What happens when you are dealing with a home video or recording?
How does Vista knows it is non DRM encumbered media?
How about a CD for which the authors or publishers do not give a rat ass about DRM? How is Vista going to know it does not need to waste cycles to check that?
Your baseless defense of the indefensible is frankly tired and futile.
If you have hundreds of Sun machines failing, the question is: who did the testing before buying the stuff?
Any company investing so much money in new systems (and here, systems should mean the hardware, software, personnel and processes that are going to be followed to work with information) must make sure that the systems are fit for purpose. If so many systems are failing with a given configuration this should have been caught in a pilot deployment. If your SA did not do this or did it but the test were not thorough enough, then yes, he may be at fault for not making sure what you were buying was actually fit for purpose from the start.
You can script pretty much whatever you want at installation time. Do you need a user account? A short script will do that for you in all machines. No, the user should not be able to chose his account at installation time, in serious companies the user is given an account so you as administrator can script that perfectly fine.
Anybody that mentions a GUI at installation time to create users shows that has worked only in small enterprises. The GUI is the graveyard of the efficiency where efficiency is required.
I have not checked recently what is the state of jump start (the installation protocols for Solaris), but last time I checked you could use http to install Solaris remotely. WHich other "modern" protocol am I missing?
Now, the user will never ever have root account in a machine administered by a competent Solaris SA. Period. IF the user needs something they don't go and open a GUI, they go and ask the Solaris SA and he fixes the machine for them (if pertinent) because Solaris SA do know what they are doing, unlike Linux types, some of whom have never dropped to the command line to type an rpm or youm command when the GUI goes ga-ga.
And in regards to the ability to install additional software after initial installation, whoever is writing has no idea what he is talking about or is making a point in a completely different context. With Jumpstart you can script whatever you want after Solaris proper has been installed. I don't understand the inability of some people that pretend to be professional but that can't script their way out of the most basic problems.
An "expert" in Solaris decrying the lack of GUI and forgetting about the flexibility of scripting is to be seriously doubted frankly, that means that such a person is contrained by the limitiations of the GUIs he craves for, which is not what you need in big deployments.
One that could be supported amongst multiple platforms?
You are "proposing" (and here, I use the word generously) a solution taking the stand that Linux users are leeches.
IF we were going to use the same methods of reasoning any minority would have to pay more taxes in order to receive equal treatment by any tax funded agency. I am sure you don't want to go down that alley of reasoning.
... then what exactly is Novell defending itself against?
Sorry, no, they looked to protect themselves indemnifying a piece of software that is not theirs only to control, letting the rest of the community to defend themselves in any way they could.
Some other companies, which I will not mention, the bastards, did the same thing.
Some other companies, like Red Hat and Ubuntu, saw the deal for what it is and said to MS to go and stuff their "deal" there where the Sun (the star, not the company) doe not shine...
Simply put they yielded to pressure instead of taking a principled approach. That has no excuse, no matter which other good deeds they may have or will do in the future.
Any discussion about computing will eventually mention MS.
This is not gratuitous, their pervasive influence in all the industry is a concerted effort on their part, as soon as somebody make something moderately successful they try to supplant it with their own offerings.
Solaris package management may not be the best or cleverest, but it gets the job done.
Companies with thousends of machines (cough, cough, cough) can happily manage their packages in Solaris, so not chosing Solaris for this particular reason sounds like a lazy excuse for not doing your homework.
Ubuntu. Linux in Laptops.
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
Linux in all datacentres.
Linux is now a serious corporate player.
Oh yeah, and MS is so worried about it that is trying all kind of dirty tricks in the open against Linux. That is a measure of how important Linux is now.
My company (a very big one) has been deploying very happily Linux all these years.
Anybody with a modicum of logic could see that the claims were so outrageous that only a brain dead judge could have possibly ruled in favour of SCO.
Any company with any sense should have not changed their Linux plans since first it was obvious that there was no reason for it, secondly, even if the claims would had some merit (ha,ha,ha) Linux was obviously going nowhere.
FUD? Nope. YOu can spread FUD only on uninformed people, people that learn about a given issue can't be FUDed so to speak.
Services have always been part of the economic activity. At this point in time they are more valuable.
WHen in the future everybody in CHina and India is doing services and there are no countries left wanting to do manufacturing, then manufacturing will come back in vogue and the most flexible countries will enrich from the new trend.
Services is not nothing, their are activities with a real economic value.
If you donate something, it must be money, not material.
This allows the Red Cross (or any other organization for that matter) to source what they need close to the disaster zone, which save time and money in logistics (and often contributes directly to the economy of a devastated area).
THe role of the Red Cross is very specific, you may think they did jack shit in some situations, but you should maybe read first their aims and objectives so you know what they do, putting aside any wishful thinking.
Look, there is a reason why the rest of the world does not like many things coming from the US, one of them is the monetization and commercialization of everything. Maybe the US Red Cross behaves like that, but in other countries that is not the case. SOmething you fail to see as well is that in a conflict zone they are not there to support your military, they are there to support the injured, whatever their nationality.
The Red Cross in other countries is the last resource for people that otherwise would not receive any medical help, and they do this for free. As for their role in conflict zones like Palestine, it is well documented the heroics to which they go to help victims of military or terrorist attacks.
It has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 3 different occasions for their outstanding contributions in zones of conflict.
Slashdot Mirror
THe point was that you are forced to upgrade by your software provider.
The balance of power has shifted from the client to the provider. Any industry in which this happens is sick and needs urgent remediation.
What happens when you are dealing with a home video or recording?
How does Vista knows it is non DRM encumbered media?
How about a CD for which the authors or publishers do not give a rat ass about DRM? How is Vista going to know it does not need to waste cycles to check that?
Your baseless defense of the indefensible is frankly tired and futile.
If you have hundreds of Sun machines failing, the question is: who did the testing before buying the stuff?
Any company investing so much money in new systems (and here, systems should mean the hardware, software, personnel and processes that are going to be followed to work with information) must make sure that the systems are fit for purpose. If so many systems are failing with a given configuration this should have been caught in a pilot deployment. If your SA did not do this or did it but the test were not thorough enough, then yes, he may be at fault for not making sure what you were buying was actually fit for purpose from the start.
You can script pretty much whatever you want at installation time. Do you need a user account? A short script will do that for you in all machines. No, the user should not be able to chose his account at installation time, in serious companies the user is given an account so you as administrator can script that perfectly fine.
Anybody that mentions a GUI at installation time to create users shows that has worked only in small enterprises. The GUI is the graveyard of the efficiency where efficiency is required.
I have not checked recently what is the state of jump start (the installation protocols for Solaris), but last time I checked you could use http to install Solaris remotely. WHich other "modern" protocol am I missing?
Now, the user will never ever have root account in a machine administered by a competent Solaris SA. Period. IF the user needs something they don't go and open a GUI, they go and ask the Solaris SA and he fixes the machine for them (if pertinent) because Solaris SA do know what they are doing, unlike Linux types, some of whom have never dropped to the command line to type an rpm or youm command when the GUI goes ga-ga.
And in regards to the ability to install additional software after initial installation, whoever is writing has no idea what he is talking about or is making a point in a completely different context. With Jumpstart you can script whatever you want after Solaris proper has been installed. I don't understand the inability of some people that pretend to be professional but that can't script their way out of the most basic problems.
An "expert" in Solaris decrying the lack of GUI and forgetting about the flexibility of scripting is to be seriously doubted frankly, that means that such a person is contrained by the limitiations of the GUIs he craves for, which is not what you need in big deployments.
Because there is no solution that works in all devices.
If the BBC needs to introduce DRM then they should invent their own distribution methods that would be platform independent.
If they had asked the help of the FOSS community I am sure that a solution could have been reached.
One that could be supported amongst multiple platforms?
You are "proposing" (and here, I use the word generously) a solution taking the stand that Linux users are leeches.
IF we were going to use the same methods of reasoning any minority would have to pay more taxes in order to receive equal treatment by any tax funded agency. I am sure you don't want to go down that alley of reasoning.
... then what exactly is Novell defending itself against?
Sorry, no, they looked to protect themselves indemnifying a piece of software that is not theirs only to control, letting the rest of the community to defend themselves in any way they could.
Some other companies, which I will not mention, the bastards, did the same thing.
Some other companies, like Red Hat and Ubuntu, saw the deal for what it is and said to MS to go and stuff their "deal" there where the Sun (the star, not the company) doe not shine...
Simply put they yielded to pressure instead of taking a principled approach. That has no excuse, no matter which other good deeds they may have or will do in the future.
.... they could not do much worse than to inspect what you mention.
Mono stinks like a Trojan horse, a patent disaster waiting to happen. No wonder they were so eager to get in bed with Uncle Bill & Co.
So the BBC is basically showing the finger to anybody that has decided not to make Uncle Bill richer.
Any discussion about computing will eventually mention MS.
This is not gratuitous, their pervasive influence in all the industry is a concerted effort on their part, as soon as somebody make something moderately successful they try to supplant it with their own offerings.
I work in another one, and in more likelihood it is bigger than yours, dear AC.
We are deploying Linux all around the place and the legal proceeding initiated by SCO did not stop us.
But alas, we have a good legal team and a very good technical team, both of which understand the issues at hand.
Not all Forbes 500 companies are created equal, you will find amongst them some ready to fall for any scam.
It takes a domestic accident (think about one, you can't be that unimaginative) to wipe out your "backup".
With Google such happening is highly unlikely.
Solaris package management may not be the best or cleverest, but it gets the job done.
Companies with thousends of machines (cough, cough, cough) can happily manage their packages in Solaris, so not chosing Solaris for this particular reason sounds like a lazy excuse for not doing your homework.
Linux in all datacentres.
Linux is now a serious corporate player.
Oh yeah, and MS is so worried about it that is trying all kind of dirty tricks in the open against Linux. That is a measure of how important Linux is now.
Novell has been distributing SuSE for some time now.
They have effectively acknowledged the GPL and thus given Linux a clean bill of health as the UNIX copyright owners.
Nobody ever will be able to use UNIX against Linux again.
My company (a very big one) has been deploying very happily Linux all these years.
Anybody with a modicum of logic could see that the claims were so outrageous that only a brain dead judge could have possibly ruled in favour of SCO.
Any company with any sense should have not changed their Linux plans since first it was obvious that there was no reason for it, secondly, even if the claims would had some merit (ha,ha,ha) Linux was obviously going nowhere.
FUD? Nope. YOu can spread FUD only on uninformed people, people that learn about a given issue can't be FUDed so to speak.
Services have always been part of the economic activity. At this point in time they are more valuable.
WHen in the future everybody in CHina and India is doing services and there are no countries left wanting to do manufacturing, then manufacturing will come back in vogue and the most flexible countries will enrich from the new trend.
Services is not nothing, their are activities with a real economic value.
... is archaic: synonym see OLD
I rest my case.
And since what matters is a completely editorial decision, you'll have to suck it up buddy.
The same convention that Bush and his cronies decided to ignore in Guantanamo and Abu Gharib.
The PP has a huge kernel of truth.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=265165&cid =20168829
If you donate something, it must be money, not material.
This allows the Red Cross (or any other organization for that matter) to source what they need close to the disaster zone, which save time and money in logistics (and often contributes directly to the economy of a devastated area).
THe role of the Red Cross is very specific, you may think they did jack shit in some situations, but you should maybe read first their aims and objectives so you know what they do, putting aside any wishful thinking.
Follow the link on the pp.
Look, there is a reason why the rest of the world does not like many things coming from the US, one of them is the monetization and commercialization of everything. Maybe the US Red Cross behaves like that, but in other countries that is not the case. SOmething you fail to see as well is that in a conflict zone they are not there to support your military, they are there to support the injured, whatever their nationality.
The Red Cross in other countries is the last resource for people that otherwise would not receive any medical help, and they do this for free. As for their role in conflict zones like Palestine, it is well documented the heroics to which they go to help victims of military or terrorist attacks.
It has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 3 different occasions for their outstanding contributions in zones of conflict.