Of course since less than 1% of our targetted web users will use it for the forseeable future we probably will invest less than 1% of our corporate resources for programming our web site to support it.
We support standards.
The standard for browsing web pages is not Netscape, it's not W3XXX, it is IE(4,5,6). It is what 9x% of our visitors use. We will degrade gracefully on the other platforms and freely distribute IE (free to distribute after all) to those poor users who don't have IE today.
Reality -- it bites but you've got to live it some time.
If AOL buys RedHat and destroys it the press will report that Linux is dead.
To the press RedHat=Linux. To the general populace RedHat=Linux. If RedHat dies or, either by suicide or acquisition, it will reflect NEGATIVELY on the perception of Linux being a mainstream OS.
This is a perception -- not a fact. But CIO/CTO and CEO work on perceptions that are built powerfully by the media they read as well as their advisers. RedHat would win the battle for survival but present a significant loss in the overall war.
After all, Netscape was dead. They had not shipped and they were falling behind rapidly in the browser market.
They were in the "portal" market -- whatever that is.
I never understood why they didn't charge for their server and PUSH it. It wasn't that bad and it was one of the few products they had they could generate revenue with. On the other hand they had MS IIS on the one side and Apache on the other -- both free and currently the #1 and #2 web servers out there (owning a vast majority of all sites -- all other web servers are bit market players).
Netscape shot themselves in the head with their lack of a viable business plan, knowledge of the competition and no plan on how to directly compete, etc.
Your 540i would indeed. I'm also partial to Nissan but they just don't have the pizzaz of the BMW (new Nissan vs. old BMW -- BMW wins -- just too much fun).
And Mac's aren't hard -- after a few years supporting them I acclimated. On the other hand, I am much happier supporting and developing for the non-Mac platform. Frankly the Mac did not have stability in large rollouts. It had a lot of nice features, but so did my Commodore 128.
If your in publishing or a handful of other vertical markets buy a Mac. If you need general purpose machines for any other office you can't beat Intel. If you need to run enterprise applications in most small, mid size and large corporations you need a Windows PC -- you don't have a choice for the majority of the apps.
The business of government --local or national -- is NOT TO MAKE OR FIX SOFTWARE. It is to govern.
99% of businesses and government agencies should NOT be writing software. They will need to use it.
Open Source is not the appropriate platform for users -- and the community is users. It is the appropriate place for hackers, programmers, etc. That is not the mission of the government.
Similar to the disclaimer MS does... and you'd be liable. Your best bet: don't let anyone else use your software. Don't contribute to Open Source code because you might be personally sued.
The roughest part of all -- it could be their configuration or their actual issue. You may prove it wasn't your fault in court after many, many days and a whole lot of $.
Of course my BMW has 240,000 miles on it and will beat the pants of your Mazda any day.
And my W2K Intel hardware has many, many months of uptime and beats your Mac in reliability, performance and usability. When OS X really, really flies (wide adoption) it will be technically adequate.
Of course since 95%+ of all business applications run on PC's and less than 5% of vertical market applications (excluding Desktop publishing) run on Mac's I, my company and the companies I consult for will not use Mac's any time soon.
Lastly coward, perhaps if you were to seek higher education you could use more colorful metaphors. I realize that grade school education isn't what it used to be but had higher hopes for our youth than your simple response.
And if Apple can peddle the Apple store to middle America -- not to niche markets -- then it will be a resounding success no matter what it costs.
The issue may be that it wasn't a Walmart (thank God!), it wasn't a Target (a little better) it wasn't a Gap -- it was truly a trendy approach. Does that appeal to middle America? I don't know -- can't say that I represent middle America.
I could make a new years prediction and say that (taking a page from Gartner) Apple will close the majority of it's retail outlets within the 2002/2003 time frame (85% probability). But then I'm no Carnack, or Gartner either for that matter.
Since the Mercede's and BMW's only run on smeed and smeed stations only exist by mail or in a handful of urban centers those Mercede's and BMW's don't go too far.
Oh, wait... I meant to say Macintosh "applications" and not "smeed" and Macintosh computers.
Face it -- the Mac is still a bit market player. They have a small market share for a non-compatible product. When you think about it they have done quite well actually considering their lack of installed base.
The Apple stores are a little scary though. Having walked into one the other day in the local mall I can say they are a true statement on style. One huge empty store. 5 salesmen. A row of machines on one side of the wall. Impressive machines. Should it worry Apple that all 5 of the salesmen asked if they could help me in turn within minutes of each other (prime time shopping hours -- 7:00 pm or so)? Should it worry Apple that the store appears as though it may have issues paying the rent let alone the salesmen?
If you are targetting the Target/Walmart shopper build a Target/Walmar. Never build a high rent boutique to sell to the masses.
..as they have many times in the past. The following possibilities exist:
1. When the actual contract is awarded MS may actually win it -- they were not in the running but they have a history of winning anyway -- they learn very, very fast.
2. They may loose this one -- it's only one city -- and come back with a bigger/better effort for the next city. They have a history in this area as well. Remember -- they have the ability to price their product to have it bought (not unlike Oracle who is rumored to sell their software at 75% to 90% discounts to big/important clients). The lesson is if you want to sell your software you have to get them to buy it first. Give some away and then you will be able to sell it later.
3. China finds out how much it really costs them to support Open Source software and begs MS to come in and save them money. After all when they have to hire cities of programmers to make it functional for them they may find out they want to USE software, not develop it.
We are herewith terminating our employment agreement with you. We hope that the officers who execute the warrant issued for your arrest take the time to rough you up on the way in.
This kind of abuse of our intellectual property is inexcusable. To share a critical security issue on a public bulletin board with a group of aging hackers and hacker want-a-be's goes beyond lack of knowledge to the land of criminal intent.
Exposing holes to the world is not your job. Exposing them internally may be. In no event do you have the right or responsibility to expose those holes to any segement of the public. Regardless of corporate policy on security through obscurity you have probably committed more than one crime by publishing any hint that a security hole may exist.
file format for word proccesisng on the desktop. It is the format for the #1 word processor and all of it's sub versions (Word v. 6 through XP). That word processor is dominant on the desktop, capturing over half of all desktop users on all platforms.
That means that if you want to trade files with another user you must use the standard --.DOC.
Quit your whining and get over it -- if you want to challenge the standard make a good choice. If you want to buttress the standard then make your software work with it.
If you want your software used by the majority of users out there then you need to either make it work with the standard or make it good enough that they will use it anyway.
rip out the old and rebuild to a new, documented, usable solution.
I have little tolerance for any management system or employee that believes a "i'm the only one who knows how it works" is a good answer in any way, shape or form.
Let's see -- MS offers me a license to usable software today that 90%+ of businesses use to run their day to day operations. Businesses that have a business that makes money -- where the software is a product they use to assist them in their core business.
Seems like a fair deal to me.
And anyone who claims that open source gives the end user the ability to make the code do what they want is correct and wrong. Correct because the end user can. Wrong because USERS DON'T WANT to modify code. Users want to use software that works.
MS is not going to be in the bird seat forever. They are not the great evil. Their day will pass.
Right now their is no viable alternative for the corporate user for the desktop. Arguably MS is superior for many server functions as well.
Deliver what the users want. A product that just works. That doesn't force them to program.
Deliver what the developers want. A platform that is widely adopted that the developer can leverage.
Thank heavans their not a clueless Computer Science major! Some of the worst programmers/systems people I've known were Computer Science majors. Frankly I've begun to rank resumes higher if the applicant was NOT a CompSci person. I'm beginning to think the CompSci degree is more than useless.
Engineers are a whole other breed. They NEED to know why it works in most cases.
I was a History/Political Science major. I work in the tech field and made my up through the ranks.
Nor is it supposed to be. Just as Linux is not a secure OS in the main stream releases. Linux will never be a secure OS in the main stream release. As it gains more market share it will become less secure (a high percentage of security is the users and administrator -- in the home box that's Joe and he doesn't give a hoot about security and won't buy an OS if he has to).
A secure OS is a special or a tuned release. Always will be.
that Andover.net is on the rocks -- the attitude that they should buy our product because they should know better.
It's the right attitude for marketing as they aggressively sell their product and CONVINCE users that their product is really better. The wrong attitude for tech's.
Slashdot Mirror
the Public does not care. The public uses IE.
Get over it.
Design for your users.
Degrade gracefully.
Enable the users to upgrade.
Get on with life.
Mindshare. Perception of momentum. Perception that Linux is a contender.
Linux was at the forefront of the tech revolution and the stock market bubble. That died and several "Linux" companies died.
If AOL kills RH then the only strong company behind a distro dies.
Public perception: Linux is dead.
chance.
Of course since less than 1% of our targetted web users will use it for the forseeable future we probably will invest less than 1% of our corporate resources for programming our web site to support it.
We support standards.
The standard for browsing web pages is not Netscape, it's not W3XXX, it is IE(4,5,6). It is what 9x% of our visitors use. We will degrade gracefully on the other platforms and freely distribute IE (free to distribute after all) to those poor users who don't have IE today.
Reality -- it bites but you've got to live it some time.
If AOL buys RedHat and destroys it the press will report that Linux is dead.
To the press RedHat=Linux. To the general populace RedHat=Linux. If RedHat dies or, either by suicide or acquisition, it will reflect NEGATIVELY on the perception of Linux being a mainstream OS.
This is a perception -- not a fact. But CIO/CTO and CEO work on perceptions that are built powerfully by the media they read as well as their advisers. RedHat would win the battle for survival but present a significant loss in the overall war.
After all, Netscape was dead. They had not shipped and they were falling behind rapidly in the browser market.
They were in the "portal" market -- whatever that is.
I never understood why they didn't charge for their server and PUSH it. It wasn't that bad and it was one of the few products they had they could generate revenue with. On the other hand they had MS IIS on the one side and Apache on the other -- both free and currently the #1 and #2 web servers out there (owning a vast majority of all sites -- all other web servers are bit market players).
Netscape shot themselves in the head with their lack of a viable business plan, knowledge of the competition and no plan on how to directly compete, etc.
and it was stable?
Guess not!
Your 540i would indeed. I'm also partial to Nissan but they just don't have the pizzaz of the BMW (new Nissan vs. old BMW -- BMW wins -- just too much fun).
And Mac's aren't hard -- after a few years supporting them I acclimated. On the other hand, I am much happier supporting and developing for the non-Mac platform. Frankly the Mac did not have stability in large rollouts. It had a lot of nice features, but so did my Commodore 128.
If your in publishing or a handful of other vertical markets buy a Mac. If you need general purpose machines for any other office you can't beat Intel. If you need to run enterprise applications in most small, mid size and large corporations you need a Windows PC -- you don't have a choice for the majority of the apps.
The business of government --local or national -- is NOT TO MAKE OR FIX SOFTWARE. It is to govern.
99% of businesses and government agencies should NOT be writing software. They will need to use it.
Open Source is not the appropriate platform for users -- and the community is users. It is the appropriate place for hackers, programmers, etc. That is not the mission of the government.
Similar to the disclaimer MS does... and you'd be liable. Your best bet: don't let anyone else use your software. Don't contribute to Open Source code because you might be personally sued.
The roughest part of all -- it could be their configuration or their actual issue. You may prove it wasn't your fault in court after many, many days and a whole lot of $.
Of course my BMW has 240,000 miles on it and will beat the pants of your Mazda any day.
And my W2K Intel hardware has many, many months of uptime and beats your Mac in reliability, performance and usability. When OS X really, really flies (wide adoption) it will be technically adequate.
Of course since 95%+ of all business applications run on PC's and less than 5% of vertical market applications (excluding Desktop publishing) run on Mac's I, my company and the companies I consult for will not use Mac's any time soon.
Lastly coward, perhaps if you were to seek higher education you could use more colorful metaphors. I realize that grade school education isn't what it used to be but had higher hopes for our youth than your simple response.
And if Apple can peddle the Apple store to middle America -- not to niche markets -- then it will be a resounding success no matter what it costs.
The issue may be that it wasn't a Walmart (thank God!), it wasn't a Target (a little better) it wasn't a Gap -- it was truly a trendy approach. Does that appeal to middle America? I don't know -- can't say that I represent middle America.
I could make a new years prediction and say that (taking a page from Gartner) Apple will close the majority of it's retail outlets within the 2002/2003 time frame (85% probability). But then I'm no Carnack, or Gartner either for that matter.
Since the Mercede's and BMW's only run on smeed and smeed stations only exist by mail or in a handful of urban centers those Mercede's and BMW's don't go too far.
Oh, wait... I meant to say Macintosh "applications" and not "smeed" and Macintosh computers.
Face it -- the Mac is still a bit market player. They have a small market share for a non-compatible product. When you think about it they have done quite well actually considering their lack of installed base.
The Apple stores are a little scary though. Having walked into one the other day in the local mall I can say they are a true statement on style. One huge empty store. 5 salesmen. A row of machines on one side of the wall. Impressive machines. Should it worry Apple that all 5 of the salesmen asked if they could help me in turn within minutes of each other (prime time shopping hours -- 7:00 pm or so)? Should it worry Apple that the store appears as though it may have issues paying the rent let alone the salesmen?
If you are targetting the Target/Walmart shopper build a Target/Walmar. Never build a high rent boutique to sell to the masses.
At least I can fill my BMW's gas tank locally.
..as they have many times in the past. The following possibilities exist:
1. When the actual contract is awarded MS may actually win it -- they were not in the running but they have a history of winning anyway -- they learn very, very fast.
2. They may loose this one -- it's only one city -- and come back with a bigger/better effort for the next city. They have a history in this area as well. Remember -- they have the ability to price their product to have it bought (not unlike Oracle who is rumored to sell their software at 75% to 90% discounts to big/important clients). The lesson is if you want to sell your software you have to get them to buy it first. Give some away and then you will be able to sell it later.
3. China finds out how much it really costs them to support Open Source software and begs MS to come in and save them money. After all when they have to hire cities of programmers to make it functional for them they may find out they want to USE software, not develop it.
We are herewith terminating our employment agreement with you. We hope that the officers who execute the warrant issued for your arrest take the time to rough you up on the way in.
This kind of abuse of our intellectual property is inexcusable. To share a critical security issue on a public bulletin board with a group of aging hackers and hacker want-a-be's goes beyond lack of knowledge to the land of criminal intent.
Exposing holes to the world is not your job. Exposing them internally may be. In no event do you have the right or responsibility to expose those holes to any segement of the public. Regardless of corporate policy on security through obscurity you have probably committed more than one crime by publishing any hint that a security hole may exist.
file format for word proccesisng on the desktop. It is the format for the #1 word processor and all of it's sub versions (Word v. 6 through XP). That word processor is dominant on the desktop, capturing over half of all desktop users on all platforms.
.DOC.
That means that if you want to trade files with another user you must use the standard --
Quit your whining and get over it -- if you want to challenge the standard make a good choice. If you want to buttress the standard then make your software work with it.
If you want your software used by the majority of users out there then you need to either make it work with the standard or make it good enough that they will use it anyway.
rip out the old and rebuild to a new, documented, usable solution.
I have little tolerance for any management system or employee that believes a "i'm the only one who knows how it works" is a good answer in any way, shape or form.
Let's see -- MS offers me a license to usable software today that 90%+ of businesses use to run their day to day operations. Businesses that have a business that makes money -- where the software is a product they use to assist them in their core business.
Seems like a fair deal to me.
And anyone who claims that open source gives the end user the ability to make the code do what they want is correct and wrong. Correct because the end user can. Wrong because USERS DON'T WANT to modify code. Users want to use software that works.
MS is not going to be in the bird seat forever. They are not the great evil. Their day will pass.
Right now their is no viable alternative for the corporate user for the desktop. Arguably MS is superior for many server functions as well.
Deliver what the users want. A product that just works. That doesn't force them to program.
Deliver what the developers want. A platform that is widely adopted that the developer can leverage.
So what do they do now? Why did they cease using the security through lack of functionality?
So by definition it's a Microsoft Computer... and a Microsoft industry.
for Granny -- it will be a second tier OS.
I'm still amazed it has so little functionality in this area!
And Linux will be up to 2% of the desktop! Of course Windows 2300 will be way cool.
Technically superior OS's don't sell. Marketed OS's sell!
Thank heavans their not a clueless Computer Science major! Some of the worst programmers/systems people I've known were Computer Science majors. Frankly I've begun to rank resumes higher if the applicant was NOT a CompSci person. I'm beginning to think the CompSci degree is more than useless.
Engineers are a whole other breed. They NEED to know why it works in most cases.
I was a History/Political Science major. I work in the tech field and made my up through the ranks.
Never in the main stream release.
Nor is it supposed to be. Just as Linux is not a secure OS in the main stream releases. Linux will never be a secure OS in the main stream release. As it gains more market share it will become less secure (a high percentage of security is the users and administrator -- in the home box that's Joe and he doesn't give a hoot about security and won't buy an OS if he has to).
A secure OS is a special or a tuned release. Always will be.
that Andover.net is on the rocks -- the attitude that they should buy our product because they should know better.
It's the right attitude for marketing as they aggressively sell their product and CONVINCE users that their product is really better. The wrong attitude for tech's.
Tivo... doesn't it? Why is it evil when MS does it but not when Tivo does it? Is this open source situational ethics at work?