I don't know about that. Not too many people will tell IBM to 'go take a hike' when IBM wants something in another format (that happens to be openly documented).
Documents that IBM exports are one thing, but for documents sent to IBM and internal stuff, what IBM says goes.
I stand corrected (especially in regards to a kernel panic). It does make me wonder, though: 1) Are two completely split wintel boxes more reliable than one mainframe? 2) Did the folks doing the system tests set up the mainframe well?
Basically what it comes down to is I can't stand having someone give me programming goals, requirements and deadlines when they have never worked on a programming project, even a tiny one, from start to maintenance and support.
A good leader who listens to his subordinates is one thing, and you can get a lot done if he listens correctly. But when making decisions for the big picture, judgement calls are necessary and most managerial judgement calls require knowledge of the task at hand. A manager can only rely on the judgement of his subordinates so much before he becomes nothing more than a middle-man relaying information.
1) That SCO has found their source code in source code published online that anyone can download and
2) that SCO's release of other people's copyrighted work (e.g. Linux), required to be distributed under the GPL, doesn't mean any SCO code in Caldera Linux has been released under the GPL.
Now, 90% of the people who are making calls on this stock couldn't give you the definition of "source code" if their lives depended on it.
#2 is less of a technical issue, but unless there's some really goofy clause in the law somewhere, any moron can figure out: 1) Either the GPL is invalid and they're distributing works illegally OR 2) They're releasing their own source under the GPL (assuming there is some in Linux).
There aren't any secret tricks or hidden messages or conspiracies, there aren't any facets here of "Hey, just maybe, we're wrong." This is as cut and damn dry as a lawsuit can get. SCO is trying to take Linux's cake and have and eat both it and their cake at the same time.
I applaud those of you who are trying to be humble and suggest "we might be wrong" -- we might be. But I honestly think some of you are taking this "there are no easy truths" crap way too far.
In the United States legal system, being humble and being quiet will get you canned.
As for the rest, you really want to assert that the Linux community is spreading lies, horrible spin, FUD, more lies, propaganda, commiting extortion and defaming an entire industry? Who in the Linux community is taking the published and open copyrighted works of others and selling it under a given license while claiming that license is invalid?
You have a point, don't get me wrong -- the Linux community is often not as introspective and self-critical as it needs to be. But implying that we're acting in any fashion like SCO or being dishonest, unruly, etc. is quite a damn stretch if you ask me.
Two things may end up making marketing to "dummies" irrelevant:
1) Smart companies with IT directors who can actually do the job of those under them to a good extent.
2) Smart companies who actually listen to their IT directors.
When companies hire managers who do nothing but manage yet don't understand (read: haven't done) the job of the folks they manage, you get problems. When company CEOs like to micromanage the company instead of leaving decisions to other, more qualified people specialized in their field, you get problems.
I think with the economy on the rise, with companies trusting IT more since the 90's and realizing IT's place in a corporation, and with companies with over-protective, over-bearing and witless gits in management learning that this is a bad thing, we might begin to see changes in the effect of this kind of FUD.
Of course I could be quite incorrect and nothing will change.
It's my understanding that up2date will update your kernel for you? If you're impatient and want to patch before Red Hat has done QA on the patch, I can understand the desire for documentation, but I can't understand why one would think it's critical.
Please correct me if I misread something in your post.
This is question I've wrestled with for a long time.
I think it boils down to one thing: people just don't care.
Corporations grow so large that instead of long term gain in mind (making the customer happy), they try to find each and every way to improve the bottom line. Minimize inputs: employee pay, design/research time, manufacturing/testing time, customer support. Maximize income: lots of marketing (IMAGE is everything), high prices, lots of control over the end-product after it's left the shelf.
You get bombarded with ads to buy crappy products, made by overworked and underpaid people, and as an added bonus get to fuss with control measures that make it difficult to switch to a competing brand. Cellphones sound familiar? CDs?
And everyone eats it up because they don't care. Capitalism works if the consumer is interested in looking out for himself, but these days most folks are completely happy to give everyone their money and say "Take care of me." This is why nobody sells a product anymore, they sell a "solution."
Politics is the same. Nobody takes a vested interest in taking control of their lives and exercising their own power. People contract with the cellphone company that promises them the best service, pay loads of money and then get reamed and the same is true with politicians. People elect politicians who promise to take care of them, happily turn over 20%+ of every penny made and most end up hating the government.
Nobody cares. Society has no problem giving up every dime if someone promises to take care of them -- but it's rare that anyone is held accountable.
I'll end this with a favorite quote of mine: "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." [Samuel Adams]
That said, it's worth pointing out what some of the anti-MS folks are getting at: it all boils down to security/etc. out of the box.
With all of the insecure services turned on by default, no firewall, very trusting applications and APIs and the fact that most users run with admin priviledges (due to lack of "enter admin password to install this app" ability), Windows is just asking for problems.
Does it make the user any less responsible? Well, no, not really. A user should be able to expect a basic level of system security (which, IMO, Windows does not give), but you're right, they are responsible to a large degree. Still, none of this makes pointing out the flawed design (yes, I said design) of Windows a mistake.
"...the company will be more than happy to try to hire someone into it (read: inexperienced newbs or immigrants) at $9/hr. All and all, that will have a detrimental effect on everyone in the entire industry..."
Yes, but this is a little more short-term thinking. Companies these days are doing everything humanly possible to cut the bottom line. They're making really stupid decisions to take more money from their customers while giving them less and taking more and more control over their product after it's left the shelf.
What happens? Companies with intelligent management or (even better) small businesses step in and the whole process reinvents itself for another cycle.
I'm sure folks will reply with, "Well you've got to feed a family. Sometimes 'I am just following orders' is a necessary excuse when it comes to putting food on the table."
I respond to that with a question: How long has it been since SCO started this whole mess? How unrealistic is it to get another job or even another job that is a little 'beneath you' while you move to a company that isn't practicing extortion?
Each to his own. Folks can stay on the ship (which will sink anyway, that's pretty obvious I think) as long as they want, folks who share my opinion and are in a place to will choose not to hire them.
"BUT... You have a PhD....they'll wonder why you're willing to work cheap."
It's not just that, companies also figure that someone who is overqualified will attempt to find a job he's normally qualified for (read: a job that isn't 'beneath him') once the economy/his life/the stars are right. Lots of overqualified people will work 60 hours a week dirt cheap -- because they have no other option.
I think that's a nice little reminder. We certainly shouldn't write off MS if we're wanting to play with the big dogs. MS can shut out superior products through use of it's sheer market influence, no doubt -- so listen well and tread carefully.
However, I think it's a nice little reminder. Linux started humbly and continued on many years that way. At its heart the core of Linux will always keep going because what drives it is the desire to beat its own track record, not that of Microsoft.
We want a free operating system we can hack on. IBM or no IBM, Microsoft of no Microsoft, this will never change. And thanks to the GPL, Linux source isn't going to suddenly disappear.
It's rather hard to compete with a free system that exists to serve its creators, not to give them profit.
"They own 95% of the desktop world. Almost everyone who _can_ use Windows and Office _does_ use it. They won't get continuing double-digit increases in revenue and profit from thier core business, because they've saturated thier market."
You make a very good point, and I'm right there with you, though I do have concerns about how cut and dry this is.
Basically the caveat I see here is upgrades. To illustrate my point, pick some random Joe and ask him, "What's better, Windows 2000 or Windows XP?" "What's better, Office 2000 or Office XP?" I think you see where this is going.
Most random Joes get their software pre-installed, so there's some upgrade profit (though at a discount I'm sure). Most other random Joes won't go out and buy XP without a reason. That said, if they have a choice between paying $130 for Windows 2000 and $300 for Windows XP (prices from Google search [westgatemedia.com]), take a guess which one they'll buy.
I agree with you, but I wouldn't underestimate people's desire to part with their money to get the latest version if they have any form of motivation to do so.
"I dislike the libertarians because (like Bush) they often seem to be more interested in the rights of corporations than of human beings, but the principle still stands."
Perhaps you're talking to different libertarians than I, but I have a feeling that you might be misunderstanding due to a different point of view.
Libertarians prefer self government, hence the government shouldn't protect you from spending your money poorly. This isn't the same as favoring a corporation -- it's favoring individual choices over government ones. Depending on your perspective, however, it could be seen as losing ground to corporations. It really comes down to a judgement call then: should the government, a small body of shady people mostly interested in power who aren't responsible to their constituents, protect you from anything other than physical harm?
Still with me? Ok, time for a bad analogy: Bought a CD player and got ripped off? Want to sue the monopoly that sold it to you? In all fairness, you could have done your research, discovered it was a lousy product, and moved on. Nobody forced you to buy it, you don't need a CD player to go about your life.
It's a poor analogy, but it gets the point across. Libertarians understand that the government is fundamentally flawed in that they're not responsible to the people and a minority body making a judgement for the majority isn't a good idea.
THAT said, I still don't believe a free market is possible, hence I do value government intervention in extreme cases.
My name is Dalcius, and I'll be voting Libertarian this year. Sure, some are big-time wackos, but by the time they get in power (if they do), things will have watered down a bit. I honestly think that a little more corporate-consumer rape might be a good idea; maybe people will start caring a little more about where their dollar goes as opposed to spending carelessly.
I consider myself a libertarian on a fundamental basis; I'd like to know what you mean when you say... "Libertarians...would tear down...private privacy law that probably does the most to protect our freedom."?
Perhaps I don't pay enough attention to the party stance, but most Libertarians that I know work from one profound desire: to control their own lives. Privacy, I would think, falls under that, as well as the phrase "life, liberty and the persuit of happyness" in the constitution.
Thank you for a reasonable approach to this issue.
It's nice to hear someone point out all the bad things that are going on without whining and yelling "conspiracy." I hate, at a fundamental level, our (the US) government. That said, these America haters piss me off to absolutely no end.
I have no figured, so please flame me if I'm wrong (or even better, correct me), but I get the impression that countries in the EU, home to some of these folks who think America is the most evil thing since the beginning of time, are spending much more per capita on programs that don't help their economy than the US. This is my impression from speaking with members of these countries and from reading the news.
Either this is quite ironic or I've just got my head up my ass (it wouldn't be the first time).
Slashdot Mirror
Or if you prefer to save it instead of streaming: .mpeg file)
prodigy90_med.mpg
(I just pulled this out of the "MPEG Player for Linux" streaming
Notice I said "exported" materials are another matter. IBM as the customer and internal matters are a completely different story.
Cheers
I don't know about that. Not too many people will tell IBM to 'go take a hike' when IBM wants something in another format (that happens to be openly documented).
Documents that IBM exports are one thing, but for documents sent to IBM and internal stuff, what IBM says goes.
I stand corrected (especially in regards to a kernel panic). It does make me wonder, though:
1) Are two completely split wintel boxes more reliable than one mainframe?
2) Did the folks doing the system tests set up the mainframe well?
Cheers
Basically what it comes down to is I can't stand having someone give me programming goals, requirements and deadlines when they have never worked on a programming project, even a tiny one, from start to maintenance and support.
A good leader who listens to his subordinates is one thing, and you can get a lot done if he listens correctly. But when making decisions for the big picture, judgement calls are necessary and most managerial judgement calls require knowledge of the task at hand. A manager can only rely on the judgement of his subordinates so much before he becomes nothing more than a middle-man relaying information.
Cheers
Their entire case floats on two concepts:
1) That SCO has found their source code in source code published online that anyone can download and
2) that SCO's release of other people's copyrighted work (e.g. Linux), required to be distributed under the GPL, doesn't mean any SCO code in Caldera Linux has been released under the GPL.
Now, 90% of the people who are making calls on this stock couldn't give you the definition of "source code" if their lives depended on it.
#2 is less of a technical issue, but unless there's some really goofy clause in the law somewhere, any moron can figure out:
1) Either the GPL is invalid and they're distributing works illegally OR
2) They're releasing their own source under the GPL (assuming there is some in Linux).
There aren't any secret tricks or hidden messages or conspiracies, there aren't any facets here of "Hey, just maybe, we're wrong." This is as cut and damn dry as a lawsuit can get. SCO is trying to take Linux's cake and have and eat both it and their cake at the same time.
I applaud those of you who are trying to be humble and suggest "we might be wrong" -- we might be. But I honestly think some of you are taking this "there are no easy truths" crap way too far.
Cheers
In the United States legal system, being humble and being quiet will get you canned.
As for the rest, you really want to assert that the Linux community is spreading lies, horrible spin, FUD, more lies, propaganda, commiting extortion and defaming an entire industry? Who in the Linux community is taking the published and open copyrighted works of others and selling it under a given license while claiming that license is invalid?
You have a point, don't get me wrong -- the Linux community is often not as introspective and self-critical as it needs to be. But implying that we're acting in any fashion like SCO or being dishonest, unruly, etc. is quite a damn stretch if you ask me.
Cheers
Well, I'm no expert, but this sure looks like it was staged to me... ;)
Not only that, with multiple boxes you have failover. One box gets a kernel panic, failover to the other box -- hence, no downtime.
The odds are certainly stacked.
With that said, I present you with a related cartoon.
Two things may end up making marketing to "dummies" irrelevant:
1) Smart companies with IT directors who can actually do the job of those under them to a good extent.
2) Smart companies who actually listen to their IT directors.
When companies hire managers who do nothing but manage yet don't understand (read: haven't done) the job of the folks they manage, you get problems. When company CEOs like to micromanage the company instead of leaving decisions to other, more qualified people specialized in their field, you get problems.
I think with the economy on the rise, with companies trusting IT more since the 90's and realizing IT's place in a corporation, and with companies with over-protective, over-bearing and witless gits in management learning that this is a bad thing, we might begin to see changes in the effect of this kind of FUD.
Of course I could be quite incorrect and nothing will change.
It's my understanding that up2date will update your kernel for you? If you're impatient and want to patch before Red Hat has done QA on the patch, I can understand the desire for documentation, but I can't understand why one would think it's critical.
Please correct me if I misread something in your post.
This is question I've wrestled with for a long time.
I think it boils down to one thing: people just don't care.
Corporations grow so large that instead of long term gain in mind (making the customer happy), they try to find each and every way to improve the bottom line.
Minimize inputs: employee pay, design/research time, manufacturing/testing time, customer support.
Maximize income: lots of marketing (IMAGE is everything), high prices, lots of control over the end-product after it's left the shelf.
You get bombarded with ads to buy crappy products, made by overworked and underpaid people, and as an added bonus get to fuss with control measures that make it difficult to switch to a competing brand. Cellphones sound familiar? CDs?
And everyone eats it up because they don't care. Capitalism works if the consumer is interested in looking out for himself, but these days most folks are completely happy to give everyone their money and say "Take care of me." This is why nobody sells a product anymore, they sell a "solution."
Politics is the same. Nobody takes a vested interest in taking control of their lives and exercising their own power. People contract with the cellphone company that promises them the best service, pay loads of money and then get reamed and the same is true with politicians. People elect politicians who promise to take care of them, happily turn over 20%+ of every penny made and most end up hating the government.
Nobody cares. Society has no problem giving up every dime if someone promises to take care of them -- but it's rare that anyone is held accountable.
I'll end this with a favorite quote of mine:
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." [Samuel Adams]
I agree with you 100%.
That said, it's worth pointing out what some of the anti-MS folks are getting at: it all boils down to security/etc. out of the box.
With all of the insecure services turned on by default, no firewall, very trusting applications and APIs and the fact that most users run with admin priviledges (due to lack of "enter admin password to install this app" ability), Windows is just asking for problems.
Does it make the user any less responsible? Well, no, not really. A user should be able to expect a basic level of system security (which, IMO, Windows does not give), but you're right, they are responsible to a large degree. Still, none of this makes pointing out the flawed design (yes, I said design) of Windows a mistake.
Cheers
Are you only looking for UNIX jobs?
Switching companies is a normal thing, nobody can blame you for taking that long.
But when you work for a company that practices extortion, I think there's cause for a little more haste. That's what this whole thread is about.
"...the company will be more than happy to try to hire someone into it (read: inexperienced newbs or immigrants) at $9/hr. All and all, that will have a detrimental effect on everyone in the entire industry..."
Yes, but this is a little more short-term thinking. Companies these days are doing everything humanly possible to cut the bottom line. They're making really stupid decisions to take more money from their customers while giving them less and taking more and more control over their product after it's left the shelf.
What happens? Companies with intelligent management or (even better) small businesses step in and the whole process reinvents itself for another cycle.
Think Microsoft.
Agreed and seconded.
I'm sure folks will reply with, "Well you've got to feed a family. Sometimes 'I am just following orders' is a necessary excuse when it comes to putting food on the table."
I respond to that with a question: How long has it been since SCO started this whole mess? How unrealistic is it to get another job or even another job that is a little 'beneath you' while you move to a company that isn't practicing extortion?
Each to his own. Folks can stay on the ship (which will sink anyway, that's pretty obvious I think) as long as they want, folks who share my opinion and are in a place to will choose not to hire them.
Cheers
"BUT... You have a PhD. ...they'll wonder why you're willing to work cheap."
It's not just that, companies also figure that someone who is overqualified will attempt to find a job he's normally qualified for (read: a job that isn't 'beneath him') once the economy/his life/the stars are right. Lots of overqualified people will work 60 hours a week dirt cheap -- because they have no other option.
"My point? Dont write off Microsoft."
I think that's a nice little reminder.
We certainly shouldn't write off MS if we're wanting to play with the big dogs. MS can shut out superior products through use of it's sheer market influence, no doubt -- so listen well and tread carefully.
However, I think it's a nice little reminder. Linux started humbly and continued on many years that way. At its heart the core of Linux will always keep going because what drives it is the desire to beat its own track record, not that of Microsoft.
We want a free operating system we can hack on. IBM or no IBM, Microsoft of no Microsoft, this will never change. And thanks to the GPL, Linux source isn't going to suddenly disappear.
It's rather hard to compete with a free system that exists to serve its creators, not to give them profit.
"Every free copy of Word that goes out there, every stolen copy of Windows, serves to cement Microsoft's monopoly in place."
:)
Did you say Cement?
Not mine, but a good classic.
"They own 95% of the desktop world. Almost everyone who _can_ use Windows and Office _does_ use it. They won't get continuing double-digit increases in revenue and profit from thier core business, because they've saturated thier market."
You make a very good point, and I'm right there with you, though I do have concerns about how cut and dry this is.
Basically the caveat I see here is upgrades. To illustrate my point, pick some random Joe and ask him, "What's better, Windows 2000 or Windows XP?" "What's better, Office 2000 or Office XP?"
I think you see where this is going.
Most random Joes get their software pre-installed, so there's some upgrade profit (though at a discount I'm sure). Most other random Joes won't go out and buy XP without a reason. That said, if they have a choice between paying $130 for Windows 2000 and $300 for Windows XP (prices from Google search [westgatemedia.com]), take a guess which one they'll buy.
I agree with you, but I wouldn't underestimate people's desire to part with their money to get the latest version if they have any form of motivation to do so.
"I dislike the libertarians because (like Bush) they often seem to be more interested in the rights of corporations than of human beings, but the principle still stands."
Perhaps you're talking to different libertarians than I, but I have a feeling that you might be misunderstanding due to a different point of view.
Libertarians prefer self government, hence the government shouldn't protect you from spending your money poorly. This isn't the same as favoring a corporation -- it's favoring individual choices over government ones. Depending on your perspective, however, it could be seen as losing ground to corporations. It really comes down to a judgement call then: should the government, a small body of shady people mostly interested in power who aren't responsible to their constituents, protect you from anything other than physical harm?
Still with me? Ok, time for a bad analogy:
Bought a CD player and got ripped off? Want to sue the monopoly that sold it to you? In all fairness, you could have done your research, discovered it was a lousy product, and moved on. Nobody forced you to buy it, you don't need a CD player to go about your life.
It's a poor analogy, but it gets the point across. Libertarians understand that the government is fundamentally flawed in that they're not responsible to the people and a minority body making a judgement for the majority isn't a good idea.
THAT said, I still don't believe a free market is possible, hence I do value government intervention in extreme cases.
My name is Dalcius, and I'll be voting Libertarian this year. Sure, some are big-time wackos, but by the time they get in power (if they do), things will have watered down a bit. I honestly think that a little more corporate-consumer rape might be a good idea; maybe people will start caring a little more about where their dollar goes as opposed to spending carelessly.
I consider myself a libertarian on a fundamental basis; I'd like to know what you mean when you say...
"Libertarians...would tear down...private privacy law that probably does the most to protect our freedom."?
Perhaps I don't pay enough attention to the party stance, but most Libertarians that I know work from one profound desire: to control their own lives. Privacy, I would think, falls under that, as well as the phrase "life, liberty and the persuit of happyness" in the constitution.
Please enlighten me, I am honestly curious.
Thank you for a reasonable approach to this issue.
It's nice to hear someone point out all the bad things that are going on without whining and yelling "conspiracy." I hate, at a fundamental level, our (the US) government. That said, these America haters piss me off to absolutely no end.
Cheers
I have no figured, so please flame me if I'm wrong (or even better, correct me), but I get the impression that countries in the EU, home to some of these folks who think America is the most evil thing since the beginning of time, are spending much more per capita on programs that don't help their economy than the US. This is my impression from speaking with members of these countries and from reading the news.
Either this is quite ironic or I've just got my head up my ass (it wouldn't be the first time).
Cheers
Not mine, but a goodie:
Microsoft: Where do you want to go today?
Apple: Where do you want to go tomorrow?
Linux: Are you guys coming or what?!