specific meaning other than what the developers give it? People were using linux 0.92.x to run power stations. Were they wrong in doing it, in a production environment? No. You find the tool that best fits what you need, and use it.
openssl is at whatever version they are at, and they will keep making changes, and upping the version number. Same for anything else.
Linux kernel used to be even versioned for prod, and odd versioned for development/test. Linus decided to do away with that after more than 10 years of that. And so now prod and development/test are all in 2.6.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not getting what I'm saying. I have a text file of comma delimited things (something that looks exactly like a .csv file) but is named something else (ie, an export from Oracle Financials). If I open a .tsv or whatever file in calc, it stupidly opens it in writer.
Also, if I remember correctly, opening an excel file, but one that has been renamed to say, .stupid-extension, would open the damned binary file in writer. That is stupid - Unix has had "file" for umpteenth years. Why couldn't OO.o take a quick peek before stupidly deciding to open everything in writer?
Speaking as someone who learnt to install Solaris 2.4 and Linux before learning to install DOS or Windows, and someone who grew up on AppleWorks (Apple II version), Wordstar and WordPerfect (VMS version), I had no problem using MS Word. What did you see as the necessary "magic" that exposure to MS Word gives you so that they know what to expect?
You have too much faith in NDAs. non-profit price lists of MS (and actually, quite a few other vendors too) software is widely available. In fact, there's a CDW type store for non-profits to buy MS licenses and other software. I used to have access to it.
There's actually a CD/DVD out there for this. I forgot the name, but it was even posted to /. once, a long time ago. All OSS software, quite a bit win32 based for windows users. But also some osx, etc/
I will give you that visio and photoshop is currently better than the oss solutions, but how the hell is office better than openoffice (subject to my criticisms posted else where)? And what the fuck are you smoking when you tell me outlook and exchange is better than an OSS solution? What is in outlook that you *must have*?
I have OO.o installed in both my work and home computers. But I use it infrequently. The slow start up doesn't help. The inability to open a file in calc, and not have it go to writer simply because it has a non-excel or non-calc 3 letter extension is stupid. If I'm opening a file in calc, at least be smart enough to open up a dialog box and ask me if I want to import a comma delimited file.
Some lesser criticisms - not able to read complicated MS Office files (embedded stuff, etc). I recognize this as a reason to move to an open format, but I have to live in the real world, unfortunately. And not opening powerpoint files properly is a big thing too.
Dude, MS Office sucks, but for the most part it only sucks when you start doing things beyond typing up a memo. Say, futzing around with tables and so on.
OO.o sucks in other ways. Part of it may be due to my perception since the StarOffice days (when it tried to take over your desktop - how freaking obnoxious). But definitely opening a word or excel file is far faster than doing it in OO.o. Additionally, if you open anything other than a "calc" or "excel" file, it'll open it in writer, instead of giving you a chance to say, import it into calc as a comma or some other delimited file.
And I have used quite a few word processors in my life: AppleWorks (the original Apple II version), WordStar, WordPerfect (DOS/VMS/others), Wordperfect 6.0 (Linux), etc etc. Does OO.o suck as much as some of the others? No. But is it as good as it can be? Not close.
Note to Mods.
Sarcasm is NOT trolling. TYVM.
Umm... is learning "MS-Word" that much of a skill? I wonder what all those word processing software did before MS came out with Word.
What you want to do is teach word processing techniques. Which, for someone who came out of any high school - competently, is a couple of hours of work, at most.
So, while the answer to your question is "no", the bigger question is - is it good for humanity to train the "children" to think in a more advanced way "word processing" than a more specific "MS-Word processing"? I say yes to that.
good and sneaky. I have to wonder though - is Microsoft ever going to catch on, and if they do, is there anything they can do about it, short of calling the bluff?
One more thing - recognize the shortcomings of OSS too. Not everything that's OSS is perfect. There are shitty OSS things too. For example, openoffice sucks, compared to MS Office. Be open about things.
Also look at external offerings. Why run your own mail server, when you can do google apps - I think it's free for non-profits and .edus. Gmail, and instantly, you just saved a bunch of money, and a bunch of work. Now those people can be put to working on other higher priority stuff.
You won't be able to win this with the money argument. Microsoft will swarm all over you, giving free stuff away. They have a fund just to give away free licenses to anyone who's even thinking about trying open source.
No, since you're a university, the way to approach this is to let the undergrads explore. Sell it as a learning experience. Why is OSS so popular nowadays? Maybe the University itself, as a place of learning, should offer this? Don't limit it to just OSS, bring up OSX as well, to be fair. Let the students explore.
Now, how to get everything work well together? Why, we depend on open standards of course! The entire Internet is built on open standards, RFCs and so on. All the software must be open interfaces (exchange has imap, for example, and AD has ldap). Keep doing this. Get in touch with the contracting office, and ask them to consider putting language in for their RFPs and RFIs to include "must work with appropriate open standards".
Slowly, but surely, things will get better.
Obviously you're unable to relate two separate concepts together.
I'm showing an example where you have shitloads of finegrained stuff, and how it is a failure.
The OP's point here is that a fine grained ACL system (that was copied from VMS) is superior to UGO on unix. My point is that it is not. And I used an example from another part of the system showing that it is a pain to do it properly.
And actually, I took it a lot further than it should have been - ACLs are useful too. But really, implementing on UGO or ACL requires a lot of planning and thought up front.
OP said:
You're aware the access controls of the Windows NT line is MORE fine grained than UNIX, right?
indicating that more fine grained controls via ACLs etc is better than the ugo model that standard unix uses.
I'm merely pointing out that this is a beyond stupid argument, since Microsoft often claims that the registry is far better than /etc config files, and we all know how fucked up the registry can be. Here's an article on why Microsoft thinks the registry is better than /etc config files: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/21/ms_paper_touts_unix/
And for the morons who keep harping on SELinux, you either have not implemented this in production, so, stfu, or you're paid too much to screw around on slashdot, so go troll somewhere else. For the rest of us, selinux is a damned pain in the ass, and no sane person touches it.
Please check with the editor for current rates for astroturf articles.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA
More, and more and even more fine grained crap is better.... ahahahahahaha!
That's why the windows Registry is far superior to the config files in /etc/
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Woz was always my hero. I was just a pimply faced kid when I first discovered Apple IIs (or more correctly, Apple II compatibles, since I was from a 3rd world country). Then I started reading about what he did, and his designs and so on. And when AAPL went public, he gave away his own shares to people who helped Apple get off the ground. Very very nice, very down to earth guy, from what I read about him. IIRC, he wanted to sell the Apple Is for $200 or so, and Jobs wanted $2000, and they settled on $666.66.
I was so disappointed when he left Apple and quit working on the Apple II series - that was such a great computer, and ahead of its times.
So, what's a good energy efficient athlon setup? With dual core? and 64 bit?
I used to know both intel and amd cpus quite well, but it was years and years ago when things still made sense. Nowadays, I keep putting off buying something because I can't figure out what's what!
As pointed out below - we *ALREADY* GAVE THE PIGFUCKERS $200bil.
Let's turn to the main point, to whit Putin. He has ruthlessly and systematically concentrated power just as much as any Tzar, (to be fair, so have others - think Burlusconi, Chavez...)
What about Bush? OK, he hasn't been ruthless against his own citizens, only a subset of foreign citizens, but he has systematically concentrated power too.
If all I need is a netbook running linux (cheaper), or a newer computer, again, with linux, in order to hit the citrix backend, isn't this a net win for linux?
Redhat has always been a bunch of fuckers who included shit that was not production ready (gcc 2.96, glibc 2, etc), but in this case, it is *YOU* don't does not get it. FEDORA IS NOT FOR PRODUCTION. How many times did Redhat say that? FEDORA IS RELEASE TO TEST NEW THINGS OUT. How many times did Redhat say that as well?
If you want a production ready redhat that you're not willing to pay for, you know where to find centos, else, STFU. Just because you can't understand simple concepts doesn't mean that others failed at communicating.
No, but apparently you caught some trolls. /. is full of trolls moderators nowadays.
You must be new to IT if you haven't learnt that "suitable for early adopting users" means "hey, come be our guinea pigs, if you dare". If you consider that to be suitable for end users, you must hate your end users a lot.
His point is that you have false expectations. Why should 1.0 have any specific meaning other than what the developers give it? People were using linux 0.92.x to run power stations. Were they wrong in doing it, in a production environment? No. You find the tool that best fits what you need, and use it.
openssl is at whatever version they are at, and they will keep making changes, and upping the version number. Same for anything else.
Linux kernel used to be even versioned for prod, and odd versioned for development/test. Linus decided to do away with that after more than 10 years of that. And so now prod and development/test are all in 2.6.
And guess what. People adapted to it.