Re:If I went back to school now I'd study: History
on
Quickie Fu
·
· Score: 1
I'll have to disagree with you on this one. Personally, I think most of the problems that we're seeing in the realm of IT could be solved by having techies with a more well-rounded education.
Besides, having a non-technical education does not preclude having an understanding of the technical realm. It merely enables you to bring a different perspective to the game, and may enable you to make a contribution that is radically different, rather than just squeezing a few more FPS of performance out of your video card.
Does anybody else find it the least bit amusing that the C|NET article (link from summary @ linuxworld) includes a quote along the lines of "Interest in Linux will fade when Microsoft ships its first service pack for Windows 2000 server."?
Why not have an OS that comes out with patches soon enough to make a difference?
Offhand, I'd say that they are refering to the traditional 'wait and see' approach that the marketplace takes with new MS (or any company, actually) products. Everyone knows that the early adopters are going to have headaches, so companies wait until the SP to introduce the product to any large degree into the company.
While I do agree that it would make a lot more sense to get it right the first time, MS customers are not alone in this regard. How many companies that use Linux in their companies upgrade to the new Kernels as soon as it comes out? I'd hazard to guess not many. Most will generally stick with a stable Kernel that provides them the functionality that they need.
Isn't this the whole point?
on
Storm Linux
·
· Score: 1
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the business model for a company in the OSS environment?
As money cannot be made off the GPL's software itself, the most common means of revenue generation that I seem to see people pointing to here is support, or other value-added services.
This is the same thing that Red Hat, et al. do to raise funds, so why is there a great upcry about it here? If the distro sells, then there is more added to the community. Is SAS takes off, then eventually others will adopt it. If it is weak, then it will fail, as is supposed to happen in a competitive environment, where only what is good & useful is kept by the community.
I'm just at a loss as to why there is so much gnashing of teeth regarding the release of another distro. This is supposed to be a good thing, people.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll have to disagree with you on this one.
Personally, I think most of the problems that we're seeing in the realm of IT could be solved by having techies with a more well-rounded education.
Besides, having a non-technical education does not preclude having an understanding of the technical realm. It merely enables you to bring a different perspective to the game, and may enable you to make a contribution that is radically different, rather than just squeezing a few more FPS of performance out of your video card.
Does anybody else find it the least bit amusing that the C|NET article (link from summary @ linuxworld)
includes a quote along the lines of "Interest in Linux will fade when Microsoft ships its first service pack for
Windows 2000 server."?
Why not have an OS that comes out with patches soon enough to make a difference?
Offhand, I'd say that they are refering to the traditional 'wait and see' approach that the marketplace takes with new MS (or any company, actually) products. Everyone knows that the early adopters are going to have headaches, so companies wait until the SP to introduce the product to any large degree into the company.
While I do agree that it would make a lot more sense to get it right the first time, MS customers are not alone in this regard. How many companies that use Linux in their companies upgrade to the new Kernels as soon as it comes out? I'd hazard to guess not many. Most will generally stick with a stable Kernel that provides them the functionality that they need.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the business model for a company in the OSS environment?
As money cannot be made off the GPL's software itself, the most common means of revenue generation that I seem to see people pointing to here is support, or other value-added services.
This is the same thing that Red Hat, et al. do to raise funds, so why is there a great upcry about it here? If the distro sells, then there is more added to the community. Is SAS takes off, then eventually others will adopt it. If it is weak, then it will fail, as is supposed to happen in a competitive environment, where only what is good & useful is kept by the community.
I'm just at a loss as to why there is so much gnashing of teeth regarding the release of another distro. This is supposed to be a good thing, people.
--sugarman--