The Netbooks example can be attributed probably more to hardware than software. Certainly we can find plenty of people who ventured into cheap hardware, which ran MS products (e-Machines anyone?) only to find that not only did the hardware fail, but due to the MS licensing, if they had to replace a failed drive, they had to purchase a new MS license (again e-machines).
As to feasibility, it depends on the industry. However, in my experience, with one exception (an organization that used a very specialized software package for manufacturing), organizations were able to transition from Windows to something like Ubuntu with about as much disruption as moving from, say, Office 2003 to Office 2007 or Windows Vista to Windows 8, Even in a large scale environment, each desktop/laptop carries probably $150 surcharge for MS licensing. That is before accounting for requisite anti-virus, which not only costs in terms of licensing and support, but also puts a drain on hardware performance. Add to that software maintenance/upgrade costs every two years. Factored of the scale of an organization, you can be into some real money.
In regard to Group Policy being the killer app for the adoption of MS, again it depends on the environment. But look at Red Hat's Spacewalk in addition to what can be done with OpenLDAP as an AD replacement.Sure, you might not have the full system management capability Group Policy offers, but then again, it's not like Group Policy works flawlessly. I have run the metrics a dozen times in a dozen different scenarios. Maybe those have been the only 12 cases where Linux makes more sense that MS, but in my experience, the math cuts very clearly. What doesn't cut clearly is the willingness of users and executive management to go out on the limb and try something new. There is value in that - if an organization is distracted by adopting a new OS and apps - it will undermine productivity.
Personally, I know of no individual or organization who abandoned the MS world and ever went back. I can't find a single performance or financial metric in favor of MS over a Linux distro. I think it is 50 percent fear and 50 percent conformity that drives the MS market share, which likely explains why the DoD is so gung ho on MS junk.
This study appears to have multiple flaws:
1) A statistical increase in Caesareans does not mean a statistical narrowing of the pelvis. There is not a causal relationship. This is like suggesting that because relatively fewer people are having their wisdom teeth extracted today, our mouths must be getting bigger.
2) Even with a correlation between pelvis width and Caesareans, it does not mean those children or mothers would have died in non-surgical child birth. This is creating a binary relationship out of a correlation - or in other terms assuming the absence of a negative is a positive.
Other factors:
- The general guideline today (as I understand it) is that if you have had a Caesarean in the past it is safer to have Caesareans for future babies - this alone might account for the statistical increase.
- Larger babies can be attributed to better prenatal health and nutrition.
- The increase in Caesareans can be attributed to more women giving birth in a hospital setting where Caesarean is an available and safe option.
A programming language can be learned in less than a semester. The creativity and attention to detail that make someone able to turn the lexicon and grammar of a programming language into something useful and secure take years of decent basic education. Packing a coding curriculum into the school day will only distract from the basics kids need. The other aspect of this is this notion among the uninitiated that because someone can write a Java app they must the IT equivalent of a brain surgeon when they are more in fact like an IT plumber. To be employable as a programmer requires a fairly low threshold, but to be great at it, requires several years of professional adult apprenticeship and supervision.
Slashdot Mirror
The Netbooks example can be attributed probably more to hardware than software. Certainly we can find plenty of people who ventured into cheap hardware, which ran MS products (e-Machines anyone?) only to find that not only did the hardware fail, but due to the MS licensing, if they had to replace a failed drive, they had to purchase a new MS license (again e-machines). As to feasibility, it depends on the industry. However, in my experience, with one exception (an organization that used a very specialized software package for manufacturing), organizations were able to transition from Windows to something like Ubuntu with about as much disruption as moving from, say, Office 2003 to Office 2007 or Windows Vista to Windows 8, Even in a large scale environment, each desktop/laptop carries probably $150 surcharge for MS licensing. That is before accounting for requisite anti-virus, which not only costs in terms of licensing and support, but also puts a drain on hardware performance. Add to that software maintenance/upgrade costs every two years. Factored of the scale of an organization, you can be into some real money. In regard to Group Policy being the killer app for the adoption of MS, again it depends on the environment. But look at Red Hat's Spacewalk in addition to what can be done with OpenLDAP as an AD replacement.Sure, you might not have the full system management capability Group Policy offers, but then again, it's not like Group Policy works flawlessly. I have run the metrics a dozen times in a dozen different scenarios. Maybe those have been the only 12 cases where Linux makes more sense that MS, but in my experience, the math cuts very clearly. What doesn't cut clearly is the willingness of users and executive management to go out on the limb and try something new. There is value in that - if an organization is distracted by adopting a new OS and apps - it will undermine productivity.
I don't know. Due to licensing issues alone, scaling MS products is either a bear or a liability.
Personally, I know of no individual or organization who abandoned the MS world and ever went back. I can't find a single performance or financial metric in favor of MS over a Linux distro. I think it is 50 percent fear and 50 percent conformity that drives the MS market share, which likely explains why the DoD is so gung ho on MS junk.
This study appears to have multiple flaws: 1) A statistical increase in Caesareans does not mean a statistical narrowing of the pelvis. There is not a causal relationship. This is like suggesting that because relatively fewer people are having their wisdom teeth extracted today, our mouths must be getting bigger. 2) Even with a correlation between pelvis width and Caesareans, it does not mean those children or mothers would have died in non-surgical child birth. This is creating a binary relationship out of a correlation - or in other terms assuming the absence of a negative is a positive. Other factors: - The general guideline today (as I understand it) is that if you have had a Caesarean in the past it is safer to have Caesareans for future babies - this alone might account for the statistical increase. - Larger babies can be attributed to better prenatal health and nutrition. - The increase in Caesareans can be attributed to more women giving birth in a hospital setting where Caesarean is an available and safe option.
A programming language can be learned in less than a semester. The creativity and attention to detail that make someone able to turn the lexicon and grammar of a programming language into something useful and secure take years of decent basic education. Packing a coding curriculum into the school day will only distract from the basics kids need. The other aspect of this is this notion among the uninitiated that because someone can write a Java app they must the IT equivalent of a brain surgeon when they are more in fact like an IT plumber. To be employable as a programmer requires a fairly low threshold, but to be great at it, requires several years of professional adult apprenticeship and supervision.