Evolution does have an openchange based plugin; I'm not sure what timeframe it will be stable in. This is part of the point of openchange: write a library to handle extended MAPI, and let all the different software clients use it.
The difference is that while Extended MAPI is Microsoft invented, it's widely deployed enough that changing it would break stuff they wrote. And I doubt they have the capacity to intentionally break MAPI.
You know, some days I wonder if maybe this is a good thing. Techies always get pulled in as the free tech support guy. Using/claiming to use Linux may bring the benefit of that negative PR. Imagine never doing family phone support again!
So, rather than sitting around bitching about how teachers don't know the material they are teaching, why not do something about it?
It's not much, but I've tried. A young coed was taking a course on LOGO, as part a "computers" emphasis for her teaching degree. While I can say I learned more about why LOGO can be a good educational language than I did when I was taught LOGO so many years ago, it became clear that there's a fundamental problem.
Many educators are dead certain that a good teacher can teach anything without having a deep understanding of the subject. So they prefer to focus on teaching their students not the wide range of programming, but how to present a the few core concepts the class presents. My alma mater's introductory programming course is not particularly hard. This would be a suitable class to give teachers at least familiarity with the act of programming and the components of a program, and in fact it does satisfy requirements. But education advisors suggest their students stay away from that course unless they already took the course and changed major later, because their graduate level course is easier.
LOGO is great, but unless you have seen another programming language, it's hard to understand just what LOGO is making concrete, and that recursion is important enough that you should teach it, even if it means having to teach inductive proofs. Oh, did I just mention math? IT BURNS!
Is it ethical to dope your product with addictive substances? What if it's publicly known to be addictive? People aren't completely rational. They're creatures of habit, and only examine whether it makes sense occasionally.
How does teacher training fit into your plans? Do teachers generally know what to do with what you've given them, or is there an ongoing training plan?
I've got a laptop behind me that dual boots jaunty/vista/intrepid. I don't have hardy available, but here's the steps in jaunty:
Click on the icon. Select your network. Don't even have to right click anymore (this might be a change that confuses existing users). Additionally, you can store connection settings system-wide to connect on startup rather than login.
the third couldn't tell me what "static" meant as a C keyword
To be fair, it means about a billion different things in context. You might argue that H1-B holders should be of high enough caliber to know all this, but that would of course be at odds with the "cheap body count" idea.
If your problem with H1-B is human rights, then why not drop the H1-B program and raise the general visa quota accordingly? Otherwise, they can just return to their home country, of which they're still loyal citizens. I wouldn't expect a European country to be incredibly lenient if I was a contractor there. I'm there for a specific job, and when it's over, so's my stay.
Granted, returning to America is different than returning to Pakistan or India or whatever war-torn nation these highly educated workers hail from. But there's no reason to integrate humanitarian compassion with mercenary business except to exploit compassion for business's sake.
The question though, is whether course notes are derivative works, and how the syllabus outlines copyright. I've had a couple classes with crazy disclaimers, mainly of the "don't sell your notes" variety.
I'd argue they're okay under fair use. And file suit against the school for destruction of property. If they're public, there's also constitutionality involved. But I'd be willing to settle for handwritten notes from the instructor in question.
Wasn't Sun in trouble a few months ago, where their market cap was less than book value? I.e. the market was sure Sun was going to waste whatever resources they had.
FOSS, and "volunteer" software doesn't need market research you say?
I searched my post over and over, but I don't see where I said that. What I did say is that Canonical doesn't need it, or perhaps I should have said it's the entire company's job, not just a title within a larger firm.
Market research is about speculating what can be built, who would want it and how bad they want it. The business of software consulting is about people coming to you and paying you to do some specific thing. "We need Ubuntu built for ARM (or Atom)" etc. Canonical was paid to do this. They hire people who know how to sort out GCC build issues, grab some hardware to build on and run wild.
But this is the challenge: convincing volunteer developers that they need to write software for someone other than themselves. This is a hell of a tough sell. You're better off employing them or maybe finding someone who wants it and can write it. An example: there's a lot of open software for electrical engineering but it gets no attention in Debian/Ubuntu. There are a few EEs that can write software, and some that do; but the majority use PSPICE in class and labs. They might be a small market, but I think having more of them on board will have substantial snowball effects.
Similarly, Eclipse in Ubuntu is currently under maintained. Same with MonoDevelop. I get the impression that most of the current developers use emacs/vi, and ignore the large number of developers more comfortable with IDEs like VisualStudio. The question is, why would an emacs user volunteer to fix Eclipse over their own personal pet peeves?
Of course money talks. Shuttleworth hired a hell of a lot of competent developers to make Ubuntu shine from the very start. Anyone who thinks success doesn't need funding is stupid and should be ignored.
What's far more interesting is that Ubuntu was started by a billionaire who managed to hire damn near the everyone who ever served on the Debian Technical Board, and knew why it was important. In contrast, Michael Robertson took the same Debian base and shat out "Lindows", who's primary contribution was to charge money for Free Software.
It's possible for a vendor to create a.deb, and to even host it in an apt repo. The challenge is:
a) preventing mass piracy,
b) adding the repo on user machines
c) keeping up with the 6month release schedule.
One of Canonical's services is to charge such organizations for hosting on launchpad; the commercial repo hosts a number of closed software packages, bundled and tested on their schedule. It doesn't solve a), but I think it's a losing scenario anyways.
Alternatively, you could right-click on the network manager icon and choose "Connection Information." I have to say, Network-Manager's UI is just about universally better than what I've seen from Windows.
I'm pretty sure you can be charged. Unless Affirmative Defense means something I don't know. A minor distinction, to be sure. More importantly, the US law requires the defendant to be "knowingly" in possession, if I recall.
The lack of option to reject is interesting, but my non-lawyerly reading of the law suggests there's an affirmative defense for the situation they failed to employ. All you have to do is report the incident to the law, who I'm sure will be super duper nice about it and not try to charge you or anything anyways. The more I think about it, the whole law is busted on it's face. Somehow, we've taken self-incrimination and made it mandatory.
And no, the correct answer is not "use gimp" or "use openoffice" or "don't buy ipods". If you want to sell linux, you need to offer them something that meets the customer's needs.
Nobody wants to sell Linux. The fact that none of the marketing types understand that is why nobody listens to them.
Marketing has two meanings to people in open source.
The first is "advertising". Advertising is great, anyone can volunteer to do it. People donate to buy ads, create them, and do crazy grassroots activities like chalking a Firefox logo in the campus quad. Of course, it's crazy expensive to buy an ad in the NYTimes, or put the Tux logo on a race car.
The second meaning is "market research", and frankly, that's insane. Ubuntu is free of charge, as is Debian and a zillion others. Market research in corporations are used to direct investment. I.e. telling engineers what to do. This is not compatible with volunteerism. Sure Canonical employs engineers and tells them what to do, but the way they make money is basically through consulting. I know tons of software consultants; none of them need market research because they already have a market paying their bills. Open source basically operates sans market research, on the theory that the people who know exactly what they want are best able to make it happen ("scratching an itch").
If you happen to disagree, great. But you'll have to take a guerrilla approach. I've observed the Ubuntu marketing project for a while and the thing basically falls apart from two basic conflicts: confusion over whether marketing is "research to direct effort" or "advertising," and a fundamental lack of engagement with the people who's efforts to be directed. Dodging the first problem is simple and just takes motivation and a little leadership. The second problem is much harder; a lot of people with marketing experience don't correctly understand how Linux and OSS differs from their own experiences in the corporate world.
This isn't a broken window fallacy. It's an attempt to reduce the negative externalities of pollution without placing excessive burden on the poor. For whatever reasons, voters seem more comfortable with inflation than raising the gas taxes.
The cost of power in manufacturing aspect is an interesting, but comparing it to gasoline is disingenuous. We have plenty of other ways to generate electricity than burning gasoline. Nuclear, solar, wind and hydro, for example. If you want to make a point about the environment, do it in terms of tons of CO2 generated by the likely mixture of power generation to make that new car.
But you also don't run popcon on servers either. Popcon stats are not a random sample of users; unfortunately I have no idea how popcon varies from an ideal sample.
Slashdot Mirror
Evolution does have an openchange based plugin; I'm not sure what timeframe it will be stable in. This is part of the point of openchange: write a library to handle extended MAPI, and let all the different software clients use it.
The difference is that while Extended MAPI is Microsoft invented, it's widely deployed enough that changing it would break stuff they wrote. And I doubt they have the capacity to intentionally break MAPI.
You know, some days I wonder if maybe this is a good thing. Techies always get pulled in as the free tech support guy. Using/claiming to use Linux may bring the benefit of that negative PR. Imagine never doing family phone support again!
So, rather than sitting around bitching about how teachers don't know the material they are teaching, why not do something about it?
It's not much, but I've tried. A young coed was taking a course on LOGO, as part a "computers" emphasis for her teaching degree. While I can say I learned more about why LOGO can be a good educational language than I did when I was taught LOGO so many years ago, it became clear that there's a fundamental problem.
Many educators are dead certain that a good teacher can teach anything without having a deep understanding of the subject. So they prefer to focus on teaching their students not the wide range of programming, but how to present a the few core concepts the class presents. My alma mater's introductory programming course is not particularly hard. This would be a suitable class to give teachers at least familiarity with the act of programming and the components of a program, and in fact it does satisfy requirements. But education advisors suggest their students stay away from that course unless they already took the course and changed major later, because their graduate level course is easier.
LOGO is great, but unless you have seen another programming language, it's hard to understand just what LOGO is making concrete, and that recursion is important enough that you should teach it, even if it means having to teach inductive proofs. Oh, did I just mention math? IT BURNS!
Is it ethical then, to have trade secrets in things you sell?
You've missed part of the question:
Is it ethical to dope your product with addictive substances? What if it's publicly known to be addictive? People aren't completely rational. They're creatures of habit, and only examine whether it makes sense occasionally.
Networks are more of a Clint Eastwood Western than a John Wayne Western. A group of thugs fighting over who gets to rob the town.
How does teacher training fit into your plans? Do teachers generally know what to do with what you've given them, or is there an ongoing training plan?
I've got a laptop behind me that dual boots jaunty/vista/intrepid. I don't have hardy available, but here's the steps in jaunty:
Click on the icon. Select your network. Don't even have to right click anymore (this might be a change that confuses existing users). Additionally, you can store connection settings system-wide to connect on startup rather than login.
To be fair, it means about a billion different things in context. You might argue that H1-B holders should be of high enough caliber to know all this, but that would of course be at odds with the "cheap body count" idea.
Well, it's good to know that the options at Microsoft are Flight Sim team and Microkernel Engineer.
If your problem with H1-B is human rights, then why not drop the H1-B program and raise the general visa quota accordingly? Otherwise, they can just return to their home country, of which they're still loyal citizens. I wouldn't expect a European country to be incredibly lenient if I was a contractor there. I'm there for a specific job, and when it's over, so's my stay.
Granted, returning to America is different than returning to Pakistan or India or whatever war-torn nation these highly educated workers hail from. But there's no reason to integrate humanitarian compassion with mercenary business except to exploit compassion for business's sake.
The question though, is whether course notes are derivative works, and how the syllabus outlines copyright. I've had a couple classes with crazy disclaimers, mainly of the "don't sell your notes" variety.
I'd argue they're okay under fair use. And file suit against the school for destruction of property. If they're public, there's also constitutionality involved. But I'd be willing to settle for handwritten notes from the instructor in question.
Wasn't Sun in trouble a few months ago, where their market cap was less than book value? I.e. the market was sure Sun was going to waste whatever resources they had.
I searched my post over and over, but I don't see where I said that. What I did say is that Canonical doesn't need it, or perhaps I should have said it's the entire company's job, not just a title within a larger firm.
Market research is about speculating what can be built, who would want it and how bad they want it. The business of software consulting is about people coming to you and paying you to do some specific thing. "We need Ubuntu built for ARM (or Atom)" etc. Canonical was paid to do this. They hire people who know how to sort out GCC build issues, grab some hardware to build on and run wild.
But this is the challenge: convincing volunteer developers that they need to write software for someone other than themselves. This is a hell of a tough sell. You're better off employing them or maybe finding someone who wants it and can write it. An example: there's a lot of open software for electrical engineering but it gets no attention in Debian/Ubuntu. There are a few EEs that can write software, and some that do; but the majority use PSPICE in class and labs. They might be a small market, but I think having more of them on board will have substantial snowball effects.
Similarly, Eclipse in Ubuntu is currently under maintained. Same with MonoDevelop. I get the impression that most of the current developers use emacs/vi, and ignore the large number of developers more comfortable with IDEs like VisualStudio. The question is, why would an emacs user volunteer to fix Eclipse over their own personal pet peeves?
Of course money talks. Shuttleworth hired a hell of a lot of competent developers to make Ubuntu shine from the very start. Anyone who thinks success doesn't need funding is stupid and should be ignored.
What's far more interesting is that Ubuntu was started by a billionaire who managed to hire damn near the everyone who ever served on the Debian Technical Board, and knew why it was important. In contrast, Michael Robertson took the same Debian base and shat out "Lindows", who's primary contribution was to charge money for Free Software.
It's possible for a vendor to create a .deb, and to even host it in an apt repo. The challenge is:
a) preventing mass piracy,
b) adding the repo on user machines
c) keeping up with the 6month release schedule.
One of Canonical's services is to charge such organizations for hosting on launchpad; the commercial repo hosts a number of closed software packages, bundled and tested on their schedule. It doesn't solve a), but I think it's a losing scenario anyways.
Alternatively, you could right-click on the network manager icon and choose "Connection Information." I have to say, Network-Manager's UI is just about universally better than what I've seen from Windows.
I'm pretty sure you can be charged. Unless Affirmative Defense means something I don't know. A minor distinction, to be sure. More importantly, the US law requires the defendant to be "knowingly" in possession, if I recall.
The lack of option to reject is interesting, but my non-lawyerly reading of the law suggests there's an affirmative defense for the situation they failed to employ. All you have to do is report the incident to the law, who I'm sure will be super duper nice about it and not try to charge you or anything anyways. The more I think about it, the whole law is busted on it's face. Somehow, we've taken self-incrimination and made it mandatory.
Nobody wants to sell Linux. The fact that none of the marketing types understand that is why nobody listens to them.
Marketing has two meanings to people in open source.
The first is "advertising". Advertising is great, anyone can volunteer to do it. People donate to buy ads, create them, and do crazy grassroots activities like chalking a Firefox logo in the campus quad. Of course, it's crazy expensive to buy an ad in the NYTimes, or put the Tux logo on a race car.
The second meaning is "market research", and frankly, that's insane. Ubuntu is free of charge, as is Debian and a zillion others. Market research in corporations are used to direct investment. I.e. telling engineers what to do. This is not compatible with volunteerism. Sure Canonical employs engineers and tells them what to do, but the way they make money is basically through consulting. I know tons of software consultants; none of them need market research because they already have a market paying their bills. Open source basically operates sans market research, on the theory that the people who know exactly what they want are best able to make it happen ("scratching an itch").
If you happen to disagree, great. But you'll have to take a guerrilla approach. I've observed the Ubuntu marketing project for a while and the thing basically falls apart from two basic conflicts: confusion over whether marketing is "research to direct effort" or "advertising," and a fundamental lack of engagement with the people who's efforts to be directed. Dodging the first problem is simple and just takes motivation and a little leadership. The second problem is much harder; a lot of people with marketing experience don't correctly understand how Linux and OSS differs from their own experiences in the corporate world.
OSX does have a login window. I don't know what it's called, but either way, I'm looking at it right now.
This isn't a broken window fallacy. It's an attempt to reduce the negative externalities of pollution without placing excessive burden on the poor. For whatever reasons, voters seem more comfortable with inflation than raising the gas taxes.
The cost of power in manufacturing aspect is an interesting, but comparing it to gasoline is disingenuous. We have plenty of other ways to generate electricity than burning gasoline. Nuclear, solar, wind and hydro, for example. If you want to make a point about the environment, do it in terms of tons of CO2 generated by the likely mixture of power generation to make that new car.
But you also don't run popcon on servers either. Popcon stats are not a random sample of users; unfortunately I have no idea how popcon varies from an ideal sample.