High level concepts can be outlined in a few paragraphs.
Even if eventually the poste calls the consultants he can get enough ideas here to at least be properly informed of the overall direction a solution could take.
Why are there so many people around with a "don't bother" attitude?
20GB ~ 290 CDs ~ 300 hours (3000 songs, give or take).
How many hours do you listen to music per day ( I mean listen, caring about what you are letting smash yur auditive little bones) ? 1 hours? 2 hours? 10 hours?(yeah sure).
Do you need between 150 to 300 days worth of music at any given time?
I hasten you don't.
Bar professional people (DJs and the like) that really *need* that much music, all the rest of people have that much music just for pose.
People with that many CDs will never ever revisit 80% of them.
What they are doing to make money is to sell services (consultancy, integration, training) around that sofware.
Perhaps the only company still making money from only selling software is Microsoft, and considering that they had to break the law to make money I would not consider selling propietary sofware a very sound bussiness model in the long term.
Either that or IBM, Novell, HP, RedHat and many others are wrong.
With OSS you get a straight, honest answer. It may not be the answer that you want, but you know where you are standing.
With commercial companies you get marketing bullshit that tries to hype the pros while hiding the cons of a give product (that is their job, isn't it?).
I know what is why I prefer, no matter how much "arcane" text commands I have to type.
... from many (all?) Fortune 100 companies for stating such idiocity. I am not stating this a a rethorical statement to cheer up the/. crowd, I am dead serious.
Most companies worth their salt have strict guidelines, codes of conduct and policies that pretty much ammount to "a moral philosophy" as you put it.
That there are people out there still believing that companies do not have any moral standards is both scary and annoying.
Even to attempt humour you need some basic foundation of plausibility.
The CEO and Enginnering guru are not necessarily on the same carreer ladder (or maze, chose as you wish).
To imply that a CEO is more capable than a technical type because he is a CEO is ridiculous.
THe points made are valid, you have to question the entreprenurial accumen of somebody associating his company with a dying company whose businesss model for the last couple of years has been to litigate ad many former clients and associates as possible.
But for some hazy reason, companies themselves it would seem, should not care about it. Sometimes to make a bit of profit (how much profit can there be for MySQL in the SCO world?) by damaging your reputation is not worth it.
Reputation is one intangible that should be cherised. The only think I can say is that MySQL is not enhancing theirs in their wider world after this move.
From now on every time I need to evaluate a project, if MySQL is mentioned I will think "oh yea, those guys that associated themselves with SCO", which I am sure will be the lasting reaction of many technically minded people.
MySQL is pursuing this ungodly association at their peril.
Companies get many CVs becaue they don't specify the tasks of their jobs properly.
If you take the time to describe a job role properly you will be surprised how easy it is to filter the people that will not fit the bill.
Companies using templates for positions are bound to be inundated. Job applicants, helped by job agencies, know which are the most used "templates" for given posisions are.
Slashdot Mirror
From an ethical point of view.
And from a technical point of view at least it is possible to improve things if sombeody wants to.
Poster: we have Exchange, it does not work, we are moving to something else.
drsmithy: you should use Exchange. It is the rock0rz!
Me: doh!
Heavy /. users on my company are in charge of systems providing email services n that range.
/. readership for I don't know what reason, several of the reply a pure gold for somebody in the situation of the poster.
Actually I think I have spotted their reply already.
Many people underestimate the
Somebody that obviosuly has never been trusted with a challenge on his job.
Sad.
High level concepts can be outlined in a few paragraphs.
Even if eventually the poste calls the consultants he can get enough ideas here to at least be properly informed of the overall direction a solution could take.
Why are there so many people around with a "don't bother" attitude?
The benefits of miniaturization are so obvious it is not worth mentioning them....
Honestly, stop deluding yourself.
You don't have enough free time left on you to listen to all that music.
20GB ~ 290 CDs ~ 300 hours (3000 songs, give or take).
How many hours do you listen to music per day ( I mean listen, caring about what you are letting smash yur auditive little bones) ? 1 hours? 2 hours? 10 hours?(yeah sure).
Do you need between 150 to 300 days worth of music at any given time?
I hasten you don't.
Bar professional people (DJs and the like) that really *need* that much music, all the rest of people have that much music just for pose.
People with that many CDs will never ever revisit 80% of them.
Most painters, musicians, dancers, architects (specially), sculptors and plastic artists of any note were founded by patrons.
The nobility, the church, the burgoise, the state, the coporation. The names of the patrons are different, the arttist needs to court their favour.
Good art almost always is funded by some powerful institution.
The ridiculous myth of the solitary, poor artist should have died decades ago.
What they are doing to make money is to sell services (consultancy, integration, training) around that sofware.
Perhaps the only company still making money from only selling software is Microsoft, and considering that they had to break the law to make money I would not consider selling propietary sofware a very sound bussiness model in the long term.
Either that or IBM, Novell, HP, RedHat and many others are wrong.
... makes you read it twice before you realize it is.
Hats off to you Sir or Madam.
They sell support and services.
Fucking moral relativists.
With OSS you get a straight, honest answer. It may not be the answer that you want, but you know where you are standing.
With commercial companies you get marketing bullshit that tries to hype the pros while hiding the cons of a give product (that is their job, isn't it?).
I know what is why I prefer, no matter how much "arcane" text commands I have to type.
... from many (all?) Fortune 100 companies for stating such idiocity. I am not stating this a a rethorical statement to cheer up the /. crowd, I am dead serious.
Most companies worth their salt have strict guidelines, codes of conduct and policies that pretty much ammount to "a moral philosophy" as you put it.
That there are people out there still believing that companies do not have any moral standards is both scary and annoying.
Even to attempt humour you need some basic foundation of plausibility.
The CEO and Enginnering guru are not necessarily on the same carreer ladder (or maze, chose as you wish).
To imply that a CEO is more capable than a technical type because he is a CEO is ridiculous.
THe points made are valid, you have to question the entreprenurial accumen of somebody associating his company with a dying company whose businesss model for the last couple of years has been to litigate ad many former clients and associates as possible.
And you do also, I am sure.
But for some hazy reason, companies themselves it would seem, should not care about it. Sometimes to make a bit of profit (how much profit can there be for MySQL in the SCO world?) by damaging your reputation is not worth it.
Reputation is one intangible that should be cherised. The only think I can say is that MySQL is not enhancing theirs in their wider world after this move.
From now on every time I need to evaluate a project, if MySQL is mentioned I will think "oh yea, those guys that associated themselves with SCO", which I am sure will be the lasting reaction of many technically minded people.
MySQL is pursuing this ungodly association at their peril.
The message these companies are sending is you can't, you will not, make money from *my* GPLed stuff.
That is not the idea of the GPL. You are welcome to make money, the oonly condition is that you redistribute the code and the moddifications to it.
I wonder if the restrictions put in place by these companies are not actually a violation of the GPL?
THis may be documented and clarified elsewhere, but at first instance it does not sound right.
Where do you think all the money for those lawyers came from?
.... what is the posting saying we should say?
In all honestly, I think your mask slid and you were blinded.
If you think people did not pay taxes there I have a few weapons of mass destruction I want to sell you.
Companies get many CVs becaue they don't specify the tasks of their jobs properly.
If you take the time to describe a job role properly you will be surprised how easy it is to filter the people that will not fit the bill.
Companies using templates for positions are bound to be inundated. Job applicants, helped by job agencies, know which are the most used "templates" for given posisions are.
I will take the time to interview liekely good candidates.
I can say in 5 minutes if they are bullshiting me or not.
Then I can check the CV of the ones that know what they are talking about.
Of course I do my work as an interviewer finding the best person for the job.
Lack of a pointless certification paper will not make me lose the right person for our organization.
I don't remember the name of the company, but Google bought them out as well.
Are you sying that the only way to grow a company is by violating the law, being unethical and overhanded?
And do you want people not to hate that?
Who are you, Bill Gates?
Bill, you are a moron. Enjoy your billions but for pete's sakes don't even pretend that they were gained honestly.