> Would that happen today? Naw, that'd mean > looking beyond the next quarter! Even if a > company wanted too, their managment would be > crusified by the Wall St. analysts & their > investors.
I just worked as a consultant (via a 3rd party company) for a client that has a hiring freeze on programming & technical staff. This is so that, to Wall Street's eyes, the client is keeping its core expenses (employee salaries) lower in relation to revenue.
Of course, there are still project deadlines to meet, so they hire consultants to fill those technical roles.
Sole benefit: payment for consultants can apparently be written off as "one-time" expenses.
Two problems:
1) Consultants cost more per hour than employees. 2) There is high turnover with consultants (for example, I don't work for that client any more) and the client has problems meeting targets for key projects, etc.
Duh! How is this good for the company long term? They avoid hiring permanent employees to have a nicer-looking balance sheet, but sacrifice the benefit of stable, productive, long-term employees?
Ridiculous, if you ask me. Hooray for market forces!
... that air conditioning was invented in Buffalo?"
The "Armpit of America"? Have you ever smelled that city?
I rest my case...;-)
What is the point of studies like this, really?
on
Mac Users May Be Smarter
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I dislike studies such as these which paint group A as smarter than group B because they use a particular type of appliance (in this case, a computer).
I shudder to think of some Mac fanatics that will use this study to prop up their sense of superiority.
Hey... *I* use a Mac, but I don't lord it over other people like some Badge of Higher Intelligence.
Reading this review of Gnome reminded me of the days (about a year and half ago now) when I was still trying to use Linux and Gnome (somtimes KDE) as a desktop machine.
Nothing coherent about the UI design, hunting around to find configuration panels, getting messages that tell the user to download this package or that package (which leads directly to Dependency Hell).
These days, I use Mac OS X. Sure, it's UI isn't perfect. And I know, it's an apples to oranges comparison, Free Software to commercial. But man, do I ever enjoy using a coherent desktop with one place to change settings (System Preferences). No fuss! No muss! I'm far more productive.
And my Linux server continues to hum away in the basement, quietly powering my website.
I have no problem using the latest Mozilla on OS X.
And it's NOT hard at all to change the default browser to Mozilla.
1. Open System Preferences. 2. Open Internet panel. 3. Switch default to Mozilla using drop-down list.
If those aren't the steps exactly, they are close -- right now I'm at work, on my crappy Win2K laptop -- so I'm working from memory. I've got a flat-panel iMac running OS X 10.1.4 at home.
I have been galled, if not suprised, to observe the pattern of most comments regarding the Mozilla project over the years at Slashdot.
In the early days, it was:
"My GOD, this will NEVER be a usable product! Blah! Mozilla bites!"
This attitude has prevailed (morphing to nitpicking) even with the most recent 0.9.x releases:
"My GOD, Mozilla doesn't cook my bacon and eggs, and make my bed in the morning! Blah! Mozilla bites!"
Now with 1.0 days away, we finally see many more encouraging messages:
"Way to go Mozilla! We were with you all along! Hooray for the glories of Open Source and Free Software!"
I guess I'm being a bit cynical, but it's a good thing that most of the Mozilla developers probably ignored/. over the years anyway. It's not like, say, abot 80% of comments were completely unconstructive, nooo....
I have one of the new flat-panel iMacs, which to my knowledge, includes the reviewed Pioneer drive.
I can corroborate, for CD-RW, that the write speeds are a bit pokey. It took about 25 minutes, round-trip, for me to burn a CD-RW full of MP3's.
However, I think this is balanced by the fact that:
a) Burning on Mac OS X is dead simple. Insert media. Choose format type. Drag files to burn to recordable media icon which appears on desktop. Burn. Soooo much more simple than any program I'd ever used on Windows.
b) Compatability. The reviewer is correct in placing much emphasis on how compatible DVD-RW is with current players. No matter how good YOU may be at making things work, buying the right player, etc., the family is still going to think "that's stupid" when they take the movie you burned on DVD+RW, stick it in THEIR player, and see an error message.
You are referring to the original use of the term "to patent".
Today, a patent application need not be a blueprint to reproduce said invention. The application only needs to describe enough of the invention to convince the patent office to grant the patent.
Yes, but Samba's had to deal with ever-shifting protocols.
In short, like Samba, Mono still faces a lot of extra work and being left behind the curve when MS decides to add undocumented functionality or "features".
Even if a maintainer in another country takes a go at duplicating a patented feature, they're left with reverse engineering said nifty feature, just like WINE... we've all seen how easy that is.
(Microsoft won't be publishing API's or other blueprints for patented features...)
Miguel:
> or ourselves. I want to be as compatible as
> possible with the APIs that were published by
> Microsoft.
Alan:
Be assured that the day they decide you are a nuisance the VM will acquire a patented neat feature that kills you off. Just ask the Samba people.
Cool! If you like, let me know how your new iMac works out for you; I'll do the same. You can reach me at russellwgordon AT yahoo DOT com .
A few of my co-workers are sitting on the fence, but as of this moment I have no one to directly trade tech tips with (except users via various community websites). Lately I've been checking out the O'Reilly Network Mac DevCenter. It has a lot of lucid, informative articles on the Mac power-user side of things.
This is just one example, but my aunt and uncle, in their late 50's, early 60's, bought one of the original iMac's. They couldn't be any more middle class, run-of-the-mill-type-users if they tried. With this original iMac, they got on the Internet all by theirselves, can scan images easily, do word processing, etc. I don't think Katz's claims hold water in their case.
BTW -- I'm a power user. I just sold my P4-1400MHz/512MB RAM/40GB Wintel system to a friend at work. My new flat-screen 800MHz/256MB RAM/Superdrive equipped iMac is on order and arriving next week. I can't wait to try serving my website with Apache on Mac OS X. I've been using Linux & BSD for > 4 years. Windows for as long as I can remember. I think there are a lot of users out there like me, wondering whether to take the plunge into the Mac world... I for one am excited about computing again. Can't to get my new iMac!:)
When the horror of war is removed...
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
...we lose the motivation to end it.
There is an original Star Trek episode that discusses this very topic -- A Taste of Armageddon.
> Umm, would it be so horrible if MS did use Linux > code?
On a technical level, no. You have a good point here -- everybody would benefit if Windows (and every other OS) was more stable.
However, if Linux was BSD licensed, and if Microsoft adopted the code, it would still be a Bad Thing, overall. They take the stability of the kernel -- and add bells and whistles -- and let's give them the benefit of the doubt -- people would probably want this software. Well, unfortunately I doubt Microsoft would give the OS away for free. The BSD license would let them charge for the software, and I'm sure they would.
In short, I think the BSD license is a bit of a middle ground between proprietary and truly free (read: GPL) software. As we've pointed out, the BSD license has it's benefits. I (as a developer and a user) still prefer the GPL because I know that the software will ALWAYS be free to use and to modify.
> It doesn't try to force a morality on you. If > you want to use the code, you decide if you > release your changes back. RedHat is a company > with a heart and gives back to the community, > they didn't need the GPL to force them to. The > same is true for Walnut Creek's support of > FreeBSD.
Yes, this is true. However, your point assumes that all companies "have a heart" and will give back to the community, even if the code is BSD licensed.
However, I think this is rather large assumption to make. Purely to illustrate my point, another hypothetical: Linux is where it is today, except completely under a BSD license. Can you think of any companies that would jump on that code? Modify it for their own means? And sell it for a profit, the source never to be seen again? I can, and the name starts with "M".
This general scenario, not my specific hypothetical, is to me the danger of the BSD license.
I realize that the original code is still available. My point is:
Any Joe Developer can come along, take that "free" code, add his changes, and sell the code for profit. If I want those changes, I have to pay for it.
If the code was GPL'ed, I could get the changes for free.
Tell me how the BSD is more free for me, then?
[ As an aside, one might point out that the developer may not bother adding his/her changes to the GPL'ed code, as he/she can't sell it for profit. Well, as Redhat has proven, this is hogwash. ]
Finally: this is not to say the BSD license is garbage. Just that I prefer the GPL and think it does a better job of ensuring software remains free, as in user "gratis" and developer "liberty".
> But that's not really freedom in the traditional > sense, is it? No, in the traditional sense, the > BSD license is really much more "free" than the > GPL.
The BSD license reduces the freedom of *users* of software -- specifically by allowing developers to take BSD code, add their changes, and sell it under proprietary terms. I then have to pay for the software if I wish to use it, even if 99% of the code was contributed by others.
In this manner, the BSD license is less free for users -- hence Stallman's comment about developers swinging a fist but stopping at his nose. To use his metaphor, if you are a user:
The GPL stops the developer's fist at your nose.
The BSD license lets the developer bash their fist into your face.
> He acknowledges that someone may be working on > the type of ground-breaking innovation he came > up with in the 1970s to revolutionise the > industry.
Ground-breaking innovation? Isn't this the guy who *bought* the initial version of Disk Operating System from some guy in Seattle, fancied it up, and sold it to IBM for their PC?
Maybe "innovation" in business practices (ahem) but certainly not in computer technology!
"The circumstantial evidence available, however, suggests that Apple's embrace of BSD is part of a natural evolutionary process for Apple, and has little to do with a nefarious plot to undermine Linux."
Exactly. Circumstantial evidence is just that, circumstantial... not a given. The Salon article also says:
"For years, they noted, Apple had actively supported the development of mkLinux, a version of Linux that would run on PowerPCs. But now, with the announcement of Darwin, Apple appeared to be abandoning Linux. Could this be because the company saw the fast-growing operating system as a threat to its own future profits? The first iteration of Darwin released to the public, Mac OS X Server, appeared to be aimed directly at Linux's main stronghold -- the computer server market."
But I digress, even after just posting that quote. My point is, it's fuzzy, not black (Apple is trying to kill Linux) or white (Apple is not trying to kill Linux). It's probably somewhere in between -- Apple is benefitting from the BSD code where they can. They may not intend to support BSD at the expense of Linux, but if Linux is undermined, then, oh well... maybe people will buy more OS X licenses.
It's only a matter of time until Linux has a GUI that may be even better than the Mac. The Linux kernel is rock solid. That's got to worry Apple, especially the PowerPC Linux ports.
Slashdot Mirror
> Would that happen today? Naw, that'd mean
> looking beyond the next quarter! Even if a
> company wanted too, their managment would be
> crusified by the Wall St. analysts & their
> investors.
I just worked as a consultant (via a 3rd party company) for a client that has a hiring freeze on programming & technical staff. This is so that, to Wall Street's eyes, the client is keeping its core expenses (employee salaries) lower in relation to revenue.
Of course, there are still project deadlines to meet, so they hire consultants to fill those technical roles.
Sole benefit: payment for consultants can apparently be written off as "one-time" expenses.
Two problems:
1) Consultants cost more per hour than employees. 2) There is high turnover with consultants (for example, I don't work for that client any more) and the client has problems meeting targets for key projects, etc.
Duh! How is this good for the company long term? They avoid hiring permanent employees to have a nicer-looking balance sheet, but sacrifice the benefit of stable, productive, long-term employees?
Ridiculous, if you ask me. Hooray for market forces!
... that air conditioning was invented in Buffalo?"
;-)
The "Armpit of America"? Have you ever smelled that city?
I rest my case...
I dislike studies such as these which paint group A as smarter than group B because they use a particular type of appliance (in this case, a computer).
I shudder to think of some Mac fanatics that will use this study to prop up their sense of superiority.
Hey... *I* use a Mac, but I don't lord it over other people like some Badge of Higher Intelligence.
Get a grip, people!
Reading this review of Gnome reminded me of the days (about a year and half ago now) when I was still trying to use Linux and Gnome (somtimes KDE) as a desktop machine.
Nothing coherent about the UI design, hunting around to find configuration panels, getting messages that tell the user to download this package or that package (which leads directly to Dependency Hell).
These days, I use Mac OS X. Sure, it's UI isn't perfect. And I know, it's an apples to oranges comparison, Free Software to commercial. But man, do I ever enjoy using a coherent desktop with one place to change settings (System Preferences). No fuss! No muss! I'm far more productive.
And my Linux server continues to hum away in the basement, quietly powering my website.
Life is good.
I have no problem using the latest Mozilla on OS X.
And it's NOT hard at all to change the default browser to Mozilla.
1. Open System Preferences.
2. Open Internet panel.
3. Switch default to Mozilla using drop-down list.
If those aren't the steps exactly, they are close -- right now I'm at work, on my crappy Win2K laptop -- so I'm working from memory. I've got a flat-panel iMac running OS X 10.1.4 at home.
s/abot/about/
I have been galled, if not suprised, to observe the pattern of most comments regarding the Mozilla project over the years at Slashdot.
/. over the years anyway. It's not like, say, abot 80% of comments were completely unconstructive, nooo....
In the early days, it was:
"My GOD, this will NEVER be a usable product! Blah! Mozilla bites!"
This attitude has prevailed (morphing to nitpicking) even with the most recent 0.9.x releases:
"My GOD, Mozilla doesn't cook my bacon and eggs, and make my bed in the morning! Blah! Mozilla bites!"
Now with 1.0 days away, we finally see many more encouraging messages:
"Way to go Mozilla! We were with you all along! Hooray for the glories of Open Source and Free Software!"
I guess I'm being a bit cynical, but it's a good thing that most of the Mozilla developers probably ignored
Take my mention of "DVD-RW" in point "b)" and substitute "DVD-R". My bad, though my point still stands.
I have one of the new flat-panel iMacs, which to my knowledge, includes the reviewed Pioneer drive.
I can corroborate, for CD-RW, that the write speeds are a bit pokey. It took about 25 minutes, round-trip, for me to burn a CD-RW full of MP3's.
However, I think this is balanced by the fact that:
a) Burning on Mac OS X is dead simple. Insert media. Choose format type. Drag files to burn to recordable media icon which appears on desktop. Burn. Soooo much more simple than any program I'd ever used on Windows.
b) Compatability. The reviewer is correct in placing much emphasis on how compatible DVD-RW is with current players. No matter how good YOU may be at making things work, buying the right player, etc., the family is still going to think "that's stupid" when they take the movie you burned on DVD+RW, stick it in THEIR player, and see an error message.
IMHO, YMMV, etc, etc.
"It's an integral part of the operating system."
At least, according to Microsoft.
You are referring to the original use of the term "to patent".
Today, a patent application need not be a blueprint to reproduce said invention. The application only needs to describe enough of the invention to convince the patent office to grant the patent.
Check out the Wikipedia definition.
Yes, but Samba's had to deal with ever-shifting protocols.
In short, like Samba, Mono still faces a lot of extra work and being left behind the curve when MS decides to add undocumented functionality or "features".
Even if a maintainer in another country takes a go at duplicating a patented feature, they're left with reverse engineering said nifty feature, just like WINE... we've all seen how easy that is.
(Microsoft won't be publishing API's or other blueprints for patented features...)
Miguel:
> or ourselves. I want to be as compatible as
> possible with the APIs that were published by
> Microsoft.
Alan:
Be assured that the day they decide you are a nuisance the VM will acquire a patented neat feature that kills you off. Just ask the Samba people.
(from Alan's reply to Miguel's message)
Cool! If you like, let me know how your new iMac works out for you; I'll do the same. You can reach me at russellwgordon AT yahoo DOT com .
:)
A few of my co-workers are sitting on the fence, but as of this moment I have no one to directly trade tech tips with (except users via various community websites). Lately I've been checking out the O'Reilly Network Mac DevCenter. It has a lot of lucid, informative articles on the Mac power-user side of things.
Cheers!
This is just one example, but my aunt and uncle, in their late 50's, early 60's, bought one of the original iMac's. They couldn't be any more middle class, run-of-the-mill-type-users if they tried. With this original iMac, they got on the Internet all by theirselves, can scan images easily, do word processing, etc. I don't think Katz's claims hold water in their case.
:)
BTW -- I'm a power user. I just sold my P4-1400MHz/512MB RAM/40GB Wintel system to a friend at work. My new flat-screen 800MHz/256MB RAM/Superdrive equipped iMac is on order and arriving next week. I can't wait to try serving my website with Apache on Mac OS X. I've been using Linux & BSD for > 4 years. Windows for as long as I can remember. I think there are a lot of users out there like me, wondering whether to take the plunge into the Mac world... I for one am excited about computing again. Can't to get my new iMac!
...we lose the motivation to end it.
There is an original Star Trek episode that discusses this very topic -- A Taste of Armageddon.
What's that? You do eat things that cast a shadow?
Shame on you!
No login required!
m l
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4236527.ht
> Umm, would it be so horrible if MS did use Linux
> code?
On a technical level, no. You have a good point here -- everybody would benefit if Windows (and every other OS) was more stable.
However, if Linux was BSD licensed, and if Microsoft adopted the code, it would still be a Bad Thing, overall. They take the stability of the kernel -- and add bells and whistles -- and let's give them the benefit of the doubt -- people would probably want this software. Well, unfortunately I doubt Microsoft would give the OS away for free. The BSD license would let them charge for the software, and I'm sure they would.
In short, I think the BSD license is a bit of a middle ground between proprietary and truly free (read: GPL) software. As we've pointed out, the BSD license has it's benefits. I (as a developer and a user) still prefer the GPL because I know that the software will ALWAYS be free to use and to modify.
> It doesn't try to force a morality on you. If
> you want to use the code, you decide if you
> release your changes back. RedHat is a company
> with a heart and gives back to the community,
> they didn't need the GPL to force them to. The
> same is true for Walnut Creek's support of
> FreeBSD.
Yes, this is true. However, your point assumes that all companies "have a heart" and will give back to the community, even if the code is BSD licensed.
However, I think this is rather large assumption to make. Purely to illustrate my point, another hypothetical: Linux is where it is today, except completely under a BSD license. Can you think of any companies that would jump on that code? Modify it for their own means? And sell it for a profit, the source never to be seen again? I can, and the name starts with "M".
This general scenario, not my specific hypothetical, is to me the danger of the BSD license.
I realize that the original code is still available. My point is:
Any Joe Developer can come along, take that "free" code, add his changes, and sell the code for profit. If I want those changes, I have to pay for it.
If the code was GPL'ed, I could get the changes for free.
Tell me how the BSD is more free for me, then?
[ As an aside, one might point out that the developer may not bother adding his/her changes to the GPL'ed code, as he/she can't sell it for profit. Well, as Redhat has proven, this is hogwash. ]
Finally: this is not to say the BSD license is garbage. Just that I prefer the GPL and think it does a better job of ensuring software remains free, as in user "gratis" and developer "liberty".
> But that's not really freedom in the traditional
> sense, is it? No, in the traditional sense, the
> BSD license is really much more "free" than the
> GPL.
The BSD license reduces the freedom of *users* of software -- specifically by allowing developers to take BSD code, add their changes, and sell it under proprietary terms. I then have to pay for the software if I wish to use it, even if 99% of the code was contributed by others.
In this manner, the BSD license is less free for users -- hence Stallman's comment about developers swinging a fist but stopping at his nose. To use his metaphor, if you are a user:
The GPL stops the developer's fist at your nose.
The BSD license lets the developer bash their fist into your face.
> He acknowledges that someone may be working on
> the type of ground-breaking innovation he came
> up with in the 1970s to revolutionise the
> industry.
Ground-breaking innovation? Isn't this the guy who *bought* the initial version of Disk Operating System from some guy in Seattle, fancied it up, and sold it to IBM for their PC?
Maybe "innovation" in business practices (ahem) but certainly not in computer technology!
The Salon article says:
"The circumstantial evidence available, however, suggests that Apple's embrace of BSD is part of a natural evolutionary process for Apple, and has little to do with a nefarious plot to undermine Linux."
Exactly. Circumstantial evidence is just that, circumstantial... not a given. The Salon article also says:
"For years, they noted, Apple had actively supported the development of mkLinux, a version of Linux that would run on PowerPCs. But now, with the announcement of Darwin, Apple appeared to be abandoning Linux. Could this be because the company saw the fast-growing operating system as a threat to its own future profits? The first iteration of Darwin released to the public, Mac OS X Server, appeared to be aimed directly at Linux's main stronghold -- the computer server market."
But I digress, even after just posting that quote. My point is, it's fuzzy, not black (Apple is trying to kill Linux) or white (Apple is not trying to kill Linux). It's probably somewhere in between -- Apple is benefitting from the BSD code where they can. They may not intend to support BSD at the expense of Linux, but if Linux is undermined, then, oh well... maybe people will buy more OS X licenses.
It's only a matter of time until Linux has a GUI that may be even better than the Mac. The Linux kernel is rock solid. That's got to worry
Apple, especially the PowerPC Linux ports.