This sounds like a golden opportunity to ditch all the dodgy hit and miss implementations of RPM and move to something better. Maybe Gentoos Portage system adapted for binaries and wearing a nice GUI, or APT (or whatever it's called) from Debian.
The thing is, Government's a soft touch. I work in the IT industry as well, for a company a little like Logica exceppt that (IMHO) we're much better.
Still, the point is this; In a time when IT spending has fallen through the floor post Sept 11th and the telco sector is dead in the water, it's still possible to make handsome profits out of Government contracts - especially if they're based on T&M contracts.
The people buying for Government don't have a clue most of the time, and they're too sunk in the infighting, backstabbing, he-say she-say petty politic-ing and greasy pole climbing that goes on in all Government organisations.
Having said all of that, OSS isn't the way to go with projects of this nature (or any project which has a definite deadline, however artificial). Tougher project management and fixed price contracts are the way to go. It's funny how motivated a company can become to finish a project "on time and too budget" if they know that the cash is limited
The "Music Industry" is unlikely grant licences which efectively cuts the royalty payment to themselves.
All eveidence is to the contrary - start back in 1985 or whenever it was that CDs started replacing wax - the wax was more expensive to produce yet CDs cost more that the equivalent 12" LPs. I never heard about artistes getting paid more then.
I also remember the promise of DAT - was supposed to replace casettes . That didn't happen because the "Music Industry" was paranoid about people being able to make perfect copies of LPs.
Then there are all the artistes that get dropped like a bad habit when their records don't sell in sufficient volume to suit the record company ("Music Industry"). Of course, when the artiste wants to break the same contract, they find they can't.
For "Music Industry" read "RIAA" in this instance.
yes I'm rambling - it's 12:20AM and I should be asleep. Bottom line is I can't see this one suceeding unfourtanately.
Riscos started well before 1994. I remember the launch of the original Acorn Archimedes back in 1987. It launched with an OS called Arthur. RISCOS was released in 1988/89 and brought multi-tasking, Anti-Aliased fonts to the platform. The coolest feature was being able to reallocate the amount of memory allocated to applications as those applications were executing. Another highlight was the release of Elite in 1992 - by far the best version of Elite I've seen on any platform. Acorn was ahead of it's time and ahead of the game. The only problem was that the Arc was marketed as a computer for schools meaning that it was never taken seriously. Competitors at the time were; Atari 1040ST, Commodore Amiga, 286 PC-ATs.
In my first job, I was a Database Engineer. In my second, I was a Programmer, now I'm a Developement Consultant.
In all three jobs, I've done almost exactly the same work, namely Database and GUI stuff - typical System development stuff.
The only difference has been the way I'm treated by my company. In the first job, I was an underpaid, anonymous cog in a very large machine. In the second job, I was a larger cog in a smaller machine - but still lacked autonomy - the only way to get ahead was to become a Team Leader, then a "Consultant". That was (and still is the Path To Glory).
In my current job, I'm expected to blaze my own trail, I'm treated as a valuable resource an am recognised as an asset. I know what I'm worth to the company, I know how much they sell my skills for. Consequently, I have the freedom to choose my own direction. I can become a Management Consultant, a Technical Consultant a Quality Manager, a Project Manager or whatever. If I wish to write code for the rest of my life, I can. If I decide not to, that's cool to - big software projects aren't staffed solely by code monkeys.
My point is this: Programming is a dead end job. Project based software/system development isn't.
Sorry man, that's the worst defence I've ever seen. It can be argued (not by me, you understand) that the Lycoris icons are ugly. It could be argued (but not by me) that Gnome and especially Nautilus are ugly. Then again, it could be argued that you're ugly, - especially your butt from which wisdom springs eternal.
(But not by me, you understand)
Also, they intend to build in.NET support for the Mac, though Microsoft says that they do not intend to push.NET for Mac developers."
People tend to forget that OSX has its own framework - the one based on OpenStep. This is also represented on Linux as GNUStep. Mewonders exactly what Mickey is trying to achieve wihh.NET.
No I don't, actually. I like having access to Open Source software, but if there's a compiler which produces faster bianaries, I'll use that if I can - "Free" or not.
Denzel should've got it back in '93 for Malcolm X. I can't believe that he didn't. But then, Hollywood politics probably intervened. As I recall Spike Lee had to put up some of his own money to finish the picture.
Actually there are some useful features on this phone but the marketing geeks seem enthralled with the wallpaper, "press-on" covers, polyphonic tones played through a "real speaker", and a built-in FM radio. Gee - all it needs is a "fashion suppository cover"** to be really useful.
These features are what pull in the punters, they're what excite the kids for whom a mobey is a fashion accessory with which they can text their mates. If this was built for geeks, it would look dull, have one of those horrible cheap rubber keyed keypads and yeah, it would probably do java applets, broadband networking, linux, mozilla, apache etc but then it wouldn't sell very well.
What this design and marketing will do is stimulate *volume* sales and then the geeks like you can use the interesting features to stimulate the after market....
I'm silly enough to respond to you, too You flatter me, Bruce I doubt Mundie would take the trouble
Me too, but that's precisely the point. Let the software do the talking.
I don't see how OS is more efficient according to the way you argue it. You assume
The supplier is prepared to accept a flat rate for his "widgets". His increase in revenue is linked soley to his ability to produce more in a given timeframe than he was able to before. He depends entirely on your ability as middleman(?) to make the market or sell on these increases, while you realise the extra profitability from his 'efficiency'
Your whole premise is based on increased profitability within a given timeframe (you quote an hour). You state one GPL application has effectively infinite supply. Completely overlooking that any program, propritary, commercial, OpenSource/Free Software or whatever has an infinite supply. The number of units produced within a given timeframe (upon which your profitability depends) should be no different for any piece of software. Experience has proven that some OpenSource products actually take longer to produce that their closed source competitors or equivalents (Mozilla - 2 years in which time Mickey has taken over themarket).
Finally, if efficiency is achieved by lowering the unit cost, then GPL projects may well be a false economy. If the number of 'man years' spent producing some of the larger products was measured using the same costings as, say, Mickeysoft would use, it could very well turn out that unit costs are much higher than non-free equivalents.
I can't see the point in Mundies 'attack' or Perens response. Perens irratates me almost as much as Mundie/Gates/Ballmer do.
For the record, unlike most people here, I don't think the GPL is the holy grail anymore than I think Binary only software distribution is the only way to do things. This whole discussion is a nonsense. Mundie is wasting his time in empty posturing and Parens is silly to respond.
For example, business students at the University of Florida pay about $50 annually to use statistics software that would cost as much as $1,000 if purchased outright, Chiang said.
In other words the the real problem with commercial software is that it is priced too highly. I've always been of the opinion that if software was cheaper, more people would purchase it. I'm not suggesting that the ratio described in the snippet above is the correct one,and that software prices on the shelf should be a 20th of what they are currently, but software prices are often sized to the commercial/professional/enterprise users pocket, rather than to the individual/home users. Also, per seat licencing generally racks up the prices.
Lower software prices is the way to go.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh grow up and get a life! Why be so oversensitive about GNU/Free/Stallman Sheesh.
go there http://www.unitedlinux.com
This sounds like a golden opportunity to ditch all the dodgy hit and miss implementations of RPM and move to something better. Maybe Gentoos Portage system adapted for binaries and wearing a nice GUI, or APT (or whatever it's called) from Debian.
Does anyone seriously care about this story?
The thing is, Government's a soft touch. I work in the IT industry as well, for a company a little like Logica exceppt that (IMHO) we're much better.
Still, the point is this; In a time when IT spending has fallen through the floor post Sept 11th and the telco sector is dead in the water, it's still possible to make handsome profits out of Government contracts - especially if they're based on T&M contracts.
The people buying for Government don't have a clue most of the time, and they're too sunk in the infighting, backstabbing, he-say she-say petty politic-ing and greasy pole climbing that goes on in all Government organisations.
Having said all of that, OSS isn't the way to go with projects of this nature (or any project which has a definite deadline, however artificial). Tougher project management and fixed price contracts are the way to go. It's funny how motivated a company can become to finish a project "on time and too budget" if they know that the cash is limited
The "Music Industry" is unlikely grant licences which efectively cuts the royalty payment to themselves.
All eveidence is to the contrary - start back in 1985 or whenever it was that CDs started replacing wax - the wax was more expensive to produce yet CDs cost more that the equivalent 12" LPs. I never heard about artistes getting paid more then.
I also remember the promise of DAT - was supposed to replace casettes . That didn't happen because the "Music Industry" was paranoid about people being able to make perfect copies of LPs.
Then there are all the artistes that get dropped like a bad habit when their records don't sell in sufficient volume to suit the record company ("Music Industry"). Of course, when the artiste wants to break the same contract, they find they can't.
For "Music Industry" read "RIAA" in this instance.
yes I'm rambling - it's 12:20AM and I should be asleep. Bottom line is I can't see this one suceeding unfourtanately.
Riscos started well before 1994. I remember the launch of the original Acorn Archimedes back in 1987. It launched with an OS called Arthur. RISCOS was released in 1988/89 and brought multi-tasking, Anti-Aliased fonts to the platform. The coolest feature was being able to reallocate the amount of memory allocated to applications as those applications were executing. Another highlight was the release of Elite in 1992 - by far the best version of Elite I've seen on any platform. Acorn was ahead of it's time and ahead of the game. The only problem was that the Arc was marketed as a computer for schools meaning that it was never taken seriously. Competitors at the time were; Atari 1040ST, Commodore Amiga, 286 PC-ATs.
In my first job, I was a Database Engineer. In my second, I was a Programmer, now I'm a Developement Consultant. In all three jobs, I've done almost exactly the same work, namely Database and GUI stuff - typical System development stuff. The only difference has been the way I'm treated by my company. In the first job, I was an underpaid, anonymous cog in a very large machine. In the second job, I was a larger cog in a smaller machine - but still lacked autonomy - the only way to get ahead was to become a Team Leader, then a "Consultant". That was (and still is the Path To Glory). In my current job, I'm expected to blaze my own trail, I'm treated as a valuable resource an am recognised as an asset. I know what I'm worth to the company, I know how much they sell my skills for. Consequently, I have the freedom to choose my own direction. I can become a Management Consultant, a Technical Consultant a Quality Manager, a Project Manager or whatever. If I wish to write code for the rest of my life, I can. If I decide not to, that's cool to - big software projects aren't staffed solely by code monkeys. My point is this: Programming is a dead end job. Project based software/system development isn't.
No, man. You still don't get it. Kool is Kool. Ugly is Butt. KDE is Kool. You are Butt.
Sorry man, that's the worst defence I've ever seen. It can be argued (not by me, you understand) that the Lycoris icons are ugly. It could be argued (but not by me) that Gnome and especially Nautilus are ugly. Then again, it could be argued that you're ugly, - especially your butt from which wisdom springs eternal. (But not by me, you understand)
Also, they intend to build in .NET support for the Mac, though Microsoft says that they do not intend to push .NET for Mac developers." .NET.
People tend to forget that OSX has its own framework - the one based on OpenStep. This is also represented on Linux as GNUStep. Mewonders exactly what Mickey is trying to achieve wihh
No I don't, actually. I like having access to Open Source software, but if there's a compiler which produces faster bianaries, I'll use that if I can - "Free" or not.
So why don't you develop a word equivalent for Linux, then?
Which do you want running on your mission critical server?
Gentoo of course.....
d) Hollywood culture is destroying Europe.
Denzel should've got it back in '93 for Malcolm X. I can't believe that he didn't. But then, Hollywood politics probably intervened. As I recall Spike Lee had to put up some of his own money to finish the picture.
Lycoris isn't the only friendly Desktop. ELX (http://www.elxlinux.org) seeks the same goals and is available now.
Actually there are some useful features on this phone but the marketing geeks seem enthralled with the wallpaper, "press-on" covers, polyphonic tones played through a "real speaker", and a built-in FM radio. Gee - all it needs is a "fashion suppository cover"** to be really useful.
These features are what pull in the punters, they're what excite the kids for whom a mobey is a fashion accessory with which they can text their mates. If this was built for geeks, it would look dull, have one of those horrible cheap rubber keyed keypads and yeah, it would probably do java applets, broadband networking, linux, mozilla, apache etc but then it wouldn't sell very well.
What this design and marketing will do is stimulate *volume* sales and then the geeks like you can use the interesting features to stimulate the after market....
Yeah, I find it fscking funny, man.
But I do have a passport and have left my country to see the world before now.
They may need an awful lot more than $20 before payday....
If the Code wasn't speaking already, we wouldn't be having this useless discussion would we? Long may it continue, inspite of FUD and counter FUD.
I'm silly enough to respond to you, too
You flatter me, Bruce
I doubt Mundie would take the trouble
Me too, but that's precisely the point. Let the software do the talking.
The supplier is prepared to accept a flat rate for his "widgets". His increase in revenue is linked soley to his ability to produce more in a given timeframe than he was able to before. He depends entirely on your ability as middleman(?) to make the market or sell on these increases, while you realise the extra profitability from his 'efficiency'
Your whole premise is based on increased profitability within a given timeframe (you quote an hour). You state one GPL application has effectively infinite supply. Completely overlooking that any program, propritary, commercial, OpenSource/Free Software or whatever has an infinite supply. The number of units produced within a given timeframe (upon which your profitability depends) should be no different for any piece of software. Experience has proven that some OpenSource products actually take longer to produce that their closed source competitors or equivalents (Mozilla - 2 years in which time Mickey has taken over themarket).
Finally, if efficiency is achieved by lowering the unit cost, then GPL projects may well be a false economy. If the number of 'man years' spent producing some of the larger products was measured using the same costings as, say, Mickeysoft would use, it could very well turn out that unit costs are much higher than non-free equivalents.
I can't see the point in Mundies 'attack' or Perens response. Perens irratates me almost as much as Mundie/Gates/Ballmer do.
For the record, unlike most people here, I don't think the GPL is the holy grail anymore than I think Binary only software distribution is the only way to do things. This whole discussion is a nonsense. Mundie is wasting his time in empty posturing and Parens is silly to respond.
For example, business students at the University of Florida pay about $50 annually to use statistics software that would cost as much as $1,000 if purchased outright, Chiang said.
In other words the the real problem with commercial software is that it is priced too highly.
I've always been of the opinion that if software was cheaper, more people would purchase it. I'm not suggesting that the ratio described in the snippet above is the correct one,and that software prices on the shelf should be a 20th of what they are currently, but software prices are often sized to the commercial/professional/enterprise users pocket, rather than to the individual/home users.
Also, per seat licencing generally racks up the prices.
Lower software prices is the way to go.