This is absurd. Completely, unequivocally absurd. A law set forth in a podunk Arizona county by people who probably shouldn't be remotely involved in lawmaking is not exactly precedent for any type of broad-scale action. How exactly can a government pass laws against purchasing from a particular company, considering the fact that the company is still operating under perfectly LEGAL pretenses and practices? It doesn't make any difference what MS has been charged with or convicted of, because they haven't been sentenced. No court has told microsoft that they can't sell their product anymore, so why should a county not be allowed to buy from them?
I think that it's time to make the government follow their own rules and stop spending any more money with criminals."
This is almost as ridiculous as the law itself. The government hasn't made any rules about spending money on microsoft products, so what rules are you suggesting they follow? That is a totally EMPTY statement and does not belong in a posted article. (Unfortunately, if that same statement were posted anywhere in this discussion, it would be modded +5, Insightful).
It really sucks for the OSS "movement" when this is the only means of market penetration that they can come up with. What exactly are these people hoping to accomplish by forcing their local government to switch?
In a situation like that, you're probably going to find that the users are so accustomed to keeping data on their hard drives that they simply won't back anything up on their own. Most will simply refuse to do it.
Even more unfortunately, an automated backup system probably won't help either. With a mixed environment like that, you're going to find that most users have data scattered all over their hard drives, making it virtually impossible to backup anything less than the entire drive. Not a good idea if you're dealing with any more than 5 to 10 users.
The best idea in this case would probably be along the lines of having each individual user move all their important files into one directory tree. Don't even tell them it's for the purpose of backing up, because then they probably won't do it. Make up some story about viruses destroying random data, and tell them that this is part of a prevention method. It sounds totally idiotic, but they'll believe it...instilling fear is usually the best way to go. Once they've moved everything, make sure they know to keep all their data files in that same directory tree from then on, and set up a scheduled backup on each machine - hopefully to a networked tape library or network drive of some sort.
Give this a few months, and get them used to keeping their data in a very specific place, and then start giving them network storage space to use instead. It will make the backup process a lot easier, and you'll be able to do it daily instead of once every week or so.
In any case, you have to approach this very SLOWLY, or you'll freak them out and they won't be any help at all. Baby steps, man...baby steps.
The job market right now is EXTREMELY thin, so you're probably going to be better off if you can really separate yourself from other candidates. At the very least, make sure you have SEVERAL certifications (an MCSE alone isn't gonna land you a job these days). Go for combinations of varying certs that compliment each other. For example, try pairing a CCNA (Cisco) with a CNA (Novell) or RHCE (Red Hat). That should get you off to a good start.
You might also want to look into a two-year technical degree to further compliment the certifications. It doesn't really mean much, but it does give you an advantage over the guys who don't have it. And besides that, it will allow you to "sit out" of the job market until it picks up again (analysts are guessing that the next two years should be pretty good for IT guys).
This is sure to burn some karma, but what the hell...it needs to be said:
When will Slashdot stop drooling over every single god damn "leaked memo" that becomes public? Who cares about a stupid e-mail that basically puts into words what everyone already knew? What you're talking about is COMMON BUSINESS PRACTICE. Undermining competition is what keeps businesses alive...it's been that way since the beginnings of capitalist economics. Get over it, people...and move along - there sure as hell isn't anything to see here.
I can't tell if you're disagreeing with me or not...you seem to be restating what i just posted.
one does not need to consciously put deeper meaning into a movie
I must answer this, however...after the media started dropping names like Joseph Campbell all over Lucas, he ate it up...he thought it was "chic" to have that kind of literary allusion in his films, and ran with the idea. The fact that he would take such a facetious approach is somewhat offensive...he could very well have said "hey...i thought up a story and some characters, and here's the final product," because the movies STILL would have been good (or in the case of episodes 1 and 6, kinda good), and he wouldn't have looked like an asshole. He's a typical film student...he has to keep everyone guessing...has to make everyone think his films are deeper than they really are...but it's a sham, and he can't handle that. There's nothing wrong with making a movie that's entertaining and yet devoid of a more solid philosophical meaning...but film students like Lucas hate not being able to look as cool as guys like Kubrick or Oliver Stone. They have to give people something to talk about, even if it means faking it.
I think you missed my point, or perhaps read too far into it...
My argument is that Lucas is given too much credit for not enough work...he's an imaginative guy, i'll admit that...but people try to ascribe much deeper meanings to his work that he really didn't intend - and then he takes credit for it anyway, as though he DID intend it. Check out that Salon article linked in the parent post. It will tell you all you ever needed to know about Lucas.
Lucas "implied" those things, as well as the Joseph Campbell references, after overzealous reporters and critics brought up the similarities for him. Lucas just ran with the ideas to make himself look - i don't know - smarter or cooler or deeper or something. He didn't intentionally add any of those ideas to his work. Want proof? Watch ANY of his other films. American Graffiti - where's the eastern philosophy in that one? THX-1182 (or whatever it was called) - a hack-job ripoff of 1984, with very few original ideas. br Let's face it...Lucas is not the creative genius that some people want to think he is...he's a good director, and he can tell a story. Unfortunately, it's not really a very original or deep story - but it's entertaining nonetheless.
That article was a LONG overdue slap in the face of people like Katz who think that for every concept, there exists a horribly confounded background story.
It is SO GOD DAMN OBVIOUS that the Star Wars films were based on pulp sci-fi writings that it hurts my head every time someone (Katz) tries to aggrandize the entire meaning of the film. IT'S FUCKING ENTERTAINMENT, KATZ - NOT A DISCOURSE ON THE MEANING OF LIFE. Why must their be a "deeper meaning" to the films? What drives idiots like Katz to search for it? What's the FUCKING POINT?
So what if some idiot (probably katz) put the idea into Lucas' head, only to watch him run with it? That doesn't make it true. I mean, seriously...the type of movies that are rehashes of classical mythology usually end up like O Brother Where Art Thou - grossly misunderstood by the masses, but generally liked by those with enough scruples to find out what the film is actually about. Star Wars had far too much mass appeal, and a plot that was far more generalized.
Overall, the only argument i've seen in favor of the Star Wars/Campbell relationship is that they both deal with "the eternal struggle between good and evil". Name two movies that DON'T deal with that struggle, and maybe I'll believe you, Katz.
Unfortunately, I believe AOL won't let its customers (CmdrTaco) telnet into their mail servers. Damn shame, really. And besides, Malda's not really sure how to call up HyperTerminal just yet...i mean, there's no icon on the desktop!! How are you supposed to open the program without the damn icon??!?!?
Re:Reminds me of those false movie reviewers...
on
Revolution OS
·
· Score: 3, Funny
You're pretty dead-on with that remark...unfortunately, it looks like CmdrTaco modded you down a half dozen times for not liking his screen debut. But never fear...for this is Slashdot, where no story gets posted just once!! Wait until tomorrow, when CmdrTaco will jump in with his (-1 redundant) two cents, and starts quoting tag lines from all the top reviewers! Here's a little preview:
"Eric S Raymond is this year's hottest new star!" -David Manning, The Ridgefield Press
"Open Source has never sizzled like this! -Terrance McNeily, Fluff Movie Magazine
"What do you get when you pack 3 dirty HIPPIES and 7 pale, pimply-faced gaywads into a VA-Software sponsored DOCUMENTARY? A slam-bang WINNER! Revolution OS FSCKING ROX! -Harry Knowles, Ain't It Cool News
Rob Malda makes Corey Feldman look like...well...a much more attractive Corey Feldman! -Roger Ebert, The Chicago Sun-Times
you just proved my theory to be 100% correct. You share the very same attitude that i've encountered a number of times when dealing with Open Source - people always saying "hey - it's free! What more do you want??", and then try to tell me that their crapware is so much better than the closed-source for-profit alternative. Screw that! Unreliable support is exactly why open source is making so little headway in ANY markets. The only place that it i gaining any footing is in replacing UNIX...and that's because the guys swithching to Linux/BSD/whatever are already well versed in supporting it themselves. But god forbid they ever have to help somebody!!
Again, fuck that. I'm all for paying money for software if it means the difference between getting support reliably or trying to deal with the "get lost n00b" assholes that seem to be so common in the open source world.
From my experience, and from the experiences of many of my colleagues, Open Source developers are some of the most difficult people on earth. Trying to get help from them is like drawing blood from a stone. It doesn't matter WHAT you ask, it's always "read the fucking manual" or "fuck off, n00b". None of them seem to realize that there is a learning curve that all users must overcome...and their poorly-contructed, text-only, flowchart-lacking HOW-TO's just don't cut it when it comes to supporting a product. I know that free software is free software, but christ...if you don't want to be bothered by the public seeking help, then don't release the fucking software to the public.
Oh, you mean like the phenomenally successful.NET strategy?
You should know by now that any attempts that MS makes in that direction have not and will not be tolerated by their customers. That's why they haven't ever done it.
You've got the right idea, but you're slightly backwards in terms of the execution.
I fully agree that Mozilla is probably the BEST open-source project to date, but it is by no means the MOST IMPORTANT. A browser is an add-on, a "helper" application at best. True, web services are becoming more and more vital to computing, and everyone who uses a computer really needs a browser. But a "browser war" is not the way to come out ahead in this arena.
People generally don't switch browsers. That is a fact - cold, hard, and undeniably true. Microsoft has been onto this trend for at least 5 or 6 years now...that's why they bundle their own. So a "browser war" doesn't help anything, because it doesn't get MS off the desktop. That's what I was pointing out in my original post - I'm one of the rare few who use a non-MS browser in Windows...but Microsoft isn't even SLIGHTLY hurt by this fact, because their REAL PRODUCTS - windows and office - are still the best on the desktop for me and probably 85% of the rest of the world's PC's. So how does the open source community hope to gain anything by fighting a pointless "browser war"? Why not just focus on making a better browser AND a better desktop environment, so they have something to BUNDLE it with? That's what will make MS more competitive. But the open source community is distracted by the pointless bickering over whose browser handles java plugins better.
My point, to paraphrase once more, is that the "browser war" has been blown WAY out of proportion and is becoming a distraction to what open source SHOULD be doing. I'm not trying to downplay the significance of a solid open-source browser.
Why does anyone think that the key to escaping the so-called "microsoft deathgrip" lies in an alternate web browser? It makes A LOT more sense to say "maybe if Apple would port their OS to X86 architecture, there would be some progress away from MS," or even something like "maybe if the Open Source community could come up with a decent office suite that is actually WORTH the $0 price tag, there would be some progress away from MS." But how in the hell does a browser have anything to do with it? I (and many others that I know) use various Mozilla builds on various Windows versions, and we're still hooked on MS because we like the REAL products, Windows and Office.
I think this whole "browser war" gets way too much emphasis these days. It made sense 7 years ago when Netscape wasn't free and was trying to compete. Today, who gives a shit what browser comes out on top?? Shouldn't you be more concerned about competing with Microsoft's OTHER software?
It sounds right on paper, but how would you explain the situation 10,000 years ago (or 100,000 or 1M), when most of the temperate zones on earth were absolutely COVERED with green plants? Even without CO2 production, the plant kingdom managed to get by...
Try this. Okay, so it's not really minidisc, but it's mini-CD, which is cheaper and holds just as much. I bought this device when it first came out, and I absolutely love it so far. It doesn't play anything but WAV, CDDA, and MP3, but for the price, I can't really complain. The best part is the flexibility, though. Three little pocket-sized miniCD's will hold about 10 hours of music. And I think there's supposed to be mini-CDRW's on the horizon, which are slated to cost less than $2.00 each (which i'm sure will come down over time)...then you get the added value of being able to rewrite on the same discs, just like flash memory or minidisc.
The best advice anyone ever gave me in regards to handling the BWI-types is this:
Know ahead of time what your boss is going to ask of you, and be knowledgable enough to offer alternatives.
Most sysadmins that I've dealt with have been a little too quick to instantly condemn the BWI as being an ignorant prick, when you really can't blame the guy for being such (well, maybe you can blame him for being a prick). Usually, these people honestly have no idea what kind of burden they're going to be putting on you, your coworkers, and your network. And most SA's will respond accordingly, leveraging exorbiatant costs or technical jargon against the BWI's ideas. This is ALWAYS the wrong way to approach the situation.
The best way to sort the affairs of these BWI's, then, is to give them an alternative. Most of the sysadmins that i described above usually had no clue as to what kind of work these BWI's were trying to get done, and thus had no clue as to solving the problem in a more effective manner. That's where the above advice comes in. Get to know the BWI and his (or his department's/division's/group's) work. Figure out how to solve the problem WITHOUT simply saying "that's impossible" or "do you know what kind of problems that's gonna cause?". There's always more than one way to skin a cat - and a good SA is the guy who knows a few of them.
did you even read my original post? I'm not really sure which side of what argument you're sitting on. I thought i made it quite clear that Loki's management is a group of evil bastards deserving of nothing less than public castration.
I think you missed the point. I'm not saying that working for Microsoft would be bad at all - except for the fact that your morals have to be slightly skewed to be comfortable with such employment.
And if you want a horror story, I got one word for ya: Ballmer.
Who wants to take bets that this gets publicized as FUD that Linux does not a viable company make?
I'm not really sure you should call this FUD, no matter how it's spun by the media. This is real life. There is no dishonest or biased journalist/advertiser who could make this story any worse. This is BAD FUCKING PRESS for the OSS development community, plain and simple. Sure, Microsoft will have a field day with this. A lot of other companies will as well...but that's what happens.
It's pretty well known at this point that in general, business models that are based around the development of Open Source software typically DO NOT SUCCEED (with very few notable exceptions). This is one very good example of that. The fact that the company's management only made the situation worse is just gravy for Microsoft and its kin. It makes the whole event look very, very evil, and that's how it SHOULD look.
So to summarize...it's only FUD if it's not true. This, unfortunately, is very true.
Re:Whoa, doesn't the US protect its citizens ?
on
Loki Aftermath Looks Bad
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
only problem is that Loki's board of directors is as broke as its employees. A lawsuit would have very little effect, if any.
This never should have happened at all. Loki and its employees were obviously working under some promise of eventual financial gain, or they would not have been there. Which means that someone at the top was either "blinded by the open source light" or was lying through his teeth. It's shit like this that makes working for Microsoft seem like a good alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
This is absurd. Completely, unequivocally absurd. A law set forth in a podunk Arizona county by people who probably shouldn't be remotely involved in lawmaking is not exactly precedent for any type of broad-scale action. How exactly can a government pass laws against purchasing from a particular company, considering the fact that the company is still operating under perfectly LEGAL pretenses and practices? It doesn't make any difference what MS has been charged with or convicted of, because they haven't been sentenced. No court has told microsoft that they can't sell their product anymore, so why should a county not be allowed to buy from them?
I think that it's time to make the government follow their own rules and stop spending any more money with criminals."
This is almost as ridiculous as the law itself. The government hasn't made any rules about spending money on microsoft products, so what rules are you suggesting they follow? That is a totally EMPTY statement and does not belong in a posted article. (Unfortunately, if that same statement were posted anywhere in this discussion, it would be modded +5, Insightful).
It really sucks for the OSS "movement" when this is the only means of market penetration that they can come up with. What exactly are these people hoping to accomplish by forcing their local government to switch?
In a situation like that, you're probably going to find that the users are so accustomed to keeping data on their hard drives that they simply won't back anything up on their own. Most will simply refuse to do it.
Even more unfortunately, an automated backup system probably won't help either. With a mixed environment like that, you're going to find that most users have data scattered all over their hard drives, making it virtually impossible to backup anything less than the entire drive. Not a good idea if you're dealing with any more than 5 to 10 users.
The best idea in this case would probably be along the lines of having each individual user move all their important files into one directory tree. Don't even tell them it's for the purpose of backing up, because then they probably won't do it. Make up some story about viruses destroying random data, and tell them that this is part of a prevention method. It sounds totally idiotic, but they'll believe it...instilling fear is usually the best way to go. Once they've moved everything, make sure they know to keep all their data files in that same directory tree from then on, and set up a scheduled backup on each machine - hopefully to a networked tape library or network drive of some sort.
Give this a few months, and get them used to keeping their data in a very specific place, and then start giving them network storage space to use instead. It will make the backup process a lot easier, and you'll be able to do it daily instead of once every week or so.
In any case, you have to approach this very SLOWLY, or you'll freak them out and they won't be any help at all. Baby steps, man...baby steps.
Note to self:
When commenting on stories regarding corporations collecting data, always mention "1984." Reap karma benefits. Laugh hysterically at moderators' short-sightedness.
The job market right now is EXTREMELY thin, so you're probably going to be better off if you can really separate yourself from other candidates. At the very least, make sure you have SEVERAL certifications (an MCSE alone isn't gonna land you a job these days). Go for combinations of varying certs that compliment each other. For example, try pairing a CCNA (Cisco) with a CNA (Novell) or RHCE (Red Hat). That should get you off to a good start.
You might also want to look into a two-year technical degree to further compliment the certifications. It doesn't really mean much, but it does give you an advantage over the guys who don't have it. And besides that, it will allow you to "sit out" of the job market until it picks up again (analysts are guessing that the next two years should be pretty good for IT guys).
Good luck, in any event.
This is sure to burn some karma, but what the hell...it needs to be said:
When will Slashdot stop drooling over every single god damn "leaked memo" that becomes public? Who cares about a stupid e-mail that basically puts into words what everyone already knew? What you're talking about is COMMON BUSINESS PRACTICE. Undermining competition is what keeps businesses alive...it's been that way since the beginnings of capitalist economics. Get over it, people...and move along - there sure as hell isn't anything to see here.
I can't tell if you're disagreeing with me or not...you seem to be restating what i just posted.
one does not need to consciously put deeper meaning into a movie
I must answer this, however...after the media started dropping names like Joseph Campbell all over Lucas, he ate it up...he thought it was "chic" to have that kind of literary allusion in his films, and ran with the idea. The fact that he would take such a facetious approach is somewhat offensive...he could very well have said "hey...i thought up a story and some characters, and here's the final product," because the movies STILL would have been good (or in the case of episodes 1 and 6, kinda good), and he wouldn't have looked like an asshole. He's a typical film student...he has to keep everyone guessing...has to make everyone think his films are deeper than they really are...but it's a sham, and he can't handle that. There's nothing wrong with making a movie that's entertaining and yet devoid of a more solid philosophical meaning...but film students like Lucas hate not being able to look as cool as guys like Kubrick or Oliver Stone. They have to give people something to talk about, even if it means faking it.
I think you missed my point, or perhaps read too far into it...
My argument is that Lucas is given too much credit for not enough work...he's an imaginative guy, i'll admit that...but people try to ascribe much deeper meanings to his work that he really didn't intend - and then he takes credit for it anyway, as though he DID intend it. Check out that Salon article linked in the parent post. It will tell you all you ever needed to know about Lucas.
Lucas "implied" those things, as well as the Joseph Campbell references, after overzealous reporters and critics brought up the similarities for him. Lucas just ran with the ideas to make himself look - i don't know - smarter or cooler or deeper or something. He didn't intentionally add any of those ideas to his work. Want proof? Watch ANY of his other films. American Graffiti - where's the eastern philosophy in that one? THX-1182 (or whatever it was called) - a hack-job ripoff of 1984, with very few original ideas.
br
Let's face it...Lucas is not the creative genius that some people want to think he is...he's a good director, and he can tell a story. Unfortunately, it's not really a very original or deep story - but it's entertaining nonetheless.
That article was a LONG overdue slap in the face of people like Katz who think that for every concept, there exists a horribly confounded background story.
It is SO GOD DAMN OBVIOUS that the Star Wars films were based on pulp sci-fi writings that it hurts my head every time someone (Katz) tries to aggrandize the entire meaning of the film. IT'S FUCKING ENTERTAINMENT, KATZ - NOT A DISCOURSE ON THE MEANING OF LIFE. Why must their be a "deeper meaning" to the films? What drives idiots like Katz to search for it? What's the FUCKING POINT?
So what if some idiot (probably katz) put the idea into Lucas' head, only to watch him run with it? That doesn't make it true. I mean, seriously...the type of movies that are rehashes of classical mythology usually end up like O Brother Where Art Thou - grossly misunderstood by the masses, but generally liked by those with enough scruples to find out what the film is actually about. Star Wars had far too much mass appeal, and a plot that was far more generalized.
Overall, the only argument i've seen in favor of the Star Wars/Campbell relationship is that they both deal with "the eternal struggle between good and evil". Name two movies that DON'T deal with that struggle, and maybe I'll believe you, Katz.
Unfortunately, I believe AOL won't let its customers (CmdrTaco) telnet into their mail servers. Damn shame, really. And besides, Malda's not really sure how to call up HyperTerminal just yet...i mean, there's no icon on the desktop!! How are you supposed to open the program without the damn icon??!?!?
You're pretty dead-on with that remark...unfortunately, it looks like CmdrTaco modded you down a half dozen times for not liking his screen debut. But never fear...for this is Slashdot, where no story gets posted just once!! Wait until tomorrow, when CmdrTaco will jump in with his (-1 redundant) two cents, and starts quoting tag lines from all the top reviewers! Here's a little preview:
"Eric S Raymond is this year's hottest new star!"
-David Manning, The Ridgefield Press
"Open Source has never sizzled like this!
-Terrance McNeily, Fluff Movie Magazine
"What do you get when you pack 3 dirty HIPPIES and 7 pale, pimply-faced gaywads into a VA-Software sponsored DOCUMENTARY? A slam-bang WINNER! Revolution OS FSCKING ROX!
-Harry Knowles, Ain't It Cool News
Rob Malda makes Corey Feldman look like...well...a much more attractive Corey Feldman!
-Roger Ebert, The Chicago Sun-Times
you just proved my theory to be 100% correct. You share the very same attitude that i've encountered a number of times when dealing with Open Source - people always saying "hey - it's free! What more do you want??", and then try to tell me that their crapware is so much better than the closed-source for-profit alternative. Screw that! Unreliable support is exactly why open source is making so little headway in ANY markets. The only place that it i gaining any footing is in replacing UNIX...and that's because the guys swithching to Linux/BSD/whatever are already well versed in supporting it themselves. But god forbid they ever have to help somebody!!
Again, fuck that. I'm all for paying money for software if it means the difference between getting support reliably or trying to deal with the "get lost n00b" assholes that seem to be so common in the open source world.
easy to get along with and eager to help
You're kidding, right?
From my experience, and from the experiences of many of my colleagues, Open Source developers are some of the most difficult people on earth. Trying to get help from them is like drawing blood from a stone. It doesn't matter WHAT you ask, it's always "read the fucking manual" or "fuck off, n00b". None of them seem to realize that there is a learning curve that all users must overcome...and their poorly-contructed, text-only, flowchart-lacking HOW-TO's just don't cut it when it comes to supporting a product. I know that free software is free software, but christ...if you don't want to be bothered by the public seeking help, then don't release the fucking software to the public.
Oh, you mean like the phenomenally successful .NET strategy?
You should know by now that any attempts that MS makes in that direction have not and will not be tolerated by their customers. That's why they haven't ever done it.
You've got the right idea, but you're slightly backwards in terms of the execution.
I fully agree that Mozilla is probably the BEST open-source project to date, but it is by no means the MOST IMPORTANT. A browser is an add-on, a "helper" application at best. True, web services are becoming more and more vital to computing, and everyone who uses a computer really needs a browser. But a "browser war" is not the way to come out ahead in this arena.
People generally don't switch browsers. That is a fact - cold, hard, and undeniably true. Microsoft has been onto this trend for at least 5 or 6 years now...that's why they bundle their own. So a "browser war" doesn't help anything, because it doesn't get MS off the desktop. That's what I was pointing out in my original post - I'm one of the rare few who use a non-MS browser in Windows...but Microsoft isn't even SLIGHTLY hurt by this fact, because their REAL PRODUCTS - windows and office - are still the best on the desktop for me and probably 85% of the rest of the world's PC's. So how does the open source community hope to gain anything by fighting a pointless "browser war"? Why not just focus on making a better browser AND a better desktop environment, so they have something to BUNDLE it with? That's what will make MS more competitive. But the open source community is distracted by the pointless bickering over whose browser handles java plugins better.
My point, to paraphrase once more, is that the "browser war" has been blown WAY out of proportion and is becoming a distraction to what open source SHOULD be doing. I'm not trying to downplay the significance of a solid open-source browser.
Why does anyone think that the key to escaping the so-called "microsoft deathgrip" lies in an alternate web browser? It makes A LOT more sense to say "maybe if Apple would port their OS to X86 architecture, there would be some progress away from MS," or even something like "maybe if the Open Source community could come up with a decent office suite that is actually WORTH the $0 price tag, there would be some progress away from MS." But how in the hell does a browser have anything to do with it? I (and many others that I know) use various Mozilla builds on various Windows versions, and we're still hooked on MS because we like the REAL products, Windows and Office.
I think this whole "browser war" gets way too much emphasis these days. It made sense 7 years ago when Netscape wasn't free and was trying to compete. Today, who gives a shit what browser comes out on top?? Shouldn't you be more concerned about competing with Microsoft's OTHER software?
It sounds right on paper, but how would you explain the situation 10,000 years ago (or 100,000 or 1M), when most of the temperate zones on earth were absolutely COVERED with green plants? Even without CO2 production, the plant kingdom managed to get by...
Try this. Okay, so it's not really minidisc, but it's mini-CD, which is cheaper and holds just as much. I bought this device when it first came out, and I absolutely love it so far. It doesn't play anything but WAV, CDDA, and MP3, but for the price, I can't really complain. The best part is the flexibility, though. Three little pocket-sized miniCD's will hold about 10 hours of music. And I think there's supposed to be mini-CDRW's on the horizon, which are slated to cost less than $2.00 each (which i'm sure will come down over time)...then you get the added value of being able to rewrite on the same discs, just like flash memory or minidisc.
It probably doesn't.
The best advice anyone ever gave me in regards to handling the BWI-types is this:
Know ahead of time what your boss is going to ask of you, and be knowledgable enough to offer alternatives.
Most sysadmins that I've dealt with have been a little too quick to instantly condemn the BWI as being an ignorant prick, when you really can't blame the guy for being such (well, maybe you can blame him for being a prick). Usually, these people honestly have no idea what kind of burden they're going to be putting on you, your coworkers, and your network. And most SA's will respond accordingly, leveraging exorbiatant costs or technical jargon against the BWI's ideas. This is ALWAYS the wrong way to approach the situation.
The best way to sort the affairs of these BWI's, then, is to give them an alternative. Most of the sysadmins that i described above usually had no clue as to what kind of work these BWI's were trying to get done, and thus had no clue as to solving the problem in a more effective manner. That's where the above advice comes in. Get to know the BWI and his (or his department's/division's/group's) work. Figure out how to solve the problem WITHOUT simply saying "that's impossible" or "do you know what kind of problems that's gonna cause?". There's always more than one way to skin a cat - and a good SA is the guy who knows a few of them.
I get sick and tired of reading the same story on different web sites. That's why I like slashdot so much.
I'm sure most will agree with me when I say that this makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.
did you even read my original post? I'm not really sure which side of what argument you're sitting on. I thought i made it quite clear that Loki's management is a group of evil bastards deserving of nothing less than public castration.
Lay off the ephedrine, boy.
I think you missed the point. I'm not saying that working for Microsoft would be bad at all - except for the fact that your morals have to be slightly skewed to be comfortable with such employment.
And if you want a horror story, I got one word for ya: Ballmer.
Who wants to take bets that this gets publicized as FUD that Linux does not a viable company make?
I'm not really sure you should call this FUD, no matter how it's spun by the media. This is real life. There is no dishonest or biased journalist/advertiser who could make this story any worse. This is BAD FUCKING PRESS for the OSS development community, plain and simple. Sure, Microsoft will have a field day with this. A lot of other companies will as well...but that's what happens.
It's pretty well known at this point that in general, business models that are based around the development of Open Source software typically DO NOT SUCCEED (with very few notable exceptions). This is one very good example of that. The fact that the company's management only made the situation worse is just gravy for Microsoft and its kin. It makes the whole event look very, very evil, and that's how it SHOULD look.
So to summarize...it's only FUD if it's not true. This, unfortunately, is very true.
only problem is that Loki's board of directors is as broke as its employees. A lawsuit would have very little effect, if any.
This never should have happened at all. Loki and its employees were obviously working under some promise of eventual financial gain, or they would not have been there. Which means that someone at the top was either "blinded by the open source light" or was lying through his teeth. It's shit like this that makes working for Microsoft seem like a good alternative.
I can tell you that if turnitin.com is anything like slashdot, they'll just mod the paper into oblivion if it doesn't jive with the editors' opinions. But hey, what do I know?