Yeah, except it's a bad analogy. It was more like having your house number posted and then someone sending mail to it. There was no intrusion, just mail sent.
Right. I understand that. However, that doesn't change the analysis of "I want to do this" vs "I don't want to run Windows". I personally know several people who *refuse* to run MS products. It's a matter of principle for them, and they do it despite the fact that things might be easier if they had access to Win32 programs. They get by all right.
I agree that OS lock-in shouldn't happen. If you look at my original post, I admit that MS has been ruled to have a monopoly by the courts. I personally think vendors should provide alternate OS ports of their products.
However, if you say, "My job makes me run Windows," what you are saying is, "To maintain my current income levels and economic stability (i.e. to keep my job), my employer requires me to run Windows." "But I don't want to run Windows! What can I do?" Well, you have three options: 1) Suck it up and run Windows. Give up your hopes and dreams and relegate yourself to a crappy OS. 2) Quit your job. 3) Try to exert some pressure from within the company to introduce alternatives. If you've got a third-party Windows-only app, Wine may work for you. May not, but it's open source. Chip in and help.
My position is this: Personally, I don't like MS, their software, or their business tactics. If it were *easy* for me to abandon Windows, I would. In a heartbeat. However, I've done my own analysis, and discovered that the (perhaps temporary, perhaps permanent) income reduction is too big for me, personally, to rationalize taking a hard-line stand. I could quit my job if running Windows bothered me enough. Wouldn't be the most intelligent decision I could make, but it's an option.
This has gotten way more involved than I wanted it to. I'm just saying that there are alternatives out there. It may be working at McDonald's, it may be doing something by hand rather than on a computer, but there are alternatives. You may not deem it an acceptable alternative, but there are alternatives. That's all. Choose your own fate, take responsibility for your life, or stop complaining without taking action.
Well now, to be fair, you're not *forced*. It certainly feels that way, but you have performed a cost-benefit analysis (however extensive), and determined that the benefits of not using MS products (moral superiority, stability, security, etc.) are not enough to compensate for the costs (trying to find a job that will pay the bills and does not use MS products). So, while it does feel like force, it's the way we perceive that tradeoff that shapes our actions.
Also, this is heavily influenced by a convicted monopolist that has done virtually nothing to comply with court orders to encourage competition, but it is possible to escape. Just not easy.
I seriously doubt that. People seem to run AIX for one of two reasons:
1) They are dyed-in-the-wool Big Blue supporters who enjoy having a powerful Unix on powerful iron.
2) They have an app that needs said OS and iron.
I think that's what it comes down to. Especially in the current economy, people aren't going to spend the cash (and it is quite a bit of cash) to buy IBM big iron and AIX if they don't need it, or aren't already very familiar with it. The current customers aren't going anywhere for the above reasons, and the potential customers weren't going to get involved anyway, unless there was a compelling reason to switch to AIX (like having an app that requires AIX features).
Also, where the hell are they going to go? HP-UX? Who says they're not the next in SCO's sights? SCO seems to be saying that they own all SysV Unices everywhere, so there aren't many options.
Besides, IBM customers know who to back, the Utah company with $64M in total revenue last year (while losing $25M), or IBM, who saw $81B in revenue, and had a GP of $30B.
Sorry, left a pronoun without a clear antecedent. (God, why am I a grammar nerd?) That should read:
"That was unacceptable to you? You weren't able to negotiate a better position?"
"No, there was no room for negotiation. To provide service to the customers, we accepted the extra work. It had to be done, customers were depending on it, and we collectively stepped up to the plate for the good of the company."
"They were treating me badly enough that I had to weigh what was more important: My self-respect or a paycheck. I came to the conclusion that I had to leave."
"How were they treating you?"
"They started by asking for more work hours and some time on call, because the company was going through some tough times. However, it grew to about eighty hours a week just in the office, plus 24-hour call with no compensation, appreciation, or acknowledgement of our effort. It also became clear that even if the company started doing better, they would view it as more economical to keep up the workload."
"That was unacceptable to you? You weren't able to negotiate a better position?"
"No, there was no room for negotiation. To provide service to the customers, we did it. It had to be done, customers were depending on it, and we collectively stepped up to the plate for the good of the company."
You see? Spin. It works for presidents, it can work for you. If there's one thing I hate, it's interviewers who think it's their job to rake you over the coals before you can join their golden circle of employment. Just because it's an employer's market doesn't mean you have to act like an ass.
Okay, as soon as I post I notice that the AIP page and the actual press release from Brookhaven use different units. Mine was going off the AIP page (my fault for not going direct to the source). I wish they had actually used consistent units. 273 Kelvin can make a whole lot of difference.
First point, that's probably true. I don't have kids, but definitely a good application. Second point, a headset would do that for me (if I didn't feel like a split between helpdesk weenie [I don't like being reminded of that year] and think-i'm-impressing-you yuppie), but to each his own.
As far as cellphone vs land-line, I'm with you. Especially since telemarketers can't call cell phones. Whenever I move, I probably won't have a land line (unless I move to Hooterville). I also admit my real beef with cellphones is in fact the behavior of most users, but at the same time, I don't like to encourage bad behavior with features that make it easier.
Finally, yes, yes I am pretty lucky. However, you can have my Penguin mints when you pry them from my cold, dead, still trembling post-mortem fingers.:-)
Seriously, I have a cell phone (or a regular phone) for *my* convenience. I pay the bill, I own it, I use it as I please. If it's someone I don't want to talk to, I don't answer it. The idea that, because you called me, I am somehow obligated to answer the phone or call you back immediately is ludicrous. Worst case scenario, establish a history of "accidentally" leaving your cell phone off, or in your car, or whatever. An electronic leash for work is one thing (they pay my bills). An voluntary electronic leash, on the other hand, is right out.
I like that one of their "bad" points is its lack of speakerphone functionality. Since when is this bad? First off, most cell phone speakerphones are total pieces of crap anyway. Secondly, I'm beginning to think I'm the only person on Earth who feels this way, but I'm frustrated enough with one side of some jackass's conversation that I don't want to hear *both* sides! This ranks right up there with those Nextel phones. So instead of hearing,
"Hey, what's up, John? Not much. I'm in the post office. Buying some stamps. Yep."
I get to hear:
*BEEDEEBEEP* "Hey, it's John." *BEEDEEBEEP* "Hey, what's up, John?" *BEEDEEBEEP* "Not much, man. What's up with you?" *BEEDEEBEEP* "Not much." *BEEDEEBEEP* "Where are you?" *BEEDEEBEEP* "I'm in the post office." *BEEDEEBEEP* "Why?" *BEEDEEBEEP* "Buy ing some stamps." *BEEDEEBEEP* "Do they have the ones with Mickey Mouse on them?" *BEEDEEBEEP* "Yep."
What happened to keeping your conversation to yourself? Damn kids.
Unfortunately, in PHP4 (at least, not sure about 5) the native DB connection functions are named by the database they connect to. So, you have a function called mysql_fetch_array, another one (for PgSQL) called pg_fetch_array, and so on. That's why there is the PEAR DB database abstraction layer and ADODB (another one, this time with an ADO-style syntax). That's right, natively it's just that ugly. Does anyone know if they've changed it in 5?
I'd be willing to bet that those $600 Win2K CDs are OEM/academic versions. Trust me, there are virtually no legit mainstream companies that are going to do much better than $850 for Win2K Server retail version.
Also, since we're talking about support, let's examine the support contracts side-by-side. ES at $800: 9x5 4-hour phone support for 1 year. Win2K Server at $999: $245 per incident. Hmm.
Now, I'm not saying that Red Hat is all that is good and right in the world. I'm just saying that their pricing is quite reasonable.
Fair enough. I will agree that you have the basic process down, but when RH was providing support for relatively cheap, there weren't too many people interested because, "there's no way it can be any good at those prices." Now, I'm not trying to say that good support doesn't cost money--it does. However, some CIOs have a tendency to oversimplify to inexpensive="must be bad", expensive="must be good".
And yes, I'm sure IBM will be willing to support you for more money.:)
Yes, if you want to pay $800 for each installation. Take a look at the license agreements for the relevant software. Lots of talk of subscriptions and audits.
Um, last I checked, Win2K server (with 5 CALs) lists for $999, and you're not going to find it for $800 or less from many people (I am talking retail version, not academic or OEM, and this is the price point that RH's website is addressing: retail). Another poster has noted that there are also many server programs and utilities included that you would have to pay extra for with Windows. Finally, CIOs who don't know much don't like stuff that's dirt cheap. They seem to associate it with bad or unprofessional. Dumb, but true.
Actually, to paraphrase Eddie Izzard, "Here you tear your history down, man! I was watching a special on this hotel in Florida, and they said, 'we've restored this to how it looked over fifty years ago!' Surely not! No one was alive then!" Haunted carparks/stripmalls just don't have the same appeal.
I&S&P remains one of my favorite episodes. It ruthlessly skewers the "character design by marketing committee" that seems to be so prevalent sometimes. Also, the brainless corporate buzzwords bit (as illustrated below) is priceless:
Excuse me, but "proactive" and "paradigm"? Aren't these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important?
[backpedaling] Not that I'm accusing you of anything like that.
[pause] I'm fired, aren't I?
At least for me, they depicted some of the worst parts of the TV industry's creative process: being driven entirely by ratings and profits with little to no regard for the quality of the work. Now, I'm not saying that the writers are completely blameless. The depiction of the I&S fans was pretty brutal (but hilarious). I viewed it as less of a "here's what's wrong with the fans" and more of a "here's what we have to deal with, and still try to produce a quality show".
Maybe I'm just prejudiced because this show gave me some of my favorite lines, but you can cram it with walnuts, ugly!
Remember, kids, always recycle...TO THE EXTREME! BUST IT!
I sure did. I was disappointed, too. I consider Alone Again, Natura-Diddly to be the absolute worst episode in the history of the series. It was poorly written, poorly conceived, and just felt rushed and unnecessary. I understand why they thought they had to do it, but it would have been better if Maude had been relegated to background/lineless scenes.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, except it's a bad analogy. It was more like having your house number posted and then someone sending mail to it. There was no intrusion, just mail sent.
Right. I understand that. However, that doesn't change the analysis of "I want to do this" vs "I don't want to run Windows". I personally know several people who *refuse* to run MS products. It's a matter of principle for them, and they do it despite the fact that things might be easier if they had access to Win32 programs. They get by all right.
I agree that OS lock-in shouldn't happen. If you look at my original post, I admit that MS has been ruled to have a monopoly by the courts. I personally think vendors should provide alternate OS ports of their products.
However, if you say, "My job makes me run Windows," what you are saying is, "To maintain my current income levels and economic stability (i.e. to keep my job), my employer requires me to run Windows." "But I don't want to run Windows! What can I do?" Well, you have three options: 1) Suck it up and run Windows. Give up your hopes and dreams and relegate yourself to a crappy OS. 2) Quit your job. 3) Try to exert some pressure from within the company to introduce alternatives. If you've got a third-party Windows-only app, Wine may work for you. May not, but it's open source. Chip in and help.
My position is this: Personally, I don't like MS, their software, or their business tactics. If it were *easy* for me to abandon Windows, I would. In a heartbeat. However, I've done my own analysis, and discovered that the (perhaps temporary, perhaps permanent) income reduction is too big for me, personally, to rationalize taking a hard-line stand. I could quit my job if running Windows bothered me enough. Wouldn't be the most intelligent decision I could make, but it's an option.
This has gotten way more involved than I wanted it to. I'm just saying that there are alternatives out there. It may be working at McDonald's, it may be doing something by hand rather than on a computer, but there are alternatives. You may not deem it an acceptable alternative, but there are alternatives. That's all. Choose your own fate, take responsibility for your life, or stop complaining without taking action.
Well now, to be fair, you're not *forced*. It certainly feels that way, but you have performed a cost-benefit analysis (however extensive), and determined that the benefits of not using MS products (moral superiority, stability, security, etc.) are not enough to compensate for the costs (trying to find a job that will pay the bills and does not use MS products). So, while it does feel like force, it's the way we perceive that tradeoff that shapes our actions.
Also, this is heavily influenced by a convicted monopolist that has done virtually nothing to comply with court orders to encourage competition, but it is possible to escape. Just not easy.
Because I work for a company that resells pSeries boxes, each of which come with a shiny new copy of AIX.
No customers have asked us about the license revocation. They just keep happily buying, and we keep happily selling.
I doubt it. People are still happily buying Linux. People are still happily buying AIX, even though there is supposedly no valid license.
SCO: 60M in revenue last year, lost 25M.
IBM: 80B in revenue last year, GP of 30B.
IBM: Some of the *best* IP lawyers in the world (given their patent database, they've got good people to defend it).
Sorry, if Linux sales are threatened, they're at the tuppenny, ha'penny levels. Not on an enterprise scale.
I seriously doubt that. People seem to run AIX for one of two reasons:
1) They are dyed-in-the-wool Big Blue supporters who enjoy having a powerful Unix on powerful iron.
2) They have an app that needs said OS and iron.
I think that's what it comes down to. Especially in the current economy, people aren't going to spend the cash (and it is quite a bit of cash) to buy IBM big iron and AIX if they don't need it, or aren't already very familiar with it. The current customers aren't going anywhere for the above reasons, and the potential customers weren't going to get involved anyway, unless there was a compelling reason to switch to AIX (like having an app that requires AIX features).
Also, where the hell are they going to go? HP-UX? Who says they're not the next in SCO's sights? SCO seems to be saying that they own all SysV Unices everywhere, so there aren't many options.
Besides, IBM customers know who to back, the Utah company with $64M in total revenue last year (while losing $25M), or IBM, who saw $81B in revenue, and had a GP of $30B.
Well, I guess technically that's true. I've had work situations come up where I tried to negotiate. Usually went something like this:
"Hey, you're responsible for activity X now."
"But..."
"Do it."
So, technically, there was room for one word of negotiation.
Sorry, left a pronoun without a clear antecedent. (God, why am I a grammar nerd?) That should read:
"That was unacceptable to you? You weren't able to negotiate a better position?"
"No, there was no room for negotiation. To provide service to the customers, we accepted the extra work. It had to be done, customers were depending on it, and we collectively stepped up to the plate for the good of the company."
"So, why did you leave your last company?"
"They were treating me badly enough that I had to weigh what was more important: My self-respect or a paycheck. I came to the conclusion that I had to leave."
"How were they treating you?"
"They started by asking for more work hours and some time on call, because the company was going through some tough times. However, it grew to about eighty hours a week just in the office, plus 24-hour call with no compensation, appreciation, or acknowledgement of our effort. It also became clear that even if the company started doing better, they would view it as more economical to keep up the workload."
"That was unacceptable to you? You weren't able to negotiate a better position?"
"No, there was no room for negotiation. To provide service to the customers, we did it. It had to be done, customers were depending on it, and we collectively stepped up to the plate for the good of the company."
You see? Spin. It works for presidents, it can work for you. If there's one thing I hate, it's interviewers who think it's their job to rake you over the coals before you can join their golden circle of employment. Just because it's an employer's market doesn't mean you have to act like an ass.
Okay, as soon as I post I notice that the AIP page and the actual press release from Brookhaven use different units. Mine was going off the AIP page (my fault for not going direct to the source). I wish they had actually used consistent units. 273 Kelvin can make a whole lot of difference.
Noo, it's more like:
15000K = 15000K (note, this is a correction of the above)
15000K/50 = 300K
300K = 27C ~= 80.60F
So a little warmer than room temp (usually assumed to be approx. 70F), but not that far off.
Well, fair enough.
:-)
First point, that's probably true. I don't have kids, but definitely a good application. Second point, a headset would do that for me (if I didn't feel like a split between helpdesk weenie [I don't like being reminded of that year] and think-i'm-impressing-you yuppie), but to each his own.
As far as cellphone vs land-line, I'm with you. Especially since telemarketers can't call cell phones. Whenever I move, I probably won't have a land line (unless I move to Hooterville). I also admit my real beef with cellphones is in fact the behavior of most users, but at the same time, I don't like to encourage bad behavior with features that make it easier.
Finally, yes, yes I am pretty lucky. However, you can have my Penguin mints when you pry them from my cold, dead, still trembling post-mortem fingers.
PS, I still hate Nextel.
Train them.
:-)
Seriously, I have a cell phone (or a regular phone) for *my* convenience. I pay the bill, I own it, I use it as I please. If it's someone I don't want to talk to, I don't answer it. The idea that, because you called me, I am somehow obligated to answer the phone or call you back immediately is ludicrous. Worst case scenario, establish a history of "accidentally" leaving your cell phone off, or in your car, or whatever. An electronic leash for work is one thing (they pay my bills). An voluntary electronic leash, on the other hand, is right out.
Man, I'm not normally this cranky.
I like that one of their "bad" points is its lack of speakerphone functionality. Since when is this bad? First off, most cell phone speakerphones are total pieces of crap anyway. Secondly, I'm beginning to think I'm the only person on Earth who feels this way, but I'm frustrated enough with one side of some jackass's conversation that I don't want to hear *both* sides! This ranks right up there with those Nextel phones. So instead of hearing,
y ing some stamps."
"Hey, what's up, John? Not much. I'm in the post office. Buying some stamps. Yep."
I get to hear:
*BEEDEEBEEP*
"Hey, it's John."
*BEEDEEBEEP*
"Hey, what's up, John?"
*BEEDEEBEEP*
"Not much, man. What's up with you?"
*BEEDEEBEEP*
"Not much."
*BEEDEEBEEP*
"Where are you?"
*BEEDEEBEEP*
"I'm in the post office."
*BEEDEEBEEP*
"Why?"
*BEEDEEBEEP*
"Bu
*BEEDEEBEEP*
"Do they have the ones with Mickey Mouse on them?"
*BEEDEEBEEP*
"Yep."
What happened to keeping your conversation to yourself? Damn kids.
Unfortunately, in PHP4 (at least, not sure about 5) the native DB connection functions are named by the database they connect to. So, you have a function called mysql_fetch_array, another one (for PgSQL) called pg_fetch_array, and so on. That's why there is the PEAR DB database abstraction layer and ADODB (another one, this time with an ADO-style syntax). That's right, natively it's just that ugly. Does anyone know if they've changed it in 5?
I'd be willing to bet that those $600 Win2K CDs are OEM/academic versions. Trust me, there are virtually no legit mainstream companies that are going to do much better than $850 for Win2K Server retail version.
Also, since we're talking about support, let's examine the support contracts side-by-side. ES at $800: 9x5 4-hour phone support for 1 year. Win2K Server at $999: $245 per incident. Hmm.
Now, I'm not saying that Red Hat is all that is good and right in the world. I'm just saying that their pricing is quite reasonable.
Fair enough. I will agree that you have the basic process down, but when RH was providing support for relatively cheap, there weren't too many people interested because, "there's no way it can be any good at those prices." Now, I'm not trying to say that good support doesn't cost money--it does. However, some CIOs have a tendency to oversimplify to inexpensive="must be bad", expensive="must be good".
:)
And yes, I'm sure IBM will be willing to support you for more money.
Nothing. You just won't get automatic updates or support for the server apps you install yourself.
Yes, if you want to pay $800 for each installation. Take a look at the license agreements for the relevant software. Lots of talk of subscriptions and audits.
Um, last I checked, Win2K server (with 5 CALs) lists for $999, and you're not going to find it for $800 or less from many people (I am talking retail version, not academic or OEM, and this is the price point that RH's website is addressing: retail). Another poster has noted that there are also many server programs and utilities included that you would have to pay extra for with Windows. Finally, CIOs who don't know much don't like stuff that's dirt cheap. They seem to associate it with bad or unprofessional. Dumb, but true.
I mean, how dumb do you think we are? I checked the site, and there's not a "bork bork bork" anywhere!
Actually, to paraphrase Eddie Izzard, "Here you tear your history down, man! I was watching a special on this hotel in Florida, and they said, 'we've restored this to how it looked over fifty years ago!' Surely not! No one was alive then!" Haunted carparks/stripmalls just don't have the same appeal.
I&S&P remains one of my favorite episodes. It ruthlessly skewers the "character design by marketing committee" that seems to be so prevalent sometimes. Also, the brainless corporate buzzwords bit (as illustrated below) is priceless:
At least for me, they depicted some of the worst parts of the TV industry's creative process: being driven entirely by ratings and profits with little to no regard for the quality of the work. Now, I'm not saying that the writers are completely blameless. The depiction of the I&S fans was pretty brutal (but hilarious). I viewed it as less of a "here's what's wrong with the fans" and more of a "here's what we have to deal with, and still try to produce a quality show".
Maybe I'm just prejudiced because this show gave me some of my favorite lines, but you can cram it with walnuts, ugly!
Remember, kids, always recycle...TO THE EXTREME! BUST IT!
I remember him from such nature films as "Man vs. Nature: The Road to Victory" and "Earwigs, Ewww!"
I sure did. I was disappointed, too. I consider Alone Again, Natura-Diddly to be the absolute worst episode in the history of the series. It was poorly written, poorly conceived, and just felt rushed and unnecessary. I understand why they thought they had to do it, but it would have been better if Maude had been relegated to background/lineless scenes.
So, in self-mocking summation:
Worst episode ever!