Thanks for your insightful reply. I was beginning to think I was speaking to an empty theater! I particularily like your comment on the "usefulness" of a theory. Excellent point. One that had not yet occured to me.
Now if your company makes vertical market software... Primadonna will shine there.
True enough. I worked for a company for years that provides software to the manufacturing industry. There was an understanding within the management of the organization that brilliantly designed and executed code will, in the long haul, result in significant revenue in terms of sales and upgrades. They still wanted me to do exactly what they asked and on time, but I could push the envelope much more freely, as long as the outcome was outstanding.
But now I do independent contract work for small customers. Big change.
After 18 years of programming professionally, I've finally learned of tough lesson: Customers don't care so much about brilliantly designed and executed computer code. They want two things more than anything: 1) Willing compliance to their every wish, and 2) Timeliness. In other words, as long as your willing to do whatever the hell the customer wants and you get it done on time, you can deliver half-ass code and the customer will still love you to pieces. Brilliant code might be noticed and appreciated, but only if it's exactly what the customer wants and it's delivered on time.
Which is a HUGE problem for us hackers in general since 1) we're likely to think we know more about what the customer really wants than what the customer asks for, and 2) customer's should be grateful they receive our masterful creations at ALL, much less on time.
Bottom line is this: Although the skill and creativity required to create outstanding code is significant, it's real impact on the real world is marginal, at best. It doesn't matter if it's brilliant, really. It matters more if the customer was stroked properly.
First of all, I am completely stunned by the staggering number of posts claiming to know more about our earth and climate than the bulk of the scientific community. Never before have I seen such a display of arrogant, ignorant bullshit.
Pull your head out of your ass and pay attention: There is comprehensive, undisputable, sound, scientific EVIDENCE that global warming is quite real and human activity caused it. You can choose to believe otherwise but then you'd be wrong.
But let's assume for a moment you DO choose to believe otherwise. That it's all just a big lie and the scientific community doesn't know what they're talking about -- would eliminating CO2 emmissions be a bad thing anyway? Of course not! We would have clean running automobiles, no more smelly coal fired power plants, no more acid rain, no more dependence on foreign crude oil, increased technical innovation, and a generally better and cleaner place to live.
So it seems to me we should respond to the threat of global warming. And even if it turns out to be a big hoax, we'll all be much better off anyway. If it's NOT a big hoax (and it isn't), then we can potentially save ourselves from a horrible and disastrous future.
In past discussions on Slashdot, I have had the opportunity to quietly raise my finger from the corner of the room and whisper "Why not run Mac/OS X?" only to get completely bombarded by Linux zealots who tell me that, in addition to OS X being a terrible operating system (which it isn't, of course) they say "Hey I've already got a K6 box that I built myself for $23.48. Why go out and buy a Mac for a grand or more?"
Well that argument doesn't seem to hold any water when somebody goes out and buys a brand new iBook and installs Linux on it, and then everybody TAKES HIM SERIOUSLY!? Come on, folks! OS X shipped with the machine he bought! And it is so clearly superior to Linux (in addition to being much easier to install) that installing Linux instead is just plain ridiculous.
So it boils down to one of two modivations: Doing it because it's possible, or doing it because it's Linux. Doing anything simply because it's possible is not only foolish but can be downright irresponsible. Doing it because it's Linux reveals that the decision to use Linux is not based on feature/function or any other sound, objective rationale but rather on some other unquantifiable, subjective notion like "Linix is COOL man!" or some such nonsense.
Which is fine in it's own right. Linux as hobby. I once saw a Ford Pinto mounted on top of four enormous tractor tires. Logical? No. Practical? No. Waste of time? Most definetely. But it entertained the builder and even entertains passerbys. A freak show, if you will.
But the owner of that Ford Pinto made no attempt at convincing passerbys that his vehicle was the BEST vehicle ever and anybody who doesn't have a Ford Pinto mounted on four enormous tractor tires is JUST PLAIN IGNORANT. Similarily, I just wish you Linux zealots wouldn't take yourselves so seriously. It's a hobby and you enjoy it: Fine. But keep in mind that there are frequently more practical and useful computing solutions out there than just Linux. And that there are people who use computers to get work done. Please quit trying to pass of Linux as the best solution for EVERYTHING. It's not.
Who modded this down? This isn't troll. It's the truth! Every once in a while this crowd needs a reality check: It is quite true that KDE and Gnome are not yet suitable for most businesses. Yet, when I say this, I get moderated down.
I love Slashdot dearly, but every once in a while I want to quit the whole mess and get back to my regular life. This is one of those moments.
at least KDE and GNOME don't seem likely to institute monthly subscription fees
KDE and Gnome? Are you suggesting business actually RUN KDE and Gnome? You are kidding, right? OK business world: Go install KDE on everybody's desk and watch your business crumble. Get real folks. KDE and Gnome are nice for the tech crowd but they ain't for the business crowd. The licensing is attractive, but whaddya expect for nothing. Mac OS X perhaps, assuming you can get the apps you need to run on that platform. But KDE and Gnome? I think not. For more businesses than not, Windows is still the only realistic option. Could Microsoft get away with this highway robbery if it weren't?
Think: If the folks who brought you Internet Explorer were truly committed to the needs of the folks who actually RUN Internet Explorer, there would already today be many user friendly features in the browser including:
Javascript could be enabled/disabled site by site.
Java could be enabled/disabled site by site.
Cookies could be enabled/disabled site by site.
Friendly 'wizards' would explain the pros and cons of each setting and guide you through the configuration. The user could set things up however they wanted so that their browsing experience could be as full featured or lean and mean as they desired.
This is proof, folks, that the browser wasn't written for our benefit at all. It's written for the benefit of 'content producers', if anybody.
What's worse is that these features are very apparent and SO DAMN EASY TO IMPLEMENT. We should have seem them in IE years ago. Chances are, we never will. How can we expect the company who brought us 'Smart Tags' to look after us? Forget it.
Good that we have some alternatives to IE. Too bad they aren't readily apparent to the ignorant masses. Solving the problem for a few geeks does not solve the problem for the rest of us. Who knows, maybe someday...
Re:At least people notice terrorism.
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
I would like to understand how my original post (above) could have possibly been moderated down. It was on topic, sincere, not troll, not flamebait, nothing.
JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH A POST DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT'S A BAD POST.
This is really starting to piss me off.
Re:At least people notice terrorism.
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
Pull your head out of your ass and pay attention: There is comprehensive, undisputable, sound, scientific EVIDENCE that global warming is quite real and human activity caused it. You can choose to believe otherwise but then you'd be wrong.
Re:The GPL is about as un-American as it gets.
on
Microsoft and the GPL
·
· Score: 1
As far as the GPL and the contribution of code, it is the express stated reason for the GPL that the payment for code is code in kind
I just sat here and read the entire GPL License. Nowhere did I read anything about payment for code. What I did read, however, was this: The act of running the Program is not restricted
Everybody keeps suggesting that writing down passwords is 'stupid' and something an 'idiot' would do. This is not always the case.
Here, in my home office, I have every single password I need (about 20 of them) written down in pencil on a single sheet of notebook paper. It's tucked in a relatively obscure location in my files.
Is this a security threat? Not really. Somebody would have to bust into my house and ruffle through my paper files in order to find them. Unlikely, at best.
What would be considerably more insecure than writing them down is to keep them in a text file on my machine. Somebody hacks my machine across the internet and I'm toast.
So next time you folks start throwing out terms like 'stupid' and 'idiot', think it through a little bit, OK? Saves you from the embarrasment of being the stupid one.
Re:The GPL is about as un-American as it gets.
on
Microsoft and the GPL
·
· Score: 1
Anyone who spouts your shit hasn't programmed a line of code in their lives
I've been programming, professionaly, for 18 years. 18 years ago you were probably still poopie in your diapers.
Your "(l)users" comment proves your complete lack of sophistication. But you swear a lot and YOU USE LOTS OF CAPS, so you must be right. You are correct about most Linux users not contributing code. Of course people can use GPL code without contributing to it. But, unlike you, I don't really see that to be a problem. We wrote it to give away. And people accept our gift and make actual use of it. And everybody is happier. Who said anything about having to contribute code? Damn right I love consuming. But I also like giving now and then too. Not all of us have the skills, time, or inclination to give code. You seem to imply that Linux is some little members only club and everybody has to pay dues with code.
Blegh yourself.
If my comments seemed revolutionary, it's because they ARE revolutionary. The GPL is revolutionary. And if the notion of "revolution" conjures up only images of hippies in the street waving signs, then you're simple minded and perhaps you should go learn something other than computers for a while.
Re:The GPL is about as un-American as it gets.
on
Microsoft and the GPL
·
· Score: 1
Forgive me: When I said 'Our country' I was being presumptive./. does have an international audience, after all.
Our country is one driven by capitalistic profit and greed. Our perceived worth as individuals and as a nation is largely measured by our financial successes and our wealth. Even the very word 'success' conjures up images of money and status. We are a capitalistic society, after all. To the core. Anything else flies in the face of our predominant national ideology.
And the GPL does exactly that: flies in the face of capitalism. Here's something that you can't buy or sell or even steal! It can only be given away. Un-american? HELL YES! Of course it's un-American.
And frankly, folks, I'm delighted! Bring it on. Let's give those greedy bastards a run for their money. Meanwhile, perhaps the GPL will give people pause to consider that there are other ways to conduct life and pursue happiness that don't somehow involve the almighty dollar. There's more to life than money and property. Sometimes life can just be about doing good things, sharing, and having fun. And the GPL is here to prove it.
Hey come on folks! Let's use our noggin here! The human race survived for centuries without genetically modified anything. Why do we need it now? So large corporate agribusiness can sqeeze out a bit more profit? So that unripened produce travels better in trucks? Come on!
Any rational biologist will tell you that genetically modified plants and animals are a potentially huge threat to the natural ecosystem. Any short term benefit gained from this stuff is very likely to be wiped out by a long term disaster.
Let's get a clue here folks. Do we really need this stuff? Of course not.
One of the most troubling tendancies I see in the geek/tech community is this notion that because something can be done, it should be done. Pure bullshit.
Genetic engineering is incredibly dangerous and completely unecessary. We should do all we can to outlaw and erradicate it completely before it's too late. Sadly, it may already be too late.
A privately held company has several advantages over a publicly head corporation:
The company is owned by a select group of founders and investors, instead of a large anonymous mob of stockholders. The founders and investors are likely to know what's better for the company than stockholders seeking only returns on their investment.
A private company's growth is a direct function of revenue, profit, and cash position. It's growth is a direct result of it's past successes. An IPO creates an unnatural influx of cash that the company didn't "earn" and doesn't necessarily know what to do with. It permits the company to spend money on things they wouldn't DREAM of spending money on if they were still private. In other words, it permits the company to make decisions and do things that are not necessarily good business.
Sometimes what's best for the company is NOT growth and profit. R&D, poor market conditions, etc. -- any number of reasons to lay low. But stockholders demand PERFORMANCE, dammit! Private companies can employ more restraint.
Private companies grow organically and typically foster a great deal of employee loyalty and a unique culture. Public companies grow way too fast and acquire smaller companies, destroying said loyalty and culture.
All too often, going public has nothing to do with what's good for the company, and everything to do with pure, unabated GREED. It all has to do with a few people who want to get very rich very fast. I say screw 'em. They should earn their fortunes the old fashioned way instead: WORK.
Just looking around, I would say that a great deal of what's BAD about America is publicly held corporations. Since when is what is good for stockholders good for America? Big picture here, folks. I say better to have thousands of small private companies than 4 large public corporatations.
Tim O'Reilly has stated more than once that he has no intention of bringing O'Reilly public (for many of the reasons I mention above). I applaud him for doing the right thing. Google shouldn't go public. They should succeed on their own merits.
Well I agree that 'Red Hat Database' is no doubt a more marketable name. But without it being any different than PostgreSQL in any way, I still don't see the point. Seems hardly fair for Red Hat to simply hijack the name, although nothing is stopping them I suppose. But, unless it's different than PostgreSQL in some real way, I just don't see why they would simply rename it. Even if they throw developers at it, it's still PostgreSQL. And nobody outside of Red Hat (and non techie middle management types) is going to call it anything else. All of this to dupe some unaware middle management types? Doubt it.
I understand the service and support thing. Still doesn't explain the change in name. Red Hat services and supports all sorts of software that they didn't actively rename. They could still service and support PostgreSQL without changing the name. Changing the name would imply they intend to differentiate it in some significant way. But without forking the code, I don't see how they could. So why change the name?
OK I'm confused. PostgreSQL is PostgreSQL. If they don't intend to fork PostgreSQL, then why give it it's own name (Red Hat Database)? I'm not sure I understand the incentive here.
Although the Linux Documentation Project is a noble effort, it does nothing to insure or even measure the quality of the documentation it presents. Additionally, there needs to be documentation on how to write documentation (and no, the 'LDP Author Guide' doesn't cut it). There needs to be a guide written for geeks that explains the basics behind decent technical writing and presents clear cut ways to go about it. Wouldn't hurt to talk a little bit about sentence structure and outline form either. Perhaps get a few things documented extremely well and then refer to them as examples. Something. Anything. I'd be happy if the hacker community would simply recognize it as a shortcoming. That alone would be a minor miricle.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for your insightful reply. I was beginning to think I was speaking to an empty theater! I particularily like your comment on the "usefulness" of a theory. Excellent point. One that had not yet occured to me.
Now if your company makes vertical market software... Primadonna will shine there.
True enough. I worked for a company for years that provides software to the manufacturing industry. There was an understanding within the management of the organization that brilliantly designed and executed code will, in the long haul, result in significant revenue in terms of sales and upgrades. They still wanted me to do exactly what they asked and on time, but I could push the envelope much more freely, as long as the outcome was outstanding.
But now I do independent contract work for small customers. Big change.
After 18 years of programming professionally, I've finally learned of tough lesson: Customers don't care so much about brilliantly designed and executed computer code. They want two things more than anything: 1) Willing compliance to their every wish, and 2) Timeliness. In other words, as long as your willing to do whatever the hell the customer wants and you get it done on time, you can deliver half-ass code and the customer will still love you to pieces. Brilliant code might be noticed and appreciated, but only if it's exactly what the customer wants and it's delivered on time.
Which is a HUGE problem for us hackers in general since 1) we're likely to think we know more about what the customer really wants than what the customer asks for, and 2) customer's should be grateful they receive our masterful creations at ALL, much less on time.
Bottom line is this: Although the skill and creativity required to create outstanding code is significant, it's real impact on the real world is marginal, at best. It doesn't matter if it's brilliant, really. It matters more if the customer was stroked properly.
First of all, I am completely stunned by the staggering number of posts claiming to know more about our earth and climate than the bulk of the scientific community. Never before have I seen such a display of arrogant, ignorant bullshit.
Pull your head out of your ass and pay attention: There is comprehensive, undisputable, sound, scientific EVIDENCE that global warming is quite real and human activity caused it. You can choose to believe otherwise but then you'd be wrong.
But let's assume for a moment you DO choose to believe otherwise. That it's all just a big lie and the scientific community doesn't know what they're talking about -- would eliminating CO2 emmissions be a bad thing anyway? Of course not! We would have clean running automobiles, no more smelly coal fired power plants, no more acid rain, no more dependence on foreign crude oil, increased technical innovation, and a generally better and cleaner place to live.
So it seems to me we should respond to the threat of global warming. And even if it turns out to be a big hoax, we'll all be much better off anyway. If it's NOT a big hoax (and it isn't), then we can potentially save ourselves from a horrible and disastrous future.
Sorry. I'd still rather believe the bulk of the scientific community than some shmuck like you.
In past discussions on Slashdot, I have had the opportunity to quietly raise my finger from the corner of the room and whisper "Why not run Mac/OS X?" only to get completely bombarded by Linux zealots who tell me that, in addition to OS X being a terrible operating system (which it isn't, of course) they say "Hey I've already got a K6 box that I built myself for $23.48. Why go out and buy a Mac for a grand or more?"
Well that argument doesn't seem to hold any water when somebody goes out and buys a brand new iBook and installs Linux on it, and then everybody TAKES HIM SERIOUSLY!? Come on, folks! OS X shipped with the machine he bought! And it is so clearly superior to Linux (in addition to being much easier to install) that installing Linux instead is just plain ridiculous.
So it boils down to one of two modivations: Doing it because it's possible, or doing it because it's Linux. Doing anything simply because it's possible is not only foolish but can be downright irresponsible. Doing it because it's Linux reveals that the decision to use Linux is not based on feature/function or any other sound, objective rationale but rather on some other unquantifiable, subjective notion like "Linix is COOL man!" or some such nonsense.
Which is fine in it's own right. Linux as hobby. I once saw a Ford Pinto mounted on top of four enormous tractor tires. Logical? No. Practical? No. Waste of time? Most definetely. But it entertained the builder and even entertains passerbys. A freak show, if you will.
But the owner of that Ford Pinto made no attempt at convincing passerbys that his vehicle was the BEST vehicle ever and anybody who doesn't have a Ford Pinto mounted on four enormous tractor tires is JUST PLAIN IGNORANT. Similarily, I just wish you Linux zealots wouldn't take yourselves so seriously. It's a hobby and you enjoy it: Fine. But keep in mind that there are frequently more practical and useful computing solutions out there than just Linux. And that there are people who use computers to get work done. Please quit trying to pass of Linux as the best solution for EVERYTHING. It's not.
Who modded this down? This isn't troll. It's the truth! Every once in a while this crowd needs a reality check: It is quite true that KDE and Gnome are not yet suitable for most businesses. Yet, when I say this, I get moderated down.
I love Slashdot dearly, but every once in a while I want to quit the whole mess and get back to my regular life. This is one of those moments.
these desktop environments are suitable for between 90% and 99% of business's needs.
Bullshit. I don't buy it for a second.
Besides which, if I'm trying to run a business, I need a desktop environment that is suitable for no less than 100% of my business's needs.
at least KDE and GNOME don't seem likely to institute monthly subscription fees
KDE and Gnome? Are you suggesting business actually RUN KDE and Gnome? You are kidding, right? OK business world: Go install KDE on everybody's desk and watch your business crumble. Get real folks. KDE and Gnome are nice for the tech crowd but they ain't for the business crowd. The licensing is attractive, but whaddya expect for nothing. Mac OS X perhaps, assuming you can get the apps you need to run on that platform. But KDE and Gnome? I think not. For more businesses than not, Windows is still the only realistic option. Could Microsoft get away with this highway robbery if it weren't?
Wasn't trying to get mod points (although I won't refuse them). I honestly didn't know that IE did this. It's been a while since I've used it.
- Javascript could be enabled/disabled site by site.
- Java could be enabled/disabled site by site.
- Cookies could be enabled/disabled site by site.
- Friendly 'wizards' would explain the pros and cons of each setting and guide you through the configuration. The user could set things up however they wanted so that their browsing experience could be as full featured or lean and mean as they desired.
This is proof, folks, that the browser wasn't written for our benefit at all. It's written for the benefit of 'content producers', if anybody.What's worse is that these features are very apparent and SO DAMN EASY TO IMPLEMENT. We should have seem them in IE years ago. Chances are, we never will. How can we expect the company who brought us 'Smart Tags' to look after us? Forget it.
Good that we have some alternatives to IE. Too bad they aren't readily apparent to the ignorant masses. Solving the problem for a few geeks does not solve the problem for the rest of us. Who knows, maybe someday
I would like to understand how my original post (above) could have possibly been moderated down. It was on topic, sincere, not troll, not flamebait, nothing.
JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH A POST DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT'S A BAD POST.
This is really starting to piss me off.
Pull your head out of your ass and pay attention: There is comprehensive, undisputable, sound, scientific EVIDENCE that global warming is quite real and human activity caused it. You can choose to believe otherwise but then you'd be wrong.
As far as the GPL and the contribution of code, it is the express stated reason for the GPL that the payment for code is code in kind
I just sat here and read the entire GPL License. Nowhere did I read anything about payment for code. What I did read, however, was this: The act of running the Program is not restricted
You know not your ass from a hole in the ground.
Everybody keeps suggesting that writing down passwords is 'stupid' and something an 'idiot' would do. This is not always the case.
Here, in my home office, I have every single password I need (about 20 of them) written down in pencil on a single sheet of notebook paper. It's tucked in a relatively obscure location in my files.
Is this a security threat? Not really. Somebody would have to bust into my house and ruffle through my paper files in order to find them. Unlikely, at best.
What would be considerably more insecure than writing them down is to keep them in a text file on my machine. Somebody hacks my machine across the internet and I'm toast.
So next time you folks start throwing out terms like 'stupid' and 'idiot', think it through a little bit, OK? Saves you from the embarrasment of being the stupid one.
Anyone who spouts your shit hasn't programmed a line of code in their lives
I've been programming, professionaly, for 18 years. 18 years ago you were probably still poopie in your diapers.
Your "(l)users" comment proves your complete lack of sophistication. But you swear a lot and YOU USE LOTS OF CAPS, so you must be right. You are correct about most Linux users not contributing code. Of course people can use GPL code without contributing to it. But, unlike you, I don't really see that to be a problem. We wrote it to give away. And people accept our gift and make actual use of it. And everybody is happier. Who said anything about having to contribute code? Damn right I love consuming. But I also like giving now and then too. Not all of us have the skills, time, or inclination to give code. You seem to imply that Linux is some little members only club and everybody has to pay dues with code. Blegh yourself.
If my comments seemed revolutionary, it's because they ARE revolutionary. The GPL is revolutionary. And if the notion of "revolution" conjures up only images of hippies in the street waving signs, then you're simple minded and perhaps you should go learn something other than computers for a while.
Forgive me: When I said 'Our country' I was being presumptive. /. does have an international audience, after all.
Our country is one driven by capitalistic profit and greed. Our perceived worth as individuals and as a nation is largely measured by our financial successes and our wealth. Even the very word 'success' conjures up images of money and status. We are a capitalistic society, after all. To the core. Anything else flies in the face of our predominant national ideology.
And the GPL does exactly that: flies in the face of capitalism. Here's something that you can't buy or sell or even steal! It can only be given away. Un-american? HELL YES! Of course it's un-American.
And frankly, folks, I'm delighted! Bring it on. Let's give those greedy bastards a run for their money. Meanwhile, perhaps the GPL will give people pause to consider that there are other ways to conduct life and pursue happiness that don't somehow involve the almighty dollar. There's more to life than money and property. Sometimes life can just be about doing good things, sharing, and having fun. And the GPL is here to prove it.
Hey come on folks! Let's use our noggin here! The human race survived for centuries without genetically modified anything. Why do we need it now? So large corporate agribusiness can sqeeze out a bit more profit? So that unripened produce travels better in trucks? Come on!
Any rational biologist will tell you that genetically modified plants and animals are a potentially huge threat to the natural ecosystem. Any short term benefit gained from this stuff is very likely to be wiped out by a long term disaster.
Let's get a clue here folks. Do we really need this stuff? Of course not.
One of the most troubling tendancies I see in the geek/tech community is this notion that because something can be done, it should be done. Pure bullshit.
Genetic engineering is incredibly dangerous and completely unecessary. We should do all we can to outlaw and erradicate it completely before it's too late. Sadly, it may already be too late.
- The company is owned by a select group of founders and investors, instead of a large anonymous mob of stockholders. The founders and investors are likely to know what's better for the company than stockholders seeking only returns on their investment.
- A private company's growth is a direct function of revenue, profit, and cash position. It's growth is a direct result of it's past successes. An IPO creates an unnatural influx of cash that the company didn't "earn" and doesn't necessarily know what to do with. It permits the company to spend money on things they wouldn't DREAM of spending money on if they were still private. In other words, it permits the company to make decisions and do things that are not necessarily good business.
- Sometimes what's best for the company is NOT growth and profit. R&D, poor market conditions, etc. -- any number of reasons to lay low. But stockholders demand PERFORMANCE, dammit! Private companies can employ more restraint.
- Private companies grow organically and typically foster a great deal of employee loyalty and a unique culture. Public companies grow way too fast and acquire smaller companies, destroying said loyalty and culture.
- All too often, going public has nothing to do with what's good for the company, and everything to do with pure, unabated GREED. It all has to do with a few people who want to get very rich very fast. I say screw 'em. They should earn their fortunes the old fashioned way instead: WORK.
Just looking around, I would say that a great deal of what's BAD about America is publicly held corporations. Since when is what is good for stockholders good for America? Big picture here, folks. I say better to have thousands of small private companies than 4 large public corporatations.Tim O'Reilly has stated more than once that he has no intention of bringing O'Reilly public (for many of the reasons I mention above). I applaud him for doing the right thing. Google shouldn't go public. They should succeed on their own merits.
Well I agree that 'Red Hat Database' is no doubt a more marketable name. But without it being any different than PostgreSQL in any way, I still don't see the point. Seems hardly fair for Red Hat to simply hijack the name, although nothing is stopping them I suppose. But, unless it's different than PostgreSQL in some real way, I just don't see why they would simply rename it. Even if they throw developers at it, it's still PostgreSQL. And nobody outside of Red Hat (and non techie middle management types) is going to call it anything else. All of this to dupe some unaware middle management types? Doubt it.
If you read Slashdot regularily it wasn't until the last couple of days that Red Hat popped up a few times. Coincidence. So what?
Why you got modded up is beyond me. I would have modded you down as 'troll'.
I understand the service and support thing. Still doesn't explain the change in name. Red Hat services and supports all sorts of software that they didn't actively rename. They could still service and support PostgreSQL without changing the name. Changing the name would imply they intend to differentiate it in some significant way. But without forking the code, I don't see how they could. So why change the name?
OK I'm confused. PostgreSQL is PostgreSQL. If they don't intend to fork PostgreSQL, then why give it it's own name (Red Hat Database)? I'm not sure I understand the incentive here.
Here here. Couldn't agree more.
Although the Linux Documentation Project is a noble effort, it does nothing to insure or even measure the quality of the documentation it presents. Additionally, there needs to be documentation on how to write documentation (and no, the 'LDP Author Guide' doesn't cut it). There needs to be a guide written for geeks that explains the basics behind decent technical writing and presents clear cut ways to go about it. Wouldn't hurt to talk a little bit about sentence structure and outline form either. Perhaps get a few things documented extremely well and then refer to them as examples. Something. Anything. I'd be happy if the hacker community would simply recognize it as a shortcoming. That alone would be a minor miricle.
(Great idea whjwhj. Get right on it!)