"With Mozilla if we don't like where the project is heading we just fork it. With Opera there is no out."
A good example of this is Galeon. It uses the mozilla rendering engine, Gecko, but has features like crazy. Not the Opera throw-everything-on-the-screen, display-500-options style (which I don't care for myself), but the features that are easily configured or ignored. For instance, you can right-click almost anything including the buttons in the toolbar for relevant options (e.g. right click Home -> Set Current Page as Home). Space will page down, alt+arrow keys do intuitive things. Ctrl+Mouse Wheel will zoom text. Features that are easy to ignore and awesome to use.
The new GTK2 version is still catching up with the features of the original, but I'm a complete addict to the interface. I use Firebird on Windows but haven't settled in and don't think I will.
Just another good example of why I like OSS: something for everyone.
Slightly OT: Does anyone have any links on documentation or software that can accurately give memory statistics? 'top' in Linux isn't accurrate,/proc/meminfo isn't as straightforward as one might like...
"When will the bigwhigs realize that open-source does not necessarily mean risky, dangerous, or taboo in some way?"
When they see more IBM commercials and read about somebody making millions with Linux (besides, perhaps, IBM).
The info is out there, the PHBs just have to see it. Linux is already a positive buzz-word but the big iron will move when someone strikes oil with Linux.
Props to IBM for pushing a clean message of Linux to gain the OS more mindshare. As much as I can dislike some big companies, IBM seems to be playing a good game. "Linux is wonderful. Use it. If you like, we can help you." But, I digress...
Or to paraphrase JFK, we choose to do this, not because it is easy but because it is hard. Every mission launched doesn't just give us more information about other stellar bodies, but more technologies to use at home. IIRC the latest Mars rovers required a new composite fabric to be invented because in tests the airbags kept tearing. Some of you folks sleep on materials made for astronauts to cushion them from gforces, etc. Radio equipment, AI, robotics, camera tech, navigational equipment, weather forecasting, knowledge on solar activity, all of this has been helped by our quest to explore.
Is it an expensive way to research these things? Probably more expensive than getting a research group to do it, but since we're solving real problems instead of thinking "what can we invent today", this way is arguably much faster. And we get to go to other bodies and learn that much more in the process.
"Get him a nice piece of decoration he can use to brighten his computer/workplace/shrine with. Good modern art, some kind of astronomy picture, something to focus his eyes on when he needs to calm down after some bughunting"
As cheesy as some might think it, most geeks I know would appreciate a lava lamp. I've got one on my desk at work -- it's relaxing after a long coding session to lean back and stare at the globs rising and falling and smacking into each other.
While I agree in point with what you're saying, the company only makes profit compared to their competitors if the software on the product has become a commodity, e.g. anyone can get it, investing lots of time and money into the software won't give you a large advantage over your competitor.
If there are highly features in this router software that nobody else has and Linksys releases it, they've just saved their competitors time. This analysis works even better when thinking about NVidia / ATI.
Cheers
Re:What kind of students were they?
on
Darl Goes to Harvard
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I disagree with a line in the writeup [1] related to what you're saying [2]:
1. "Darl repeatedly returned to the issue of their IP being in linux, which I think is a very very valid point.... He looked taken aback -- the people, who came with such a strong set of opinions against SCO, were saying that they agreed with the root of their case... But the message was getting lost amongst all their constant BS."
2. "he seemed somewhat receptive to the fact that we're not all IP-hating copyright-hating hippies, we just don't like the FUD"
Meeting someone in person, especially one who is good at politics, helps you see their frame of reference -- or the one they project anyway. This will often lead to the perception that someone is less crazy than they seem. The two quotes above, to me, imply that SCO might have a point and Darl is honestly trying to win this case, that this is a serious matter to him.
Sorry if my implications are putting words in the mouths of the writers, but I'd like to point out a few things.
1) SCO hasn't shown any valid proof, even in court, as of yet.
2) Most of the that has been shown publicly has been shown to be public domain.
3) SCO is asking IBM to open their code for comparison... but SCO has their own code as well as Linux's. This is about code in Linux, not AIX mind you. They're asking IBM to prove their case for them while refusing to show any of the proof they've been ranting about for the better part of a year.
4) It's quite arguable that suing IBM for $3 billion is a joke.
5) SCO released Linux under the GPL, even after the case had been filed. This is contradictory to their "GPL is unconstitutional, etc." claim. Either the GPL is valid and their IP is OSS or it is invalid and they're violating copyright.
6) Verbal, contradicting comments saying A) This is about contract, end users are fine/We're going to sue people using Linux, B) Linux is "counter-cultural"/We use and sell Linux, it's great. They haven't even stuck with a transition here, they keep going back and forth.
7) SCO is selling licenses for IP but they refuse to tell you what IP you're licensing. Note that this also violates the GPL.
These things aren't just 'bad PR', these are actual stances SCO (and namely, Darl, who said many of the things I'm talking about) have. This stuff is common sense and public news. If Darl is truely running this $3 billion dollar lawsuit seriously, my only explaination is that he's absolutely stupid and out of touch with both reality, and his company.
No. It means that the "REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL PIG-DOGS" comments are idiotic.
Government sucks all around. Anyone who agrees might be interested in taking a no-bullshit, no-prejudice look at the Libertarian party. It's not for everyone, but I think more folks are Libertarian at their core than is realized. Most folks won't agree 100% with the party platform, I don't think, but that's because it's a small, concentrated party; given growth, that will change.
"Yes, I know it's free software and not quite the same, but this is not a valid criticism of Microsoft."
I'm not disagreeing with you in spirit, but you don't buy OSS projects from Source Forge. Source Forge doesn't put ads on TV claiming that project X will instantly save you millions, have your co-workers dancing, sprawling about the halls and flying through the air.
I'd figure if you actually *pay* for something, you should get more than "well, officially we won't say that it does anything." Not perfect mind you -- I understand that point extremely well, I'm a programmer myself. This whole thing is slightly nit-picky since it's only the license, but it's interesting in my view.
It's a far cry from expecting 100% or a perfect product, but claiming 0% in return for $$$ is absurd if you ask me.
I'm not talking as much about the end result, everyone knows that SCO, upon eating its own dog food, will shrivel and die only to be thoroughly ground to dust by IBM.
I'm talking about setting a precedent, making an example out of SCO. One of Linux's weak spots, IMO, is the court room. The best way to beat a group of bullies is to beat the first one that swings at you to a pulp. Linux is seen as 'the little guy', and that image must be changed.
It actually might be a very good thing if invidiual devs sue SCO. It looks like the whole SCO/IBM case might be thrown out before a verdict on the grounds that SCO is completely farking nuts... think ADHD kid in a court-room -- amusing but accurate picture, seeing their non-compliance.
Anyway, if the SCO/IBM case can't get a precedent, maybe these folks should set several with several different judges all over the world.
Another angle on this: IBM is a big company backing Linux, hence other companies will be afraid to sue Linux folks in the future. But what happens if/when companies behind Linux aren't seen as much of a threat? Thus far, nobody seems to be scared of the developers. Maybe they should go after SCO to scare off folks who can sue without stepping on the toes of big Linux-backing corps.
It's interesting to see how these things unfold. Notice that most companies these days have disclaimers everywhere, especially in the IT industry.
"We're not responsible for loss of data, lost work time, nuclear armageddon, etc."
Some companies go so far as to say that they don't claim their product suitable for any purpose, including the one it was advertised for. Am I right in recalling Microsoft doing that number at some point?
In the beginning folks just had to trust a company outright. Then some folks got burned and government made laws to keep companies responsible, but we find it swinging back the other way. That's not to say that their disclaimers are worth more than toilet paper in a courtroom, when they finally come to the test, but I think it's interesting to see things falling back on trust somewhat.
With respect to your post, SCO's problem is two-fold:
1) They're up againt IBM. These guys have more elite, battle-hardened, fire-breathing legions of patent lawyers than SCO has employees. The Nazgul are coming for Darl and it won't be pretty.
2) SCO not only has to show line by line similarities, but WRT the IBM case, has to show that IBM put those lines in Linux. They must also prove that those lines didn't come from BSD, etc. Not a trivial task for even IBM's team.
1) Circumstantial evidence is all we may have, but that's about all you're going to get until an audit is done. Circumstantial evidence is what leads to an investigation -- hard evidence leads to a conviction, but we're not there yet.
2) SCO is small-fry but is playing with some of the biggest names in the business. IBM, Intel, etc. I'm not so sure that the SEC is ignoring this.
3) I'm all for everything coming down around SCO's ears. What was Caldera Linux and is now SCO must be replaced with a stinking hole in the ground, too far-gone for even the heartiest weed. Destroy their sales, own their IP, give them absolute hell on the PR front and send their execs to jail. SCO will be set up as an example: mess with OSS, mess with the big dogs.
OSS's weakest point, IMO, is legal. That's not to say it's weak, but OSS is hard to take down through normal business channels (price war or buy-out) so you don't have a lot to choose from. Public relations is the weakest point second to the court, if you ask me. Showing the world that OSS is not to be tread upon (GPL infringement, IP crap) is of paramount importance at this point in time.
"overcoming this [nobody ever got fired for buying ibm] mindset is crucial for oss to get adopted with the big purchasers."
I wouldn't look at it like that. I think what you'll see is people saying "Nobody ever got fired for using _________" where the blank is OpenOffice, StarOffice, SomeOtherProductBasedOnOSS. One or a few companies will make products based on OSS/open standards and then people will just assume that buying from them is the way to go.
At the most, if you don't see people substituting an OSS-based company for Microsoft, you'll hear people saying "Nobody ever got fired for using Open Source," though I doubt that's the way it will go. It'll all be OSS, but companies will be at the helm.
Wouldn't it be ironic to see MS leading that fleet?:p
"The constant efforts by MS to be as incompatible as possible will no longer help them and start to hurt them."
Exactly. In the past, corporations spent all kinds of money working on making the other company's product harder to use. Each tried to leverage their marketshare to get more marketshare.
With open standards, anyone can join in, meaning more times than not you'll have a significant number of groups making applications which support these standards. This, in effect, makes a monopoly that much harder to create, and makes it all the more difficult for someone to 'embrace and extend' open standards without alienating themselves from the world.
Now, we've got Microsoft vs. a number of products which all use open standards, like OO.o, AbiWord, Gnumeric, etc. You can use whatever product you like, and you're guaranteed that it will work with other open products. It's the benefit that comes when you don't have lock-in. Most folks these days don't know anything but lockin so they're quite surprised at the idea.
In the past, companies said "Everyone uses our [closed] format, buy from us." Now it will be said, "Everyone uses our [open] format, use our software."
It's open lock-in.:)
Once the Microsoft Office shell is cracked (these last two years saw the first noticable cracks), I think you'll see more of a rush to open standards than anyone is expecting.
I'll echo what was written in that recent "Linux Predictions" article: Look for Microsoft to start advertising open standards compliance.
I never thought I would say that and believe it myself.
"How is this different from Macy's in New York, which has its own holding cell in their basement for shoplifters who have been detained and are awaiting the NYPD?"
AFAIK that's called "Citizen's Arrest" and AFAIK is legal in most places. You hold them until the cops arrive.
What folks are worried about is the RIAA doing more than holding or not bothering to call the cops at all.
"...and anything else is against the word of the Fuehre...er, I mean, is Anti-American."
I'll assume that's a poke at Bush.
Are you going to try and tell me that Democrats are trustworthy enough to be trusted with these things?
Politicians are scum. The only thing most of them care about is staying in office so they can carry out their own whims. Petty comments like that are a waste of everyone's time and contribute to one big mindfuck where everyone hates everyone else over this or that group of liars.
Some of the lesser attentive geeks among us aren't aware of Perl's ability to do full out OOP and its modular capabilities. It's a bit more kludgy than other languages for OOP at this moment, but just as powerful, as the company I work for is demonstrating (multi-tiered, distributed DB based web application).
"...once unemployed programmers who went back to school to learn accounting and finance."
Any programmer who can call himself a programmer without shame loves reuse of code. The problem is management (surprise!).
For one, they're usually too pushy and take something never meant to be a release product and rush it to market. There are many ways this can happen, and all start with "this isn't a live product; I can hack _____ and use this quick, crappy library ____ and get it to them."
Either demos get turned into real products, pilot versions built on bad foundations get turned into products before ready, management pushes so hard that crappy hacks are all that can be done to build a product, etc.
Management, the kind that are exporting work to China and India and getting cheap results are the PROBLEM here and exporting work, in my opinion, will only make it worse.
Open source is the way to go, and the company I work for is using lots of it (OSS servers and lgpl libraries abound), but management is still a large burden to deal with.
Planning and understanding of the development process is what is needed, and most managers don't have either. Most give spotty specifications and rushed deadlines when they should be working with a process of feature integration and understand that even good developers rarely get time estimates right.
Slashdot Mirror
"With Mozilla if we don't like where the project is heading we just fork it. With Opera there is no out."
A good example of this is Galeon. It uses the mozilla rendering engine, Gecko, but has features like crazy. Not the Opera throw-everything-on-the-screen, display-500-options style (which I don't care for myself), but the features that are easily configured or ignored. For instance, you can right-click almost anything including the buttons in the toolbar for relevant options (e.g. right click Home -> Set Current Page as Home). Space will page down, alt+arrow keys do intuitive things. Ctrl+Mouse Wheel will zoom text. Features that are easy to ignore and awesome to use.
The new GTK2 version is still catching up with the features of the original, but I'm a complete addict to the interface. I use Firebird on Windows but haven't settled in and don't think I will.
Just another good example of why I like OSS: something for everyone.
Cheers
Slightly OT: /proc/meminfo isn't as straightforward as one might like...
Does anyone have any links on documentation or software that can accurately give memory statistics? 'top' in Linux isn't accurrate,
Is there anything else?
Thanks in advance
"When will the bigwhigs realize that open-source does not necessarily mean risky, dangerous, or taboo in some way?"
When they see more IBM commercials and read about somebody making millions with Linux (besides, perhaps, IBM).
The info is out there, the PHBs just have to see it. Linux is already a positive buzz-word but the big iron will move when someone strikes oil with Linux.
Props to IBM for pushing a clean message of Linux to gain the OS more mindshare. As much as I can dislike some big companies, IBM seems to be playing a good game. "Linux is wonderful. Use it. If you like, we can help you." But, I digress...
Cheers
Or even better:
Best viewed with an Open Standards compliant browser.
Or to paraphrase JFK, we choose to do this, not because it is easy but because it is hard. Every mission launched doesn't just give us more information about other stellar bodies, but more technologies to use at home. IIRC the latest Mars rovers required a new composite fabric to be invented because in tests the airbags kept tearing. Some of you folks sleep on materials made for astronauts to cushion them from gforces, etc. Radio equipment, AI, robotics, camera tech, navigational equipment, weather forecasting, knowledge on solar activity, all of this has been helped by our quest to explore.
Is it an expensive way to research these things? Probably more expensive than getting a research group to do it, but since we're solving real problems instead of thinking "what can we invent today", this way is arguably much faster. And we get to go to other bodies and learn that much more in the process.
Cheers
"Get him a nice piece of decoration he can use to brighten his computer/workplace/shrine with. Good modern art, some kind of astronomy picture, something to focus his eyes on when he needs to calm down after some bughunting"
:)
As cheesy as some might think it, most geeks I know would appreciate a lava lamp. I've got one on my desk at work -- it's relaxing after a long coding session to lean back and stare at the globs rising and falling and smacking into each other.
Just a thought.
Cheers
Beware LCD panels for gamers; the crappy refresh rate many LCDs have make them not worth it.
:) I recommend NEC.
Instead, buy him a really big CRT (say 21" or 24") so he can open four large terminals on the screen at the same time.
Cheers
While I agree in point with what you're saying, the company only makes profit compared to their competitors if the software on the product has become a commodity, e.g. anyone can get it, investing lots of time and money into the software won't give you a large advantage over your competitor.
If there are highly features in this router software that nobody else has and Linksys releases it, they've just saved their competitors time. This analysis works even better when thinking about NVidia / ATI.
Cheers
I disagree with a line in the writeup [1] related to what you're saying [2]:
... He looked taken aback -- the people, who came with such a strong set of opinions against SCO, were saying that they agreed with the root of their case... But the message was getting lost amongst all their constant BS."
1. "Darl repeatedly returned to the issue of their IP being in linux, which I think is a very very valid point.
2. "he seemed somewhat receptive to the fact that we're not all IP-hating copyright-hating hippies, we just don't like the FUD"
Meeting someone in person, especially one who is good at politics, helps you see their frame of reference -- or the one they project anyway. This will often lead to the perception that someone is less crazy than they seem. The two quotes above, to me, imply that SCO might have a point and Darl is honestly trying to win this case, that this is a serious matter to him.
Sorry if my implications are putting words in the mouths of the writers, but I'd like to point out a few things.
1) SCO hasn't shown any valid proof, even in court, as of yet.
2) Most of the that has been shown publicly has been shown to be public domain.
3) SCO is asking IBM to open their code for comparison... but SCO has their own code as well as Linux's. This is about code in Linux, not AIX mind you. They're asking IBM to prove their case for them while refusing to show any of the proof they've been ranting about for the better part of a year.
4) It's quite arguable that suing IBM for $3 billion is a joke.
5) SCO released Linux under the GPL, even after the case had been filed. This is contradictory to their "GPL is unconstitutional, etc." claim. Either the GPL is valid and their IP is OSS or it is invalid and they're violating copyright.
6) Verbal, contradicting comments saying A) This is about contract, end users are fine/We're going to sue people using Linux, B) Linux is "counter-cultural"/We use and sell Linux, it's great. They haven't even stuck with a transition here, they keep going back and forth.
7) SCO is selling licenses for IP but they refuse to tell you what IP you're licensing. Note that this also violates the GPL.
These things aren't just 'bad PR', these are actual stances SCO (and namely, Darl, who said many of the things I'm talking about) have. This stuff is common sense and public news. If Darl is truely running this $3 billion dollar lawsuit seriously, my only explaination is that he's absolutely stupid and out of touch with both reality, and his company.
A good summmary: http://www.linux.org/news/sco/timeline.html
Cheers
"If you're a bad guy and you want to frustrate law enforcement, use a Mac."
Nice try Mr. FBI man! This is just a thinly veiled plot!
1) Tell public to use FBI to foil law enforcement.
2) ???
3) Profi^WProsecute!
Someone hand me my tinfoil hat, I'm off to search for nsa_key in Darwin.
No. It means that the "REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL PIG-DOGS" comments are idiotic.
Government sucks all around.
Anyone who agrees might be interested in taking a no-bullshit, no-prejudice look at the Libertarian party. It's not for everyone, but I think more folks are Libertarian at their core than is realized. Most folks won't agree 100% with the party platform, I don't think, but that's because it's a small, concentrated party; given growth, that will change.
Libertarian party website
"Yes, I know it's free software and not quite the same, but this is not a valid criticism of Microsoft."
I'm not disagreeing with you in spirit, but you don't buy OSS projects from Source Forge. Source Forge doesn't put ads on TV claiming that project X will instantly save you millions, have your co-workers dancing, sprawling about the halls and flying through the air.
I'd figure if you actually *pay* for something, you should get more than "well, officially we won't say that it does anything." Not perfect mind you -- I understand that point extremely well, I'm a programmer myself. This whole thing is slightly nit-picky since it's only the license, but it's interesting in my view.
It's a far cry from expecting 100% or a perfect product, but claiming 0% in return for $$$ is absurd if you ask me.
Cheers
I'm not talking as much about the end result, everyone knows that SCO, upon eating its own dog food, will shrivel and die only to be thoroughly ground to dust by IBM.
I'm talking about setting a precedent, making an example out of SCO. One of Linux's weak spots, IMO, is the court room. The best way to beat a group of bullies is to beat the first one that swings at you to a pulp. Linux is seen as 'the little guy', and that image must be changed.
Cheers
What do you have the best chances of seeing this year?
;)
B) - Cupid
Answer D - BECAUSE THE REST ARE FUCKING FIGMANTS OF YOUR IMAGINATION.
Well, imagination or not, Cupid is surely ruled off the list -- this is Slashdot, after all.
It actually might be a very good thing if invidiual devs sue SCO. It looks like the whole SCO/IBM case might be thrown out before a verdict on the grounds that SCO is completely farking nuts... think ADHD kid in a court-room -- amusing but accurate picture, seeing their non-compliance.
.02
Anyway, if the SCO/IBM case can't get a precedent, maybe these folks should set several with several different judges all over the world.
Another angle on this: IBM is a big company backing Linux, hence other companies will be afraid to sue Linux folks in the future. But what happens if/when companies behind Linux aren't seen as much of a threat? Thus far, nobody seems to be scared of the developers. Maybe they should go after SCO to scare off folks who can sue without stepping on the toes of big Linux-backing corps.
Just my
Cheers
It's interesting to see how these things unfold. Notice that most companies these days have disclaimers everywhere, especially in the IT industry.
"We're not responsible for loss of data, lost work time, nuclear armageddon, etc."
Some companies go so far as to say that they don't claim their product suitable for any purpose, including the one it was advertised for. Am I right in recalling Microsoft doing that number at some point?
In the beginning folks just had to trust a company outright. Then some folks got burned and government made laws to keep companies responsible, but we find it swinging back the other way. That's not to say that their disclaimers are worth more than toilet paper in a courtroom, when they finally come to the test, but I think it's interesting to see things falling back on trust somewhat.
Cheers
With respect to your post, SCO's problem is two-fold:
1) They're up againt IBM. These guys have more elite, battle-hardened, fire-breathing legions of patent lawyers than SCO has employees. The Nazgul are coming for Darl and it won't be pretty.
2) SCO not only has to show line by line similarities, but WRT the IBM case, has to show that IBM put those lines in Linux. They must also prove that those lines didn't come from BSD, etc. Not a trivial task for even IBM's team.
Cheers
1) Circumstantial evidence is all we may have, but that's about all you're going to get until an audit is done. Circumstantial evidence is what leads to an investigation -- hard evidence leads to a conviction, but we're not there yet.
2) SCO is small-fry but is playing with some of the biggest names in the business. IBM, Intel, etc. I'm not so sure that the SEC is ignoring this.
3) I'm all for everything coming down around SCO's ears. What was Caldera Linux and is now SCO must be replaced with a stinking hole in the ground, too far-gone for even the heartiest weed.
Destroy their sales, own their IP, give them absolute hell on the PR front and send their execs to jail. SCO will be set up as an example: mess with OSS, mess with the big dogs.
OSS's weakest point, IMO, is legal. That's not to say it's weak, but OSS is hard to take down through normal business channels (price war or buy-out) so you don't have a lot to choose from. Public relations is the weakest point second to the court, if you ask me. Showing the world that OSS is not to be tread upon (GPL infringement, IP crap) is of paramount importance at this point in time.
Cheers
Hopefully, if it gets dismissed, IBM keeps this in court either by asking the judge or by counter-suing, you name it.
SCO is the best thing that could happen to OSS -- a weak opponent to set precedent for the GPL, etc.
I want this to go through to the end. At least, either way, it's been shown that to take on OSS in court is to take on some of the big dogs.
Cheers
"overcoming this [nobody ever got fired for buying ibm] mindset is crucial for oss to get adopted with the big purchasers."
:p
I wouldn't look at it like that. I think what you'll see is people saying "Nobody ever got fired for using _________" where the blank is OpenOffice, StarOffice, SomeOtherProductBasedOnOSS. One or a few companies will make products based on OSS/open standards and then people will just assume that buying from them is the way to go.
At the most, if you don't see people substituting an OSS-based company for Microsoft, you'll hear people saying "Nobody ever got fired for using Open Source," though I doubt that's the way it will go. It'll all be OSS, but companies will be at the helm.
Wouldn't it be ironic to see MS leading that fleet?
Cheers
"The constant efforts by MS to be as incompatible as possible will no longer help them and start to hurt them."
:)
Exactly. In the past, corporations spent all kinds of money working on making the other company's product harder to use. Each tried to leverage their marketshare to get more marketshare.
With open standards, anyone can join in, meaning more times than not you'll have a significant number of groups making applications which support these standards. This, in effect, makes a monopoly that much harder to create, and makes it all the more difficult for someone to 'embrace and extend' open standards without alienating themselves from the world.
Now, we've got Microsoft vs. a number of products which all use open standards, like OO.o, AbiWord, Gnumeric, etc. You can use whatever product you like, and you're guaranteed that it will work with other open products. It's the benefit that comes when you don't have lock-in. Most folks these days don't know anything but lockin so they're quite surprised at the idea.
In the past, companies said "Everyone uses our [closed] format, buy from us." Now it will be said, "Everyone uses our [open] format, use our software."
It's open lock-in.
Once the Microsoft Office shell is cracked (these last two years saw the first noticable cracks), I think you'll see more of a rush to open standards than anyone is expecting.
I'll echo what was written in that recent "Linux Predictions" article:
Look for Microsoft to start advertising open standards compliance.
I never thought I would say that and believe it myself.
Cheers
"How is this different from Macy's in New York, which has its own holding cell in their basement for shoplifters who have been detained and are awaiting the NYPD?"
AFAIK that's called "Citizen's Arrest" and AFAIK is legal in most places. You hold them until the cops arrive.
What folks are worried about is the RIAA doing more than holding or not bothering to call the cops at all.
"...and anything else is against the word of the Fuehre...er, I mean, is Anti-American."
I'll assume that's a poke at Bush.
Are you going to try and tell me that Democrats are trustworthy enough to be trusted with these things?
Politicians are scum. The only thing most of them care about is staying in office so they can carry out their own whims. Petty comments like that are a waste of everyone's time and contribute to one big mindfuck where everyone hates everyone else over this or that group of liars.
Some of the lesser attentive geeks among us aren't aware of Perl's ability to do full out OOP and its modular capabilities. It's a bit more kludgy than other languages for OOP at this moment, but just as powerful, as the company I work for is demonstrating (multi-tiered, distributed DB based web application).
Perl == scripting is a myth that needs to die.
"...once unemployed programmers who went back to school to learn accounting and finance."
Any programmer who can call himself a programmer without shame loves reuse of code. The problem is management (surprise!).
For one, they're usually too pushy and take something never meant to be a release product and rush it to market. There are many ways this can happen, and all start with "this isn't a live product; I can hack _____ and use this quick, crappy library ____ and get it to them."
Either demos get turned into real products, pilot versions built on bad foundations get turned into products before ready, management pushes so hard that crappy hacks are all that can be done to build a product, etc.
Management, the kind that are exporting work to China and India and getting cheap results are the PROBLEM here and exporting work, in my opinion, will only make it worse.
Open source is the way to go, and the company I work for is using lots of it (OSS servers and lgpl libraries abound), but management is still a large burden to deal with.
Planning and understanding of the development process is what is needed, and most managers don't have either. Most give spotty specifications and rushed deadlines when they should be working with a process of feature integration and understand that even good developers rarely get time estimates right.
Cheers