You make those out to sound like big important things. What your list of countries do NOT have is a large military to keep the listed nations safe from harm which is what the US does and the will to use this military when necessary instead of simply bitching and whinning from the sidelines, which is something Europe excells at. Silly little laws like the DMCA and Patriot Act can come under US Supreme Court review later to verify if they are even constitutional.
What the fuck do you have against capitalism? If I have the money to be able to buy some property why the hell should I not be allowed to do so? Do you really think I would be happier living in some socialist or communist system where choice is largely absent from my life? I mean whats the point of being alive if I don't have the right to self-determination?
And when did we ever do great things by worrying about the hungry? What if someone had told Columbus "Well yeah you COULD go search for a new route to India, but we have some starving people here who could use the money to feed themselves."
Yes yes yes people will code for nothing. But how many? And how will they afford new machines to keep their code up to date? And who's going to give them development models of equipment to work on drivers and such? Sure Linux can exist without corporate support. It would just be a much smaller project that would be even farther behind Windows in app/hardware support than it already is.
But most open source development DOES depend on money. It isn't done by teenage geeks in their mother's basements. Alan Cox is paid by Red Hat. Linus is lucky to have become rich thru some stock or else he'd be working at a Linux company as well, I mean Transmeta will go out of business any day now. And the other distros employ many other core kernel hackers. Those other distros aren't making any money (any = enough to be profitable) and a company needs to be profitable to survive. Its ridiculous to think this can all be done for free. Not to mention IBM's efforts. They wouldn't be involved with Linux if they didn't think it could earn them money. So yes, each company does have something to "value add" to Linux because without it Linux is just a hobby for a few geeks instead of the usefull tool it is today.
Its the year 2002 now. The dotcom boom has long ended. You won't have trouble finding open source or ANY kind of developers who will work for money these days.
Don't go too far in the other direction
on
The Venture Cafe
·
· Score: 1
Plenty of successful CEO's have vision. Gates, Ellison, McNeely, Jobs, Eisner, Case, Dell.....etc. They all have grand visions and they're all successful. I think what is necessary is a capability to recognize that sometimes you are wrong.
Don't you mean "we open source programmers"? You know the ones who aren't too concerned with making a living from their programming efforts? The proprietary guys will continue to "write once, sell a million times and get rich" for many many years to come.
You speak very fondly of these "stateless communist" societies. Would you be willing to live there or is it enough that you can consider them quaint at a distance? Also do these societies have anything that can be considered modern?
Isn't it kind of demeaning to have to resort to selling t-shirts to keep yourself from being homeless when you have such valuable (monetary wise) skills such as software development? And don't try and tell me that all open source projects can be made lucrative simply by offering support services and contracts. That simply just doesn't work most of the time.
I simply don't know why someone who has spent 4 years and thousands of dollars on a college degree in their specific field such as computer science would then want to degrade themselves by working for free and having to resort to all sorts of gimmicks such as selling project t-shirts just to put food on the table.
Fortunately geeks like you don't make the purchasing decisions at large companies that "matter". What really happens is a marketing exec from the software company, in this case it could be either RH or MS sets up a meeting or golf game with one of your company's VP's or CxO executives and they discuss and decide on the deal that way. Very little imput from the grunt workers on the IP assembly line is solicited. If the software isn't chosen that way then slick advertising picks up the slack.
If you think this is not the way it happens then how else can you explain the proliferation of MS software when it is so clearly not the best solution for all of the companies that use it?
Catch up? How hard can it be to catch up to a free option? All Red Hat would have to do is sell just one copy of Tux and they've "caught up" and surpassed Apache.
No its not sad at all. Its the principle that fuels our economy and allows us to have such a high standard of living. You're making this out to be some big huge moral dillema. Its just software after all.
Yeah you are right. The stereotypical "Lets be able to pay our employees" is such an old and outdated way of thinking for such a modern company. Good thing they're only pro-forma and not GAAP profitable!
*sigh*. A downturn in the IT sector does not mean the entire economy has collapsed. GDP rose this quarter abiet at a slow rate. We didn't even have a recession as a recession is two consecutive quarters of contraction in the GDP.
I was always told that if you work hard enough it will eventually pay off. Well for you that day has come.
You are one of the hardest working trolls here on Slashdot. Many did not want to give you the respect you deserve since you are relatively new compared to the Grammar Nazi or 56ker established trolls. But you didn't give up.
Instead you dug your heels in. You did your homework. You provide links and quotes to what REAL slashdot users say and believe to bolster your ridiculous and quite insane statements. And that is why today on May 16, 2002 you win Slashdot's first Best Troll Award. Congratulations Hanzo, you deserve it!
Competition inspires and motivates companies to do the best that they can possibly do. What you suggest is nothing short of leaving some on the table in the hopes that you don't push the company too far to the breaking point. Well there's a problem there. Capitalism depends on creative destruction. Companies are born, companies die, but the economy moves on. Along the way they grow and contract depending on how the market for their particular industry is.
What employees can do is stay nimble. They should make sure their 401k plans are diversified and do not only contain stock in the companies they work for. Your sentiment is similar to that of the old "HP Way" where they went out of their way to avoid firing people, a sort of lifetime employment no matter how badly the employee or the company was performing. Look where it got them. Companies such as Microsoft and Intel annually fire the least performing 10% of their workforce even during good times. What do you think of that? Is that a horrible thing to do? To have high standards?
Slashdot Mirror
You make those out to sound like big important things. What your list of countries do NOT have is a large military to keep the listed nations safe from harm which is what the US does and the will to use this military when necessary instead of simply bitching and whinning from the sidelines, which is something Europe excells at. Silly little laws like the DMCA and Patriot Act can come under US Supreme Court review later to verify if they are even constitutional.
You need us more than you ever thought.
What the fuck do you have against capitalism? If I have the money to be able to buy some property why the hell should I not be allowed to do so? Do you really think I would be happier living in some socialist or communist system where choice is largely absent from my life? I mean whats the point of being alive if I don't have the right to self-determination?
And when did we ever do great things by worrying about the hungry? What if someone had told Columbus "Well yeah you COULD go search for a new route to India, but we have some starving people here who could use the money to feed themselves."
Yes yes yes people will code for nothing. But how many? And how will they afford new machines to keep their code up to date? And who's going to give them development models of equipment to work on drivers and such? Sure Linux can exist without corporate support. It would just be a much smaller project that would be even farther behind Windows in app/hardware support than it already is.
Actually if you count the BitKeeper being involved in the Linux kernel development then Linux is NOT a rejection of that statement.
But most open source development DOES depend on money. It isn't done by teenage geeks in their mother's basements. Alan Cox is paid by Red Hat. Linus is lucky to have become rich thru some stock or else he'd be working at a Linux company as well, I mean Transmeta will go out of business any day now. And the other distros employ many other core kernel hackers. Those other distros aren't making any money (any = enough to be profitable) and a company needs to be profitable to survive. Its ridiculous to think this can all be done for free. Not to mention IBM's efforts. They wouldn't be involved with Linux if they didn't think it could earn them money. So yes, each company does have something to "value add" to Linux because without it Linux is just a hobby for a few geeks instead of the usefull tool it is today.
Its the year 2002 now. The dotcom boom has long ended. You won't have trouble finding open source or ANY kind of developers who will work for money these days.
Plenty of successful CEO's have vision. Gates, Ellison, McNeely, Jobs, Eisner, Case, Dell.....etc. They all have grand visions and they're all successful. I think what is necessary is a capability to recognize that sometimes you are wrong.
Whats the 51st and 52nd? The US only has 50 you know....
and not even the US has as much surveilance as the UK has.
Don't you mean "we open source programmers"? You know the ones who aren't too concerned with making a living from their programming efforts? The proprietary guys will continue to "write once, sell a million times and get rich" for many many years to come.
Compared to German or Dutch? Are you mad?
You speak very fondly of these "stateless communist" societies. Would you be willing to live there or is it enough that you can consider them quaint at a distance? Also do these societies have anything that can be considered modern?
Are you dumb enough to think that society should only look up to those who are noble in both thought and action?
Isn't it kind of demeaning to have to resort to selling t-shirts to keep yourself from being homeless when you have such valuable (monetary wise) skills such as software development? And don't try and tell me that all open source projects can be made lucrative simply by offering support services and contracts. That simply just doesn't work most of the time.
I simply don't know why someone who has spent 4 years and thousands of dollars on a college degree in their specific field such as computer science would then want to degrade themselves by working for free and having to resort to all sorts of gimmicks such as selling project t-shirts just to put food on the table.
What parts of "CVS is not as good as BitKeeper" do you not understand?
Fortunately geeks like you don't make the purchasing decisions at large companies that "matter". What really happens is a marketing exec from the software company, in this case it could be either RH or MS sets up a meeting or golf game with one of your company's VP's or CxO executives and they discuss and decide on the deal that way. Very little imput from the grunt workers on the IP assembly line is solicited. If the software isn't chosen that way then slick advertising picks up the slack.
If you think this is not the way it happens then how else can you explain the proliferation of MS software when it is so clearly not the best solution for all of the companies that use it?
Catch up? How hard can it be to catch up to a free option? All Red Hat would have to do is sell just one copy of Tux and they've "caught up" and surpassed Apache.
No its not sad at all. Its the principle that fuels our economy and allows us to have such a high standard of living. You're making this out to be some big huge moral dillema. Its just software after all.
Yeah you are right. The stereotypical "Lets be able to pay our employees" is such an old and outdated way of thinking for such a modern company. Good thing they're only pro-forma and not GAAP profitable!
Yeah you're right. We should just get rid of all our technology so we don't piss off Warfare purists like you.
Lets not get ahead of ourselves now. China just uttered intent. Doesn't mean they will actually succeed.
Conviction sucks when it keeps you away from the things you enjoy. So FUCK conviction.
*sigh*. A downturn in the IT sector does not mean the entire economy has collapsed. GDP rose this quarter abiet at a slow rate. We didn't even have a recession as a recession is two consecutive quarters of contraction in the GDP.
$20k? What school did you go to? The ones up here cost almost that little for just one year.
I was always told that if you work hard enough it will eventually pay off. Well for you that day has come.
You are one of the hardest working trolls here on Slashdot. Many did not want to give you the respect you deserve since you are relatively new compared to the Grammar Nazi or 56ker established trolls. But you didn't give up.
Instead you dug your heels in. You did your homework. You provide links and quotes to what REAL slashdot users say and believe to bolster your ridiculous and quite insane statements. And that is why today on May 16, 2002 you win Slashdot's first Best Troll Award. Congratulations Hanzo, you deserve it!
Competition inspires and motivates companies to do the best that they can possibly do. What you suggest is nothing short of leaving some on the table in the hopes that you don't push the company too far to the breaking point. Well there's a problem there. Capitalism depends on creative destruction. Companies are born, companies die, but the economy moves on. Along the way they grow and contract depending on how the market for their particular industry is.
What employees can do is stay nimble. They should make sure their 401k plans are diversified and do not only contain stock in the companies they work for. Your sentiment is similar to that of the old "HP Way" where they went out of their way to avoid firing people, a sort of lifetime employment no matter how badly the employee or the company was performing. Look where it got them. Companies such as Microsoft and Intel annually fire the least performing 10% of their workforce even during good times. What do you think of that? Is that a horrible thing to do? To have high standards?