A Web-based solution would deal with the stated reason for migrating back to MS despite TCO: being able to access documents while at other departments (that didn't make the migration.)
Interesting to note that they didn't find the Total Cost Ownership was going to be less. Looks like they needed help with Freedom of Information compliance and MS agreed to to create a CMS specificly for them if they'd switch. Yet the TCO still wasn't lower...
I think you might be comparing apples and oranges, no? EXA stands for eyecandy X architecture, which is "based on KAA (KDrive acceleration architecture) it's designed to be an alternative to the currently used XAA (XFree86 acceleration architecture) with better acceleration of XRender which is used by composite managers for desktop eyecandy effects."
XGL is "an X-Server layered on top of OpenGL."
"The way things are heading is completely drop support for 2d acceleration and build a userspace X server that runs completely on a extended (currently EGL) OpenGL api. That way any OS that has any support for OpenGL, even if it's just thru a ported Mesa software rendering library, can run the X server."
I assumed they meant the license itself was copyrighted. But, the GPL is copyrighted by the FSF:
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
The GP lost me at casting Cornell as "this superficially respectable University".
Further comment: "As an American who understands the role strong copyright laws play in the knowledge-based economy of today...", but most Americans don't live in the USA. Does strong copy right really help the developing American nations?
Actually "Scalable Vector Graphics" (SVG) would have been enough. The XML-based SVG file format is as important as the vector vs. bit-mapped distinction.
Re:Corporations are not *evil*. They are a busines
on
HP Fires Father of OOP
·
· Score: 1
Actually any officer of a corporation that is acting to increase their wealth instead of the wealth of the stockholders is a textbook example of the AgencyProblem.
I didn't mean to suggest you were not being clear, but rather that you had put the cart before the horse in terms of strategy and tactics (cause and effect.) Executives are merely acting as agents for the stockholders, who are "owners".
Actually Linux is more compatible with Windows than Windows is compatible with Linux. Being based on open standards fosters compatibility. So I agree that compatibility is one of the strengths of Linux. However, consider that more software development is done in closed shops for corporation use than the sum total of all commercial "off the shelf" software development done, and I think you'll see that there are a *lot* of IT shops coding at the enterprise level. This is where Linux shines.
In terms of "transitional costs", it doesn't appear that transitioning from Windows to Linux is going to cost more than, say, transitioning from Win2k to WinXP.
Re:Corporations are not *evil*. They are a busines
on
HP Fires Father of OOP
·
· Score: 1
They mitigate risk and pool resources for the purpose of increasing shareholder value. You are mistaking tactics for purpose. Sidenote: It is "shareholder", not "stakeholder". Creditors, customers, and workers are all stakeholders. It is only shareholders whose value concerns corporations.
Well you can run Nautilus under KDE or Konqueror under Gnome. When you say, "only program of its type that integrates into KDE", I need to ask you specificly what you mean by "integrates". I'd also like to point out that KDE makes a few different file browsers. Perhaps one of those would be more to your suiting than Konqueror? Have you tried Krusader?
Well but GTK and QT on linux are just that. They are APIs that point to the same X library. They both are sitting on top. KDE sits on top of QT which sits on top of X. Gnome sits on top of GTK which sits on top of GDK which sits on top of X.
What you really want is to either merge GTK and QT, or have one replace the other. Then the UI in the loser could be cloned in the toolkit of the winner. And that is not very likely, and not even a good thing, long term. The fact is that it isn't just differences in UI, but it is structural differences deep within the toolkits. This is more than just C vs. C++, for instance, GNOME's distributed object framework is CORBA based.
Well but if I run W2k, and Office 2000, then I'm going to have trouble using vb.net 2005. In fact, even 2003 is different enough. Turns out that moving from COM (or ActiveX) to.net means that, while it is possible to wrap the COM for inclusion, means that you have to code for each Office version out there. It isn't at all like "try W2k". More like, use the development tools that go with the version of Office you want to automate, and upgrade to match. It is like unto library versions, without a package manager. Because the code you write has to change, too.
Have to disagree. Lower cost is just one of many aspects that result in Linux be adopted. Linux is all about open standards and inneroperability. It is easier to use in conjunction with other systems. This matters. Having the source code matters too. It doesn't matter to mom or grandma, but it sure matters if your IT dept has more than 50 people in it. If it was just about the cost, then we'd see Linux used on the desktop, but not by Fortune 500. Instead, we see adoption in larger companies that still write code, and places like Wall Street. These adoptions are at least as much about what you can do with Linux as it is what Linux costs.
Yes, if your grandmother is trying to choose a Linux version to run an enterprise on, then she should hire someone. Any one that is running at the enterprise level should have at least some IT support staff.
The real issue is the speed at which Linux is evolving, and the desire that it slow down so it can be tracked more effectively by suits. This indicates a conflict between the evolution of the system and its exploitation. I'd rather see Linux evolve and push the envelope on OS and Prog Lang development. If this means it doesn't threaten MS Windows, it does mean that the state of the art is advanced at the quickest pace, even if that means that industry doesn't move ahead as swiftly. And that is ok.
Oh, and 2,969,000,000 cash isn't bad (end of 2004). Call it 3 Billion. Cash And Cash Equivalents, plus Short Term Investments (where you put cash so it isn't losing to inflation, but still retains liquidity), bumps them to like 5.5 Billion. That is about 1/2 of Sun's market cap, just out of their liquid assets. I'd say that if for some reason (God help them) they *wanted* to buy Sun, it wouldn't be hard for them.
I wasn't so much suggesting a synergy, as pointing out that Apple is sitting pretty when compared to Sun's financial records. I thought that might surprise some slashdotters.
How about this? Microsoft buys Sun. The Solaris Kernel + Gnome + ActiveX becomes the new MS Windows Longhorn? MS gets a piece of the MS certified for "Windows" WinSun boxes, and StarOffice dies an ugly death. Everybody "win"s.
I prefer to call it an inoculation rather than a virus. I think inoculation fits the intent of, and as far as I can see, the effect of, the GPL quite well.
Ah yes, but the stated purpose of granting those rights (through the artificial legal fiction of pseudo-property) was to promote the advancement of the Arts and Sciences. Seems like an author who wants to use the GPL to insure distribution of the sourcecode (with the right to modify same) is taking a path that maximizes the promotion of the advancement of Arts and Sciences. It is in fact, putting the Science back into Computer Science.
That link: "The University of Texas has a policy that makes it easy to release software developed there as free software under the GNU General Public License. Univates in Brazil, and the International Institute of Information Technology in Hyderabad, India, both have policies in favor of releasing software under the GPL."
So not only does RMS tells how to go about getting your research under the GPL, he lists a few places where it is the preferred method. Which is what the Slashdot Question was all about.
Slashdot Mirror
A Web-based solution would deal with the stated reason for migrating back to MS despite TCO: being able to access documents while at other departments (that didn't make the migration.)
They never used OpenOffice. They used StarOffice.
Interesting to note that they didn't find the Total Cost Ownership was going to be less. Looks like they needed help with Freedom of Information compliance and MS agreed to to create a CMS specificly for them if they'd switch. Yet the TCO still wasn't lower...
I think you might be comparing apples and oranges, no? EXA stands for eyecandy X architecture, which is "based on KAA (KDrive acceleration architecture) it's designed to be an alternative to the currently used XAA (XFree86 acceleration architecture) with better acceleration of XRender which is used by composite managers for desktop eyecandy effects."
XGL is "an X-Server layered on top of OpenGL."
"The way things are heading is completely drop support for 2d acceleration and build a userspace X server that runs completely on a extended (currently EGL) OpenGL api. That way any OS that has any support for OpenGL, even if it's just thru a ported Mesa software rendering library, can run the X server."
The GP lost me at casting Cornell as "this superficially respectable University".
Further comment: "As an American who understands the role strong copyright laws play in the knowledge-based economy of today...", but most Americans don't live in the USA. Does strong copy right really help the developing American nations?
Actually "Scalable Vector Graphics" (SVG) would have been enough. The XML-based SVG file format is as important as the vector vs. bit-mapped distinction.
Just for clarity's sake, that is 8bits/channel, so that means "The GIMP uses 24 bits per pixel to represent color, 8 bits for each of the R, G, and B channels." This is what you get when you set the MS Windows desktop Properties/Settings/Colors to "True Color (32bit)".
Actually any officer of a corporation that is acting to increase their wealth instead of the wealth of the stockholders is a textbook example of the Agency Problem.
I didn't mean to suggest you were not being clear, but rather that you had put the cart before the horse in terms of strategy and tactics (cause and effect.) Executives are merely acting as agents for the stockholders, who are "owners".
Actually Linux is more compatible with Windows than Windows is compatible with Linux. Being based on open standards fosters compatibility. So I agree that compatibility is one of the strengths of Linux. However, consider that more software development is done in closed shops for corporation use than the sum total of all commercial "off the shelf" software development done, and I think you'll see that there are a *lot* of IT shops coding at the enterprise level. This is where Linux shines.
In terms of "transitional costs", it doesn't appear that transitioning from Windows to Linux is going to cost more than, say, transitioning from Win2k to WinXP.
They mitigate risk and pool resources for the purpose of increasing shareholder value. You are mistaking tactics for purpose.
Sidenote: It is "shareholder", not "stakeholder". Creditors, customers, and workers are all stakeholders. It is only shareholders whose value concerns corporations.
Actually Apple looks pretty damn good compared to HP and Dell
Qtrly Rev Growth (yoy): 69.90%
Well you can run Nautilus under KDE or Konqueror under Gnome. When you say, "only program of its type that integrates into KDE", I need to ask you specificly what you mean by "integrates". I'd also like to point out that KDE makes a few different file browsers. Perhaps one of those would be more to your suiting than Konqueror? Have you tried Krusader?
Well but GTK and QT on linux are just that. They are APIs that point to the same X library. They both are sitting on top. KDE sits on top of QT which sits on top of X. Gnome sits on top of GTK which sits on top of GDK which sits on top of X.
What you really want is to either merge GTK and QT, or have one replace the other. Then the UI in the loser could be cloned in the toolkit of the winner. And that is not very likely, and not even a good thing, long term. The fact is that it isn't just differences in UI, but it is structural differences deep within the toolkits. This is more than just C vs. C++, for instance, GNOME's distributed object framework is CORBA based.
Well but if I run W2k, and Office 2000, then I'm going to have trouble using vb.net 2005. In fact, even 2003 is different enough. Turns out that moving from COM (or ActiveX) to .net means that, while it is possible to wrap the COM for inclusion, means that you have to code for each Office version out there. It isn't at all like "try W2k". More like, use the development tools that go with the version of Office you want to automate, and upgrade to match. It is like unto library versions, without a package manager. Because the code you write has to change, too.
Have to disagree. Lower cost is just one of many aspects that result in Linux be adopted. Linux is all about open standards and inneroperability. It is easier to use in conjunction with other systems. This matters. Having the source code matters too. It doesn't matter to mom or grandma, but it sure matters if your IT dept has more than 50 people in it. If it was just about the cost, then we'd see Linux used on the desktop, but not by Fortune 500. Instead, we see adoption in larger companies that still write code, and places like Wall Street. These adoptions are at least as much about what you can do with Linux as it is what Linux costs.
Yes, if your grandmother is trying to choose a Linux version to run an enterprise on, then she should hire someone. Any one that is running at the enterprise level should have at least some IT support staff.
The real issue is the speed at which Linux is evolving, and the desire that it slow down so it can be tracked more effectively by suits. This indicates a conflict between the evolution of the system and its exploitation. I'd rather see Linux evolve and push the envelope on OS and Prog Lang development. If this means it doesn't threaten MS Windows, it does mean that the state of the art is advanced at the quickest pace, even if that means that industry doesn't move ahead as swiftly. And that is ok.
Oh, and 2,969,000,000 cash isn't bad (end of 2004). Call it 3 Billion. Cash And Cash Equivalents, plus Short Term Investments (where you put cash so it isn't losing to inflation, but still retains liquidity), bumps them to like 5.5 Billion. That is about 1/2 of Sun's market cap, just out of their liquid assets. I'd say that if for some reason (God help them) they *wanted* to buy Sun, it wouldn't be hard for them.
Support for Intel, Sparc, Alpha and Power should do it for most, I'd think.
I wasn't so much suggesting a synergy, as pointing out that Apple is sitting pretty when compared to Sun's financial records. I thought that might surprise some slashdotters.
How about this? Microsoft buys Sun. The Solaris Kernel + Gnome + ActiveX becomes the new MS Windows Longhorn? MS gets a piece of the MS certified for "Windows" WinSun boxes, and StarOffice dies an ugly death. Everybody "win"s.
Ok, maybe not RedHat, but what about Apple?
"Sun's market cap is about $12 B."
But Apple's market cap is about $30.57 B.
"Sun's yearly revenue is about $3 B."(Its really more like 11.21B)
But Apple's revenue is 11.10B.
And Sun's Net Income is about 651.00M.
Apples Net Income is about 752.00M.
So what about Price to Earnings? (P/E)
Sun about 19.02,
Apple about 40.64
(DELL about 30.82, HP 19.51)
I prefer to call it an inoculation rather than a virus. I think inoculation fits the intent of, and as far as I can see, the effect of, the GPL quite well.
Ah yes, but the stated purpose of granting those rights (through the artificial legal fiction of pseudo-property) was to promote the advancement of the Arts and Sciences. Seems like an author who wants to use the GPL to insure distribution of the sourcecode (with the right to modify same) is taking a path that maximizes the promotion of the advancement of Arts and Sciences. It is in fact, putting the Science back into Computer Science.
That link: "The University of Texas has a policy that makes it easy to release software developed there as free software under the GNU General Public License. Univates in Brazil, and the International Institute of Information Technology in Hyderabad, India, both have policies in favor of releasing software under the GPL."
So not only does RMS tells how to go about getting your research under the GPL, he lists a few places where it is the preferred method. Which is what the Slashdot Question was all about.