And yet it blows any other commercial e-mail package away for ease of use and fluid design. It challenges any open source/free alternative at the very least.
You write software for me on my dime -- and I OWN THE LICENSE.
That's in 100% of the contracts I write -- and it's fairly common. If I'm paying for your time I own your product.
Sell me a product on the other hand and you own it and I license it. This is a relationship I'm comfy with -- but it is completely different than my hiring you to write software.
If you open source your product I'll be happy to use it for my own purposes for free. And if I enhance it I'll be happy to pay someone to do it. And I admit I'll probably never release that source code back to the community -- I paid to enhance my business (not software) and I don't redistribute the software.
Until every single machine is hacked -- the central firewall is a sound and solid approach to implementing controls. It hails back to the days of central servers for file services, printing, etc. (may be the same, may be dedicated).
As a matter of fact it works so much more efficiently than the model of thousands of individual unmanaged machines running amok that the industry is moving back toward it rapidly.
You'd think the US government would decline contributions from the companies who desire to take down their competitor through manipulating anti-trust legislation because they can't compete (Sun, Novel, AOl, etc.).
Is MS a monopoly? Probably so (at least the judge said so and that's what counts).
Is MS hurting the consumer? Probably not, especially if you ask the majority of conusmers.
Is MS hurting Sun, Novel and AOL? Definately.
Was the antitrust case taken up after extensive lobbying by Sun, Novel and AOL? Is lobbying not only legal but expected?
MS can be slow to catch on but they play catch-up very, very quickly. The game is who can legally make the most money. This includes legally contributing and lobbying politicians. This means that MS not only learned the game -- once again they outflanked their opposition.
No country, no development project, no significant contribution has ever lived in the user driven society proscribed above for long.
By far the best model has been for a group of bright individuals to come up with a good idea (tm) and to then develop and distribute it. Open source adds the ability for many to gain from the experience. If Open source restricts the bright individuals from following the good idea (tm) then Open source (GPL) is truly a viral license. It is also doomed to be discarded when the next group of bright individuals has the next good idea (tm) -- why should I stamp my good name on a product that will be hijacked by the truly horrible masses?
Miguel = bright individual.
Ximian and Gnome = good idea.
Using.Net could be a great idea --the "market" will decide that. If the "community" is deciding the fate of software then Open source (as defined by the GPL) is dead -- just living on life support.
You mean the company that was such a major D party contributor? You mean the company that usually had an employee on each presidential plane?
Ahh -- the one who found they could not bribe W as easily as Clinton and was exposed?
Without a doubt MS is now playing the political game. Kinda like the internet -- they didn't create it, they didn't play in it at the beginning and they will probably own it within a few years.
The business of MS is business and they know it well.
Is built in and has been since NT3.1. Each 16bit app can start in it's own NTVDM or you can run them all in one NTVDM -- your choice on an app by app basis.
It works, it doesn't bring down the OS and many apps actually run better in an NTVDM.
So the XP implementation of apt-get burned the administrator.
Shame on the IT "professional". Never, ever run any code in production that has not been thoroughly tested on the intended platform. Run it in test only. It is not professional to say "apt-get" on a production server or workstation if the patch has not been tested on that configuration of hardware.
Of course you were using NTFS so it recovered within a few minutes.
If you weren't they should pull your OS license.
Re:Well, here's why we need cross-platform games
on
Last Word on Loki
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
And here I though Java was like Linux:
1. Promies the world
2. Deliver a compromise lowest common denominator system
3. Find out that high performance user interaction applications don't run on it
4. Find out that complicated business applications don't run on it -- especially vertical market
5. Quitely fade away
Games and PC's multimedia that don't really work right are the biggest issue facing Linux. Of course this is the issue that usually ices alternative OS's (hardware support). MS has excellant hardware support through marketing mass and thousands of drivers. The Mac has excellant hardware support through controlling the spec on all hardware.
Linux is at the mercy of the vendors who may want to appear "nice" when their bread is not buttered to sell to the Linux market.
If Linux persists in being all things to all people it will be:
1. The best hobbyist OS
2. Mostly unused
3. Never a "comemrcial" OS
Windows works and Linux doesn't? Where is that up time for Linux claim then? 15 minutes (had to boot to Windows play games, had to boot to Windows to use the standard Office products, had to boot to Windows to be productive)? Don't complain -- just use the workable OS for you wheather it be Linux or Windows.
In general the pragmatic approach keeps you going longer in the evolutionary ladder (see self cleaning gene pool cross referenced with Linux bigot).
Like Intel, Microsoft, IBM, etc. in the tech arena (proven track records, good accumulation of values and dividends).
Face it -- No Linux stock belongs in a retirement fund yet. Redhat is speculative as are many tech companies in general. The three "blue chip" tech's listed above are proven companies -- you may not double your money in the next year but you won't loose it all most likely either.
So that means my backup media cost in excess of $200 per unit, should not be dropped, has a relatively (to tape) short shelf life, and could be easily stolen.
WHich means that by the time it ships it will run software that is 4 years old -- the window is past.
The Windows API is alive. To believe it will sit still for 2 to 4 years is a pipe dream. Part of that may be MS keeping their lead in the field -- a majority of it is making new product to make more money which is what MS is in business to do.
2 to 4 years ago state of the art was much different than it is today. 2 to 4 years from now state of the art will be drastically different than it is today.
They must deliver results within 6 months to have any chance at all. They must then be ready to keep in synch with any MS releases within a 3 to 6 month time frame. Their product must have fewer bugs than MS's, be cheaper, easier and more reliable. If it isn't, why bother?
I'm sure Bill is shaking in his boots -- just like he was when Novell bought Word Perfect.
If AOL is looking to fight MS they are on the wrong track -- each company that has attempted to broaden their product line to attack MS has LOST. Many times a narrow focus -- a well defined front with well defined goals and products that are the best is a much better approach than broadening your product line to dozens of leaders that become mediocre as you attempt to spin them together.
RedHat is the PUBLIC company that represents Linux. Other than IBM (which leverages RedHat among other distributions) they are the public standard bearers for Linux to Wall Street and to the CIO/CTO and CEO public at large.
If RedHat dies it is another nail in the coffin for Linux in public perception -- and in Wall Street perception.
The public is not the geek readers of Slashdot. The public are the 99% of real users.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet it blows any other commercial e-mail package away for ease of use and fluid design. It challenges any open source/free alternative at the very least.
Outlook rules.
How about IE for Mac? Together Mac and Windows make up the vast majority of computing platforms used today. The Mac is the #2 OS.
You write software for me on my dime -- and I OWN THE LICENSE.
.02
That's in 100% of the contracts I write -- and it's fairly common. If I'm paying for your time I own your product.
Sell me a product on the other hand and you own it and I license it. This is a relationship I'm comfy with -- but it is completely different than my hiring you to write software.
If you open source your product I'll be happy to use it for my own purposes for free. And if I enhance it I'll be happy to pay someone to do it. And I admit I'll probably never release that source code back to the community -- I paid to enhance my business (not software) and I don't redistribute the software.
Just my
Until every single machine is hacked -- the central firewall is a sound and solid approach to implementing controls. It hails back to the days of central servers for file services, printing, etc. (may be the same, may be dedicated).
As a matter of fact it works so much more efficiently than the model of thousands of individual unmanaged machines running amok that the industry is moving back toward it rapidly.
You'd think the US government would decline contributions from the companies who desire to take down their competitor through manipulating anti-trust legislation because they can't compete (Sun, Novel, AOl, etc.).
Is MS a monopoly? Probably so (at least the judge said so and that's what counts).
Is MS hurting the consumer? Probably not, especially if you ask the majority of conusmers.
Is MS hurting Sun, Novel and AOL? Definately.
Was the antitrust case taken up after extensive lobbying by Sun, Novel and AOL? Is lobbying not only legal but expected?
MS can be slow to catch on but they play catch-up very, very quickly. The game is who can legally make the most money. This includes legally contributing and lobbying politicians. This means that MS not only learned the game -- once again they outflanked their opposition.
It could be true -- but I'm not betting on it.
I think you'll find
VB
C
Java
In that order for the enterprise counted in # of developers employed... although powerbuilder might be above Java.
Then again -- i have no numbers either and would be interested in seeing some.
Could be done but hasn't.
That's the difference between success and has beens.
or the fly in the ointment may be just this:
.Net could be a great idea --the "market" will decide that. If the "community" is deciding the fate of software then Open source (as defined by the GPL) is dead -- just living on life support.
No country, no development project, no significant contribution has ever lived in the user driven society proscribed above for long.
By far the best model has been for a group of bright individuals to come up with a good idea (tm) and to then develop and distribute it. Open source adds the ability for many to gain from the experience. If Open source restricts the bright individuals from following the good idea (tm) then Open source (GPL) is truly a viral license. It is also doomed to be discarded when the next group of bright individuals has the next good idea (tm) -- why should I stamp my good name on a product that will be hijacked by the truly horrible masses?
Miguel = bright individual.
Ximian and Gnome = good idea.
Using
So the question is -- who owns the project? RMS who contributes nothing or Miguel who manages it?
If memory serves me right we used to freeze, backup, thaw and go on with life.
You mean the company that was such a major D party contributor? You mean the company that usually had an employee on each presidential plane?
Ahh -- the one who found they could not bribe W as easily as Clinton and was exposed?
Without a doubt MS is now playing the political game. Kinda like the internet -- they didn't create it, they didn't play in it at the beginning and they will probably own it within a few years.
The business of MS is business and they know it well.
Is built in and has been since NT3.1. Each 16bit app can start in it's own NTVDM or you can run them all in one NTVDM -- your choice on an app by app basis.
It works, it doesn't bring down the OS and many apps actually run better in an NTVDM.
So the XP implementation of apt-get burned the administrator.
Shame on the IT "professional". Never, ever run any code in production that has not been thoroughly tested on the intended platform. Run it in test only. It is not professional to say "apt-get" on a production server or workstation if the patch has not been tested on that configuration of hardware.
Of course you were using NTFS so it recovered within a few minutes.
If you weren't they should pull your OS license.
And here I though Java was like Linux:
1. Promies the world
2. Deliver a compromise lowest common denominator system
3. Find out that high performance user interaction applications don't run on it
4. Find out that complicated business applications don't run on it -- especially vertical market
5. Quitely fade away
but I doubt Bill is. The losers in this are: professional Unix developers and companies that pay their bills by sellign Unix proprietary software.
Eventually it may affect Bill -- after it's killed proprietary Unix development.
Games and PC's multimedia that don't really work right are the biggest issue facing Linux. Of course this is the issue that usually ices alternative OS's (hardware support). MS has excellant hardware support through marketing mass and thousands of drivers. The Mac has excellant hardware support through controlling the spec on all hardware.
Linux is at the mercy of the vendors who may want to appear "nice" when their bread is not buttered to sell to the Linux market.
If Linux persists in being all things to all people it will be:
1. The best hobbyist OS
2. Mostly unused
3. Never a "comemrcial" OS
Windows works and Linux doesn't? Where is that up time for Linux claim then? 15 minutes (had to boot to Windows play games, had to boot to Windows to use the standard Office products, had to boot to Windows to be productive)? Don't complain -- just use the workable OS for you wheather it be Linux or Windows.
In general the pragmatic approach keeps you going longer in the evolutionary ladder (see self cleaning gene pool cross referenced with Linux bigot).
end users who steal the intellectual property of others HURT open source.
Their is hope of course. Loki could join a home version of the BSA.... wait the BSA is evil, isn't it?
Free/open software, quality software, ability of developers to eat -- pick any two.
Like Intel, Microsoft, IBM, etc. in the tech arena (proven track records, good accumulation of values and dividends).
Face it -- No Linux stock belongs in a retirement fund yet. Redhat is speculative as are many tech companies in general. The three "blue chip" tech's listed above are proven companies -- you may not double your money in the next year but you won't loose it all most likely either.
So that means my backup media cost in excess of $200 per unit, should not be dropped, has a relatively (to tape) short shelf life, and could be easily stolen.
WHich means that by the time it ships it will run software that is 4 years old -- the window is past.
The Windows API is alive. To believe it will sit still for 2 to 4 years is a pipe dream. Part of that may be MS keeping their lead in the field -- a majority of it is making new product to make more money which is what MS is in business to do.
2 to 4 years ago state of the art was much different than it is today. 2 to 4 years from now state of the art will be drastically different than it is today.
They must deliver results within 6 months to have any chance at all. They must then be ready to keep in synch with any MS releases within a 3 to 6 month time frame. Their product must have fewer bugs than MS's, be cheaper, easier and more reliable. If it isn't, why bother?
I'm sure Bill is shaking in his boots -- just like he was when Novell bought Word Perfect.
If AOL is looking to fight MS they are on the wrong track -- each company that has attempted to broaden their product line to attack MS has LOST. Many times a narrow focus -- a well defined front with well defined goals and products that are the best is a much better approach than broadening your product line to dozens of leaders that become mediocre as you attempt to spin them together.
RedHat is the PUBLIC company that represents Linux. Other than IBM (which leverages RedHat among other distributions) they are the public standard bearers for Linux to Wall Street and to the CIO/CTO and CEO public at large.
If RedHat dies it is another nail in the coffin for Linux in public perception -- and in Wall Street perception.
The public is not the geek readers of Slashdot. The public are the 99% of real users.
and therefore it is the standard.
The current HTML specification is what will run on IE -- not what some third party says the standard should be.
This is the world Netscape started (Netscape compatible) and Microsoft won.