You are talking about cost of the sandwich, which Stallman does not care much about, he cares about the freedom of the man to get a recipe for a sandwich and modify it as he sees fit for his needs, and forbidding him to sell sandwiches without providing both the original recipe and his own modifications.
Sorry to be pedantic, but if you are going to use any allegories you have to use them correctly, not an incorrect interpretation of the actual stand of the individual in question.
You don't need extra capacity to redesign something.
You keep the old site running, develop in a different area (in the same server if you have so few resources) and you take a few minutes to switch to the new site.
With virtualization nowadays this is even simpler.
So frankly the pet peeve of the GP post is very valid.
You are just transferring your emissions to China anyway.
China only needs to pollute so much only to satisfy the needs of industrialized countries of cheap manufactured products.
If you want those cheap products to keep coming you will have to make some sacrifices. Such sacrifices will not necessarily tank your economy, Europeans are far less polluting and they have in several cases higher standards of living than the US or Japan.
If you present the non extensible AD solution against the extensible one in Linux, but the appearance is that AD gets up and running faster and in a simpler way in comparison to Kerberos/LDAP complexity, the decision making people will move to AD, past that point is moot point if Linux would be most extensible, since it was dropped at the start. That is the point of vendor lock in, to sell you something inferior that you can't drop easily any more.
To give Linux a better chance in small and medium environments we would need a solution with kerberos/LDAP generic enough to be perceived as equally simple as AD, at that point lock in would be challenged and what you talk about would have some applicability.
MS thrives in lock in, which by extension means lowly paid Systems Administrators.
We are putting ourselves in a competitive disadvantage by failing to understand that the high earning Linux SA is not seen sympathetically by HR people and managers trying to optimize depleting budgets.
We know a Linux/UNIX SA is more cost effective in the long run because the technology he is experienced in is more cost efficient, but the cost of entry to a position (high salaries combined with the perception that Linux is more difficult) is something that should not be dismissed lightly.
The comment above in the thread is very insightful: by being too complex, Linux fails to entice its natural constituencies: small and medium businesses.
It is frankly a poor excuse to invoke flexibility as the reason to abandon simplicity. Something that is flexible should by extension be configurable in a simple way that will fit many common cases.
A system administrator, even a competent one, is faced with an uphill struggle when faced with the diabolic combination of kerberos/LDAP.
The way this should work should be to get a basic install by means of a package install which works in simple, defined ways.Once this is done, the system administrator can configure things as needed, but for the time being he could show something that is up and running in a short time.
We are short changing ourselves against the Windows based competition by erecting a high barrier of entry to a replacement to Windows AD.
I use Ubuntu in 3 machines at home, my elderly mother uses is on her place (putting a dent to the nonsense that old non technical people get confused with Linux).
So I just donated $100 instead of coming with these brilliant ideas about how to make money.
Perhaps Canonical should have a donation drive once or twice a year so we desktop users can thank them for their efforts.
Linux has grown from a hobby to a corporate sponsored philosophy, but somehow that is a minus.
Gee, there are some people impossible to please.
Now the year of the Linux desktop has finally arrived for real (Acer, Asus, Dell are selling Linux laptops today) but we will continue to hear the same tired objections.
People claiming Linux has difficulty moving to the mainstream have not worked recently with real data centres making money for big companies.
To state that Linux is not mainstream is ludicrous nowadays, Linux is a recognized solution, it may or may not be used, but is an option no longer laughed at in any serious company.
Then check the prize given to the mythical inventor of the game.
If the same speed of growth would continue Windows would be over sooner than you think.
But to know this we have to talk again next year. What I remember is when Linux was literally smuggled in any datacentre, what I saw this afternoon in a major PC shop here in London is that 20% of the laptops in offer had Linux installed.
Your boss saying go ahead kid, it is ok *is not* ethical, and you will not be legally in the clear in all likelihood.
I am sure you can come up with many situations that are much clearer than this (let me try one: your boss tells you to hit with a car the star developer of your competition. He even signed a paper for you. If you think you would be OK you are really silly).
Slashdot Mirror
You are talking about cost of the sandwich, which Stallman does not care much about, he cares about the freedom of the man to get a recipe for a sandwich and modify it as he sees fit for his needs, and forbidding him to sell sandwiches without providing both the original recipe and his own modifications.
Sorry to be pedantic, but if you are going to use any allegories you have to use them correctly, not an incorrect interpretation of the actual stand of the individual in question.
You don't need extra capacity to redesign something.
You keep the old site running, develop in a different area (in the same server if you have so few resources) and you take a few minutes to switch to the new site.
With virtualization nowadays this is even simpler.
So frankly the pet peeve of the GP post is very valid.
Both those projects started as cathedrals and were saved by bazaar development, which allowed that organized corporate interests adopted them again.
The bazaar model saved them and made them desirable for corps, so go and find better examples trying to prove your difficult to defend point.
They have money, and do not how to spend it.
Thus they finance Citigroup, build snow pistes in the middle of the desert and buy English football teams.
A fellow from a town called Pompey wrote a classic treaty about this.
Yeah. It is called madness.
Just look at a damn CO2 graph.
It is not until the industrial revolution that we get an exponential, never seen in the previous 600 000 years scientists have been able to document.
Honestly, to keep labouring this point is utterly ridiculous.
You are just transferring your emissions to China anyway.
China only needs to pollute so much only to satisfy the needs of industrialized countries of cheap manufactured products.
If you want those cheap products to keep coming you will have to make some sacrifices. Such sacrifices will not necessarily tank your economy, Europeans are far less polluting and they have in several cases higher standards of living than the US or Japan.
And I would not work in a company asking me such a thing, unless it was to get started a new IT department.
Beauty is relative and subjective btw....
Surely you know that there arepeople out there that are colour blind.
And that is just for starters.
Applications that are monolithic and unconfigurable will not serve properly many users.
Saying X group of people feed in fear is nonsensical.
We have plenty of evidence obtained independently that pre-dates any scaremongering.
If you present the non extensible AD solution against the extensible one in Linux, but the appearance is that AD gets up and running faster and in a simpler way in comparison to Kerberos/LDAP complexity, the decision making people will move to AD, past that point is moot point if Linux would be most extensible, since it was dropped at the start. That is the point of vendor lock in, to sell you something inferior that you can't drop easily any more.
To give Linux a better chance in small and medium environments we would need a solution with kerberos/LDAP generic enough to be perceived as equally simple as AD, at that point lock in would be challenged and what you talk about
would have some applicability.
MS thrives in lock in, which by extension means lowly paid Systems Administrators.
We are putting ourselves in a competitive disadvantage by failing to understand that the high earning Linux SA is not seen sympathetically by HR people and managers trying to optimize depleting budgets.
We know a Linux/UNIX SA is more cost effective in the long run because the technology he is experienced in is more cost efficient, but the cost of entry to a position (high salaries combined with the perception that Linux is more difficult) is something that should not be dismissed lightly.
The comment above in the thread is very insightful: by being too complex, Linux fails to entice its natural constituencies: small and medium businesses.
The answer above is a bad cop-out.
It is frankly a poor excuse to invoke flexibility as the reason to abandon simplicity. Something that is flexible should by extension be configurable in a simple way that will fit many common cases.
A system administrator, even a competent one, is faced with an uphill struggle when faced with the diabolic combination of kerberos/LDAP.
The way this should work should be to get a basic install by means of a package install which works in simple, defined ways.Once this is done, the system administrator can configure things as needed, but for the time being he could show something that is up and running in a short time.
We are short changing ourselves against the Windows based competition by erecting a high barrier of entry to a replacement to Windows AD.
It didn't work with AOL. Companies trying to pull such stunts will be out of business faster than you can say "TCP/IP"
So the ethical duty of a lawyer is to help his client to say lies?
Whoa. No wonder nobody likes them.
Honestly, unless your company has less than 10 servers, I can't see a scenario in which you want to do this.
Increasingly hardware manufacturers are coming under fire about their green credentials, so it will be no long before this becomes a non issue.
He won a design contest, the logical conclusion? He can't design.
Only in Slashdot ...
I use Ubuntu in 3 machines at home, my elderly mother uses is on her place (putting a dent to the nonsense that old non technical people get confused with Linux).
So I just donated $100 instead of coming with these brilliant ideas about how to make money.
Perhaps Canonical should have a donation drive once or twice a year so we desktop users can thank them for their efforts.
Open Source projects existed *before* companies sponsored them one way or another.
To pretend all of the sudden that corporate support is a necessary condition for the existence of Open Source Software is completely ludicrous.
Linux has grown from a hobby to a corporate sponsored philosophy, but somehow that is a minus.
Gee, there are some people impossible to please.
Now the year of the Linux desktop has finally arrived for real (Acer, Asus, Dell are selling Linux laptops today) but we will continue to hear the same tired objections.
Well, whatever frankly.
People claiming Linux has difficulty moving to the mainstream have not worked recently with real data centres making money for big companies.
To state that Linux is not mainstream is ludicrous nowadays, Linux is a recognized solution, it may or may not be used, but is an option no longer laughed at in any serious company.
Then check the prize given to the mythical inventor of the game.
If the same speed of growth would continue Windows would be over sooner than you think.
But to know this we have to talk again next year. What I remember is when Linux was literally smuggled in any datacentre, what I saw this afternoon in a major PC shop here in London is that 20% of the laptops in offer had Linux installed.
Your boss saying go ahead kid, it is ok *is not* ethical, and you will not be legally in the clear in all likelihood.
I am sure you can come up with many situations that are much clearer than this (let me try one: your boss tells you to hit with a car the star developer of your competition. He even signed a paper for you. If you think you would be OK you are really silly).