Szulik likely realized that you can make twenty times more money working with big business than you can fielding techsup for home users. To me, this goes against the overall spirit of running Linux, and even the Open Source community, in general.
Thank god Linus doesn't think this way, eh guys?
Well Linus isn't the CEO of a publically-traded corporation, is he?
Szulik has a responsibility to his shareholders, as a steward of their money. If he is constrained for resources, and can make twenty times (to use your figurative guess) as much money supporting Linux in corporate environments than in home environments, why would he continue to stretch himself for 1/20 of the revenue he could be making?
Frankly, I would say that RedHat having a unified focus on Linux in the corporate environment is a good thing. Better to succeed at one thing than fail at many (see: Sun).
This guy is not a Redhat founder, he's just some MBA dork they picked up to make the VCs happy. You can see how quickly he's sold out the dream of linux on everything and turned it into the VC dream of 'linux on everything profitable'.
Well, it doesn't take an MBA to realize that businesses kinda need to pursue things that generate profit. I personally thing RedHat made the right choice in ditching a line of business that was dragging it down.
It's also possible that perhaps Linux isn't really ready for the mainstream desktop. I personally have a hard time picturing my mom installing and maintaining Linux on her home computer.
I'm certainly not saying Windows is anything great, or that Linux doesn't have its merits, but Linux has very much grown organically along the path that UNIXy people have wanted it to grow in, which doesn't always lend it to being an "average consumer"-friendly OS.
Probably because most of the gains in US employment have been in the white-collar "knowledge worker," while much of manufacturing has moved to countries where the wages are much more compatible with that type of work.
Face it, we aren't going to be seeing a big resurgence of that type of work. Retool, adapt, and figure out how to survive in a changing world.
It's not about dollar figure, it's about the disparity of income between an owner and his workers. I'm not saying I have all the answers, I just see something that doesn't look right.
What's not right? What is to stop any of those workers from creating and executing on an idea, educating themselves, succeeding?
Look at how much wealth has been created in the last couple of generations in America. There are obviously not impenetrable barriers to entry to the "millionaires club."
I know a lot of people (not saying you're one of them), who are content to sit in a cubicle and code or admin boxes, and are not looking for any more responsibility or work than that, but still feel the need to condemn those who take on more responsibility, work harder, and amass more wealth. If you don't want to go for it, that's great, but don't bitch about those who do.
What's the only thing better than money (at least to these people)? The answer is power. By using rhetoric like "making the rich pay" they seduce the people to give them power.
Well you've hit the nail square on the head, there.
That's the Democrats' song and dance. Acquire and retain power by promising to make "those dirty rich pay!" and "compensate" people for their woes. It's the end of personal responsibility, and the return of socialism/fascism./p?
While Microsoft supports your argument (BillG only makes around $500K if I recall correctly) other companies like Boeing (top execs take home millions a year in salary and bonuses - not including stock) prove your point wrong. Microsoft is part of a relatively new breed of corporations that believes more in stock compensation than cash compensation (which makes sense). Many corporations still operate as Boeing does - they allow execs to get grossly overpaid even when their business if flailing financially.
So, what dollar figure would you consider to be the borderline for "gross overpayment?" I wouldn't say in the millions is, if you have an executive who is performing.
Regardless, my point was that their total net worth (in the billions) doesn't really have anything to do with their cash compensation (salary).
Then Gates decided to pay dividends on his stock and instantly became a few billion dollars richer.
Now hang on just a minute here. The original poster I was replying to wrote:
In most cases, the money was stolen from the shareholders of the corporation in question, who by rights should have either had the money in dividends or seen the money re-invested in the corporate machine.
So now, if you don't give dividends, you're "stealing from the shareholders," but if you do give dividends, you're just trying to "make yourself richer?" What, pray tell, anonymous coward, would you like to see done?
Also, are you familiar with the Gates Foundation? You can argue all you want about Microsoft's products, their intentions, or their business practices, but you can't claim that Bill is not trying to give something back (you can argue his motives all you want, but giving is giving).
am I the only one who thinks that there's something rotten in the "american way of life"
Want a little cheese to go with that?
That's the way it goes. Enjoy the high income while you can get it. Be prepared for when you can't. You have a world of opportunity available to you.
Get a good idea, execute on it. Start your own business. Do what you have to do. There is even a world outside of IT if you can't find opportunity there. Just don't blame others for your situation, much like you wouldn't want others to take credit for your success.
Now hold on a minute here, accusing these people of stealing is taking things a BIT far.
What you're failing to recognize is the difference between net worth and salary. Salary is generally recognized as a compensation for labor.
Gates and Jobs, for example, were founders of their companies. They took risks, they had good ideas, and they had the leadership to drive their companies to financial success (you can argue amonst yourselves about the technical success of their products, but the financial accomplishments of their companies is pretty evident).
Most of their net worth came about through equity that they have as the founders of these companies, NOT through their salaries. Yes, their salaries are high, but not $40 billion high. Most of this net worth was accumulated through the appreciation of their equity.
Re:How much the wealthiest 400 pay in income tax
on
Tech Rich Get Richer
·
· Score: 1
That is NOT how much the "wealthiest 400" paid in income tax, it's how much the "400 people with the highest income" paid in taxes. There IS a difference.
This, of course is operating under the "your salary is your worth" model of richness, which I would argue isn't incredibly accurate. Wealth is typically recognized through one's net worth. Once you reach a high enough net worth to be of note, your annual income becomes somewhat trivial to your total net worth.
Somewhat related is how amusing it is to hear people talking about "tax cuts for the (rich | poor | etc)," when they're actually talking about "tax cuts for the (high income | low income | etc)," which is more accurate. Just because someone has a high salary or a low salary does not mean they have a high net worth or low net worth.
Re:While I remain unemployed.....since January.
on
Tech Rich Get Richer
·
· Score: 1
You do realize, of course, that many of these companies are facing declining revenues, and have the choise of "exploiting" the existing employees and reducing headcount, or running in the red, going out of business, and screwing ALL of the employees, right?
I know it's easy to be bitter when you're unemployed, but try and apply a *little* perspective.
I don't know, that description seems to be pretty apropos to the myriad CEO's that seem bent on wrecking the U.S. economy so that they can fatten their own wallets. You know, like Mr. Bush's buddy Ken Lay.
Ah, don't make people guilty by association... unless it's Bush?
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit (the French Fourth Republic) 2: a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity (the republic of letters) 3: a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the U.S.S.R., or Yugoslavia
(I hope I didn't violate Merriam-Webster's copyright there...)
Its about like RIAA's position on piracy sales outside the US in that the CDs go for about $5 or less and yet RIAA claims loss at ful price not the actual money exchanged..
Of course they are claiming full price, they did lose the full price... the pirated CD might only sell for $5, but since it's pirated, nothing is going to the publishing company of the music! It's an illegal copy!
Exactly. And if that's the case, why not change the title to better reflect that? "Solaris Basics"
Because "...For Dummies" is their brand. That, and their yellow/black covers are their brand identity, consistant across all of their products. A lot of people on/. seem to suffer ego-bruise at the thought of buying a "...For Dummies" book, but obviously that's not the case across their market, otherwise they wouldn't sell, and they'd change the name.
If you read/., you are probably not the person they're marketing this book to.
It's "okay" for those titles because the target audience can feel comfortable reading a "Dummies" book. My mother would have no objections to reading/buying a "Windows98 for Dummies" book. On the other hand, your typical techno-wannabe has a very fragile ego and would generally not be secure enough to even be seen flipping through one at the bookstore.
While I agree that many "techno-weenies" wouldn't want to go pick this book up and be seen with it on their shelves, I work in a heavy (3000+ server) Solaris environment, and we have a lot of project managers and other management types who don't want to get deep in the muck with technical details, but would like to at least know enough terminology to follow what's going on.
That very well be the market that they're targeting with this book.
Totally valid point. However, the choice as to whether I want to have less battery life at the expense of better sound quality should be my choice should it not?
And I suppose that this means that the battery life on the European iPods is better than the American model then?
Well, my point was that if you're on a newer Mac that doesn't have a serial port, that you can use a USB serial adapter and OS X will happily use it as a regular tty.
Re:Believe in the Beast, but not the "computer" Be
on
The Beast of Brussels
·
· Score: 1
What I don't want to see is the gunpowder in ammo be tagged. That is one of the latest things that they want to do for guns. If they did this and you accidently shot something like a endagered owl or something, they could track it at least back to the stor ethat sold the bullet and maybe back to you and charge you with something that may not be your fault!
Explain again exactly how that would not be your fault
You take gun, you shoot something. I'm pretty sure your actions were the direct cause of the effect. It might not have been intentional, but it was your fault. Plea for a reduced sentance:)
Slashdot Mirror
Well Linus isn't the CEO of a publically-traded corporation, is he?
Szulik has a responsibility to his shareholders, as a steward of their money. If he is constrained for resources, and can make twenty times (to use your figurative guess) as much money supporting Linux in corporate environments than in home environments, why would he continue to stretch himself for 1/20 of the revenue he could be making?
Frankly, I would say that RedHat having a unified focus on Linux in the corporate environment is a good thing. Better to succeed at one thing than fail at many (see: Sun).
Well, it doesn't take an MBA to realize that businesses kinda need to pursue things that generate profit. I personally thing RedHat made the right choice in ditching a line of business that was dragging it down.
It's also possible that perhaps Linux isn't really ready for the mainstream desktop. I personally have a hard time picturing my mom installing and maintaining Linux on her home computer.
I'm certainly not saying Windows is anything great, or that Linux doesn't have its merits, but Linux has very much grown organically along the path that UNIXy people have wanted it to grow in, which doesn't always lend it to being an "average consumer"-friendly OS.
Probably because most of the gains in US employment have been in the white-collar "knowledge worker," while much of manufacturing has moved to countries where the wages are much more compatible with that type of work.
Face it, we aren't going to be seeing a big resurgence of that type of work. Retool, adapt, and figure out how to survive in a changing world.
What's not right? What is to stop any of those workers from creating and executing on an idea, educating themselves, succeeding?
Look at how much wealth has been created in the last couple of generations in America. There are obviously not impenetrable barriers to entry to the "millionaires club."
I know a lot of people (not saying you're one of them), who are content to sit in a cubicle and code or admin boxes, and are not looking for any more responsibility or work than that, but still feel the need to condemn those who take on more responsibility, work harder, and amass more wealth. If you don't want to go for it, that's great, but don't bitch about those who do.
Well you've hit the nail square on the head, there.
That's the Democrats' song and dance. Acquire and retain power by promising to make "those dirty rich pay!" and "compensate" people for their woes. It's the end of personal responsibility, and the return of socialism/fascism./p?
So, what dollar figure would you consider to be the borderline for "gross overpayment?" I wouldn't say in the millions is, if you have an executive who is performing.
Regardless, my point was that their total net worth (in the billions) doesn't really have anything to do with their cash compensation (salary).
Now hang on just a minute here. The original poster I was replying to wrote:
So now, if you don't give dividends, you're "stealing from the shareholders," but if you do give dividends, you're just trying to "make yourself richer?" What, pray tell, anonymous coward, would you like to see done?
Also, are you familiar with the Gates Foundation? You can argue all you want about Microsoft's products, their intentions, or their business practices, but you can't claim that Bill is not trying to give something back (you can argue his motives all you want, but giving is giving).
Want a little cheese to go with that?
That's the way it goes. Enjoy the high income while you can get it. Be prepared for when you can't. You have a world of opportunity available to you.
Get a good idea, execute on it. Start your own business. Do what you have to do. There is even a world outside of IT if you can't find opportunity there. Just don't blame others for your situation, much like you wouldn't want others to take credit for your success.
Now hold on a minute here, accusing these people of stealing is taking things a BIT far.
What you're failing to recognize is the difference between net worth and salary. Salary is generally recognized as a compensation for labor.
Gates and Jobs, for example, were founders of their companies. They took risks, they had good ideas, and they had the leadership to drive their companies to financial success (you can argue amonst yourselves about the technical success of their products, but the financial accomplishments of their companies is pretty evident).
Most of their net worth came about through equity that they have as the founders of these companies, NOT through their salaries. Yes, their salaries are high, but not $40 billion high. Most of this net worth was accumulated through the appreciation of their equity.
That is NOT how much the "wealthiest 400" paid in income tax, it's how much the "400 people with the highest income" paid in taxes. There IS a difference.
This, of course is operating under the "your salary is your worth" model of richness, which I would argue isn't incredibly accurate. Wealth is typically recognized through one's net worth. Once you reach a high enough net worth to be of note, your annual income becomes somewhat trivial to your total net worth.
Somewhat related is how amusing it is to hear people talking about "tax cuts for the (rich | poor | etc)," when they're actually talking about "tax cuts for the (high income | low income | etc)," which is more accurate. Just because someone has a high salary or a low salary does not mean they have a high net worth or low net worth.
You do realize, of course, that many of these companies are facing declining revenues, and have the choise of "exploiting" the existing employees and reducing headcount, or running in the red, going out of business, and screwing ALL of the employees, right?
I know it's easy to be bitter when you're unemployed, but try and apply a *little* perspective.
Slashdot effect on comment URL's...wow! Well, a geocities page, so not all THAT amazing.
Here's Google's cache of the refferred-to page.
Ah, don't make people guilty by association... unless it's Bush?
Err, actually, we live in a republic:
(I hope I didn't violate Merriam-Webster's copyright there...)
Well, you can sue for just about anything you want. Winning, however, is the hard part.
Of course they are claiming full price, they did lose the full price... the pirated CD might only sell for $5, but since it's pirated, nothing is going to the publishing company of the music! It's an illegal copy!
Because "...For Dummies" is their brand. That, and their yellow/black covers are their brand identity, consistant across all of their products. A lot of people on /. seem to suffer ego-bruise at the thought of buying a "...For Dummies" book, but obviously that's not the case across their market, otherwise they wouldn't sell, and they'd change the name.
If you read /., you are probably not the person they're marketing this book to.
While I agree that many "techno-weenies" wouldn't want to go pick this book up and be seen with it on their shelves, I work in a heavy (3000+ server) Solaris environment, and we have a lot of project managers and other management types who don't want to get deep in the muck with technical details, but would like to at least know enough terminology to follow what's going on.
That very well be the market that they're targeting with this book.
...which is great, as long as your customers don't mind running a "Vintage Stage II" operating system, that no longer receives patch support from Sun!
Depends on what you set the volume at. :)
Well, my point was that if you're on a newer Mac that doesn't have a serial port, that you can use a USB serial adapter and OS X will happily use it as a regular tty.
Explain again exactly how that would not be your fault
You take gun, you shoot something. I'm pretty sure your actions were the direct cause of the effect. It might not have been intentional, but it was your fault. Plea for a reduced sentance :)
All the more reason to be a Libertarian... ;)
...there's a chance that this was something that was mandated by their contractual obligations with the labels providing the music.
Hopefully Apple will be able to secure international licenses and make this a moot point.