With so many politicians in the West parroting about the threat of terrorism, the UK would get the cold shoulder from other countries if proben unreliable when it comes to the handling of radiocative materials.
There is no application compatibility, you have to start from that hard fact.
Where you move from there depends of what you want to achieve. If your objective is to run as many Windows applications as possible, then I see little advantage in moving to Linux, where you will need emulation or remote terminal software (the only advantage I would see for this is that a tainted Windows Virtual machine is much easier to patch, throw away or redeploy, and you have a secure host OS, but tht would increase your support costs, so still I see little benefit).
If you want to save money in the long term and protect your company against forced upgrades and vendor lockin, then emulation or remote terminals should be an interim step in the direction of moving as many of your needs as possible to Linux, but you can't do a blanket migration of everything, most likely there will be residual applications that no matter what you do, won't be moved to Linux. You can "quarintine" them in Windows boxes that people could access when needed. There are solutions out there (Sun's Tarantella) that can unify your WIndows and Linux space in one desktop easy to understand for users.
Do I still need to pay Microsoft for the yearly licenses for Windows? If you use virtualization, yes. I don't know if you use remote terminal software (Citrix, Tarantella, VNC). If unsure think yes, but this can only be clarified by your MS representative. Their licensing schemes are so confussing that you will need all the help you can muster to spell in dollars and cents what you would need to pay.
If I have to look at conversion to separate packages of software, including retraining of employees and support staff on new packages and dealing with missing functionality, that severely impacts the morale and productivity of employees in company in supporting the new software.
Retraining for the most basic applications (browser, office suite, email client) should be minimal or even unnecessary for any computer literate person, and in no way would be more onerous than the required in case of migration to new software.
For more specialized applications you will need to do retraining. The morale of your employees is a managerial issue, not a technical one. If you attack a major migration with a defeatist attitude nothing good will come from that, if in the other hand you explain the reasons, cost savings and benefits for all the parties involved and training is provided timely I fail to see how morale could be affected adversely.
You write software completely oblivious to the social consequences of what you do.
There are plenty of well intentioned people that do little good for not checking what consequences their actions may have in a wider context, either in the IT world or in many other areas.
You BSD guys are really intellectualy lazy, so I will put a little allegory that hopefully clarifies this for you.
Lets say there is a river and that it passes through your land. Lets also say that you can do whatever you want with your land, including the river bit that crosses it.
The BSD guy will not block the river's flow, but will not care if somebody else's down stream does. He has done his bit to save the world and that gives him a warm and fuzzy feeling.
The GPL guy will also allow the stream to flow, but since he could potentially stop the flow (hint: copyright) and he is a fair chap, he writes a rule that mandates that nobody downstream can stop the river flowing, and whoever tries will be taken to court and if possible blocked to have access to the water.
The GPL guy understands that his actions take place in a societal context, the BSD guy is affiriming, in the best of Thatcherite traditions, if there is such a thing as society.
(as an aside, the MS guy will try to damn the river, make you go thirsty, and then charge you every couple of years for a bit of coloured water).
By releasing software with a BSD licence the flow of information stops with a commercial vendor, the users of products created by that vendor are exactly in the same situation as if a closed source advocate was providing the software. TO the user there is a point where BSD and closed sour code are completely undistinguishable from a practical point of view.
So tell us again, how BSD released code is more free? It is looking pretty locked down to me.
As you said there are waiting lists in order to receive treatment, some of them are unacceptable but some of them are perfectly bearable. But it is a system that overall is fair to all and that will treat you promptly whenever possible.
The matter of fact is that if you get sick you get treatment.
If you are rich enough nothing stops you to pay for treatment yourself (there is a parallel system of private doctors and hospitals) and many companies offer health inssurance policies that help cover the cracks of the state provided service or when you want to get some tratment faster.
The "everything I want" is not strictly correct, but is mostly true since most people demand only what they really need.
The "unlimited quantities" is not necessary, you want to get better after all. But if you have a cronic disease you will be looked after, sometimes with carers visiting you at home. Of course the system has failings, but this is immensily better thatn to leave people to their own devices.
The disadvantages are waiting times for some operations and treatments, doctors having little time to evaluate patients (the typical appointment lasts a few minutes), overcrowding in some hospitals.
But this is in the UK, others countries (like France, Germany or Spain) have a better reputation regarding their health services.
During the Margaret Thatcher government (of "there is no such thing as society" fame ) investment in any socialized service was virutally stopped ("buses are for losers" according to her), so the failings of the current service are directly attributable to her.
The current government has tried to put this right, the improvement of the Health Service is what kept the current government in power in spite of their misguided support of the Iraq debacle.
If you have IT policies in place the CEO can't just plug any damn laptop he wishes to the network. I would not allow it, and I am not high in the chain food in my company at all.
If he does that would be an audit failing and ultimately he, or somebody close to him, would be responsible for such failings.
Sarbanes & Oxley is mostly fluff, but at least CEOs know where the bucket stops.
I have been several times there, and was badly treated in immigration as a Mexican a couple of times ( the way Chinese travellers were treated has no name honestly).
I don't expect to visit you guys until you get rid aff all this nonsense frankly.
Even in Vietnam I was welcomed and treated with respect by the immigration officers, and at no point I was fingerprinted or anything of the sort.
You guys, who mostly have travelled little, have no idea how authoritarian all these measures look from the outside.
-Question the actions of our elected representatives.
-Question how people that were known to have sympathies with groups that have attacked the US elsewhere, boarded those planes, in groups of 3 or 4 nonetheles!!!
-Question the wisdom of letting a computer (programmed by people) to make decisions like if it was all knowing.
-Demand to know why we may be refused the freedom of movement we are entitled to.
-Demand to know the rules by which we may be even incarcerated (and may I remind you, sent to Guantanamo or worst, with no recourse, withouth knowing the charges, without any means to defend yourself).
You are justifying your government build of a police state, bit bit bit, peacemeal approach.
But we will be safe.
North Korean safe, everybody that has been there agrees that crime rates are very low and terrorist attacks are unheard off.
All this bullshit people in democracies are allowing will come back to bite them in ways they can't think of right now.
That is what happens when you forget about sound democratic principles and demand to be safe....
Israelis were classed as terrorists while trying to stablish the state of Israel.
The ANC was classed as a terrorist organization. Nelson Mandela their figurehead.
Hutus kille Tutsis by the hundreds of thousedns (if you don't define genocide as a form of terrorism, all the power to yu). Both groups are mostly Christian. Some of these people have been livin happily abroad.
Profiling does not work. Evil is everywhere.
If you go into your rockers profiling for one type of person you will keeps your eyes from other *real* threats.
Profileing is an admission of failure in regards to intelligence gathering.
Are you saying that if the terrorists can't get into the planes they will try to smuggle explosives by other means, bypassing this way the useles profiling?
MS is a monopoly. They can't do whatever they want. Keep that in mind every time you jump to their defense.
In all other OSes we can remove the equivalent components at our leisure (one of the most important points of why MS hasn't run away with the server market is the need to keep a GUI running in a fucking bloody server, adding a layer of complexity and thus bugs, that you don't need).
In MS OSes we can't unless we go to extreme pains and most likley in that moment MS will stop support of the OS.
Slashdot Mirror
In the sense you are implying (but it should not be btw).
But you can't force people to learn, mantain and modify the software for you for free.
That has associated costs.
If you think that is easy, check all the arithemetic required to make one that is actually in tune.
With so many politicians in the West parroting about the threat of terrorism, the UK would get the cold shoulder from other countries if proben unreliable when it comes to the handling of radiocative materials.
New stoves use a similar system to the one you are describing...
All nuclear energy so far is heavily subsideized by the state, even in the US.
It is not panacea because it is expensive and sprouts materials that are so dangerous it is not funny.
Other sources of energy in combination with widespread reductions in the consumption of energy is the only sutainable solution.
You are sliding back into an authoritarian regime.
Those never work in the benefit of the people.
It has always being about power. And we do know what too much power can do to people....
How wonderful that is.
Application compatibility.
There is no application compatibility, you have to start from that hard fact.
Where you move from there depends of what you want to achieve. If your objective is to run as many Windows applications as possible, then I see little advantage in moving to Linux, where you will need emulation or remote terminal software (the only advantage I would see for this is that a tainted Windows Virtual machine is much easier to patch, throw away or redeploy, and you have a secure host OS, but tht would increase your support costs, so still I see little benefit).
If you want to save money in the long term and protect your company against forced upgrades and vendor lockin, then emulation or remote terminals should be an interim step in the direction of moving as many of your needs as possible to Linux, but you can't do a blanket migration of everything, most likely there will be residual applications that no matter what you do, won't be moved to Linux. You can "quarintine" them in Windows boxes that people could access when needed. There are solutions out there (Sun's Tarantella) that can unify your WIndows and Linux space in one desktop easy to understand for users.
Do I still need to pay Microsoft for the yearly licenses for Windows?
If you use virtualization, yes. I don't know if you use remote terminal software (Citrix, Tarantella, VNC). If unsure think yes, but this can only be clarified by your MS representative. Their licensing schemes are so confussing that you will need all the help you can muster to spell in dollars and cents what you would need to pay.
If I have to look at conversion to separate packages of software, including retraining of employees and support staff on new packages and dealing with missing functionality, that severely impacts the morale and productivity of employees in company in supporting the new software.
Retraining for the most basic applications (browser, office suite, email client) should be minimal or even unnecessary for any computer literate person, and in no way would be more onerous than the required in case of migration to new software.
For more specialized applications you will need to do retraining. The morale of your employees is a managerial issue, not a technical one. If you attack a major migration with a defeatist attitude nothing good will come from that, if in the other hand you explain the reasons, cost savings and benefits for all the parties involved and training is provided timely I fail to see how morale could be affected adversely.
You write software completely oblivious to the social consequences of what you do.
There are plenty of well intentioned people that do little good for not checking what consequences their actions may have in a wider context, either in the IT world or in many other areas.
You BSD guys are really intellectualy lazy, so I will put a little allegory that hopefully clarifies this for you.
Lets say there is a river and that it passes through your land. Lets also say that you can do whatever you want with your land, including the river bit that crosses it.
The BSD guy will not block the river's flow, but will not care if somebody else's down stream does. He has done his bit to save the world and that gives him a warm and fuzzy feeling.
The GPL guy will also allow the stream to flow, but since he could potentially stop the flow (hint: copyright) and he is a fair chap, he writes a rule that mandates that nobody downstream can stop the river flowing, and whoever tries will be taken to court and if possible blocked to have access to the water.
The GPL guy understands that his actions take place in a societal context, the BSD guy is affiriming, in the best of Thatcherite traditions, if there is such a thing as society.
(as an aside, the MS guy will try to damn the river, make you go thirsty, and then charge you every couple of years for a bit of coloured water).
By releasing software with a BSD licence the flow of information stops with a commercial vendor, the users of products created by that vendor are exactly in the same situation as if a closed source advocate was providing the software. TO the user there is a point where BSD and closed sour code are completely undistinguishable from a practical point of view.
So tell us again, how BSD released code is more free? It is looking pretty locked down to me.
From the report:
"It appears that OpenOffice provides a satisfactory equivalent to Microsoft products for those using basic or intermediate functionality,"
I hope this and other studies put to rest this one.
As you said there are waiting lists in order to receive treatment, some of them are unacceptable but some of them are perfectly bearable. But it is a system that overall is fair to all and that will treat you promptly whenever possible.
The matter of fact is that if you get sick you get treatment.
If you are rich enough nothing stops you to pay for treatment yourself (there is a parallel system of private doctors and hospitals) and many companies offer health inssurance policies that help cover the cracks of the state provided service or when you want to get some tratment faster.
The "everything I want" is not strictly correct, but is mostly true since most people demand only what they really need.
The "unlimited quantities" is not necessary, you want to get better after all. But if you have a cronic disease you will be looked after, sometimes with carers visiting you at home. Of course the system has failings, but this is immensily better thatn to leave people to their own devices.
The disadvantages are waiting times for some operations and treatments, doctors having little time to evaluate patients (the typical appointment lasts a few minutes), overcrowding in some hospitals.
But this is in the UK, others countries (like France, Germany or Spain) have a better reputation regarding their health services.
During the Margaret Thatcher government (of "there is no such thing as society" fame ) investment in any socialized service was virutally stopped ("buses are for losers" according to her), so the failings of the current service are directly attributable to her.
The current government has tried to put this right, the improvement of the Health Service is what kept the current government in power in spite of their misguided support of the Iraq debacle.
In the UK and Germany you can choose who your doctor is and can request to move to a different specialist if you don't like the treatment.
In recent legal rulings it has been found that not allowing this would breach human rights legislation.
If you have IT policies in place the CEO can't just plug any damn laptop he wishes to the network. I would not allow it, and I am not high in the chain food in my company at all.
If he does that would be an audit failing and ultimately he, or somebody close to him, would be responsible for such failings.
Sarbanes & Oxley is mostly fluff, but at least CEOs know where the bucket stops.
There are many regional differences.
I have been several times there, and was badly treated in immigration as a Mexican a couple of times ( the way Chinese travellers were treated has no name honestly).
I don't expect to visit you guys until you get rid aff all this nonsense frankly.
Even in Vietnam I was welcomed and treated with respect by the immigration officers, and at no point I was fingerprinted or anything of the sort.
You guys, who mostly have travelled little, have no idea how authoritarian all these measures look from the outside.
We people in democracies, how dare we to:
-Question the actions of our elected representatives.
-Question how people that were known to have sympathies with groups that have attacked the US elsewhere, boarded those planes, in groups of 3 or 4 nonetheles!!!
-Question the wisdom of letting a computer (programmed by people) to make decisions like if it was all knowing.
-Demand to know why we may be refused the freedom of movement we are entitled to.
-Demand to know the rules by which we may be even incarcerated (and may I remind you, sent to Guantanamo or worst, with no recourse, withouth knowing the charges, without any means to defend yourself).
You are justifying your government build of a police state, bit bit bit, peacemeal approach.
But we will be safe.
North Korean safe, everybody that has been there agrees that crime rates are very low and terrorist attacks are unheard off.
All this bullshit people in democracies are allowing will come back to bite them in ways they can't think of right now.
That is what happens when you forget about sound democratic principles and demand to be safe....
Israelis were classed as terrorists while trying to stablish the state of Israel.
The ANC was classed as a terrorist organization. Nelson Mandela their figurehead.
Hutus kille Tutsis by the hundreds of thousedns (if you don't define genocide as a form of terrorism, all the power to yu). Both groups are mostly Christian. Some of these people have been livin happily abroad.
Profiling does not work. Evil is everywhere.
If you go into your rockers profiling for one type of person you will keeps your eyes from other *real* threats.
Profileing is an admission of failure in regards to intelligence gathering.
Are you saying that if the terrorists can't get into the planes they will try to smuggle explosives by other means, bypassing this way the useles profiling?
Holly veils Batman!
MS is a monopoly. They can't do whatever they want. Keep that in mind every time you jump to their defense.
In all other OSes we can remove the equivalent components at our leisure (one of the most important points of why MS hasn't run away with the server market is the need to keep a GUI running in a fucking bloody server, adding a layer of complexity and thus bugs, that you don't need).
In MS OSes we can't unless we go to extreme pains and most likley in that moment MS will stop support of the OS.
Honestly. What do you win?
The MS people are the ones saying you can't remove it. It is not me, it is not Linus Torvalds, Steve Jobs or Richard Stallman.
Bill fucking Gates himself said so under oath in a court of law.
Show us the supported steps to remove IE from your windows machine. What you suggest is nonsense, since it is not supported.
I am sick and tired of people *still* ejaculating such nonsense.
For them it is like the court case that found MS guilty of abusing its monolopic position in the PC OS market never happened.
If you are a MS shrill at least start from a stand that recognizes reality, and not a version you dream about but which is patently false.
..... like if they were a valid construct.
Software patents do not matter. How big your team of lawyers is does.
The validity of them is also immaterial, which is what many folks around here are not getting.
MS, or any big company for that matter, can put of of contention just by threatening to sue, no matter the merits of hteir "complaint".
.... they can keep their own distro an mantain it themselves.
If you have so many different flavours of Linux in your shop that talks about incompetence and lack of profesionalism.
No immoral patent deal will fix that for you.