The cost of training the average user isn't that big of a deal. How hard is it to click on an icon? I understand that they do some of that in Windows also. All word processors work in a similar way. A spreadsheet is a spreadsheet. Email is email.
All staff have to be trained at some point to use all these things. Clicking in Windows or clicking in Linux, it is about the same. Training to use a word processor under Linux is no more expensive than training to use a word processor under windows.
The real training is not so much with the average user but with the support staff. Linux is very different under the hood than Windows. But again staff must be trained and retrained every time that Microsoft upgrades their server software. The new active directory is way different than the normal domain model.
The question is not whether the training is expensive the question is do you want to train to use Linux or Windows.
With Windows it seems like you get lead by the nose down the path of expensive proprietary software. That doesn't happen with Linux.
I think that everyone in the open source community that has relations with SCO must re-evaluate those relationships. SCO's actions seem to be motivated by desperation. UNIX is dying as cheaper UNIX-like alternatives gain acceptance.
This lawsuit is SCOs last gasp for air before going under. IBM should use its muscle to put SCO under once and for all. Giving them any quarter will only fuel more lawsuits.
When I signed up for cable modem access it was for _unlimited_ access at a flat rate. Later on my ISP capped my upstream and then my downstream.
I was a little disgruntled as this didn't seem like _unlimited_ access to me. However, I am a realist and I know that in order to profit my ISP has to stretch the bandwidth to accommodate a minimum number of customers. So as long as they tell me what the upload and download caps are and how much it will cost to run _unlimited_ at those speeds, I'm okay with it.
I would NOT be okay knowing that there is some byte limit that, if exceeded, could through me into bankruptcy. I am old enough to remember the days of 12.00 per hour and bills that rivaled my house payment. No thanks, I don't need the internet that bad!
" AquaPharm Bio-Discovery Limited, the story notes 'is keeping the identity of its MRSA-killing bacteria a closely guarded secret, and taken out patents on how they can be cultivated and used.' Oh well."
So they aren't taking out patents on the bacteria but just the way that it can be cultivated?
That sounds reasonable I wouldn't think that something that was created by Mother Nature could be patented but as far as "the way that it can be cultivated" that's no secret.
It's easy to cultivate bacteria. If you don't believe me just look in my refrigerator! Hell, just give me a couple of the little critters and we'll have a surplus in no time!
I understand that China is not allowed to compile the program. That being the case how can they be sure that they have the complete source.
The only way that I can see a government feeling warm and fuzzy about this would be if they were allowed to examine all 500 million lines of code and to compile it themselves and distribute that.
Even doing this they will have to do the same thing to every update and every proprietary piece of software that they run on government computers.
I think that Linux is still the way to go for China.
Servers should never be bootable from the CD/floppy. The CMOS should be password protected and the system's OS should require a password to boot. Programs should never be allowed to 'auto-run' from a CD/floppy.
An IT manager who runs a computer center with lots of servers and personnel wants to be sure that the servers are secure even from some of his employees. One thing that they don't want is some disgruntled employee elevating his security level and then doing massive damage just before he quits.
What this means is that for servers, being able to elevate ones security level, even for people with access to the box, is not a good thing.
"Their attitude is to grant patents left right and center, and let the courts sort it out."
I don't know if this is a true statement but it does seem that way. The real tragedy is that only the wealthy have the resources to defend against such abuse so, in the end, it will be the large corporations that control everything.
Welcome to modern times where there are corporations and little consumers that feed them.
After reading all of the "What! They're not getting paid!" posts I have to wonder how many of these posters also feel that open source developer's should not ask for donations.
Come on people! LGP will be selling this game and as we all know, Linux users are notoriously tight fisted when it comes to paying for software. So this is a risky venture at best.
LGP has a lot to loose if the game doesn't sell and it is reasonable that they would limit their risk. It is not the developer's won't be paid. They may not be paid up front and if the game does poorly they may not get paid at all but if the game does well they will get 70% of the income!
It is natural for open source projects that survive to become very high quality. Look at it this way: If you buy proprietary software from a corporation, you can be sure that they are motivated by the bottom line.
Corporations are there for one reason only: profit. This in itself does not mean that the products that they put out will be inferior. However, being motivated by profit means that:
1. They will push their employees to put out a product quickly. 2. If a product has flaws, it is the bottom line that dictates the priority given to fixing that flaw.
Open source on the other hand is completely different. Although it can be motivated by profit usually it is not as much. A lot of people do it because they just want to do it. This in itself does not make open source less buggy. I would say that most young projects have as many or more bugs in them than proprietary projects.
However, if the projects live for a long time it is because dedicated coders have decided to spend their time improving the product. This dedication over a period of time without the pressure by management to quickly push the product to market is the reason that open source becomes better than proprietary software.
"'The technology will be integrated into the Windows code, sources said."
Hmmm... I'm not sure how to go on this one...
Yes folks, finally Windows will be able to emulate windows with only minor problems. ..
or
Yes folks, not only will you now be vulnerable to all of the windows viruses and worms but additional vulnerabilities of other operating systems will be bundled into Windows at no extra charge. ..
I admit it. I was a chess playing nerd in high school. The kids didn't pick on me however. Not in high school anyway. During junior high they did until one of my friends pointed out that not only was I a chess playing nerd but also on the wrestling team and a lot bigger than most of the other kids.
I never liked fighting but I had finally had enough so one day the worst bully pushed me too far and I beat the crap out of him. Then I went to everyone else who had been picking on me and ask politely if they wanted to settle the score. No one did.
I still wasn't popular but no one ever picked on my again. It's sad that I had to stoop to their level to earn the right not to be picked on.
they would simply limit the number of emails that could be sent per user per day....
Microsoft just wants to once again rape the consumer. Spammers use offshore email servers so this "measure" won't work. If people put up with it, however, other ISPs will probably follow and we will all lose. We'll still get lots of spam but we'll pay for legitimate email that we send.
No, this is about charging for email use. Spammers will always use open mail relays that are off shore to send spam. I can't think of any that will use Microsoft's servers to send it.
This is about making huge corporate profits by putting a small charge on a service that MILLIONS of people use. It' is all about greed nothing more.
The only thing that is different is that Microsoft expects to take your money and have you thank them for it!
This is just another example of using one concern to advance a hidden agenda. Tactics like this are used all the time. For example the impending blood for votes campaign that is about to ensue in Iraq. But then that's another story.
Isn't life in a corporate world, where you are nothing more than potential profit, wonderful!
They can only be motivated my money. That suggests that they feel that they may loose a lot of business if they allow Libraries to allow the public to do free searches.
I know that lexis was charging us almost four bucks per search. If I was in management and new that the local library offered this service for free I would tell the attorneys to take their laptops and spend an hour a day doing their research.
These law research places charge way too much. I think that access to the law should be made freely available to everyone. They say ignorance of the law is no excuse but if the law is unavailable to the public then I think that maybe it is.
I would like to see the state governments offer these services to the public. It makes sense. They probably spend more on these services than it would take to maintain the database.
"She's saying that her public library can't even BUY access to these databases."
No, she's saying that her public library can't get a flat-rate for access. Giving a flat rate to a law office is WAY different than giving a flat-rate to a public library!
Yes, the law belongs to all of us but their server access belongs to them. If Westlaw and LexisNexis want to charge money to use the bandwith and servers that they pay for then that's fine.
As much as I would like to joke about holding the Microsoft speaker down and tattooing a penguin on his butt, I guess I had better be a little more serious.
We should allow Microsoft make whatever points on the subject that they like. However, be advised that their speakers will most likely be very polished, professional, and masters of FUD. I'm pretty sure that they will hold mock speeches with mock after speech question and answer sessions.
We should be prepared every bit as much as Microsoft to shoot down their FUD with bullets of reality. I will not be able to attend but I hope that the people who do will examine Microsoft's positions ahead of time and think about the different ways that they will try to spin their FUD. Come up with good questions that will expose their 'shared source' for what it is. Be courteous, polite, and ruthlessly informed. And if that fails, tattoo penguins on their butts!:-)
Let them patent it all! After we have litigated ourselves into last place in the computer tech race maybe our lawmakers will get a clue and realize that software patents stifle innovation!
Slashdot Mirror
The cost of training the average user isn't that big of a deal. How hard is it to click on an icon? I understand that they do some of that in Windows also. All word processors work in a similar way. A spreadsheet is a spreadsheet. Email is email.
All staff have to be trained at some point to use all these things. Clicking in Windows or clicking in Linux, it is about the same. Training to use a word processor under Linux is no more expensive than training to use a word processor under windows.
The real training is not so much with the average user but with the support staff. Linux is very different under the hood than Windows. But again staff must be trained and retrained every time that Microsoft upgrades their server software. The new active directory is way different than the normal domain model.
The question is not whether the training is expensive the question is do you want to train to use Linux or Windows.
With Windows it seems like you get lead by the nose down the path of expensive proprietary software. That doesn't happen with Linux.
I think that everyone in the open source community that has relations with SCO must re-evaluate those relationships. SCO's actions seem to be motivated by desperation. UNIX is dying as cheaper UNIX-like alternatives gain acceptance.
This lawsuit is SCOs last gasp for air before going under. IBM should use its muscle to put SCO under once and for all. Giving them any quarter will only fuel more lawsuits.
When I signed up for cable modem access it was for _unlimited_ access at a flat rate. Later on my ISP capped my upstream and then my downstream.
I was a little disgruntled as this didn't seem like _unlimited_ access to me. However, I am a realist and I know that in order to profit my ISP has to stretch the bandwidth to accommodate a minimum number of customers. So as long as they tell me what the upload and download caps are and how much it will cost to run _unlimited_ at those speeds, I'm okay with it.
I would NOT be okay knowing that there is some byte limit that, if exceeded, could through me into bankruptcy. I am old enough to remember the days of 12.00 per hour and bills that rivaled my house payment. No thanks, I don't need the internet that bad!
" AquaPharm Bio-Discovery Limited, the story notes 'is keeping the identity of its MRSA-killing bacteria a closely guarded secret, and taken out patents on how they can be cultivated and used.' Oh well."
So they aren't taking out patents on the bacteria but just the way that it can be cultivated?
That sounds reasonable I wouldn't think that something that was created by Mother Nature could be patented but as far as "the way that it can be cultivated" that's no secret.
It's easy to cultivate bacteria. If you don't believe me just look in my refrigerator! Hell, just give me a couple of the little critters and we'll have a surplus in no time!
I understand that China is not allowed to compile the program. That being the case how can they be sure that they have the complete source.
The only way that I can see a government feeling warm and fuzzy about this would be if they were allowed to examine all 500 million lines of code and to compile it themselves and distribute that.
Even doing this they will have to do the same thing to every update and every proprietary piece of software that they run on government computers.
I think that Linux is still the way to go for China.
Servers should never be bootable from the CD/floppy. The CMOS should be password protected and the system's OS should require a password to boot. Programs should never be allowed to 'auto-run' from a CD/floppy.
An IT manager who runs a computer center with lots of servers and personnel wants to be sure that the servers are secure even from some of his employees. One thing that they don't want is some disgruntled employee elevating his security level and then doing massive damage just before he quits.
What this means is that for servers, being able to elevate ones security level, even for people with access to the box, is not a good thing.
Yeah but if you failed to register it with Microsoft the damn thing would stop working altogether!
"Their attitude is to grant patents left right and center, and let the courts sort it out."
I don't know if this is a true statement but it does seem that way. The real tragedy is that only the wealthy have the resources to defend against such abuse so, in the end, it will be the large corporations that control everything.
Welcome to modern times where there are corporations and little consumers that feed them.
I don't think it is as bad as you portray it to be.
It won't be an easy task but I could see it succeeding if the team members are motivated and dedicated.
After reading all of the "What! They're not getting paid!" posts I have to wonder how many of these posters also feel that open source developer's should not ask for donations.
Come on people! LGP will be selling this game and as we all know, Linux users are notoriously tight fisted when it comes to paying for software. So this is a risky venture at best.
LGP has a lot to loose if the game doesn't sell and it is reasonable that they would limit their risk. It is not the developer's won't be paid. They may not be paid up front and if the game does poorly they may not get paid at all but if the game does well they will get 70% of the income!
"He also blames the users lack of knowledge as a cause of some of these bugs."
Yes Bill, I'm sure that it was the way I clicked the button that caused the BSOD...
It is natural for open source projects that survive to become very high quality. Look at it this way: If you buy proprietary software from a corporation, you can be sure that they are motivated by the bottom line.
Corporations are there for one reason only: profit. This in itself does not mean that the products that they put out will be inferior. However, being motivated by profit means that:
1. They will push their employees to put out a product quickly.
2. If a product has flaws, it is the bottom line that dictates the priority given to fixing that flaw.
Open source on the other hand is completely different. Although it can be motivated by profit usually it is not as much. A lot of people do it because they just want to do it. This in itself does not make open source less buggy. I would say that most young projects have as many or more bugs in them than proprietary projects.
However, if the projects live for a long time it is because dedicated coders have decided to spend their time improving the product. This dedication over a period of time without the pressure by management to quickly push the product to market is the reason that open source becomes better than proprietary software.
"'The technology will be integrated into the Windows code, sources said."
.
.
Hmmm... I'm not sure how to go on this one...
Yes folks, finally Windows will be able to emulate windows with only minor problems. .
or
Yes folks, not only will you now be vulnerable to all of the windows viruses and worms but additional vulnerabilities of other operating systems will be bundled into Windows at no extra charge. .
I admit it. I was a chess playing nerd in high school. The kids didn't pick on me however. Not in high school anyway. During junior high they did until one of my friends pointed out that not only was I a chess playing nerd but also on the wrestling team and a lot bigger than most of the other kids.
I never liked fighting but I had finally had enough so one day the worst bully pushed me too far and I beat the crap out of him. Then I went to everyone else who had been picking on me and ask politely if they wanted to settle the score. No one did.
I still wasn't popular but no one ever picked on my again. It's sad that I had to stoop to their level to earn the right not to be picked on.
if the world is going to be destroyed I have a few paybacks I want to deliver. . .
Muhahahahah......
they would simply limit the number of emails that could be sent per user per day....
Microsoft just wants to once again rape the consumer. Spammers use offshore email servers so this "measure" won't work. If people put up with it, however, other ISPs will probably follow and we will all lose. We'll still get lots of spam but we'll pay for legitimate email that we send.
No, this is about charging for email use. Spammers will always use open mail relays that are off shore to send spam. I can't think of any that will use Microsoft's servers to send it.
This is about making huge corporate profits by putting a small charge on a service that MILLIONS of people use. It' is all about greed nothing more.
The only thing that is different is that Microsoft expects to take your money and have you thank them for it!
This is just another example of using one concern to advance a hidden agenda. Tactics like this are used all the time. For example the impending blood for votes campaign that is about to ensue in Iraq. But then that's another story.
Isn't life in a corporate world, where you are nothing more than potential profit, wonderful!
They can only be motivated my money. That suggests that they feel that they may loose a lot of business if they allow Libraries to allow the public to do free searches.
I know that lexis was charging us almost four bucks per search. If I was in management and new that the local library offered this service for free I would tell the attorneys to take their laptops and spend an hour a day doing their research.
These law research places charge way too much. I think that access to the law should be made freely available to everyone. They say ignorance of the law is no excuse but if the law is unavailable to the public then I think that maybe it is.
I would like to see the state governments offer these services to the public. It makes sense. They probably spend more on these services than it would take to maintain the database.
"So you figure it'd be okay if someone bought a copy of all the data on LexisNexis and then operated its own search service on the data?"
I didn't say that. However, any non-copyrighted matterial is fair game. The law is not copyrighted it belongs to the public.
"She's saying that her public library can't even BUY access to these databases."
No, she's saying that her public library can't get a flat-rate for access. Giving a flat rate to a law office is WAY different than giving a flat-rate to a public library!
Yes, the law belongs to all of us but their server access belongs to them. If Westlaw and LexisNexis want to charge money to use the bandwith and servers that they pay for then that's fine.
Not everything is free as in beer!
As much as I would like to joke about holding the Microsoft speaker down and tattooing a penguin on his butt, I guess I had better be a little more serious.
:-)
We should allow Microsoft make whatever points on the subject that they like. However, be advised that their speakers will most likely be very polished, professional, and masters of FUD. I'm pretty sure that they will hold mock speeches with mock after speech question and answer sessions.
We should be prepared every bit as much as Microsoft to shoot down their FUD with bullets of reality. I will not be able to attend but I hope that the people who do will examine Microsoft's positions ahead of time and think about the different ways that they will try to spin their FUD. Come up with good questions that will expose their 'shared source' for what it is. Be courteous, polite, and ruthlessly informed. And if that fails, tattoo penguins on their butts!
Let them patent it all! After we have litigated ourselves into last place in the computer tech race maybe our lawmakers will get a clue and realize that software patents stifle innovation!