... we know that and say what you want to hear: "oh yessss, I will stick around until hell freezes over" and will give you a double speak about why we left with th uptmost regret but wishing them all the best.
I always weight my interests first, those are the ones that dictate the decisions I take.
My company is not my family, my friends or my live. People that fail to understand this and make clear demarcations find themselves victims of sentimental blackmailing like the one you use.
I have seen so many times the most loyal and commited employees being royaly scre%ed that it amazes me there are still people out there believing all this tired "do it for the company" crap.
Simply, an employee is in no position to demand outrageous stuff from their employer, neither during good not bad times.
In the other hand, during good times the company can demand that you are fully devoted to it (we are growing!We can't keep up with demand! Work 80 hours for us please!) and during bad times even more so (if you don't work 80 hours we will go under! ).
Think: would you ask any service provider to work for your for fre one or two hours? No, most probably because you lack any leverage as an employer. Companies on the other hand can demand that and more and most people do not have the balls to say "no, please read my contract" or just to ignore the request.
WHen I sign a 9 to 5 contract of employment I do work from 9 to 5. Do you want me to work extra? Show me the money baby, that applies to any time?
Will they replace me? Maybe, then I will adjust to the new market lowering my expectations, I will sign a contract and I will not do anything more that waht is absolutely required.
This policy has served me well for many stress free years of full employment in many companies.
The money you earned with your hard work and that was trsnfered to the goverment in the form of tax would be saved and thus spent in other stuff.
The goverment's data would be in open formats, thus protecting your tax money against forced obsolescence by private companies.
The transparency and accountability of the goverment's data and proceures would be hiaghly enhanced since both code and data would be easily accesible to anybody to see.
Those are not strange reasone, they are concrete needs that if met certainly would make me happy.
You should be mod down for being asking for it, but any way.
If the source is closed can you tell me how a goverment of a country like Germany, France or Russia can know that there are no backdoors in a software produced elsewere? And surely closed software source has never ever been attacked? Give me a break buddy, you either have been living in a cave the last 5 years or are trolling. Closed source software has as bad a security record as any other solution (I am threading safe here, open source software I am sure is more secure).
The argument about money is an absolut pile of horse shit. The money save on IT infrastrucutre could be invested elsewhere. In the UK just to cite an example, the public transport system is in chaos, the prision system is in brink of collapse, teachers have to be dismissed due to lack of funds. To spend premeum prices in software when there are cheaper alternatives is one of the worst ways of wastage.
A tool has to be evaluated based not only on its technical merits but also considering its social impact.
A democratic goverment should promote transparency, this transparency should not be limited by the goverment agancies' choice of software. Both the data and how it is handled should be open to the public for scrutiny and accountability.
The only way to ensure this is for the goverment to set minimum standards, which has to include open standards and open source. Anything less is unacceptable.
Many goverments are beggining to realize this, and frankly, the differential in cost is becomming a very minor second consideration.
-Open standards for storage of information should be mandated.
-Open protocols should be mandated.
-A company providing services should be able to provide a clean sheet of health legally (why any goverment on its right mind would want to deal with a convicted monopolist abuser?. Why voters would tolerate that their goverments associate themselves and trust their dat to somebody with a dubious legal past).
-The goverment should have acces to all the source code to ensure that no back door exist that can compromise the integrity of the data.
Sorry, but the system is broken. I badly needs fixing.
In my case, the interchange between me and friends and family so far are:
-Images (normaly jpg format). Tick. -Text or, shudder, html email messages. Tick. -Power Point presentations with jokes. Bin it. Tick. -The ocassional word document from the OU (OO.org opens them all so far). Tick. -Windows executables with little amusements. Bin it. Tick.
Why should I have what my brother and sister have? Specially knowing it benefits a convicted monopoly abuser?
So I strongly disagree. A home user does not need Windows, he/she can use satisfactorily a Linux or Mac machines for most stuff (Games? Buy a console, or play the Linux ones out there).
With any direct lighting the screen is not visisble. But this is the case with any appliance, but to state that one can see under any lighting conditions is not true.
My hope would be that at this point PNG can stand on its own technical merits, rather then on ideological merits.
I just don't understand some people. There is such a thing called values, and sometimes it is important to uphold values even if that means to bear any personal inconviniences.
That is not the case with PNG, but I just wanted to make this point.
Slashdot Mirror
So what is the point exactly?
... we know that and say what you want to hear: "oh yessss, I will stick around until hell freezes over" and will give you a double speak about why we left with th uptmost regret but wishing them all the best.
It is personal interests.
I always weight my interests first, those are the ones that dictate the decisions I take.
My company is not my family, my friends or my live. People that fail to understand this and make clear demarcations find themselves victims of sentimental blackmailing like the one you use.
I have seen so many times the most loyal and commited employees being royaly scre%ed that it amazes me there are still people out there believing all this tired "do it for the company" crap.
The US is not in a recession, there are many jobs out there, not all on IT, not all where you live.
Retrain and relocate and you will never suffer unemployment for long.
Simply, an employee is in no position to demand outrageous stuff from their employer, neither during good not bad times.
In the other hand, during good times the company can demand that you are fully devoted to it (we are growing!We can't keep up with demand! Work 80 hours for us please!) and during bad times even more so (if you don't work 80 hours we will go under! ).
Think: would you ask any service provider to work for your for fre one or two hours? No, most probably because you lack any leverage as an employer. Companies on the other hand can demand that and more and most people do not have the balls to say "no, please read my contract" or just to ignore the request.
WHen I sign a 9 to 5 contract of employment I do work from 9 to 5. Do you want me to work extra? Show me the money baby, that applies to any time?
Will they replace me? Maybe, then I will adjust to the new market lowering my expectations, I will sign a contract and I will not do anything more that waht is absolutely required.
This policy has served me well for many stress free years of full employment in many companies.
... you don't understand:
"I am leaving the company, I don't give a rat ass about what they do".
Now again, what about those replacements?
In the UK at least it is amazingly trivial and cheap. After that you hire an accountant that handles all the tax issues and correspondence for you.
I have never seen the levels of depravation you can find in the US in Europe.
Say what you may, but in Europe the distribution of income seems to be fairer and more equitative than in the good ole US of A.
The money you earned with your hard work and that was trsnfered to the goverment in the form of tax would be saved and thus spent in other stuff.
The goverment's data would be in open formats, thus protecting your tax money against forced obsolescence by private companies.
The transparency and accountability of the goverment's data and proceures would be hiaghly enhanced since both code and data would be easily accesible to anybody to see.
Those are not strange reasone, they are concrete needs that if met certainly would make me happy.
Because they are auditable and accountable by anybody without requiring special tools.
There are many more considerations that the purely technical.
.... to take an Open Source solution, modify it to meet their needs and locking away the source?
Nothing.
They would save money, they would keep their applications secure.
So unless you are trying to point out that you don't understand the nature of open source, what exactly is your point?
You should be mod down for being asking for it, but any way.
If the source is closed can you tell me how a goverment of a country like Germany, France or Russia can know that there are no backdoors in a software produced elsewere? And surely closed software source has never ever been attacked? Give me a break buddy, you either have been living in a cave the last 5 years or are trolling. Closed source software has as bad a security record as any other solution (I am threading safe here, open source software I am sure is more secure).
The argument about money is an absolut pile of horse shit. The money save on IT infrastrucutre could be invested elsewhere. In the UK just to cite an example, the public transport system is in chaos, the prision system is in brink of collapse, teachers have to be dismissed due to lack of funds. To spend premeum prices in software when there are cheaper alternatives is one of the worst ways of wastage.
And software architects are not aware of all the social implications of using certain tools. That is the job of politicians.
A tool has to be evaluated based not only on its technical merits but also considering its social impact.
A democratic goverment should promote transparency, this transparency should not be limited by the goverment agancies' choice of software. Both the data and how it is handled should be open to the public for scrutiny and accountability.
The only way to ensure this is for the goverment to set minimum standards, which has to include open standards and open source. Anything less is unacceptable.
Many goverments are beggining to realize this, and frankly, the differential in cost is becomming a very minor second consideration.
Office? Outlook? IIS? Exchange?
Thats right, you can not.
Thanks for playing.
Thus the systems need fixing.
-Open standards for storage of information should be mandated.
-Open protocols should be mandated.
-A company providing services should be able to provide a clean sheet of health legally (why any goverment on its right mind would want to deal with a convicted monopolist abuser?. Why voters would tolerate that their goverments associate themselves and trust their dat to somebody with a dubious legal past).
-The goverment should have acces to all the source code to ensure that no back door exist that can compromise the integrity of the data.
Sorry, but the system is broken. I badly needs fixing.
That means they will cut their veins before allowing GPL or any other licensing agreement to be violated.
Good for them.
... it is not our fault buddy.
The claims are that the Linux developpers have no way to had come with a polished OS without external help of somebody like IBM.
The fact that SCO offerings lack loads of features that the alleged infringing product has should make anyone suspicious.
After 9 years of using Linux, the last 4 of them as my only home OS, I have decided to stop kidding myself and start to use Windows again.
I have sinned, I beg for deliverance and forgiveness...
Not.
.... that this is as arcane (I contend it is more ) as the simple command line given by the previous poster?
What does you family do for a hobby? Accounting?
In my case, the interchange between me and friends and family so far are:
-Images (normaly jpg format). Tick.
-Text or, shudder, html email messages. Tick.
-Power Point presentations with jokes. Bin it. Tick.
-The ocassional word document from the OU (OO.org opens them all so far). Tick.
-Windows executables with little amusements. Bin it. Tick.
Why should I have what my brother and sister have? Specially knowing it benefits a convicted monopoly abuser?
So I strongly disagree. A home user does not need Windows, he/she can use satisfactorily a Linux or Mac machines for most stuff (Games? Buy a console, or play the Linux ones out there).
In one of the magnetic poles?
With any direct lighting the screen is not visisble. But this is the case with any appliance, but to state that one can see under any lighting conditions is not true.
People of the stature of Nelson Mandela and many others don't grow in trees.
.... in which you have to stand up and be counted.
That includes lawyers with principles.
My hope would be that at this point PNG can stand on its own technical merits, rather then on ideological merits.
I just don't understand some people. There is such a thing called values, and sometimes it is important to uphold values even if that means to bear any personal inconviniences.
That is not the case with PNG, but I just wanted to make this point.