Only those perceived to be expensive get laid off. You, however, are wasting your time trying to convince the average slashdotter of this since outsourcing is apparently a good thing, despite the inefficiency, exploitation and long-term damage to the economy that it represents.
Erm I still have to connect to a central server to do work same as almost everyone else, unless your company doesn't have email, allows users to keep important documents only on your machine and no-one ever prints anything. Also companies are realising that the mainframe model was actually quite good since if you upgrade software you only have to do it on the server(s) not on a few thousand pcs.
As long as they carry on producing quality titles for the whole technical arena who gives a toss if they also produce books for non-techies too? Anyone who falls out with O'Reilly over something that trivial deserves to have to do without some of the most excellent reference books around.
But if you're the head of a corporation you only have to answer to shareholders and even if you get the boot you still get a huge payoff and are pretty much guaranteed another enormously well-paid job. Limited liability allows corporate officers to treat the law as just another business risk.
It's kind of a screwed up world where a rapist gets about that. Allegedly depriving an already wealthy organisation of some dollars should not be equivalent to completely wrecking a woman's life.
IP costs a lot of money to create and market in the first place. So what if making perfect copies costs next to nothing, recording studios aren't free, advertising time on TV/radio/magazines isn't free. If you want something why shouldn't you have to pay for it? I'd love to see the various IP cartels and monopolies removed but I can't see how no-one ever paying for IP would in any way encourage people to make more of it. Fair enough a lot of it is junk, but there are plenty of good bands who deserve (and get) my money through CD buying and the occasional iTunes purchase.
And I'm saying that there's very little difference to the user between connecting to a virtual desktop on a Citrix server or having a PC on their desk but it's a lot easier (and therefore cheaper) to support. There is also nothing stopping you having PCs in that set up for those who do need them but the average end-user (i.e. most of them) who will just be using MS Office and the odd bespoke app a Citrix terminal (or equivalent) is fine. In my current job for example, I am an audio typist who does a bit of Word VBA, there is no reason for me or any of my colleagues to have a 2.5 Ghz PC.
A pain in the ass to the IT department is an increased cost to the business. I don't see how administering thousands of PCs could ever be better than administering a few dozen Citrix servers.
Let me put it another way then, I very rarely go to concerts but I buy CDs and downloads all the time. Why should I get that for free? I have no problem paying for what I like but I don't enjoy concerts all that much. Imagine that you worked for months to produce software and people only had to pay for it if you went and personally installed it for them.
Those central web based applications will run on your servers and you will just have a terminal connecting to those servers. The tech's been around forever and although it's been declared obsolete several times, every major vendor offers it. From crappy old green screen mainframe terminals to Citrix and X terms, centralised management of apps has been shown to be far easier than having to deliver upgrades to several thousand PCs.
It doesn't have the mindshare it has all the apps. Offer Windows users a way to run all their apps on another platform and a lot of them would be away from it faster than you could say monopoly.
Their primary job is outputting records, a long and exhausting tour shouldn't be a requirement when they've already spent months in the studio recording said songs.
I don't see forcing the artist to tour as a better way somehow. What happens if they get sick? Or don't want to anymore? Break up the cartel by all means but I don't see why the artist shouldn't get paid for something that took them months or even years to create just so you don't have to pay for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is about as likely as the board level PHB listening to the opinions of his technical staff.
Only those perceived to be expensive get laid off. You, however, are wasting your time trying to convince the average slashdotter of this since outsourcing is apparently a good thing, despite the inefficiency, exploitation and long-term damage to the economy that it represents.
Care to provide some instructions so this issue will finally go away?
Erm I still have to connect to a central server to do work same as almost everyone else, unless your company doesn't have email, allows users to keep important documents only on your machine and no-one ever prints anything. Also companies are realising that the mainframe model was actually quite good since if you upgrade software you only have to do it on the server(s) not on a few thousand pcs.
are they REALLY loosing anything?
No they're restraining something.
As long as they carry on producing quality titles for the whole technical arena who gives a toss if they also produce books for non-techies too? Anyone who falls out with O'Reilly over something that trivial deserves to have to do without some of the most excellent reference books around.
Funny mods for this please :)
MS Office is a shambles, it's just succeeded through clever marketing.
the record companies go back to advancing music as an art form.
When did they ever do that?
But if you're the head of a corporation you only have to answer to shareholders and even if you get the boot you still get a huge payoff and are pretty much guaranteed another enormously well-paid job. Limited liability allows corporate officers to treat the law as just another business risk.
Being able to BS in CS is a very useful skill in job interviews.
It's kind of a screwed up world where a rapist gets about that. Allegedly depriving an already wealthy organisation of some dollars should not be equivalent to completely wrecking a woman's life.
IP costs a lot of money to create and market in the first place. So what if making perfect copies costs next to nothing, recording studios aren't free, advertising time on TV/radio/magazines isn't free. If you want something why shouldn't you have to pay for it? I'd love to see the various IP cartels and monopolies removed but I can't see how no-one ever paying for IP would in any way encourage people to make more of it. Fair enough a lot of it is junk, but there are plenty of good bands who deserve (and get) my money through CD buying and the occasional iTunes purchase.
Quite handy for that "oh fuck I spent all my money on beer" moment at 3am when you need taxi fare.
It's not impressive until it's 50 foot tall and the sword is made of pure energy.
I want prescription iGlasses.
And I'm saying that there's very little difference to the user between connecting to a virtual desktop on a Citrix server or having a PC on their desk but it's a lot easier (and therefore cheaper) to support. There is also nothing stopping you having PCs in that set up for those who do need them but the average end-user (i.e. most of them) who will just be using MS Office and the odd bespoke app a Citrix terminal (or equivalent) is fine. In my current job for example, I am an audio typist who does a bit of Word VBA, there is no reason for me or any of my colleagues to have a 2.5 Ghz PC.
A pain in the ass to the IT department is an increased cost to the business. I don't see how administering thousands of PCs could ever be better than administering a few dozen Citrix servers.
2001: ASO was a pile of pretentious crap created by a man so far up his own backside he could smell his bad breath.
Let me put it another way then, I very rarely go to concerts but I buy CDs and downloads all the time. Why should I get that for free? I have no problem paying for what I like but I don't enjoy concerts all that much. Imagine that you worked for months to produce software and people only had to pay for it if you went and personally installed it for them.
Those central web based applications will run on your servers and you will just have a terminal connecting to those servers. The tech's been around forever and although it's been declared obsolete several times, every major vendor offers it. From crappy old green screen mainframe terminals to Citrix and X terms, centralised management of apps has been shown to be far easier than having to deliver upgrades to several thousand PCs.
NT Terminal Services will probably do what you want, although it depends what you want to do with the machines I guess.
It doesn't have the mindshare it has all the apps. Offer Windows users a way to run all their apps on another platform and a lot of them would be away from it faster than you could say monopoly.
Their primary job is outputting records, a long and exhausting tour shouldn't be a requirement when they've already spent months in the studio recording said songs.
I don't see forcing the artist to tour as a better way somehow. What happens if they get sick? Or don't want to anymore? Break up the cartel by all means but I don't see why the artist shouldn't get paid for something that took them months or even years to create just so you don't have to pay for it.