I would have to agree that hiring better sys admins in the first place is a viable solution. However, there are boxes sitting in the basement of some companies that people don't even know about most of the time and paying a sys admin to sit in front of it is a waist. And when the company eventually does realize it exists months or years later, it's only because it stopped working.
If there was some OPTIONAL scheme to give the developers of software a way to update their own software (updates as in fixing buffer overflows, etc) out there without sys admins needed. In other words, leave it up to the developers of the software to EASILY fix their own horrible mistakes. This does not include upgrades - more like fixes.
In a way, giving the software the ability to phone home to its developer for critical updates would be extraordinarily beneficial. Of course, this will easily fail if developers abuse the system and do more than just fix bugs without changing architecture.
I can see a single, open source system that all developers can use as the perfect solution. It saves money, and it gives the developers the ability to compensate for their mistakes.
Computers are NOT hard to grasp. They are stable and non changing- as far as basics go. They just get more complex and have more features- it's a matter of remembering more and thinking less. We still run on 1's and 0's here people. Try being a philosophist or a phsycologist and ironing out problems women have or proving there is a God. People are just fish in water when they gasp for air when you talk about registers and OOP programming- I do the same when I hear people talking about their social life.
Isn't this the point of open source? The ability to reuse code? To save yourself from reinventing the wheel? Or is there some big respect thing hidden behind the curtains that must be played out to the originators of the source code? This would seperate you from making "ripped off" software as opposed to.....
I'm curious why MS is so adamant about keeping IE with the OS? It's free in the first place. Why should they care what browser you use after you've already bought the recycled, pretty OS from them? If M$ applications require the IE rendering engine, it should ship with the application. If M$ is putting up this fight just so that it can continue with its "own standards" in HTMl and.NET, well, they should burn.
Slashdot Mirror
I would have to agree that hiring better sys admins in the first place is a viable solution. However, there are boxes sitting in the basement of some companies that people don't even know about most of the time and paying a sys admin to sit in front of it is a waist. And when the company eventually does realize it exists months or years later, it's only because it stopped working.
If there was some OPTIONAL scheme to give the developers of software a way to update their own software (updates as in fixing buffer overflows, etc) out there without sys admins needed. In other words, leave it up to the developers of the software to EASILY fix their own horrible mistakes. This does not include upgrades - more like fixes.
In a way, giving the software the ability to phone home to its developer for critical updates would be extraordinarily beneficial. Of course, this will easily fail if developers abuse the system and do more than just fix bugs without changing architecture.
I can see a single, open source system that all developers can use as the perfect solution. It saves money, and it gives the developers the ability to compensate for their mistakes.
Agreed, there's plenty of room to criticize this.
Creates a nice light show.
...500 different opinions on every headline with a little insight here and there. It's already like getting news from different sources.
I don't see how you can have a $10k - $20k price and call it a workstation. That price is rivaling some high end servers.
...if they have to give up features for security. The crap features and reinvented "new features" are why you buy the OS in the first place.
Computers are NOT hard to grasp. They are stable and non changing- as far as basics go. They just get more complex and have more features- it's a matter of remembering more and thinking less. We still run on 1's and 0's here people. Try being a philosophist or a phsycologist and ironing out problems women have or proving there is a God. People are just fish in water when they gasp for air when you talk about registers and OOP programming- I do the same when I hear people talking about their social life.
But then again, i'm a geek, what do I know.
Isn't this the point of open source? The ability to reuse code? To save yourself from reinventing the wheel? Or is there some big respect thing hidden behind the curtains that must be played out to the originators of the source code? This would seperate you from making "ripped off" software as opposed to.....
I'm curious why MS is so adamant about keeping IE with the OS? It's free in the first place. Why should they care what browser you use after you've already bought the recycled, pretty OS from them? If M$ applications require the IE rendering engine, it should ship with the application. If M$ is putting up this fight just so that it can continue with its "own standards" in HTMl and .NET, well, they should burn.