I partly agree. Ten years ago MS was almost nobody. They have been building their position carefully, though and around '95 they've made it big with NT 4.0. It was the cheap solution compared to UNIX but technicaly still not good enough.
What I fail to get is - why isn't the same happening with Linux / OSS? What has changed in the mindsets of decission makers since '95? Linux is not out there since yesterday, my company (Fortune500) is running a division that generates fair chunk of revenue on Slack / Red Hat for over 4 years now. Why, for Christ sake everybody else does not do this? Sure, big apps / database software on Linux is still not there but how much money would be saved if file and print servers are replaced with Linux boxes?
I don't know. I'm starting to believe that money is not an issue. Or, to put it more correctly, there are always avenues for making money, especially for governments and individuals in them - either under the table or using power to leverage dime-a-galon petrol price rise to cover for MS licenses.
Regardless, technical merits are NEVER the sole basis of such a decision, and often they are not even a particularly important part. Costs are a big part of it, as are, especially in a government situation, political considerations such as supporting local businesses and thus maintaining the local economy.
Man, I'm trying hard to understand this but I can't. How the hell is MS getting those contracts, then? Technical merits aside - cost associated with MS is ALWAYS huge.
So, what do you think - what standards should we adhere to?
Judging by the the tone of your post, you're all for 'standards' implemented by Microsoft, which nobody in their right mind can consider standards. Applications and OS are based on the most closed source in the world that makes development simplification hardly possible and then again, only for apps. What about the OS? Should we all use Windows for all of our needs? Where is competition there?
It's too bad so many of you bearded linux hippies insist on doing things your own kludged-together way.
Beards, long hair, whatever... do not have to do anything with this. Intellect and integrity do and the lack of them was the way MS has succeded in implementing the only standard there is in MS world - FUD-spreading-scared-trolls.
...would have to be the reason why they're running web site on IRIX.
The more acceptance OSS gains, the worse trolling from M$ monkeys we'll see. When that graph reaches critical peak it will start declining at a very, very steep angle, hopefully bringing down M$, as well.
/.ers got used to trolls but I expect 700+ posts here, anyway.
It has become obvious that Linux is ready for big game. When big game is on, rules are different, players are tougher, stakes are bigger and, suddenly, Linux is much more than fun. People from said 4 companies have realised this but probably too late to make any serious damage to Red Hat, not to mention other players in this game.
No doubt these guys have technical expertise comparable to Red Hat's. Product, even combined one, is also similar, based on the same components. And that's it. Not enough for a big game - can't be won on technical merrits alone.
Red Hat is different. They (well, Bob Young may be more accurate) figured this long time ago and have been building the brand name, portfolio of products and services and awesome team of people. Red Hat now has all that. Their product kicks ass from Wall St. all the way down to my laptop, they've got name recognized all over the world, second ranked Linux authority and many more of the finest developers work for them, Red Hat's support is top of the shelf, their training program is ranked 1st in the world, their cash account is very healthy and they are still one of the greatest OSS contributors.
Oh yes, almost forgot - they're some 7 years ahead.
I don't know if this is a good world or a bad one but I am tired of saying that you are "forced" to use an MS product. You could take the plunge if you wanted (and many have) and leave the world of MS.
You see, I took a plunge and am very happy to say that I'm M$ free for almost 2 years, running Linux, of course. My company is running Linux on servers and moving desktops to Red Hat, as well.
Many others were not this lucky, they are locked in a proprietary, non - standard file formats though. No matter how hard they want to switch, it simply is not economicaly viable solution right now. But time will come and don't be surprised if it comes very soon.
So, no - what you're saying doesn't hold the water - leaks everywhere, just like the OS of your choice.
In which case, Linux would lose instantly since he has not protected his trademark, especially with the flagarent use of the word linux by linux distro makers ("Mandrake LINUX", "SuSE LINUX", etc..).
You can not call 'flagrant' the use of Linux in the examples you have given. Appending 'Linux' to the distro name is indeed the essence of the whole Open Source movement and makes obvious sense, since distributions are based on the same kernel, which Linux is. Besides, websites, boxed products and documention produced by distro manufacturers clearly state that Linux IS a trademark of Linus Torvalds.
Flagrant use would be if someone (M$) uses the name (Winux) for the similar product (Operating System) that resembles the name (Linux) of the existing, well known product that has the same purpose.
Now, I am pretty sure that Linus wouldn't give a shit about this but it would certainly be a great fun to watch, if it happens.
For people to actively remove something and replace it with a competing product requires that the competing product be immensely better than the one they remove
Well, if OS gets replaced first, based on this, accurate criteria, everybody would save heaps time.
...which is exactly what windows users deserve by supporting MS's behaviour all these years.
Aren't we coming all the way back to the question of standards in the software industry, screwed predomminantly by MS's attempts of locking out any competition?
Judge should make them (MS) release API_s, as well as the set of essential libraries. Then, they would be in the market (finally) of GUIs and applications such are browsers, mail clients, office suites, media players..... like everybody else is....and still be in a better position to compete, since they're not starting from scratch.
Let then customers say with their $$$ what amount of bloatware and integration do they want.
New Zealand state TV has masterred this in last couple of years. This doesn't bodder me much though, since I watch Sky (when I watch TV) but I still have to pay yearly subscription for state TV's unbelievable crap.
On a side note, my strong feeling is that all this shit is slowly getting out of hand and future doesn't look very bright. We don't seem to be doing much and if we do it happens too late.
I don't think it's only icons. Overall, Gnome looks much smoother and easier on eye (just a personal feeling, of course). However, since the release of KDE3, combination that works best for me is Eggplant look (Gnome) + 'Slick' icons (KDE3).
Great for us South Pacific insomniacs, although we're not going to check 42000 words of nicely indexed WG the 3rd's bullshit
I've done this myself quite a few times and I say go for it!
Cost wise, you will save money, that's for sure. All hardware comes with manufacturer's suport, so buying support from big names is just rediculous - you are paying for what they have for free and associated admin costs are nothing. Have a look around for small, reliable shop that would go nuts if they can close a deal for components for 60 desktops. Hell, they would be happy to build the machines themselves and will always be more responsive to support calls than any big shot company.
However, I prefer to build machines myself - I love computers and it's fun and it always gives a pleasure when blinking cursor appears for the first time and the feeling that you contributed something more than what's stated in your 'Position Description' is great and...
Even when I knew it would mean more than 40 hours a week and no material rewards for me, I did it. And no doubt - I will do it again, every time.
There's so much more in every job than just $$$$, trust me
Every once in a while I manage to discipline myself and to ignore Microsoft shit completely for a certain period of time. Ignoring their products is a lot easier and I do not have any problems with that - I use other, more powerfull and prettier stuff;o)
However, with utter stupidities such as this one, I always feel that response is mandatory. Not that it would make any difference, I know but I just won't let anybody, especially not bustards from M$ to treat me like a moron and I will tell that publicly every time. OK, already feeling better!
OTOH, it is obvious that they are prepared not to ever end this, so something seriously has to be done. Is this person, as a VP, speaking for himself or for the company he represents? One would imagine that any VP probably enjoys autonomy to the certain degree but I seriously doubt the same applies to Microsoft.
Call it paranoia, lunacy, ignorance, arrogance, crime or all this together, it is now definitely to the point of no return and looks f_ing scarry. Breakup into two or three companies would be a joke, nothing can be achieved this way. These maniacs have to be stopped!
That any human can still defeat chess programs tells us that humans must be playing chess in some way fundamentally different from the numerical calculations and search algorithms used by the programs. And I don't think anyone has even come close to describing how this occurs.
I am pretty sure that the answer to (at least part of) this question is human ability to feel and act based on the feelings. Very short description of emotional intelligence.
Unlike computers, humans are very aware of their environment and the influence that environment produces. Sometimes, humans respond to it consciously, sometimes sub-consciously but they (we) always respond in some way.
How does this apply to chess? I do not exactly know but my experience (I used to play chess actively for my school and later my company's team, often facing ranked players, 2 grandmasters amongst them) is that emotions pick up when you sit against the player of the similar or better skill. Now, I don't want to compare myself with any of the real chess players, particularly not grandmasters but despite the fact they've been trained very close to perfection, they are still humans, thus emotional creatures. Their emotions show up when playing against each other and the winner is the one who better controls those emotions, since skills are pretty much leveled.
I'd like to think that proper, positive chanelling of emotions is very much connected to creativity and that this is what makes a difference in the human vs computer game. Otherwise, there's just no logical explanation as to how can any human beat a computer as powerful as Deep Blue or Fritz.
As a side note (for curious crowd) - I managed a draw against one of those two grandmasters and am very proud of it!
They've signed support contract with Red Hat. What platform would you think guys from Red Hat can support best?
Of course, I am pretty sure DW are not running 2.4.9-x kernel, either. Whichever kernel it is, it's been hacked by Alan Cox and sorts. It must be fast as hell if DreamWorks rolled it out on ALL their machines.
Slashdot Mirror
What I fail to get is - why isn't the same happening with Linux / OSS? What has changed in the mindsets of decission makers since '95? Linux is not out there since yesterday, my company (Fortune500) is running a division that generates fair chunk of revenue on Slack / Red Hat for over 4 years now. Why, for Christ sake everybody else does not do this? Sure, big apps / database software on Linux is still not there but how much money would be saved if file and print servers are replaced with Linux boxes?
I don't know. I'm starting to believe that money is not an issue. Or, to put it more correctly, there are always avenues for making money, especially for governments and individuals in them - either under the table or using power to leverage dime-a-galon petrol price rise to cover for MS licenses.
I have to stop this, I am so pissed off...
Man, I'm trying hard to understand this but I can't. How the hell is MS getting those contracts, then? Technical merits aside - cost associated with MS is ALWAYS huge.
Judging by the the tone of your post, you're all for 'standards' implemented by Microsoft, which nobody in their right mind can consider standards. Applications and OS are based on the most closed source in the world that makes development simplification hardly possible and then again, only for apps. What about the OS? Should we all use Windows for all of our needs? Where is competition there?
It's too bad so many of you bearded linux hippies insist on doing things your own kludged-together way.
Beards, long hair, whatever... do not have to do anything with this. Intellect and integrity do and the lack of them was the way MS has succeded in implementing the only standard there is in MS world - FUD-spreading-scared-trolls.
He should have created 'normal' user account during installation and used it for the first logon.
Ever seen KDE3 or Gnome2? What was so f***ing harder to do compared to Windows?
Do Windows users know to pull out any argument other than historycal facts against Linux?
Of course it's not open but of all 'closed source' systems, M$ crap seems to be the dearest one to them.
The more acceptance OSS gains, the worse trolling from M$ monkeys we'll see. When that graph reaches critical peak it will start declining at a very, very steep angle, hopefully bringing down M$, as well.
/.ers got used to trolls but I expect 700+ posts here, anyway.
...to the beautiful lands down under? We'll be very happy to see you here!
No doubt these guys have technical expertise comparable to Red Hat's. Product, even combined one, is also similar, based on the same components. And that's it. Not enough for a big game - can't be won on technical merrits alone.
Red Hat is different. They (well, Bob Young may be more accurate) figured this long time ago and have been building the brand name, portfolio of products and services and awesome team of people. Red Hat now has all that. Their product kicks ass from Wall St. all the way down to my laptop, they've got name recognized all over the world, second ranked Linux authority and many more of the finest developers work for them, Red Hat's support is top of the shelf, their training program is ranked 1st in the world, their cash account is very healthy and they are still one of the greatest OSS contributors.
Oh yes, almost forgot - they're some 7 years ahead.
Hats down to them.
I guess that's why it's been shown (and probably targeted) to military installations.
Only 3 fu**ing days after Allchin's acknowledgment that M$ bloatware has more holes than swiss cheese?!?
I wish you good luck, my American brothers.
What, too quick for you and you're only 40?
You see, I took a plunge and am very happy to say that I'm M$ free for almost 2 years, running Linux, of course. My company is running Linux on servers and moving desktops to Red Hat, as well.
Many others were not this lucky, they are locked in a proprietary, non - standard file formats though. No matter how hard they want to switch, it simply is not economicaly viable solution right now. But time will come and don't be surprised if it comes very soon.
So, no - what you're saying doesn't hold the water - leaks everywhere, just like the OS of your choice.
You can not call 'flagrant' the use of Linux in the examples you have given. Appending 'Linux' to the distro name is indeed the essence of the whole Open Source movement and makes obvious sense, since distributions are based on the same kernel, which Linux is. Besides, websites, boxed products and documention produced by distro manufacturers clearly state that Linux IS a trademark of Linus Torvalds.
Flagrant use would be if someone (M$) uses the name (Winux) for the similar product (Operating System) that resembles the name (Linux) of the existing, well known product that has the same purpose.
Now, I am pretty sure that Linus wouldn't give a shit about this but it would certainly be a great fun to watch, if it happens.
Winux will mean too much of a resemblance wit Linux, which, contrary to windows, is not a generic term.
Well, if OS gets replaced first, based on this, accurate criteria, everybody would save heaps time.
(us Windows users are scared of change...)
...which is exactly what windows users deserve by supporting MS's behaviour all these years.
Aren't we coming all the way back to the question of standards in the software industry, screwed predomminantly by MS's attempts of locking out any competition?
Judge should make them (MS) release API_s, as well as the set of essential libraries. Then, they would be in the market (finally) of GUIs and applications such are browsers, mail clients, office suites, media players..... like everybody else is....and still be in a better position to compete, since they're not starting from scratch.
Let then customers say with their $$$ what amount of bloatware and integration do they want.
New Zealand state TV has masterred this in last couple of years. This doesn't bodder me much though, since I watch Sky (when I watch TV) but I still have to pay yearly subscription for state TV's unbelievable crap.
On a side note, my strong feeling is that all this shit is slowly getting out of hand and future doesn't look very bright. We don't seem to be doing much and if we do it happens too late.
GABBA - GABBA - HEY!!!
1. Here is tonight's top 10 list
2. Critical Updates Package (138 MB)
3. Hey Ho Let's Go
4. Nobody's perfect
and, of course
5. News for nerds, stuff that matters
Great for us South Pacific insomniacs, although we're not going to check 42000 words of nicely indexed WG the 3rd's bullshit
Cost wise, you will save money, that's for sure. All hardware comes with manufacturer's suport, so buying support from big names is just rediculous - you are paying for what they have for free and associated admin costs are nothing. Have a look around for small, reliable shop that would go nuts if they can close a deal for components for 60 desktops. Hell, they would be happy to build the machines themselves and will always be more responsive to support calls than any big shot company.
However, I prefer to build machines myself - I love computers and it's fun and it always gives a pleasure when blinking cursor appears for the first time and the feeling that you contributed something more than what's stated in your 'Position Description' is great and...
Even when I knew it would mean more than 40 hours a week and no material rewards for me, I did it. And no doubt - I will do it again, every time.
There's so much more in every job than just $$$$, trust me
However, with utter stupidities such as this one, I always feel that response is mandatory. Not that it would make any difference, I know but I just won't let anybody, especially not bustards from M$ to treat me like a moron and I will tell that publicly every time. OK, already feeling better!
OTOH, it is obvious that they are prepared not to ever end this, so something seriously has to be done. Is this person, as a VP, speaking for himself or for the company he represents? One would imagine that any VP probably enjoys autonomy to the certain degree but I seriously doubt the same applies to Microsoft.
Call it paranoia, lunacy, ignorance, arrogance, crime or all this together, it is now definitely to the point of no return and looks f_ing scarry. Breakup into two or three companies would be a joke, nothing can be achieved this way. These maniacs have to be stopped!
I am pretty sure that the answer to (at least part of) this question is human ability to feel and act based on the feelings. Very short description of emotional intelligence.
Unlike computers, humans are very aware of their environment and the influence that environment produces. Sometimes, humans respond to it consciously, sometimes sub-consciously but they (we) always respond in some way.
How does this apply to chess? I do not exactly know but my experience (I used to play chess actively for my school and later my company's team, often facing ranked players, 2 grandmasters amongst them) is that emotions pick up when you sit against the player of the similar or better skill. Now, I don't want to compare myself with any of the real chess players, particularly not grandmasters but despite the fact they've been trained very close to perfection, they are still humans, thus emotional creatures. Their emotions show up when playing against each other and the winner is the one who better controls those emotions, since skills are pretty much leveled.
I'd like to think that proper, positive chanelling of emotions is very much connected to creativity and that this is what makes a difference in the human vs computer game. Otherwise, there's just no logical explanation as to how can any human beat a computer as powerful as Deep Blue or Fritz.
As a side note (for curious crowd) - I managed a draw against one of those two grandmasters and am very proud of it!
Of course, I am pretty sure DW are not running 2.4.9-x kernel, either. Whichever kernel it is, it's been hacked by Alan Cox and sorts. It must be fast as hell if DreamWorks rolled it out on ALL their machines.