Open Source != GPL.
Besides, you could pay for the source code provided you sign non-disclosure agreements.
Dark side... Bob is not a normal anti-MS zealot. He just use this phrase to feed the slashdot audience.
He knows about business. He knows about marketing. He is now facing MS (or any other big businesses) normal tactics and when he was asked of his opinion on Doug's comments he used some rather agressive languages to offer a different point of view, i.e. IP vs author vs corporations/publishers vs users.
He is just smarter, from a business point of view, than many of us.
He is also greedy. If he is less greedy, he would work in other businesses or work in the traditional shrink-wrap software business, and i speculate that he would be successful. He sees an opportunity/risk, and want to create a new empire.
But i guess he now believes he could not fight with MS + Sun + IBM combined. So he changes his plan. Sell y * $89(?) to rich stock speculators. (No one would buy RH stock at $89. Right?) He aims for smaller scheme of success in RH. And works on something as a hobby, i.e. IP, that he thinks are important.
Redhat would not be what it is today without Bob...
I recall i read an interview of him before in linux-world magazine.
He was a good salesman before he found Redhat.
And he was puzzled because he always thought it should be possible to make money on good qualities stuff, and that linux was good but all he heard was 'it is not profitable to sell linux'.
Well redhat was found by two people, right? One is more technically oriented and Bob is the more business oriented guy.
Redhat would not be this successful if Bob is replaced by a techie. It's also the reason why so many dot.com fold up -- either their business plan sucks or their technical goods/services sucks.
And this is also the reason i wish Redhat to be successful. No matter whether you like the distro, (i don't,) you have to admit that their success is good for linux...well, unless they become another MS.
Outlook is still a killer app for large businesses; the productivity plus scheduling capabilities are truly excellent.
I guess Lotus Notes are comparable in features -- actually i see Outlook as more intuitive, but notes are not too bad. It's more expensive because (i suspect) MS is subsidizing through other products, like offices and windows.
If Redhat is truly competing in a market where applications drive OS purchase, I would like to hear more from Bob on how Redhat is supporting and developing these applications.
I also want to know the answer, but i like to mention that the server markets are bigger for them and that would be their focus.
I guess different types of applications have different requirements.
Sometimes using thin-client (e.g. browers) to access applicatiohs reside and run in a centrol server is good. Many applications developed by my employer now is like this. Usually all the users need to access & process the same repositories of data. And yes, the Web Interface SOMETIMES sucks. But for many applications it is good enough.
(Well at least in the business environment, you could force upon the users one brower, that mean you could use frames to hold states, DHTML, javascript...even Flash:)
(Above maybe slightly OT)
At the same time, i really don't see some desktop applications running on the net, unless the applications need professional maintenence, or you want to access the data on the move or as above, the data are shared by multiple users...(image running a centralized autocad?????)
As usual, buyer beware.
A random thought. If you want to avoid bloated software, what about a customizable word processor in which features you need only once in a while could be subscribed from the net? Sounds cool...
Would you mind changing either the backgroud or the fonts color?
By the way, i always admire people with lower #id...
Everyone was young once. I am not particularly old, in my mid-twenties. But before i work in my current, and first, computer consulting company, i was as naive as what this guy seems to be. Or was like other people who... hate MS. But now i grow up a bit and knows that in business not everything is black and white.
If what you suggested come true, it is not slashdot anymore.:>
All of us want to make slashdot better, myself included. But i could hardly imagine how that could happen. Look at all the flaming and disputes,rather than discussions, around here.
Maybe someone should 'ask slashdot' how to make this site better...
FreeBSD is designed at first and foremost (the right idiom i hope) to be a server operating system.
And for Linux, Linus in the beginning developed it because he wants a unix style desktop machine.
So when someone first learnt about them, (s)he probably would come across their history and got the impression that one is mainly for desktop and the other for server. Unfortunately, some people somehow could not figure out that for any major software things get improved. (Like, windows is crap, unstable as hell... yeah, but that was before 1995)
I am not flawless myself. Until maybe two or three years ago, i still think that Mac is slow as hell...but that was 1992 in my highschool computer lab!!
You are braver that i am. When i post something, i usually spent 10% extra words to... tell the world that i am not trolling, i am not flaming, YMMV...
I have decided a while ago that i am not going to do that anymore. I want to make this a better community. Let people who say what they want, directly to the point. Even when people are trolling flaming whatever, the best thing to do is to ignore them.
Relax. The original poster seems to be a BSD supporter.
Nevertheless, Linux has some advantage that *BSD hasn't.
Linus
*BSD are created by a group of professional developers. Nothing spectacular. It's very,very boring.
Linux is different. 'A free operating systems created by a former Finnish University Student during his free time which almost overthrow the evil Microsoft Empire...'
Because those video games and cartoons are exposed only to adult and teenagers, not children.
TV programs are more influential than other media because more young children are exposed to it.
Actually experiments could be done to study whether children exposed to violent programs are more likely to be more violent.
I think the scientific consensus is that violent program does actually invoke some agressive behaviour in children.
Japan could be a special case. Even Japan has low crime rate despite its violence in games and cartoons, it does not necessarily imply that video games and cartoons does not cause violent behaviour.
Moreover it could be that Japanese spend more times with their kids than American do. Adults should spend more time with their children when they watch TV and play video games.
This type of article posting is what gives slashdot a bad name.
Slight OT, i also find the styles of discussions on some topics amoung slashdotters very.... pardon my enlish, uncivilised.
It seems like people are not sharing their opinions on things they find interesting or important. It appears that they are just trying to outwit each others. Almost a hockey fight.
In differt topics appear this week, we see
Right vs Left
Microsoft vs Linux
Linux vs BSD
Distribution wars
I just fear that we would be used as showcase to outside world on how unprofessional, stupid we are. And i feel that we are not that much better than those 'clueless people who buy MS products because they are being fed by Marketing'
How many hours a week do you visit here? Looks like i come here too often...
Nice to see you here. I really appreciate your courage.
I might add that it is very difficult to rationally argue the abortion issue nowadays. For sure for both side of pro-life and pro-choice there are people who genuinely care about life or choice of others. On the other hand there are people who either argue for argument sake or in real life they do nothing to support people in need. (pregnant people, orphans, those who are oppressed i.e. denied choice/freedom,etc.)
I assume here strictly speaking both of us are protestants. Here i think Catholic Church is far better than us in recent years. Know what, i think may be the best thing Christians should do are to do more social work. Help our neighbour. Help those who are pregnant, expecially young people. Help to set up orphanages and financially support them. (yeah, it is hard. Need to be monitored closely because that's the righteous thing and also because of scrutiny from society)
I am not saying we are logically inadequate and we should now appeal to emotion. Nor am i saying that church mandate is solely for social work. Just thinking this is how Jesus want us to live in the world.
the only reason the pro-lifers are willing to go so far as to kill someone they disagree with is BECAUSE they are fundamentalist christians
I understand you are responding to an AC post that use some offensive terms. But i disagree with the above quote you used.
In general, only reason anyone are willing to go so far as to kill someone they disagree with is that they are generally called psychopath or murderer.
For pro-lifers, i don't know. They may happen to call themselves 'fundalmentalist christian'. But from my knowledge, this type of thinking is called utilitarianism. Yes, my wording seems to trivialise utilitariansim, but if that's the case, then i think your statement also trivialise 'fundalmentalist christians'.
Sigh...i know i sound defensive here. But as a christian, i would not think that way. nor i think many genuine 'fundalmentalist christians' would. I think life is so valuable that it almost always is not right to handle it in this type of calculation (e.g.
100 innocent life is equivalent to one murderer.)
Actually there have been quite a few psychology lab expiriments that study whether violent movies would invoke violent acts. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to find out relatively conclusive answer because people with different agendas would provide biased information, either intentionally or unintentionally. (There was a large government funded research/inquiry on TV/Movies violence and impact on people in late 60s/early 70s. Those interested should be able to find it out.)
I believe the scientific consensus is that violent movies/tv images would invoke violent acts to certain extent. Actually children are most easily impacted, followed by teenage male.
Now different countries have very different social situations. So it is really hard to compare two countries or use one country to evaluate another.
Take an trivial example, say last forty years many children who are now adult/teenagers watched many hours of TV. So they have been exposed to violence frequently. As a result, if some of them now go to see violent movies frequently, then they would be more likely to commit violent crimes.
Now what about South Africa? Perhaps not many children watch TV daily. But there may be other factors. Becuase i am not familiar with South Africa, my remote guess is maybe gang problems? No matter what reasons are, it is not directly related to US. Certainly it does not imply US violence problems are caused by their problems rather than TV/movies violence.
Actually what have i said?? Most of us are not sociologists or psychologists. I read some of the stuff i wrote from a psychology book. What should be done should depend on what is the case, not the other way around.
For fun. Actually why Logic 101 (not Logic ABC)? Because for people to become logical they have to go to college? What about highschool? I was borned in Hong Kong. I think it is their weakness that they do not focus enough on logical or independent argument/debating/thinking skills. I really hope that education in US (or Canada) is much better.
If you read my late response to earlier posts, you would know my bias is pro-life.
Anyway, i don't think we are writing philosophy paper or preparing court legal arguments. And i am not Ender's lawyer either:) But when he/she says 'If an unborn baby is aware of itself, how can you justify killing it', she is saying it in the context of 'Fairly early on in pregnancy the baby has measurable brainwaves, a beating heart, etc. It even appears to be aware of itself. When it's killed it struggles and kicks.' Now it is not a logical proof itself, but to some people it is a valid point worthy of consideration.
Another point i like to mention is:
Keep in mind that "the person is responsible for carrying the baby to term if the chosen cotraception fails" is either a religious issue (which you contraindicated in your discussion from the beginning) or a logic failure (if the person's responsible enough to try to prevent the pregnancy to begin with, and it doesn't work, logically she should then terminate the pregnancy as an effective second-line responsible action). Lastly, your argument about what abortion is assumes that all abortions are the result of lazy people taking the easy way out of pregnancy. Since you seek to prevent all abortions, your argument fails in cases where abortion isn't the lazy way out.
First, i do not think it is always good to say something is a 'religous issue', i would rather say an premise, standpoint or at worst dogmatic viewpoint. Also i really believe that there are many social ways to take care of 'irresponsible' parents during the prenancy and of the baby afterwards. Whether they are affordable, logical, whether tax payer should be paying, or whether prolife people are avoiding social responsibility is another (political?)question.
(rant) IMO, it is an ethical question which is always nearly impossible to decide because not much reliable statistics (numbers of abortion, types of abortion, time of abortion after pregnancy, all of those i think are important to many people) are available. And i don't think abortion is always right or always wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that i disagree with you a lot, but...
It's not all MS fault. I would dare to suggest that MS is not the main culprit, wrt Corel & Lotus.
Lotus SmartSuite, i think, is simply not good enough.
Corel WP -- If WP is fast enough to be GUI aware, e.g. on apple and MSW3.0...
It would be really nice for historians to find out the truth.
Ricky
'Insightful'?
Open Source != GPL.
Besides, you could pay for the source code provided you sign non-disclosure agreements.
Dark side ... Bob is not a normal anti-MS zealot. He just use this phrase to feed the slashdot audience.
He knows about business. He knows about marketing. He is now facing MS (or any other big businesses) normal tactics and when he was asked of his opinion on Doug's comments he used some rather agressive languages to offer a different point of view, i.e. IP vs author vs corporations/publishers vs users.
He is just smarter, from a business point of view, than many of us.
He is also greedy. If he is less greedy, he would work in other businesses or work in the traditional shrink-wrap software business, and i speculate that he would be successful. He sees an opportunity/risk, and want to create a new empire.
But i guess he now believes he could not fight with MS + Sun + IBM combined. So he changes his plan. Sell y * $89(?) to rich stock speculators. (No one would buy RH stock at $89. Right?) He aims for smaller scheme of success in RH. And works on something as a hobby, i.e. IP, that he thinks are important.
I wish i were him...
(I am not a Bob/RH fan)
He never suggested that legacy is bad. (well i believe he is NOT doing marketing when he used the terms 'any', 'legacy' and 'bad')
It is marketed as such by some people. How would they make money?
Again, buyer beware.
Ricky
Redhat would not be what it is today without Bob...
I recall i read an interview of him before in linux-world magazine.
He was a good salesman before he found Redhat.
And he was puzzled because he always thought it should be possible to make money on good qualities stuff, and that linux was good but all he heard was 'it is not profitable to sell linux'.
Well redhat was found by two people, right? One is more technically oriented and Bob is the more business oriented guy.
Redhat would not be this successful if Bob is replaced by a techie. It's also the reason why so many dot.com fold up -- either their business plan sucks or their technical goods/services sucks.
And this is also the reason i wish Redhat to be successful. No matter whether you like the distro, (i don't,) you have to admit that their success is good for linux...well, unless they become another MS.
Cheers, and plz forgive my bad English
Nice post.
Just a couple of comments.
Outlook is still a killer app for large businesses; the productivity plus scheduling capabilities are truly excellent. I guess Lotus Notes are comparable in features -- actually i see Outlook as more intuitive, but notes are not too bad. It's more expensive because (i suspect) MS is subsidizing through other products, like offices and windows.
If Redhat is truly competing in a market where applications drive OS purchase, I would like to hear more from Bob on how Redhat is supporting and developing these applications. I also want to know the answer, but i like to mention that the server markets are bigger for them and that would be their focus.
Cheers,
Ricky
I guess different types of applications have different requirements.
Sometimes using thin-client (e.g. browers) to access applicatiohs reside and run in a centrol server is good. Many applications developed by my employer now is like this.
Usually all the users need to access & process the same repositories of data. And yes, the Web Interface SOMETIMES sucks. But for many applications it is good enough.
(Well at least in the business environment, you could force upon the users one brower, that mean you could use frames to hold states, DHTML, javascript...even Flash:) (Above maybe slightly OT)
At the same time, i really don't see some desktop applications running on the net, unless the applications need professional maintenence, or you want to access the data on the move or as above, the data are shared by multiple users ...(image running a centralized autocad?????)
As usual, buyer beware.
A random thought. If you want to avoid bloated software, what about a customizable word processor in which features you need only once in a while could be subscribed from the net? Sounds cool...
Hi,
Your homepage is very hard to read.
Would you mind changing either the backgroud or the fonts color?
By the way, i always admire people with lower #id...
Everyone was young once. I am not particularly old, in my mid-twenties. But before i work in my current, and first, computer consulting company, i was as naive as what this guy seems to be. Or was like other people who ... hate MS. But now i grow up a bit and knows that in business not everything is black and white.
Ricky
THEY FORCED IT DOWN EVERY WINDOWS USERS #&^!#%^'ing THROAT AND THREATENED EVERY OEM IF THEY DIDN'T COMPLY
And that'was in 96, when Netscape are the most famous brand and IE still sucks.
I don't hate MS. But threaten oem? If MS doesn't have windows monopoly, it would not have succeeded. Thus we have the anti-trust trial.
Ricky
I guess you could not if you are a monopoly...
Hello,
I don't have time now to read the finding of facts of MS anti-trust trial again, but...
How did they 'break' the JAVA Standard? Is it the case that
A) MS JVM could not run some bytecodes compiled from Sun Java compiler? Or
B) MS Visual J++ include non-portable feature?
I don't have a problem with B, as long as they are not advertising 100% portability (even if they did...)
But if they did not follow JVM specs, then it is REALLY bad.
Ricky
Could you please kindly explain, if you have time, how is SysV style inits corrupted by some distros (because your user-id is lower :) ?
Ricky
If what you suggested come true, it is not slashdot anymore.:>
All of us want to make slashdot better, myself included. But i could hardly imagine how that could happen. Look at all the flaming and disputes,rather than discussions, around here.
Maybe someone should 'ask slashdot' how to make this site better...
Ricky
People think it's for server only because, i guess, historically it is designed to be a server first, then desktop.
There could be other reasons. I could come up with a few:
people don't understand that things get improved.
they don't want to admit their mistakes when others point them out.
Not everyone has experienced people aroung them, and information from the internet sometimes could be very confusing,overwhelmed or mis-leading.
Ricky
One of the best posts on this topic.
FreeBSD is designed at first and foremost (the right idiom i hope) to be a server operating system.
And for Linux, Linus in the beginning developed it because he wants a unix style desktop machine.
So when someone first learnt about them, (s)he probably would come across their history and got the impression that one is mainly for desktop and the other for server. Unfortunately, some people somehow could not figure out that for any major software things get improved. (Like, windows is crap, unstable as hell ... yeah, but that was before 1995)
I am not flawless myself. Until maybe two or three years ago, i still think that Mac is slow as hell...but that was 1992 in my highschool computer lab!!
Ricky
Welcome to slashdot, user 413639.
You are braver that i am. When i post something, i usually spent 10% extra words to ... tell the world that i am not trolling, i am not flaming, YMMV...
I have decided a while ago that i am not going to do that anymore. I want to make this a better community. Let people who say what they want, directly to the point. Even when people are trolling flaming whatever, the best thing to do is to ignore them.
Ricky
Relax. The original poster seems to be a BSD supporter.
Nevertheless, Linux has some advantage that *BSD hasn't.
Linus
*BSD are created by a group of professional developers. Nothing spectacular. It's very,very boring.
Linux is different. 'A free operating systems created by a former Finnish University Student during his free time which almost overthrow the evil Microsoft Empire...'
No disrepect here. Just an observation. (Acutally you could read an interesting perspective from http://www.softpanorama.org/index.shtml)
Ricky
Because those video games and cartoons are exposed only to adult and teenagers, not children.
TV programs are more influential than other media because more young children are exposed to it.
Actually experiments could be done to study whether children exposed to violent programs are more likely to be more violent.
I think the scientific consensus is that violent program does actually invoke some agressive behaviour in children.
Japan could be a special case. Even Japan has low crime rate despite its violence in games and cartoons, it does not necessarily imply that video games and cartoons does not cause violent behaviour.
Moreover it could be that Japanese spend more times with their kids than American do. Adults should spend more time with their children when they watch TV and play video games.
Ricky
some kids are jerks, some are not, and the rest float in between somewhere
I wonder : what should the floating rest do?
For all parents, should we also teach them when they see bullying they should do something to stop it?
Ricky
I am being silly here...
You are saying
((I & A) || (!I & !A) || (I & !A))
Is (!I & A) possible?
I guess depends on semantics of I & A...
This type of article posting is what gives slashdot a bad name.
Slight OT, i also find the styles of discussions on some topics amoung slashdotters very .... pardon my enlish, uncivilised.
It seems like people are not sharing their opinions on things they find interesting or important. It appears that they are just trying to outwit each others. Almost a hockey fight.
In differt topics appear this week, we see
Right vs Left
Microsoft vs Linux
Linux vs BSD
Distribution wars
I just fear that we would be used as showcase to outside world on how unprofessional, stupid we are. And i feel that we are not that much better than those 'clueless people who buy MS products because they are being fed by Marketing'
How many hours a week do you visit here? Looks like i come here too often...
Ricky
Hi,
Nice to see you here. I really appreciate your courage.
I might add that it is very difficult to rationally argue the abortion issue nowadays. For sure for both side of pro-life and pro-choice there are people who genuinely care about life or choice of others. On the other hand there are people who either argue for argument sake or in real life they do nothing to support people in need. (pregnant people, orphans, those who are oppressed i.e. denied choice/freedom,etc.)
I assume here strictly speaking both of us are protestants. Here i think Catholic Church is far better than us in recent years. Know what, i think may be the best thing Christians should do are to do more social work. Help our neighbour. Help those who are pregnant, expecially young people. Help to set up orphanages and financially support them. (yeah, it is hard. Need to be monitored closely because that's the righteous thing and also because of scrutiny from society)
I am not saying we are logically inadequate and we should now appeal to emotion. Nor am i saying that church mandate is solely for social work. Just thinking this is how Jesus want us to live in the world.
Ricky
the only reason the pro-lifers are willing to go so far as to kill someone they disagree with is BECAUSE they are fundamentalist christians
I understand you are responding to an AC post that use some offensive terms. But i disagree with the above quote you used.
In general, only reason anyone are willing to go so far as to kill someone they disagree with is that they are generally called psychopath or murderer.
For pro-lifers, i don't know. They may happen to call themselves 'fundalmentalist christian'. But from my knowledge, this type of thinking is called utilitarianism. Yes, my wording seems to trivialise utilitariansim, but if that's the case, then i think your statement also trivialise 'fundalmentalist christians'.
Sigh...i know i sound defensive here. But as a christian, i would not think that way. nor i think many genuine 'fundalmentalist christians' would. I think life is so valuable that it almost always is not right to handle it in this type of calculation (e.g. 100 innocent life is equivalent to one murderer.)
Ricky
TV
I am not sure. But TV violence may be more influencial because there are more children watching TV than watching movie.
Logic 101: correlation is not causation
Actually there have been quite a few psychology lab expiriments that study whether violent movies would invoke violent acts. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to find out relatively conclusive answer because people with different agendas would provide biased information, either intentionally or unintentionally. (There was a large government funded research/inquiry on TV/Movies violence and impact on people in late 60s/early 70s. Those interested should be able to find it out.)
I believe the scientific consensus is that violent movies/tv images would invoke violent acts to certain extent. Actually children are most easily impacted, followed by teenage male.
Now different countries have very different social situations. So it is really hard to compare two countries or use one country to evaluate another.
Take an trivial example, say last forty years many children who are now adult/teenagers watched many hours of TV. So they have been exposed to violence frequently. As a result, if some of them now go to see violent movies frequently, then they would be more likely to commit violent crimes.
Now what about South Africa? Perhaps not many children watch TV daily. But there may be other factors. Becuase i am not familiar with South Africa, my remote guess is maybe gang problems? No matter what reasons are, it is not directly related to US. Certainly it does not imply US violence problems are caused by their problems rather than TV/movies violence.
Actually what have i said?? Most of us are not sociologists or psychologists. I read some of the stuff i wrote from a psychology book. What should be done should depend on what is the case, not the other way around.
For fun. Actually why Logic 101 (not Logic ABC)? Because for people to become logical they have to go to college? What about highschool? I was borned in Hong Kong. I think it is their weakness that they do not focus enough on logical or independent argument/debating/thinking skills. I really hope that education in US (or Canada) is much better.
Ricky
Hi,
If you read my late response to earlier posts, you would know my bias is pro-life.
Anyway, i don't think we are writing philosophy paper or preparing court legal arguments. And i am not Ender's lawyer either:) But when he/she says
'If an unborn baby is aware of itself, how can you justify killing it', she is saying it in the context of
'Fairly early on in pregnancy the baby has measurable brainwaves, a beating heart, etc. It even appears to be aware of itself. When it's killed it struggles and kicks.'
Now it is not a logical proof itself, but to some people it is a valid point worthy of consideration.
Another point i like to mention is:
Keep in mind that "the person is responsible for carrying the baby to term if the chosen cotraception fails" is either a religious issue (which you contraindicated in your discussion from the beginning) or a logic failure (if the person's responsible enough to try to prevent the pregnancy to begin with, and it doesn't work, logically she should then terminate the pregnancy as an effective second-line responsible action). Lastly, your argument about what abortion is assumes that all abortions are the result of lazy people taking the easy way out of pregnancy. Since you seek to prevent all abortions, your argument fails in cases where abortion isn't the lazy way out.
First, i do not think it is always good to say something is a 'religous issue', i would rather say an premise, standpoint or at worst dogmatic viewpoint. Also i really believe that there are many social ways to take care of 'irresponsible' parents during the prenancy and of the baby afterwards. Whether they are affordable, logical, whether tax payer should be paying, or whether prolife people are avoiding social responsibility is another (political?)question.
(rant) IMO, it is an ethical question which is always nearly impossible to decide because not much reliable statistics (numbers of abortion, types of abortion, time of abortion after pregnancy, all of those i think are important to many people) are available. And i don't think abortion is always right or always wrong.
Ricky