Exactly. I'm a parent too. Why should you and I be buying supplies for the classroom? Have you seen the amount of money budgeted for education? Where does it go? To far too many things outside the classroom. That's my whole point. You and I agree on the symptoms, we just disagree on the cure.
It doesn't even have to be "free as in beer." Many of us used to buy boxed set RH. Frankly, I would again. They can bring that back, as you say. Hell, they even admitted that they didn't lose money on it (despite what so many have said, RH admitted this. Search Slashdot, you'll find it.)
The fact is the U.S. spends TOO much on education. As such students spend more time learning about "socio-political correctness" and less about mathematics and sciences. The past 40 years has seen more and more money diverted to the school system and less to military and other programs. Think about it. The reason more money doesn't work is simple. You take a mandated system like education, continually flood it with money, and the system gets fat and starts viewing the fundamentals as less important. The money should be with the teachers, not with the bureaucracy. If we want to save education we need to start applying standardization and cutting the fat.
If M$ and the BSA had their way everyone would be using.xls and.doc formats. It's just not wise for a government to be beholden to a company for access to their own data. From a simple security standpoint it just makes sense for a person, a company, a state to have ready access to their data despite the application and open standards do that. In effect, Muller is saying, "You're taking our chance to profit from your insecurity away from us." Notice that he doesn't seem to be advising these proprietary companies to adopt open standards which would in the long run give them the access to government bids that they covet. That should cause any head of state to be alarmed.
I find it fascinating how many posts are down on this idea. There seems to be a tendency among the "learned" that that which we already have learned is gospel but that which challenges it is fantasy. Yet, in order to move forward, you have to challenge and evidence of new ideas and theories have to taken seriously enough to be challenged objectively. This idea that "we've already discovered enough senses and receptors in the human anatomy, let's move on" is quite silly. Hell, we've only in the last 24 months cracked the g-nome.
Hey! AD is cool! I loved in in Netware 4.11. We just called it NDS, though. AD isn't special. It, like so many other "innovations" from MS, is simply a rip-off off LDAP and NDS. OH, but you get the added bonus of having to have twice as many servers to implement it.
Arrogance? Telling me I can't drive an SUV while stumping for power in one, that's arrogance. Furthermore, we pour millions of dollars into countries to help them and even help them have better, cleaner sources of power but WE're the arrogant ones. We drive our SUV's because we've earned them. We work for our money and don't sit around waiting for someone to give us what we have.
I find it interesting that his conclusion was that the Bush administration needs to sign the Kyoto Treaty. Not that we as a planet need to do this or that. This isn't so much a scientific study as it is "hey, we have a computer model we can bash the U.S. with now." Nevermind the fact that the U.S. has done so much to cut emissions already in the last 30 years. Any article that includes "the Bush administration needs to do this or that" is highly suspect to me. If you want me to take you seriously, then give me the science, not the neo-political crap. It only shows that you indeed have an agenda. I'll be interested to see the fallout of this once the details are published. If it indeed shows it's humanities fault, so be it. Understand it's just as much the rest of the worlds fault as anyones.
'I don't think the public ought to lose a lot of sleep over the issue,' says nuclear physicist Tom Cochran of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Then he turned to the camera and said, "Lunatic Fringe! We all know you're out there!"
Basically, this was a comparison of Apache and IIS. Even then, I'd argue that Apache hardened would be preferred over IIS. But as is, who knows? They may have a point. You can't, however, make a broad statement and say Windows is more secure than Linux. Just today my company sent out another virus alert. Everyone on Earth whose been infected with a Linux-based virus raise your hand. Now all you Windows users, anyone infected with a Windows-based virus raise your hand. Now do a percentage breakdown and you just can't hide from those numbers. Yes, Windows is more ubiquitous and therefore your numbers will be higher. But the basic philosophy of the two systems are a large reason for the desparate numbers too. Microsoft and their fans are running from that. You don't see such comparisons done because they can't win. They take things like Apache and do a breakdown app-wise. Given Windows basic insecurity underneath IIS, how secure is the app after all?
Well, not allowing them to link to RH's site is pretty petty. The rest I threw in because I think it's becoming part and parcel to their way of thinking.
Hopefully, a good list of other sites linking to RedHat will be compiled and sent to their lawyers to show how stupid this is. I use Centos and love it. There are some good guys working on this project. I use it because a) it works, b) it updates very well, and c) I don't have to pay RH. See, I used to pay RHat. Then one day they came along and said, "Screw you, End User Boy!" This latest development is very bad, in my opinion. It really shows how unethical RedHat has become. I understand why people say they are the M$ of the Linux community. I used to, even after I stopped using RH, say, "They're not that bad!" I was wrong and apparently, they like their new found position. After all, it's business.
"It's taken us a long time to become the leader in Linux for the Enterprise. Since adopting Microsoft's business model, we've become profitable. Hey, the model works! Once you've adopted the model, you sort of become infused (read "infected") with the idea that this way of doing business is feeding your company. Any threat to cut off that feeding cycle has to be dealt with as a threat. That's all we're saying here. And if you piss off the community in the process, then so be it. This is a business. Bill Gates has taught us the way. We can be profitable and be despised. We did it when we shit-canned our desktop line. We even left many customers on the limb on that one. But in the long hall we sent a powerful message to Linux end users and that is, "Unless you can come to us in large enough numbers to sign a significant contract, we don't need you." We're an enterprise company, period. Beyond that, we prepared to follow this model until we see it no longer works. So far, it works beautifully."
In other words, we'll follow the letter of the GPL but screw the spirit.
It seems to me that the MPAA and RIAA are spending more time and money making the Internet and digital technology conform to their will than they are figuring out how they are going to exist in it. It's like traveling to another planet where animals, birds, fish, and other wildlife are already thriving yet insisting to not only keep your spacesuit on, but running around and trying to put one on everyone who's already figured out that you can breathe there.
Is me or are PC technology companies getting ever more divergent from media companies? The Entertainment media companies don't even have a handle on how they are going to deal with the "digital age" and computer related media software and hardware is hungering for this more and more.
More on topic, I don't know how many people really want a PC for this, though. I know that I abandoned my PC-based router because I could go buy a Linksys for $59 and had no moving parts to deal with. I think people are more into buying a TiVo or DVD player than setting up a PC next to their TV. Couple that with all the DRM and software and licenses they may have to deal with to do it and it may become another headache for users and PC makers alike.
We had this problem on a Cisco product. The install came out and saw I had "4 CPU's running." It was in fact a dual-hyperthreaded server. I think I offered to open one up and show him what he was seeing. I don't think we had a problem but it shows that some are definitely trying to license this way.
Microsoft is quick to point out that with Open Source there is no one with absolute "responsibility." What tangible asset does Microsoft's responsibility give me? In the end, I may be able to point the finger at Microsoft, but your EULA absolves you of any responsibility should your code destroy my data. With OSS I can at least go into the code and perhaps fix the offending bug. Is Microsoft planning to guarantee their code and thus wage "reparations" to up the anti in their campaign against Open Source Software?
By your own admission you don't know that much about Linux, so it's really hard for you to compare. The fact that you like XP and can use it is fine for you. I don't know what Monad is, but giving you a command line and a GUI is not really new. XP, hell Win95, NT, W2k, W2k3, they all have a command line. Call it DOS or what ever, it's still command line. Often, tasks run better and often don't fail compared to their GUI counterparts. I think everyone has likes and dislikes and more to the point people have things they like to do. There doesn't need to be one to rule them all. Linux offers an alternative, and that in itself is a good thing. For some tasks, Linux will beat Windows. For others, Windows will work better (think games....for now;) ). I think the OSS community would do well to focus and run. We can get the notoriety by simply beating them at a few battles. The goal should be to get people away from a Wincentric way of seeing computers. Personally, I'll be happy when the local computer store asks me, "Well, do you need that application for Windows, Mac, or Linux." Don't get me wrong, the total bankruptcy of Microsoft would be great! However, that's not likely to happen.
"...and in a related story, China plans to have a much cheaper version with cheaper plastic balls instead of graphite available soon. The bulk of these reactors will be available exclusively in Wal-mart stores for use in generating power to trailer parks! While not melt-down proof, some municipalities consider the loss of these trailer parks a acceptible risk."
Yeah, because there must be a winner. It's not like we can have more than one browser or anything. There can only be one.
This is crap. The media fuels this idea of one player as much as anyone does.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. I'm a parent too. Why should you and I be buying supplies for the classroom? Have you seen the amount of money budgeted for education? Where does it go? To far too many things outside the classroom. That's my whole point. You and I agree on the symptoms, we just disagree on the cure.
It doesn't even have to be "free as in beer." Many of us used to buy boxed set RH. Frankly, I would again. They can bring that back, as you say. Hell, they even admitted that they didn't lose money on it (despite what so many have said, RH admitted this. Search Slashdot, you'll find it.)
Cool! Another gadget running Linux that 99.99999% of the technology-buying public will never see! SWEET!
The fact is the U.S. spends TOO much on education. As such students spend more time learning about "socio-political correctness" and less about mathematics and sciences. The past 40 years has seen more and more money diverted to the school system and less to military and other programs. Think about it. The reason more money doesn't work is simple. You take a mandated system like education, continually flood it with money, and the system gets fat and starts viewing the fundamentals as less important. The money should be with the teachers, not with the bureaucracy. If we want to save education we need to start applying standardization and cutting the fat.
If M$ and the BSA had their way everyone would be using .xls and .doc formats. It's just not wise for a government to be beholden to a company for access to their own data. From a simple security standpoint it just makes sense for a person, a company, a state to have ready access to their data despite the application and open standards do that. In effect, Muller is saying, "You're taking our chance to profit from your insecurity away from us." Notice that he doesn't seem to be advising these proprietary companies to adopt open standards which would in the long run give them the access to government bids that they covet. That should cause any head of state to be alarmed.
You so silly!
:)
I find it fascinating how many posts are down on this idea. There seems to be a tendency among the "learned" that that which we already have learned is gospel but that which challenges it is fantasy. Yet, in order to move forward, you have to challenge and evidence of new ideas and theories have to taken seriously enough to be challenged objectively. This idea that "we've already discovered enough senses and receptors in the human anatomy, let's move on" is quite silly. Hell, we've only in the last 24 months cracked the g-nome.
Hey! AD is cool! I loved in in Netware 4.11. We just called it NDS, though.
AD isn't special. It, like so many other "innovations" from MS, is simply a rip-off off LDAP and NDS. OH, but you get the added bonus of having to have twice as many servers to implement it.
Arrogance? Telling me I can't drive an SUV while stumping for power in one, that's arrogance. Furthermore, we pour millions of dollars into countries to help them and even help them have better, cleaner sources of power but WE're the arrogant ones. We drive our SUV's because we've earned them. We work for our money and don't sit around waiting for someone to give us what we have.
I find it interesting that his conclusion was that the Bush administration needs to sign the Kyoto Treaty. Not that we as a planet need to do this or that. This isn't so much a scientific study as it is "hey, we have a computer model we can bash the U.S. with now." Nevermind the fact that the U.S. has done so much to cut emissions already in the last 30 years. Any article that includes "the Bush administration needs to do this or that" is highly suspect to me. If you want me to take you seriously, then give me the science, not the neo-political crap. It only shows that you indeed have an agenda.
I'll be interested to see the fallout of this once the details are published. If it indeed shows it's humanities fault, so be it. Understand it's just as much the rest of the worlds fault as anyones.
'I don't think the public ought to lose a lot of sleep over the issue,' says nuclear physicist Tom Cochran of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Then he turned to the camera and said, "Lunatic Fringe! We all know you're out there!"
An AMD CPU without a heatsink? Now that is news! Barring the old chips they used to supply to NIC manufacturers, this is practically a first for them.
We do this now for our kids. Turn on logging and grep for naughty words.
Basically, this was a comparison of Apache and IIS. Even then, I'd argue that Apache hardened would be preferred over IIS. But as is, who knows? They may have a point. You can't, however, make a broad statement and say Windows is more secure than Linux. Just today my company sent out another virus alert. Everyone on Earth whose been infected with a Linux-based virus raise your hand. Now all you Windows users, anyone infected with a Windows-based virus raise your hand. Now do a percentage breakdown and you just can't hide from those numbers. Yes, Windows is more ubiquitous and therefore your numbers will be higher. But the basic philosophy of the two systems are a large reason for the desparate numbers too. Microsoft and their fans are running from that. You don't see such comparisons done because they can't win. They take things like Apache and do a breakdown app-wise. Given Windows basic insecurity underneath IIS, how secure is the app after all?
Well, not allowing them to link to RH's site is pretty petty. The rest I threw in because I think it's becoming part and parcel to their way of thinking.
Hopefully, a good list of other sites linking to RedHat will be compiled and sent to their lawyers to show how stupid this is. I use Centos and love it. There are some good guys working on this project. I use it because a) it works, b) it updates very well, and c) I don't have to pay RH. See, I used to pay RHat. Then one day they came along and said, "Screw you, End User Boy!" This latest development is very bad, in my opinion. It really shows how unethical RedHat has become. I understand why people say they are the M$ of the Linux community. I used to, even after I stopped using RH, say, "They're not that bad!" I was wrong and apparently, they like their new found position. After all, it's business.
"It's taken us a long time to become the leader in Linux for the Enterprise. Since adopting Microsoft's business model, we've become profitable. Hey, the model works! Once you've adopted the model, you sort of become infused (read "infected") with the idea that this way of doing business is feeding your company. Any threat to cut off that feeding cycle has to be dealt with as a threat. That's all we're saying here. And if you piss off the community in the process, then so be it. This is a business. Bill Gates has taught us the way. We can be profitable and be despised. We did it when we shit-canned our desktop line. We even left many customers on the limb on that one. But in the long hall we sent a powerful message to Linux end users and that is, "Unless you can come to us in large enough numbers to sign a significant contract, we don't need you." We're an enterprise company, period. Beyond that, we prepared to follow this model until we see it no longer works. So far, it works beautifully."
In other words, we'll follow the letter of the GPL but screw the spirit.
It seems to me that the MPAA and RIAA are spending more time and money making the Internet and digital technology conform to their will than they are figuring out how they are going to exist in it. It's like traveling to another planet where animals, birds, fish, and other wildlife are already thriving yet insisting to not only keep your spacesuit on, but running around and trying to put one on everyone who's already figured out that you can breathe there.
Is me or are PC technology companies getting ever more divergent from media companies? The Entertainment media companies don't even have a handle on how they are going to deal with the "digital age" and computer related media software and hardware is hungering for this more and more.
More on topic, I don't know how many people really want a PC for this, though. I know that I abandoned my PC-based router because I could go buy a Linksys for $59 and had no moving parts to deal with. I think people are more into buying a TiVo or DVD player than setting up a PC next to their TV. Couple that with all the DRM and software and licenses they may have to deal with to do it and it may become another headache for users and PC makers alike.
We had this problem on a Cisco product. The install came out and saw I had "4 CPU's running." It was in fact a dual-hyperthreaded server. I think I offered to open one up and show him what he was seeing. I don't think we had a problem but it shows that some are definitely trying to license this way.
Microsoft is quick to point out that with Open Source there is no one with absolute "responsibility." What tangible asset does Microsoft's responsibility give me? In the end, I may be able to point the finger at Microsoft, but your EULA absolves you of any responsibility should your code destroy my data. With OSS I can at least go into the code and perhaps fix the offending bug. Is Microsoft planning to guarantee their code and thus wage "reparations" to up the anti in their campaign against Open Source Software?
By your own admission you don't know that much about Linux, so it's really hard for you to compare. The fact that you like XP and can use it is fine for you. I don't know what Monad is, but giving you a command line and a GUI is not really new. XP, hell Win95, NT, W2k, W2k3, they all have a command line. Call it DOS or what ever, it's still command line. Often, tasks run better and often don't fail compared to their GUI counterparts. I think everyone has likes and dislikes and more to the point people have things they like to do. There doesn't need to be one to rule them all. Linux offers an alternative, and that in itself is a good thing. For some tasks, Linux will beat Windows. For others, Windows will work better (think games....for now ;) ). I think the OSS community would do well to focus and run. We can get the notoriety by simply beating them at a few battles. The goal should be to get people away from a Wincentric way of seeing computers. Personally, I'll be happy when the local computer store asks me, "Well, do you need that application for Windows, Mac, or Linux." Don't get me wrong, the total bankruptcy of Microsoft would be great! However, that's not likely to happen.
acceptible=acceptable...okay, I suck...
"...and in a related story, China plans to have a much cheaper version with cheaper plastic balls instead of graphite available soon. The bulk of these reactors will be available exclusively in Wal-mart stores for use in generating power to trailer parks! While not melt-down proof, some municipalities consider the loss of these trailer parks a acceptible risk."
Yeah, because there must be a winner. It's not like we can have more than one browser or anything. There can only be one.
This is crap. The media fuels this idea of one player as much as anyone does.