Yes, the "let you" was to indicate that doing so would be the customer's choice. Obviously few server customers would. I was mostly referring to the desktop market with that comment.
This is why I went Core 2 Duo for my new system and do not run AMD - their merger with ATI. My fear is that if ATI rubs off on AMD then support for AMD processors and chipsets will only get worse, not better.
It is pretty typical in a buyout like this for the larger company's culture to dominate the smaller one. While in many cases this is a bad thing as the smaller company has the more open culture, in this case it is the larger company, AMD, that is more open.
It is ridiculous to think that support for AMD chipsets and processors will get worse since AMD has utterly depended on Linux to jump start the 64-bit x86 market. Oh, and a processor is nothing if it doesn't expose its interfaces, because they count on programmers to use those new instructions or modes or whatever to optimize their programs and make the processor look good. There is no DirectX or OpenGL equivalent that processors hide behind.
They'll of course do this for server parts, only the units will be used for more general numeric processing. There is nothing magical about what GPUs do, they are large vector processors, and they are becoming more general-purpose in nature as the demands in shader programs increases.
Well, yes and no. They're becomming more programmable, but they are still very highly specialized towards doing floating point vector calculations.
But you're right, in that AMD will probably target the HPC market with a combined CPU/GPU where the GPU is destined to be used as a math coprocessor. I think they had a press release recently about "Stream Computing", which basically means offloading vector computation to the GPU. However a GPU will still be a poor match for the server space, so I'm fairly confident that if AMD goes this route they'll split the Opteron line into a server and HPC line.
The very first line of that article confused the hell out of me:
" The Xbox 360 finally has some competition: The PlayStation 3 hits stores (in extremely limited quantities) on November 17, followed two days later by the Nintendo Wii."
Is he using the past tense for future events? Today is the 16th of November. Did that quantum entaglement experiment work and this was our first message from the future? Seriously, what the hell.
As far as I know, the PS3 is only out in Japan and the Wii isn't out anywhere. So right now, as far as I know, game reviewers who were given consoles to test are the only ones who could have possibly played all three and formed an opinion.
Am I mistaken, or do those reader rankings sound like people rating things based on how they hope they'll be, making them no more indicative of anything than all the internet banter that's gone on over the past couple years?
Although obviously the last sentence is awkward. So it could make more sense to just stop trying to use the phrase "still functioning" as an adjective altogether.
How about "I have a functioning Betamax"? I think the "still" could easily be inferred. And those extra commas were simply atrocious.
What do I know? I'm not an English professor. That was my father. I had to hide Cliff notes in my room growing up the way some kids hid marijuana.
Did he buy marijuana for you before exams like other kids' dads bought them Cliff Notes?
Despite slashbot rantings about the closed-source nVidia drivers, and despite my motley collection of Frankenstein hardware, I've never had a problem with the nVidia stuff. The ATI stuff is junk. The drivers are pathetic (open source) and the display is snowy, and the performance it rubbish.
Well if you do 3D gaming on Linux, you're used to closed source drivers, since there hasn't really been another choice since the 3dfx Voodoo -- who won me over by supporting Linux, if not the Free Software philosophy behind it. NVidia similarly works. The ATI drivers are terrible, and I'm not talking the open source ones.
I hope AMD do something about the Linux driver situation.
Me too, because I'm sick of having only one practical choice for graphics cards. Not that I really have any complaints with NVidia, but it would be nice to be able to pick the best card, not the one that I can count on to work.
I'm hopeful, just because AMD has been a big supporter of Linux and gcc, particularly in getting them to support AMD64. I guess we'll see.
Especially the former, where you can't really upgrade anyway and you typically have a GPU soldered to the board.
The advantages of a combined CPU/GPU in this space are: 1) Fewer chips means a cheaper board. 2) The GPU is connected directly to the memory interface, so UMA solutions will not suck nearly as hard. 3) No HT hop to get to the GPU, so power is saved on the interface and CPU-GPU communication will be very low latency.
I highly doubt AMD is planning on using combined CPU/GPU solutions on their mainstream desktop parts, and they are absolutely not going to do so for server parts. I think in those spaces they'd much rather have four cores on the CPU, and let you slap in the latest-greatest (ATI I'm sure they hope, but if NVidia gives them the best benchmark score vs Intel chips then so be it) graphics card.
AMD has already distinguished their server, mobile, desktop, and value lines. They are not going to suddenly become retarded and forget that these markets have different needs and force an ATI GPU on all of them.
Reminds me of a conversation I heard about a Wii suddenly growing fangs and claws and EATING THIS GUY'S BABY. Or did I dream that? Anyway, it reminds me of that.
No, that's real. It's the new Wii Channel that's being introduced: "Wii Eat Your Baby"
Yeah, to get one on launch day, you're going to have to have 1) your pre-order ticket 2) a sweet place at the front of the line of people waiting overnight 3) $600 4) A PS3 to give them so they have one to sell to you.
But $900 > $300, and buying a console increases their market share and makes the PS3 look better to developers (even if game sales end up not reflecting the PS3 you bought) and Blu-Ray look better to studios (even if movie sales don't reflect the PS3 you bought), and in any event helps PS3 marketing trumpet their continuing-to-be-sold-out super-popular console that you aren't cool if you don't have (even drinkypoo owns one!) Compare the financial damage done to Sony if they have to manufacture another console, vs. if their console flops due to lack of market share and all that R&D moolah and bet-the-farm-on-Blu-Ray strategizing doesn't pan out.
There is no conceivable way in which you do more harm to Sony by buying one of their consoles than by not buying a console. So if you hate Sony that much and want to hurt them, don't buy the console. If you really want to hurt them, try to discourage the non-fanbois interested in the console not to get one by telling them how Sony has shafted customers recently.
Somehow, I doubt they are drawing in anyone outside of the hardcore demographic.
Um, yeah, because the ads wouldn't make a lick of sense to anyone who wasn't already fully aware of what the PS3 was and what it portended... in which case you are probably a gamer who knows all about the upcoming generation and have already picked what system you're going to buy.
Hell, the only reason I was able to discern that those weird markings on the black screen at the end of the add were the release date was because I already knew what the release date was, so "|||7" didn't just look like random lines.
Sony apparently thinks they are in the same position as Nike, where they can have an ad that says not a single damn thing about their product and then throw a swoosh at the end.
The third states that there are infinitely parallel universes with every possibly outcome occurring simultaneously (string theory?) and that the universe has many more dimensions than three or four, possibly ten or more dimensions.
I don't think it implies that there is a universe for every possible outcome... Infinite universes doesn't imply every universe, just like an infinite set of real numbers between 1 and 2 doesn't necessarily contain 1.5.
At least I hope that's true.
I'd hate to think that no matter where I am, no matter what I'm doing, there's a parallel universe in which I'm mere moments away from being raped by a heard of goats.
The really sad thing is, I've read many a "revised" prequel trilogy on the net, and basically every one of them is better than what we got. Frankly I think that the first trilogy would have been much, much better simply by forcing Lucas to work with somebody (anybody) who was willing to call crap crap and say "fix it!"
Also, Yoda could have been spoken of and referenced in the prequals, but never seen, which would have only built up suspense for the Degoba scene in ESB.
True, plus it makes no sense for yoda to go from being 880 years and fit as a fiddle to 900 and dying, though I've always told myself this was just because Yoda felt bad for fucking up so bad and decided he was done after helping Luke to fix Yoda's mess. Mostly though he was a pretty ludicrous character to have serving as a general -- it didn't fit his V/VI persona at all.
So you'd be left to think the big secret coming in ESB was that ObiWan killed Anakin, which would make the real plot twist that much more twisty.
It would be tough to make this work for the viewers while still having the prequels be about Anakin's fall. The easiest way would be to completely refrain from mentioning Vader in Ep. III, so he just looked like a random new Sith Lord in IV, though it would make Ben's blaming Vader for Anakin's death seem weird lie or not.
Wanting to do it first and wanting it watched first are two different things despite the high correlation.
But he didn't make the movies in such a way that they lend themselves to watching in episodic order, either. So his wanting them watched in order is misguided.
For example, watched in episode order, the first coherent explanation of what the Force is occurs in Episode IV. The Midichlorian explanation in Ep. I would be confusing as hell since he's describing how you measure Jedi-ness assuming both the characters and the audience are fully aware of what that is, and then midichlorians are never mentioned again. The knowledge that Darth Vader is Luke and Leia's father is given away at the end of III, but revealed as plot twists in V and VI. I can only imagine how confusing Ben Kenobi's behavior must have seemed.
From the article: "For me, the biggest problem with seeing these films in their intended order is that Episodes IV-VI offered little surprises. I know who Luke's father is; I know that the little creature is Yoda. I have to sit through that uncomfortable kiss between Luke and Leia knowing that they are indeed brother and sister. Most of the mysteries and questions that drive the plots of the later episodes are nullified by having seen the first three. I almost envied those who saw them in original order, so I too could have enjoyed the shock and surprise of some of the plot's twists and turns. Luckily I was never a fan of bellbottoms, so I will indeed stick with the intended order."
"Intended order" my ass. It's a broken order.
Of course, the real reason you need to watch them IV-VI then I-III is so that you like Star Wars enough to make it through the prequels.
So where is that written, and how many people have been informed?
Try dictionary.com, Wikipedia.org, merriam-webster.com, a statistics book you may have from college. Anyone who has accessed these sources has been informed. Hell, you find me a usage of 'average' as a specific calculation that dosen't mean arithmetic mean.
Average means either 'a measure of central tendency' which is a class of algorithms, not a specific calculations, or "arithmetic mean" if a specific calculation is implied. Every source will verify this.
Wanting something to be true doesn't make it true.
Indeed. Desperately hoping that someone, somewhere writes "average" when they mean "harmonic mean" doesn't make it true.
To prevent people from getting serious about switching away from oil, of course.
They want the current supply of oil to seem scarce so prices are high, but they want the hypothetical, future supply to seem infinite so that you never have to stop using oil.
Which is pretty much what we have now. The price of oil goes up based on fears about Middle East stability, damage to refineries on the Gulf Coast from Katrina, and so on, threatening the immediate supply. On the other hand, off-shore oil deposits and ambiogenesis promising that the oil supply will never actually run out. They make massive profits, but everyone still feels comfortable with their oil-based ICEs.
I'd be interested in what games you feel are "mature" where "mature" doesn't mean "with more realistic violence", or "fewer bright colors".
But you may want to consider Beyond Good and Evil. It's very Zelda-like, with great production value, and a pretty decent plot that at least touches on some mature issues (like what do you do when you need but don't trust your government).
Well, technically the median is an average too, although admittedly most people do associate the word "Average" with the mean.
The median is an average, but whenever "average" is used as a specific measurement (rather than the class of measures of central tendency), it means "arithmetic mean".
You have some good points, especially regarding maintenance, however...
That's an idealistic view, and completely out of whack for most people. Remember that most businesses (at least in the US) are small businesses, meaning that the IT person usually wears other hats.
Actually I thought small business IT centers were a place where Linux (being cheap and not having any licensing issues) started its rise to server prominence. In particular, my step father is an example of exactly who you are talking about (the "IT person" whose main hat is developer) and for him it's Linux, Linux, Linux.
That IT person is more likely to be a Mom or Pop type who just wants the damn thing to work and doesn't want to go fiddling with source. The moment they upgrade and there's bustage, if they don't switch outright then they're going to make a mental note that it fucked up the business for a week and the next time there's upgrading to be done, they're going to consider something with better backwards compatibility, ie Windows Server or something.
Well then that person isn't an "IT person" in quotes or otherwise. If they are non-technical, then they should be buying a pre-built server and pay for support from their OS and application vendor, and make it their problem to figure out the backward compatability issues when Mom and Pop decide to purchase new machines. Yes, this might mean they buy a Windows machine. Or RHEL and a support contract. Or they break down and hire a techie.
If you use Windows, do you automatically share Redmond's philosophies? I didn't think so, or you wouldn't be reading Slashdot. So why should Linux users necessarily share Linux's philosophies?
I don't use Windows. But if I did, I would have to adopt some of Redmond's philosophies in order to make optimal use of the machine. I'm not talking about the "how I should live my life, what is the definition of freedom?" kind of philosophy, I'm talking about design and software usage philosophies. And the reason Linux users should necessarily share some of Linux's philosophies is because they make sense in that system. Why should Linux have to change its philosophy to suit other people's philosophies any more than Redmond changes their design based on what free software hippies like me want?
Slashdot Mirror
No, you bring a remote control with you to Target, and then you pantomime beating the hell out of the people in front of you.
Yes, the "let you" was to indicate that doing so would be the customer's choice. Obviously few server customers would. I was mostly referring to the desktop market with that comment.
Read "Stardust" and not only will have spent the time very well, you'll know exactly what I mean.
:)
I may, but at the moment I'm more interested in what you mean it terms of gaming. Are there any games you feel exemplify this?
The best examples I can think of are Ultima 6 and 7.
This is why I went Core 2 Duo for my new system and do not run AMD - their merger with ATI. My fear is that if ATI rubs off on AMD then support for AMD processors and chipsets will only get worse, not better.
It is pretty typical in a buyout like this for the larger company's culture to dominate the smaller one. While in many cases this is a bad thing as the smaller company has the more open culture, in this case it is the larger company, AMD, that is more open.
It is ridiculous to think that support for AMD chipsets and processors will get worse since AMD has utterly depended on Linux to jump start the 64-bit x86 market. Oh, and a processor is nothing if it doesn't expose its interfaces, because they count on programmers to use those new instructions or modes or whatever to optimize their programs and make the processor look good. There is no DirectX or OpenGL equivalent that processors hide behind.
They'll of course do this for server parts, only the units will be used for more general numeric processing. There is nothing magical about what GPUs do, they are large vector processors, and they are becoming more general-purpose in nature as the demands in shader programs increases.
Well, yes and no. They're becomming more programmable, but they are still very highly specialized towards doing floating point vector calculations.
But you're right, in that AMD will probably target the HPC market with a combined CPU/GPU where the GPU is destined to be used as a math coprocessor. I think they had a press release recently about "Stream Computing", which basically means offloading vector computation to the GPU. However a GPU will still be a poor match for the server space, so I'm fairly confident that if AMD goes this route they'll split the Opteron line into a server and HPC line.
The very first line of that article confused the hell out of me:
" The Xbox 360 finally has some competition: The PlayStation 3 hits stores (in extremely limited quantities) on November 17, followed two days later by the Nintendo Wii."
Is he using the past tense for future events? Today is the 16th of November. Did that quantum entaglement experiment work and this was our first message from the future? Seriously, what the hell.
As far as I know, the PS3 is only out in Japan and the Wii isn't out anywhere. So right now, as far as I know, game reviewers who were given consoles to test are the only ones who could have possibly played all three and formed an opinion.
Am I mistaken, or do those reader rankings sound like people rating things based on how they hope they'll be, making them no more indicative of anything than all the internet banter that's gone on over the past couple years?
Although obviously the last sentence is awkward. So it could make more sense to just stop trying to use the phrase "still functioning" as an adjective altogether.
How about "I have a functioning Betamax"? I think the "still" could easily be inferred. And those extra commas were simply atrocious.
What do I know? I'm not an English professor. That was my father. I had to hide Cliff notes in my room growing up the way some kids hid marijuana.
Did he buy marijuana for you before exams like other kids' dads bought them Cliff Notes?
Despite slashbot rantings about the closed-source nVidia drivers, and despite my motley collection of Frankenstein hardware, I've never had a problem with the nVidia stuff. The ATI stuff is junk. The drivers are pathetic (open source) and the display is snowy, and the performance it rubbish.
Well if you do 3D gaming on Linux, you're used to closed source drivers, since there hasn't really been another choice since the 3dfx Voodoo -- who won me over by supporting Linux, if not the Free Software philosophy behind it. NVidia similarly works. The ATI drivers are terrible, and I'm not talking the open source ones.
I hope AMD do something about the Linux driver situation.
Me too, because I'm sick of having only one practical choice for graphics cards. Not that I really have any complaints with NVidia, but it would be nice to be able to pick the best card, not the one that I can count on to work.
I'm hopeful, just because AMD has been a big supporter of Linux and gcc, particularly in getting them to support AMD64. I guess we'll see.
Especially the former, where you can't really upgrade anyway and you typically have a GPU soldered to the board.
The advantages of a combined CPU/GPU in this space are:
1) Fewer chips means a cheaper board.
2) The GPU is connected directly to the memory interface, so UMA solutions will not suck nearly as hard.
3) No HT hop to get to the GPU, so power is saved on the interface and CPU-GPU communication will be very low latency.
I highly doubt AMD is planning on using combined CPU/GPU solutions on their mainstream desktop parts, and they are absolutely not going to do so for server parts. I think in those spaces they'd much rather have four cores on the CPU, and let you slap in the latest-greatest (ATI I'm sure they hope, but if NVidia gives them the best benchmark score vs Intel chips then so be it) graphics card.
AMD has already distinguished their server, mobile, desktop, and value lines. They are not going to suddenly become retarded and forget that these markets have different needs and force an ATI GPU on all of them.
Reminds me of a conversation I heard about a Wii suddenly growing fangs and claws and EATING THIS GUY'S BABY. Or did I dream that? Anyway, it reminds me of that.
No, that's real. It's the new Wii Channel that's being introduced: "Wii Eat Your Baby"
Yeah, to get one on launch day, you're going to have to have 1) your pre-order ticket 2) a sweet place at the front of the line of people waiting overnight 3) $600 4) A PS3 to give them so they have one to sell to you.
But $900 > $300, and buying a console increases their market share and makes the PS3 look better to developers (even if game sales end up not reflecting the PS3 you bought) and Blu-Ray look better to studios (even if movie sales don't reflect the PS3 you bought), and in any event helps PS3 marketing trumpet their continuing-to-be-sold-out super-popular console that you aren't cool if you don't have (even drinkypoo owns one!) Compare the financial damage done to Sony if they have to manufacture another console, vs. if their console flops due to lack of market share and all that R&D moolah and bet-the-farm-on-Blu-Ray strategizing doesn't pan out.
There is no conceivable way in which you do more harm to Sony by buying one of their consoles than by not buying a console. So if you hate Sony that much and want to hurt them, don't buy the console. If you really want to hurt them, try to discourage the non-fanbois interested in the console not to get one by telling them how Sony has shafted customers recently.
Somehow, I doubt they are drawing in anyone outside of the hardcore demographic.
Um, yeah, because the ads wouldn't make a lick of sense to anyone who wasn't already fully aware of what the PS3 was and what it portended... in which case you are probably a gamer who knows all about the upcoming generation and have already picked what system you're going to buy.
Hell, the only reason I was able to discern that those weird markings on the black screen at the end of the add were the release date was because I already knew what the release date was, so "|||7" didn't just look like random lines.
Sony apparently thinks they are in the same position as Nike, where they can have an ad that says not a single damn thing about their product and then throw a swoosh at the end.
The third states that there are infinitely parallel universes with every possibly outcome occurring simultaneously (string theory?) and that the universe has many more dimensions than three or four, possibly ten or more dimensions.
I don't think it implies that there is a universe for every possible outcome... Infinite universes doesn't imply every universe, just like an infinite set of real numbers between 1 and 2 doesn't necessarily contain 1.5.
At least I hope that's true.
I'd hate to think that no matter where I am, no matter what I'm doing, there's a parallel universe in which I'm mere moments away from being raped by a heard of goats.
Was that a bleat I just heard?
The really sad thing is, I've read many a "revised" prequel trilogy on the net, and basically every one of them is better than what we got. Frankly I think that the first trilogy would have been much, much better simply by forcing Lucas to work with somebody (anybody) who was willing to call crap crap and say "fix it!"
Also, Yoda could have been spoken of and referenced in the prequals, but never seen, which would have only built up suspense for the Degoba scene in ESB.
True, plus it makes no sense for yoda to go from being 880 years and fit as a fiddle to 900 and dying, though I've always told myself this was just because Yoda felt bad for fucking up so bad and decided he was done after helping Luke to fix Yoda's mess. Mostly though he was a pretty ludicrous character to have serving as a general -- it didn't fit his V/VI persona at all.
So you'd be left to think the big secret coming in ESB was that ObiWan killed Anakin, which would make the real plot twist that much more twisty.
It would be tough to make this work for the viewers while still having the prequels be about Anakin's fall. The easiest way would be to completely refrain from mentioning Vader in Ep. III, so he just looked like a random new Sith Lord in IV, though it would make Ben's blaming Vader for Anakin's death seem weird lie or not.
Of course it doesn't automatically mean that...
:)
It's like the mathematical axioms -- we assume them to be true, simply because we haven't found any counter examples.
Wanting to do it first and wanting it watched first are two different things despite the high correlation.
But he didn't make the movies in such a way that they lend themselves to watching in episodic order, either. So his wanting them watched in order is misguided.
For example, watched in episode order, the first coherent explanation of what the Force is occurs in Episode IV. The Midichlorian explanation in Ep. I would be confusing as hell since he's describing how you measure Jedi-ness assuming both the characters and the audience are fully aware of what that is, and then midichlorians are never mentioned again. The knowledge that Darth Vader is Luke and Leia's father is given away at the end of III, but revealed as plot twists in V and VI. I can only imagine how confusing Ben Kenobi's behavior must have seemed.
From the article:
"For me, the biggest problem with seeing these films in their intended order is that Episodes IV-VI offered little surprises. I know who Luke's father is; I know that the little creature is Yoda. I have to sit through that uncomfortable kiss between Luke and Leia knowing that they are indeed brother and sister. Most of the mysteries and questions that drive the plots of the later episodes are nullified by having seen the first three. I almost envied those who saw them in original order, so I too could have enjoyed the shock and surprise of some of the plot's twists and turns. Luckily I was never a fan of bellbottoms, so I will indeed stick with the intended order."
"Intended order" my ass. It's a broken order.
Of course, the real reason you need to watch them IV-VI then I-III is so that you like Star Wars enough to make it through the prequels.
So where is that written, and how many people have been informed?
Try dictionary.com, Wikipedia.org, merriam-webster.com, a statistics book you may have from college. Anyone who has accessed these sources has been informed. Hell, you find me a usage of 'average' as a specific calculation that dosen't mean arithmetic mean.
Average means either 'a measure of central tendency' which is a class of algorithms, not a specific calculations, or "arithmetic mean" if a specific calculation is implied. Every source will verify this.
Wanting something to be true doesn't make it true.
Indeed. Desperately hoping that someone, somewhere writes "average" when they mean "harmonic mean" doesn't make it true.
To prevent people from getting serious about switching away from oil, of course.
They want the current supply of oil to seem scarce so prices are high, but they want the hypothetical, future supply to seem infinite so that you never have to stop using oil.
Which is pretty much what we have now. The price of oil goes up based on fears about Middle East stability, damage to refineries on the Gulf Coast from Katrina, and so on, threatening the immediate supply. On the other hand, off-shore oil deposits and ambiogenesis promising that the oil supply will never actually run out. They make massive profits, but everyone still feels comfortable with their oil-based ICEs.
I'd be interested in what games you feel are "mature" where "mature" doesn't mean "with more realistic violence", or "fewer bright colors".
But you may want to consider Beyond Good and Evil. It's very Zelda-like, with great production value, and a pretty decent plot that at least touches on some mature issues (like what do you do when you need but don't trust your government).
Well, technically the median is an average too, although admittedly most people do associate the word "Average" with the mean.
The median is an average, but whenever "average" is used as a specific measurement (rather than the class of measures of central tendency), it means "arithmetic mean".
Yes, but the billionaires have many, many times more income than the average, and drag it up much more than those who make zero drag it down.
According to WP, the median income in the U.S. in 2004 was $43,389, and the mean was $60,528, 39.73% higher than the median.
Yes, we are.
By definition, half of the US population makes average income or below.
By definition half the US population makes median income or below.
More than half of the US population makes below average income because of the Bill Gates and other outliers that drag the average up.
Sorry, just a pedantic pet peeve.
You have some good points, especially regarding maintenance, however...
That's an idealistic view, and completely out of whack for most people. Remember that most businesses (at least in the US) are small businesses, meaning that the IT person usually wears other hats.
Actually I thought small business IT centers were a place where Linux (being cheap and not having any licensing issues) started its rise to server prominence. In particular, my step father is an example of exactly who you are talking about (the "IT person" whose main hat is developer) and for him it's Linux, Linux, Linux.
That IT person is more likely to be a Mom or Pop type who just wants the damn thing to work and doesn't want to go fiddling with source. The moment they upgrade and there's bustage, if they don't switch outright then they're going to make a mental note that it fucked up the business for a week and the next time there's upgrading to be done, they're going to consider something with better backwards compatibility, ie Windows Server or something.
Well then that person isn't an "IT person" in quotes or otherwise. If they are non-technical, then they should be buying a pre-built server and pay for support from their OS and application vendor, and make it their problem to figure out the backward compatability issues when Mom and Pop decide to purchase new machines. Yes, this might mean they buy a Windows machine. Or RHEL and a support contract. Or they break down and hire a techie.
If you use Windows, do you automatically share Redmond's philosophies? I didn't think so, or you wouldn't be reading Slashdot. So why should Linux users necessarily share Linux's philosophies?
I don't use Windows. But if I did, I would have to adopt some of Redmond's philosophies in order to make optimal use of the machine. I'm not talking about the "how I should live my life, what is the definition of freedom?" kind of philosophy, I'm talking about design and software usage philosophies. And the reason Linux users should necessarily share some of Linux's philosophies is because they make sense in that system. Why should Linux have to change its philosophy to suit other people's philosophies any more than Redmond changes their design based on what free software hippies like me want?