Dude, Spindler was nowhere near as ineffectual or just plain bad for Apple as was Gil Amelio. Apple did great things (in spite of) Spindler's time as CEO; Apple just withered under Amelio's direction, and Jobs had to swoop in and fix everything.
Of course, had Amelio not been such a lousy CEO, Apple probably wouldn't be anything like it is today.
TAT-14, the newest iteration of US-to-UK transatlantic communication cable, consists of 32 STM-64 circuits. Each STM-64 is capable of nearly 10 Gbps...
Theo mentions in the interview how it would not be advantageous to become a non-profit organization. I'm not sure where he and his developers operate, so I can't speak to the specific laws of his country.
But, incorporating (for-profit or otherwise) is not difficult and needn't be expensive, either. Were he to do so, he could adopt articles of incorporation and bylaws which would clearly state the divisions of the company. He could create an "OpenBSD" division and, similarly, an "OpenSSH" division.
Maintaining some documentation that would be open to review by interested parties would likely go a long way toward placating companies who would like to contribute financially, but are loath to do so because they have no assurance their funds won't be going directly to OpenBSD development. There should be a way for interested parties to earmark their funds for one or both projects, and have some assurance that their funds will be used properly.
Theo refuses time and again to accomodate such requests, and therefore he is forever grousing about how so many companies refuse to provide financial support in exchange for OpenSSH, which supposedly significantly enhances these companies' bottom line.
I really believe that if he were to take a bit of time off from coding to contact a CPA or attorney (heck, he could probably get it pro bono if he turned off the vitriol for a little while), formulated a sound business plan and filed articles of incorporation, and then presented his case to these companies he is so fond of complaining about, he just might see some funds come his way.
I think, though, that he would rather complain than actually get something done about it.
Yeah, but then Ballmer would show up, start jumping and dancing around the stage like a lunatic, screaming "I LOVE THIS COMPANY!!!! DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS!!!!!!1one!" and then proceed to throw chairs at Theo, knocking him out and possibly killing him.
I would argue that, had we had a Libertarian government in the first place, AT&T would not exist (at least not in its current form) and therefore the other phone companies (which sprang up to compete directly against AT&T or were spun off after the 1984 breakup) wouldn't either. In any event we would be in a very different situation.
Ah, but considering how much of the Internet was constructed with government funds to begin with, if we were under a Libertarian government, do you think we'd even be in this situation at all?
I mean, AT&T got to be where it is today by existing as a government-supported monopoly for decades, then being broken apart, and (recently) largely reforming itself once again. I think things would be very different had that never happened.
You don't read very carefully. I was not the person who spent $15k. I was replying to him.
All I'm saying here is, engagement rings are an incredibly subjective thing, and there is no single rule that applies to everyone. Some women are very happy with a not-terribly-expensive ring, and others are not. At the same time, there are men who would not be happy with a woman who was satisfied with a $500 ring, and there are other men who would never consider marrying a woman who wanted them to drop $15k on a ring.
Frankly, if I had it all to do over again, I'd stay single. But that's just me.
I don't know. "They" say that the rule of thumb for an engagement ring is "three months' salary." Maybe $15,000 isn't unreasonable for someone who makes $60k a year.
I certainly didn't make that kind of scratch back when I proposed to my then-girlfriend, but I did spend what I had been saving for a lift kit for my truck, on her engagement ring. She has never forgotten that fact, and actually tells her friends that I wanted her more than I wanted a 6-inch lift for my truck. This is a good thing.
I suppose it really depends on how much money you make and whether your fiancee would value a humongous ring. Fortunately, mine was happy with one a college student could afford.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, Spindler was nowhere near as ineffectual or just plain bad for Apple as was Gil Amelio. Apple did great things (in spite of) Spindler's time as CEO; Apple just withered under Amelio's direction, and Jobs had to swoop in and fix everything.
Of course, had Amelio not been such a lousy CEO, Apple probably wouldn't be anything like it is today.
This is a good way of weeding out the stupid people who will blindly do what their satellite navigation system tells them to do.
It's a shame the vehicles have to suffer, though.
Brings to mind a Simpsons episode: "There. We're here. Now let us never speak of the shortcut again."
Beautiful. The depths of subtlety are such that I fear I cannot grasp them.
Yeah, and that worked so well in 2000...
Let me get this straight.
You're saying you have some control over the way your traffic is routed?
You can just decide to "stop giving money to AT&T" and somehow, your packets will magically route around any AT&T-owned network?
How interesting!
What are you on?
TAT-14, the newest iteration of US-to-UK transatlantic communication cable, consists of 32 STM-64 circuits. Each STM-64 is capable of nearly 10 Gbps...
Theo mentions in the interview how it would not be advantageous to become a non-profit organization. I'm not sure where he and his developers operate, so I can't speak to the specific laws of his country.
But, incorporating (for-profit or otherwise) is not difficult and needn't be expensive, either. Were he to do so, he could adopt articles of incorporation and bylaws which would clearly state the divisions of the company. He could create an "OpenBSD" division and, similarly, an "OpenSSH" division.
Maintaining some documentation that would be open to review by interested parties would likely go a long way toward placating companies who would like to contribute financially, but are loath to do so because they have no assurance their funds won't be going directly to OpenBSD development. There should be a way for interested parties to earmark their funds for one or both projects, and have some assurance that their funds will be used properly.
Theo refuses time and again to accomodate such requests, and therefore he is forever grousing about how so many companies refuse to provide financial support in exchange for OpenSSH, which supposedly significantly enhances these companies' bottom line.
I really believe that if he were to take a bit of time off from coding to contact a CPA or attorney (heck, he could probably get it pro bono if he turned off the vitriol for a little while), formulated a sound business plan and filed articles of incorporation, and then presented his case to these companies he is so fond of complaining about, he just might see some funds come his way.
I think, though, that he would rather complain than actually get something done about it.
Yeah, but then Ballmer would show up, start jumping and dancing around the stage like a lunatic, screaming "I LOVE THIS COMPANY!!!! DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS!!!!!!1one!" and then proceed to throw chairs at Theo, knocking him out and possibly killing him.
...quoth the anonymous coward. The irony is delicious, especially with steak sauce.
Wow, this latest move is sure to rocket OpenBSD to the top.
I mean, the network performace will likely still suck, especially compared to the competition, but at least now we can monitor our servers!
Big Brother's given us this capability for years. Nothing to see here, move along.
I would argue that, had we had a Libertarian government in the first place, AT&T would not exist (at least not in its current form) and therefore the other phone companies (which sprang up to compete directly against AT&T or were spun off after the 1984 breakup) wouldn't either. In any event we would be in a very different situation.
Ah, but considering how much of the Internet was constructed with government funds to begin with, if we were under a Libertarian government, do you think we'd even be in this situation at all?
I mean, AT&T got to be where it is today by existing as a government-supported monopoly for decades, then being broken apart, and (recently) largely reforming itself once again. I think things would be very different had that never happened.
Sounds great, we've got the technical know-how. Anybody got a line on financing the operation?
Wait a minute, I just realized I misread your message. Disregard my reply, I was being an idiot.
...then you're not very familiar with Libertarian philosophy. Go do some reading.
Oh. I was hoping when you said "plead the Second" you meant the Second Amendment.
...gee, as if I needed another reason to be a Libertarian.
Doesn't anyone think the FCC is overstepping its bounds? Maybe just a little?
So?
You don't think there are people out there who would donate bandwidth?
We may be assholes, but we're his kind of assholes.
Perhaps, but have you considered that the increased deployment (which would result from offering ISOs) might offset the increased bandwidth cost?
It certainly hasn't put FreeBSD in the poorhouse. Neither NetBSD.
Maybe the decision to not offer ISOs has finally bitten him in the ass?
You don't read very carefully. I was not the person who spent $15k. I was replying to him.
All I'm saying here is, engagement rings are an incredibly subjective thing, and there is no single rule that applies to everyone. Some women are very happy with a not-terribly-expensive ring, and others are not. At the same time, there are men who would not be happy with a woman who was satisfied with a $500 ring, and there are other men who would never consider marrying a woman who wanted them to drop $15k on a ring.
Frankly, if I had it all to do over again, I'd stay single. But that's just me.
I don't know. "They" say that the rule of thumb for an engagement ring is "three months' salary." Maybe $15,000 isn't unreasonable for someone who makes $60k a year.
I certainly didn't make that kind of scratch back when I proposed to my then-girlfriend, but I did spend what I had been saving for a lift kit for my truck, on her engagement ring. She has never forgotten that fact, and actually tells her friends that I wanted her more than I wanted a 6-inch lift for my truck. This is a good thing.
I suppose it really depends on how much money you make and whether your fiancee would value a humongous ring. Fortunately, mine was happy with one a college student could afford.
Such is one of the curses of being male and wanting to get married.
Um, maybe I'm being ignorant here, but why didn't you just pay cash for the ring?