I'd rather have a job like that than great pay and one I hate. I call it "pay per subjective hour." If every day feels like a week, how much money are you really making per subjective hour? As long as the pay is adequate, go with being happy.
Canoical doesn't just partner with Dell for hardware: they are investing pretty seriously in creating a platform. They have super-easy virtualization with Amazon's service, they have Landscape for managing servers and desktops remotely, and Launchpad is now a pretty mature project management platform which is available to closed-source projects for a fee.
They need a really good set of development tools (which they're starting to work on now), a tie-in to the Software Center for developers (App Store!), and, of course, more solid releases. Once they have those things, there'll be money for Canonical.
I also think that they should seriously cut down the supported software, have interested parties post the rest of the stuff to personal package archives, and concentrate on making what they have left in the core really good.
Just quoting out of context of the question. This is the whole quote from the interview:
Q: People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?
A: I think judgement matters If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it’s important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.”
The question is "Should they be?" "Shouldn't be doing it" refers to 'trusting Google,' if you look at it carefully. "Have something" and "doing it" don't really match up, though the "something" is the proper antecedent.
It doesn't matter, though, even if "it" means the thing you shouldn't be doing, because from the context it's clear that you shouldn't trust anyone with private info about wrongdoings. Keep that shit in the closet or buried under your house where it belongs.
So you didn't realize that you were broadcasting when talking to your friend on a walkie-talkie, either? It's a friggin' radio transmitter! What did you think it was doing? How else would the information get from A to B? Invisible pigeons?
1 - an 8-16GB SSD would be more than enough to hold the whole OS plus tons of apps. There's no need for them to be cached.
2 - These parts (the main OS) are the most commonly accessed during boot and use, unless you run a DB server.
3 - This is easy to set up on the partitioning screen of most distros.
FreeBSD has this feature already, which means that if there was a real call for it, the feature would have been ported over to Linux, already. I doubt there's a lot, though, since DB servers generally just cache everything in memory, and swap seems to be good enough for everything else.
Thank you. You (and people like you) are the reason I still read Slashdot comments. It seems like there used to be a lot more of you guys. Where'd the others go?;)
You know what? I have met hundreds of friends from tens of countries. I was an expat for ten years, and other expats tended to come and go every year. We used FB to organize events, and it was useful.
Still, once they left to go back home, 98% of them got the boot from my friend list because I knew that I'd never see them again. Heck, I barely saw some if them when they were in country. I once told one of them "Don't take this the wrong way, but tou're going to leave and I'm never going to see you again. Yeah, you'll want to keep in touch, but you won't and I won't, either. In effect, you're dead to me." (Ironically, I actually follow this gal's blog and we chat every once in a while -- she even visited me and stayed at my place.)
For the three or five who don't fit the mold, I've got e-mail. My gal, though... she's a Facebook stalker. She still knows what every one of them is doing, where they live, and who they are dating. She rarely talks to any of them, though.
This is all based on a startup Bash script for the client which checks for versions and alters the library path accordingly. It's for clients, not servers.
You know what? Screw this. I was defending MS and Apple in other posts, but let's actually compare:
Google bought ON2. Why? Apparently so that it can release VP8 as open source for everyone to use so that the <video> debate can be done and we can move on.
Apple? Supposedly, they're going to buy ARM. Why? So they can shut down all the competing ARM devices.
I'm through being reasonable. Google's big, but it definitely doesn't suck.
Unless others were giving the products away before Google entered the market. I can't think of a Google product that didn't have a free competitor prior.
I can't think of a Google service that didn't have a decent, free competitor before Google entered the market. I doubt Google's putting a lot of negative price pressure on the market. Nobody ever wants to pay for anything on the Internet.
Consumer Watchdog is just responding to all the massively negative press Google has bben getting lately. "Is Google the next Microsoft?" "Is Google evil?" "Is Google too big?" All the tech blogs have had articles like these in the last six months.
The members are just reading and accepting what they read. That's all.
When you want to buy another OS, and it's almost impossible. When 99.9% of all PCs sold come with MS Windows. When OEMs tell you flatly that you're going to pay for MS whether you actually get it or not, because the OEM is going to pay. When being an OEM that doesn't sell MS Windows automatically puts you in the "small fish" category that no one will ever hear of.
It's a recognized monoculture. How can you not believe it's a monopoly? In fact, it has been called that twice by the U.S. DoJ, and several times by the EU.
Further, what made MS an abusive monopoly was contracts with OEMs to sell exclusively MS. It was leveraging that monopoly to get the office suite market tied up. Then the browser market. Then the media player market. They even tried to take the console business.
Things seem better now that MS appears to have competitors in Google and Apple, and since MS has had the DoJ and the EU hold back the massive fist from it's customers that have battered person syndrome.
Windows 7 is a good product, though, and Office 2007 doesn't suck. I hear the X-Box 360 rocks, as well.
The numbers, as they stand is Google at #1 (with 65.5%), Yahoo at #2 (with 16.8%), Bing at #3 (with 11.5%), Ask.com at #4 (with 3.7%) and AOL Search at #5 (2.5%). Google and Bing both saw increases in their market share (yes, somehow Google got bigger last month) while Yahoo and Ask.com lost some marketshare. AOL Search somehow still relevant in 2010, didn’t lose or gain marketshare. [1]
That quote is from last month. I hardly see 65% as some insurmountable number. All the search engines have the same data to work with. Google has website tools. Bing should have them, too.
Some countries (the U.S.) are hugely Google -- 85% -- but some countries barely know what it is. The number one search on Google last year in Korea was for Naver, a portal / search engine. The number two result was for Daum, another portal / search engine. People in that country only use Google to get to another search engine.
Google has such computing power that there are things that normal companies can't compete effectively in -- voice recognition seems to be one. Maybe you could get Google for having too much computing power and being "too good" because of it, but I doubt any court is going to say "Hey, this is hurting the consumer" and punish Google for it.
Google's big. It's powerful. I'm still much more afraid of Facebook. There's a monopoly that 's locking people into its platform..
Anti-trust is about determining whether a company is limiting competition or using one monopoly market to leverage itself into another.
1. Google has a huge market share in search, but it's got plenty of competition, and there's nothing stopping customers from switching to that competition immediately: there's no switching cost at all.
2. Google might have a monopoly on advertising, but I don't think so. The latest numbers I can find are from Jan. '09, which put Adsense at 57%. It's probably larger than that now. Not likely to be labeled a monopoly, though.
Google has protected itself very well with the Data Liberation Project. That alone will probably scuttle any attempt to prove Google is limiting competition. There's no tying, either.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd rather have a job like that than great pay and one I hate. I call it "pay per subjective hour." If every day feels like a week, how much money are you really making per subjective hour? As long as the pay is adequate, go with being happy.
Canoical doesn't just partner with Dell for hardware: they are investing pretty seriously in creating a platform. They have super-easy virtualization with Amazon's service, they have Landscape for managing servers and desktops remotely, and Launchpad is now a pretty mature project management platform which is available to closed-source projects for a fee.
They need a really good set of development tools (which they're starting to work on now), a tie-in to the Software Center for developers (App Store!), and, of course, more solid releases. Once they have those things, there'll be money for Canonical.
I also think that they should seriously cut down the supported software, have interested parties post the rest of the stuff to personal package archives, and concentrate on making what they have left in the core really good.
Google probably just didn't want to use C, C++, or Obj-C. :P
Video. Notice that it's been cut in editing right after "I think judgement matters." No one knows what came before "If you have ...."
Just quoting out of context of the question. This is the whole quote from the interview:
Q: People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?
A: I think judgement matters If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it’s important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.”
The question is "Should they be?" "Shouldn't be doing it" refers to 'trusting Google,' if you look at it carefully. "Have something" and "doing it" don't really match up, though the "something" is the proper antecedent.
It doesn't matter, though, even if "it" means the thing you shouldn't be doing, because from the context it's clear that you shouldn't trust anyone with private info about wrongdoings. Keep that shit in the closet or buried under your house where it belongs.
So you didn't realize that you were broadcasting when talking to your friend on a walkie-talkie, either? It's a friggin' radio transmitter! What did you think it was doing? How else would the information get from A to B? Invisible pigeons?
I was adding to the GP and P posts.
1 - an 8-16GB SSD would be more than enough to hold the whole OS plus tons of apps. There's no need for them to be cached.
2 - These parts (the main OS) are the most commonly accessed during boot and use, unless you run a DB server.
3 - This is easy to set up on the partitioning screen of most distros.
FreeBSD has this feature already, which means that if there was a real call for it, the feature
would have been ported over to Linux, already. I doubt there's a lot, though, since DB servers generally just cache everything in memory, and swap seems to be good enough for everything else.
Nice snark, though.
Just put the OS on the SSD, with /tmp, /var, and /home on the HD.
Thank you. You (and people like you) are the reason I still read Slashdot comments. It seems like there used to be a lot more of you guys. Where'd the others go? ;)
You know what? I have met hundreds of friends from tens of countries. I was an expat for ten years, and other expats tended to come and go every year. We used FB to organize events, and it was useful.
Still, once they left to go back home, 98% of them got the boot from my friend list because I knew that I'd never see them again. Heck, I barely saw some if them when they were in country. I once told one of them "Don't take this the wrong way, but tou're going to leave and I'm never going to see you again. Yeah, you'll want to keep in touch, but you won't and I won't, either. In effect, you're dead to me." (Ironically, I actually follow this gal's blog and we chat every once in a while -- she even visited me and stayed at my place.)
For the three or five who don't fit the mold, I've got e-mail. My gal, though ... she's a Facebook stalker. She still knows what every one of them is doing, where they live, and who they are dating. She rarely talks to any of them, though.
I think you responded to the wrong post. I wasn't accusing Google of anything.
Ummmm. People who can hack the kernel or virtually any other package to fix your problem? Or do you have a staff of 20 elite Linux coders on staff?
This is all based on a startup Bash script for the client which checks for versions and alters the library path accordingly. It's for clients, not servers.
This was the real reason Google bought Agnilux! </wild speculation>
You know what? Screw this. I was defending MS and Apple in other posts, but let's actually compare:
Google bought ON2. Why? Apparently so that it can release VP8 as open source for everyone to use so that the <video> debate can be done and we can move on.
Apple? Supposedly, they're going to buy ARM. Why? So they can shut down all the competing ARM devices.
I'm through being reasonable. Google's big, but it definitely doesn't suck.
It's past its prime.
See my first paragraph for "what make it a monopoly" and my third paragraph for "what makes it an abusive monopoly."
You realize that site is a re-branded BoycottNovell, rigght?
Unless others were giving the products away before Google entered the market. I can't think of a Google product that didn't have a free competitor prior.
Based on the Mac vs. PC ads, I thought Apple liked being comparative. ;)
I can't think of a Google service that didn't have a decent, free competitor before Google entered the market. I doubt Google's putting a lot of negative price pressure on the market. Nobody ever wants to pay for anything on the Internet.
Consumer Watchdog is just responding to all the massively negative press Google has bben getting lately. "Is Google the next Microsoft?" "Is Google evil?" "Is Google too big?" All the tech blogs have had articles like these in the last six months.
The members are just reading and accepting what they read. That's all.
When you want to buy another OS, and it's almost impossible. When 99.9% of all PCs sold come with MS Windows. When OEMs tell you flatly that you're going to pay for MS whether you actually get it or not, because the OEM is going to pay. When being an OEM that doesn't sell MS Windows automatically puts you in the "small fish" category that no one will ever hear of.
It's a recognized monoculture. How can you not believe it's a monopoly? In fact, it has been called that twice by the U.S. DoJ, and several times by the EU.
Further, what made MS an abusive monopoly was contracts with OEMs to sell exclusively MS. It was leveraging that monopoly to get the office suite market tied up. Then the browser market. Then the media player market. They even tried to take the console business.
Things seem better now that MS appears to have competitors in Google and Apple, and since MS has had the DoJ and the EU hold back the massive fist from it's customers that have battered person syndrome.
Windows 7 is a good product, though, and Office 2007 doesn't suck. I hear the X-Box 360 rocks, as well.
The numbers, as they stand is Google at #1 (with 65.5%), Yahoo at #2 (with 16.8%), Bing at #3 (with 11.5%), Ask.com at #4 (with 3.7%) and AOL Search at #5 (2.5%). Google and Bing both saw increases in their market share (yes, somehow Google got bigger last month) while Yahoo and Ask.com lost some marketshare. AOL Search somehow still relevant in 2010, didn’t lose or gain marketshare. [1]
That quote is from last month. I hardly see 65% as some insurmountable number. All the search engines have the same data to work with. Google has website tools. Bing should have them, too.
Some countries (the U.S.) are hugely Google -- 85% -- but some countries barely know what it is. The number one search on Google last year in Korea was for Naver, a portal / search engine. The number two result was for Daum, another portal / search engine. People in that country only use Google to get to another search engine.
Google has such computing power that there are things that normal companies can't compete effectively in -- voice recognition seems to be one. Maybe you could get Google for having too much computing power and being "too good" because of it, but I doubt any court is going to say "Hey, this is hurting the consumer" and punish Google for it.
Google's big. It's powerful. I'm still much more afraid of Facebook. There's a monopoly that 's locking people into its platform..
Anti-trust is about determining whether a company is limiting competition or using one monopoly market to leverage itself into another.
1. Google has a huge market share in search, but it's got plenty of competition, and there's nothing stopping customers from switching to that competition immediately: there's no switching cost at all.
2. Google might have a monopoly on advertising, but I don't think so. The latest numbers I can find are from Jan. '09, which put Adsense at 57%. It's probably larger than that now. Not likely to be labeled a monopoly, though.
Google has protected itself very well with the Data Liberation Project. That alone will probably scuttle any attempt to prove Google is limiting competition. There's no tying, either.