There's nothing inherently "natural" about Moore's law. There is no physical constant that governs this like the speed of light or the gravitational constant. Moore's Law is a business model, plain and simple. The market will not bear technology increases faster than Moore's "Law" to maximize financial returns. It is the right "speed" to increase technology so that you get maximum return on your (the chip makers') investment before they must move on to keep ahead (or apace) with the competition. Increase the technology too fast, you have people buying farther apart as it is much easier to skip a generation. For example, if Moore's "Law" was every 12 months instead of 18, people would tend to buy every 24 months instead of 18. Increase technology too slow and someone will slip ahead of you because they are still pushing 18 month cycles.
There is no financial reason to push faster than 18 Month cycles to the commercial market. That's why Moore's Law is 18 months.
Yeah... and the only bands you will see are the ones who get large market appeal (i.e. Justin Timberlake and other bubblegum pop crap because that's the only music that has wide enough appeal to get sponsorship from large corportations). Music that is the slightest bit "edgy" or "racy" or otherwise non-mainstream will have to live on bread and water or whatever sponsor is brave enough to support them.
Read the article. It says that music stars basically have to get sponsors (like athletes here in the States) and that the sponsors usually pay for the concerts, including giving out free tickets.
But then again, who wants to get paid for anything they do? fits right in with programmers and OSS;)
So what this means is that bands will have to have corporate sponsors now... which means that they have to appeal to the masses to get sponsorship, which eliminates probably 1/2 of the bands I listen to. Talk about corporate music...
Regardless of how you code (freelance, just-for-fun, whatever), you have to pay the electric bill or your computer won't run and you can't program (or eat).
It isn't about economics class where they say that long-term, profit goes to zero. That isn't a problem because that means that you are still making money. It's just the same amount of money that it takes to pay your bills. Coding for free starts you out AT zero but you still have costs (electricity, food, if not housing, etc.)
A company giving its software to OSS basically means that they don't hope to make money directly from the sale of that software. This means that they either hope to make money off the support/training for that software or that the company's main business is not selling software.
For example, someone once posted on here about Boeing giving away code to OSS. Boeing is in business to make competitively priced airplanes and things, not software. Giving the software and source) away doesn't impact their revenue (they would have developed the software in-house anyway) UNLESS it enables a competitor to compete better with them.
OSS basically turns the computer industry into a service industry instead of a product industry. You don't sell the software, you sell the services that go along with that software (support, training, etc.)
Of course, nothing prevents anyone else from also selling services to go along with that software (I could, theoretically, also sell my services to support RedHat's distribution - as could IBM, Intel, or any other big player). The model also assumes that programmers will be able to make a living because the majority of companies will want to do in-house modifications/customizations of software they find in the OSS archives. I would be willing to see the percentage of companies that use software today (any software) who actually have salaried programmers on their payroll (or even who would want to).
Programming will become service based contract work in these models. Even if a company hired programmers to write something from scratch, as soon as it is released into the OSS archive, there is no reason to keep the programmers on the payroll unless you will need constant modification of the product. In any case, you can just keep shopping around and if others start supporting that software, you can simply terminate the contract with the original author(s) and hire the cheaper support folks.
As a programmer (and one who does contract work), OSS doesn't give me a "warm fuzzy" when I think about how steady my paychecks will appear in my mailbox. It may keep me on my toes to be as up-to-date as I can on certain technologies and to keep my costs as low as possible to constantly compete over any job scrap that comes along, but it doesn't give me any indication of how well I'll be doing financially down the road (and definitely not around retirement time).
With a company that writes/sells software, at least you have some degree of security in that as long as the company puts out good software, you'll probably have a job. In the service-programming model, you will have to compete more and more and more among a larger and larger programmer community and fight for every dollar you can get. Unless, of course, this model perpetuates the "techno-elite" atmosphere where the gulf between programmers and users gets even wider (and the entry into the techno-elite caste becomes harder and harder) - which I think it doesn't. I keep having this vision of seeing people on every street corner holding cardboard signs with hand written messages saying "Will program for electricity/food".;)
Interesting that you are quick to label me as a theist when I've given no evidence as to my beliefs.
In any case... as the other poster said, "belief" and "believe" are the operative words here.
Even for "agnostic", the definition is in terms of the (dis-)belief in the supernatural.
(both from http://www.m-w.com)
Main Entry: atheism Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m Function: noun Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god Date: 1546 1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Main Entry: 1agnostic Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g- Function: noun Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW Date: 1869 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god - agnosticism/-t&-"si-z&m/ noun
One common thing I've found though is that those who profess religion the loudest (theism or atheism - but most often atheism), is that those people are usually severely uptight and bitter.;)
If religion can be defined as "the believe that at least one diety exists", and as http://www.m-w.com tells me, atheism is "the disbelief that a diety exists", which can be stated as "the belief that no diety exists" then atheism is a religion.
Unless, of course you are telling me that the "belief" part has no bearing on the definition.;) You have to believe something, one way or the other, and to most folks, religion is the "belief" part of that.
It doesn't show usability either. When some folks think of OSS, they think of solid code but extremely poor usability (very cryptic command line, very poorly designed GUI, or whatever). It doesn't matter if a particular app *never* crashes if you can't use the damn thing, or every time you use it you get a headache trying to figure out where functionality is hidden or how to tap it.
I think the term that I learned was a "Democratic Republic".
In any case, presidential elections are not decided by popular vote. They are decided by the Electoral College. Some states have laws that say their entire Electoral College vote must be given to the winner of the popular vote (not divided as per the percentage of popular vote, etc.) and some have no qualifications like that. There was once an incident where a state's Electoral College voted against the winner of the popular vote (IIRC, this is what caused some number of states to enact those laws above).
The Electoral College is exactly why some elections are landslides when viewed by Electoral College but the popular vote is still fairly close (George H. Bush v. Clinton in 1992) USA Presidential Election Results Look at the 1960 and 1968 elections as well. And, yes, the Electoral College can result in situations like we had with Bush/Gore where the popular vote winner does not win the election.
As others have said, it is the app's problem. DLL Hell was primarily the app's problem too. Lazy programmers who don't know how security (in permissions) and/or path (for DLL Hell) work.
I could write an app on a Un*x/Linux box that would behave similarly if I wanted. In fact, I know lots of programs that won't execute unless you are root and they are intended to be that way - not just through file permissions but through userid checks. Windows doesn't have the corner on the market there.
I don't like MS Office from a usability standpoint. I always found it to be a virtual pain in the ass. I really really really like OpenOffice.org. In fact, in my business we're finding that OpenOffice.org, out of the box, solves our office productivity needs.
I'll admit, I haven't used OpenOffice (tried StarOffice ages ago when it was actually free (both kinds), it sucked back then, might be different now). I assume that it is an MSOffice clone... so... why would one be a "virtual pain in the ass" and the other not be?
Proprietary software companies have no motivation to fix bugs and add features, other than competition. Remove or limit competition in a niche and you've just signed up for bug-ridden software that always works badly, if at all.
The same can be said for some OSS. If the project is written by some folks who do it out of interest, they could lose interest and you are stuck. Of course, you *can* take the source and hire someone to work on it for you in that case, if you can afford it and/or find someone willing to mess with it. I know this because I'm guilty of losing interest in some OSS code that I helped write myself. I've turned down offers to maintain it because I have moved on to other things. I don't know if they ever got anyone to mess with it since.
(Sorry for the newb post, I post POT almost exclusively so when I switch to HTML, I almost always forget to do the breaks)
Man, just when I was giving up hope on rational discussions from the Linux community:)
There is a basis, but I agree that a lot of people throw this out there without providing the basis, and I question how well understood this basis is understood.:) It's not that hard, though. What's so hard about "You can pay your $60k/year programmers to write your own custom, standards-based solution."? Of course, there's additional complications, which is why companies are in fact *not* running out and switching immediately.
Additional complications: The company doesn't have *any* programmers, nor does it want to have to start staffing such job positions. (This is where consultants come in.) Also, there is an app that does some percentage of exactly what they want to do, already commercially available. What percentage is the threshold where you need to customize has to be determined on a site-by-site basis. Obviously, 50% is too low. Is 95% too high?
Well, Konqueror's not letting me copy the other part I'm going to respond to. Simple put, the reason I still have a windows box in my home LAN even though I'm idealistically opposed to it is because there are certain tools I need for my lifestyle (can you say Quicken? And no, the way it runs under WINE is not acceptable, I did that before) and for my career (web developers have to test in IE, period) and there aren't comparable tools available. At least, in the first case of Quicken there's nothing comparable. I am working on a solution, though, but it's gonna be awhile... In the second case, there's no substitute for testing your web pages in IE, there are only shortcuts, and I don't make money when I take a shortcut that locks out any of my clients customers.
Good reasons.
Many companies are in this situation. Not to mention that it's expensive and time-consuming to switch your underlying platform. Now, I'm not trying to apologize for any of these companies, but I do have to accept the limitations under which they work. It's just not that simple to switch. Sure, you can install Mandrake, RedHat, et al, in nothing flat and have it working out of the box. Just like Windows. But how many business solutions, even in windows, install out of the box and work? Few, if any. Migration isn't easy, and testing is complicated further by the fact that they have to test, and many problems won't appear until the system is in production. There's only so much you can find in your testing before your users get their grubby hands on it.
Enterprise solutions? few... these are more complicated and require tuning/tweeking. Other commercial (shrink wrapped) solutions? probably many... Did Quicken work for you? What about Office? What about any games you might play? (Yes, I know that Enterprise solutions and shrink wrap software aren't in the same class.)
*sigh* I *do* deep down inside me believe that Free Software (not Linux specifically) will solve many of our computer problems, and that it will help a lot more to solve the business/home problems for which it exists. But my belief isn't based on faith, it's based on the fact of the open source development model and proven time and again by various projects. But it's gonna take time before a lot of businesses can do it.
Just out of curiousity, in your estimate, what do you think the track record for commercial/proprietary business/home solutions (regardless of OS) is?
If you were to ask me what we should be doing in our "evangelism" efforts, I'd say we should keep doing what we're doing, it's working. With a couple of exceptions. Slashdot could quit posting all the anti-Microsoft FUD.:) We can quit swarming like flies to a pile of shit everytime Microsoft gets in a little hot water. We can quit trying to get people to take Free Software on Faith and instead offer strong, practical, low-cost solutions to their very serious problems. Other than that, we're making the technical arguments and we're building the software that is needed. We're doing fine.:)
Too bad more of the folks who frequent this board don't think like this. To this, I would add: Lose the arrogant attitude that anyone who thinks differently than you, or thinks that there are other perfectly acceptible solutions than Linux/OSS is contemptable. Use reason and fact in your arguments (note: "argument" doesn't mean shouting and insulting) instead of spewing what you think is "cool" and/or what you've heard other people whom you think are "cool" say. In my opinion, one of the largest issues many people have is they think that if they open the door to Linux, the zealots will come in and treat them like crap for wanting/using something other than Linux/OSS. Remember, it is *their* business, not yours. You can advise but in the end, you have to do what *they* want or you can not do it at all.
Man, just when I was giving up hope on rational discussions from the Linux community:)
There is a basis, but I agree that a lot of people throw this out there without providing the basis, and I question how well understood this basis is understood.:) It's not that hard, though. What's so hard about "You can pay your $60k/year programmers to write your own custom, standards-based solution."? Of course, there's additional complications, which is why companies are in fact *not* running out and switching immediately.
Additional complications: The company doesn't have *any* programmers, nor does it want to have to start staffing such job positions. (This is where consultants come in.) Also, there is an app that does some percentage of exactly what they want to do, already commercially available. Remember for a company, a $60k/year employee is actually costing them nearer $100k/year after tax contribution/benefits. Is there software already out there, OSS *OR* commercial/proprietary that fits the bill?
What percentage is the threshold where you need to customize has to be determined on a site-by-site basis. Obviously, 50% is too low. Is 95% too high?
Well, Konqueror's not letting me copy the other part I'm going to respond to. Simple put, the reason I still have a windows box in my home LAN even though I'm idealistically opposed to it is because there are certain tools I need for my lifestyle (can you say Quicken? And no, the way it runs under WINE is not acceptable, I did that before) and for my career (web developers have to test in IE, period) and there aren't comparable tools available. At least, in the first case of Quicken there's nothing comparable. I am working on a solution, though, but it's gonna be awhile... In the second case, there's no substitute for testing your web pages in IE, there are only shortcuts, and I don't make money when I take a shortcut that locks out any of my clients customers.
Good reasons.
Many companies are in this situation. Not to mention that it's expensive and time-consuming to switch your underlying platform. Now, I'm not trying to apologize for any of these companies, but I do have to accept the limitations under which they work. It's just not that simple to switch. Sure, you can install Mandrake, RedHat, et al, in nothing flat and have it working out of the box. Just like Windows. But how many business solutions, even in windows, install out of the box and work? Few, if any. Migration isn't easy, and testing is complicated further by the fact that they have to test, and many problems won't appear until the system is in production. There's only so much you can find in your testing before your users get their grubby hands on it.
Enterprise solutions? few... these are more complicated and require tuning/tweeking. Other commercial (shrink wrapped) solutions? probably many... Did Quicken work for you? What about Office? What about any games you might play? (Yes, I know that Enterprise solutions and shrink wrap software aren't in the same class.)
*sigh* I *do* deep down inside me believe that Free Software (not Linux specifically) will solve many of our computer problems, and that it will help a lot more to solve the business/home problems for which it exists. But my belief isn't based on faith, it's based on the fact of the open source development model and proven time and again by various projects. But it's gonna take time before a lot of businesses can do it.
Just out of curiousity, in your estimate, what do you think the track record for commercial/proprietary business/home solutions (regardless of OS) is?
If you were to ask me what we should be doing in our "evangelism" efforts, I'd say we should keep doing what we're doing, it's working. With a couple of exceptions. Slashdot could quit posting all the anti-Microsoft FUD.:) We can quit swarming like flies to a pile of shit everytime Microsoft gets in a little hot water. We can quit trying to get people to take Free Software on Faith and instead offer strong, practical, low-cost solutions to their very serious problems. Other than that, we're making the technical arguments and we're building the software that is needed. We're doing fine.:)
Too bad more of the folks who frequent this board don't think like this. To this, I would add: Lose the arrogant attitude that anyone who thinks differently than you, or thinks that there are other perfectly acceptible solutions than Linux/OSS is contemptable. Use reason and fact in your arguments (note: "argument" doesn't mean shouting and insulting) instead of spewing what you think is "cool" and/or what you've heard other people whom you think are "cool" say. In my opinion, one of the largest issues many people have is they think that if they open the door to Linux, the zealots will come in and treat them like crap for wanting/using something other than Linux/OSS. Remember, it is *their* business, not yours. You can advise but in the end, you have to do what *they* want or you can not do it at all.
Cool, good post. However, there is quite a bit of "faith" espoused by a number of folks. Specifically, they are exactly accepting something as fact without proof.
For example: "Linux will solve every problem in the computer world". On what basis is this claimed? It is predicting the future based on the ideals and evangelism of the supporters and the advocates of the OS. Linux cannot claim this any more than can any other OS.
If there were logical and specific reasons stated as to why this would truly benefit the organization to switch from OS-Ex to Linux, then that is one thing but to simply say every time that some organization is found to not use Linux that switching to Linux will solve all their problems is faith or stupidity, which is, in some cases, one and the same.
For example, what if the software for what the organization does, isn't available or simply doesn't exist on Linux. Immediately switching to Linux away from something that even marginally works would leave them dead in the water for the months it would take to get a Linux solution in place (yes, this is an extremely stupid example, I would seriously hope no one would be so stupid as to recommend this approach).
I simply get tired of anyone assuming any particular OS is the end-all/be-all for the rest of the world. (Religion)
Use what gets the job done for you. (Tool)
I've used Linux since pre-1.0. I simply have chosen not made it my religion. It gets the jobs I need done, done. For other tasks, I may use other OSs and applications - whichever one makes the task easier. I did have Linux as a religion way back in the day when I was in my late teens and early 20s, then I realized that I was being stupid. You don't have to make something a religion in order to be excited about it.
Yeah... like all that GNU stuff that comes with every Linux distribution.
Suppose that Linux and Microsoft Windows switched market shares. If I were to write a complete replacement for the GNU libraries/tools and try to make a living off it in the Un*x/Linux world, how much money do you think I'd make?
Is "ls" a part of the OS? I see the arguments on/. about GNU/Linux and such.
Why do you care what OS someone else is running? Can you do what you need to do with the tools that you use? If so, then good for you and enjoy your work. If not, then find something else that can/will do the things you need.
My needs may not be anything like yours and why are you trying to tell me what I should be running on my machine? Most folks only care that they can do what they need to do (the computer is a tool), not what other people are doing (religion).
There could be significant compiler differences. For instance, how well does gcc use SSE2/HT? 3DNow!? etc. If you don't use good compilers, then you will get criticism like "You are favoring AMD because you aren't using the advanced features of the P4 - SSE2/HT" (or vice versa).
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing inherently "natural" about Moore's law. There is no physical constant that governs this like the speed of light or the gravitational constant. Moore's Law is a business model, plain and simple. The market will not bear technology increases faster than Moore's "Law" to maximize financial returns. It is the right "speed" to increase technology so that you get maximum return on your (the chip makers') investment before they must move on to keep ahead (or apace) with the competition. Increase the technology too fast, you have people buying farther apart as it is much easier to skip a generation. For example, if Moore's "Law" was every 12 months instead of 18, people would tend to buy every 24 months instead of 18. Increase technology too slow and someone will slip ahead of you because they are still pushing 18 month cycles.
There is no financial reason to push faster than 18 Month cycles to the commercial market. That's why Moore's Law is 18 months.
Yeah... and the only bands you will see are the ones who get large market appeal (i.e. Justin Timberlake and other bubblegum pop crap because that's the only music that has wide enough appeal to get sponsorship from large corportations). Music that is the slightest bit "edgy" or "racy" or otherwise non-mainstream will have to live on bread and water or whatever sponsor is brave enough to support them.
Read the article. It says that music stars basically have to get sponsors (like athletes here in the States) and that the sponsors usually pay for the concerts, including giving out free tickets.
;)
But then again, who wants to get paid for anything they do? fits right in with programmers and OSS
So what this means is that bands will have to have corporate sponsors now... which means that they have to appeal to the masses to get sponsorship, which eliminates probably 1/2 of the bands I listen to. Talk about corporate music...
I agree with this post.
;)
Regardless of how you code (freelance, just-for-fun, whatever), you have to pay the electric bill or your computer won't run and you can't program (or eat).
It isn't about economics class where they say that long-term, profit goes to zero. That isn't a problem because that means that you are still making money. It's just the same amount of money that it takes to pay your bills. Coding for free starts you out AT zero but you still have costs (electricity, food, if not housing, etc.)
A company giving its software to OSS basically means that they don't hope to make money directly from the sale of that software. This means that they either hope to make money off the support/training for that software or that the company's main business is not selling software.
For example, someone once posted on here about Boeing giving away code to OSS. Boeing is in business to make competitively priced airplanes and things, not software. Giving the software and source) away doesn't impact their revenue (they would have developed the software in-house anyway) UNLESS it enables a competitor to compete better with them.
OSS basically turns the computer industry into a service industry instead of a product industry. You don't sell the software, you sell the services that go along with that software (support, training, etc.)
Of course, nothing prevents anyone else from also selling services to go along with that software (I could, theoretically, also sell my services to support RedHat's distribution - as could IBM, Intel, or any other big player). The model also assumes that programmers will be able to make a living because the majority of companies will want to do in-house modifications/customizations of software they find in the OSS archives. I would be willing to see the percentage of companies that use software today (any software) who actually have salaried programmers on their payroll (or even who would want to).
Programming will become service based contract work in these models. Even if a company hired programmers to write something from scratch, as soon as it is released into the OSS archive, there is no reason to keep the programmers on the payroll unless you will need constant modification of the product. In any case, you can just keep shopping around and if others start supporting that software, you can simply terminate the contract with the original author(s) and hire the cheaper support folks.
As a programmer (and one who does contract work), OSS doesn't give me a "warm fuzzy" when I think about how steady my paychecks will appear in my mailbox. It may keep me on my toes to be as up-to-date as I can on certain technologies and to keep my costs as low as possible to constantly compete over any job scrap that comes along, but it doesn't give me any indication of how well I'll be doing financially down the road (and definitely not around retirement time).
With a company that writes/sells software, at least you have some degree of security in that as long as the company puts out good software, you'll probably have a job. In the service-programming model, you will have to compete more and more and more among a larger and larger programmer community and fight for every dollar you can get. Unless, of course, this model perpetuates the "techno-elite" atmosphere where the gulf between programmers and users gets even wider (and the entry into the techno-elite caste becomes harder and harder) - which I think it doesn't. I keep having this vision of seeing people on every street corner holding cardboard signs with hand written messages saying "Will program for electricity/food".
Interesting that you are quick to label me as a theist when I've given no evidence as to my beliefs.
/-t&-"si-z&m/ noun
;)
In any case... as the other poster said, "belief" and "believe" are the operative words here.
Even for "agnostic", the definition is in terms of the (dis-)belief in the supernatural.
(both from http://www.m-w.com)
Main Entry: atheism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Main Entry: 1agnostic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
Date: 1869
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
- agnosticism
One common thing I've found though is that those who profess religion the loudest (theism or atheism - but most often atheism), is that those people are usually severely uptight and bitter.
If religion can be defined as "the believe that at least one diety exists", and as http://www.m-w.com tells me, atheism is "the disbelief that a diety exists", which can be stated as "the belief that no diety exists" then atheism is a religion.
;) You have to believe something, one way or the other, and to most folks, religion is the "belief" part of that.
Unless, of course you are telling me that the "belief" part has no bearing on the definition.
I'd mod this one up if I could :(
I'd do the same.
It doesn't show usability either. When some folks think of OSS, they think of solid code but extremely poor usability (very cryptic command line, very poorly designed GUI, or whatever). It doesn't matter if a particular app *never* crashes if you can't use the damn thing, or every time you use it you get a headache trying to figure out where functionality is hidden or how to tap it.
I bet the OSS folks funded this study! :)
(If you don't know what ":)" is, go look it up before replying.)
Windows NT 3.1 supported multiple processors.
Jennifer Anniston is plain? I think she is a mass hottie.
Law of Diminishing Returns maybe?
LOL
I think the term that I learned was a "Democratic Republic".
In any case, presidential elections are not decided by popular vote. They are decided by the Electoral College. Some states have laws that say their entire Electoral College vote must be given to the winner of the popular vote (not divided as per the percentage of popular vote, etc.) and some have no qualifications like that. There was once an incident where a state's Electoral College voted against the winner of the popular vote (IIRC, this is what caused some number of states to enact those laws above).
The Electoral College is exactly why some elections are landslides when viewed by Electoral College but the popular vote is still fairly close (George H. Bush v. Clinton in 1992) USA Presidential Election Results Look at the 1960 and 1968 elections as well. And, yes, the Electoral College can result in situations like we had with Bush/Gore where the popular vote winner does not win the election.
Sounded the same in both posts to me.
As others have said, it is the app's problem. DLL Hell was primarily the app's problem too. Lazy programmers who don't know how security (in permissions) and/or path (for DLL Hell) work.
I could write an app on a Un*x/Linux box that would behave similarly if I wanted. In fact, I know lots of programs that won't execute unless you are root and they are intended to be that way - not just through file permissions but through userid checks. Windows doesn't have the corner on the market there.
I hope they make their way into desktop machines with bioses that allow for the agressive power management.... passive cooling anyone?
I don't like MS Office from a usability standpoint. I always found it to be a virtual pain in the ass. I really really really like OpenOffice.org. In fact, in my business we're finding that OpenOffice.org, out of the box, solves our office productivity needs.
:)
I'll admit, I haven't used OpenOffice (tried StarOffice ages ago when it was actually free (both kinds), it sucked back then, might be different now). I assume that it is an MSOffice clone... so... why would one be a "virtual pain in the ass" and the other not be?
Proprietary software companies have no motivation to fix bugs and add features, other than competition. Remove or limit competition in a niche and you've just signed up for bug-ridden software that always works badly, if at all.
The same can be said for some OSS. If the project is written by some folks who do it out of interest, they could lose interest and you are stuck. Of course, you *can* take the source and hire someone to work on it for you in that case, if you can afford it and/or find someone willing to mess with it. I know this because I'm guilty of losing interest in some OSS code that I helped write myself. I've turned down offers to maintain it because I have moved on to other things. I don't know if they ever got anyone to mess with it since.
I think I remembered the breaks this time
(Sorry for the newb post, I post POT almost exclusively so when I switch to HTML, I almost always forget to do the breaks)
:)
:) It's not that hard, though. What's so hard about "You can pay your $60k/year programmers to write your own custom, standards-based solution."? Of course, there's additional complications, which is why companies are in fact *not* running out and switching immediately.
:) We can quit swarming like flies to a pile of shit everytime Microsoft gets in a little hot water. We can quit trying to get people to take Free Software on Faith and instead offer strong, practical, low-cost solutions to their very serious problems. Other than that, we're making the technical arguments and we're building the software that is needed. We're doing fine. :)
Man, just when I was giving up hope on rational discussions from the Linux community
There is a basis, but I agree that a lot of people throw this out there without providing the basis, and I question how well understood this basis is understood.
Additional complications: The company doesn't have *any* programmers, nor does it want to have to start staffing such job positions. (This is where consultants come in.) Also, there is an app that does some percentage of exactly what they want to do, already commercially available. What percentage is the threshold where you need to customize has to be determined on a site-by-site basis. Obviously, 50% is too low. Is 95% too high?
Well, Konqueror's not letting me copy the other part I'm going to respond to. Simple put, the reason I still have a windows box in my home LAN even though I'm idealistically opposed to it is because there are certain tools I need for my lifestyle (can you say Quicken? And no, the way it runs under WINE is not acceptable, I did that before) and for my career (web developers have to test in IE, period) and there aren't comparable tools available. At least, in the first case of Quicken there's nothing comparable. I am working on a solution, though, but it's gonna be awhile... In the second case, there's no substitute for testing your web pages in IE, there are only shortcuts, and I don't make money when I take a shortcut that locks out any of my clients customers.
Good reasons.
Many companies are in this situation. Not to mention that it's expensive and time-consuming to switch your underlying platform. Now, I'm not trying to apologize for any of these companies, but I do have to accept the limitations under which they work. It's just not that simple to switch. Sure, you can install Mandrake, RedHat, et al, in nothing flat and have it working out of the box. Just like Windows. But how many business solutions, even in windows, install out of the box and work? Few, if any. Migration isn't easy, and testing is complicated further by the fact that they have to test, and many problems won't appear until the system is in production. There's only so much you can find in your testing before your users get their grubby hands on it.
Enterprise solutions? few... these are more complicated and require tuning/tweeking. Other commercial (shrink wrapped) solutions? probably many... Did Quicken work for you? What about Office? What about any games you might play? (Yes, I know that Enterprise solutions and shrink wrap software aren't in the same class.)
*sigh* I *do* deep down inside me believe that Free Software (not Linux specifically) will solve many of our computer problems, and that it will help a lot more to solve the business/home problems for which it exists. But my belief isn't based on faith, it's based on the fact of the open source development model and proven time and again by various projects. But it's gonna take time before a lot of businesses can do it.
Just out of curiousity, in your estimate, what do you think the track record for commercial/proprietary business/home solutions (regardless of OS) is?
If you were to ask me what we should be doing in our "evangelism" efforts, I'd say we should keep doing what we're doing, it's working. With a couple of exceptions. Slashdot could quit posting all the anti-Microsoft FUD.
Too bad more of the folks who frequent this board don't think like this. To this, I would add: Lose the arrogant attitude that anyone who thinks differently than you, or thinks that there are other perfectly acceptible solutions than Linux/OSS is contemptable. Use reason and fact in your arguments (note: "argument" doesn't mean shouting and insulting) instead of spewing what you think is "cool" and/or what you've heard other people whom you think are "cool" say. In my opinion, one of the largest issues many people have is they think that if they open the door to Linux, the zealots will come in and treat them like crap for wanting/using something other than Linux/OSS. Remember, it is *their* business, not yours. You can advise but in the end, you have to do what *they* want or you can not do it at all.
Man, just when I was giving up hope on rational discussions from the Linux community :)
There is a basis, but I agree that a lot of people throw this out there without providing the basis, and I question how well understood this basis is understood. :) It's not that hard, though. What's so hard about "You can pay your $60k/year programmers to write your own custom, standards-based solution."? Of course, there's additional complications, which is why companies are in fact *not* running out and switching immediately.
Additional complications: The company doesn't have *any* programmers, nor does it want to have to start staffing such job positions. (This is where consultants come in.) Also, there is an app that does some percentage of exactly what they want to do, already commercially available. Remember for a company, a $60k/year employee is actually costing them nearer $100k/year after tax contribution/benefits. Is there software already out there, OSS *OR* commercial/proprietary that fits the bill?
What percentage is the threshold where you need to customize has to be determined on a site-by-site basis. Obviously, 50% is too low. Is 95% too high?
Well, Konqueror's not letting me copy the other part I'm going to respond to. Simple put, the reason I still have a windows box in my home LAN even though I'm idealistically opposed to it is because there are certain tools I need for my lifestyle (can you say Quicken? And no, the way it runs under WINE is not acceptable, I did that before) and for my career (web developers have to test in IE, period) and there aren't comparable tools available. At least, in the first case of Quicken there's nothing comparable. I am working on a solution, though, but it's gonna be awhile... In the second case, there's no substitute for testing your web pages in IE, there are only shortcuts, and I don't make money when I take a shortcut that locks out any of my clients customers.
Good reasons.
Many companies are in this situation. Not to mention that it's expensive and time-consuming to switch your underlying platform. Now, I'm not trying to apologize for any of these companies, but I do have to accept the limitations under which they work. It's just not that simple to switch. Sure, you can install Mandrake, RedHat, et al, in nothing flat and have it working out of the box. Just like Windows. But how many business solutions, even in windows, install out of the box and work? Few, if any. Migration isn't easy, and testing is complicated further by the fact that they have to test, and many problems won't appear until the system is in production. There's only so much you can find in your testing before your users get their grubby hands on it.
Enterprise solutions? few... these are more complicated and require tuning/tweeking. Other commercial (shrink wrapped) solutions? probably many... Did Quicken work for you? What about Office? What about any games you might play? (Yes, I know that Enterprise solutions and shrink wrap software aren't in the same class.)
*sigh* I *do* deep down inside me believe that Free Software (not Linux specifically) will solve many of our computer problems, and that it will help a lot more to solve the business/home problems for which it exists. But my belief isn't based on faith, it's based on the fact of the open source development model and proven time and again by various projects. But it's gonna take time before a lot of businesses can do it.
Just out of curiousity, in your estimate, what do you think the track record for commercial/proprietary business/home solutions (regardless of OS) is?
If you were to ask me what we should be doing in our "evangelism" efforts, I'd say we should keep doing what we're doing, it's working. With a couple of exceptions. Slashdot could quit posting all the anti-Microsoft FUD. :) We can quit swarming like flies to a pile of shit everytime Microsoft gets in a little hot water. We can quit trying to get people to take Free Software on Faith and instead offer strong, practical, low-cost solutions to their very serious problems. Other than that, we're making the technical arguments and we're building the software that is needed. We're doing fine. :)
Too bad more of the folks who frequent this board don't think like this. To this, I would add: Lose the arrogant attitude that anyone who thinks differently than you, or thinks that there are other perfectly acceptible solutions than Linux/OSS is contemptable. Use reason and fact in your arguments (note: "argument" doesn't mean shouting and insulting) instead of spewing what you think is "cool" and/or what you've heard other people whom you think are "cool" say. In my opinion, one of the largest issues many people have is they think that if they open the door to Linux, the zealots will come in and treat them like crap for wanting/using something other than Linux/OSS. Remember, it is *their* business, not yours. You can advise but in the end, you have to do what *they* want or you can not do it at all.
Cool, good post. However, there is quite a bit of "faith" espoused by a number of folks. Specifically, they are exactly accepting something as fact without proof.
For example: "Linux will solve every problem in the computer world". On what basis is this claimed? It is predicting the future based on the ideals and evangelism of the supporters and the advocates of the OS. Linux cannot claim this any more than can any other OS.
If there were logical and specific reasons stated as to why this would truly benefit the organization to switch from OS-Ex to Linux, then that is one thing but to simply say every time that some organization is found to not use Linux that switching to Linux will solve all their problems is faith or stupidity, which is, in some cases, one and the same.
For example, what if the software for what the organization does, isn't available or simply doesn't exist on Linux. Immediately switching to Linux away from something that even marginally works would leave them dead in the water for the months it would take to get a Linux solution in place (yes, this is an extremely stupid example, I would seriously hope no one would be so stupid as to recommend this approach).
Same with Linux Lemmings.
I simply get tired of anyone assuming any particular OS is the end-all/be-all for the rest of the world. (Religion)
Use what gets the job done for you. (Tool)
I've used Linux since pre-1.0. I simply have chosen not made it my religion. It gets the jobs I need done, done. For other tasks, I may use other OSs and applications - whichever one makes the task easier. I did have Linux as a religion way back in the day when I was in my late teens and early 20s, then I realized that I was being stupid. You don't have to make something a religion in order to be excited about it.
Yeah... like all that GNU stuff that comes with every Linux distribution.
/. about GNU/Linux and such.
Suppose that Linux and Microsoft Windows switched market shares. If I were to write a complete replacement for the GNU libraries/tools and try to make a living off it in the Un*x/Linux world, how much money do you think I'd make?
Is "ls" a part of the OS? I see the arguments on
Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing.
Why do you care what OS someone else is running? Can you do what you need to do with the tools that you use? If so, then good for you and enjoy your work. If not, then find something else that can/will do the things you need.
My needs may not be anything like yours and why are you trying to tell me what I should be running on my machine? Most folks only care that they can do what they need to do (the computer is a tool), not what other people are doing (religion).
There could be significant compiler differences. For instance, how well does gcc use SSE2/HT? 3DNow!? etc. If you don't use good compilers, then you will get criticism like "You are favoring AMD because you aren't using the advanced features of the P4 - SSE2/HT" (or vice versa).
Benchmarking is tough to do "fairly".