It's the customer's problem, not Oracle's, because of Oracle's position in the market.
For a while, I thought that Oracle (and a number of other johnny come latelys to the Linux market, such as Veritas) would do well to hire competent release engineers.
Then it dawned on me that Oracle doesn't want their product to have an adequate install. In addition to charging exorbitant amounts for their software, they have a thriving business in training too.
People don't choose to not use Oracle because it's hard to install, so making it easy to install isn't (for now, at least) in their interests.
I've often wondered which will be the first country to officially emblazon its flag with a corporate logo. I've also wondered which corporation it would be and how much it would cost.
I predict Australia for the first, McDonald's for the second, and have no idea about the third.
Good question. One thing that caught my attention was this: Covers the system calls you'll actually use-no need to plow through hundreds of improperly implemented, obsolete, and otherwise unnecessary system calls! I read this as a mild jibe at Stevens; it implied, to me anyway, that it is at least likely to be leaner than APUE.
A book with the rigour and depth of Stevens without the obsolete stuff (Stevens deliberately includes obsolete calls and functions, and with good reason, but it still can be frustrating at times) would be a worthy purchase. But I don't know if AUP has the same level of depth.
Example: Gnome could ask evolution for it's contact information. In fact, Gnome could ask for any piece of information, group of information, or all of evolutions information.
Despite the fact that IE is a security-hole-ridden pile of outdated junk and Opera and Mozilla beat it hands-down on features and standards compliance, huge numbers of people still use IE.
All true, but most people don't care about software being insecure, or being outdated, or lacking advanced features, or standards compliance. In fact, although I consider myself far from a normal user, when it comes to a web browser, I don't care much about these either. I used to care more, and tried making these sorts of arguments to people; nobody cared then, and they don't care now.
Discouraging, I know, but that doesn't make it any less true.
Microsoft and McDonalds prove people don't want quality, they just want to get by easily.
I disagree. McDonalds is what it is because it's basically the same, worldwide. Wherever you are (within reasonably wealthy countries, anyway), you know you can rock up to a McDonalds and know what you're getting. It might be gross, but at least it's familiar.
In fact, Windows isn't much different. It's gross, and basically everyone in the know admits this, but at the same time it's just so ubiquitous, which is a major source of its continued success.
In either case, I think that people do want quality, and often do know the difference, but quality isn't an overriding factor in what they chose to buy. Price, availability, ubiquity, and many other factors come into play too.
You can by definition do anything with software in the public domain; it is therefore open source.
Re:As soon as I figure what this things does....
on
GTK 2.4.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
1) Red Carpet would have said what it was going to
remove
2) Red Carpet has a CLI, very useful
3) I know how to use a CLI, and I use Red Carpet all the time. By far the easiest way to keep the numerous systems I'm responsible for updated.
In Melbourne, Australia, there are several pedestrian crossings with motion sensors. They are invariably covered in finger prints (mostly those of IT executives, I bet). It's fun watching people pressing them over and over and wondering why they don't have the satisfying chunk feel of the standard pedestrian crossing buttons.
Re:source code escrow not very useful
on
Source Code Escrow
·
· Score: 1
If the source was open./ers would comb it over with the finest comb and uncover all of ms dirty secrets if any.
- Why don't mail servers automatically check services such as Razor?
I don't expect I'll ever use razor again; its database claims legitimate mail is spam.
I think this is due to some misguided people deciding to submit mail which spamassassin decides is spam without manually checking first.
Unfortunately, once you've blown it, it's too late, and razor has been blown.
Yeah, I am very false-positive-phobic when it comes to spam checking. It's why I don't use spamassassin either. To some people it doesn't matter, which is fine, but I consider it more important as a part of my job as sysadmin to provide reliable service than to provide a pleasant service. So I make spamassassin available to my users (most of them use it, even if I do not), but don't enforce it.
A few times when I received telemarketing calls hawking long distance, I told the person on the other end that it sounded great, but that I didn't have a phone.
Got some great responses.
Playing with telemarketers is fun; it's why I haven't put myself on the list.
Actually it's TeX which is slowly moving towards pi; LaTeX is moving towards e.
Re:Spanish Language reference dictionary.
on
Isn't It Ironic?
·
· Score: 1
This posting contains numerous factual inaccuracies. I'll point out a few:
S.American and Cuban spanish primarily differentiate from Castillian spanish by the entire elimination of the grammatical conjugation of 2nd-person-plural [...] This reduces the content of the language by one sixth.
You mean to say latin-american spanish generally excludes the second person plural informal, viz vosotros. Also, while it reduces the number of verb conjugations in general use by a sixth, it doesn't reduce the total language by a sixth. Duh.
in Castillian spanish, there are six conjugations of all verbs: 1st person singular (yo), 2nd person singular (tu), 3rd person singular (usted), 1st person plural (nosotros), 2nd person plural (vosotros) and 3rd person plural (ustedes).
Uhm, you seem to have forgotten about él and ella, ellos and ellas. Woops.
As if to make this worse, there is the difficulty that 3rd person is often used in place of 2nd person in spanish to designate formal v. informal, and you realize that now there is no way to distinguish informal 2nd/3rd person plural again formal 2nd/3rd person plural in Cuban/South American spanish.
I think you need a refresher on what first, second, and third person mean in English. In short: the first person is the one speaking, the second is the one being spoken to, the third is the one being spoken about.
Oh, and you claim that having fewer words and words borrowed from English is "worse". Right.
Slashdot Mirror
it's very common on the WEB
For a while, I thought that Oracle (and a number of other johnny come latelys to the Linux market, such as Veritas) would do well to hire competent release engineers.
Then it dawned on me that Oracle doesn't want their product to have an adequate install. In addition to charging exorbitant amounts for their software, they have a thriving business in training too.
People don't choose to not use Oracle because it's hard to install, so making it easy to install isn't (for now, at least) in their interests.
You're about ten years out of date.
They definitely couldn't copyright a number like 80586. It's even possible that they couldn't trademark it.
I predict Australia for the first, McDonald's for the second, and have no idea about the third.
A book with the rigour and depth of Stevens without the obsolete stuff (Stevens deliberately includes obsolete calls and functions, and with good reason, but it still can be frustrating at times) would be a worthy purchase. But I don't know if AUP has the same level of depth.
You're right - that would be a good idea.
All true, but most people don't care about software being insecure, or being outdated, or lacking advanced features, or standards compliance. In fact, although I consider myself far from a normal user, when it comes to a web browser, I don't care much about these either. I used to care more, and tried making these sorts of arguments to people; nobody cared then, and they don't care now.
Discouraging, I know, but that doesn't make it any less true.
I disagree. McDonalds is what it is because it's basically the same, worldwide. Wherever you are (within reasonably wealthy countries, anyway), you know you can rock up to a McDonalds and know what you're getting. It might be gross, but at least it's familiar.
In fact, Windows isn't much different. It's gross, and basically everyone in the know admits this, but at the same time it's just so ubiquitous, which is a major source of its continued success.
In either case, I think that people do want quality, and often do know the difference, but quality isn't an overriding factor in what they chose to buy. Price, availability, ubiquity, and many other factors come into play too.
It wasn't meant to be a negative comment on your writing. Viz, you write too coherently; therefore your submissions are rejected. :)
Is there a psychological term related to getting your stories rejected on slashdot?
"literate"
1) Red Carpet would have said what it was going to remove
2) Red Carpet has a CLI, very useful
3) I know how to use a CLI, and I use Red Carpet all the time. By far the easiest way to keep the numerous systems I'm responsible for updated.
Why wouldn't you want type inference in the language used to implement your kernel? It can be accurately performed at compile time, you know.
In Melbourne, Australia, there are several pedestrian crossings with motion sensors. They are invariably covered in finger prints (mostly those of IT executives, I bet). It's fun watching people pressing them over and over and wondering why they don't have the satisfying chunk feel of the standard pedestrian crossing buttons.
Hahaha, the ./ers would be the ones to do this?
You're a funny man.
You mean 512 bytes, the size of a UDP packet.
Or save the extra money you'd spend on SCSI and investigate filesystems optimised for lots of files in a single directory.
I got that one from my cousin who's slightly taller than I am.
I don't expect I'll ever use razor again; its database claims legitimate mail is spam.
I think this is due to some misguided people deciding to submit mail which spamassassin decides is spam without manually checking first.
Unfortunately, once you've blown it, it's too late, and razor has been blown.
Yeah, I am very false-positive-phobic when it comes to spam checking. It's why I don't use spamassassin either. To some people it doesn't matter, which is fine, but I consider it more important as a part of my job as sysadmin to provide reliable service than to provide a pleasant service. So I make spamassassin available to my users (most of them use it, even if I do not), but don't enforce it.
Got some great responses.
Playing with telemarketers is fun; it's why I haven't put myself on the list.
Actually, I think it'd be better if you didn't hit hold. Just put the phone down and let them listen to you play.
Actually it's TeX which is slowly moving towards pi; LaTeX is moving towards e.
S.American and Cuban spanish primarily differentiate from Castillian spanish by the entire elimination of the grammatical conjugation of 2nd-person-plural [...] This reduces the content of the language by one sixth.
You mean to say latin-american spanish generally excludes the second person plural informal, viz vosotros. Also, while it reduces the number of verb conjugations in general use by a sixth, it doesn't reduce the total language by a sixth. Duh.
in Castillian spanish, there are six conjugations of all verbs: 1st person singular (yo), 2nd person singular (tu), 3rd person singular (usted), 1st person plural (nosotros), 2nd person plural (vosotros) and 3rd person plural (ustedes).
Uhm, you seem to have forgotten about él and ella, ellos and ellas. Woops.
As if to make this worse, there is the difficulty that 3rd person is often used in place of 2nd person in spanish to designate formal v. informal, and you realize that now there is no way to distinguish informal 2nd/3rd person plural again formal 2nd/3rd person plural in Cuban/South American spanish.
I think you need a refresher on what first, second, and third person mean in English. In short: the first person is the one speaking, the second is the one being spoken to, the third is the one being spoken about.
Oh, and you claim that having fewer words and words borrowed from English is "worse". Right.
All in all, you get -1, Factually incorrect.
I haven't seen anyone lose an argument this badly in ages. Hahaha.