> It suits SCO and their Redmond Muppet-masters to disparage the Open Source community, which is why we see pejoratives like "Communist," "Hacker" and "Anti-American" emanating from them at every opportunity.
Then maybe we should start associating SCO with its own set of synonyms;
Enron, Fraudulent, Criminal,...
You get the idea.
Best thing is simply to educate people with the truth and SCO will be defeated clean and simple.
I'm all for claiming that this particular virus was written by a Linux zealot so we can claim that the dozens of other viruses before were written by Windows zealots.
There seem to be a lot more Windows zealots...
So now we can claim that Windows is the root of all evil, and of course Windows == terrorism
I love how these anti-Linux FUDs always backfire and end up making people realize that Linux is so much better than Windows on so many levels.
You're right about these things being political issues.
The only problem is that it has spilled out of the political arena into the public arena and as you alluded, the public don't have a history of deciding what is best (long-term) for themselves. I suppose that's why government is a necessary evil.
I used the Statue of Liberty to highlight your point before you even had a chance to make it in a way:
What good is it for peoples to hate each other because of their government's decisions?
In closing, I'd just like to say that I truly feel that waging war is the greatest crime governments can perpetrate against their own people.
I'm not saying there are no just wars.
Just that in a lot of cases wars are used by governments to manipulate their own population. We've certainly seen examples of that in the last few decades.
Thanks for taking the time to read and respond so thoughtfully.
Linux is just easier to play around IN for people who like to do that sort of thing. Windows, being closed-source makes it much harder.
And as far as Microsoft making you productive immediately, check out the Knoppix project; it boots off a CD, and puts you in a graphical environment with a lot of quality apps instantly, even faster than installing Windows.
For some, DOS is fine. It's only a question of using the right platform fro your computing needs.
I find that Linux is very appropriate for engineers or serious computer users because of its flexibility.
Of course, Dell or some other OEM could conceivably sell systems pre-installed with Linux, as installation and configuration seem to me to be the biggest hurdles, and then you could see home linux users just using Linux and seeing its benefits too.
I think the 200$ Wal-Mart Lindows PC was a step in that direction. I may have some details wrong though.
If Dot Net isn't just MS's take on Java, what is it then?
I suppose I should have been more precise; C# is Microsoft's J++ attempt to subvert Java, realized without their being the pesky Sun-regulated "Java" name applied to it.
Same embrace, extend and obfuscate technique MS has used for years.
It works basically the same; a virtual machine to run the Dot Net apps...
It's syntax is almost identical to Java's.
It's runtime library is almost identical.
Have you ever programmed in either Java or C# ?
I have, and it certainly feels to me like C# is copied from Java.
> How long will it be before parts of the.Net Web Services XML formats are proprietary as well?
It is shocking when you consider.NET is really only MS's J++, but renamed "Dot Net".
When Sun won in their Java suit against Microsoft, no one expected Microsoft would simply take their offending product, make it even MORE pure-Java un-compliant rename it "Dot Net" and come back charging with it.
The answer is simple:
Dot Net - Just say NO.
Bah, no real worries here, Microsoft is already dead and they just don't know it. The only real problem is all the damage they'll try and cause on the way down.
We have to mobilize our OWN lobbyists and stop Microsoft from strangling the U.S.'s I.T. industry!
You're probably right that SCO will just discard his letter, but look at what effect it has had:
A typical company calls SCO's bluff and the story gets picked up by a few news services.
It ends up reaching an unknown number of clueless bosses who were sitting on the fence concerning Linux because they were afraid that SCO's claim might be legit.
The clueless bosses think to themselves "Hey, if Just Sports told SCO to take a running jump, maybe we can save the Windows license fees by running Linux like my techs wanted to do..."
The more companies get the word out like this one did, the less power SCO's farce will have on the rest.
If you strut around like if you own the place and no one challenges you, then eventually people start to believe that you really do own the place.
I believe elsewhere in the thread, some have compared SCO to a playground bully, and from personal experience, I KNOW that the only way to get a bully to lay off of you is to give him a bloody nose.
Oh you may get beat to a pulp for it, but the bully won't bother you anymore afterwards, instead s/he will go off and look for other victims that don't stand up for themselves.
So if everyone punches SCO in the face for their affront, the whole thing WILL go away quicker than a rat caught raiding the cheese.
You know what? I disagree with your "just ignore SCO" policy.
It seems to me that Just Sports CALLED SCO'S BLUFF
And that's exactly the best way to get rid of the posturing buffoon SCO is.
Anything else lends them an air of credibility and permits Darl or whoever to issue more press releases stating that their claim is being addressed by their victims.
Remember silence is consent.
Stand to arms, FIRE! (at SCO's retreating backside)
>By starting it from scratch, you can keep your mistakes in mind, and make better and more efficient software.
>Sure, there are chances of running into new bugs, but isn't that what the whole learning process is about?
But is it fair to expect clients to pay for it? Granted they will be getting BETTER code, but if the old one isn't broken in any major way, it just seems excessive to me to make them pay for it...
Personally, I think this was one of the things wrong with the dot-com boom, where there were a bunch of little kids, fresh out of school, squandering the project budgets by being paid professional salaries but only delivering inferior product.
Of course I won't lump ALL young developers into that category, because for some, it remains a calling, but it just seems that there were far too many in the milieu that were only there because it was the current "hot" career, and not at all about computer science.
I read some time ago that a study had been done where they took a group of hyperactive children, and put them on a very strict diet of natural foods (the four basic food-groups WITHOUT preservatives or dyes or any other additives) and the kids hyperactivity cleared right up.
Think about it; we ingest A LOT of chemicals in our diet these days, much more than a few generations ago, when this problem was non-existent.
I'm not saying that this is THE cure, but don't you think ou should at least check it out before subjecting her young, developing mind to even MORE drugs?
And this means NO cheating, ie. "snacks" or "treats" have to be out of the question.
By pushing back the date they discontinue support for Win98, Microsoft may in fact prevent people from switching to a free alternative like Linux, but at the same time it means that they'll have to make certain that their newer application suites still work on Win98, and that will prevent MS from using new, undocumented operating-system "features" in their products for a while.
If their APIs stay stable, then the Wine development group will catch up to them, and it'll be an even bigger incentive to run the MS application suites on Linux!
Face it, Microsoft, you're a dodo-bird, an evolutionary dead-end, and no amount of effort is going to change that.
You don't have to try to convince me that Windows has gotten more stable.
It has, and right now, it IS pretty stable.
I've run every version of Windows since Windows/286 (yep, there really was a version called that) on a huge diversity of hardware and I can attest to the fact that Windows 2000 is the most stable version of Windows EVER.
WindowsXP on the other hand has slipped back down the slope on many points, in my opinion.
As a matter of fact, I ran Windows right up until a month ago!
Here's why
One fine morning, my computer kept rebooting itself or it would simply shut itself off randomly. I would power the computer ON, and it would start booting, but even before the operating system would finish loading, it would turn itself off again.
Hardware problem... I should have guessed immediately that the problem was the power-supply, but I didn't.
Instead, I brought the computer to a nearby computer shop.
Once at the store, the technician and I removed hard-disks and adapter cards, anything that might be causing the problem.
We'd remove a card or disk and then power-on to see if the computer would boot.
Then we'd put back whatever piece we had removed and check another.
Finally, after figuring out that the power-supply was fluctuating, we replaced it and the computer powered-on reliably again.
Only before I could log into my user account, a messagebox popped up and announced
"The hardware on this computer has changed too much, Windows must be re-activated, do this now?" with a yes/no choice.
Choosing "no" only brought me back to the same dialog.
At this point, my options were either
- Boot Windows in SAFE MODE and WITHOUT network support (and do what, exactly?!?) or - Re-activate Windows
I tried re-activating Windows, but even though the computer had a network card and a net connection, it couldn't contact Microsoft.
It might be because we had removed the network card during one of the boots and Windows removed the drivers, or there might be a bug in the XP activation scheme, I don't know and quite frankly, by that point I didn't care anymore.
I had been thinking about dumping Windows for a while, and this was the straw that broke the camel's back.
I was angry that this product (Windows XP) couldn't be relied on.
What's worse, it could compound my problems when a harware fault happened!
I was outraged at Microsoft! Their bad design had locked me out of my data, and RIGHT when my system hardware failed!
That was the moment I decided that I could never trust Microsoft again, they were obviously more concerned with trying to wring every cent they can out of their user's pockets than they are with building software, otherwise why this stupid activation scheme?
In fact, it now seems that they think of their software only as a method to wring money out of consumers.
But you know, the universe does have a sense of humor, because it never closes a door without opening another one:
One of the technicians at the store mentioned Knoppix as a way to recover my data. I had heard about Knoppix before (on Slashdot, actually), but I had never tried it.
So I went home with the Knoppix CD, booted my dead computer with it and transfered my files over my home network.
I was blown away by Knoppix: It was useful, stable, simple and even gorgeous!
After that, I lived on Knoppix for a few weeks while I evaluated which Linux was right for me.
I thought Debian would be the one, as it's the base for Knoppix and certainly a quality project, but in the end I chose Gentoo.
I chose the Gentoo Stage-1 installation, which compiled GCC specifically for my chip (Athlon-XP 2400) and then build the rest of the kernel with this optimized-for-my-chip compiler.
The result is that I now have a kernel that is perfectly optimized for my specific hardware.
You should instead buy Microsoft Windows, and employ MS-certified technicians to take care of your installation.
Of course these techs *can't* really know ANYTHING about the solution they are providing support on, because Microsoft never documents adequately, but they CAN perform repetitive tasks, like rebooting the server when it crashes.
On the other hand, if you start to employ Linux professionals, who have access to newsgroups, developers and the source-code for the system they are maintaining, they'll only become MORE knowlegeable as time goes by, because of Linux's transparency.
When the chips are down, who do you want around? A monkey that can only say "I'll call MS-tech support, and they *might* get back to me" or someone who REALLY understands how the system works and can dive in and fix the problem?
How long before we start investing in solutions that will profit US, not just Microsoft?
My apologies if I have lumped all MS-Certified technicians in a pile labeled "monkeys", but for the majority, it is true.
Slashdot Mirror
> It suits SCO and their Redmond Muppet-masters to disparage the Open Source community, which is why we see pejoratives like "Communist," "Hacker" and "Anti-American" emanating from them at every opportunity.
...
Then maybe we should start associating SCO with its own set of synonyms;
Enron, Fraudulent, Criminal,
You get the idea.
Best thing is simply to educate people with the truth and SCO will be defeated clean and simple.
I'm all for claiming that this particular virus was written by a Linux zealot so we can claim that the dozens of other viruses before were written by Windows zealots.
There seem to be a lot more Windows zealots...
So now we can claim that Windows is the root of all evil, and of course
Windows == terrorism
I love how these anti-Linux FUDs always backfire and end up making people realize that Linux is so much better than Windows on so many levels.
Sorry for the zealotry!
You make it sound like if there were no viruses before this whole SCO debacle happened.
The world is quite used to their Windows machines getting infected. This time is exactly the same.
Who's SCO, anyway? Nobody anybody is interested in.
Don't worry about it; it's a WINDOWS virus, not a Linux virus, THAT'S the thing to point out.
>these types of attacks give a bad name to OSS and the Linux community.
Windows had a bad reputation for viruses way before this started.
This has nothing to do with Linux.
It has more to do with how unsecure Windows is.
Darl should sue Microsoft... Wait, he can't sue the people funding his "steal linux" endeavour, can he?
Anyhow, the majority of the world hasn't got a clue about SCO or the lies they are spreading.
This will be perceived as just another Windows virus.
>Now Darl seems to have some credibility with the Linux == terrorism threat.
No, he doesn't; it's a Windows virus, not a Linux virus.
Windows == terrorism
Proof that Windows is a danger to national and economic security.
Your wording is clear enough.
You're right about these things being political issues.
The only problem is that it has spilled out of the political arena into the public arena and as you alluded, the public don't have a history of deciding what is best (long-term) for themselves. I suppose that's why government is a necessary evil.
I used the Statue of Liberty to highlight your point before you even had a chance to make it in a way:
What good is it for peoples to hate each other because of their government's decisions?
In closing, I'd just like to say that I truly feel that waging war is the greatest crime governments can perpetrate against their own people.
I'm not saying there are no just wars.
Just that in a lot of cases wars are used by governments to manipulate their own population. We've certainly seen examples of that in the last few decades.
Thanks for taking the time to read and respond so thoughtfully.
Nope, not elitism.
Linux is just easier to play around IN for people who like to do that sort of thing. Windows, being closed-source makes it much harder.
And as far as Microsoft making you productive immediately, check out the Knoppix project; it boots off a CD, and puts you in a graphical environment with a lot of quality apps instantly, even faster than installing Windows.
For some, DOS is fine.
It's only a question of using the right platform fro your computing needs.
I find that Linux is very appropriate for engineers or serious computer users because of its flexibility.
Of course, Dell or some other OEM could conceivably sell systems pre-installed with Linux, as installation and configuration seem to me to be the biggest hurdles, and then you could see home linux users just using Linux and seeing its benefits too.
I think the 200$ Wal-Mart Lindows PC was a step in that direction. I may have some details wrong though.
If the U.S. hates the french so much, they should dynamite the Statue of Liberty, because that was a gift from the french to the U.S.
It would serve the french and the americans right!
See how stupid all this french or american bashing is?
Grow up, people.
Good point.
I wonder if Sun would try to patent everything it rips off of its competitors.
Probably.
I know I sound like an MS-basher, and to some degree, I suppose I am.
What's my point?
That like they did with Java, Microsoft is attemting to hijack open technology and wrest it out of the hands of the people.
Just that.
If Dot Net isn't just MS's take on Java, what is it then?
I suppose I should have been more precise; C# is Microsoft's J++ attempt to subvert Java, realized without their being the pesky Sun-regulated "Java" name applied to it.
Same embrace, extend and obfuscate technique MS has used for years.
It works basically the same; a virtual machine to run the Dot Net apps...
It's syntax is almost identical to Java's.
It's runtime library is almost identical.
Have you ever programmed in either Java or C# ?
I have, and it certainly feels to me like C# is copied from Java.
> How long will it be before parts of the
It is shocking when you consider
When Sun won in their Java suit against Microsoft, no one expected Microsoft would simply take their offending product, make it even MORE pure-Java un-compliant rename it "Dot Net" and come back charging with it.
The answer is simple:
Dot Net - Just say NO.
Bah, no real worries here, Microsoft is already dead and they just don't know it. The only real problem is all the damage they'll try and cause on the way down.
We have to mobilize our OWN lobbyists and stop Microsoft from strangling the U.S.'s I.T. industry!
You're probably right that SCO will just discard his letter, but look at what effect it has had:
A typical company calls SCO's bluff and the story gets picked up by a few news services.
It ends up reaching an unknown number of clueless bosses who were sitting on the fence concerning Linux because they were afraid that SCO's claim might be legit.
The clueless bosses think to themselves "Hey, if Just Sports told SCO to take a running jump, maybe we can save the Windows license fees by running Linux like my techs wanted to do..."
The more companies get the word out like this one did, the less power SCO's farce will have on the rest.
'course!
If you strut around like if you own the place and no one challenges you, then eventually people start to believe that you really do own the place.
I believe elsewhere in the thread, some have compared SCO to a playground bully, and from personal experience, I KNOW that the only way to get a bully to lay off of you is to give him a bloody nose.
Oh you may get beat to a pulp for it, but the bully won't bother you anymore afterwards, instead s/he will go off and look for other victims that don't stand up for themselves.
So if everyone punches SCO in the face for their affront, the whole thing WILL go away quicker than a rat caught raiding the cheese.
SCO, rats... Sort of truthful there I think.
You know what? I disagree with your "just ignore SCO" policy.
It seems to me that Just Sports CALLED SCO'S BLUFF
And that's exactly the best way to get rid of the posturing buffoon SCO is.
Anything else lends them an air of credibility and permits Darl or whoever to issue more press releases stating that their claim is being addressed by their victims.
Remember silence is consent.
Stand to arms, FIRE! (at SCO's retreating backside)
Micrsoft don't matter anymore.
They had a flat quarter, last financial period.
They'll cease to be a problem and have any influence, if we just hurry up and ignore them.
And by that I mean start all new projects EXCLUDING Microsoft technologies.
When their shareholders see MS tanking and open-source companies going up, they'll simply jump ship.
Remember, NOBODY loves Micrsoft, and when they stop being profitable, no one will miss them.
ALERT! Everyone! sell your SCOX shares or there go your profits!!!
The potato famine was caused by a micro-organism, and code-red was caused by a virus...
;-)
you're right, they're not similar at all.
>By starting it from scratch, you can keep your mistakes in mind, and make better and more efficient software.
>Sure, there are chances of running into new bugs, but isn't that what the whole learning process is about?
But is it fair to expect clients to pay for it?
Granted they will be getting BETTER code, but if the old one isn't broken in any major way, it just seems excessive to me to make them pay for it...
Personally, I think this was one of the things wrong with the dot-com boom, where there were a bunch of little kids, fresh out of school, squandering the project budgets by being paid professional salaries but only delivering inferior product.
Of course I won't lump ALL young developers into that category, because for some, it remains a calling, but it just seems that there were far too many in the milieu that were only there because it was the current "hot" career, and not at all about computer science.
Actually, I'm not advocating against neurofeedback training, which is non-invasive, I'm sure.
I was referring more to her ongiong use of Ritalin and her parent's willingness to seemingly try ANYTHING, even chemical.
I read some time ago that a study had been done where they took a group of hyperactive children, and put them on a very strict diet of natural foods (the four basic food-groups WITHOUT preservatives or dyes or any other additives) and the kids hyperactivity cleared right up.
Think about it; we ingest A LOT of chemicals in our diet these days, much more than a few generations ago, when this problem was non-existent.
I'm not saying that this is THE cure, but don't you think ou should at least check it out before subjecting her young, developing mind to even MORE drugs?
And this means NO cheating, ie. "snacks" or "treats" have to be out of the question.
Good luck, may your daughter find peace.
It'll just be a case of the original developers stepping forward, like last time and it'll end, finally.
By pushing back the date they discontinue support for Win98, Microsoft may in fact prevent people from switching to a free alternative like Linux, but at the same time it means that they'll have to make certain that their newer application suites still work on Win98, and that will prevent MS from using new, undocumented operating-system "features" in their products for a while.
If their APIs stay stable, then the Wine development group will catch up to them, and it'll be an even bigger incentive to run the MS application suites on Linux!
Face it, Microsoft, you're a dodo-bird, an evolutionary dead-end, and no amount of effort is going to change that.
You don't have to try to convince me that Windows has gotten more stable.
It has, and right now, it IS pretty stable.
I've run every version of Windows since Windows/286 (yep, there really was a version called that) on a huge diversity of hardware and I can attest to the fact that Windows 2000 is the most stable version of Windows EVER.
WindowsXP on the other hand has slipped back down the slope on many points, in my opinion.
As a matter of fact, I ran Windows right up until a month ago!
Here's why
One fine morning, my computer kept rebooting itself or it would simply shut itself off randomly. I would power the computer ON, and it would start booting, but even before the operating system would finish loading, it would turn itself off again.
Hardware problem... I should have guessed immediately that the problem was the power-supply, but I didn't.
Instead, I brought the computer to a nearby computer shop.
Once at the store, the technician and I removed hard-disks and adapter cards, anything that might be causing the problem.
We'd remove a card or disk and then power-on to see if the computer would boot.
Then we'd put back whatever piece we had removed and check another.
Finally, after figuring out that the power-supply was fluctuating, we replaced it and the computer powered-on reliably again.
Only before I could log into my user account, a messagebox popped up and announced
"The hardware on this computer has changed too much, Windows must be re-activated, do this now?" with a yes/no choice.
Choosing "no" only brought me back to the same dialog.
At this point, my options were either
- Boot Windows in SAFE MODE and WITHOUT network support (and do what, exactly?!?)
or
- Re-activate Windows
I tried re-activating Windows, but even though the computer had a network card and a net connection, it couldn't contact Microsoft.
It might be because we had removed the network card during one of the boots and Windows removed the drivers, or there might be a bug in the XP activation scheme, I don't know and quite frankly, by that point I didn't care anymore.
I had been thinking about dumping Windows for a while, and this was the straw that broke the camel's back.
I was angry that this product (Windows XP) couldn't be relied on.
What's worse, it could compound my problems when a harware fault happened!
I was outraged at Microsoft! Their bad design had locked me out of my data, and RIGHT when my system hardware failed!
That was the moment I decided that I could never trust Microsoft again, they were obviously more concerned with trying to wring every cent they can out of their user's pockets than they are with building software, otherwise why this stupid activation scheme?
In fact, it now seems that they think of their software only as a method to wring money out of consumers.
But you know, the universe does have a sense of humor, because it never closes a door without opening another one:
One of the technicians at the store mentioned Knoppix as a way to recover my data. I had heard about Knoppix before (on Slashdot, actually), but I had never tried it.
So I went home with the Knoppix CD, booted my dead computer with it and transfered my files over my home network.
I was blown away by Knoppix: It was useful, stable, simple and even gorgeous!
After that, I lived on Knoppix for a few weeks while I evaluated which Linux was right for me.
I thought Debian would be the one, as it's the base for Knoppix and certainly a quality project, but in the end I chose Gentoo.
I chose the Gentoo Stage-1 installation, which compiled GCC specifically for my chip (Athlon-XP 2400) and then build the rest of the kernel with this optimized-for-my-chip compiler.
The result is that I now have a kernel that is perfectly optimized for my specific hardware.
Even my DRIVERS have been compiled to
You're right, Linux is NOT free.
You should instead buy Microsoft Windows, and employ MS-certified technicians to take care of your installation.
Of course these techs *can't* really know ANYTHING about the solution they are providing support on, because Microsoft never documents adequately, but they CAN perform repetitive tasks, like rebooting the server when it crashes.
On the other hand, if you start to employ Linux professionals, who have access to newsgroups, developers and the source-code for the system they are maintaining, they'll only become MORE knowlegeable as time goes by, because of Linux's transparency.
When the chips are down, who do you want around? A monkey that can only say "I'll call MS-tech support, and they *might* get back to me" or someone who REALLY understands how the system works and can dive in and fix the problem?
How long before we start investing in solutions that will profit US, not just Microsoft?
My apologies if I have lumped all MS-Certified technicians in a pile labeled "monkeys", but for the majority, it is true.