Are you suggesting that the government should be able to tell us what we can do with our private property? It sounds like you want LAWS in place that dictate how and what software companies can sell. That sounds positively medieval, to me.
You mean Windows? You pay for a license. You don't buy the rights to use the software any way you want. You buy the rights to use it as are written in that long EULA. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Sorry, but NineNine.com is down indefinately. It ended up being more trouble than it was worth. I had it all programmed for a W2K box, which was easy when I was hosting my own server, but due to business reasons (my other business), I outsourced my server to a regular Linux-based host, so now I have nowhere to put NineNine.com.:( It's not dead, but it's gonna be at least a few weeks until it's back up on a new W2K server.
Does Thunderbird interoperate well with our exchange server?
Why would anybody want to do this? Take a full-featured office management server and strip it down to basic email because that's all the client can handle? Huh?
Case in point: I was a senior level database programmer/architect (Primarily Oracle). Now I own a (successful) retail business. The value for me wasn't there anymore. Meaning, I wasn't getting paid enough any more to deal with all of the shit I had to deal with.
I'm not so sure the real value is in the software. People and, especially, companies seem to be willing to pay more for support contracts than for software. They'll even take inferior software over superior software if they can get a support contract that way.
I own a small-ish business. In no way, shape, or form, is support more important to me than quality software. If I have to make support calls, that's lost time and money. The second software malfunctions, is the second you start losing money. No question about it. I will pay multiples more for a product that requires little to no support, than I will for a product that has good support.
The only reason a product needs support is because it's not good enough to be used without support. So by definition, a better product requires less support than a product (that does the same thing) that requires support. There's no value in support. Support is purely a cost, and an avoidable one at that.
In the case of somebody like Red Hat, there's simply no way I'd ever use the product (at least for our desktops... our server stuff is outsourced). I don't care if I can get a literate, English speaking person on the phone instantly 24/7 via a toll-free number. I don't care if the company will teleport a support person to my company within one minute of needing help. That's not nearly as good as using a product that doesn't require support.
While people like you (and me) have been busy buying guns, handguns have become irrelevant. The US has a militarized police force, using military tactics and equipment. I don't care how many rednecks with shotguns come out of the woods, they're no match for a SWAT Team. Sneaky, how they got that powerful without anybody knowing, huh? Now the people can't even rise up against their own government, like other countries do from time to time.
You're exactly right. Even acknowledging a competitor gives them at least some credibility. Coke and Pepsi don't want any competition othen than each other. When was the last time you've seen a Coke or Pepsi ad addressing Cadbury-Schwepps? (Seven-Up, Dr. Pepper, Canada Dry, A&W, etc.)
When was the last tiem you've seen a political ad from the Democrats or the Republicans attacking a Green party or a Libertarian Party candidate?
Ha! You didn't actually think that the Republicans and Democrats were opponents, did you? C'mon.
There's a very popular case study in business school about Coke and Pepsi, and how they're both very happy with approximately 49% of the market. People think they have a real "choice". Neither one has to worry about "monopolies". And, they already know each other. It's a fake battle to make people think that they actually have a choice, all the while, both parties are very happy with half of a FUCKING HUGE pie.
Search slashdot for Sony. How many stories are good ones?
Again. Slashdot members tend to be a group consisting of some of the most mis-informed people on the planet when it comes to business and money. Slashdot is an indicator of the well-being of Sony no more than the contents of a box of Captain Crunch cereal is an indicator of the socio-political climate in the Middle East.
There obviously aren't any Slashdot members who can balance a checkbook. You're comparing apples and oranges. Sony sells a LOT more things that impact their bottom line much more than the PS2/PS3. Nintendo is a one-trick pony. Sony is well-diversified. Completely different companies.
What the Forbes article comes down to is telling people that if you want to use OSS, then the leader is this nutjob. Knowing that, do you want to use software that is being driven, or at least led by this guy? Do you want to invest your business in this guy? I own a small business. I knew most of this before the article, but as somebody who owns a business that relies on software, I would have to say, "No, I'm not going to trust my livelihood and the livelihood of my employees with software being driven by this nutjob." It's that simple.
Who are you responding to? Forbes had an article about RMS and how he's off his rocker. The current article is a zealot article saying, "Sure, most of the facts were right, but he's my heeeero". Forbes didn't say anything abot what you're talking about, and the current article is knocking the Forbes article. I don't know who you're talking to.
Then just do the "network install" of SP2, and burn a CD with it. All of the later updates just download in the background. Windows Update even handles partial downloads, do if you have a PC that is connected to the net via dial up for only 30 minutes at a time, it'll still work.
I have four computers running Windows. I want to download updates ONCE for all of them, without wasting bandwidth and without all the hassle that Microsoft wants to put you through to do that. AutoPatcher does this (and hats off to those guys for doing so) so why can't Microsoft get their act together and start putting out something similar?
You should try using Windows XP. They have this cool thing called Windows Automatic Update. You don't even do anything. Once it's turned on (in Control Panel), it just quietly downloads whatever you need in the background when you're connected, and either installs it automatically, or waits for you to tell it when to install. It's all completely automated. There's *nothing* that you have to do to keep your Windows XP machines up to date. Literally, nothing. You don't have to push a single button. I don't know how it could be any easier.
The only people affected will be those that like to rebuild thier computers often - like most of the world
Are you saying that most of the world likes to rebuild their computers often? If so, what world are you talking about? Everybody I know (myself included), just *uses* their computer. I don't think that most people (in MY world) worry too much about their OS anymore. It just works.
Yeah, I sure have. I just re-did our entire business network (6 machines). What's the big deal? They auto-download, and they can even auto-install. It's not like you have to worry about compiling, or dependencies, or anything like that. Sure, it may take a little while, but who needs to do a speed install of Windows? If you're installing Windows fresh, then something catastrophic happened, and you're already fucked. When I was doing our entire network, all I had to do was go to each machine every so often and give it permission to reboot. By the time I got to that machine again, it had already downloaded and installed the next wave. Sure, it may be a bit time consuming, but it's insanely simple.
Sorry, I was going to be a bit more subtle with the subject, but that was what my fingers typed. You're a moron in at least 15 different ways. I'm not going into the specifics, because you, my dear sir, win the first weekly/. Troll award! Congratulations!
So what, groups of moronic bible-thumpers saying that video games are the devil are going to help? Doubt it. Religion is the biggest problem in the US today. It's stupid, violent, and in a very real sense of the word, "Evil".
Hey, I'm actually younger than you! I've just had the good fortune of working with old, experienced computer guys in professional environments (sorry, but academics isn't the same thing) who know better than (and don't have the time to) upgrade their software all of the damned time. Only people who make a living doing computer stuff should worry about software upgrades as often as some of these OSS vendors make them. It's kinda' ridiculous. In my own business, software gets updated if and only if it's broken or doesn't do something that I need it to do. If DOS still worked for me, I'd still be using it. If MVS worked for me, I'd be using that. Hell, *many* people in my industry still use DOS on a regular basis because it does the job.
Would OSS software still be OSS if it's not updated every 10 minutes? In the typical lifespan of OSS software, Fedora 6 is already middle aged, it seems.
What ever happened to all of the older, wiser Unix geeks that would install a piece of software, and run it indefinitely, so long as it worked?
At least we have an alternative to spending $20.00 on a cd that contains one good song.
Maybe you should consider shopping at your local CD store where new CD's are NEVER $20 (at least not any of mine). And if you're buying an entire CD for one song, then perhaps you need to improve your music taste. When I find music I like, I go buy a used CD for $8. I have no DRM to deal with, and I don't have to give any money to Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
so what to do?
Uh, how about don't buy it?
Are you suggesting that the government should be able to tell us what we can do with our private property? It sounds like you want LAWS in place that dictate how and what software companies can sell. That sounds positively medieval, to me.
You mean Windows? You pay for a license. You don't buy the rights to use the software any way you want. You buy the rights to use it as are written in that long EULA. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Yeah. It worked just fine. Why are you surprised?
Sorry, but NineNine.com is down indefinately. It ended up being more trouble than it was worth. I had it all programmed for a W2K box, which was easy when I was hosting my own server, but due to business reasons (my other business), I outsourced my server to a regular Linux-based host, so now I have nowhere to put NineNine.com. :( It's not dead, but it's gonna be at least a few weeks until it's back up on a new W2K server.
Does Thunderbird interoperate well with our exchange server?
Why would anybody want to do this? Take a full-featured office management server and strip it down to basic email because that's all the client can handle? Huh?
Case in point: I was a senior level database programmer/architect (Primarily Oracle). Now I own a (successful) retail business. The value for me wasn't there anymore. Meaning, I wasn't getting paid enough any more to deal with all of the shit I had to deal with.
I'm not so sure the real value is in the software. People and, especially, companies seem to be willing to pay more for support contracts than for software. They'll even take inferior software over superior software if they can get a support contract that way.
I own a small-ish business. In no way, shape, or form, is support more important to me than quality software. If I have to make support calls, that's lost time and money. The second software malfunctions, is the second you start losing money. No question about it. I will pay multiples more for a product that requires little to no support, than I will for a product that has good support.
The only reason a product needs support is because it's not good enough to be used without support. So by definition, a better product requires less support than a product (that does the same thing) that requires support. There's no value in support. Support is purely a cost, and an avoidable one at that.
In the case of somebody like Red Hat, there's simply no way I'd ever use the product (at least for our desktops... our server stuff is outsourced). I don't care if I can get a literate, English speaking person on the phone instantly 24/7 via a toll-free number. I don't care if the company will teleport a support person to my company within one minute of needing help. That's not nearly as good as using a product that doesn't require support.
While people like you (and me) have been busy buying guns, handguns have become irrelevant. The US has a militarized police force, using military tactics and equipment. I don't care how many rednecks with shotguns come out of the woods, they're no match for a SWAT Team. Sneaky, how they got that powerful without anybody knowing, huh? Now the people can't even rise up against their own government, like other countries do from time to time.
You're exactly right. Even acknowledging a competitor gives them at least some credibility. Coke and Pepsi don't want any competition othen than each other. When was the last time you've seen a Coke or Pepsi ad addressing Cadbury-Schwepps? (Seven-Up, Dr. Pepper, Canada Dry, A&W, etc.)
When was the last tiem you've seen a political ad from the Democrats or the Republicans attacking a Green party or a Libertarian Party candidate?
Ha! You didn't actually think that the Republicans and Democrats were opponents, did you? C'mon.
There's a very popular case study in business school about Coke and Pepsi, and how they're both very happy with approximately 49% of the market. People think they have a real "choice". Neither one has to worry about "monopolies". And, they already know each other. It's a fake battle to make people think that they actually have a choice, all the while, both parties are very happy with half of a FUCKING HUGE pie.
Sound familiar?
Search slashdot for Sony. How many stories are good ones?
Again. Slashdot members tend to be a group consisting of some of the most mis-informed people on the planet when it comes to business and money. Slashdot is an indicator of the well-being of Sony no more than the contents of a box of Captain Crunch cereal is an indicator of the socio-political climate in the Middle East.
There obviously aren't any Slashdot members who can balance a checkbook. You're comparing apples and oranges. Sony sells a LOT more things that impact their bottom line much more than the PS2/PS3. Nintendo is a one-trick pony. Sony is well-diversified. Completely different companies.
What the Forbes article comes down to is telling people that if you want to use OSS, then the leader is this nutjob. Knowing that, do you want to use software that is being driven, or at least led by this guy? Do you want to invest your business in this guy? I own a small business. I knew most of this before the article, but as somebody who owns a business that relies on software, I would have to say, "No, I'm not going to trust my livelihood and the livelihood of my employees with software being driven by this nutjob." It's that simple.
Who are you responding to? Forbes had an article about RMS and how he's off his rocker. The current article is a zealot article saying, "Sure, most of the facts were right, but he's my heeeero". Forbes didn't say anything abot what you're talking about, and the current article is knocking the Forbes article. I don't know who you're talking to.
So now, unflattering facts are "FUD"?
Then just do the "network install" of SP2, and burn a CD with it. All of the later updates just download in the background. Windows Update even handles partial downloads, do if you have a PC that is connected to the net via dial up for only 30 minutes at a time, it'll still work.
I have four computers running Windows. I want to download updates ONCE for all of them, without wasting bandwidth and without all the hassle that Microsoft wants to put you through to do that. AutoPatcher does this (and hats off to those guys for doing so) so why can't Microsoft get their act together and start putting out something similar?
You should try using Windows XP. They have this cool thing called Windows Automatic Update. You don't even do anything. Once it's turned on (in Control Panel), it just quietly downloads whatever you need in the background when you're connected, and either installs it automatically, or waits for you to tell it when to install. It's all completely automated. There's *nothing* that you have to do to keep your Windows XP machines up to date. Literally, nothing. You don't have to push a single button. I don't know how it could be any easier.
The only people affected will be those that like to rebuild thier computers often - like most of the world
Are you saying that most of the world likes to rebuild their computers often? If so, what world are you talking about? Everybody I know (myself included), just *uses* their computer. I don't think that most people (in MY world) worry too much about their OS anymore. It just works.
Yeah, I sure have. I just re-did our entire business network (6 machines). What's the big deal? They auto-download, and they can even auto-install. It's not like you have to worry about compiling, or dependencies, or anything like that. Sure, it may take a little while, but who needs to do a speed install of Windows? If you're installing Windows fresh, then something catastrophic happened, and you're already fucked. When I was doing our entire network, all I had to do was go to each machine every so often and give it permission to reboot. By the time I got to that machine again, it had already downloaded and installed the next wave. Sure, it may be a bit time consuming, but it's insanely simple.
Sorry, I was going to be a bit more subtle with the subject, but that was what my fingers typed. You're a moron in at least 15 different ways. I'm not going into the specifics, because you, my dear sir, win the first weekly /. Troll award! Congratulations!
So what, groups of moronic bible-thumpers saying that video games are the devil are going to help? Doubt it. Religion is the biggest problem in the US today. It's stupid, violent, and in a very real sense of the word, "Evil".
Hey, I'm actually younger than you! I've just had the good fortune of working with old, experienced computer guys in professional environments (sorry, but academics isn't the same thing) who know better than (and don't have the time to) upgrade their software all of the damned time. Only people who make a living doing computer stuff should worry about software upgrades as often as some of these OSS vendors make them. It's kinda' ridiculous. In my own business, software gets updated if and only if it's broken or doesn't do something that I need it to do. If DOS still worked for me, I'd still be using it. If MVS worked for me, I'd be using that. Hell, *many* people in my industry still use DOS on a regular basis because it does the job.
Would OSS software still be OSS if it's not updated every 10 minutes? In the typical lifespan of OSS software, Fedora 6 is already middle aged, it seems.
What ever happened to all of the older, wiser Unix geeks that would install a piece of software, and run it indefinitely, so long as it worked?
I agree with the article. I certainly wouldn't want to relay on small generators. I might rely on them, but I certain'y wouldn't relay on them.
Slashdot editors: What do they do? Do they really exist? Do people actually get paid for those jobs?
At least we have an alternative to spending $20.00 on a cd that contains one good song.
Maybe you should consider shopping at your local CD store where new CD's are NEVER $20 (at least not any of mine). And if you're buying an entire CD for one song, then perhaps you need to improve your music taste. When I find music I like, I go buy a used CD for $8. I have no DRM to deal with, and I don't have to give any money to Apple.