...republican's are the current best way to get our message across for smaller gov't and lower taxes.
I agree with this, if the current administration's republicans are excluded. Oddly allocated tax cuts in spite of a half a trillion per year budget deficit, highly debated foreign military interventions, and domestic spy programs don't sound like they mesh well with the Libertarian agenda.
I look at "defense pork" as a lot less damaging as "Welfare pork".
This is true, but both are wasteful and ultimately increase taxation. Very often pork-barrel projects are borne from piles of money looking to get spent, even if no real value is generated other than cycling a few paychecks around. In a way, defense pork is effectively welfare but with more acronyms.
There are signifigant differences in republicans and democrats...
Only on the surface. Either party's policies result in bigger government, political entrenchment, and institutional mediocrity. Whether it is a failing welfare program or a failing pork barrel defense project makes no difference in the long term.
I am not a bigot. The president has publicly made moral judgements about people (lately about gays and lesbians), which is reprehensible, given that he is the president of a country with a constitution that dictates separation of church and state. The problem is that he himself is flagrantly bigoted against people that don't meet his own moral criteria.
This is the United States of America for cripes sake. This is an issue of personal freedom from religous persecution and freedom to conduct our lives as we see fit. It is very sad that so many US citizens are so comfortable with making their nation into a representative theocracy, when our founding fathers gave them right to be free from such an aboimination.
This is the price we pay for the growth of progressive socialism that both the democrats and republicans seem all too willing to embrace.
Why do they bother being separate, anymore. It would be much more efficient to merge the republican and democrat parties. The new party would be called "Us" and all other parties would be merged into a new party called "Them".
Then it would be more clearly a matter of "Us" positioning themselves into a cycle of gathering more and more power over their constituencies. Anyone in the "Them" party, even freedom-loving Libertarians and tree-hugging Greens, would be labeled terrorists and flown to Guantanamo.
whenever a company gives you a chance to Opt Out, take it, no matter what the hassles.
As a consumer, it is much wiser to do business with companies who have very good up-front privacy policies. I found an ISP, for example, whose price was just as good as everyone else's but also had a top-notch simple privacy policy ("We will not sell your data, period.")
If I started a business, the first thing I would tell customers is that their data is strictly for the business transaction. Making customers comfortable is more important for repeat business than raping them of their data and selling it for a quick buck.
I suggest a new class, "Junk", that automatically gets shredded en route. That'll save me the time of having to shred each and every "preapproved" credit card and loan application I get. Who uses preapproved loans, anyway, except debt junkies?
from a Christian Extremist with significant interests in the Oil Industry?
The conflicts of interest in the current administration are so transparent, that anyone suprised by any of this literally needs a slap to set them back in reality.
Not all of these companies that are jumping on the open source bandwagon are going to be understanding and cooperative when open source comes knocking on their door: their revenue stream.
My argument is simply this: any company whose only revenue streams can be obseleted by Open Source software is a company that doesn't deserve a future. I know that sounds harsh, but that's just too bad.
Open Source is the natural destination for commodity software. We are clearly at the point where all the money to be made on word processors, for example, has been made, and, thus, OpenOffice.org is sufficient, free, and persistent (it's here today, and it will be here tomorrow, and the next day). If you don't like OpenOffice.org, then there are still alternatives, such as Abiword. Microsoft Word's days are numberered--there is simply no other future for it, unless unnatural things like legal loopholes or corporate welfare allow it to limp along like some sort of mutant irradiated dog kept alive in the name of science (just kill it dammit!).
If every company that Microsoft directly competed with (Oracle, AOL, Sony, Nintendo, IBM, Palm, RealNetworks, Novell, just to name a few) were to boycott Microsoft products for their internal use (still keeping, of course, whatever they need to do development of products which run on or with Windows)... that alone could add up to hundreds of thousands of seats.
That's what's so beautiful about Open Source: no one has to eat the competition's dog food. Open Source is sort of like a public field of tasty non-exhaustible corn available for all villigers to eat. Businesses have to love this.
Every migration that doesn't end up with Microsoft is a good thing for the world. Regardless, you could buy those Sun V60x servers, if that makes you feel better.
If business people weren't whores, would there every[sic] be any business?
I just remebered a saying: In America, for every man wanting to hang himself, right behind him will be a man willing to sell him the noose (or something like that).
Ellison won one of the Golden Jackboot awards for pushing a national ID card system backed by Oracle databases.
If business people weren't whores, would there every be any business?
I have, from some points of view, a personality flaw, where I can't work on something for long if I don't believe in it. However, human diversity provides many people who just don't care. This is why there will be no shortage of programmers for TIA and similar systems, and Oracle will be happy to sell the Oracle licenses to any buyer.
...a person would have to be crazy to want to administer 8,000 diskless Linux servers tied to NetApps storage...
Why? The nice thing about diskless clients is that their/etc directories are all right next to eachother in a single hierarchy. It seems to me that this setup would be highly scriptable and managable in any UNIX, Linux, or BSD environment.
Wake me when Geico moves their entire org, including sales agents, to Linux.
Perhaps, one day, Geico will buy the Mad Hatter desktops from Sun. Sun already said that they will halve any quote from Microsoft. If Sun is willing to undercut to the point where Microsoft starts pouting--then crying and throwing a 3-year-old tantrum--, the Sun is in a position to very agressively market towards big call centers and sales staffs like Geico would have.
Mad Hatter could be Sun living up to its reputation of persistently rising from near-defeat.
No, it's because they have those resources to pay the licensing fees should the need arise.
8000+ machines X $1,399 (future SCO price) >= $11,192,000.
Well, for a company the size of Oracle, $20 million or so in expenses really isn't that big of a deal. So, what Oracle is doing is actually a really smart gamble. If SCO gets flushed, Oracle pays nothing. If SCO wins the lottery (their odds of success, BTW), Oracle is out $20 million, but they could probably negotiate a better price with SCO. Their attitude is probably "We really don't have anything to lose."
My favorite scenario is that Oracle (or IBM) simply buys SCO. The costs of buying SCO vs. the costs of paying SCO for thousands of Linux licenses are probably of the same order of magnitude.
Oracle's products are the mainstay of the database industry and moving to Linux shows that Microsoft does not in fact have a monopoly.
Only in the context of database servers. Microsoft does have a monopoly on the desktop regarding office productivity software and gaming. Only recently, have Linux, the BSDs, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla, etc. begun to get enough mind-share such that Microsoft's desktop monopoly is jepardized. Note that Microsoft's monopoly is so entrenched that only FREE products could compete.
It is annoying when people look at the whole software industry as one market, when it is really thousands upon thousands of markets. Each category of software application (operating system, database, word processor, strategy game, action game, calendars, etc.) is a whole market distinct from all others.
Look at the automotive industry, for example. Sure, there is a market for whole cars, but each car is made up of thousands of components. If you look around, there are distinct markets for each component. Want a snazzier tachometer? There are several companies eager and willing to sell you one. Note that even the market for whole cars can be broken down into heavy-duty trucks, light-duty trucks, vans, family sedans, sports cars, wannabe sports cars, compacts, etc.
There is nothing special about software that frees it from traditional and long-worn concepts in the business world. Of course, there will always be the issues of "is it art" vs. "is it a truck", but those are mostly due to the diversity and immaturity of the software industry.
A big giant company, openly using linux even with sco's perfectly logical (from a corporate america standpoint) litigation.
Can enough big giant companies (IBM, Oracle, Sun, HP, etc.) adopt Linux to the point that all of SCO's legal claims are nullified? What happens if everyone is using Linux, SCO cries about it, and everyone just says "tough noogies!"
I know this sort of thing works in trademark-land (e.g., Kleenex), but it would be interesting if the people at large can also usurp other types of "intellectual property".
Library Spoff, please stop being a tool of Microsoft's marketing department. It is already getting old reading all the "me too" posts about mice from years ago and from a dozen manufacturers that had this same functionality.
See, the trick is to buy something and then resell it at a higher price. The difference is something called profit. If you obtain enough profit, you can trade it in for a beach house or, perhaps, a freshly-imported Amazon Sex Goddess (ah, the magic of mail-ordering over the Internet:).
Slashdot Mirror
...republican's are the current best way to get our message across for smaller gov't and lower taxes.
I agree with this, if the current administration's republicans are excluded. Oddly allocated tax cuts in spite of a half a trillion per year budget deficit, highly debated foreign military interventions, and domestic spy programs don't sound like they mesh well with the Libertarian agenda.
I look at "defense pork" as a lot less damaging as "Welfare pork".
This is true, but both are wasteful and ultimately increase taxation. Very often pork-barrel projects are borne from piles of money looking to get spent, even if no real value is generated other than cycling a few paychecks around. In a way, defense pork is effectively welfare but with more acronyms.
These views are not connected to any church...
How so? There is no ambiguity about this administration's religious alignment.
There are signifigant differences in republicans and democrats...
Only on the surface. Either party's policies result in bigger government, political entrenchment, and institutional mediocrity. Whether it is a failing welfare program or a failing pork barrel defense project makes no difference in the long term.
You bigot
I am not a bigot. The president has publicly made moral judgements about people (lately about gays and lesbians), which is reprehensible, given that he is the president of a country with a constitution that dictates separation of church and state. The problem is that he himself is flagrantly bigoted against people that don't meet his own moral criteria.
This is the United States of America for cripes sake. This is an issue of personal freedom from religous persecution and freedom to conduct our lives as we see fit. It is very sad that so many US citizens are so comfortable with making their nation into a representative theocracy, when our founding fathers gave them right to be free from such an aboimination.
This is the price we pay for the growth of progressive socialism that both the democrats and republicans seem all too willing to embrace.
Why do they bother being separate, anymore. It would be much more efficient to merge the republican and democrat parties. The new party would be called "Us" and all other parties would be merged into a new party called "Them".
Then it would be more clearly a matter of "Us" positioning themselves into a cycle of gathering more and more power over their constituencies. Anyone in the "Them" party, even freedom-loving Libertarians and tree-hugging Greens, would be labeled terrorists and flown to Guantanamo.
whenever a company gives you a chance to Opt Out, take it, no matter what the hassles.
As a consumer, it is much wiser to do business with companies who have very good up-front privacy policies. I found an ISP, for example, whose price was just as good as everyone else's but also had a top-notch simple privacy policy ("We will not sell your data, period.")
If I started a business, the first thing I would tell customers is that their data is strictly for the business transaction. Making customers comfortable is more important for repeat business than raping them of their data and selling it for a quick buck.
I suggest a new class, "Junk", that automatically gets shredded en route. That'll save me the time of having to shred each and every "preapproved" credit card and loan application I get. Who uses preapproved loans, anyway, except debt junkies?
from a Christian Extremist with significant interests in the Oil Industry?
The conflicts of interest in the current administration are so transparent, that anyone suprised by any of this literally needs a slap to set them back in reality.
Not all of these companies that are jumping on the open source bandwagon are going to be understanding and cooperative when open source comes knocking on their door: their revenue stream.
My argument is simply this: any company whose only revenue streams can be obseleted by Open Source software is a company that doesn't deserve a future. I know that sounds harsh, but that's just too bad.
Open Source is the natural destination for commodity software. We are clearly at the point where all the money to be made on word processors, for example, has been made, and, thus, OpenOffice.org is sufficient, free, and persistent (it's here today, and it will be here tomorrow, and the next day). If you don't like OpenOffice.org, then there are still alternatives, such as Abiword. Microsoft Word's days are numberered--there is simply no other future for it, unless unnatural things like legal loopholes or corporate welfare allow it to limp along like some sort of mutant irradiated dog kept alive in the name of science (just kill it dammit!).
If every company that Microsoft directly competed with (Oracle, AOL, Sony, Nintendo, IBM, Palm, RealNetworks, Novell, just to name a few) were to boycott Microsoft products for their internal use (still keeping, of course, whatever they need to do development of products which run on or with Windows) ... that alone could add up to hundreds of thousands of seats.
That's what's so beautiful about Open Source: no one has to eat the competition's dog food. Open Source is sort of like a public field of tasty non-exhaustible corn available for all villigers to eat. Businesses have to love this.
How is that good for the world?
Every migration that doesn't end up with Microsoft is a good thing for the world. Regardless, you could buy those Sun V60x servers, if that makes you feel better.
If business people weren't whores, would there every[sic] be any business?
I just remebered a saying: In America, for every man wanting to hang himself, right behind him will be a man willing to sell him the noose (or something like that).
Ellison won one of the Golden Jackboot awards for pushing a national ID card system backed by Oracle databases.
If business people weren't whores, would there every be any business?
I have, from some points of view, a personality flaw, where I can't work on something for long if I don't believe in it. However, human diversity provides many people who just don't care. This is why there will be no shortage of programmers for TIA and similar systems, and Oracle will be happy to sell the Oracle licenses to any buyer.
...a person would have to be crazy to want to administer 8,000 diskless Linux servers tied to NetApps storage...
/etc directories are all right next to eachother in a single hierarchy. It seems to me that this setup would be highly scriptable and managable in any UNIX, Linux, or BSD environment.
Why? The nice thing about diskless clients is that their
Undeniably, a large loss for Sun, too.
Not necessarily.
Wake me when Geico moves their entire org, including sales agents, to Linux.
Perhaps, one day, Geico will buy the Mad Hatter desktops from Sun. Sun already said that they will halve any quote from Microsoft. If Sun is willing to undercut to the point where Microsoft starts pouting--then crying and throwing a 3-year-old tantrum--, the Sun is in a position to very agressively market towards big call centers and sales staffs like Geico would have.
Mad Hatter could be Sun living up to its reputation of persistently rising from near-defeat.
No, it's because they have those resources to pay the licensing fees should the need arise.
8000+ machines X $1,399 (future SCO price) >= $11,192,000.
Well, for a company the size of Oracle, $20 million or so in expenses really isn't that big of a deal. So, what Oracle is doing is actually a really smart gamble. If SCO gets flushed, Oracle pays nothing. If SCO wins the lottery (their odds of success, BTW), Oracle is out $20 million, but they could probably negotiate a better price with SCO. Their attitude is probably "We really don't have anything to lose."
My favorite scenario is that Oracle (or IBM) simply buys SCO. The costs of buying SCO vs. the costs of paying SCO for thousands of Linux licenses are probably of the same order of magnitude.
Oracle's products are the mainstay of the database industry and moving to Linux shows that Microsoft does not in fact have a monopoly.
Only in the context of database servers. Microsoft does have a monopoly on the desktop regarding office productivity software and gaming. Only recently, have Linux, the BSDs, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla, etc. begun to get enough mind-share such that Microsoft's desktop monopoly is jepardized. Note that Microsoft's monopoly is so entrenched that only FREE products could compete.
It is annoying when people look at the whole software industry as one market, when it is really thousands upon thousands of markets. Each category of software application (operating system, database, word processor, strategy game, action game, calendars, etc.) is a whole market distinct from all others.
Look at the automotive industry, for example. Sure, there is a market for whole cars, but each car is made up of thousands of components. If you look around, there are distinct markets for each component. Want a snazzier tachometer? There are several companies eager and willing to sell you one. Note that even the market for whole cars can be broken down into heavy-duty trucks, light-duty trucks, vans, family sedans, sports cars, wannabe sports cars, compacts, etc.
There is nothing special about software that frees it from traditional and long-worn concepts in the business world. Of course, there will always be the issues of "is it art" vs. "is it a truck", but those are mostly due to the diversity and immaturity of the software industry.
A big giant company, openly using linux even with sco's perfectly logical (from a corporate america standpoint) litigation.
Can enough big giant companies (IBM, Oracle, Sun, HP, etc.) adopt Linux to the point that all of SCO's legal claims are nullified? What happens if everyone is using Linux, SCO cries about it, and everyone just says "tough noogies!"
I know this sort of thing works in trademark-land (e.g., Kleenex), but it would be interesting if the people at large can also usurp other types of "intellectual property".
a buttload?
It's a perfectly cromulent word.
Library Spoff, please stop being a tool of Microsoft's marketing department. It is already getting old reading all the "me too" posts about mice from years ago and from a dozen manufacturers that had this same functionality.
...I'll be impressed when a mouse allows me to scroll into/out of the monitor.
What, exactly, would you hope to simulate with this mouse? Also, you are aware that the images displayed on the monitor are not real, right?
$699 per license
See, the trick is to buy something and then resell it at a higher price. The difference is something called profit. If you obtain enough profit, you can trade it in for a beach house or, perhaps, a freshly-imported Amazon Sex Goddess (ah, the magic of mail-ordering over the Internet:).
This thread is like a fine meal:
antipasto...risposte...malattia...
(I pulled this out of babelfish's ass, so apologies)
Gotta love Red Hat's timing.
I wonder if The Art of War is required reading in law school.
Is it better in small companies? non-profits? Or am I just being naive about human nature. Thanks.
First accept the fact that you will be miserable no matter where you go, and, then, you will be happy.