This is the sequence - anyone recognise it?
UUAUEAIAEUAUEUAAAAIAIUEUUIEIUAUIUUIAEAEEUEAAUEAEAU EEEUEAEUEIEAIEUEUIEIAU
Yep, it's the exact sound that emanated from my mouth when I was asked by my boss to put some of my work (electronic schematics) into a Word document (all 27 sheets of it).
More integrated over time? Seems to me like the MS departments for Word and Excel are warring factions, leave alone IE.
I'd agree with this - try opening more than one excel 2000 file, and examine the behaviour, then compare it with opening more than one word 2000 file, and examine the behaviour, particularly with regards to switching between documents, and how to close one of the documents while leaving the other one open. They're not just different, they're a completely different paradigm. Consistency my arse.
Anyone who can't learn how to do very basic things on another OS [...] doesn't deserve their job.
True enough, but the average user is reluctant to change, and this reluctance is borne out in the cost associated with an enterprise-wide migration to a different platform. The cost is what those who make the decision see - this cost is in this year's bottom line, and is hard to justify as a tangible cost-saver over a longer time. Much easier to keep paying the license fee...
My experience is that companies conveniently forget retraining costs associated from moving from one version of a microsoft product to another.
Well that's another issue, but unfortunately the PHB's that sign the [cheques|checks] don't see a difference between Office 97, Office 2000 and Office XP -- (aside) MS's "consistent" numbering scheme of using years for the version didn't last long, did it?
The big question is whether the cost saved by going OSS is outweighed by the cost of users becoming sufficiently effective on the new platform
And there's the rub. Philosophical issues aside, if it costs more than the commercial OS and apps to retrain the users in the "new" OS (including loss of productivity while in transition), it's a no-brainer on a commercial level - the status quo will always be chosen.
Considering the (substantial) discounts offered to major companies using commercial software, I don't see that changing any time soon, unfortunately.
If you've never installed linux or want to reinstall, start fresh and run FreeBSD instead.
It's a great operating system and the leader in innovation and is the base for Mac OS X.
I thought NetBSD was the basis of OS X? NetBSD and FreeBSD forked, what, 5 years ago??
Slashdot Mirror
This is the sequence - anyone recognise it?U EEEUEAEUEIEAIEUEUIEIAU
UUAUEAIAEUAUEUAAAAIAIUEUUIEIUAUIUUIAEAEEUEAAUEAEA
Yep, it's the exact sound that emanated from my mouth when I was asked by my boss to put some of my work (electronic schematics) into a Word document (all 27 sheets of it).
More integrated over time? Seems to me like the MS departments for Word and Excel are warring factions, leave alone IE.
I'd agree with this - try opening more than one excel 2000 file, and examine the behaviour, then compare it with opening more than one word 2000 file, and examine the behaviour, particularly with regards to switching between documents, and how to close one of the documents while leaving the other one open. They're not just different, they're a completely different paradigm. Consistency my arse.
Anyone who can't learn how to do very basic things on another OS [...] doesn't deserve their job.
True enough, but the average user is reluctant to change, and this reluctance is borne out in the cost associated with an enterprise-wide migration to a different platform. The cost is what those who make the decision see - this cost is in this year's bottom line, and is hard to justify as a tangible cost-saver over a longer time. Much easier to keep paying the license fee...
My experience is that companies conveniently forget retraining costs associated from moving from one version of a microsoft product to another.
Well that's another issue, but unfortunately the PHB's that sign the [cheques|checks] don't see a difference between Office 97, Office 2000 and Office XP -- (aside) MS's "consistent" numbering scheme of using years for the version didn't last long, did it?
The big question is whether the cost saved by going OSS is outweighed by the cost of users becoming sufficiently effective on the new platform
And there's the rub. Philosophical issues aside, if it costs more than the commercial OS and apps to retrain the users in the "new" OS (including loss of productivity while in transition), it's a no-brainer on a commercial level - the status quo will always be chosen.
Considering the (substantial) discounts offered to major companies using commercial software, I don't see that changing any time soon, unfortunately.
Migrating computers is easy enough - the hard part is migrating users.
You need FreeBSD to get you out of RPM hell.
Funny, that's the reason I chose Slackware...
If you've never installed linux or want to reinstall, start fresh and run FreeBSD instead. It's a great operating system and the leader in innovation and is the base for Mac OS X.
I thought NetBSD was the basis of OS X? NetBSD and FreeBSD forked, what, 5 years ago??
What's stopping them from ordering one copy and installing it over NFS?
What's stopping them from installing directly from the Australian Mirror?