I worked in a big university doing complicated IT stuff in school administration. I am 100% positive our team did not have the expertise necessary to have migrated all our systems and processes from COBOL and ALGOL programs (yeah, that is what it was) to a RDBMS (which was not a novel idea even back then), let alon an ERP.
I have met many people working in Universities, both in administrative roles and in research, they simple don't have the expertise required to take such a huge migration project to a happy ending (there is no shame on admiting that, I am sure people working in consultancies could not get their heads around some of the stuff people in research centres are doing, they may have a better chance ate understanding administrative stuff , but even that is not a given. We have specialization for a reason).
... tells me how correct the people that chastised you were.
I will repeat the advice: leave Apache alone, it is for people that know what they are doing (and having a point and click interface will not improve your understanding of what Apache is doing).
Is anybody controlling Fortran or Pascal threatening Linux with patent litigation? No.
CIF (the protocol behind Samba) predates anything Microsoft came with network wise. This is well documented, so I don;t see what your point actually is. If anything the Samba team have to bend over backwards in order to accommodate the capricious ways MS treis to use the CIF protocol.
You can say whatever you want about the reasons why people don't like Mono. I met Miguel a couple of times, he is a very nice, clever and enthusiastic chap, but he is completely misguided about trusting Microsoft. The bodies of competitors and, more worryingly, former business partners should tell you all what you need to know about collaborating with that company.
But lets say I am deluded. But surely I did not imagine the public threats against Linux made by Ballmer and his accolades regarding patents.
Any bogus patents claims will have to start in places where Microsoft has a foot in the door. They will not start with sendmail, bind ro any other targets in which clearly they haven't had any input, but the threat would clearly come from somewhere where they are calling the shots.
Any.Net technology has the potential to be the trojan horse MS uses to attack Linux.
SCO showed what a real PITA it can be to defend against bogus claims, just imagine what MS could do if they decided to throw a hissy fit.
Everybody not realising this is naive to an extreme that is inexcusable.
After the procedure witnessed during the approval of another ISO "standard" pushed by Microsoft, it is quite rich to name ISO as something to look for as worthy.
I want a legally binding document in which Microsoft assures the Linux community that they will not attempt to screw up Linux development for, most likely bogus, patent infringement claims.
If they really want to show some good will I want to hear their lawyers, not their developers and Engineers (all of them very cool people I am sure).
Microsoft has not put forward a single bit of evidence about somebody in the Linux world infringing their precious patents (where software patents apply, there is still hope that in vast swathes of this planet such lunacy is not allowed to happen).
That is why so many of us dislike Novel, Xandros & co with a passion: they gave credence to Microsoft's position without the monopoly abusers having to do as much as to say which patents they have been talking about.
Novell has given mixed signals about the deal, and have declared in many occasions that they are not infringing any patents, in which case one just don't understand why they got into bed with Microsoft in the first. Protection (have you seen any gangsters' movie?) comes to mind....
So to reiterate, no, nobody in Linux land has accepted that there is any infringing code in Linux. Educate yourself and stop to spread this unsubstantiated rumour.
MS's CEO made specific patent trolling threats against Linux in no uncertain fashion, combine this with their "agreements" with Novell and other Linux packagers and you know what they are aiming at.
Why should Linux projects live with the uncertainty, specially when Ballmer has spelled, in no uncertain terms, what he thinks about Linux and the precious MS "intellectual property".
I just don't get it why so many Linux and FOSS heads are so eager to ingratiate themselves with Microsoft. It reminds me of people that are into abusive relationships....
There are a plethora of genetic traits that would contribute to a bird flying in front of a plane.
Random selection would arguably work by removing birds with a certain set of traits, irrespective of which ones they are (migration, flying at a certain altitutde, time of the day or night at which they flight, etc, etc etc).
There are many other conditions rather than the ones you think are obvious, unless you can proof your point scientifically (freak isolated feats are not scientific proof) then your "evidence" is not such.
Lets concede the very dubious assertion that Dvorak keyboards allow you to type faster (the fact that Usain Bolt can run 100m under 10 seconds does not mean everybody eating chicken nuggets will do the same, but I digress).
At the end you have to type exactly the same number of keys to write a word, a paragraph or a novel, and a given finger, nerve or group of muscles will still do the repetitive typing, no matter which keyboard you use.
What we need as evidence is peer reviewed, scientifically done research. If there is so much of it, go on, show it to us.
In all honestly, who actually gives a hoot about this?
My strategy for the last 10 years has been to spend £500 to replace my desktop.
I go out there, get the best all around deal (last time it was an LCD screen, wireless mouse, more memory, bigger disk) and I don't even check the CPU details.
The CPU is going to be faster and cheaper, and for a desktop, where the most demanding task could be a game (which I don't play in my desktop anyway), anything currently in the market will be faster and better value for money than my current machine.
Home users should look at their wallet rather than at CPU cycles...
Your company should implement policies about this to ensure the system is not abused.
One way is to put monetary value to a given problem, that way people have to justify exactly why the printer of a secretary not working is not as important as fixing the payroll server.
Nowadays your colleague may be in the other side of the world, and your only relationship is via phone calls and emails.
Also it is not unusual that people abuse that trust, once you have put names to faces, people that are better than you at handling social situations will know how to use the approachability to their advantage, to the detriment of other users.
I am not saying to close the door, just to be judicious and remain professional.
One fixes the problem and the other handles expectations.
If you are a lone ranger, then you inform people periodically what is going on (once an hour you have a conference call for example, and you stick religiously to that).
Not informing your users is just bad manners and there is no excuse for it.
You are being forced to use an all Apple technology and you don't feel trapped.
You may not like Linux in the desktop, some of us use it for other reasons that go beyond aesthetics (usability is a non issue, usability is a relative term, there is not such a thing as an objectively user friendly system).
Slashdot Mirror
I worked in a big university doing complicated IT stuff in school administration. I am 100% positive our team did not have the expertise necessary to have migrated all our systems and processes from COBOL and ALGOL programs (yeah, that is what it was) to a RDBMS (which was not a novel idea even back then), let alon an ERP.
I have met many people working in Universities, both in administrative roles and in research, they simple don't have the expertise required to take such a huge migration project to a happy ending (there is no shame on admiting that, I am sure people working in consultancies could not get their heads around some of the stuff people in research centres are doing, they may have a better chance ate understanding administrative stuff , but even that is not a given. We have specialization for a reason).
... tells me how correct the people that chastised you were.
I will repeat the advice: leave Apache alone, it is for people that know what they are doing (and having a point and click interface will not improve your understanding of what Apache is doing).
Is anybody controlling Fortran or Pascal threatening Linux with patent litigation? No.
CIF (the protocol behind Samba) predates anything Microsoft came with network wise. This is well documented, so I don;t see what your point actually is. If anything the Samba team have to bend over backwards in order to accommodate the capricious ways MS treis to use the CIF protocol.
You can say whatever you want about the reasons why people don't like Mono. I met Miguel a couple of times, he is a very nice, clever and enthusiastic chap, but he is completely misguided about trusting Microsoft. The bodies of competitors and, more worryingly, former business partners should tell you all what you need to know about collaborating with that company.
But lets say I am deluded. But surely I did not imagine the public threats against Linux made by Ballmer and his accolades regarding patents.
Any bogus patents claims will have to start in places where Microsoft has a foot in the door. They will not start with sendmail, bind ro any other targets in which clearly they haven't had any input, but the threat would clearly come from somewhere where they are calling the shots.
Any .Net technology has the potential to be the trojan horse MS uses to attack Linux.
SCO showed what a real PITA it can be to defend against bogus claims, just imagine what MS could do if they decided to throw a hissy fit.
Everybody not realising this is naive to an extreme that is inexcusable.
... were worth the paper they are written in.
After the procedure witnessed during the approval of another ISO "standard" pushed by Microsoft, it is quite rich to name ISO as something to look for as worthy.
I want a legally binding document in which Microsoft assures the Linux community that they will not attempt to screw up Linux development for, most likely bogus, patent infringement claims.
If they really want to show some good will I want to hear their lawyers, not their developers and Engineers (all of them very cool people I am sure).
Microsoft has not put forward a single bit of evidence about somebody in the Linux world infringing their precious patents (where software patents apply, there is still hope that in vast swathes of this planet such lunacy is not allowed to happen).
That is why so many of us dislike Novel, Xandros & co with a passion: they gave credence to Microsoft's position without the monopoly abusers having to do as much as to say which patents they have been talking about.
Novell has given mixed signals about the deal, and have declared in many occasions that they are not infringing any patents, in which case one just don't understand why they got into bed with Microsoft in the first. Protection (have you seen any gangsters' movie?) comes to mind....
So to reiterate, no, nobody in Linux land has accepted that there is any infringing code in Linux. Educate yourself and stop to spread this unsubstantiated rumour.
MS's CEO made specific patent trolling threats against Linux in no uncertain fashion, combine this with their "agreements" with Novell and other Linux packagers and you know what they are aiming at.
Why should Linux projects live with the uncertainty, specially when Ballmer has spelled, in no uncertain terms, what he thinks about Linux and the precious MS "intellectual property".
I just don't get it why so many Linux and FOSS heads are so eager to ingratiate themselves with Microsoft. It reminds me of people that are into abusive relationships....
There are a plethora of genetic traits that would contribute to a bird flying in front of a plane.
Random selection would arguably work by removing birds with a certain set of traits, irrespective of which ones they are (migration, flying at a certain altitutde, time of the day or night at which they flight, etc, etc etc).
What about this: disabled people designing their own interfaces.
I know it is difficult, but they are best positioned to actually effect change.
There are many other conditions rather than the ones you think are obvious, unless you can proof your point scientifically (freak isolated feats are not scientific proof) then your "evidence" is not such.
Lets concede the very dubious assertion that Dvorak keyboards allow you to type faster (the fact that Usain Bolt can run 100m under 10 seconds does not mean everybody eating chicken nuggets will do the same, but I digress).
At the end you have to type exactly the same number of keys to write a word, a paragraph or a novel, and a given finger, nerve or group of muscles will still do the repetitive typing, no matter which keyboard you use.
What we need as evidence is peer reviewed, scientifically done research. If there is so much of it, go on, show it to us.
Keep doing business with a company that constantly breaks the law.
It is not Yada, yada, yada. It is simply that some of us actually prefer to do business with companies that are not unethical ...
There are animals that have very few offspring, but for several reasons are very good at defending them.
Quantity only works where the quality of the parenting is relatively poor (fish, insects, etc).
In all honestly, who actually gives a hoot about this?
My strategy for the last 10 years has been to spend £500 to replace my desktop.
I go out there, get the best all around deal (last time it was an LCD screen, wireless mouse, more memory, bigger disk) and I don't even check the CPU details.
The CPU is going to be faster and cheaper, and for a desktop, where the most demanding task could be a game (which I don't play in my desktop anyway), anything currently in the market will be faster and better value for money than my current machine.
Home users should look at their wallet rather than at CPU cycles...
No way.
No serious company would allow that.
In any properly administered network you will leave tracks somewhere.
Playing tricks on people will only work if you are hoping nobody competent checks what is going on.
Any company worth its salt considers IT a service which is charged internally, that way all the departments contribute to the IT budget.
Your company should implement policies about this to ensure the system is not abused.
One way is to put monetary value to a given problem, that way people have to justify exactly why the printer of a secretary not working is not as important as fixing the payroll server.
Nowadays your colleague may be in the other side of the world, and your only relationship is via phone calls and emails.
Also it is not unusual that people abuse that trust, once you have put names to faces, people that are better than you at handling social situations will know how to use the approachability to their advantage, to the detriment of other users.
I am not saying to close the door, just to be judicious and remain professional.
One fixes the problem and the other handles expectations.
If you are a lone ranger, then you inform people periodically what is going on (once an hour you have a conference call for example, and you stick religiously to that).
Not informing your users is just bad manners and there is no excuse for it.
They could get some of that.
http://www.sun.com/storage/disk_systems/unified_storage/7110/specs.xml
You can even download a simulator.
Anybody that has been out of touch for one year or more with a technology should check his assumptions first before talking....
If Apple can't use the technology I think it is their loss frankly.
I kind of see your point, but please....
You are being forced to use an all Apple technology and you don't feel trapped.
You may not like Linux in the desktop, some of us use it for other reasons that go beyond aesthetics (usability is a non issue, usability is a relative term, there is not such a thing as an objectively user friendly system).