Is that black as in "metaphorically speaking", or black as in "some idiot linked the power plants' IIS-running servers to the internet, and they've all been 0wn3d"?
A little of column A, a little of column B. Or maybe Billy wanted to paint the world to match is heart.
Has anyone noticed that the animated globe spinning around the CompTIA website is black? Its like the vision of the world after they've had their way with us.
Re:All OSS no better than all CSS
on
Mega-Geek March?
·
· Score: 1
I agree that political reasons are the primary candidate. Aside from that, I think a lot of people with their fingers on the switch are either too overworked or too lazy to throw it.
I think a lot of them (IT people) would like to switch if there was powerful enough motivation for them to totally relearn the systems they work with. I even think a lot of these Microsoft cronies suspect, deep down, that their lives may be easier in the long run. But I suspect that they think they don't have the time or energy so they come up with some canned excuse that's totally worn out: "its not mature enough," as a justification for not doing it.
Or maybe they really do believe that because they've heard it from their other IT friends and they accept it because its something they can use to avoid looking into a switch, which would add workload to their jobs.
In any case, the real debate here, that is, what started this thread to begin with, was the doubt that Linux could replace proprietary software in government. The answer that I've come up with is, in a lot of places it can, but in most places it won't, for one reason or another, which is too bad. If there was some legal driving force, like even the threat of this legislation being passed, maybe some of these less-than-aware IT people (I'm not saying ALL IT people are this way) would wake up and learn something new, for the sake of our tax money (in the long run), our security, and my piece of mind.
Re:All OSS no better than all CSS
on
Mega-Geek March?
·
· Score: 1
Open Source can also replace all those proprietary web/ftp/mail/file/print servers and do a better job than most of them for a much better price.
If this is true, which I believe it is, why hasn't open source replaced propietary software for these relatively remedial tasks in government and industry? or has it? The fact of the matter is that I have little exposure to what goverment IT does, but from what I do see, a good deal of people with the power to switch don't just because of some opposition to change, whether its the hassle of learning something new, or the fact that their MSCE becomes useless.
I agree with most, if not all, of what you have to say, I guess I'm just sick of seeing the government use expensive shitty software to do simple things when there are a whole host of better, cheap alternatives. As far as the real high-end stuff, maybe we're just not there yet, for everything else, its time to get on the ball.
Re:All OSS no better than all CSS
on
Mega-Geek March?
·
· Score: 1
Maybe the legislation could assign some arbitrary date in the near future where the changeover would happen. If its a few years donw the road, then companies like Sun, IBM, etc. would have even more justification in investing in Linux or other other open operating systems now. Another possibility is giving different areas/systems different target dates. Web/Email/Print/File servers first, then some workstations, with the most critical systems last.
In my mind, there are two obstacles to overcome: 1) usability (primarily a concern on mine) 2) reliability (the main concern of yours)
Taking these two factors in account, they could gauge each type of machine for an appropriate number of years before a mandated switch-over.
Is there anything in particular that makes you shy of Linux on these big systems?
That's a really good question. When I submitted the post, my headline was something like "California March for Free Software." And when it got posted, it was reworked. I guess its suppose to grab people's attention. It grabbed mine, and I said "whatever."
Re:All OSS no better than all CSS
on
Mega-Geek March?
·
· Score: 1
Using linux isn't the only system that qualifies here. BSD is a possiblity too. Furthermore, if this legislation was enacted, these other vendors might reconsider their licenses and/or put more money into pre-existing open operating systems. I guess my point is that using a OSS does not immediately imply Linux and that there are a few other possibilities to consider.
Re:All OSS no better than all CSS
on
Mega-Geek March?
·
· Score: 1
I think that technically, you may be right. But when a vendor makes it policy to release proprietary software with little exception, possibly they can be called 'proprietary' also.
Or you could think of it as if they left out the word 'software' in a phrase like 'proprietary [software] vendor.'
Of course legal software costs money, unless its Open Source:-)
This is a common misconception, and I think it needs to be addressed somewhere here. Although the bulk of open-source software is free of cost, not all of it is. Likewise, a lot of open-source software is free, in the GNU spirit of the word, but again, not always. Finally, not all free software is free of cost. In otherwords, open-source != free-of-cost != free. They are all different concepts with sightly different meanings.
I've sprayed a lot of cases in my day too: red, blue, and yes, even black. My favorite case was camo though. My friend sprayed his monitor camo too, altough he took it apart to do it. Right now I am working on a black case made of plexiglass where I take standard clear plexiglass and spray the backside black so that the frontside becomes like a black mirror. On the side panel, I masked off a rectangle of plexiglass in the center so that I can have a window. Its looking pretty good. To finish it off, I plan on making a wooden front face with a hole for the cd-rom and power.
That alone will justify the graphics, sound and bandwidth growth we've seen. c'mon, you know it's coming.
Not to mention other, uh, 'hardware' that would be useful for extended input and output.
but for real, at least one rationalization for the next fleet of high-powered computers will be for the high-power CPUs they contain, mostly for developers who are always tapping their fingers during compiles, or those interested in science modeling, excryption breaking, stuff like that.
I agree, and not only that, but when you have three or four boxes running in a single room in the summer, the heat gets to be an issue as well. When your poor and hot, choosing between running A/C (and using a lot of electricity) and running the computers is a hard choice to make. Basically, the more power efficent, the better.
When you're at work, you're using their computers. Their network. Their bandwidth.
Although part of me agrees with you, I feel that if a boss or IT guy is reading my communications without any reason but curiosity, he is the one that should be monitored.
On the other hand, the other day I went to see the IT director for my campus and was sitting in his secretary's office waiting for him to arrive and the entire time, his secretary was talking to somebody online with what looked like AIM. As a tuition payer, I feel my stomach turn knowing that at least a little bit of my money is going to fund that behavior.
> Of course you've never used Borland's IDEs.
> Believe me, C++ Builder and Delphi are years
> beyond that Visual* crap.
First of all, arguing about which Window's IDE is better seems like arguing about whether getting your face kicked is a little better than your groin.
I used Borland's C++ Builder all last semmester because I was forced to by my professor, as was the rest of the class. I have a few problems with it:
1. It only runs on Microsoft (although I have heard of some UNIX version of delphi, I don't think that code can be easily ported from UNIX to Windows and vice versa)
2. They use their own GUI toolkit called the Visual Component Library (VCL) which, again introduces portability issues as it just introduces a thin mask over the native Windows API calls.
3. IDE's in general are bloated and ineffient. They distance the programmer from things I don't think they should be distanced from, namely the build/make process. what's wrong with writings makefiles?
In the end, I was glad to get back to developing on Linux. If you need a GUI toolkit and a interface designer, try using Glade (uses GTK), there are bindings for C, C++, Perl and a bunch of other languages.
Slashdot Mirror
A little of column A, a little of column B. Or maybe Billy wanted to paint the world to match is heart.
Has anyone noticed that the animated globe spinning around the CompTIA website is black? Its like the vision of the world after they've had their way with us.
I agree that political reasons are the primary candidate. Aside from that, I think a lot of people with their fingers on the switch are either too overworked or too lazy to throw it.
I think a lot of them (IT people) would like to switch if there was powerful enough motivation for them to totally relearn the systems they work with. I even think a lot of these Microsoft cronies suspect, deep down, that their lives may be easier in the long run. But I suspect that they think they don't have the time or energy so they come up with some canned excuse that's totally worn out: "its not mature enough," as a justification for not doing it.
Or maybe they really do believe that because they've heard it from their other IT friends and they accept it because its something they can use to avoid looking into a switch, which would add workload to their jobs.
In any case, the real debate here, that is, what started this thread to begin with, was the doubt that Linux could replace proprietary software in government. The answer that I've come up with is, in a lot of places it can, but in most places it won't, for one reason or another, which is too bad. If there was some legal driving force, like even the threat of this legislation being passed, maybe some of these less-than-aware IT people (I'm not saying ALL IT people are this way) would wake up and learn something new, for the sake of our tax money (in the long run), our security, and my piece of mind.
Open Source can also replace all those proprietary web/ftp/mail/file/print servers and do a better job than most of them for a much better price.
If this is true, which I believe it is, why hasn't open source replaced propietary software for these relatively remedial tasks in government and industry? or has it? The fact of the matter is that I have little exposure to what goverment IT does, but from what I do see, a good deal of people with the power to switch don't just because of some opposition to change, whether its the hassle of learning something new, or the fact that their MSCE becomes useless.
I agree with most, if not all, of what you have to say, I guess I'm just sick of seeing the government use expensive shitty software to do simple things when there are a whole host of better, cheap alternatives. As far as the real high-end stuff, maybe we're just not there yet, for everything else, its time to get on the ball.
Maybe the legislation could assign some arbitrary date in the near future where the changeover would happen. If its a few years donw the road, then companies like Sun, IBM, etc. would have even more justification in investing in Linux or other other open operating systems now. Another possibility is giving different areas/systems different target dates. Web/Email/Print/File servers first, then some workstations, with the most critical systems last.
In my mind, there are two obstacles to overcome:
1) usability (primarily a concern on mine)
2) reliability (the main concern of yours)
Taking these two factors in account, they could gauge each type of machine for an appropriate number of years before a mandated switch-over.
Is there anything in particular that makes you shy of Linux on these big systems?
That's a really good question. When I submitted the post, my headline was something like "California March for Free Software." And when it got posted, it was reworked. I guess its suppose to grab people's attention. It grabbed mine, and I said "whatever."
Using linux isn't the only system that qualifies here. BSD is a possiblity too. Furthermore, if this legislation was enacted, these other vendors might reconsider their licenses and/or put more money into pre-existing open operating systems. I guess my point is that using a OSS does not immediately imply Linux and that there are a few other possibilities to consider.
have you read this letter?
I think that technically, you may be right. But when a vendor makes it policy to release proprietary software with little exception, possibly they can be called 'proprietary' also.
Or you could think of it as if they left out the word 'software' in a phrase like 'proprietary [software] vendor.'
I completely agree.
Network/Computer Monkeys, as I like to call them, don't deserve respect, much less appreciation, because most of them don't respect users.
As a developer, I'd like to see software evolve to a point where their job is as obsolete as the guy that runs the elevator.
As a geek, I hate iconic network monkeys being lumped in with more respectable and useful computer people.
Thanks for nothing.
Of course legal software costs money, unless its Open Source :-)
This is a common misconception, and I think it needs to be addressed somewhere here. Although the bulk of open-source software is free of cost, not all of it is. Likewise, a lot of open-source software is free, in the GNU spirit of the word, but again, not always. Finally, not all free software is free of cost. In otherwords, open-source != free-of-cost != free. They are all different concepts with sightly different meanings.
try google's cached version
I don't know if this works completely because the page seems to require flash, something that I don't have.
I've sprayed a lot of cases in my day too: red, blue, and yes, even black. My favorite case was camo though. My friend sprayed his monitor camo too, altough he took it apart to do it. Right now I am working on a black case made of plexiglass where I take standard clear plexiglass and spray the backside black so that the frontside becomes like a black mirror. On the side panel, I masked off a rectangle of plexiglass in the center so that I can have a window. Its looking pretty good. To finish it off, I plan on making a wooden front face with a hole for the cd-rom and power.
That alone will justify the graphics, sound and bandwidth growth we've seen. c'mon, you know it's coming.
Not to mention other, uh, 'hardware' that would be useful for extended input and output.
but for real, at least one rationalization for the next fleet of high-powered computers will be for the high-power CPUs they contain, mostly for developers who are always tapping their fingers during compiles, or those interested in science modeling, excryption breaking, stuff like that.
I agree, and not only that, but when you have three or four boxes running in a single room in the summer, the heat gets to be an issue as well. When your poor and hot, choosing between running A/C (and using a lot of electricity) and running the computers is a hard choice to make. Basically, the more power efficent, the better.
Although part of me agrees with you, I feel that if a boss or IT guy is reading my communications without any reason but curiosity, he is the one that should be monitored.
On the other hand, the other day I went to see the IT director for my campus and was sitting in his secretary's office waiting for him to arrive and the entire time, his secretary was talking to somebody online with what looked like AIM. As a tuition payer, I feel my stomach turn knowing that at least a little bit of my money is going to fund that behavior.
> Of course you've never used Borland's IDEs. > Believe me, C++ Builder and Delphi are years > beyond that Visual* crap. First of all, arguing about which Window's IDE is better seems like arguing about whether getting your face kicked is a little better than your groin. I used Borland's C++ Builder all last semmester because I was forced to by my professor, as was the rest of the class. I have a few problems with it: 1. It only runs on Microsoft (although I have heard of some UNIX version of delphi, I don't think that code can be easily ported from UNIX to Windows and vice versa) 2. They use their own GUI toolkit called the Visual Component Library (VCL) which, again introduces portability issues as it just introduces a thin mask over the native Windows API calls. 3. IDE's in general are bloated and ineffient. They distance the programmer from things I don't think they should be distanced from, namely the build/make process. what's wrong with writings makefiles? In the end, I was glad to get back to developing on Linux. If you need a GUI toolkit and a interface designer, try using Glade (uses GTK), there are bindings for C, C++, Perl and a bunch of other languages.