The only good thing to say is that Red Hat's price has also been rising quite strongly (though not as strongly as SCO) so there are people out there betting the opposite way too.
This "my OS is better than your OS" crap is soooo boring.
I could understand it if it was an argument about licences, but it's not.
Basic point is, both *BSD and Linux are children of the free software movement and through the GNU tools they are strongly linked. Every company or user that stops using Win 95/98/NT/XP/whatever and switches to either OS is a victory for those of us who think that the ideal of free software will help build a better world.
If you cannot hack that then piss off and leave the rest of us to get on with it.
And his best work is certainly in the past - it's been downhill all the way since Altair BASIC.
Seriously, though, when do we think Bill last wrote some code?
It's an interesting contrast between the world's of FOSS and commercial software. Given that Linus is still involved at the code face that must make him the most powerful (and it is power and not just influence) programmer in the world.
Bottom line is: this now war unto the death - at least in the jurisdiction of the United States. Is anyone aware of SCO making any similar claims in court in any other jursidiction?
This argument is just nonsense. Should the government not have bothered to build the internet then?
Sure, there is a balance to be struck but if I, as a voter, decide I want a society where goods like software are held in common I am certainly allowed to vote to make it happen.
OK, Linux leads in the server world, but BSD is more stable and surely isn't any more difficult to set up and configure.
What is the reason? All the effort that goes into security and stability in BSD doesn't seem to be getting it very far (in the sense it's mind share is probably falling if one ignores OS X), which is particularly odd when the core concept of the system - Unix - is through, OS X and Linux, reaching bigger and bigger audiences all the time - not bad for an OS that was pronounced dead when Win NT was launched more than a decade ago.
Is it just the larger enthusiast base for Linux? Or what?
I am a linux person, and when I switched from the beast's offerings I chose Linux because that was all I knew about and though I'd heard of BSD it was the BSD/OS... so is it just hype? Or is there something missing with the free BSDs?
I suspect that when the big boys start shipping their 2.6 distros we'll have more to play with - do we wnat a pre-emptive kernel and so on.
I run 2.6 a bit and I am looking forward to that day...as the 2.6 maintainer I suppose we can expect Mr Morton to be plugging most of his bits into the mainline.
To be fair to him, the point he is making here is about servers and they are flogging a Linux-based desktop.
It's quite an interesting reversal of the usual take on all this: that Linux just cannot make it on the desktop but is crushing all before it in the server market.
At the risk of losing karma for being "offtopic" I want to say thanks for posting it. Like a lot of people I didn't know much about satellites and I think my knowledge is up by about 400 - 500% now.
As to the question "what difference does it make to me?" - that is simply another way of asking "who cares if XXXX runs Linux" - the point is we are geeks, we care about technical knowledge and now we have some more.
The argument presented here is a typical libertarian critique of collectivism, but it leaves out an essential issue: that there are positive freedoms as well as negative freedoms.
In my country, as a result of collective action I have a right to healthcare at the point of need, my children have a right to be educated, if I lose my job I have the right to some financial assistance. All of these things enhance and not diminish my freedom.
Similarly, if government action were to, say, enforce an open fomat for public documents, that might diminish Bill Gates's freedom to screw me for money (he loses his negative freedom - freedom from government commercial intervention), but it certainly increases my freedom in a positive way (I now have a right to expect government documents to open on my box without buying Mr Gates's Office suite).
And IBM's money doesn't come with strings attached?
The key is the licence - if it's a free/OSS licence then it's free/OSS, simple as that.
And of course government money comes with strings - like everybody else who pays you they are entitled to ask you to deliver what they want. If you don't want the money, don't sign the contract!
Point of fact: this is not a Bill, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act has already passed into law. What this is about is the statutory instrument needed to gave various parts of it effect in law.
Re:Quality versus quantity
on
Google Turns 5
·
· Score: 1
Well, as there is no interface difference between that page and the main page then the improvements would be big.
Google is great, but most of my searches are linux devolpment related and it would be great to have some sort of quality filter and an intelligent handling of mailing list based results...
So where does it end? Ban all steel imports because you can't fight a war without steel right? And we all know that US steel is way too expensive to survive imports. Is that your excuse there?
More likely that the Republican party would see its lock on the disproportionally powerful west and mid west states (they are way over represented in the Senate and the electoral college) disappear if they let the market in.
The proof that your argument is garbage is that the level of subsidy is such that it allows US farmers to export their goods overseas at subsidised prices - so starving third world farmers and making options such as growing opium and coca more attractive than growing legitimate crops for export.
A lot of coding is pretty low skilled, truth be told, and that will certainly fly out of the door towards the cheaper economies. But the key advanatage the US has is its vast stock of capital and that will, as anyone who has read Marx will tell you, be employed to intensify the labour process, making US software engineers more productive than their competitors abroad.
Chasing after low skilled coding jobs is a waste of time - the US has to compete at the high end, not think it can turn out more and more low skilled coders.
In any case - very few coders are actually working on software which can be sold, most are working inside companies - and there will always be limits on just how much of that work you can outsource. Sure the internet makes it easier, but in the end it is very difficult to have a non-tech person explain their bug via email, much easier to just sit with them and see it happen.
What's laughable about this is, there is no issue of protectionism anywhere to be seen.
I agree in the sense that no Japanese company's product is being privileged - what is happening is that a US company wants protection from competition. As a result they are throwing up a smokescreen by saying that government sponsored R & D is in some way protectionism - I suppose it is an extension of the argument that free software is communism.
The world's first electronic computer was built by the state, the internet was built by the state, so MS's claims are ahistorical as well as hyperbolic.
MS are simply copying the line of the US government (and a lot of US companies and even/. users).
Look at steel, farm goods, coding out-sourcing, skilled immigrants etc, etc.
In all these fields the US or a lot of its citizens are actively seeking to halt global competition and seeking to privilege US companies, producers and citizens.
MS are simply trying to get their piece of the action, though of course than means that they are already on a downward slope (ask any Pensylvannia steel worker about how effective trade sanctions have been at protecting the long term health of their industry).
Do manufacturers make these things so beautiful to cover for the essential failure of the computer revolution? Only a few years ago we were being told we could expect high economic growth for years to come on the back of the ICT revolution and the explosion in computing power and interconnectivity - nobody believes that now.
So a serious question is: do the manufacturers now strive to make these machines more beautiful to mnake us forget that they have failed us. Ok, as someone who has read Marx, maybe I should say, is this an attempt to get us to fetishise the commodity more to make up for our human failure to realise their potential in our service?
1) An operating system designed by a committee is going to fail.
2) An operating system controlled by a government is eventually going to be oppressive and restrictive.
Of course if this were true then TCP/IP (yes I do not it is not an OS) would be obsolete and the Internet would have long since been abandoned.
Right wing libertarians need to do better than spout this "government is evil" tripe. It's a sort of trotskyism in reverse, and it's just as boring and stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
But not only is the SCO share price rising, but there are a lot of shares being traded too. The markets back SCO at the moment and not us.
See this.
The only good thing to say is that Red Hat's price has also been rising quite strongly (though not as strongly as SCO) so there are people out there betting the opposite way too.
This "my OS is better than your OS" crap is soooo boring.
I could understand it if it was an argument about licences, but it's not.
Basic point is, both *BSD and Linux are children of the free software movement and through the GNU tools they are strongly linked. Every company or user that stops using Win 95/98/NT/XP/whatever and switches to either OS is a victory for those of us who think that the ideal of free software will help build a better world.
If you cannot hack that then piss off and leave the rest of us to get on with it.
This babe obviously reads /. too much and has mistaken BSD for toast.
Bill Gates hasn't coded anything in over 10 years
And his best work is certainly in the past - it's been downhill all the way since Altair BASIC.
Seriously, though, when do we think Bill last wrote some code?
It's an interesting contrast between the world's of FOSS and commercial software. Given that Linus is still involved at the code face that must make him the most powerful (and it is power and not just influence) programmer in the world.
Angle Grinder Man = yes, he's great. Long live air poisoning and parking that blocks roads and endangers life.
I hope he gets sent down for a long time.
Nah, they won't get away with that again. Better off tracking the company directors instead - Zaphod Beebelbrox is quite a rare name.
Bottom line is: this now war unto the death - at least in the jurisdiction of the United States. Is anyone aware of SCO making any similar claims in court in any other jursidiction?
This argument is just nonsense. Should the government not have bothered to build the internet then?
Sure, there is a balance to be struck but if I, as a voter, decide I want a society where goods like software are held in common I am certainly allowed to vote to make it happen.
Every one of the top 50 sites at Netscraft are running some BSD variant atm. See http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html
I know that is no scientific - but every one? Must tell you something.
OK, Linux leads in the server world, but BSD is more stable and surely isn't any more difficult to set up and configure.
What is the reason? All the effort that goes into security and stability in BSD doesn't seem to be getting it very far (in the sense it's mind share is probably falling if one ignores OS X), which is particularly odd when the core concept of the system - Unix - is through, OS X and Linux, reaching bigger and bigger audiences all the time - not bad for an OS that was pronounced dead when Win NT was launched more than a decade ago.
Is it just the larger enthusiast base for Linux? Or what?
I am a linux person, and when I switched from the beast's offerings I chose Linux because that was all I knew about and though I'd heard of BSD it was the BSD/OS... so is it just hype? Or is there something missing with the free BSDs?
I suspect that when the big boys start shipping their 2.6 distros we'll have more to play with - do we wnat a pre-emptive kernel and so on.
I run 2.6 a bit and I am looking forward to that day...as the 2.6 maintainer I suppose we can expect Mr Morton to be plugging most of his bits into the mainline.
Of course - they wrote all(*) the Linux code so why wouldn't they run it as their server??
(*)Except that memory allocation stuff for 64 bit Intel, it appears that was written by somebody who worked for a company called "Ma Bell"
To be fair to him, the point he is making here is about servers and they are flogging a Linux-based desktop.
It's quite an interesting reversal of the usual take on all this: that Linux just cannot make it on the desktop but is crushing all before it in the server market.
At the risk of losing karma for being "offtopic" I want to say thanks for posting it. Like a lot of people I didn't know much about satellites and I think my knowledge is up by about 400 - 500% now.
As to the question "what difference does it make to me?" - that is simply another way of asking "who cares if XXXX runs Linux" - the point is we are geeks, we care about technical knowledge and now we have some more.
The argument presented here is a typical libertarian critique of collectivism, but it leaves out an essential issue: that there are positive freedoms as well as negative freedoms.
In my country, as a result of collective action I have a right to healthcare at the point of need, my children have a right to be educated, if I lose my job I have the right to some financial assistance. All of these things enhance and not diminish my freedom.
Similarly, if government action were to, say, enforce an open fomat for public documents, that might diminish Bill Gates's freedom to screw me for money (he loses his negative freedom - freedom from government commercial intervention), but it certainly increases my freedom in a positive way (I now have a right to expect government documents to open on my box without buying Mr Gates's Office suite).
And IBM's money doesn't come with strings attached?
The key is the licence - if it's a free/OSS licence then it's free/OSS, simple as that.
And of course government money comes with strings - like everybody else who pays you they are entitled to ask you to deliver what they want. If you don't want the money, don't sign the contract!
Point of fact: this is not a Bill, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act has already passed into law. What this is about is the statutory instrument needed to gave various parts of it effect in law.
Well, as there is no interface difference between that page and the main page then the improvements would be big.
Google is great, but most of my searches are linux devolpment related and it would be great to have some sort of quality filter and an intelligent handling of mailing list based results...
Get out of here!
So where does it end? Ban all steel imports because you can't fight a war without steel right? And we all know that US steel is way too expensive to survive imports. Is that your excuse there?
More likely that the Republican party would see its lock on the disproportionally powerful west and mid west states (they are way over represented in the Senate and the electoral college) disappear if they let the market in.
The proof that your argument is garbage is that the level of subsidy is such that it allows US farmers to export their goods overseas at subsidised prices - so starving third world farmers and making options such as growing opium and coca more attractive than growing legitimate crops for export.
I'd only agree with this up to a point.
A lot of coding is pretty low skilled, truth be told, and that will certainly fly out of the door towards the cheaper economies. But the key advanatage the US has is its vast stock of capital and that will, as anyone who has read Marx will tell you, be employed to intensify the labour process, making US software engineers more productive than their competitors abroad.
Chasing after low skilled coding jobs is a waste of time - the US has to compete at the high end, not think it can turn out more and more low skilled coders.
In any case - very few coders are actually working on software which can be sold, most are working inside companies - and there will always be limits on just how much of that work you can outsource. Sure the internet makes it easier, but in the end it is very difficult to have a non-tech person explain their bug via email, much easier to just sit with them and see it happen.
What's laughable about this is, there is no issue of protectionism anywhere to be seen.
I agree in the sense that no Japanese company's product is being privileged - what is happening is that a US company wants protection from competition. As a result they are throwing up a smokescreen by saying that government sponsored R & D is in some way protectionism - I suppose it is an extension of the argument that free software is communism.
The world's first electronic computer was built by the state, the internet was built by the state, so MS's claims are ahistorical as well as hyperbolic.
MS are simply copying the line of the US government (and a lot of US companies and even /. users).
Look at steel, farm goods, coding out-sourcing, skilled immigrants etc, etc.
In all these fields the US or a lot of its citizens are actively seeking to halt global competition and seeking to privilege US companies, producers and citizens.
MS are simply trying to get their piece of the action, though of course than means that they are already on a downward slope (ask any Pensylvannia steel worker about how effective trade sanctions have been at protecting the long term health of their industry).
Do manufacturers make these things so beautiful to cover for the essential failure of the computer revolution? Only a few years ago we were being told we could expect high economic growth for years to come on the back of the ICT revolution and the explosion in computing power and interconnectivity - nobody believes that now.
So a serious question is: do the manufacturers now strive to make these machines more beautiful to mnake us forget that they have failed us. Ok, as someone who has read Marx, maybe I should say, is this an attempt to get us to fetishise the commodity more to make up for our human failure to realise their potential in our service?
1) An operating system designed by a committee is going to fail.
2) An operating system controlled by a government is eventually going to be oppressive and restrictive.
Of course if this were true then TCP/IP (yes I do not it is not an OS) would be obsolete and the Internet would have long since been abandoned.
Right wing libertarians need to do better than spout this "government is evil" tripe. It's a sort of trotskyism in reverse, and it's just as boring and stupid.