A couple of points... first, as far as replacing people with machinery, that machinery has to be designed, manufactured, and purchased... all adding jobs and creating income for the various companies involved in that machinery. Writing software is not being replaced by anything comprable. It's essentially being produced out of thin air (ie: college kids with lots of free time).
Secondly, I see what you're saying about money being spent elsewhere in the company that consumes software, but there's no guarantee that that extra profit that they make is even going back into the economy. More than likely, it's going into some executive's bank account. You're assuming that a company says, "We saved $2 million on software this year, let's spend that $2 million on more specific software, or on new equipment, etc.". I'm saying that it's entirely likely that that money is just gravy that gets pissed away.
Never before in the history of capitalism has a product been produced and given away entirely for free. This is a new concept, and whether or not it's a good thing is still to be seen. It's a good thing for the company using the software, sure, because it saves them money. Whether or not it's good for the economy as a whole... who knows?
If you lost your job because somebody did your job for free, you wouldn't be able to consumeor invest, thus hurting the economy. It hasn't been proved that the savings that a company reaps from using open source software as opposed to buying open source software offsets the damage done.
Your other point, when a company takes OSS code and doesn't give modifications back, they're not hurting anybody. They're jsut not living up to an implied agreement.
What, and MS and Oracle doesn't generate income? Of course they do! Last I checked, college kids writing software for free most definitely have an adverse effect on the economy. But if you don't think so, just tell me where you work, and I'll follow you around, offering to your managers to do your job for free. Then you can tell me about "generating" money.
Of course not. All ready, all of the posts about this article have been screaming "TROLL!!" without even reading the fucking article. OSS zealots tend to be a bunch of immature kids.
I agree. Whenever I need a new part, I go to my local PC store and tell them to give me the cheapest (whatever) that they've got. Without fail, some pimply-faced kid with spit at the corners of his mouth tries to explain to me how (whatever) isn't fast enough. I just have to laugh and tell him to give me the goddamn "slow" or "old" part. Cat 4 cable? Plenty fast. 10 MPS network card? Hell, I'm still excited about ethernet. 8 meg on a video card? You've got to be fucking kidding me. 40 gig hard drive? What in the hell am I gonna do with that amount of space? A Pentium what?? Jesus, I'm gonna run a few business apps and check my email, not design the next space shuttle.
Thank you, you rich geeks. You keep driving down the cost of perfectly good hardware for me!
I agree. Fuck space. I've got plenty. The only drives I'l touch are Quantum, and then only in a RAID. I want reliability. 300 gig is worthless if it fails in a year or two.
Re:Cue Sun Java Desktop (madhatter)
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 1
Does MS really think people are going to be willing to run 5 year old technology on their work systems, when a cheaper and more current alternative is readily available?
How can it be any cheaper or more readily available if the "5 year old technology" is already paid for and is working? If something is paid for and working, ANY upgrade costs money and time.
Re:Keep putting it off. Please !
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 1
Compatibility with what? I don't upgrade any other software just for the sake of upgrading, either. I've got my business software all running and working great. No reason to upgrade until I need some new feature, and even then, I'll have to weigh the pro's and con's of doing an upgrade.
Re:I'm not sure I want to use Windows XP that long
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 1
Was any of those computer science classes "Intro to Computers 101"? Been using Windows since 3.1 without a virus. Kiddo, you've got a lot to learn.
Every year? Are you crazy? What's the point? More bells and whistles? Even if an upgrade is available, nobody actually upgrades every year.
Re:Keep putting it off. Please !
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Even if they release it, who says that you have to use it? I've locked my company into W2K until I have a very, very good reason to switch. Upgrading for the sake of upgrading is never a good idea.
B. You're assuming that I'm using toys for peripherals. Cash drawers, barcode scanners, credit card swipes, etc. are all serial/parallel because they're 100% reliable and they're ubiquitous on any old cheap throwaway PC. I do work. I'm not plugging in PDA's, cameras, joysticks, whatever.
C. I use a hardware raid device for 100% uptime. Cheap PC + W2K+ Raid = 100% uptime. Critical for all of my cash registers.
$2000 is ridiculous. The i & e-macs are unuseable in a business environment because A. They look like children's toys B. They don't have any useable ports (parallel or serial), and they're virtually not upgradeable.
That's my point. You're an aberration. I need a machine that's going to run my cash register, Quickbooks, a web browser, and play some music. That's it. The cheapest desktop I see on Apple's site is $2K. Instead, I bought a $400 machine, and slapped a RAID thingy in one of 'em. Apple doesn't have anything to help me at all. It's not a viable alternative for me.
That is why we are still working on dumb terminals attached to mainframes
No. We still work on them because they work, and any business that throws away money to change for the sake of change isn't going to be in business much longer. I run a business. I use tools until A. They break or B. Changing tools is going to save me a significant amount of money and/or time.
. For instance, the OS X workstation I am typing this on right now was a full $900 cheaper than an equivalently configured Dell box and OS X provides a much more productive environment.
$900 cheaper?? Who, these days, buys a $900 computer, never mind the obviously $900+ beast that you bought. When I buy, I buy the cheapest that I can find with a good quality hard drive, and it's *always* fast enough for what I need. Most people do not do intensive graphics rendering at home, so a $900+ computer is ridiculous.
I can't think of an easier way to install applications than apt-get or emerge
"apt-get"? "emerge"? What in the hell are these? I put a CD in the drive, and it installs. Or, I download something from the Net, and click "open".
Windows applications aren't integrated very well either, unless you're referring to how Outlook starts up Windows Messenger every time I open it, pissing me off to no end.
Integrated how? I can copy/paste anywhere, and set various programs to handle various file types. I think that the dropdown that lets me choose my default email program (ANY email program) that handles what happens when I click an email link is pretty damn integrated.
X can drag an 800x600 window around a 1280x1024 desktop without flinching, where it maxes the CPU on Windows. Even though the GDI functions are integrated into the kernel on Windows, it still loses out here.
Last Red Hat install I tried (7.x), the hard drive never stopped swapping. Click... wait, wait, wait... window opened. It was a nightmare. Installed W2K on the box, and there wasn't nearly as much swapping. I don't know what you did to tweak X, but it's a huge fucking resource hog every time I try it.
Slashdot Mirror
And I'm sure that VT paid full retail for their Apple boxes, too. Riiiight.
A couple of points... first, as far as replacing people with machinery, that machinery has to be designed, manufactured, and purchased... all adding jobs and creating income for the various companies involved in that machinery. Writing software is not being replaced by anything comprable. It's essentially being produced out of thin air (ie: college kids with lots of free time).
Secondly, I see what you're saying about money being spent elsewhere in the company that consumes software, but there's no guarantee that that extra profit that they make is even going back into the economy. More than likely, it's going into some executive's bank account. You're assuming that a company says, "We saved $2 million on software this year, let's spend that $2 million on more specific software, or on new equipment, etc.". I'm saying that it's entirely likely that that money is just gravy that gets pissed away.
Never before in the history of capitalism has a product been produced and given away entirely for free. This is a new concept, and whether or not it's a good thing is still to be seen. It's a good thing for the company using the software, sure, because it saves them money. Whether or not it's good for the economy as a whole... who knows?
If you lost your job because somebody did your job for free, you wouldn't be able to consumeor invest, thus hurting the economy. It hasn't been proved that the savings that a company reaps from using open source software as opposed to buying open source software offsets the damage done.
Your other point, when a company takes OSS code and doesn't give modifications back, they're not hurting anybody. They're jsut not living up to an implied agreement.
What, and MS and Oracle doesn't generate income? Of course they do! Last I checked, college kids writing software for free most definitely have an adverse effect on the economy. But if you don't think so, just tell me where you work, and I'll follow you around, offering to your managers to do your job for free. Then you can tell me about "generating" money.
Of course not. All ready, all of the posts about this article have been screaming "TROLL!!" without even reading the fucking article. OSS zealots tend to be a bunch of immature kids.
In what way does the author not understand the GPL? I thought it was summarized very well. Or is this post just a troll?
That picture just re-affirms the fact... if geeks can't get laid, how will the reproduce? Are geeks dying off? What's going to happen?
I agree. Whenever I need a new part, I go to my local PC store and tell them to give me the cheapest (whatever) that they've got. Without fail, some pimply-faced kid with spit at the corners of his mouth tries to explain to me how (whatever) isn't fast enough. I just have to laugh and tell him to give me the goddamn "slow" or "old" part. Cat 4 cable? Plenty fast. 10 MPS network card? Hell, I'm still excited about ethernet. 8 meg on a video card? You've got to be fucking kidding me. 40 gig hard drive? What in the hell am I gonna do with that amount of space? A Pentium what?? Jesus, I'm gonna run a few business apps and check my email, not design the next space shuttle.
Thank you, you rich geeks. You keep driving down the cost of perfectly good hardware for me!
Nope, you're forgetting those of us who want reliability #1.
I just bought a W2K Pro OEM the other day at my local computer shop. What's your point?
I agree. Fuck space. I've got plenty. The only drives I'l touch are Quantum, and then only in a RAID. I want reliability. 300 gig is worthless if it fails in a year or two.
Does MS really think people are going to be willing to run 5 year old technology on their work systems, when a cheaper and more current alternative is readily available?
How can it be any cheaper or more readily available if the "5 year old technology" is already paid for and is working? If something is paid for and working, ANY upgrade costs money and time.
Compatibility with what? I don't upgrade any other software just for the sake of upgrading, either. I've got my business software all running and working great. No reason to upgrade until I need some new feature, and even then, I'll have to weigh the pro's and con's of doing an upgrade.
Was any of those computer science classes "Intro to Computers 101"? Been using Windows since 3.1 without a virus. Kiddo, you've got a lot to learn.
Every year? Are you crazy? What's the point? More bells and whistles? Even if an upgrade is available, nobody actually upgrades every year.
Even if they release it, who says that you have to use it? I've locked my company into W2K until I have a very, very good reason to switch. Upgrading for the sake of upgrading is never a good idea.
A. They do and they look unprofessional.
B. You're assuming that I'm using toys for peripherals. Cash drawers, barcode scanners, credit card swipes, etc. are all serial/parallel because they're 100% reliable and they're ubiquitous on any old cheap throwaway PC. I do work. I'm not plugging in PDA's, cameras, joysticks, whatever.
C. I use a hardware raid device for 100% uptime. Cheap PC + W2K+ Raid = 100% uptime. Critical for all of my cash registers.
If you have to format and re-install W2K machines once a year, you really shouldn't be working with computers professionally.
$2000 is ridiculous. The i & e-macs are unuseable in a business environment because A. They look like children's toys B. They don't have any useable ports (parallel or serial), and they're virtually not upgradeable.
No parallel port. No serial port. Huge footprint. Still more expensive than a PC with more connectivity and expandibility with W2K.
That's my point. You're an aberration. I need a machine that's going to run my cash register, Quickbooks, a web browser, and play some music. That's it. The cheapest desktop I see on Apple's site is $2K. Instead, I bought a $400 machine, and slapped a RAID thingy in one of 'em. Apple doesn't have anything to help me at all. It's not a viable alternative for me.
That is why we are still working on dumb terminals attached to mainframes
No. We still work on them because they work, and any business that throws away money to change for the sake of change isn't going to be in business much longer. I run a business. I use tools until A. They break or B. Changing tools is going to save me a significant amount of money and/or time.
"apt-get install xbase-clients"
What is this?
. For instance, the OS X workstation I am typing this on right now was a full $900 cheaper than an equivalently configured Dell box and OS X provides a much more productive environment.
$900 cheaper?? Who, these days, buys a $900 computer, never mind the obviously $900+ beast that you bought. When I buy, I buy the cheapest that I can find with a good quality hard drive, and it's *always* fast enough for what I need. Most people do not do intensive graphics rendering at home, so a $900+ computer is ridiculous.
Are you on crack?
I can't think of an easier way to install applications than apt-get or emerge
"apt-get"? "emerge"? What in the hell are these? I put a CD in the drive, and it installs. Or, I download something from the Net, and click "open".
Windows applications aren't integrated very well either, unless you're referring to how Outlook starts up Windows Messenger every time I open it, pissing me off to no end.
Integrated how? I can copy/paste anywhere, and set various programs to handle various file types. I think that the dropdown that lets me choose my default email program (ANY email program) that handles what happens when I click an email link is pretty damn integrated.
X can drag an 800x600 window around a 1280x1024 desktop without flinching, where it maxes the CPU on Windows. Even though the GDI functions are integrated into the kernel on Windows, it still loses out here.
Last Red Hat install I tried (7.x), the hard drive never stopped swapping. Click... wait, wait, wait... window opened. It was a nightmare. Installed W2K on the box, and there wasn't nearly as much swapping. I don't know what you did to tweak X, but it's a huge fucking resource hog every time I try it.
I don't see the validity of any of your points.
Nor do I.