"The people who were most shocked by this were those of us at Red Hat, because there were 23 of us, including the receptionist, in the tobacco fields of North Carolina at the time. And Microsoft had put a billion dollars into NT, and they'd started the project three years before Red Hat was even formed, and the best they could do was to tie us for the damn award. Who rewrote the laws of economics?
"
23 of them. SO???? They are taking credit for code other people wrote!!!
The more successful you are, the less offsprings
you'll have! That is working completely against evolution.
Here I was using "successful" to mean socially successfully. Social success is itself hard to define, but for the sake of this argument, take it as wealth and education level.
The more socially successful you are, the less evolutionary success you will have. So, yes we are still evolving, but in the "wrong" direction.
While I haven't actually read the article, I've thought about this question before and I too believe human evolution is over. Or to be more precise, evolution for the better is over.
The mechanism of evolution, natural selection, no longer work on the human population. You no longer have to count on good genes to ensure lots of offsprings. In fact, there is a universal phenomenum where the likely number of offsprings you have is inversely proportional to your level of education.
The more successful you are, the less offsprings you'll have! That is working completely against evolution.
From a more physical point of view, with modern medicine, you can have otherwise crippling hereditary problems and still live to adulthood and have children. This works against evolution too.
Before people start flaming me, I just want to say that I'm not suggesting we should let people with treatable genetic diseases die instead, or that we should not allow them to have offsprings! I'm merely stating that these things work against evolution and that is why I believe human evolution is over.
Take myself for example. I was brought into this world by c-section. There was no way my mother who weighed under 100 lbs before she got pregnant could have delivered a 10-lb baby naturally. Thanks to modern medicine, my mother and I survived. My mother had my sister 4 years later, also with assistance (vacuum). Now the chances that I'll give my wife a big baby maybe higher than normal. There, an example of a bad physical trait that survived due to technology.
The question is, do you know who you're supporting?
Who are the people who did the hard work? Linus wrote the kernel, and a whole bunch of other folks built the gnu stuffs and other software that comes with your distribution.
You're not paying them. Instead you're paying the Redhats and the Mandrakes. Why? I can understand if you're buying service from them. But what have they done to give a free operating system an extra $79.95 in value?
I have to agree with the original poster that people paying for Linux (and not getting support in return) are retarded.
I enjoy reading slashdot but posters like you make me go, "Ugh! I'm reading the same site as this idiot?"
Sun's not a leader in the OS dept? What the hell are you talking about? Solaris and the SPARC architecture are the two biggest assets Sun has and serving Sun really well. Just take a look at Sun's stock.
Sun's not afraid of Linux. Why should it? Linux is good for Solaris! It creates more Unix-savy users and developers. And the open source projects are creating tons of apps that also runs on Solaris. Suddenly, Solaris is not only good for servers, there're also good on the desk.
Linux can't touch Sun when it comes to high-end servers. What Linux takes away is the low-end stuff. So it's more of a competitor for MS than Sun. And when a Linux shop grows, it's easy to move to Solaris.
Do you actually know someone in this situation or are you hypothesizing? I know many people on H-1B working in the Bay Area. One of them is myself. And I certainly don't agree with your observation or hypothesis.
Sure, I whine about being a "slave" sometimes, but who doesn't? What you said about that visa is true -- they are tied to your employer and you have to get a new one when you switch jobs. It is an inconvenience, but isn't that big of a deal because if you're any good, you'd find a job in the Bay Area in a second. I've switched jobs once so far and I'm considering moving on again. When I put my resume up on hotjobs.com a couple weeks back, I got 8 calls on the first day.
Try treating me "like crap" and I'll be gone in a blink, I don't have to "take it" as you put it.
Most countries in the world try hard to attract talents and work hard to prevent brain-drains. America is blessed with reverse brain-drains and people here are complaining. That is very odd, don't you think? Up until high school, I attended public schools in my home country. The taxpayers in my homeland paid for my education while the US economy benifits from it, and you're complaning?
Slashdot Mirror
23 of them. SO???? They are taking credit for code other people wrote!!!
Here I was using "successful" to mean socially successfully. Social success is itself hard to define, but for the sake of this argument, take it as wealth and education level.
The more socially successful you are, the less evolutionary success you will have. So, yes we are still evolving, but in the "wrong" direction.
While I haven't actually read the article, I've thought about this question before and I too believe human evolution is over. Or to be more precise, evolution for the better is over.
The mechanism of evolution, natural selection, no longer work on the human population. You no longer have to count on good genes to ensure lots of offsprings. In fact, there is a universal phenomenum where the likely number of offsprings you have is inversely proportional to your level of education.
The more successful you are, the less offsprings you'll have! That is working completely against evolution.
From a more physical point of view, with modern medicine, you can have otherwise crippling hereditary problems and still live to adulthood and have children. This works against evolution too.
Before people start flaming me, I just want to say that I'm not suggesting we should let people with treatable genetic diseases die instead, or that we should not allow them to have offsprings! I'm merely stating that these things work against evolution and that is why I believe human evolution is over.
Take myself for example. I was brought into this world by c-section. There was no way my mother who weighed under 100 lbs before she got pregnant could have delivered a 10-lb baby naturally. Thanks to modern medicine, my mother and I survived. My mother had my sister 4 years later, also with assistance (vacuum). Now the chances that I'll give my wife a big baby maybe higher than normal. There, an example of a bad physical trait that survived due to technology.
> Reminded me of Solaris in performance,
That is a funny assertion. OS X running on WHAT reminds you of Solaris running on WHAT?
JWD with the modem,
You need to get broadband or some friends (with broadband and cd burner)
The question is, do you know who you're supporting? Who are the people who did the hard work? Linus wrote the kernel, and a whole bunch of other folks built the gnu stuffs and other software that comes with your distribution. You're not paying them. Instead you're paying the Redhats and the Mandrakes. Why? I can understand if you're buying service from them. But what have they done to give a free operating system an extra $79.95 in value? I have to agree with the original poster that people paying for Linux (and not getting support in return) are retarded.
and you are stupid. Oh, do I need to justify that statement? You didn't justify yours either.
I enjoy reading slashdot but posters like you make me go, "Ugh! I'm reading the same site as this idiot?"
Sun's not a leader in the OS dept? What the hell are you talking about? Solaris and the SPARC architecture are the two biggest assets Sun has and serving Sun really well. Just take a look at Sun's stock.
Sun's not afraid of Linux. Why should it? Linux is good for Solaris! It creates more Unix-savy users and developers. And the open source projects are creating tons of apps that also runs on Solaris. Suddenly, Solaris is not only good for servers, there're also good on the desk.
Linux can't touch Sun when it comes to high-end servers. What Linux takes away is the low-end stuff. So it's more of a competitor for MS than Sun. And when a Linux shop grows, it's easy to move to Solaris.
Do you actually know someone in this situation or are you hypothesizing? I know many people on H-1B working in the Bay Area. One of them is myself. And I certainly don't agree with your observation or hypothesis. Sure, I whine about being a "slave" sometimes, but who doesn't? What you said about that visa is true -- they are tied to your employer and you have to get a new one when you switch jobs. It is an inconvenience, but isn't that big of a deal because if you're any good, you'd find a job in the Bay Area in a second. I've switched jobs once so far and I'm considering moving on again. When I put my resume up on hotjobs.com a couple weeks back, I got 8 calls on the first day. Try treating me "like crap" and I'll be gone in a blink, I don't have to "take it" as you put it. Most countries in the world try hard to attract talents and work hard to prevent brain-drains. America is blessed with reverse brain-drains and people here are complaining. That is very odd, don't you think? Up until high school, I attended public schools in my home country. The taxpayers in my homeland paid for my education while the US economy benifits from it, and you're complaning?