Java with jboss or something akin to that or without it?
If its just the language, your position is moronic: you can do anything you can do with java in assembly if thats your thing.
If its not just the language, your position is moronic: youre comparing a language to a whole suite of appservers and all sort of thingies that are not "language". Want a closer comparission? Java versus Perl+cpan (and perl may be ugly, but cpan is bigger than all of the java code out there).
How about comparing.net vs java. Ah, there is a better idea. How about comparing the LAMP stack to the tomcat/struts stack... ah, then you could start comparing. How about comparing RoR to jboss/ejb3 (and no, RoR is cool, but it aint nowhere close with respect to scalability. Cooler language than java, this ruby thing, that IS true though).
For an economist, you sure dont get the internet at all.
IP addresses are NUMBERS of a certain SIZE. It should cost us NOTHING, but some smarts in the initial design to make the SIZE bigger, and thus have lots and lots of adresses. Infinite addresses. As many addresses as there are atoms in the solar system, for example.
Numbers, no matter how much of an economist you are, DO NOT COST A DAMNED THING! what costs are engineering and design mistakes that now have to be MENDED.
You can start thinking as an economist now. The problem we have TODAY is that there is not economic INCENTIVE for the people holding some of the address numbers from the limited pool of available addresses.
But EVEN IF THERE WAS ONE, even if they gave it all back and we all natted (which is a technique that allows us to "save" some of the addresses so that we dont have to give one for each and every computer), there would be not enough numbers for the whole world, which we inheritors of the original engineers of the net, creators of true freedom of information, think is the FUCKING GOAL of the net itself: communication, coordination and collaboration, for software running in a networked environment. (now, the original guys did this for war, mostly, but also to show some panache after occident got kicked in the butt by the sputnik launch)
I now direct you to the foundational essays of JCR Licklider (he convinced the DOD that arpanet was a good idea), for all you should care, GOD of the internet, so that you can start to understand what kind of ideas gave us the thriving internet you see today.
This will be an issue of freedom next because government regulators and media and ISP oligopolies, will have more economic incentive to keep the address space FINITE, so that they can skwat and charge for doing exactly NOTHING of value, but feed us whatever media they decide is good for us, to the addresses they think we deserve, in the manner they choose, at the (really high) price they arbitrarily set.
The thing here, the SAD thing, is that it does NOT NEED to be this way. Numbers are numbers, my angry economist, they dont "run out" at all, not if the design and engineering is done right. IPv4, or so the storytelling goes, was implemented quite fastly by bill joy (some put the duration at about three long nights). Those were the pioneer days, everything went on really, really fast. They made one mistake among others: making the thing limited in its address space.
We do NOT NEED to make this mistake again, we need to GET IT RIGHT this time, so that information can be free and everyone can communicate with each other, and we can get all the books online, and all the writers writing up here in our cyberspace, that is not, should not be held to the laws of the "real" universe. We need to cut communication of information costs to damn right near zero. That is what the internet is ALL ABOUT and if youre an economist that doesnt get this simple and beautyfull fact, then youre the ugly kind of economist.
I know i seem slightly nutty, but read Licklider: its the way good engineers should be.
What of libertarianism can you observe in each and every single one of Bush's presidency? Sure, he did the tax cuts... for the richest! Thats not libertarianism, thats open handed cynical corruption and plain stupidity. I like to call this dogmatic-neoliberalism. Bush is practically a corporate activist theocrat, not a libertarian!
Do not confuse libertarianism with economic-liberalism (which yeah, some republican still are). A true libertarian would be a drug leglizer, a medicare killer, a president that eliminated all subsidization of agriculture, a public education terminator, an advocate against the very existance of the university. Libertarians are liberal anarchists: in favor of ALL flavors of freedom, not just the ones that are morally acceptable.
Who ARE you? Bill Gates? Man, i thought I had heard everything when I looked at his old "Open Letter to Hobbyists", but you come even in this day and age.
If you dont want your software to be freely used and redistributed, DO NOT OPEN IT. Period. Canonical is doing what they can with what is available and has no obligation, either moral, ethical or legal, to do anything for or against the producers of the FOSS they use. About they not opening software of their own, in that very speciffic case, im right besides you: release, cannonical bastards, SLES did it for yast (although thankfully that didnt take off for the rest of the distros), redhat did it for the Netscape Directory and gfs (and that cost them a bundle) so yeah, play fair and dont use proprietary software.... or is this right?
For example, redhats RHN proxy/satellite stuff uses oracle as backing and is quite proprietary as far as i know. Novell hasnt released the code for their support portal either, is that ethically right or wrong?.... im not sure where you want to stand on this issues, but its getting more complicated to pass judgment on this stuff the more I think about it.
Now... im waiting to see if lightning strikes me. Your slashdot id gets you quite close to the very begining. I mean, you gotta be old in this game. I was about to cite the Open Source Definition but then again, maybe you're one of the authors or something and will retaliate to this strongly.... aw, hell, here it goes:
Dont you think your position goes against the spirit of the OS definition and the GPL?
Id REALLY like to read that, buts its a pdf. I dont go downloading pdfs from anywere (much less from slashdot) this virii ridden and trojan horse ladden days. Care to put a previous link that is not the pdf, but the page where one can see who publishes it?
Perhaps. The general arguments, however, still stand. Its not IBM, its any consultant or consulting firm (some small, some very large) selling non-microsoft products.
Well. I strongly participated in the antiooxml campaign here in Mexico against ooxml becoming an iso standard. I did this because there is already a fully supported, open, non-patent-encumbered standard covering the whole domain of what ooxml proposes, so it makes more sense for the industry, no matter how strong is microsoft in it, to support the other standard. It is within microsoft's reach to support the iso standard we have now and they did not present any reason whatsoever for its support or adoption in the industry.
I can tell you now that IBM had nothing to do with it. Its just that many smaller foss vendors see in microsoft's initative a way to further their bussiness model in detriment of ours. We are consulting shops, we live on services and providing added value around them and open source software. To have a patent encumbered iso standard that can only be safely and completely supported by one software vendors not only hurts us, it hurts all of our client's choices in the market.
We dont mind integrating MS products in solutions, when it makes sense. Microsoft wants things done their way, weather it makes sense for the client or not. I find this unacceptable as the market is quite capable of providing good alternatives for microsoft software and fileformats and just letting the dominant set their own standard as a public one, with strings attached, hurts customer choice. The customer would be much better if microsoft simply supported ODF in their products. This way they can compete with their (yes, i do mean this) SUPPERB office product on the basis of it being better, not on the basis of them having a monopoly.
Its interesting to see how microsoft has been searching for "the linux enemy". One guy or company that, if they manage to hurt, theyd be hurting the whole movement to the point of crippling it. This year their "linux enemy" is IBM, who is in a great position to benefit themselves from FOSS (being that they are the earlyest of the high end and rich adopters of foss). But they dont get it.
Even if IBM signed in blood tomorrow to use exclusively microsoft software, that would not have changed things on our ISO vote. Microsoft is hurting US, not IBM. US: smaller companies providing consulting without having to give anyone a dime for essentially nothing (which is the current microsoft-owned IT bussiness model). US, who have invested in developing a FOSS expertiese so that we can leverage its cost advantage in front of a microsoft dominated, license driven market.
Perhaps things have gone so far for microsoft, that they dont realize that taking on opensource is not taking on sun or ibm, its taking on US. Thousends and thousends of engineers and entrepreneurs that are opinion leaders when it comes to technology supplies, that are choosing NOT to pay the microsoft tax when it comes to deliverance of IT products and services.
And US thousends have both the numbers and the technicall expertiese to determine where and how their bloated ooxml turns into a useless piece of (insert your own insulting language here) xml , when compared to the ODF standard that has already much more time in development and real world testing. I mean, its THERE its already working, its already dominant in the non-ms industry (meaning all office suites from larger vendors support it). The cost for MS tu support it is really close to nil, while the cost of all the rest of the market to support microsoft's format would be much more. If overall cost for the industry is any kind of meassure, then iso support for OOXML is just plain stupid.
So no, Microsoft, its not "IBM". Its everyone in the world that does not live or want to live on your products and shady bussiness practices.
Growing hemp gets you, gleefully, a bit more than what you specify. In particular, a great and unending way to party, party, party, at the expense of american taxpayers money though govmnt money going to crop production.
Deb has supported this for a while now, my friend. The main difference between debs and rpms is this simple: debs carry a preconf script that is interactive, rpms are fire-and-forget. Both strategies have their strong points. For servers, y prefer the rpm way as it allows for package push without any operator intervention.
Debs should work this way, IMHO, cause if not it can become a pain in large deployments.
Gosh, what is it with people that think linux needs this or that to "survive". Linux is by far the most ported OS of all time, it works everywere in embeded devices, probably in your wifi router, probably in your home isdn/cable/ADSL router.
It powers google, a good chunk of yahoo and im pretty sure some good part of the online infrastructure at microsoft, ibm, hp and many other non-it related companies.
Linux is NEVER going to die, with or without adobe on board. Adobe is not porting due to they feeling its not worth it. But FOSS may very well give them a run for their money. Weve done it before, we will do it again and, when the time comes that Adobe sees a market for linux, they may very well end up being the underdog in our ecosystem due to them not starting to compete earlyer with equivalent foss solutions.
Now. Is Linux going to Conquer The World? I dunno. I hope it does.
Ehem.... Contributions? Care to name a few of those?
I love CentOS as much as the next guy, but lets face it, their job is to compile srpms giving a clone of RHEL. They do it well, but thats hardly a "contribution" to anything.
I think this guy is a hands-on bussiness guy that "gets" open source. Im not sure I want to believe he is a "believer", but he plays it well enough to think that he "gets" what we, the community, want.
He says that redhat should be making about 8 times more money than it does now. I agree with him. The spectacular growth linux as a plataform has enjoyed is spread out between many other distros, and thus the next step is convincing some in other linux platform that the redhat value proposition is a better way to go. If I was him, for example, id introduce a discount and some free consulting if you're migrating from competing platforms.
Remember, subscription is a long term bussiness. You dont get your wealth of money until time passes and youre able to amortize the initial costs of getting your distro to the customer and deploying a sales network, so, as a bussiness model, I think redhat and suse can ONLY grow in revenue (I love this FOSS thingie, it will make many of us a decent living doing what we love).
Now, i really know certain stuff that goes on inside redhat (im not directly related to them, but lets say they've been my clients at some point in time). This is a very cost-effective operation, totally commited to increasing revenue in every little single aspect of it. The last CEO was very effective in conveying a corporate philosophy that saves and saves and saves money and resources, and i think it has resulted in supperb products and services, from my POV, the best in the industry; and not in huge salaries for executives and the kind of corporate shit that kills good companies.
I wish the best to redhat with this new guy they have, I think he should be focusing in providing a better and better positioning for the redhat brand in the IT support and services industry; and to leverage the potential of the Red Hat Exchange idea. If they hit it with that one, they'll grow fourfold in less than two years, mark my words.
Okay, you my round friend, is wrong on all accounts.
If addicts were "slaves", if this statement is true, then ALL adicts are slaves. Now, slaves to what? To what drug? To any drugs? To some drugs? To cocaine? To chocolate? What the hell do you mean when you say addicts are "slaves".
Do you love your children? Can you not live without them? Would you call yourself a "slave" to them? Are you "addicted" to your children? No matter what you answer to any or all this questions, there are people that do not love their children, that can live without them, that would not be a "slave" to them, that would not be called addicted to their children but prefferably kick them out by the time they are seven. And then there are people that would prodly wear a SLAVE tatoo in their forhead to proudly show that they love their children and would do anything for them.
You see, the world is not simple. There is almost nothing in society you can slice with your two-bit, conservative-manicheich view (not sure how to write this in english, in spanish we say Maniqueo, which was a cristian hierecy that said there was a clear separation between jesus's divinity and his body, they further stated that jesus's body was unclean, as it was of this world.... catholics burned them all. We use the term in spanish to refer to people who want to judge everything in black and white and are not willing to look at any shade of grey)... after the long parenthesis, I continue: there is almost nothing in society one can really judge as "good" or "bad" from any absolutist moral standpoint.
You choose to say that society is right in limiting the rights of ALL citizens because SOME of them take drugs. That is what you SAY.
Im here to tell you that NOT all drug consumers end up being addicted (id go as far as to say that MOST drug users are NOT addicted, but i have no way to prove it, so I wont go into that). NOT all drug users are, thus, addicts, but they are ALL criminalized under the same manicheich view you have.
In this light, drug control laws stump on the rights of productive, working (from your own definition) people and should thus be ABOLISHED!
The law MAY (if we take YOUR statements as true), protect society from some drug takers but, in the process, it limits the human rights of those that wish to consume drugs in a responsible way, arguably, the rights of MOST drug takers.
Now, getting into that subject of how addicted are most drug-taking individuals, just look at the figures. The most taken drug is cannabis (pot), which is not physically addictive and it has less of an addictive trait than alcohol (this, and many other things youve got WRONG, can be verified in drugwarfacts.org). If its the most taken drug, and its not as addictive as alcohol, but still carries a healthy cost in the drug control policy implementation of the DEA and FBI, then its prohibition is INNEFICIENT to society and SHOULD BE ABOLISHED.
As for stating that "any" libertarian would support your conservative point of view, ask MILTON FRIEDMAN, you TWERP: go google for "Milton Friedman" "america's drug forum" and watch the video of the grandest liberal of modern america giving you the intelectual spanking of a lifetime.
Jeeze.... i come from a two-bit, third world, moslty catholic country but i still can see where some of you americans betray your most valuable principles. I profundly admire the young america, the old america, whitman's america, but oh, how i despize the new america, Bush's america, Reagan's america. One that decided that democracy is less important than stability, that freedom is less important than security.
Go and see what the American Journal of Health has to say about pot.
Hell, go and see what EVERY decent study ever made on pot shows that it physically damages the user less than alcohol, some say nicotine, for example, is way more harmful (which it is, by the way).
Ive been using RoR for the past couple of months for a pet project of mine. no large loads or anything, just a portal with some SOAP to another portal and simple things like that.
ROR ROCKS as a platform, although i do agree that its performance isnt as stable as the one found on java servers, but i do think that the whole idea makes up for that fact. Ror is so simple to program, so cheap to program for, that youll be able to afford a litle 4 box cluster for it and come up way ahead. I like teh ror.
Now, this guy made mongrel, which did become a key piece of a production/stable RoR deployment. Hes good, no use in denying that.
He is also very socially challenged, its sad that he blames his inability to find a job to his own (great) work on RoR. Maybe when you say to the HR guy that you are god, that if they hire you is in that condition, then you may get the cold shoulder: noone likes a brager. Not even Russel Cocker (to think of a wonder-consultant extraordinaire) is that cocky. Hell, he aint cocky at all and he made a great consultant's howto for IT professionals which i recommend to this angry blogger.
Its about stupidity. You see, im not worried that they checked, not worried that they found. What worries me is how the HELL do you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the guy was actually the user of that porn?
How do you prove he didnt get it by clicking on some pr0n spam. How do you know he didnt just get it off of google images and it got into his cache.
What has to stop is the assumption that people are responsible for whatever shit gets dropped in their box. They arent and most specially arent when using microsoft software. Anyone can put the pr0n there.
My friend. The point is that is almost as easy to get data from a suposedly "encrypted" (weak ass encryption) wifi connection, as to do it from an unencrypted one.
And I mean... what is this, Mr. SEAL, although you have an enviable 5 digit slashdot ID, im gonna HAVE to go with bruce on this one.... hell, id go with bruce on all the rest-of-them as well.
Well... id say that Mexico has, by far, the most english-learned society in latin-america and certaintly more per-capita english speakers than spain, for example.
Other countries are kicking our buts cause we have a politicall disaster here and because democracy is something that our "leaders" do not enjoy that much, and economic liberalism is even less popular.
Kind of where the US is heading, BTW, should you guys keep letting the bushes steal your elections.
I was under the impression that he was unable to complete his CompUSA purchase due to some irregularities here and there in the way he tried to buy it.
Well duh, obviously, if all things go to shit, then im in a world of it. Im just saying, you can get half a tb, internally redundant, for about 500 bucks. For a thou, you can get either a full raid0 tb or even replicate them further at raid1 with linux sw raid.... hey, for 1500, you can sw raid5 three half a tb USB2 drives....i wonder what that will do to my usb bus.
I just bought, for about 500 dollars, one TERABYTE USB attachable storage. I set it up as RAID1, so it comes with its own reliability and, if ti comes to that, i might buy anotherone and software raid them with linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Java the platform or java the languaje?
.net vs java. Ah, there is a better idea. How about comparing the LAMP stack to the tomcat/struts stack... ah, then you could start comparing. How about comparing RoR to jboss/ejb3 (and no, RoR is cool, but it aint nowhere close with respect to scalability. Cooler language than java, this ruby thing, that IS true though).
Java with jboss or something akin to that or without it?
If its just the language, your position is moronic: you can do anything you can do with java in assembly if thats your thing.
If its not just the language, your position is moronic: youre comparing a language to a whole suite of appservers and all sort of thingies that are not "language". Want a closer comparission? Java versus Perl+cpan (and perl may be ugly, but cpan is bigger than all of the java code out there).
How about comparing
For an economist, you sure dont get the internet at all.
IP addresses are NUMBERS of a certain SIZE. It should cost us NOTHING, but some smarts in the initial design to make the SIZE bigger, and thus have lots and lots of adresses. Infinite addresses. As many addresses as there are atoms in the solar system, for example.
Numbers, no matter how much of an economist you are, DO NOT COST A DAMNED THING! what costs are engineering and design mistakes that now have to be MENDED.
You can start thinking as an economist now. The problem we have TODAY is that there is not economic INCENTIVE for the people holding some of the address numbers from the limited pool of available addresses.
But EVEN IF THERE WAS ONE, even if they gave it all back and we all natted (which is a technique that allows us to "save" some of the addresses so that we dont have to give one for each and every computer), there would be not enough numbers for the whole world, which we inheritors of the original engineers of the net, creators of true freedom of information, think is the FUCKING GOAL of the net itself: communication, coordination and collaboration, for software running in a networked environment. (now, the original guys did this for war, mostly, but also to show some panache after occident got kicked in the butt by the sputnik launch)
I now direct you to the foundational essays of JCR Licklider (he convinced the DOD that arpanet was a good idea), for all you should care, GOD of the internet, so that you can start to understand what kind of ideas gave us the thriving internet you see today.
This will be an issue of freedom next because government regulators and media and ISP oligopolies, will have more economic incentive to keep the address space FINITE, so that they can skwat and charge for doing exactly NOTHING of value, but feed us whatever media they decide is good for us, to the addresses they think we deserve, in the manner they choose, at the (really high) price they arbitrarily set.
The thing here, the SAD thing, is that it does NOT NEED to be this way. Numbers are numbers, my angry economist, they dont "run out" at all, not if the design and engineering is done right. IPv4, or so the storytelling goes, was implemented quite fastly by bill joy (some put the duration at about three long nights). Those were the pioneer days, everything went on really, really fast. They made one mistake among others: making the thing limited in its address space.
We do NOT NEED to make this mistake again, we need to GET IT RIGHT this time, so that information can be free and everyone can communicate with each other, and we can get all the books online, and all the writers writing up here in our cyberspace, that is not, should not be held to the laws of the "real" universe. We need to cut communication of information costs to damn right near zero. That is what the internet is ALL ABOUT and if youre an economist that doesnt get this simple and beautyfull fact, then youre the ugly kind of economist.
I know i seem slightly nutty, but read Licklider: its the way good engineers should be.
Are you NUTS?
What of libertarianism can you observe in each and every single one of Bush's presidency? Sure, he did the tax cuts... for the richest! Thats not libertarianism, thats open handed cynical corruption and plain stupidity. I like to call this dogmatic-neoliberalism. Bush is practically a corporate activist theocrat, not a libertarian!
Do not confuse libertarianism with economic-liberalism (which yeah, some republican still are). A true libertarian would be a drug leglizer, a medicare killer, a president that eliminated all subsidization of agriculture, a public education terminator, an advocate against the very existance of the university. Libertarians are liberal anarchists: in favor of ALL flavors of freedom, not just the ones that are morally acceptable.
Who ARE you? Bill Gates? Man, i thought I had heard everything when I looked at his old "Open Letter to Hobbyists", but you come even in this day and age.
If you dont want your software to be freely used and redistributed, DO NOT OPEN IT. Period. Canonical is doing what they can with what is available and has no obligation, either moral, ethical or legal, to do anything for or against the producers of the FOSS they use. About they not opening software of their own, in that very speciffic case, im right besides you: release, cannonical bastards, SLES did it for yast (although thankfully that didnt take off for the rest of the distros), redhat did it for the Netscape Directory and gfs (and that cost them a bundle) so yeah, play fair and dont use proprietary software.... or is this right?
For example, redhats RHN proxy/satellite stuff uses oracle as backing and is quite proprietary as far as i know. Novell hasnt released the code for their support portal either, is that ethically right or wrong?.... im not sure where you want to stand on this issues, but its getting more complicated to pass judgment on this stuff the more I think about it.
Now... im waiting to see if lightning strikes me. Your slashdot id gets you quite close to the very begining. I mean, you gotta be old in this game. I was about to cite the Open Source Definition but then again, maybe you're one of the authors or something and will retaliate to this strongly.... aw, hell, here it goes:
Dont you think your position goes against the spirit of the OS definition and the GPL?
Id REALLY like to read that, buts its a pdf. I dont go downloading pdfs from anywere (much less from slashdot) this virii ridden and trojan horse ladden days. Care to put a previous link that is not the pdf, but the page where one can see who publishes it?
Perhaps. The general arguments, however, still stand. Its not IBM, its any consultant or consulting firm (some small, some very large) selling non-microsoft products.
Well. I strongly participated in the antiooxml campaign here in Mexico against ooxml becoming an iso standard. I did this because there is already a fully supported, open, non-patent-encumbered standard covering the whole domain of what ooxml proposes, so it makes more sense for the industry, no matter how strong is microsoft in it, to support the other standard. It is within microsoft's reach to support the iso standard we have now and they did not present any reason whatsoever for its support or adoption in the industry.
I can tell you now that IBM had nothing to do with it. Its just that many smaller foss vendors see in microsoft's initative a way to further their bussiness model in detriment of ours. We are consulting shops, we live on services and providing added value around them and open source software. To have a patent encumbered iso standard that can only be safely and completely supported by one software vendors not only hurts us, it hurts all of our client's choices in the market.
We dont mind integrating MS products in solutions, when it makes sense. Microsoft wants things done their way, weather it makes sense for the client or not. I find this unacceptable as the market is quite capable of providing good alternatives for microsoft software and fileformats and just letting the dominant set their own standard as a public one, with strings attached, hurts customer choice. The customer would be much better if microsoft simply supported ODF in their products. This way they can compete with their (yes, i do mean this) SUPPERB office product on the basis of it being better, not on the basis of them having a monopoly.
Its interesting to see how microsoft has been searching for "the linux enemy". One guy or company that, if they manage to hurt, theyd be hurting the whole movement to the point of crippling it. This year their "linux enemy" is IBM, who is in a great position to benefit themselves from FOSS (being that they are the earlyest of the high end and rich adopters of foss). But they dont get it.
Even if IBM signed in blood tomorrow to use exclusively microsoft software, that would not have changed things on our ISO vote. Microsoft is hurting US, not IBM. US: smaller companies providing consulting without having to give anyone a dime for essentially nothing (which is the current microsoft-owned IT bussiness model). US, who have invested in developing a FOSS expertiese so that we can leverage its cost advantage in front of a microsoft dominated, license driven market.
Perhaps things have gone so far for microsoft, that they dont realize that taking on opensource is not taking on sun or ibm, its taking on US. Thousends and thousends of engineers and entrepreneurs that are opinion leaders when it comes to technology supplies, that are choosing NOT to pay the microsoft tax when it comes to deliverance of IT products and services.
And US thousends have both the numbers and the technicall expertiese to determine where and how their bloated ooxml turns into a useless piece of (insert your own insulting language here) xml , when compared to the ODF standard that has already much more time in development and real world testing. I mean, its THERE its already working, its already dominant in the non-ms industry (meaning all office suites from larger vendors support it). The cost for MS tu support it is really close to nil, while the cost of all the rest of the market to support microsoft's format would be much more. If overall cost for the industry is any kind of meassure, then iso support for OOXML is just plain stupid.
So no, Microsoft, its not "IBM". Its everyone in the world that does not live or want to live on your products and shady bussiness practices.
Jesus, you should be put in jail along with the evil people at youtube that let such abusive and horrendous content to be online!
Why dont you THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Growing hemp gets you, gleefully, a bit more than what you specify. In particular, a great and unending way to party, party, party, at the expense of american taxpayers money though govmnt money going to crop production.
Yeah, i say lets go hemp!
Deb has supported this for a while now, my friend. The main difference between debs and rpms is this simple: debs carry a preconf script that is interactive, rpms are fire-and-forget. Both strategies have their strong points. For servers, y prefer the rpm way as it allows for package push without any operator intervention.
Debs should work this way, IMHO, cause if not it can become a pain in large deployments.
Gosh, what is it with people that think linux needs this or that to "survive". Linux is by far the most ported OS of all time, it works everywere in embeded devices, probably in your wifi router, probably in your home isdn/cable/ADSL router.
It powers google, a good chunk of yahoo and im pretty sure some good part of the online infrastructure at microsoft, ibm, hp and many other non-it related companies.
Linux is NEVER going to die, with or without adobe on board. Adobe is not porting due to they feeling its not worth it. But FOSS may very well give them a run for their money. Weve done it before, we will do it again and, when the time comes that Adobe sees a market for linux, they may very well end up being the underdog in our ecosystem due to them not starting to compete earlyer with equivalent foss solutions.
Now. Is Linux going to Conquer The World? I dunno. I hope it does.
Ehem.... Contributions? Care to name a few of those?
I love CentOS as much as the next guy, but lets face it, their job is to compile srpms giving a clone of RHEL. They do it well, but thats hardly a "contribution" to anything.
I think this guy is a hands-on bussiness guy that "gets" open source. Im not sure I want to believe he is a "believer", but he plays it well enough to think that he "gets" what we, the community, want.
He says that redhat should be making about 8 times more money than it does now. I agree with him. The spectacular growth linux as a plataform has enjoyed is spread out between many other distros, and thus the next step is convincing some in other linux platform that the redhat value proposition is a better way to go. If I was him, for example, id introduce a discount and some free consulting if you're migrating from competing platforms.
Remember, subscription is a long term bussiness. You dont get your wealth of money until time passes and youre able to amortize the initial costs of getting your distro to the customer and deploying a sales network, so, as a bussiness model, I think redhat and suse can ONLY grow in revenue (I love this FOSS thingie, it will make many of us a decent living doing what we love).
Now, i really know certain stuff that goes on inside redhat (im not directly related to them, but lets say they've been my clients at some point in time). This is a very cost-effective operation, totally commited to increasing revenue in every little single aspect of it. The last CEO was very effective in conveying a corporate philosophy that saves and saves and saves money and resources, and i think it has resulted in supperb products and services, from my POV, the best in the industry; and not in huge salaries for executives and the kind of corporate shit that kills good companies.
I wish the best to redhat with this new guy they have, I think he should be focusing in providing a better and better positioning for the redhat brand in the IT support and services industry; and to leverage the potential of the Red Hat Exchange idea. If they hit it with that one, they'll grow fourfold in less than two years, mark my words.
Okay, you my round friend, is wrong on all accounts.
If addicts were "slaves", if this statement is true, then ALL adicts are slaves. Now, slaves to what? To what drug? To any drugs? To some drugs? To cocaine? To chocolate? What the hell do you mean when you say addicts are "slaves".
Do you love your children? Can you not live without them? Would you call yourself a "slave" to them? Are you "addicted" to your children? No matter what you answer to any or all this questions, there are people that do not love their children, that can live without them, that would not be a "slave" to them, that would not be called addicted to their children but prefferably kick them out by the time they are seven. And then there are people that would prodly wear a SLAVE tatoo in their forhead to proudly show that they love their children and would do anything for them.
You see, the world is not simple. There is almost nothing in society you can slice with your two-bit, conservative-manicheich view (not sure how to write this in english, in spanish we say Maniqueo, which was a cristian hierecy that said there was a clear separation between jesus's divinity and his body, they further stated that jesus's body was unclean, as it was of this world.... catholics burned them all. We use the term in spanish to refer to people who want to judge everything in black and white and are not willing to look at any shade of grey)... after the long parenthesis, I continue: there is almost nothing in society one can really judge as "good" or "bad" from any absolutist moral standpoint.
You choose to say that society is right in limiting the rights of ALL citizens because SOME of them take drugs. That is what you SAY.
Im here to tell you that NOT all drug consumers end up being addicted (id go as far as to say that MOST drug users are NOT addicted, but i have no way to prove it, so I wont go into that). NOT all drug users are, thus, addicts, but they are ALL criminalized under the same manicheich view you have.
In this light, drug control laws stump on the rights of productive, working (from your own definition) people and should thus be ABOLISHED!
The law MAY (if we take YOUR statements as true), protect society from some drug takers but, in the process, it limits the human rights of those that wish to consume drugs in a responsible way, arguably, the rights of MOST drug takers.
Now, getting into that subject of how addicted are most drug-taking individuals, just look at the figures. The most taken drug is cannabis (pot), which is not physically addictive and it has less of an addictive trait than alcohol (this, and many other things youve got WRONG, can be verified in drugwarfacts.org). If its the most taken drug, and its not as addictive as alcohol, but still carries a healthy cost in the drug control policy implementation of the DEA and FBI, then its prohibition is INNEFICIENT to society and SHOULD BE ABOLISHED.
As for stating that "any" libertarian would support your conservative point of view, ask MILTON FRIEDMAN, you TWERP: go google for "Milton Friedman" "america's drug forum" and watch the video of the grandest liberal of modern america giving you the intelectual spanking of a lifetime.
Jeeze.... i come from a two-bit, third world, moslty catholic country but i still can see where some of you americans betray your most valuable principles. I profundly admire the young america, the old america, whitman's america, but oh, how i despize the new america, Bush's america, Reagan's america. One that decided that democracy is less important than stability, that freedom is less important than security.
SHAME.
Go and see what the American Journal of Health has to say about pot.
Hell, go and see what EVERY decent study ever made on pot shows that it physically damages the user less than alcohol, some say nicotine, for example, is way more harmful (which it is, by the way).
Shoo...
Ive been using RoR for the past couple of months for a pet project of mine. no large loads or anything, just a portal with some SOAP to another portal and simple things like that.
ROR ROCKS as a platform, although i do agree that its performance isnt as stable as the one found on java servers, but i do think that the whole idea makes up for that fact. Ror is so simple to program, so cheap to program for, that youll be able to afford a litle 4 box cluster for it and come up way ahead. I like teh ror.
Now, this guy made mongrel, which did become a key piece of a production/stable RoR deployment. Hes good, no use in denying that.
He is also very socially challenged, its sad that he blames his inability to find a job to his own (great) work on RoR. Maybe when you say to the HR guy that you are god, that if they hire you is in that condition, then you may get the cold shoulder: noone likes a brager. Not even Russel Cocker (to think of a wonder-consultant extraordinaire) is that cocky. Hell, he aint cocky at all and he made a great consultant's howto for IT professionals which i recommend to this angry blogger.
Its about stupidity. You see, im not worried that they checked, not worried that they found. What worries me is how the HELL do you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the guy was actually the user of that porn?
How do you prove he didnt get it by clicking on some pr0n spam. How do you know he didnt just get it off of google images and it got into his cache.
What has to stop is the assumption that people are responsible for whatever shit gets dropped in their box. They arent and most specially arent when using microsoft software. Anyone can put the pr0n there.
We CAN get something better than the zune... its called an iPod
My friend. The point is that is almost as easy to get data from a suposedly "encrypted" (weak ass encryption) wifi connection, as to do it from an unencrypted one.
And I mean... what is this, Mr. SEAL, although you have an enviable 5 digit slashdot ID, im gonna HAVE to go with bruce on this one.... hell, id go with bruce on all the rest-of-them as well.
Billionaire in ye-olde green american dollar. Richest man in the world and quite the monopolist, by the way.
Well... id say that Mexico has, by far, the most english-learned society in latin-america and certaintly more per-capita english speakers than spain, for example.
Other countries are kicking our buts cause we have a politicall disaster here and because democracy is something that our "leaders" do not enjoy that much, and economic liberalism is even less popular.
Kind of where the US is heading, BTW, should you guys keep letting the bushes steal your elections.
I was under the impression that he was unable to complete his CompUSA purchase due to some irregularities here and there in the way he tried to buy it.
Zimbra does it, does it very well and can be made compatible with full fledged outlook.
You dweebs cant even do a google search before just saying "no", can you?
Well duh, obviously, if all things go to shit, then im in a world of it. Im just saying, you can get half a tb, internally redundant, for about 500 bucks. For a thou, you can get either a full raid0 tb or even replicate them further at raid1 with linux sw raid.... hey, for 1500, you can sw raid5 three half a tb USB2 drives... .i wonder what that will do to my usb bus.
HUH?
I just bought, for about 500 dollars, one TERABYTE USB attachable storage. I set it up as RAID1, so it comes with its own reliability and, if ti comes to that, i might buy anotherone and software raid them with linux.