A very important point about the skill set. As a network support person, I considered my self the digital equipment of a plumber. No one noticed me if I did my job well, but all hell would break loose if I screwed up!
They is also very little creativity. Most networks are already designed, so the job is basically maintenance, with none of they day by day rewards of finishing a piece of software.
Fonz, Saw your comment. Please go to the City's web site (www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us) and use the contact information for USIW to report the problem. They've been working with the city to resolve problem spots. If they haven't responded to you, please use the feedback link on the city web site to report that.
From reading the redacted objection to Judge Wells' opder, SCO sees the case this way.
1. Sequent and IBM licensed SYS5. 2. Sequent invented NUMA and put it in Dynix. 3. IBM invented JFS and put it in AIX. 4. IBM bought Sequent. 5. IBM contributed NUMA and JFS to LINUX. SCO says step 5 is illegal because NUMA and JFS were originally in derivatives of SYS5, and the non-disclosure contract for SYS5 forbids contributing anything from a SYS5 derivate to LINUX.
Novell (who probably still owns the SYS5 copyrights) disputes this, saying 5 is legal because the non-disclosure only covers SYS5 code. But this is why SCO is trying to claim they don't have to identify any SYS5 code in LINUX. They claim they just need to show AIX or Dynix code, or even just alogorithms from AIX or DYNIX, showing up in LINUX to prove IBM broke the non-disclosure agreement.
The $8000 is a red herring, because the cost (I agree is should be much less) will still be there for products with support contracts. Someone still needs to monitor the mail groups (if only for "DONT'T APPLY THAT SERVICE PACK! IT ATE MY HARD DRIVE!" warnings), still needs to apply patches, etc. So using this model, if you assume $8000 in staff time for open source products, assume $6500 + support feee for commercial products.
Corporations can't hide "whatever the feel like hiding" bacause they give up that right for two privileges; the privilege of transferring legal liability to the corporation instead of the individuals who start it; and the privilege of selling products to consumers.
Once they decided to sell a product, the customers have the right to determine if the product works as advertised, or if it is a shoddy product that doesn't. And scholars and scientists have the right to examine and test the products to see how well they live up to the corporation's claims.
Anthony might have a little more say because of his success, but generally, authors have NO IMPUT into the cover design for their books. The cover is viewed as an advertisement for the book, and is designed and controlled by the advertising department.
'Elephantine' is the current hot word for movies. A quick google search shows that Dune, The Fellowship of the Ring, and Jim Carrey's "The Majestic" are all described as 'elephantine'. It looks like Katz and the MYT reviewer are just being part of the Zeitgeist.
To me, what Asriel did was the heart of the first book. Pullman portrays it was what it was, an evil act. One of the questions that drive the trilogy is how much evil is permissble in an attempt to defeat a greater evil.
This is an adult fantasy with two teenagers as lead characters. It is fast moving and entertaining, but based on some deep theological and moral issues. For example, the two main adult characters do some very evil things in the cause, we find out later, of trying to save the world. Whether or not their behavior can be justified is one of the key questions that runs through the book.
I'm running 2.0.38 on a P100 with 16 megs of memory I use as a network monitor. It runs scripts that ping problem devices ever few second and also captures and processes the logs from my cisco routers every couple of hours. (I'm using access-list logging to capture some usage patterns).
I also copy my router configurations to this box using rcp, and the ability to edit the password file directly on 2.0 makes this a little easier.
The box has been up 371 days, and that outage was because I had to move it.
Right! Anyone who had seen only Blazing Saddles on network TV has never seen Blazing Saddles, just some chopped up parts of it.
The saddest case I've ever seen was Die Hard With A Vengeance. In an early sequence, a terrorist forces Bruce Willis to go into the middle of Harlem wearing only his underpants and a signboard that says "I hate niggers!". In an attempt not to offend anyone, the TV censors changed Willis' sign to "I hate everyone". So when the group of black men attacked him, in the movie they were responding to a deliberate provocation; in the TV movie, they were attacking an obvious mental case for no apparent reason. So, by removing the offensive word, the censors ended up removing the humanity from the black men and turned them into stereotypical gang bangers. In other words, removing a reacist word created a racist depiction of blacks!
If Alex can convice Ginger that his WP will solve a need that Joe's doesn't, she will pay him to write it (or to tweak Joe's to meet her needs).
If he can't find a Ginger, then his wp is useless and nobody should pay him to write it. He can still write it for the fun of it, or, better, find some real need he can fill.
>But I think it is morally reprehensible for a
>professional software engineer to go out of
>his/her way to avoid purchasing commercial
>software. If you earn your living by developing
>software, you should not deny your fellow
>software engineers payment for their efforts.
Nobody says you can't or shouldn't be paid for developing OSS. The point of OSS is to allow all programmers to stand on each other's shoulders, instead of re-inventing every wheel every damn time. The way it is now:
I pay Joe to build me a work processer.
Carl pays Jim to build a word processor.
Fred pays Julie to build a word processor.
The OSS way is:
I pay Joe to build a word processor,
Carl pays Jim to tweak my work processor for his needs, and to write a spreadsheat.
Fred pays Julie to tweak Jum's spreadsheet and to write a database program.
Everybody gets paid the same, the programmers expend the same amount of effort, but now we have three times the software. Everybody wins!
A discipline of programming is a minimalist classic.
Selected Writings is a collection of essays, some beautiful proofs, some slagging programming languages like Fortran and Basic. He's worth reading as an irritant.
(He also started a revolution with a letter "The Goto statement considered harmful".)
This book changed my life. I ended up implementing most of the tools is COBOL on a
Burroughs mainframe. Learning to think in the Unix mindset, even when working on a mainframe,
made me much more productive. Whenever I needed to write a little utility, I usually had 90% of the functions I needed available in the software tool set; I only needed to write 10% more (and, of course, I tried to add that 10% to the tool set).
Yes, he praises Thompson and Richie (and Stallman)
on
Just For Fun
·
· Score: 2
On Page 56 he credits T & R for their good taste and design when creating Unix.
He talks about first seeing Stallman on page 58, and then on pages 95-96 he says Stallman is a giant upon whose shoulders Linus was able to host himself, thanks to the GNU tools, especially Stallman's GCC.
I'm sure you are right about what the management is thinking. The fact that they are dead wrong probably will never come to their attention.
IMHO, after working for various managers for the past 25 years, good management skills are as rare as good technical skills. The difference is that management skills can't be detected as easily as technical skills. Assuming you can turn any techie into a good manager is as silly as assuming you could turn any manager into a competent Java programmer.
This company should be grateful that the employee in question knows his limits, and doesn't want to be promoted to a job he can't handle in the long term. (See THE PETER PRINCIPLE for a further discussion of this problem). But they aren't; I agree he should probably find another job.
The post was a troll because it was false
on
Linux to Fragment?
·
· Score: 1
Actually, because it implied a falsehood through illogic, but that wouldn't fit on the subject line.
The post in question boils down to:
A. Any one can submit patches for linux.
D. Only the BSD inner circle can put patches into releases.
E. Therefore BSD has better quality code.
It left out the following clauses:
B. Only Linus or Alan can put patches into Linux releases.
C. Anyone can submit patches for BSD.
When you add the missing clauses, the conclusion E. is obviously not a logical results of the premises. Since the post is attacking Linux in a Linux subject with false statements, it counts as a troll.
Re:So Target your money to a org you do like!
on
Geek Charities?
·
· Score: 1
United Way and other umbrella organizations allow you to specify that all of your contribution will go to a specific agency. For example, my entire UW contribution goes to the American Cancer Society. Don't stop using the street just because pro-choice people also drive on it!
Slashdot Mirror
Use the wiki! Create 3 pages; daily tasks, weekly tasks, monthly tasks,. Link in the relevant emails, and the newbie will have at least a head start.
A very important point about the skill set. As a network support person, I considered my self the digital equipment of a plumber. No one noticed me if I did my job well, but all hell would break loose if I screwed up!
They is also very little creativity. Most networks are already designed, so the job is basically maintenance, with none of they day by day rewards of finishing a piece of software.
In south Minneapolis I got to the polls 10 minutes after they opened. The line was 3/4 block long. I waited in line an hour to help make history.
Our governor vetoed early voting this year; I think it will pass next year.
Fonz,
Saw your comment. Please go to the City's web site (www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us) and use the contact information for USIW to report the problem. They've been working with the city to resolve problem spots. If they haven't responded to you, please use the feedback link on the city web site to report that.
Thanks.
(I'm a city employee involved with the project.)
From reading the redacted objection to Judge Wells' opder, SCO sees the case this way.
1. Sequent and IBM licensed SYS5.
2. Sequent invented NUMA and put it in Dynix.
3. IBM invented JFS and put it in AIX.
4. IBM bought Sequent.
5. IBM contributed NUMA and JFS to LINUX.
SCO says step 5 is illegal because NUMA and JFS were originally in derivatives of SYS5, and the non-disclosure contract for SYS5 forbids contributing anything from a SYS5 derivate to LINUX.
Novell (who probably still owns the SYS5 copyrights) disputes this, saying 5 is legal because the non-disclosure only covers SYS5 code. But this is why SCO is trying to claim they don't have to identify any SYS5 code in LINUX. They claim they just need to show AIX or Dynix code, or even just alogorithms from AIX or DYNIX, showing up in LINUX to prove IBM broke the non-disclosure agreement.
I think they are all wet!
Please moderate parent up. Thanks!
The $8000 is a red herring, because the cost (I agree is should be much less) will still be there for products with support contracts. Someone still needs to monitor the mail groups (if only for "DONT'T APPLY THAT SERVICE PACK! IT ATE MY HARD DRIVE!" warnings), still needs to apply patches, etc. So using this model, if you assume $8000 in staff time for open source products, assume $6500 + support feee for commercial products.
Some of Moore's trial runs for Forth ran on Burroughs mainframes and were actually implemented as card decks.
Actually, it sounds like he was buying into Microsoft's FUD. The public has become more educated since then.
Corporations can't hide "whatever the feel like hiding" bacause they give up that right for two privileges; the privilege of transferring legal liability to the corporation instead of the individuals who start it; and the privilege of selling products to consumers.
Once they decided to sell a product, the customers have the right to determine if the product works as advertised, or if it is a shoddy product that doesn't. And scholars and scientists have the right to examine and test the products to see how well they live up to the corporation's claims.
Anthony might have a little more say because of his success, but generally, authors have NO IMPUT into the cover design for their books. The cover is viewed as an advertisement for the book, and is designed and controlled by the advertising department.
'Elephantine' is the current hot word for movies. A quick google search shows that Dune, The Fellowship of the Ring, and Jim Carrey's "The Majestic" are all described as 'elephantine'. It looks like Katz and the MYT reviewer are just being part of the Zeitgeist.
To me, what Asriel did was the heart of the first book. Pullman portrays it was what it was, an evil act. One of the questions that drive the trilogy is how much evil is permissble in an attempt to defeat a greater evil.
This is an adult fantasy with two teenagers as lead characters. It is fast moving and entertaining, but based on some deep theological and moral issues. For example, the two main adult characters do some very evil things in the cause, we find out later, of trying to save the world. Whether or not their behavior can be justified is one of the key questions that runs through the book.
I'm running 2.0.38 on a P100 with 16 megs of memory I use as a network monitor. It runs scripts that ping problem devices ever few second and also captures and processes the logs from my cisco routers every couple of hours. (I'm using access-list logging to capture some usage patterns).
I also copy my router configurations to this box using rcp, and the ability to edit the password file directly on 2.0 makes this a little easier.
The box has been up 371 days, and that outage was because I had to move it.
Right! Anyone who had seen only Blazing Saddles on network TV has never seen Blazing Saddles, just some chopped up parts of it.
The saddest case I've ever seen was Die Hard With A Vengeance. In an early sequence, a terrorist forces Bruce Willis to go into the middle of Harlem wearing only his underpants and a signboard that says "I hate niggers!". In an attempt not to offend anyone, the TV censors changed Willis' sign to "I hate everyone". So when the group of black men attacked him, in the movie they were responding to a deliberate provocation; in the TV movie, they were attacking an obvious mental case for no apparent reason. So, by removing the offensive word, the censors ended up removing the humanity from the black men and turned them into stereotypical gang bangers. In other words, removing a reacist word created a racist depiction of blacks!
If Alex can convice Ginger that his WP will solve a need that Joe's doesn't, she will pay him to write it (or to tweak Joe's to meet her needs).
If he can't find a Ginger, then his wp is useless and nobody should pay him to write it. He can still write it for the fun of it, or, better, find some real need he can fill.
>But I think it is morally reprehensible for a
>professional software engineer to go out of
>his/her way to avoid purchasing commercial
>software. If you earn your living by developing
>software, you should not deny your fellow
>software engineers payment for their efforts.
Nobody says you can't or shouldn't be paid for developing OSS. The point of OSS is to allow all programmers to stand on each other's shoulders, instead of re-inventing every wheel every damn time. The way it is now:
I pay Joe to build me a work processer.
Carl pays Jim to build a word processor.
Fred pays Julie to build a word processor.
The OSS way is:
I pay Joe to build a word processor,
Carl pays Jim to tweak my work processor for his needs, and to write a spreadsheat.
Fred pays Julie to tweak Jum's spreadsheet and to write a database program.
Everybody gets paid the same, the programmers expend the same amount of effort, but now we have three times the software. Everybody wins!
A discipline of programming is a minimalist classic.
Selected Writings is a collection of essays, some beautiful proofs, some slagging programming languages like Fortran and Basic. He's worth reading as an irritant.
(He also started a revolution with a letter "The Goto statement considered harmful".)
This book changed my life. I ended up implementing most of the tools is COBOL on a
Burroughs mainframe. Learning to think in the Unix mindset, even when working on a mainframe,
made me much more productive. Whenever I needed to write a little utility, I usually had 90% of the functions I needed available in the software tool set; I only needed to write 10% more (and, of course, I tried to add that 10% to the tool set).
On Page 56 he credits T & R for their good taste and design when creating Unix.
He talks about first seeing Stallman on page 58, and then on pages 95-96 he says Stallman is a giant upon whose shoulders Linus was able to host himself, thanks to the GNU tools, especially Stallman's GCC.
1. Linus, this patch fixes the "glooble" function which makes a bad endian assumption.
2. Linus, this patch addes the magic number for ppc to the magic numbers for X86, alpha, and m68k in the "toto" function.
3. Linus, this patch fixes a typo in the momark function that prevents it from working on ppc.
.......
51. Linus, this patch fixes an assumption in the Frangle Hypercube driver that made it crash on PPC.
I'm sure you are right about what the management is thinking. The fact that they are dead wrong probably will never come to their attention.
IMHO, after working for various managers for the past 25 years, good management skills are as rare as good technical skills. The difference is that management skills can't be detected as easily as technical skills. Assuming you can turn any techie into a good manager is as silly as assuming you could turn any manager into a competent Java programmer.
This company should be grateful that the employee in question knows his limits, and doesn't want to be promoted to a job he can't handle in the long term. (See THE PETER PRINCIPLE for a further discussion of this problem). But they aren't; I agree he should probably find another job.
Actually, because it implied a falsehood through illogic, but that wouldn't fit on the subject line.
The post in question boils down to:
A. Any one can submit patches for linux.
D. Only the BSD inner circle can put patches into releases.
E. Therefore BSD has better quality code.
It left out the following clauses:
B. Only Linus or Alan can put patches into Linux releases.
C. Anyone can submit patches for BSD.
When you add the missing clauses, the conclusion E. is obviously not a logical results of the premises. Since the post is attacking Linux in a Linux subject with false statements, it counts as a troll.
United Way and other umbrella organizations allow you to specify that all of your contribution will go to a specific agency. For example, my entire UW contribution goes to the American Cancer Society. Don't stop using the street just because pro-choice people also drive on it!