Just for humour's sake let's assume that Microsoft could afford the time and effort to get their programmers accredited. Then let's wonder how many hobbyist programmers could afford this, or how many have been programming for 12 years and can prove it. Are we to expect all Open Source contributors to be accredited? Surely not? So what happens when companies feel forced to protect their rears by decreeing that
"all software used here must be written entirely by accredited programmers"?
What happens to open source? What happens to "amateurs"? (and we know unpaid code is often far better). The key is that while many OSS coders are equal to their commercial counterparts they may lack this piece of paper.
Software is like sex - you don't need a licence for it (with apologies to Linus)
Firstly, we don't know if this is a hoax or not (as a note Illiad's suspending judgement on this too). While (whoever it is)'s moves have rarely been too comprehensible, there are plenty of people out there who'd like to make them look bad (Probably a good few in here too...).
Let's wait on this one. If it's a hoax, forget it, or the press will have even more fud-filled-fun calling us fanatics.
If it's genuine, let's support the sites in question, and I for one will be "removing software using their trademarked name from my system" as soon as I have the time to install something that, in my unscientific-and-don't-take-it-for-fact opinion is one hell of a lot better. stddisclaimer.h, your mileage may vary, and I wasn't there at the time. And that's assuming it's a software company.
I *am* having trouble believing this is genuine, this would just backfire far too much on (whoever). Mind you, as it a hoax it could backfire rather a lot too. Assuming humanity to be rational, it must be a (whoever) sympathiser calling a double-bluff.
Just to take this to its pointless conclusion, if you're a company, get a.com . Slashdot, to me, definitely comes under the heading of "other" for which.org was intended.
Pleasantly enough, the only person wanted my domain name was kind enough to *offer to buy* it, and gracefully accepted the answer of "no".
Tux kind of stupid? Tux rox!
on
Quickie Fu
·
· Score: 1
Is it me or is this a troll? No, surely not... AC's indeed... 1) Tux is cool. Almost as cool as the Dustpuppy. *grin*
2) The whole ethos of Linux is friendly, not predatory. Cute penguins, not eagles. Eagles may like killing things, but they ain't too bright.
3) There's already plenty of aardvark gone into Linux (ok, that was a *real* bad pun)
Ok - so if the MS logo was an animal, what would it be?
I like the style, and the fact that he doesn't reduce his writing to the syntactic minimum appeals. If I want to read raw data I'll plunge into an ORA book or some source code. If I want to read something for the sake of reading, I quite like it to look like this. It's information without the overload.
Slashdot Mirror
Are we to expect all Open Source contributors to be accredited? Surely not? So what happens when companies feel forced to protect their rears by decreeing that What happens to open source? What happens to "amateurs"? (and we know unpaid code is often far better). The key is that while many OSS coders are equal to their commercial counterparts they may lack this piece of paper.
Software is like sex - you don't need a licence for it (with apologies to Linus)
Firstly, we don't know if this is a hoax or not (as a note Illiad's suspending judgement on this too). While (whoever it is)'s moves have rarely been too comprehensible, there are plenty of people out there who'd like to make them look bad (Probably a good few in here too...).
Let's wait on this one. If it's a hoax, forget it, or the press will have even more fud-filled-fun calling us fanatics.
If it's genuine, let's support the sites in question, and I for one will be "removing software using their trademarked name from my system" as soon as I have the time to install something that, in my unscientific-and-don't-take-it-for-fact opinion is one hell of a lot better. stddisclaimer.h, your mileage may vary, and I wasn't there at the time. And that's assuming it's a software company.
I *am* having trouble believing this is genuine, this would just backfire far too much on (whoever). Mind you, as it a hoax it could backfire rather a lot too. Assuming humanity to be rational, it must be a (whoever) sympathiser calling a double-bluff.
Just to take this to its pointless conclusion, if you're a company, get a .com . Slashdot, to me, definitely comes under the heading of "other" for which .org was intended.
Pleasantly enough, the only person wanted my domain name was kind enough to *offer to buy* it, and gracefully accepted the answer of "no".
Is it me or is this a troll? No, surely not...
AC's indeed...
1) Tux is cool. Almost as cool as the Dustpuppy. *grin*
2) The whole ethos of Linux is friendly, not predatory. Cute penguins, not eagles. Eagles may like killing things, but they ain't too bright.
3) There's already plenty of aardvark gone into Linux (ok, that was a *real* bad pun)
Ok - so if the MS logo was an animal, what would it be?
I like the style, and the fact that he doesn't reduce his writing to the syntactic minimum appeals. If I want to read raw data I'll plunge into an ORA book or some source code. If I want to read something for the sake of reading, I quite like it to look like this. It's information without the overload.