This is about the lamest flame-fest invitiation I've read in a long time (apart from all the other articles appearing sporadically on the same topic).
All the statements arguing that Linux has lost the desktop war never actually state what they mean by "desktop." Last time I checked, Linux was the kernel to my Unix-like-mostly-Free-Software-running-system and not a desktop environment. OK, seriously now, I am running the aforementioned system and find that for my personal requirements it outdoes every commercially available system. But, that is just me. I am not at war with Microshaft and I have heard no OSS/FS person saying something about a war or a crusade (mind you, ESR, RMS and others have better rethorical skills than some countries' elected leaders. Couldn't resist this comment, sorry:-))
Furthermore, if we were to analyse the competitive market environment for OSS/FS-desktops it could be argued that we are dealing with a disruptive technology, a phrase coined by Clayton Christensen (HBS prof, good read). But then again, that would mean that yellow-press authors would have to read a bit about the field they are researching.
Damn, just realised that I actually fell for this troll article.....
Well, not exactly. It is a little bit more complicated than that (I am not a law student and was also puzzled by the wording): However, here is what I understand after looking it up at the Free University Berlin's law department (in case you are fluent in German legal babble; I guess it will not survive the Babel fish:-( ):
1. The wording "moral code" in the English translation is a literal translation of "Sittengesetz" and does not refer to extra-legal moral beliefs. Generally accepted extra-legal moral beliefs are believed to be rare in a pluralistic society. "Sittengesetz" in fact is viewed in relation to the Civil Rights Law's (BGB) definition of decency ( 138 BGB) for example.
2. "These rights may only be encroached upon pursuant to a law." The meaning of this is hard to get (legal babble), I give you that, but it only means that a person's freedom can be limited if in violation of a law, where not otherwise in conflict with the Basic Law. If this article wouldn't have this provision, it would be impossible to sentence anyone to prison.
This is -as all legal systems are- rather complex and I suggest further studies before making statements like "So any law can be passed and it is automatically constitutional. They might as well have not even bothered."
In case you are interested in the philosophical concept of Sittengesetz, try this link.
I think that the really funny part is that although these constitutions were (at least) written with the US (let's not forget that the USA is != America) constitution in mind, there are a lot of US groups and politicians trying to minimise personal freedom in the US (mainly Freedom of Speech).
If you for example infringe another person's basic constitutional right (e.g. his/her dignity). Your freedom of speech is in so far limited as you are not allowed to violate any other basic right or where the law explicitly states the limitation (e.g. display of NAZI symbols like the swastika)
BASIC RIGHTS
Article 1 (Protection of human dignity). (1) The dignity of man is inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all state authority. (2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world. (3) The following basic rights bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly enforceable law.
Article 2 (Rights of liberty). (1) Everyone has the right to the free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral code. (2) Everyone has the right to life and to inviolability of his person. The freedom of the individual is inviolable. These rights may only be encroached upon pursuant to a law.
Many answers.
It totally depends on you and what you want. I disagree with all those people who say that you have to attend one of the top-notch schools to become a good manager. What you will get out of this (in fact every) kind of education is up to you.
If you chose the school right (i.e. international and not necessarily top tier, like HBS, LBS and stuff) you might get to know a bunch of very interesting people, maybe friends for life.
As to what they can teach you: Well, a lot of stuff you already know, but you get to know the jargon, which might be helpful. If you are really lucky you will have one or two teachers there who might be able to alter your perception about a little.
BTW, at my school I met a lot of people with a technical background, even one of my lecturers has a technical first degree. So, you will not be alone:-)
But beware, this will be a lot of work on stuff that you will not like. It sometimes is just like being back at school.
Just my 2 cents.
Slashdot Mirror
This is about the lamest flame-fest invitiation I've read in a long time (apart from all the other articles appearing sporadically on the same topic).
:-))
All the statements arguing that Linux has lost the desktop war never actually state what they mean by "desktop." Last time I checked, Linux was the kernel to my Unix-like-mostly-Free-Software-running-system and not a desktop environment. OK, seriously now, I am running the aforementioned system and find that for my personal requirements it outdoes every commercially available system. But, that is just me. I am not at war with Microshaft and I have heard no OSS/FS person saying something about a war or a crusade (mind you, ESR, RMS and others have better rethorical skills than some countries' elected leaders. Couldn't resist this comment, sorry
Furthermore, if we were to analyse the competitive market environment for OSS/FS-desktops it could be argued that we are dealing with a disruptive technology, a phrase coined by Clayton Christensen (HBS prof, good read). But then again, that would mean that yellow-press authors would have to read a bit about the field they are researching.
Damn, just realised that I actually fell for this troll article.....
Well, not exactly. It is a little bit more complicated than that (I am not a law student and was also puzzled by the wording): However, here is what I understand after looking it up at the Free University Berlin's law department (in case you are fluent in German legal babble; I guess it will not survive the Babel fish :-( ):
.
1. The wording "moral code" in the English translation is a literal translation of "Sittengesetz" and does not refer to extra-legal moral beliefs. Generally accepted extra-legal moral beliefs are believed to be rare in a pluralistic society. "Sittengesetz" in fact is viewed in relation to the Civil Rights Law's (BGB) definition of decency ( 138 BGB) for example.
2. "These rights may only be encroached upon pursuant to a law." The meaning of this is hard to get (legal babble), I give you that, but it only means that a person's freedom can be limited if in violation of a law, where not otherwise in conflict with the Basic Law. If this article wouldn't have this provision, it would be impossible to sentence anyone to prison.
This is -as all legal systems are- rather complex and I suggest further studies before making statements like "So any law can be passed and it is automatically constitutional. They might as well have not even bothered."
In case you are interested in the philosophical concept of Sittengesetz, try this link
Cheers
I think that the really funny part is that although these constitutions were (at least) written with the US (let's not forget that the USA is != America) constitution in mind, there are a lot of US groups and politicians trying to minimise personal freedom in the US (mainly Freedom of Speech).
If you for example infringe another person's basic constitutional right (e.g. his/her dignity). Your freedom of speech is in so far limited as you are not allowed to violate any other basic right or where the law explicitly states the limitation (e.g. display of NAZI symbols like the swastika)
BASIC RIGHTS
Article 1 (Protection of human dignity). (1) The dignity of man is inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all state authority. (2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world. (3) The following basic rights bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly enforceable law.
Article 2 (Rights of liberty). (1) Everyone has the right to the free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral code. (2) Everyone has the right to life and to inviolability of his person. The freedom of the individual is inviolable. These rights may only be encroached upon pursuant to a law.
Many answers. It totally depends on you and what you want. I disagree with all those people who say that you have to attend one of the top-notch schools to become a good manager. What you will get out of this (in fact every) kind of education is up to you. If you chose the school right (i.e. international and not necessarily top tier, like HBS, LBS and stuff) you might get to know a bunch of very interesting people, maybe friends for life. As to what they can teach you: Well, a lot of stuff you already know, but you get to know the jargon, which might be helpful. If you are really lucky you will have one or two teachers there who might be able to alter your perception about a little. BTW, at my school I met a lot of people with a technical background, even one of my lecturers has a technical first degree. So, you will not be alone :-)
But beware, this will be a lot of work on stuff that you will not like. It sometimes is just like being back at school.
Just my 2 cents.