A couple of comments:
1/ Technology is neutral. It can be used for good or evil. I think we've worked this out by now. It won't save us; it won't kill us. That's up to us.
2/ Pearl Harbour was a large scale military attack against a military target with military objectives (cripple the Pacific Fleet). There's no strategic reason to blow up the WTC and Pentagon. It's just terrorism - causing havoc for the hell of it. The only thing this has in common with PH is that the US is being attacked. I'd call this an atrocity rather than an act of war.
Get over it! This kind of test is exactly what we need - ZD has nailed down a bottleneck in the kernel which we can fix; and MS has been forced to improve their SMB server performance because of the previous Samba-serving-NT-clients tests. So we've been directly responsible for increasing the quality of O/S software used by a lot of people. Isn't that part of the reason we're here? I see us as not competing against MS, but providing an alternative. I don't use Linux because it's not MS, I use it because I can muck around with the source and configure everything. Competition is the corporate way; it's something OSS is not very good at. How can it be, when the opposition can see all our improvements? My attitude is, if you're using Linux simply because it's not made by MS then you're not getting the whole idea of OSS.
Slashdot Mirror
A couple of comments:
1/ Technology is neutral. It can be used for good or evil. I think we've worked this out by now. It won't save us; it won't kill us. That's up to us.
2/ Pearl Harbour was a large scale military attack against a military target with military objectives (cripple the Pacific Fleet). There's no strategic reason to blow up the WTC and Pentagon. It's just terrorism - causing havoc for the hell of it. The only thing this has in common with PH is that the US is being attacked. I'd call this an atrocity rather than an act of war.
LISP is often claimed to be beautiful.
Get over it!
This kind of test is exactly what we need - ZD has nailed down a bottleneck in the kernel which we can fix; and MS has been forced to improve their SMB server performance because of the previous Samba-serving-NT-clients tests. So we've been directly responsible for increasing the quality of O/S software used by a lot of people.
Isn't that part of the reason we're here?
I see us as not competing against MS, but providing an alternative. I don't use Linux because it's not MS, I use it because I can muck around with the source and configure everything.
Competition is the corporate way; it's something OSS is not very good at. How can it be, when the opposition can see all our improvements?
My attitude is, if you're using Linux simply because it's not made by MS then you're not getting the whole idea of OSS.