> Ultimately Sun will decide who can collaborate on their own versions. They will maintain a centralized set of priorities, and contributors outside of Sun will be viewed as submitters of bug-reports that compile, not co-workers. > This is not open source. This is a company, faced with extinction via open source, trying to hide in the tall grass.
I disagree. In the end, an open source project needs to have a benevolent dictator to decide what goes in and what doesn't. I recall Linus Torvalds's comment posted at the slashdot a while ago (http://www.lib.uaa.alaska.edu/linux-kernel/archiv e/2002-Week-44/0094.html), and in that, he pretty much says that he decides the direction of Linux. Billy Joy played a similar role back when he was working on BSD. Richard Stallman also plays a similar role in GNU world. In order for a project to move to a certain direction with speed and power, someone or some company needs to take a lead role.
Having said that, I support Sun's position. I personally like how they get involved in Java community. I like how they contribute to open source projects such as Tomcat. I like how they supported Tcl/Tk. I might not be disproving your point, but I want to say that I support Sun's position
Rules and regulations should be self-imposed. I realize that some people need to be given rather strict rules, but generally, people who have a dedicated computer at work should not belong to that category. Making too many rules and regulations and telling people what to do would not work in the end. Of course, employees should not be surfing on the internet 8 hours a day (unless that's their assignment), but they should figure out what's appropriate (1 hour a day? Maybe?) by themselves.
> The expectation is that employees get all their work done.
After all, that's the company's objective, their goal. I don't think that enforcing such and such rules and regulations is the way to go.
Still, wouldn't you say that $450k is such a ridiculous (small) amount? Besides Tokyo is the most expensive city in the world (http://www.onbusiness.ie/2003/0116/cities.html), so relatively speaking, it's like $300k or less in US. It means that they can hire one or two good consultant to do the work for a year or maybe less. Would you still think that they have the slight idea of what they are getting into?
What I meant to ask was "Cool. Is this my 1st 1st post(to an original post)?" Apparently not. This is a 2nd post; geez, I missed it by not even a minute. Someday...
I use MySQL, and I heard many good things about it. I also use many open source apps including Tomcat, Struts and of course GNU/Linux; I even plan to release one in near future (nothing speculatular though). But whenever I see an error like this one, I cannot help wondering "Is open source really ready for prime time?"
Well, speaking of the Wall Street, they are emotional people. Today is this, tomorrow is that! Wow, the President said such and such economy is going to hell. Oh, mortgage rate is dropping, buy buy buy, sell, sell, sell. MS losing money in xbox is nothing new. Furthermore, we know that the more xbox unites are being sold, the more money MS loses. Right after Christmas, the 4th quarter of the last year, we can expect a big loss, since presumably more units were sold during the 4th quarter than previous quarters. I personally think that Wall Street is just reacting (emotionally) after Shuttle incident and viewing the MS's loss very negatively.
I think that people are misunderstanding. If you look how the money is spent very closely, much of it goes to defense contract in the end, though the government makes it sound like the money goes to the space program. Look, NASA used to have 3000 people working on shuttles, but they only have 2000 now. Increased budget (supposedly) is really being spent on space program? For better maintenance? For safety?
Day by day, MS is becoming more like one of those boring typical corporations in US. Start-up -> make money -> lobbying -> get people inside Washington and build business around bureaucracy. I don't dare call MS an innovator, but come on, it's not even 20 years since MS started their business, and they are already joining the club of boring bureaucrats.
> they are commonly referred to as "Civil Engineer's", and believe it or not, getting an honest to god "engineering" degree is not exactly taking a couple MS tests and passing.
Ok, probably more accurately, they are called "Structural Engineers".
> i think that you massively underestimate the sacrifice and hard work and effort it takes to become a "real engineer".
I tend to agree with you, and you might claim that "real engineers" are not disposable like a bunch of tech guys who got laid off for the last couple of years. But I get the feeling that, when people are discussing IT career and regular engineering jobs, they are probably talking about regular software engineers, who are perhaps not "real engineers", what you call and other engineers, who are not as smart as you are, I'm afraid. So they are not looked upon like "doctor" or "lawyer", although you might be looked upon like a doctor curing epidemic disease and lawyer fighting for the weak and saving them. They are like regular accounts and regular sales. Their jobs are not secured, either, but I get the impression that software engineers and "not-real engineers" tend to be considered disposable and expendable.
> so why scrap all that work just because one thing is done?
Probably not after only one thing is done, but after two or three things are done.
> It takes time to ramp up to speed on any project and it takes time for people to learn the ways of their coworkers to form the best teams
That is probably true, but what if the whole project needs to go because generation after generation of the product is just not selling and the investment in the project does not make sense financially. Keeping the team and let them work on some other project is one possible solution, but am I the only who feels that the company says "Bye-Bye" to the whole team in a case like that, especially in recession? When economy is good, the company might let them work on new project, but there is up and down in economy. Recession occurs periodically, and if the company finds a project that is not making sense financially, the company seems to say "See you later" to the whole team. This type of thinking (I think) tends to come to IT managers because it's easy for them to see a separated project and its team in engineering.
Engineers are destined to get fired. Engineers including software engineers typically work on a project, which means that once the project is complete, they don't have to be around. Of course, some people need to be maintaining and debugging, but roughly 90% of engineers can go. I am not just talking about IT, but engineering in general. Let's say you are a construction engineer and designing a building. Once the construction is over, who needs you? We've got to move around and keep finding new projects, and that's the nature of our profession. Sounds kind of like prostitution, but it's not. Prostitutes might have regular customers, but we (real engineers) don't. If you feel OK about it, you'll have lifetime career in IT, if not, you'll find some other job. Simple is that.
I just hope that UCSB (school I went to) is not one of them (again). When Yahoo was under big DOS attack a couple of years ago, UCSB (again my school) was ultimately causing the problem.
> the RIAA most likely puts more money into lobbying congress than all of those others combined.
It will be interesting to see. RIAA might be putting a lot of money, but it works only if the mandatory implementation of copy right function helps over all economy. Washington might have not realized what the internet really meant to the economy when they were looking at the Napster (because it appeared that some people started spending less money), but this move, the mandatory implementation of copy right function, looks like that it is going to hurt the over all economy (badly). Some already mentioned a potential effect; who's going to rush to get copy right protection built-in locked up can't do anything system? Washington might be not technically savvy, but even for non-technical people, this move does not look good; it just doesn't look like that this move will bring back glory days of the late 90s. This is my observation, but we'll see.
> Ever stop to think that maybe GE doesn't do the development on their website?
I thought about that, when I read the original post, but the quality has to come from the whole right? So if they don't know how to get a quality out-sourcing (web development in this case), then they don't have quality. Simple is that. I think that "We bring good things to life" (GE's slogan) is a myth. I'm not saying that GE is a crappy company; they know how to deliver the number. I'm simply saying that GE is just good enough so that they don't fall apart.
> Why, are you thinking of asking him out or something?
I had chance to listen to his speeches recently (webcast); I liked what he said and I am curious to see how he's making out. Asking him out? I don't know what you are talking about.
Regarding XO Chapter 11, if XO does well, is Ted Fortsmann getting his shares back? He owned large number of shares and of course, he lost them all because of the bankruptcy, but I'm wondering if he's still entitled to his shares and so forth. Does anyone know? Anyone familiar with bonds, stocks, etc.?
why would you be reading and posting here?
on
FreeBSD Kernel Leak
·
· Score: 1
> how old are you people ? (mentally?) > no wonder why other tech-based sites have no respect for slashdot discussions.
I'd say that that's what's so great about slashdot, its egalitarian nature. Sure, you see many stupid posts (you might say that this post is stupid as well), but the fact that anyone can contribute to slashdot makes this place magical and dynamic; stupid posts are just a minor consequence. And let me ask you; if you think that slashdot is just a morons and idiots get-together, why would you be reading and posting here?
But probably you don't want to embrace anyone's monopoly including Microsoft, do you? You might not NEED Java, but when you start listing things that you want in this society, you have a set of rules, and those rules would bring you Java. Java might not do for you, but things that you get because of lawsuits like this would probably do some good for you. For example, if AT&T wasn't found guilty in 70s, we wouldn't be seeing the internet today.
Apparently, some company in Europe said something like "We don't want to use it because it's free. How can we trust anything free?" That's one of reasons that Sun decided to put some price on StarOffice. I don't think that the company in Europe was the only exception; many (especially corporate) customers want to pay for stuff that they use. It's a marketing strategy to distribute the software widely and not just to make money. And even if they charge for StarOffice, it's so much cheaper than MS Office Suite. StarOffice costs like $50. Is it that bad?
Thank you; great example. Some people here argue that women are different, contrary to the teaching of the Women's Liberation Movement. The direct quote from Anne Thwacks,
"The nature of the subject, and anything else requiring in-depth knowledge, will not appeal to most girls."
I may agree with Anne Thwacks, BUT one of things that the article points out is that the ratio of female students in CS is considerably low at the beginning of the freshman year. My guess is that most people (including boys) don't know much depth knowledge is required as they continue studying CS or whether they'll like it or not. However, there aren't too many women at the start line. Why? The reason, I think, is the image of IT industry. Soccer; great example. Are these women (or girls) going to play in England Premiership or La Premera Liga in Spain? Probably not; I even doubt if they watch England Premiership or Premera Liga on TV before they start playing soccer. The point is that they don't know much about soccer, But soccer is so popular in US, because soccer is portrayed as a really cool sport FOR cool fashionable strong women (by Nike, of course). Image really changes the entry point of soccer and of course, computer science.
>> Ms. Fiorina does not fit into the stereo typical image of IT person [...]
> That's because she was a salesperson--not an engineer (or systems administrator or help-desk troglodyte)--before becoming CEO.
That's exactly my point. People don't look at her and say "Wow, what a cool looking woman from the computer industry!" They'd rather see her like a "Movie Star in Dow 30". So the image of IT or the computer industry has not changed, which, I am guessing, is one of big reasons why only small number of women choose to study computer science in college.
They (Ark Linux) didn't put it up there, did they? Are they hacked? Gee, I hope so. At first I thought that Ark Linux is yet another porn link. Can anyone at Ark Linux distro tell us what's going on there?
Slashdot Mirror
> Ultimately Sun will decide who can collaborate on their own versions. They will maintain a centralized set of priorities, and contributors outside of Sun will be viewed as submitters of bug-reports that compile, not co-workers.
v e/2002-Week-44/0094.html), and in that, he pretty much says that he decides the direction of Linux. Billy Joy played a similar role back when he was working on BSD. Richard Stallman also plays a similar role in GNU world. In order for a project to move to a certain direction with speed and power, someone or some company needs to take a lead role.
> This is not open source. This is a company, faced with extinction via open source, trying to hide in the tall grass.
I disagree. In the end, an open source project needs to have a benevolent dictator to decide what goes in and what doesn't. I recall Linus Torvalds's comment posted at the slashdot a while ago (http://www.lib.uaa.alaska.edu/linux-kernel/archi
Having said that, I support Sun's position. I personally like how they get involved in Java community. I like how they contribute to open source projects such as Tomcat. I like how they supported Tcl/Tk. I might not be disproving your point, but I want to say that I support Sun's position
Rules and regulations should be self-imposed. I realize that some people need to be given rather strict rules, but generally, people who have a dedicated computer at work should not belong to that category. Making too many rules and regulations and telling people what to do would not work in the end. Of course, employees should not be surfing on the internet 8 hours a day (unless that's their assignment), but they should figure out what's appropriate (1 hour a day? Maybe?) by themselves.
> The expectation is that employees get all their work done.
After all, that's the company's objective, their goal. I don't think that enforcing such and such rules and regulations is the way to go.
Still, wouldn't you say that $450k is such a ridiculous (small) amount? Besides Tokyo is the most expensive city in the world (http://www.onbusiness.ie/2003/0116/cities.html), so relatively speaking, it's like $300k or less in US. It means that they can hire one or two good consultant to do the work for a year or maybe less. Would you still think that they have the slight idea of what they are getting into?
> No you have posted 32 times before this
What I meant to ask was "Cool. Is this my 1st 1st post(to an original post)?" Apparently not. This is a 2nd post; geez, I missed it by not even a minute. Someday...
To moderator,
Sorry; totally, off topic.
I use MySQL, and I heard many good things about it. I also use many open source apps including Tomcat, Struts and of course GNU/Linux; I even plan to release one in near future (nothing speculatular though). But whenever I see an error like this one, I cannot help wondering "Is open source really ready for prime time?"
Cool. Is this my 1st post?
Well, speaking of the Wall Street, they are emotional people. Today is this, tomorrow is that! Wow, the President said such and such economy is going to hell. Oh, mortgage rate is dropping, buy buy buy, sell, sell, sell. MS losing money in xbox is nothing new. Furthermore, we know that the more xbox unites are being sold, the more money MS loses. Right after Christmas, the 4th quarter of the last year, we can expect a big loss, since presumably more units were sold during the 4th quarter than previous quarters. I personally think that Wall Street is just reacting (emotionally) after Shuttle incident and viewing the MS's loss very negatively.
This is not laughing matter, but when I read your post, I had to laugh.
I think that people are misunderstanding. If you look how the money is spent very closely, much of it goes to defense contract in the end, though the government makes it sound like the money goes to the space program. Look, NASA used to have 3000 people working on shuttles, but they only have 2000 now. Increased budget (supposedly) is really being spent on space program? For better maintenance? For safety?
Day by day, MS is becoming more like one of those boring typical corporations in US. Start-up -> make money -> lobbying -> get people inside Washington and build business around bureaucracy. I don't dare call MS an innovator, but come on, it's not even 20 years since MS started their business, and they are already joining the club of boring bureaucrats.
> they are commonly referred to as "Civil Engineer's", and believe it or not, getting an honest to god "engineering" degree is not exactly taking a couple MS tests and passing.
Ok, probably more accurately, they are called "Structural Engineers".
> i think that you massively underestimate the sacrifice and hard work and effort it takes to become a "real engineer".
I tend to agree with you, and you might claim that "real engineers" are not disposable like a bunch of tech guys who got laid off for the last couple of years. But I get the feeling that, when people are discussing IT career and regular engineering jobs, they are probably talking about regular software engineers, who are perhaps not "real engineers", what you call and other engineers, who are not as smart as you are, I'm afraid. So they are not looked upon like "doctor" or "lawyer", although you might be looked upon like a doctor curing epidemic disease and lawyer fighting for the weak and saving them. They are like regular accounts and regular sales. Their jobs are not secured, either, but I get the impression that software engineers and "not-real engineers" tend to be considered disposable and expendable.
> so why scrap all that work just because one thing is done?
Probably not after only one thing is done, but after two or three things are done.
> It takes time to ramp up to speed on any project and it takes time for people to learn the ways of their coworkers to form the best teams
That is probably true, but what if the whole project needs to go because generation after generation of the product is just not selling and the investment in the project does not make sense financially. Keeping the team and let them work on some other project is one possible solution, but am I the only who feels that the company says "Bye-Bye" to the whole team in a case like that, especially in recession? When economy is good, the company might let them work on new project, but there is up and down in economy. Recession occurs periodically, and if the company finds a project that is not making sense financially, the company seems to say "See you later" to the whole team. This type of thinking (I think) tends to come to IT managers because it's easy for them to see a separated project and its team in engineering.
Engineers are destined to get fired. Engineers including software engineers typically work on a project, which means that once the project is complete, they don't have to be around. Of course, some people need to be maintaining and debugging, but roughly 90% of engineers can go. I am not just talking about IT, but engineering in general. Let's say you are a construction engineer and designing a building. Once the construction is over, who needs you? We've got to move around and keep finding new projects, and that's the nature of our profession. Sounds kind of like prostitution, but it's not. Prostitutes might have regular customers, but we (real engineers) don't. If you feel OK about it, you'll have lifetime career in IT, if not, you'll find some other job. Simple is that.
I just hope that UCSB (school I went to) is not one of them (again). When Yahoo was under big DOS attack a couple of years ago, UCSB (again my school) was ultimately causing the problem.
> the RIAA most likely puts more money into lobbying congress than all of those others combined.
It will be interesting to see. RIAA might be putting a lot of money, but it works only if the mandatory implementation of copy right function helps over all economy. Washington might have not realized what the internet really meant to the economy when they were looking at the Napster (because it appeared that some people started spending less money), but this move, the mandatory implementation of copy right function, looks like that it is going to hurt the over all economy (badly). Some already mentioned a potential effect; who's going to rush to get copy right protection built-in locked up can't do anything system? Washington might be not technically savvy, but even for non-technical people, this move does not look good; it just doesn't look like that this move will bring back glory days of the late 90s. This is my observation, but we'll see.
> Ever stop to think that maybe GE doesn't do the development on their website?
I thought about that, when I read the original post, but the quality has to come from the whole right? So if they don't know how to get a quality out-sourcing (web development in this case), then they don't have quality. Simple is that. I think that "We bring good things to life" (GE's slogan) is a myth. I'm not saying that GE is a crappy company; they know how to deliver the number. I'm simply saying that GE is just good enough so that they don't fall apart.
> Why, are you thinking of asking him out or something?
I had chance to listen to his speeches recently (webcast); I liked what he said and I am curious to see how he's making out. Asking him out? I don't know what you are talking about.
Regarding XO Chapter 11, if XO does well, is Ted Fortsmann getting his shares back? He owned large number of shares and of course, he lost them all because of the bankruptcy, but I'm wondering if he's still entitled to his shares and so forth. Does anyone know? Anyone familiar with bonds, stocks, etc.?
> how old are you people ? (mentally?)
> no wonder why other tech-based sites have no respect for slashdot discussions.
I'd say that that's what's so great about slashdot, its egalitarian nature. Sure, you see many stupid posts (you might say that this post is stupid as well), but the fact that anyone can contribute to slashdot makes this place magical and dynamic; stupid posts are just a minor consequence. And let me ask you; if you think that slashdot is just a morons and idiots get-together, why would you be reading and posting here?
> I dont need or want java on my machines.
But probably you don't want to embrace anyone's monopoly including Microsoft, do you? You might not NEED Java, but when you start listing things that you want in this society, you have a set of rules, and those rules would bring you Java. Java might not do for you, but things that you get because of lawsuits like this would probably do some good for you. For example, if AT&T wasn't found guilty in 70s, we wouldn't be seeing the internet today.
Apparently, some company in Europe said something like "We don't want to use it because it's free. How can we trust anything free?" That's one of reasons that Sun decided to put some price on StarOffice. I don't think that the company in Europe was the only exception; many (especially corporate) customers want to pay for stuff that they use. It's a marketing strategy to distribute the software widely and not just to make money. And even if they charge for StarOffice, it's so much cheaper than MS Office Suite. StarOffice costs like $50. Is it that bad?
Sure, Anonymous Coward. I'm ToastedBagel; remember me.
Thank you; great example. Some people here argue that women are different, contrary to the teaching of the Women's Liberation Movement. The direct quote from Anne Thwacks,
"The nature of the subject, and anything else requiring in-depth knowledge, will not appeal to most girls."
I may agree with Anne Thwacks, BUT one of things that the article points out is that the ratio of female students in CS is considerably low at the beginning of the freshman year. My guess is that most people (including boys) don't know much depth knowledge is required as they continue studying CS or whether they'll like it or not. However, there aren't too many women at the start line. Why? The reason, I think, is the image of IT industry. Soccer; great example. Are these women (or girls) going to play in England Premiership or La Premera Liga in Spain? Probably not; I even doubt if they watch England Premiership or Premera Liga on TV before they start playing soccer. The point is that they don't know much about soccer, But soccer is so popular in US, because soccer is portrayed as a really cool sport FOR cool fashionable strong women (by Nike, of course). Image really changes the entry point of soccer and of course, computer science.
>> Ms. Fiorina does not fit into the stereo typical image of IT person [...]
> That's because she was a salesperson--not an engineer (or systems administrator or help-desk troglodyte)--before becoming CEO.
That's exactly my point. People don't look at her and say "Wow, what a cool looking woman from the computer industry!" They'd rather see her like a "Movie Star in Dow 30". So the image of IT or the computer industry has not changed, which, I am guessing, is one of big reasons why only small number of women choose to study computer science in college.
They (Ark Linux) didn't put it up there, did they? Are they hacked? Gee, I hope so. At first I thought that Ark Linux is yet another porn link. Can anyone at Ark Linux distro tell us what's going on there?