What happens when your CEO doesn't know a cog from a diamond? All s/he knows is that the financial analysts in the press like outsourcing. Top management has no idea who you are, what you do, or how good or productive you are (nor do they care). Your job is in the way of their next bonus.
It doesn't make any difference whether they save or lose money as long as they are perceived as doing something. If you think your immediate line manager is going to save your job, you need to poke your head up and take a look around.
. ..the final diagnosis is schizoid personality disorder.
Unfortunately, the diagnosis comes too late to help poor Gollum who refused to seek professional help and died during the commission of a theft. Let this be a warning to all who suddenly develop a taste for sushi and flashy jewelry to seek help from your local Elf immediately.
One significant difference is the market doesn't sell 100% rotten tomatoes (analogous to EULAs), and if they did they could expect some sort of pressure from the local health department. Perhaps if only 1% of a particular software sale contained an EULA, and you could take it back to replace it with one a little less rotten.;)
Yes, that is true for EULAs. Good point - I hadn't considered the 100% defect argument. I think the analogy still works for usability and installation problems where it could be a hardware issue and affect a small percentage of possible users. As for the rest, I completely agree. We can hope for such a world, but I won't hold my breath while waiting.:)
Yeah, but the point you (and Linus) so quickly miss is that Solaris does indeed support a wide variety of Intel hardware, just not as wide as Linux.
Which was the point. Solaris/x86 had a big chance to oppose MS for the commodity OS spot and didn't pursue it. They gave it up to MS. (And the hardware support wasn't/isn't that wide.)
I've had just as many hassles re-compiling Linux kernels to make hardware work as I have had trying to find drivers for hardware under Solaris Intel. That said, most servers have pretty standard hardware and Solaris/Intel does a reasonably good job recognizing the hardware. I suppose the fact that I recognize this and play within the spectrum of the HCL, rather then setting myself up for failure, is where you I take different paths.
Yes, of course, master. I abase myself while my compamy moves from Sun and SGI to Linux on commodity hardware. We are too blind to see the Sun even though we've used it for decades. I'll apologize at the next monks' meeting and kiss your glowning, radiant butt.
I mean, sheesh.. Linus admits (though he obviously didn't notice) that he's talking out of his ass when he says "Solaris/Intel is a joke (so I've heard)".
Yes, there does seem to be some gas in that, but it doesnt' seem to belong to Linus. Please elaborate without being flatulent.
That said, Solaris does indeed work with non-proprietary hardware
Well, that would be Solaris/x86 as compared to Linux for the most part.
but the opposite of commodity isn't proprietary
Using strcmp() proves that is true, if I coded it correctly. Bless me, master - especially if using Perl.
This doesn't seemed to terribly quantified to me. Only a fool would say "i don't think they have anything left worth taking" without ever having seen what they have in the first place.
But more importantly, if I'm wrong, that's OK. People who know Solaris better than I do will tell me and other people about the great things they offer. To try to figure it out on my own would be a waste of time. - Torvalds
This is a good point, though peaking at the source code for inspiration is a lot different then just copying the code outright.
Unforunately, in today's world of software patents and gratutitous lawsuits, you can be eternally tainted by looking at source code.
That said, everything I've ever developed I've used all available code I can get my hands on to see how other people are doing it; it's just a good idea, no matter what you're doing, to see if there might be something that you didn't think of.
I agree. And that means we have both probably violated a number of software patents in the code we've produced. It's unfortunate that that is no longer a viable option for OSS while it is for Sun.
Of course, this is clearly the difference between me and Linus; I accept that i'm not omnipotent, whereas Linus has had his ego stroked by his fans for so long that he actually seems to think that he -is-.
I have to continually try to explain to people that no, I don't "control" what happens in Linux. It's about having an environment that is conducive to development, not so much about any particular leader.
It seems to me he understands his fallibilty, and he has admitted so in the past. Perhaps you should try to divorce your attachment to a particular OS from uneasoned opposition to another OS's apparent figurehead? That's much like how I don't rail on Bill Gates even though I dislike MS Windows.
Oh, I read that... and it's statements like this that really piss me off about Linus.
I'm not picking on you, but I think you should step back and try not to read emotion into simple Q/A sessions. Seriously, Solaris/x86 works on a single platform with known hardware. Linux works there and everywhere else.
Yes, the whole operating system, with it's superior threading, source compatibility with the most popular commercial UNIX going, and unrivaled stability is a "joke" because it doesn't have as much driver support as the trendiest OS going.
It is a joke when all that doesn't work with non-proprietary hardware and you propose it as an improvement for commodity x86 hardware and other platforms. Personally, I like IRIX, but that train has left the station. No amount of wishing or impassioned advocacy is going to get people to buy SGI boxes or make the OS relevant anymore.
At any rate, It still really bothers me whenever I see people on/. knock Solaris just because his holiness Linus said that Linux was better.
What he said was that Linux is better at what Linux does. I use both (and some other operating systems) at work, and Solaris has as many quirks and problems as Linux.
Truly infuriating sometimes... though I can see how it all starts when Linus goes on the record saying that he doesn't even think that the Solaris source code is worth even peeking at.
As I pointed out in a previous comment, that's not what he said, but even so, there is a good reason why kernel contributors might want to avoid the Solaris source code until the SCO suits are settled.
That doesn't take away it's downright arrogant to say you don't need anything the competitors might offer, and really, any other commercial-software spokesman would be modded +5 Ignorant.
As others have pointed out, that's not exactly what Linus said. He specifically mentioned Solaris/x86, which is what would be somewhat equivalent to Linux. Personally, I'd be worried about a company that claimed they needed a license from SCO and then turned around and "open-sourced" supposedly protected code. If I were a kernel contributor, I'd be really, really cautious about even looking at the Solaris source code.
And hopefully it ultimately leads to affirmation of non-enforceability of such terms post-sale.
Agreed.
I don't get home after grocery shopping to find terms of use stuck on my tomatoes, and if I did find such terms, it isn't my responsibility to waste my time to return them.
From what I read, this also covers software that is unusable, doesn't work, or won't install. In that case, it's more like having tomatoes that are rotten inside or apples that are wormy when you get home - you still have to return them for a refund. Couple that with an external EULA, and I think most of the worst points of the software maker/seller collusion are addressed, even if not perfectly.
As I mentioned in another post, I'm still wondering why I have to bare the burden of returning the software for a refund. Why can't I just send them a letter . ..
Because the normal requirement for a purchase refund is to return the product? If you buy a DVD player and don't like it, you can return it for a refund. The store won't come and pick it up. For boxed software there is still a physical product (as much as MS would like you to forget that). This new ruling is still progress compared to the previous catch-22.
Not only is it ridiculous to attempt to change the terms of sale after sale with hidden EULAs, AFAICT it is generally not legally binding to do so, unless specifically legislated to do so.
The point is this is one of the first tests of the scope and legality of these EULAs which claim to legally bind the buyer. People have been unable to return this stuff until now. It's a step in the right direction.
What's next? Will we have to read and agree to the EULA before we can buy?
Yes. From the article: . ..
Not necessarily. From the article:
The Settlement Agreement provides to the General Public of California, amongst other things, the right of consumers to return applicable Symantec, Adobe and Microsoft software for full monetary refunds even if the shrink-wrap has been opened
It would seem that if you don't agree to the EULA, you are entitled to return the product. Why are some so pessimistic and naysaying about a small step forward in software consumer rights?
like any of us is going to pick "I Dissagree" AFTER WE HAVE PAID FOR AND TAKEN THE PRODUCT HOME???
It's pretty silly, Hurray for the courts!
So there's nothing you won't agree to? That's pretty sad. At least one woman had the principles to refuse. By all means, sign your rights away to your corporate overlords. All I can say is that you should be willing to stand up and fight like a woman for your rights.
And of course Soldering irons will have been banned by the DMCA, so you'll already be in prison for you first act.
That's modded funny, but it's more insightful IMO. Industry associations are purchasing legislation from a willing Congress to criminalize normally legal or unregulated activities. It might raise a stink on Slashdot, but it doesn't get any play in the mainstream press. Pretty soon, it will be against the law to open your industy-approved computer or any other hardware. Land of the free and home of the brave? This is a sad abdication of rights to satisfy corporate greed.
Does anyone have a scan of the actual ad, but with coffee stains, donut crumbs, and a few cigarette ashes on the page? I want to make it feel New York authentic.
I feel for you, but what kind of bandwidth are you getting in that cardboard box in the alley?
It's cool that they had enough money for two pages, but it might have been better to have spent the extra money on a different publication.
The NYT is the paper read coast to coast. I'm in the middle of nowhere, and the local Barnes & Nobles has the NYT every day. Subscriptions are nation-wide. If you want to get your name in front of PHBs all over the country, I can't think of a better vehicle other than printing it on paper currency.
There are actually (thankfully few) people who write Perl code like that. I inherited some scripts from a guy at work who apparently learned Perl before comments and newlines were allowed. He can make Perl do wonders, but it's easier to write it again from scratch than to figure out what his code does and expand on it.
And any employee or consumer with an ounce of common sense, because tort reform would leave them open to total buttfucking by companies. All the rights of individuals for companies + none of the responsiblities of an individual + no criminal charges for harming consumers or employees + extremely limited liability = BAD NEWS.
Wow. Two slightly coherent responses in two days. This must be good for you. Yeah, corporate behavior is bad, and anyone who has read my previous comments knows I oppose that as well as insane executive compensation. Legislation, not lawyers and lawsuits, is the only possible answer. There is no widespread opposition to tort reform aside from trial lawyers. The corporations are going to beat down the people and the states (under current law, even without tort reform) by using their legions of lawyers no matter what, as the recent wrist-slappings of the RIAA and Microsoft proved. The lawyers are the class that benefits most from litigation. You might want to check your comment for further indications of your interest in rear ends.
I'm not the one with SDHAD.
We (your doctor's and I) can only assume you managed to misspell ADHD. As a psychology professor once told me, there has never been a case of ADD or its derivatives diagnosed outside the U.S. or Canada. Imaginary illnesses are not the problem. Yours are.
You know, the one who was a militant homophobe with the FBI but in private was gayer than RuPaul and all the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy boys put together?
That's a guy who does a cooking show (Bam!) and some group that does a fashion show, right? Sorry, I don't follow that stuff. I am aware of Hoover's supposed tendencies, but it's not really something that has interested me a great deal.
Did I say anything about your rear end?
Look at the title on all your responses. You're the one who put it there. Your comment about anal intercourse reaffirms it. You may want to discuss these latent desires with your doctor if you're honest. Well, as nice as it has been, and it really hasn't, you don't ever say anything new, and I don't want to continue being nothing but an object for your fantasies. I hope you enjoy your, er, scud sucking, but I'm straight, old, with grown children, and this just isn't going to work. I'm not a bigot, I just think you should go stalk someone else with an orientation similar to yours for a while. 'Bye.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be a cog. Cogs get outsourced. Cog == bot.
What happens when your CEO doesn't know a cog from a diamond? All s/he knows is that the financial analysts in the press like outsourcing. Top management has no idea who you are, what you do, or how good or productive you are (nor do they care). Your job is in the way of their next bonus.
It doesn't make any difference whether they save or lose money as long as they are perceived as doing something. If you think your immediate line manager is going to save your job, you need to poke your head up and take a look around.
. . .the final diagnosis is schizoid personality disorder.
Unfortunately, the diagnosis comes too late to help poor Gollum who refused to seek professional help and died during the commission of a theft. Let this be a warning to all who suddenly develop a taste for sushi and flashy jewelry to seek help from your local Elf immediately.
One significant difference is the market doesn't sell 100% rotten tomatoes (analogous to EULAs), and if they did they could expect some sort of pressure from the local health department. Perhaps if only 1% of a particular software sale contained an EULA, and you could take it back to replace it with one a little less rotten. ;)
Yes, that is true for EULAs. Good point - I hadn't considered the 100% defect argument. I think the analogy still works for usability and installation problems where it could be a hardware issue and affect a small percentage of possible users. As for the rest, I completely agree. We can hope for such a world, but I won't hold my breath while waiting. :)
Yeah, but the point you (and Linus) so quickly miss is that Solaris does indeed support a wide variety of Intel hardware, just not as wide as Linux.
Which was the point. Solaris/x86 had a big chance to oppose MS for the commodity OS spot and didn't pursue it. They gave it up to MS. (And the hardware support wasn't/isn't that wide.)
I've had just as many hassles re-compiling Linux kernels to make hardware work as I have had trying to find drivers for hardware under Solaris Intel. That said, most servers have pretty standard hardware and Solaris/Intel does a reasonably good job recognizing the hardware. I suppose the fact that I recognize this and play within the spectrum of the HCL, rather then setting myself up for failure, is where you I take different paths.
Yes, of course, master. I abase myself while my compamy moves from Sun and SGI to Linux on commodity hardware. We are too blind to see the Sun even though we've used it for decades. I'll apologize at the next monks' meeting and kiss your glowning, radiant butt.
I mean, sheesh.. Linus admits (though he obviously didn't notice) that he's talking out of his ass when he says "Solaris/Intel is a joke (so I've heard)".
Yes, there does seem to be some gas in that, but it doesnt' seem to belong to Linus. Please elaborate without being flatulent.
That said, Solaris does indeed work with non-proprietary hardware
Well, that would be Solaris/x86 as compared to Linux for the most part.
but the opposite of commodity isn't proprietary
Using strcmp() proves that is true, if I coded it correctly. Bless me, master - especially if using Perl.
This doesn't seemed to terribly quantified to me. Only a fool would say "i don't think they have anything left worth taking" without ever having seen what they have in the first place.
This is a good point, though peaking at the source code for inspiration is a lot different then just copying the code outright.
Unforunately, in today's world of software patents and gratutitous lawsuits, you can be eternally tainted by looking at source code.
That said, everything I've ever developed I've used all available code I can get my hands on to see how other people are doing it; it's just a good idea, no matter what you're doing, to see if there might be something that you didn't think of.
I agree. And that means we have both probably violated a number of software patents in the code we've produced. It's unfortunate that that is no longer a viable option for OSS while it is for Sun.
Of course, this is clearly the difference between me and Linus; I accept that i'm not omnipotent, whereas Linus has had his ego stroked by his fans for so long that he actually seems to think that he -is-.
It seems to me he understands his fallibilty, and he has admitted so in the past. Perhaps you should try to divorce your attachment to a particular OS from uneasoned opposition to another OS's apparent figurehead? That's much like how I don't rail on Bill Gates even though I dislike MS Windows.Oh, I read that... and it's statements like this that really piss me off about Linus.
I'm not picking on you, but I think you should step back and try not to read emotion into simple Q/A sessions. Seriously, Solaris/x86 works on a single platform with known hardware. Linux works there and everywhere else.
Yes, the whole operating system, with it's superior threading, source compatibility with the most popular commercial UNIX going, and unrivaled stability is a "joke" because it doesn't have as much driver support as the trendiest OS going.
It is a joke when all that doesn't work with non-proprietary hardware and you propose it as an improvement for commodity x86 hardware and other platforms. Personally, I like IRIX, but that train has left the station. No amount of wishing or impassioned advocacy is going to get people to buy SGI boxes or make the OS relevant anymore.
At any rate, It still really bothers me whenever I see people on /. knock Solaris just because his holiness Linus said that Linux was better.
What he said was that Linux is better at what Linux does. I use both (and some other operating systems) at work, and Solaris has as many quirks and problems as Linux.
Truly infuriating sometimes... though I can see how it all starts when Linus goes on the record saying that he doesn't even think that the Solaris source code is worth even peeking at.
As I pointed out in a previous comment, that's not what he said, but even so, there is a good reason why kernel contributors might want to avoid the Solaris source code until the SCO suits are settled.
That doesn't take away it's downright arrogant to say you don't need anything the competitors might offer, and really, any other commercial-software spokesman would be modded +5 Ignorant.
As others have pointed out, that's not exactly what Linus said. He specifically mentioned Solaris/x86, which is what would be somewhat equivalent to Linux. Personally, I'd be worried about a company that claimed they needed a license from SCO and then turned around and "open-sourced" supposedly protected code. If I were a kernel contributor, I'd be really, really cautious about even looking at the Solaris source code.
And hopefully it ultimately leads to affirmation of non-enforceability of such terms post-sale.
Agreed.
I don't get home after grocery shopping to find terms of use stuck on my tomatoes, and if I did find such terms, it isn't my responsibility to waste my time to return them.
From what I read, this also covers software that is unusable, doesn't work, or won't install. In that case, it's more like having tomatoes that are rotten inside or apples that are wormy when you get home - you still have to return them for a refund. Couple that with an external EULA, and I think most of the worst points of the software maker/seller collusion are addressed, even if not perfectly.
As I mentioned in another post, I'm still wondering why I have to bare the burden of returning the software for a refund. Why can't I just send them a letter . . .
Because the normal requirement for a purchase refund is to return the product? If you buy a DVD player and don't like it, you can return it for a refund. The store won't come and pick it up. For boxed software there is still a physical product (as much as MS would like you to forget that). This new ruling is still progress compared to the previous catch-22.
Not only is it ridiculous to attempt to change the terms of sale after sale with hidden EULAs, AFAICT it is generally not legally binding to do so, unless specifically legislated to do so.
The point is this is one of the first tests of the scope and legality of these EULAs which claim to legally bind the buyer. People have been unable to return this stuff until now. It's a step in the right direction.
What's next? Will we have to read and agree to the EULA before we can buy? .
Yes. From the article: . .
Not necessarily. From the article:
It would seem that if you don't agree to the EULA, you are entitled to return the product. Why are some so pessimistic and naysaying about a small step forward in software consumer rights?like any of us is going to pick "I Dissagree" AFTER WE HAVE PAID FOR AND TAKEN THE PRODUCT HOME???
It's pretty silly, Hurray for the courts!
So there's nothing you won't agree to? That's pretty sad. At least one woman had the principles to refuse. By all means, sign your rights away to your corporate overlords. All I can say is that you should be willing to stand up and fight like a woman for your rights.
Either accept returns or disclose the license prior to purchase.
The article says that under the settlement they have to do both.
I think its great that we may get a writer at release without having to wait 6 months to a year for that technology.
Just be willing to pay through the nose for it. I'll wait a year. Or three.
*groan*
That is a 7th grade answer to a PHd level question, and you probably know it.
I know, Alex! What is a litmus test?
And of course Soldering irons will have been banned by the DMCA, so you'll already be in prison for you first act.
That's modded funny, but it's more insightful IMO. Industry associations are purchasing legislation from a willing Congress to criminalize normally legal or unregulated activities. It might raise a stink on Slashdot, but it doesn't get any play in the mainstream press. Pretty soon, it will be against the law to open your industy-approved computer or any other hardware. Land of the free and home of the brave? This is a sad abdication of rights to satisfy corporate greed.
Does anyone have a scan of the actual ad, but with coffee stains, donut crumbs, and a few cigarette ashes on the page? I want to make it feel New York authentic.
I feel for you, but what kind of bandwidth are you getting in that cardboard box in the alley?
It's cool that they had enough money for two pages, but it might have been better to have spent the extra money on a different publication.
The NYT is the paper read coast to coast. I'm in the middle of nowhere, and the local Barnes & Nobles has the NYT every day. Subscriptions are nation-wide. If you want to get your name in front of PHBs all over the country, I can't think of a better vehicle other than printing it on paper currency.
Ha! Great link, but the image of the knitting needle(s) caused flashbacks. I'm standing while I type this. :)
I could send you a knitting pattern to make your own, but if i do the KIAA will send out a team of attack grannies.
Those of you who think that's funny never had a grandmother who tucked her knitting yarn and needles between the couch cushions.
When people say, "we have to right to bare arms", i always respond "yes! i have right to own nuclear weapons to protect my family".
That's a pretty strange response to people who want to wear short sleeves.
There are actually (thankfully few) people who write Perl code like that. I inherited some scripts from a guy at work who apparently learned Perl before comments and newlines were allowed. He can make Perl do wonders, but it's easier to write it again from scratch than to figure out what his code does and expand on it.
And any employee or consumer with an ounce of common sense, because tort reform would leave them open to total buttfucking by companies. All the rights of individuals for companies + none of the responsiblities of an individual + no criminal charges for harming consumers or employees + extremely limited liability = BAD NEWS.
Wow. Two slightly coherent responses in two days. This must be good for you. Yeah, corporate behavior is bad, and anyone who has read my previous comments knows I oppose that as well as insane executive compensation. Legislation, not lawyers and lawsuits, is the only possible answer. There is no widespread opposition to tort reform aside from trial lawyers. The corporations are going to beat down the people and the states (under current law, even without tort reform) by using their legions of lawyers no matter what, as the recent wrist-slappings of the RIAA and Microsoft proved. The lawyers are the class that benefits most from litigation. You might want to check your comment for further indications of your interest in rear ends.
I'm not the one with SDHAD.
We (your doctor's and I) can only assume you managed to misspell ADHD. As a psychology professor once told me, there has never been a case of ADD or its derivatives diagnosed outside the U.S. or Canada. Imaginary illnesses are not the problem. Yours are.
You know, the one who was a militant homophobe with the FBI but in private was gayer than RuPaul and all the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy boys put together?
That's a guy who does a cooking show (Bam!) and some group that does a fashion show, right? Sorry, I don't follow that stuff. I am aware of Hoover's supposed tendencies, but it's not really something that has interested me a great deal.
Did I say anything about your rear end?
Look at the title on all your responses. You're the one who put it there. Your comment about anal intercourse reaffirms it. You may want to discuss these latent desires with your doctor if you're honest. Well, as nice as it has been, and it really hasn't, you don't ever say anything new, and I don't want to continue being nothing but an object for your fantasies. I hope you enjoy your, er, scud sucking, but I'm straight, old, with grown children, and this just isn't going to work. I'm not a bigot, I just think you should go stalk someone else with an orientation similar to yours for a while. 'Bye.