1) I never said all FOSS developers were hobbyists. Go to Red Hat, Novell, etc. if you want professional solutions.
And by doing so I'm paying roughly the same costs that I would to purchase Microsoft solutions. Some may argue the TCO would be lower with a non-MS solution, but right now our Windows boxen are well behaved because they're locked down tight before they ever hit the desktop of a user. Thus we don't get a lot of problems from XP and 2003 Server. It's tough to make the TCO argument when you don't spend a lot to maintain your MS environment.
2) The great majority webservers on the Internet are already running Apache on Linux or FreeBSD. FOSS has already beaten Redmond in several arenas. Obviously it's being taken seriously.
Using this argument, I should be able to say that Windows has already beaten Linux in several arenas because it is the de facto desktop standard. Obviously it's being taken seriously.
Now that the sarcasm is out of the way, perhaps we can agree that actual numbers of platforms running X is no indication whatsoever of the usefulness or appropriateness of a particular solution. For that matter, how many of those Apache servers are running "Little Johnny's GoBot Shrine" sites or something similar? A lot of people run Apache because (a) it's free and (b) their needs are completely undemanding. While (a) might matter to an enterprise when evaluating products, (b) is never undemanding. Thus the whole "but millions of people run it!" argument is completely hollow. All that proves is that millions of people run it. It doesn't say anything at all about whether or not Apache is a robust, enterprise-capable application. I happen to believe that it is such an app (we use it extensively), but you cannot use the arguments you're using to prove anything you're actually stating.
See here's where you're wrong. Writing the damned software does finish the project. Producing an RPM isn't necessary, much less any of the other stuff you'd like to see. What finished the project from the developer's point of view doesn't provide you with what you want but that, my friend, is not his problem until you choose to pay him to take it on as his problem.
If this is going to be your argument then you should not be the least bit surprised when businesses refuse to use -- or in some cases even consider -- a FOSS application for their needs. I agree that the developer is not beholden to do a single damned thing for anyone trying to use his or her application, but you need to understand that no sensible business is going to even consider such an app without solid support and design behind it. Therefore you are making the "FOSS is a hobby project" argument.
Again, you can say that and I'm perfectly alright with it. However, you have nobody but yourself (and those who think like you) to blame the next time you hear about a big contract going to Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, etc.
Well documented Not take a programmer to install...no hidden options Lots of closed-source commercial fail these requirements too.
Indeed they do, which is why FOSS must offer something better if it is to displace such closed-source commercial software. You keep missing this point again and again in this argument, so I'll say it in plain English: if FOSS wishes to consider itself "better" than the currently-available closed, commercial solutions, then it must really be better, not just different or new. And "better" means being better all around, not just by offering improvements in one or two areas.
Now I'll freely admit that a lot of FOSS apps offer massive improvements over closed, commercial packages...but these improvements are offered unevenly. You might get a web server that's almost impervious to hacking, but configuring it is a bitch. You might get a ton of new features that satisfy your every whim, but none of them are documented. You might get it for free, but you have to hire a Linux consultant to help you install, configure, and run the thing. In the end, such situations are zero-sum: you might get more here, but you lose something there. Thus, it's impossible to make a "switch to this" argument to anyone because you're really not gaining anything overall.
What I'm arguing for is a complete solution here. Like it or not, Microsoft currently offers what most consider to be a "complete" solution, warts and all. But it has one huge advantage over any challenger: it is already in place, and most people are used to it. Change requires that the challenger bring not just a small improvement over the incumbent but that it bring a large improvement to offset the pain and costs of changing platforms. And as long as the zero-sum equation dominates, this will never happen, Bill & Steve will continue to purchase gold-plated yachts fueled by burning $100 bills, and I.T. departments everywhere will keep wondering when FOSS is going to do something to alter the status quo in a meaningful (i.e. outside the server room) way.
I do not think anybody in his right mind ever suggested you use vi as a word processor.
Then you don't read much commentary here on/., do you? Admittedly, no sane person has ever put forward vi as the ideal WP, but there are plenty of folks here who seem to think that vi is all anyone should ever need in order to compose a document. Those are the people I am attempting to address and convince otherwise.
By the way, please do not put words in my mouth. I never said all devs are elitist, I said there's a lot of elitist commentary here. I never said all FOSS is crap, but I did say there is a lot of crap masquerading as useful FOSS. If you have an argument to make, make it without having to fabricate words from your opponent.
Lastly, you contradict yourself in your own post. In one sentence you state "FLOSS serve the former much better than it does the latter" as an absolute, yet in the next paragraph you state "Suitability to task is a case-by-case issue." These two statements cannot co-exist in the same argument as they are exclusionary. I will agree entirely with the second argument (case-to-case suitability of any type of software) but totally disagree with the former.
If your first argument stated "FLOSS sometimes serve[s] the former much better than it does the latter" then I would agree. But if you state that, the inverse is also true: sometimes commercial, proprietary software serves much better than a FOSS solution. Are you intellectually honest enough to admit to the truth of this arguments, or are you proposing a double standard?
Both RedHat and Novell would come to you with marketable products.
Bingo! And we use products from both companies because of their support policies. However, when you look at the initial cost to purchase, both RedHat and Novell charge a pretty penny for their stuff just like Microsoft, and then it becomes a difficult sell to any non-technical person because it's almost impossible to talk about TCO to someone who doesn't manage I.T. for a living.
Of course, we're our own worst enemy because we run some very tight Windows servers and PC's as well. We haven't had a virus/worm problem since "I LOVE YOU" about five years go, and WinXP doesn't bluescreen but once in a blue moon for us. 2003 Server is very tight and has yet to let us down in any way (we avoid IIS like the plague). Thus it's hard for us to use the "but Linux is more stable" argument to get purchasing decisions changed.
In the meantime, I make a living installing and supporting the applications you snob, and it cost my clients a fraction of the price of shrink-wrap software. Go figure.
I do not "snob" anything here except inflated expectations and claims. What you are failing to grasp here is that I realize FOSS has limitations and that sometimes even a closed-source commercial app is the best platform to pursue. The trouble is that most slashdotters live in some fantasy world where vi is considered an ideal word processor and where writing a shell script that will sort your sister's MP3 collection by Britney's breast size at the time is considered to be high art.
In the real world, people want word processors with GUI's more than they want arcane commands that can fold, spindle, and mutilate. They'll gladly pay out the nose for inferior software just so long as it doesn't require them to learn anything about the platform, the software, or both. What I find all too often is this elitist attitude by developers (especially FOSS developers) who think that everyone should be forced to learn C++, Java, and Perl before they can be considered worthy to use any computer. The world might be a better place if that were true, but it is not true and it's high time FOSS developers figured that out if they ever want to be considered candidates for serious software development.
Funny, I don't see you criticizing these "enthusiastic users" for their wild, outlandish comments. Instead, you attack me for being the messenger with unpleasant news.
If you tolerate such behavior without speaking out, you have tacitly condoned such behavior.
Gee, maybe it's comments like "If you're not willing to pay them, stop whining about how they're not doing exactly what you want" in the prior postings? Try reading the entire thread for better comprehension of responses.
But to address the point you're attempting to put forward, hey, if a hobbyist developer doesn't want to put forth the unpaid effort to polish an app to enterprise class, he or she should not bitch and moan when Company XYZ spends $200 million on a closed-source commercial competitor that does similar things as the hobbyist's application.
What you and many other are arguing here is that you want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want to proclaim the superiority of FOSS over anything closed and/or commercial, yet when pressed about a lack of quality or support, you always fall back on the "hey, it's free, so quit griping."
I've got a news flash for you: 99% of the computing public are not developers and have no idea how to develop nor an inclination to do so. Therefore the old "if you don't like it, write your own app!" argument is also short-sighted. When you use that argument as a crutch, you're just pushing people towards closed, commercial software. So when this happens, you don't have to look far to figure out who to blame.
And FOSS proponents wonder why Microsoft is so successful and profitable making mediocre software. You can't see the forest for the trees.
I'm a linux developer, and I don't get your point at all. If you want to deal with a company, then deal with a company.
This is exactly what we do. But then everybody on/. whines about how FOSS it the best, FOSS rules the world, FOSS is the only real solution to any problem, and anyone who spends any money on commercial software is a fool.
You can't have it both ways, guys. You keep trying, but you can't. Either embrace the fact that enterprises demand enterprise-level services and thus most FOSS is completely innappropriate, or bring FOSS up to enterprise-level standards.
Maybe, just maybe, most FOSS developers treat it like a hobby because it is a hobby. If you're not willing to pay them, stop whining about how they're not doing exactly what you want.
If they want to be paid, they must first come forward with a marketable product. This isn't "hey, I'll pay you and then you make something," it's "hey, if you make something good I'll pay for it."
You seem to misunderstand how business works in the real world. That is also a common failing of lots of FOSS developers who assume everyone will beat a path to their door instead of the other way around. The whole "if you build it, they will come" argument is very true, but you have to build it first. Half-baked pre-alpha code does not encourage people to pay you large sums of money for a finished product...unless, of course, you're Microsoft.
Irrelevant. This is an 11-year cycle. Global warming has been proceeding for much, much longer than that.
Taken only as part of an 11-year cycle, I'd agree with you. However, overall solar output has been increasing since measurements first began to be taken. This output is assumed to be cyclical and may have contributed to past ice ages and so forth. However, nobody really understands what's going on with the sun completely. But the sun is the single largest contributor to any heating equation involving this planet. If it's getting warmer, the planet will get warmer, and extremely minor increases in solar output can cause relatively major increases in atmospheric temperatures.
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California. Readings taken at Mauna Loa.
How about a damned link?
No you haven't. You have given a link to one web page about an 11-year cycle.
Then you're obviously blind, because I get you links to two completely different studies. Did you fail to follow them? I did neglect to post the ORNL link, and I can't remember where I found it now. However, I can leave you with this and this which presents equally compelling evidence supporting the solar input increase model.
As weak as using an 11-year cycle to explain nearly a century of warming? I think not.
The only possible way you can say that is because you didn't follow the links, because there's much more in there than just the 11-year cycles. That is a part of it, and it is likely related to the overall increase in hurricans over the last few years. However, global warming is over a much longer period of time, longer I'm afraid than humans have been putting out large amounts of greenhouse gasses. That alone shows the flaws in your "blame it all on American SUV's" argument, but you refuse to see it.
As someone who is directly underneath the CIO at our company, I'm frequently called upon to come up with the "execution" portion of the CIO's "big picture" strategies. This means I'm the guy that reviews all the options, compiles the case studies, and presents the final plan for approval to the board.
I consider myself to be a non-partisan technologist, meaning I'll use whatever platform or software that best fits the needs of the company, but what a lot of FOSS proponents seem incapable of grasping is that there's more to software and OS's than "power" and "technical elegance." There's user inteface design, documentation, and consistent professional support to be considered in any enterprise implementation. Saying that Bob's XYZ Library of Useful Widgets can do it all just as well as Bill & Steve's Really Expensive Library of Useful Widgets is only part of this equation. Just writing the damned software and slapping it in an RPM does not finish the project!
I can't begin to tell you my frustration at the current state of a lot of FOSS projects. I see some really good ideas, some fantastic concepts, some really bright people...but by and large their efforts are uncoordinated, poorly documented, and lacking in professionalism. It's hard enough getting stodgy company boards to accept that there's something out there besides Windows. It doesn't help when the application you're trying to sell them on is maintained by some 18-year-old geek with a ponytail and Cheetos dust all over his keyboard. I don't care if he is a genius, his product is generally unmarketable to a board because you can't convince The Powers That Be that his software is a serious contender.
Every year when I put our budget together, I cringe at the amount of dough we send to Redmond. But until FOSS gets its act together and treats the software business like a business instead of a hobby, we have little choice. Home users can get away with using half-baked stuff, but enterprises are far pickier.
Note that there are some shining stars of Open Source (not free, usually) that are producing quality products that beat the pants off some of the closed-source boys, and there are some FOSS projects that stand above all the rest. However, taken as a whole, so much of the FOSS we review looks more like the results of a college programming project and not like a serious business application. Perhaps it looks that way because the still-wet-behind-the-ears developers are still thinking about developing it in that way. More's the pity.
It would be odd if pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere had no effect, wouldn't it?
Not if the planet's capacity for absorbing said CO2 is significantly in excess of your "millions of tons" figure.
To put it in perspective, in 1997 the United States produced 5.4 billion tons of CO2 emissions, most of it from fossil fuel burning (I would use more current figures, but the first Google link was to the DoE and all they had was 1997 data).
However, according to an Oak Ridge National Laboratories study, roughtly 97% of all global-warming gasses in our atmosphere are produced naturally, largely by volcanic activity. So, to say that we (as humans burning fossil fuels) are adding to global warming is entirely correct. But to say that we're contributing noticeably to the overall global warming of the planet is absolutely ludicrous. You overestimate our ability to alter our climate and you underestimate the planet's ability to deal with our puny, pitiful emissions compared to its own.
Further, in order to blame global warming (or "climate change" if you prefer the currently popular buzzword) entirely on human factors, you have to totally discount anything else...like, say, a thermonuclear fusion reactor 1.4 million kilometers in diameter operating right next door to Earth, namely our sun. It goes through semi-regular cycles of increased activity and decreased activity, altering its output significantly.
We just happen to be in the latter stages of a warming trend in the sun. However, these things are not exact, and nobody really knows how long the warming trend will go and how much warmer things will be. However, NASA studies predict that the current solar maxima might be an unusually high one. Indeed, the number of solar flare warnings dispersed in the last decade has increased quite a bit over the prior one.
However, we are having an impact. In a few decades we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - that is a major change.
I'd love to see your source for this data. I've posted mine from the Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, and NASA. One can only hope you've got sources of a similar caliber, otherwise your arguments are looking rather weak.
Warming is happening. The only debates are about the extent and the cause...and there isn't a lot of debate about the latter in genuine scientific circles either.
Pray tell what "genuine scientific circles" are you referring to? Accredited experts on both sides of this issue have presented quite compelling evidence to support their claims. If you think there's anything remotely close to scientific consensus on this subject, you're restricting your circle of observation too much. Try going out and purposefully seeking those who disagree with your preconceived notions. Despite popular opinion, you can be wrong, and it does not hurt you in the slightest to see some new facts regarding these matters.
It would be ironic if it was found that the intensity of these hurricanes has been made worse by the lack of US participation in the Kyoto Policy, or their lack of any serious environmental policy.
Sorry. As much as the leftist environmental crowd would love to pin this on the U.S. non-ratification of Kyoto, the scientific data does not back up such a conclusion. Hurricane seasons are cyclical, and they have been for centuries with fairly good predictability. For that matter, our climate is cyclical because our Sun is cyclical. Solar maxima and minima proceed in regular cycles and have for millions of years. We are in the midst of a global rise in hurricane frequency after being in a global lull for the last few decades. This is not unusual, it has happened before, and it's been happening for much longer than the U.S. has even existed.
This so-called "global warming" claptrap has only one root in reality: the planet is indeed getting warmer. What the enviro-nuts fail to take into account is the fact that the planet has gotten warmer in the past. It's also gotten cooler. It's more than a bit silly to say the U.S. is the cause of the planet getting warmer when it is much more likely the planet is warming as part of a cycle that's been going on since the stabilization of the solar system. Of course, it's fun to blame the U.S. for all the world's woes these days, which is why the environmental crowd has tried so hard to pin this on America. It's not true, but they get a lot of fun and a lot of press out of their babble.
And you, sir, are a twit. A particularly annoying twit at that since you cannot come up with anything meaningful to say or add to the conversation. Please, don't try to strain your brain cells by replying. I've foelisted you and won't see your drivel.
Speaking as someone who's set up Oracle on Unix, Oracle on Windows, IIS on Windows, Apache on Windows, Apache on Linux, and just about every other combination possible, the headline for this article is inexcusable.
What you have here is a variety of applications (the OS being only one of them) that don't like to play well together. But the real kicker is this: please explain to me how it is Microsoft's fault that Apache -- an application that specifically states in the docs that Windows is an unsupported platform -- is not working properly? Since when did Gates & Co. become responsible for the success (or lack thereof) of everyone else's programming efforts?
There is only one sensible thing that can be gleaned from this "news" item: the more vendors you involve in any solution, the greater the difficulties in getting them all to play nice together. This is something Microsoft understands very well, and it's why Microsoft makes billions of dollars selling relatively mediocre solutions that interoperate pretty darn well. Sure, you could take a best-of-breed approach to every single software component on your machine, but it's very likely that the overall costs of ownership -- which includes administrative manpower costs -- will greatly overwhelm any perceived cost savings or feature enhancements. Simply put, you're going to spend more time chasing down interoperability bugs than you are getting useful work done. It's heresy to speak such truths here on/., but somebody's gotta say it.
BTW, this truism remains true whether you go with an all-MS environment or any other relatively homogenous solution. The fewer cooks in the kitchen, the less the chance the broth will be spoiled.
But still, you're openly encouraging software piracy here. Maybe you should be more careful about such things in a public forum like this.
No, I'm not. The EULA varies depending upon which version (Home, Pro) and what kind of license (OEM, VLK, Retail, etc.). However, if your EULA says you can't use a "used" license, there's nothing to stop you from purchasing a $60 OEM copy with a mouse, hard drive, or video card. I'm sure it's not what Bill & Ballmer want you to do, but their EULA makes it perfectly legal to sell discounted "OEM" copies of Windows with pretty much *any* random piece of computing hardware.
But again you illustrate the problem with folks who think like you: instead of realizing that, although #3 might not apply, numbers 1,2, and 4 would satisfy the requirement, you seize only upon the negative and try to blow it up as big as possible. You're appear to be awfully good at trying to find problems but utterly disinterested in finding solutions. Typical Linux-loving, MS-basing, Slashdot-zealot mold.
Are you really going to use this argument as if you believe in it, or are you just whining here?
1. If you can't afford an XP license, how the hell are you affording a PC, power, and a monthly bill for Internet service? A quick Froogle search yielded XP Home licenses available for as little as $54 delivered on CD-ROM. You can't me you can afford all the above items but can't afford XP Home. Over the typical four-year lifespan of a typical home PC, $60 spent on the OS costs $1.25 per month. Iced tea in a restaurant usually costs more than that. Quit being disingenous.
2. If you purchase a new PC, it will almost certainly come pre-loaded with Windows, thus if you can afford a new PC, you can afford Windows.
3. If you purchase a used PC, it almost certainly will come with Windows (of some vintage) pre-loaded. Thus, if you can afford the PC, you can afford Windows.
4. But, assuming your "scenario" is somehow remotely possible, have you ever heard of a public library? Free use of Internet-ready PC's with IE installed are available to anyone. In most cases you don't even need a library card, you just walk up, sit down, and start surfing.
I could go on, but I won't. You obviously haven't thought of anything except the knee-jerk reaction of the "but Windows costs money!" argument. Try actually thinking about whether or not the problem is solvable before you start whining about it next time.
Global warming, of course! They destroyed themselves by driving all those SUV's, running all those Freon-filled air conditioners, smog-spewing factories and powerplants, and spraying all those underarm deodorants!
Why oh why can't we learn from the past? Our Neanderthal predecessors destroyed their own civilization just as we are destroying ours right now! If we would only regress back to the Stone Age, all would be well again./sarcasm>
I was merely pointing out a contradiction to your claim that "no collection of folders can duplicate this ease of use and flexibility no matter how crazy you make them."
I considered this statement before I made it and carefully constructed it such that it remains true. I originally wrote "no collection of folders and symlinks can duplicate this ease of use" but removed the italicized portion because I realized it would be possible -- albeit at a high effort level.
As for the effort required to add metadata, I'll point out that my MP3 metadata is added automatically at rip time by Exact Audio Copy (EAC), an extremely useful program that I highly recommend. However, I am well aware of the problems involved in adding metadata to things like photographs. You're right, it's no small challenge, but then again creating a flexible, useful, intuitive filing system for millions of files is no small challenge these days either.
Not to belittle the worthiness of the Russian rovers, but total distance traveled is a rather useless metric of the actual value of the mission. If someone sent a probe to the moon that did nothing but scoot around for 31 miles, would it mean it was a "better" mission than the Lunokhods?
The value of the mission is directly proportional to the amount of scientific enlightenment derived from it, not the mileage on the odometer.
Actually you can in Linux (or any system with symlinks), if you want to put the effort in.
With the key here being the phrase "if you want to put the effort in." Why should you, me, or anyone go through the tedious trouble to construct a series of folders and symlinks that merely mimics what a metadata-aware filing system would do automatically? At some point, pounding the square peg into the round hole just becomes silly when you've got a round peg nearby.
Your point about not being limited to what ID3 tags allows is well taken, but since you can put unstructured data in the "comment" tag -- and since MP3 managers allow me to include that tag in the database for searching -- that limit is effectively removed. Anyway, WinFS would not be subject to the same limitations in schema as ID3 tags.
I wonder how someone gets into that line of work...
Since it involves breasts -- a piece of the anatomy no male Slashdotter can possibly have recent firsthand information on -- then anyone perusing this site is immediately disqualified for the job.
Female Slashdotters are, on the other hand...well, largely non-existent.
Now creating simple specific interfaces to common well understood jobs may be possible. That's still a very small subset of what a computer does though.
But I think that's exactly what WinFS is trying to do here. It's creating a specific, simple interface (the WinFS browser) to do a common, well-understood job (finding and organizing your files). The fact that it does so in a manner alien to you does not mean it is wrong or stupid.
There's a very good analogy lesson here with MP3 collections. Back when I only had a few hundred MP3's, I organized them manually into folders by genre and artist. It was time consuming and sometimes conflicting, as some albums had multiple artists or multiple genres (or both). The system never really quite worked because there were too many possible ways to sort the files, yet the file system was essentially fixed.
Then along come the MP3 managers, or MP3 players with built-in managers like WinAMP. Now, I can lump all my files into a single directory. WinAMP searches the metadata in each file (and since I rip my own, I make sure they all have proper metadata). If I want to go looking for Jazz, I can search by genre. If I want to search by decade, I can do that. Artist, ditto. Song title or even portions thereof, ditto. No matter how I want to slice and dice my MP3 collection, it works how I want it to work. And no collection of folders can duplicate this ease of use and flexibility no matter how crazy you make them.
The "files and folders" metaphor has been with us for more than three decades. We can do better. We should do better. File systems like WinFS (and their Linux equivalents) should be embraced, not shunned.
However, I find the greater danger on the side of those possessing such weapons as it eliminates the moral questions of firing on people.
Would you rather the police restrict their weaponry to lethal devices only? Your resistance in this matter is somewhat confusing given that riot police aren't well known for being models of restraint.
Occasionally, it is worth wondering why you're having to send people out in riot gear in the first place.
Very true. It is also true, however, that there are times and places where the protesters are the bad guys and the police are the good guys. There is also the concept of a non-violent protest pioneered by the likes of Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr., and those two individuals have done more to improve their respective groups than anyone else anywhere else by any other means. If violence isn't the answer for the police/government, neither is it the answer for protesters. It's a pity that so few "protesters" are actually protesting, when in fact the majority of them are merely hooligans who are delighted at the chance to run amok and destroy things without consequence. What noble examples these people set!
Slashdot Mirror
1) I never said all FOSS developers were hobbyists. Go to Red Hat, Novell, etc. if you want professional solutions.
And by doing so I'm paying roughly the same costs that I would to purchase Microsoft solutions. Some may argue the TCO would be lower with a non-MS solution, but right now our Windows boxen are well behaved because they're locked down tight before they ever hit the desktop of a user. Thus we don't get a lot of problems from XP and 2003 Server. It's tough to make the TCO argument when you don't spend a lot to maintain your MS environment.
2) The great majority webservers on the Internet are already running Apache on Linux or FreeBSD. FOSS has already beaten Redmond in several arenas. Obviously it's being taken seriously.
Using this argument, I should be able to say that Windows has already beaten Linux in several arenas because it is the de facto desktop standard. Obviously it's being taken seriously.
Now that the sarcasm is out of the way, perhaps we can agree that actual numbers of platforms running X is no indication whatsoever of the usefulness or appropriateness of a particular solution. For that matter, how many of those Apache servers are running "Little Johnny's GoBot Shrine" sites or something similar? A lot of people run Apache because (a) it's free and (b) their needs are completely undemanding. While (a) might matter to an enterprise when evaluating products, (b) is never undemanding. Thus the whole "but millions of people run it!" argument is completely hollow. All that proves is that millions of people run it. It doesn't say anything at all about whether or not Apache is a robust, enterprise-capable application. I happen to believe that it is such an app (we use it extensively), but you cannot use the arguments you're using to prove anything you're actually stating.
See here's where you're wrong. Writing the damned software does finish the project. Producing an RPM isn't necessary, much less any of the other stuff you'd like to see. What finished the project from the developer's point of view doesn't provide you with what you want but that, my friend, is not his problem until you choose to pay him to take it on as his problem.
If this is going to be your argument then you should not be the least bit surprised when businesses refuse to use -- or in some cases even consider -- a FOSS application for their needs. I agree that the developer is not beholden to do a single damned thing for anyone trying to use his or her application, but you need to understand that no sensible business is going to even consider such an app without solid support and design behind it. Therefore you are making the "FOSS is a hobby project" argument.
Again, you can say that and I'm perfectly alright with it. However, you have nobody but yourself (and those who think like you) to blame the next time you hear about a big contract going to Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, etc.
Well documented Not take a programmer to install...no hidden options
Lots of closed-source commercial fail these requirements too.
Indeed they do, which is why FOSS must offer something better if it is to displace such closed-source commercial software. You keep missing this point again and again in this argument, so I'll say it in plain English: if FOSS wishes to consider itself "better" than the currently-available closed, commercial solutions, then it must really be better, not just different or new. And "better" means being better all around, not just by offering improvements in one or two areas.
Now I'll freely admit that a lot of FOSS apps offer massive improvements over closed, commercial packages...but these improvements are offered unevenly. You might get a web server that's almost impervious to hacking, but configuring it is a bitch. You might get a ton of new features that satisfy your every whim, but none of them are documented. You might get it for free, but you have to hire a Linux consultant to help you install, configure, and run the thing. In the end, such situations are zero-sum: you might get more here, but you lose something there. Thus, it's impossible to make a "switch to this" argument to anyone because you're really not gaining anything overall.
What I'm arguing for is a complete solution here. Like it or not, Microsoft currently offers what most consider to be a "complete" solution, warts and all. But it has one huge advantage over any challenger: it is already in place, and most people are used to it. Change requires that the challenger bring not just a small improvement over the incumbent but that it bring a large improvement to offset the pain and costs of changing platforms. And as long as the zero-sum equation dominates, this will never happen, Bill & Steve will continue to purchase gold-plated yachts fueled by burning $100 bills, and I.T. departments everywhere will keep wondering when FOSS is going to do something to alter the status quo in a meaningful (i.e. outside the server room) way.
I do not think anybody in his right mind ever suggested you use vi as a word processor.
/., do you? Admittedly, no sane person has ever put forward vi as the ideal WP, but there are plenty of folks here who seem to think that vi is all anyone should ever need in order to compose a document. Those are the people I am attempting to address and convince otherwise.
Then you don't read much commentary here on
By the way, please do not put words in my mouth. I never said all devs are elitist, I said there's a lot of elitist commentary here. I never said all FOSS is crap, but I did say there is a lot of crap masquerading as useful FOSS. If you have an argument to make, make it without having to fabricate words from your opponent.
Lastly, you contradict yourself in your own post. In one sentence you state "FLOSS serve the former much better than it does the latter" as an absolute, yet in the next paragraph you state "Suitability to task is a case-by-case issue." These two statements cannot co-exist in the same argument as they are exclusionary. I will agree entirely with the second argument (case-to-case suitability of any type of software) but totally disagree with the former.
If your first argument stated "FLOSS sometimes serve[s] the former much better than it does the latter" then I would agree. But if you state that, the inverse is also true: sometimes commercial, proprietary software serves much better than a FOSS solution. Are you intellectually honest enough to admit to the truth of this arguments, or are you proposing a double standard?
Both RedHat and Novell would come to you with marketable products.
Bingo! And we use products from both companies because of their support policies. However, when you look at the initial cost to purchase, both RedHat and Novell charge a pretty penny for their stuff just like Microsoft, and then it becomes a difficult sell to any non-technical person because it's almost impossible to talk about TCO to someone who doesn't manage I.T. for a living.
Of course, we're our own worst enemy because we run some very tight Windows servers and PC's as well. We haven't had a virus/worm problem since "I LOVE YOU" about five years go, and WinXP doesn't bluescreen but once in a blue moon for us. 2003 Server is very tight and has yet to let us down in any way (we avoid IIS like the plague). Thus it's hard for us to use the "but Linux is more stable" argument to get purchasing decisions changed.
In the meantime, I make a living installing and supporting the applications you snob, and it cost my clients a fraction of the price of shrink-wrap software. Go figure.
I do not "snob" anything here except inflated expectations and claims. What you are failing to grasp here is that I realize FOSS has limitations and that sometimes even a closed-source commercial app is the best platform to pursue. The trouble is that most slashdotters live in some fantasy world where vi is considered an ideal word processor and where writing a shell script that will sort your sister's MP3 collection by Britney's breast size at the time is considered to be high art.
In the real world, people want word processors with GUI's more than they want arcane commands that can fold, spindle, and mutilate. They'll gladly pay out the nose for inferior software just so long as it doesn't require them to learn anything about the platform, the software, or both. What I find all too often is this elitist attitude by developers (especially FOSS developers) who think that everyone should be forced to learn C++, Java, and Perl before they can be considered worthy to use any computer. The world might be a better place if that were true, but it is not true and it's high time FOSS developers figured that out if they ever want to be considered candidates for serious software development.
Funny, I don't see you criticizing these "enthusiastic users" for their wild, outlandish comments. Instead, you attack me for being the messenger with unpleasant news.
If you tolerate such behavior without speaking out, you have tacitly condoned such behavior.
What makes you think they want to be paid?
Gee, maybe it's comments like "If you're not willing to pay them, stop whining about how they're not doing exactly what you want" in the prior postings? Try reading the entire thread for better comprehension of responses.
But to address the point you're attempting to put forward, hey, if a hobbyist developer doesn't want to put forth the unpaid effort to polish an app to enterprise class, he or she should not bitch and moan when Company XYZ spends $200 million on a closed-source commercial competitor that does similar things as the hobbyist's application.
What you and many other are arguing here is that you want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want to proclaim the superiority of FOSS over anything closed and/or commercial, yet when pressed about a lack of quality or support, you always fall back on the "hey, it's free, so quit griping."
I've got a news flash for you: 99% of the computing public are not developers and have no idea how to develop nor an inclination to do so. Therefore the old "if you don't like it, write your own app!" argument is also short-sighted. When you use that argument as a crutch, you're just pushing people towards closed, commercial software. So when this happens, you don't have to look far to figure out who to blame.
And FOSS proponents wonder why Microsoft is so successful and profitable making mediocre software. You can't see the forest for the trees.
I'm a linux developer, and I don't get your point at all. If you want to deal with a company, then deal with a company.
/. whines about how FOSS it the best, FOSS rules the world, FOSS is the only real solution to any problem, and anyone who spends any money on commercial software is a fool.
This is exactly what we do. But then everybody on
You can't have it both ways, guys. You keep trying, but you can't. Either embrace the fact that enterprises demand enterprise-level services and thus most FOSS is completely innappropriate, or bring FOSS up to enterprise-level standards.
Maybe, just maybe, most FOSS developers treat it like a hobby because it is a hobby. If you're not willing to pay them, stop whining about how they're not doing exactly what you want.
If they want to be paid, they must first come forward with a marketable product. This isn't "hey, I'll pay you and then you make something," it's "hey, if you make something good I'll pay for it."
You seem to misunderstand how business works in the real world. That is also a common failing of lots of FOSS developers who assume everyone will beat a path to their door instead of the other way around. The whole "if you build it, they will come" argument is very true, but you have to build it first. Half-baked pre-alpha code does not encourage people to pay you large sums of money for a finished product...unless, of course, you're Microsoft.
Irrelevant. This is an 11-year cycle. Global warming has been proceeding for much, much longer than that.
Taken only as part of an 11-year cycle, I'd agree with you. However, overall solar output has been increasing since measurements first began to be taken. This output is assumed to be cyclical and may have contributed to past ice ages and so forth. However, nobody really understands what's going on with the sun completely. But the sun is the single largest contributor to any heating equation involving this planet. If it's getting warmer, the planet will get warmer, and extremely minor increases in solar output can cause relatively major increases in atmospheric temperatures.
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California. Readings taken at Mauna Loa.
How about a damned link?
No you haven't. You have given a link to one web page about an 11-year cycle.
Then you're obviously blind, because I get you links to two completely different studies. Did you fail to follow them? I did neglect to post the ORNL link, and I can't remember where I found it now. However, I can leave you with this and this which presents equally compelling evidence supporting the solar input increase model.
As weak as using an 11-year cycle to explain nearly a century of warming? I think not.
The only possible way you can say that is because you didn't follow the links, because there's much more in there than just the 11-year cycles. That is a part of it, and it is likely related to the overall increase in hurricans over the last few years. However, global warming is over a much longer period of time, longer I'm afraid than humans have been putting out large amounts of greenhouse gasses. That alone shows the flaws in your "blame it all on American SUV's" argument, but you refuse to see it.
As someone who is directly underneath the CIO at our company, I'm frequently called upon to come up with the "execution" portion of the CIO's "big picture" strategies. This means I'm the guy that reviews all the options, compiles the case studies, and presents the final plan for approval to the board.
I consider myself to be a non-partisan technologist, meaning I'll use whatever platform or software that best fits the needs of the company, but what a lot of FOSS proponents seem incapable of grasping is that there's more to software and OS's than "power" and "technical elegance." There's user inteface design, documentation, and consistent professional support to be considered in any enterprise implementation. Saying that Bob's XYZ Library of Useful Widgets can do it all just as well as Bill & Steve's Really Expensive Library of Useful Widgets is only part of this equation. Just writing the damned software and slapping it in an RPM does not finish the project!
I can't begin to tell you my frustration at the current state of a lot of FOSS projects. I see some really good ideas, some fantastic concepts, some really bright people...but by and large their efforts are uncoordinated, poorly documented, and lacking in professionalism. It's hard enough getting stodgy company boards to accept that there's something out there besides Windows. It doesn't help when the application you're trying to sell them on is maintained by some 18-year-old geek with a ponytail and Cheetos dust all over his keyboard. I don't care if he is a genius, his product is generally unmarketable to a board because you can't convince The Powers That Be that his software is a serious contender.
Every year when I put our budget together, I cringe at the amount of dough we send to Redmond. But until FOSS gets its act together and treats the software business like a business instead of a hobby, we have little choice. Home users can get away with using half-baked stuff, but enterprises are far pickier.
Note that there are some shining stars of Open Source (not free, usually) that are producing quality products that beat the pants off some of the closed-source boys, and there are some FOSS projects that stand above all the rest. However, taken as a whole, so much of the FOSS we review looks more like the results of a college programming project and not like a serious business application. Perhaps it looks that way because the still-wet-behind-the-ears developers are still thinking about developing it in that way. More's the pity.
It would be odd if pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere had no effect, wouldn't it?
Not if the planet's capacity for absorbing said CO2 is significantly in excess of your "millions of tons" figure.
To put it in perspective, in 1997 the United States produced 5.4 billion tons of CO2 emissions, most of it from fossil fuel burning (I would use more current figures, but the first Google link was to the DoE and all they had was 1997 data).
However, according to an Oak Ridge National Laboratories study, roughtly 97% of all global-warming gasses in our atmosphere are produced naturally, largely by volcanic activity. So, to say that we (as humans burning fossil fuels) are adding to global warming is entirely correct. But to say that we're contributing noticeably to the overall global warming of the planet is absolutely ludicrous. You overestimate our ability to alter our climate and you underestimate the planet's ability to deal with our puny, pitiful emissions compared to its own.
Further, in order to blame global warming (or "climate change" if you prefer the currently popular buzzword) entirely on human factors, you have to totally discount anything else...like, say, a thermonuclear fusion reactor 1.4 million kilometers in diameter operating right next door to Earth, namely our sun. It goes through semi-regular cycles of increased activity and decreased activity, altering its output significantly.
We just happen to be in the latter stages of a warming trend in the sun. However, these things are not exact, and nobody really knows how long the warming trend will go and how much warmer things will be. However, NASA studies predict that the current solar maxima might be an unusually high one. Indeed, the number of solar flare warnings dispersed in the last decade has increased quite a bit over the prior one.
However, we are having an impact. In a few decades we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - that is a major change.
I'd love to see your source for this data. I've posted mine from the Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, and NASA. One can only hope you've got sources of a similar caliber, otherwise your arguments are looking rather weak.
Warming is happening. The only debates are about the extent and the cause...and there isn't a lot of debate about the latter in genuine scientific circles either.
Pray tell what "genuine scientific circles" are you referring to? Accredited experts on both sides of this issue have presented quite compelling evidence to support their claims. If you think there's anything remotely close to scientific consensus on this subject, you're restricting your circle of observation too much. Try going out and purposefully seeking those who disagree with your preconceived notions. Despite popular opinion, you can be wrong, and it does not hurt you in the slightest to see some new facts regarding these matters.
It would be ironic if it was found that the intensity of these hurricanes has been made worse by the lack of US participation in the Kyoto Policy, or their lack of any serious environmental policy.
Sorry. As much as the leftist environmental crowd would love to pin this on the U.S. non-ratification of Kyoto, the scientific data does not back up such a conclusion. Hurricane seasons are cyclical, and they have been for centuries with fairly good predictability. For that matter, our climate is cyclical because our Sun is cyclical. Solar maxima and minima proceed in regular cycles and have for millions of years. We are in the midst of a global rise in hurricane frequency after being in a global lull for the last few decades. This is not unusual, it has happened before, and it's been happening for much longer than the U.S. has even existed.
This so-called "global warming" claptrap has only one root in reality: the planet is indeed getting warmer. What the enviro-nuts fail to take into account is the fact that the planet has gotten warmer in the past. It's also gotten cooler. It's more than a bit silly to say the U.S. is the cause of the planet getting warmer when it is much more likely the planet is warming as part of a cycle that's been going on since the stabilization of the solar system. Of course, it's fun to blame the U.S. for all the world's woes these days, which is why the environmental crowd has tried so hard to pin this on America. It's not true, but they get a lot of fun and a lot of press out of their babble.
And you, sir, are a twit. A particularly annoying twit at that since you cannot come up with anything meaningful to say or add to the conversation. Please, don't try to strain your brain cells by replying. I've foelisted you and won't see your drivel.
Speaking as someone who's set up Oracle on Unix, Oracle on Windows, IIS on Windows, Apache on Windows, Apache on Linux, and just about every other combination possible, the headline for this article is inexcusable.
/., but somebody's gotta say it.
What you have here is a variety of applications (the OS being only one of them) that don't like to play well together. But the real kicker is this: please explain to me how it is Microsoft's fault that Apache -- an application that specifically states in the docs that Windows is an unsupported platform -- is not working properly? Since when did Gates & Co. become responsible for the success (or lack thereof) of everyone else's programming efforts?
There is only one sensible thing that can be gleaned from this "news" item: the more vendors you involve in any solution, the greater the difficulties in getting them all to play nice together. This is something Microsoft understands very well, and it's why Microsoft makes billions of dollars selling relatively mediocre solutions that interoperate pretty darn well. Sure, you could take a best-of-breed approach to every single software component on your machine, but it's very likely that the overall costs of ownership -- which includes administrative manpower costs -- will greatly overwhelm any perceived cost savings or feature enhancements. Simply put, you're going to spend more time chasing down interoperability bugs than you are getting useful work done. It's heresy to speak such truths here on
BTW, this truism remains true whether you go with an all-MS environment or any other relatively homogenous solution. The fewer cooks in the kitchen, the less the chance the broth will be spoiled.
But still, you're openly encouraging software piracy here. Maybe you should be more careful about such things in a public forum like this.
No, I'm not. The EULA varies depending upon which version (Home, Pro) and what kind of license (OEM, VLK, Retail, etc.). However, if your EULA says you can't use a "used" license, there's nothing to stop you from purchasing a $60 OEM copy with a mouse, hard drive, or video card. I'm sure it's not what Bill & Ballmer want you to do, but their EULA makes it perfectly legal to sell discounted "OEM" copies of Windows with pretty much *any* random piece of computing hardware.
But again you illustrate the problem with folks who think like you: instead of realizing that, although #3 might not apply, numbers 1,2, and 4 would satisfy the requirement, you seize only upon the negative and try to blow it up as big as possible. You're appear to be awfully good at trying to find problems but utterly disinterested in finding solutions. Typical Linux-loving, MS-basing, Slashdot-zealot mold.
What if you can't afford an XP license?
Are you really going to use this argument as if you believe in it, or are you just whining here?
1. If you can't afford an XP license, how the hell are you affording a PC, power, and a monthly bill for Internet service? A quick Froogle search yielded XP Home licenses available for as little as $54 delivered on CD-ROM. You can't me you can afford all the above items but can't afford XP Home. Over the typical four-year lifespan of a typical home PC, $60 spent on the OS costs $1.25 per month. Iced tea in a restaurant usually costs more than that. Quit being disingenous.
2. If you purchase a new PC, it will almost certainly come pre-loaded with Windows, thus if you can afford a new PC, you can afford Windows.
3. If you purchase a used PC, it almost certainly will come with Windows (of some vintage) pre-loaded. Thus, if you can afford the PC, you can afford Windows.
4. But, assuming your "scenario" is somehow remotely possible, have you ever heard of a public library? Free use of Internet-ready PC's with IE installed are available to anyone. In most cases you don't even need a library card, you just walk up, sit down, and start surfing.
I could go on, but I won't. You obviously haven't thought of anything except the knee-jerk reaction of the "but Windows costs money!" argument. Try actually thinking about whether or not the problem is solvable before you start whining about it next time.
But why did they disappear?
/sarcasm>
Global warming, of course! They destroyed themselves by driving all those SUV's, running all those Freon-filled air conditioners, smog-spewing factories and powerplants, and spraying all those underarm deodorants!
Why oh why can't we learn from the past? Our Neanderthal predecessors destroyed their own civilization just as we are destroying ours right now! If we would only regress back to the Stone Age, all would be well again.
I was merely pointing out a contradiction to your claim that "no collection of folders can duplicate this ease of use and flexibility no matter how crazy you make them."
I considered this statement before I made it and carefully constructed it such that it remains true. I originally wrote "no collection of folders and symlinks can duplicate this ease of use" but removed the italicized portion because I realized it would be possible -- albeit at a high effort level.
As for the effort required to add metadata, I'll point out that my MP3 metadata is added automatically at rip time by Exact Audio Copy (EAC), an extremely useful program that I highly recommend. However, I am well aware of the problems involved in adding metadata to things like photographs. You're right, it's no small challenge, but then again creating a flexible, useful, intuitive filing system for millions of files is no small challenge these days either.
Not to belittle the worthiness of the Russian rovers, but total distance traveled is a rather useless metric of the actual value of the mission. If someone sent a probe to the moon that did nothing but scoot around for 31 miles, would it mean it was a "better" mission than the Lunokhods?
The value of the mission is directly proportional to the amount of scientific enlightenment derived from it, not the mileage on the odometer.
Actually you can in Linux (or any system with symlinks), if you want to put the effort in.
With the key here being the phrase "if you want to put the effort in." Why should you, me, or anyone go through the tedious trouble to construct a series of folders and symlinks that merely mimics what a metadata-aware filing system would do automatically? At some point, pounding the square peg into the round hole just becomes silly when you've got a round peg nearby.
Your point about not being limited to what ID3 tags allows is well taken, but since you can put unstructured data in the "comment" tag -- and since MP3 managers allow me to include that tag in the database for searching -- that limit is effectively removed. Anyway, WinFS would not be subject to the same limitations in schema as ID3 tags.
I wonder how someone gets into that line of work...
Since it involves breasts -- a piece of the anatomy no male Slashdotter can possibly have recent firsthand information on -- then anyone perusing this site is immediately disqualified for the job.
Female Slashdotters are, on the other hand...well, largely non-existent.
Now creating simple specific interfaces to common well understood jobs may be possible. That's still a very small subset of what a computer does though.
But I think that's exactly what WinFS is trying to do here. It's creating a specific, simple interface (the WinFS browser) to do a common, well-understood job (finding and organizing your files). The fact that it does so in a manner alien to you does not mean it is wrong or stupid.
There's a very good analogy lesson here with MP3 collections. Back when I only had a few hundred MP3's, I organized them manually into folders by genre and artist. It was time consuming and sometimes conflicting, as some albums had multiple artists or multiple genres (or both). The system never really quite worked because there were too many possible ways to sort the files, yet the file system was essentially fixed.
Then along come the MP3 managers, or MP3 players with built-in managers like WinAMP. Now, I can lump all my files into a single directory. WinAMP searches the metadata in each file (and since I rip my own, I make sure they all have proper metadata). If I want to go looking for Jazz, I can search by genre. If I want to search by decade, I can do that. Artist, ditto. Song title or even portions thereof, ditto. No matter how I want to slice and dice my MP3 collection, it works how I want it to work. And no collection of folders can duplicate this ease of use and flexibility no matter how crazy you make them.
The "files and folders" metaphor has been with us for more than three decades. We can do better. We should do better. File systems like WinFS (and their Linux equivalents) should be embraced, not shunned.
However, I find the greater danger on the side of those possessing such weapons as it eliminates the moral questions of firing on people.
Would you rather the police restrict their weaponry to lethal devices only? Your resistance in this matter is somewhat confusing given that riot police aren't well known for being models of restraint.
Occasionally, it is worth wondering why you're having to send people out in riot gear in the first place.
Very true. It is also true, however, that there are times and places where the protesters are the bad guys and the police are the good guys. There is also the concept of a non-violent protest pioneered by the likes of Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr., and those two individuals have done more to improve their respective groups than anyone else anywhere else by any other means. If violence isn't the answer for the police/government, neither is it the answer for protesters. It's a pity that so few "protesters" are actually protesting, when in fact the majority of them are merely hooligans who are delighted at the chance to run amok and destroy things without consequence. What noble examples these people set!