Hope they come up with a solid business model and start making real money.
I'm going to have to make a copy of this comment so I don't have to write it yet again the next time this comes up. Mandrake's Linux business has always done well, although I don't know what you mean by "real money". They got into trouble during the dotbomb era when they were saddled with a "world class management" who did what CxOs are supposed to do and looted the company while plunging it into debt. To Mandrake's credit, they've returned to their core Linux business and worked their way back to solvency after tossing the overpaid management overboard. There are a lot of American companies that need to do exactly the same thing.
I took the easy route - I downloaded the community edition.
Why would you do that? The official edition is available on the FTP servers and by bittorrent. You do not want to deal with the bugs in 10.0 Community, if the first ISO will even boot. Go download 10.0 Official. The rest of us took the hits for you - take advantage of it.
Does that mean we need to rename Mandrake to "Freedom Linux"?
Sounds like a good name to me, especially since they lost the court fight to use the name "Mandrake". Seriously. Apparently the syndicate that has the rights to "Mandrake the Magician" took exception, and the French courts agreed. And yes, I use Mandrake . . . or whatever it's going to be called.
So is posting on Slashdot. Did you read any part of this thread or did you just close your eyes and pick a comment to reply to? I'm beginning to believe that most ACs are actually old/. trolls who were modded under the bridge and have to post AC to get above -1.
And? And you really need it spelled out for you? If most Windows installations date from before Microsoft even realized they had a security problem, then there is a huge installed base of unsecured machines out there polluting the world's computing environment. Are there any words in that you'd like me to explain? Get a user ID, Coward. It's free.
And W2K SP2 was released in 1999? I was using the parent's time frame - you would have noticed the quotes if you had the enhanced comment viewing privileges enjoyed by registered Slashdot users instead of that impaired interface that ACs get.
If you're telling me to leave because I've made undisputed observations, then isn't that a big flashing clue that maybe, just maybe, you're not well enough informed on the matter to justify hating MS?
Well, I can't speak for the OPs, but when you're defending your position from multiple attacks, which "observation" is it that's "undisputed"? Your position seems to be that MS is justified in gouging its users for new software that protects them from the MS software they already paid for. If MS were "in the right", they'd give the AV software to users for free (bundle it) instead of making another profit center based on curing the insecurity of their flagship software. After all, they don't charge users for a browser or a media player or an email client. Perhaps its not "hating MS" as much as taking a realistic look at what they are doing.
Subject: K3W1 Perl script From: Yur Mom To: linuxguy532891732@hotmail.com
Hi Reletive
I got this great Perl script that does loads of great stuff. You have to run it to find out. Uh, save the atachtment to yur home directery, then use the chmod comand from a terminil window to make it executable. OK so far? K3W1! Now cd to your home and in the terminil Window (heh) type "./biteme.pl" but don't use the quotes man and don't look at the script first. Promise? Enjoy.
Too bad your average consumer doesn't know enough about computers to see the irony:
Truly. Imagine the advertising campaign: A bunch of steely-eyed body-builders in butterfly costumes holding assault weapons, their backs against the wall, while a bunch of clueless users joyously slide down the hallway in a slow-motion group hug. And the voice-over jingle: "Who you gonna' call to make sure the Windows (R)(TM)(C) are closed?" (to the Ghostbusters theme, of course). BTW, the above idea is hereby copyrighted, MS - contact me if you want to deal.
Seriously, the irony really is hard to believe. Here is a company selling people software to keep an eye on the holes in the software that they previously sold to the people . . . And then I guess it goes recursive: The anti-virus-program-monitor and the anti-virus-program-monitor-anti-virus-program, etc., until the system is finally deadlocked since all resources and CPU time are used preventing any process from doing anything. Then blame it on the hardware for being too slow. Man, what a great racket.
Outlook and Outlook Express do not let you open attachments by default. This was fixed about two years back, and it is about time that Slashdot took notice.
I believe that Slashdot is well aware that Microsoft finally discovered there was an issue with security about "two years back". Unfortunately, most copies of Windows are older than that.
Was that JVM running? If not then it had to load the very large VM before running the program.
Try running it a second time and then report back.
Let me get this straight. You're saying people who use Java programs should always run them once as a warm-up, then run them again for real. Hey, it makes sense to me.:)
I've been around here for awhile, and this is not my first nick'. I found that I was inhibited saying certain things about management while my real name was attached to the account. However, I make all posts using this account, and my comment history is public information. I could put in some fake personal info, but that is not my style. Anyone else can do the same, and then people know they are having a discussion with one person and not six different people using the same name. And, of course, ACs have no concern about content or moderation.
You generally see the same nicks here much of the time, and you know if they're trolls or idiots or worth reading. If not, their comment history is available and is more important than their, possibly, real name. In over 1200 comments, I think I've been modded troll twice - both times on comments critical of Microsoft. What's your comment history, Coward? Why isn't it good enough that you post with a +1 bonus? Are you afraid to put a nick' where your mouth is and face the moderation accounting? I'm concerned with your Slashdot user name and creds, not your real name, which concerns me not at all.
It took about 70 steps to hire a new employee. Paperwork was processed locally, sent to the state capitol for signatures, returned for more signatures, etc. I think they reduced some of this (but I am not certain). Item 1) ("business reengineering") really can necessary.
Constant process improvement should be a goal for any company regardless of whether it includes computerization. "Business reengineering" is something often pushed by ERP consultants rather than admitting, "Sorry, our software doesn't do that, and we won't customize it for you." I wish you better luck with SAP than my previous employer had.
If Bush wins, the Democratic Party will self destruct.
Bush's approval rating is less than 50%. After four more years of Cheney's behind-the-throne mismanagment, the people will elect anyone else. That would be a plus for the Democrats - hardly self-destruction.
And you apparently have no idea about how career terminating a remark can be if placed on these pages the wrong way. Most of the folks who deliver ERP implementations (like me) know just how much visibility this stuff has in companies; we don't need more publicity than we already have.
Bush is an international albatross hanging from the nation's neck. If he wins reelection, the country will be ready for Hillary in 2008. Any right-minded conservative will vote for Kerry (who seems to be Bush's twin separated at birth) this year and likely ensure a Republican victory in 2008.
Continue to paint American politics as "With us or against us." It's a losing strategy for a party that only gains voters when the Republican party loses them.
Okay, I'm a Republican, but while promoting his war, it was W who said (very closely), "You are with us, or you are with the terrorists." That tunnel-vision rhetoric didn't fly well with the rest of the world or a lot of people here at home. I'll agree that it's a losing strategy - for either party.
His assignment editor, and more troubling, the News Director [Hi, Forrest!] have routinely ignored the story.
What I find really troubling is that the League of Women Voters has basically told its membership to shut up about the electronic voting machine problems. This is frightening coming from one of the nation's most dependable watchdog groups.
So think of it this way: Do your word processing like everybody else and pay $0-$400. Or hire someone to write you a word process at a cost of several $thousand to several $million?
I don't know why I bother responding to someone who is afraid to put their name on their opinion. You have obviously never been involved with one of these ERP rollouts. What happens when you find out the timesheet package can't handle the contract numbers that you are required by law to keep track of? I could recite similar problems, but your analogy is just plain bogus.
The main problem of "computerizing" business systems is that if you limit yourself to computerize the system as it is, your project is doomed to fail.
I don't understand that at all. A successful company/organization has business rules for a reason. "Computerizing" a business should not change the basics of how business is done in a company, only streamline and assist its operations.
So the way to success is to 1) simplify and rationalize the business system (that's called business reengineering) . ..
Sorry, I'm buzzword-intolerant, and that's the kind of jargon you get from the people selling these so-called ERP packages. No company should have to "reengineer" itself in order to use a software product. That's nonsense. There have been a number of spectacular multi-million dollar failures in SAP implementations. One size does not fit all. Software should help a company do what it does, not tell it how to do business.
As if the computer science professors at stanford are the ones that set up the financial and human-resources systems.
True. According to the article:
. . . says Stanford CIO Chris Handley, a former psychology instructor who joined Stanford from PricewaterhouseCoopers in 1999.
I had a math professor in college who claimed that psychology majors picked that field because they believed they'd be able to cure themselves.
Chris Handley, from the article: "Just buying the software does not solve the problem. You have to change the institution, and that's something Stanford struggled with."
This is the real problem with stuff like PeopleSoft and SAP. The user is expected to change their business rules to adapt to the software rather than the other way around. It's arrogant and bass-ackwards. Software is supposed to malleable and adjustable. That's why it's called software. Otherwise, it would be hardware or firmware.
If they admit they lost, they could be sued for "failing to promote shareholder value" or somesuch.
There is no law that requires company officers to "promote shaerholder value". They have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company. Period. The shareholders should be suing SCO's management for failing to support and modernize the company's products and for turning the company into a half-way house for recovering lawyers. That is NOT in the best interests of the company.
First it's something rather silly to debate about to this length.
Indeed. The rest of the world, including the tax authorities, believes that there are nonprofit businesses, but that doesn't fit with your personal, very narrow definition. So, obviously, you are correct, and the world is wrong. Forgive the rest of us if we're slow to recognize your omniscience.
Slashdot Mirror
Hope they come up with a solid business model and start making real money.
I'm going to have to make a copy of this comment so I don't have to write it yet again the next time this comes up. Mandrake's Linux business has always done well, although I don't know what you mean by "real money". They got into trouble during the dotbomb era when they were saddled with a "world class management" who did what CxOs are supposed to do and looted the company while plunging it into debt. To Mandrake's credit, they've returned to their core Linux business and worked their way back to solvency after tossing the overpaid management overboard. There are a lot of American companies that need to do exactly the same thing.
I took the easy route - I downloaded the community edition.
Why would you do that? The official edition is available on the FTP servers and by bittorrent. You do not want to deal with the bugs in 10.0 Community, if the first ISO will even boot. Go download 10.0 Official. The rest of us took the hits for you - take advantage of it.
Does that mean we need to rename Mandrake to "Freedom Linux"?
Sounds like a good name to me, especially since they lost the court fight to use the name "Mandrake". Seriously. Apparently the syndicate that has the rights to "Mandrake the Magician" took exception, and the French courts agreed. And yes, I use Mandrake . . . or whatever it's going to be called.
Outlook 2000 was released in mid-1999.
SP2 was released in 2001.
Service Packs are free.
So is posting on Slashdot. Did you read any part of this thread or did you just close your eyes and pick a comment to reply to? I'm beginning to believe that most ACs are actually old /. trolls who were modded under the bridge and have to post AC to get above -1.
And?
And? And you really need it spelled out for you? If most Windows installations date from before Microsoft even realized they had a security problem, then there is a huge installed base of unsecured machines out there polluting the world's computing environment. Are there any words in that you'd like me to explain? Get a user ID, Coward. It's free.
And W2K SP2 was released in 1999? I was using the parent's time frame - you would have noticed the quotes if you had the enhanced comment viewing privileges enjoyed by registered Slashdot users instead of that impaired interface that ACs get.
If you're telling me to leave because I've made undisputed observations, then isn't that a big flashing clue that maybe, just maybe, you're not well enough informed on the matter to justify hating MS?
Well, I can't speak for the OPs, but when you're defending your position from multiple attacks, which "observation" is it that's "undisputed"? Your position seems to be that MS is justified in gouging its users for new software that protects them from the MS software they already paid for. If MS were "in the right", they'd give the AV software to users for free (bundle it) instead of making another profit center based on curing the insecurity of their flagship software. After all, they don't charge users for a browser or a media player or an email client. Perhaps its not "hating MS" as much as taking a realistic look at what they are doing.
Subject: K3W1 Perl script
From: Yur Mom
To: linuxguy532891732@hotmail.com
Hi Reletive
I got this great Perl script that does loads of great stuff. You have to run it to find out. Uh, save the atachtment to yur home directery, then use the chmod comand from a terminil window to make it executable. OK so far? K3W1! Now cd to your home and in the terminil Window (heh) type "./biteme.pl" but don't use the quotes man and don't look at the script first. Promise? Enjoy.
Love,
M0m
Too bad your average consumer doesn't know enough about computers to see the irony:
Truly. Imagine the advertising campaign: A bunch of steely-eyed body-builders in butterfly costumes holding assault weapons, their backs against the wall, while a bunch of clueless users joyously slide down the hallway in a slow-motion group hug. And the voice-over jingle: "Who you gonna' call to make sure the Windows (R)(TM)(C) are closed?" (to the Ghostbusters theme, of course). BTW, the above idea is hereby copyrighted, MS - contact me if you want to deal.
Seriously, the irony really is hard to believe. Here is a company selling people software to keep an eye on the holes in the software that they previously sold to the people . . . And then I guess it goes recursive: The anti-virus-program-monitor and the anti-virus-program-monitor-anti-virus-program, etc., until the system is finally deadlocked since all resources and CPU time are used preventing any process from doing anything. Then blame it on the hardware for being too slow. Man, what a great racket.
Outlook and Outlook Express do not let you open attachments by default. This was fixed about two years back, and it is about time that Slashdot took notice.
I believe that Slashdot is well aware that Microsoft finally discovered there was an issue with security about "two years back". Unfortunately, most copies of Windows are older than that.
While Outlooks ubiquity might exacerbate ...
I'm sorry, what???
He said, "While Microsoft's desktop monopoly and inattention to security has screwed its own users . . ." But he was being polite about it. HTH.
Was that JVM running? If not then it had to load the very large VM before running the program.
Try running it a second time and then report back.
Let me get this straight. You're saying people who use Java programs should always run them once as a warm-up, then run them again for real. Hey, it makes sense to me. :)
I've been around here for awhile, and this is not my first nick'. I found that I was inhibited saying certain things about management while my real name was attached to the account. However, I make all posts using this account, and my comment history is public information. I could put in some fake personal info, but that is not my style. Anyone else can do the same, and then people know they are having a discussion with one person and not six different people using the same name. And, of course, ACs have no concern about content or moderation.
You generally see the same nicks here much of the time, and you know if they're trolls or idiots or worth reading. If not, their comment history is available and is more important than their, possibly, real name. In over 1200 comments, I think I've been modded troll twice - both times on comments critical of Microsoft. What's your comment history, Coward? Why isn't it good enough that you post with a +1 bonus? Are you afraid to put a nick' where your mouth is and face the moderation accounting? I'm concerned with your Slashdot user name and creds, not your real name, which concerns me not at all.
It took about 70 steps to hire a new employee. Paperwork was processed locally, sent to the state capitol for signatures, returned for more signatures, etc. I think they reduced some of this (but I am not certain). Item 1) ("business reengineering") really can necessary.
Constant process improvement should be a goal for any company regardless of whether it includes computerization. "Business reengineering" is something often pushed by ERP consultants rather than admitting, "Sorry, our software doesn't do that, and we won't customize it for you." I wish you better luck with SAP than my previous employer had.
If Bush wins, the Democratic Party will self destruct.
Bush's approval rating is less than 50%. After four more years of Cheney's behind-the-throne mismanagment, the people will elect anyone else. That would be a plus for the Democrats - hardly self-destruction.
And you apparently have no idea about how career terminating a remark can be if placed on these pages the wrong way. Most of the folks who deliver ERP implementations (like me) know just how much visibility this stuff has in companies; we don't need more publicity than we already have.
Thanks for validating my point.
Kerry can only win if the election is a mudslide.
Bush is an international albatross hanging from the nation's neck. If he wins reelection, the country will be ready for Hillary in 2008. Any right-minded conservative will vote for Kerry (who seems to be Bush's twin separated at birth) this year and likely ensure a Republican victory in 2008.
Continue to paint American politics as "With us or against us." It's a losing strategy for a party that only gains voters when the Republican party loses them.
Okay, I'm a Republican, but while promoting his war, it was W who said (very closely), "You are with us, or you are with the terrorists." That tunnel-vision rhetoric didn't fly well with the rest of the world or a lot of people here at home. I'll agree that it's a losing strategy - for either party.
His assignment editor, and more troubling, the News Director [Hi, Forrest!] have routinely ignored the story.
What I find really troubling is that the League of Women Voters has basically told its membership to shut up about the electronic voting machine problems. This is frightening coming from one of the nation's most dependable watchdog groups.
So think of it this way: Do your word processing like everybody else and pay $0-$400. Or hire someone to write you a word process at a cost of several $thousand to several $million?
I don't know why I bother responding to someone who is afraid to put their name on their opinion. You have obviously never been involved with one of these ERP rollouts. What happens when you find out the timesheet package can't handle the contract numbers that you are required by law to keep track of? I could recite similar problems, but your analogy is just plain bogus.
The main problem of "computerizing" business systems is that if you limit yourself to computerize the system as it is, your project is doomed to fail.
I don't understand that at all. A successful company/organization has business rules for a reason. "Computerizing" a business should not change the basics of how business is done in a company, only streamline and assist its operations.
So the way to success is to 1) simplify and rationalize the business system (that's called business reengineering) . . .
Sorry, I'm buzzword-intolerant, and that's the kind of jargon you get from the people selling these so-called ERP packages. No company should have to "reengineer" itself in order to use a software product. That's nonsense. There have been a number of spectacular multi-million dollar failures in SAP implementations. One size does not fit all. Software should help a company do what it does, not tell it how to do business.
As if the computer science professors at stanford are the ones that set up the financial and human-resources systems.
True. According to the article:
I had a math professor in college who claimed that psychology majors picked that field because they believed they'd be able to cure themselves.Chris Handley, from the article: "Just buying the software does not solve the problem. You have to change the institution, and that's something Stanford struggled with."
This is the real problem with stuff like PeopleSoft and SAP. The user is expected to change their business rules to adapt to the software rather than the other way around. It's arrogant and bass-ackwards. Software is supposed to malleable and adjustable. That's why it's called software. Otherwise, it would be hardware or firmware.
If they admit they lost, they could be sued for "failing to promote shareholder value" or somesuch.
There is no law that requires company officers to "promote shaerholder value". They have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company. Period. The shareholders should be suing SCO's management for failing to support and modernize the company's products and for turning the company into a half-way house for recovering lawyers. That is NOT in the best interests of the company.
I for one, would like to welcome our new mold overlords!
BANG!
First it's something rather silly to debate about to this length.
Indeed. The rest of the world, including the tax authorities, believes that there are nonprofit businesses, but that doesn't fit with your personal, very narrow definition. So, obviously, you are correct, and the world is wrong. Forgive the rest of us if we're slow to recognize your omniscience.