Sorry, no mod points today, and/. doesn't have a `clueless' modifier
Sorry, but I can't help but feeling that you either didn't read the article or don't work with a large company. Keeping track of licenses is not as trivial and easy as you make it out to be. I work at a non-profit organization with 350+ employees, all of whom have computers, ranging from W95 to XP.. Not every department allocates much money to technology, hence the persistence of W95 machines; they just keep getting passed down. No matter how good your `procedure' is for tracking PCs and licenses, if you have three people doing the work, short of alway checking up on each other or having a micromanager in charge of you all, there is no way to `know' that everything is always correct. Especially when you have users and departments doing things (like buying new Macs without checking if OS X works with Netware!) without telling you.
Do I have time to track all our licenses and make sure they are all correct?
No I don't.
You seem to think it's really easy; maybe you'd like to come audit our licensing for us. You know, in an afternoon or on a saturday morning. It's so easy, it couldn't take very long to make sure that 350 PCs all have the correct licenses for each bit of software, right?
Since premillenialism and postmillenialism refer to eschatological theories about the return of Christ, ie, have nothing to do with science and everything to do with a specific branch of theology.
The panmillenialist joke is still pretty funny, though.
it makes perfect sense to appeal to scripture to say what "really" happened re: David and Goliath; the only source we have of the story, period, is the scripture. Ergo, that is where you have to look to see what happened. Whether it happened or not is immaterial.
Your comment is similar to saying we can't read Tolkien to find out what happened to Frodo because how do we know Tolkien really knew what happened?
If you check out the guy's website, you'll see he has a Master's Degree in Mathematics as well as Journalism. I know math is not the topic under discussion here, but a graduate degree in mathematics, coupled with his informative answers, is enough to earn a chunk of my respect.
Besides, we can easily summarize the next set of SCO stories:
- SCO sues everybody
- Everybody gives SCO the finger
Followed by,
- Everybody gives SCO the finger, in court.
Netware is a good product, and I wish we'd keep it around, here, but the management are set on migrating to M$.
IMHO, none of our Netware problems couldn't be fixed with a few new servers (okay, easier said than done) or a broader knowledge base. For example, our Groupwise 5.5 server crashed regularly (although it was an old box) -- but since we moved to GW 6.5 (and a new server), it hasn't crashed at all. GW 5.5 had compatibility issues with Outlook (fixed in 6.5).
We're still on Netware 5.x, and we have one other server that crashes once in awhile, and a third which hangs during backup every week. Every week! Sometimes that last one is rebooted twice a week. But, OTOH, that is also a very old box. (I should mention this is in a school, low funds, etc, etc).
The third issue we've had is the graphics and music department insisting on Macs. Now, I like macs, but there is no Novell client (yet) for Netware or Groupwise for OSX, and even their clients for earlier Mac OSes are not perfect. At the moment you still need to go to a third party to get a client for OSX.
Even more frustrating, when we moved some of the school PCs to WinXP, some of the ZenWorks login scripts started making explorer (not IE -- the actual explorer.exe, defacto the whole desktop) fail to load. So one of us has to debug the scripts for XP...
On top of this, add an environment that includes Win95 all the way through WinXP(not to mention A handful of Mac OSes), and you have an administrative headache.
And despite it all, I still like Netware. It must be a decent product for me to like it amid all that...
...the Mafia is sueing SCO for violating it's Racketeering(TM) IP. The Mafia intends to settle out of court, however, and has already sent representatives Vinnie and Guido to visit McBride....
I wonder what will happen with Ximian's Exchange connector for Evolution? I hope Novell keeps it around, because it's probably my sole hope of getting a boss-approved Linux box at work...
Funny, my last three page refreshes were delivered by Ultra Squirrels, Ultra Elephants, and Super Geese. Are these cyborg animals, or merely elite, neiszchean, uber-species? Is there a difference?
If I were a Chief Information Officer or Chief Technology Officers debating the Total Cost of Ownership of *[any]nix vs. Win2K3(Windows Server 2003) to a Chief Executive Officer, would International Business Machines vs. Santa Cruz Operations be the Total Knock Out that stops the Chief Executive Officer from approving Accounting/Payroll to pay my Purchase Order for RedHat's Linux on GX(SPARC Chipset)?
For What It's Worth, even if Open Source Software is Free As In Beer, if the Department Of Justice considers *[any]nix Intellectual Property with a TradeMark, then it basically becomes Santa Cruz Operation's Licensed Internal Code, meaning our Open Source Software becomes a Closed Source Software Operating System, which would Really Suck The Big One.
AIBO going w/ an Application Service Provider that manages our Operating System? But Then Again, we might end up w/ a Bastard Operator From Hell giving us Zero Administration, which WWAD PMS.
As Far As I Know, It's Not My Problem if Santa Cruz Operation wants to be In The Money by enforcing its supposed Intellectual Property Rights - *[any]nix Intellectual Property should be Public Domain or GNU, like Berkeley Software Distribution just on GP, If You Know What I Mean. I keep asking myself in this situation - What Would Linus Do?
Oh, By The Way - If I Tell You What It Means, Will You Buy Me A Drink?
Can the author or someone else fill me in on the ones I missed, or any I got wrong? It's bugging the snot out of me.
by Roger Penrose, is all about AI. To be specific, it's a criticism of Strong-AI (to borrow Penrose's term, who borrowed it from Searle), that is, the idea that computers will ever be abel to be said to `think' or `feel', no matter how complex they become.
But if understand the extreme Strong-AI viewpoint (I may not), isn't it basically saying that if a sufficiently complicated algorithm to emulate the human thought process were run on a sufficiently complex machine, then those 'intangible' features of the mind (identity, self-awareness, feelings, and, by logicaly extension, some sort of values, hence ethics) would arise naturally, just like they do in humans.
All that nothwithstanding, even presuming it is meaningful to talk about programming `ethics', isn't the concept of ethics linked to the presence of free will? The human idea of ethical seems to be linked to the concept of doing the Right Thing, instead of the Wrong Thing, even if the Wrong Thing were more profitable. (Well, that's the idea, anyway)
So, (maybe I'm missing the point here) wouldn't we need to give our machines `free will' before any talk of their `ethics' would be meaningful? And then, if their ethics were programmed, would we still be able to say they had `free will'?
It's too early in the morning to think on these things.
To be fair, Douglas Hofstadter has written his share of books and articles in favor of the Strong-AI viewpoint, and has many interesting things to say about it.
Personally, I have to admit that while I expect AI to become more convincing, I don't expect to ever find my computer in an ethical dilemma. My God! What if your computer decided file-sharing was `wrong'?
I can definately attest that Manos: the Hands of Fate is quite possibly the most terrible film ever made. It is best viewed in its Mystery Science Theatre 3000 version; without the commentary it would be unbearable.
I agree that the price tag is great.... But I was sort of asking who Lindows is for. You say that both you and your friend run an OS other than Lindows on the boxes you purchased.
But then you answer my question by pointing out that your inlaws use Lindows... So I think I have a reasonable idea of the target market for Lindows boxes....
Journalists doing software reviews: 25%
Relatives of/.ers and other geeks: 25%
*nix geeks who want a $200 box, but plan to run a different OS: 50%
I'm just guessing. The third category might be a lot higher...:)
I read/.; why, I have an IBM rackmount server in my shopping cart right now with AIX on it that they're going to charge me $5400 for, not to mention a year of AIX support. And to think they don't even have a license for the support they want to sell me!
I'm sorry, I still have a hard time figuring out who Lindows is aimed at. It seems like J. Random User is going to be far more comfortable with Win*, and stay there. Linux newbies are probably going to prefer Redhat or Mandrake (or a Knoppix install), and Linux wizards are probably already using debian or gentoo or [insert your favorite distro].
It seems to be a distro aimed at software-review journalists.
I'll end with my favorite lines from the review:
Although it's possible to install Microsoft Windows on these machines, it can be tricky. Plus, a copy of Windows XP Home Edition costs about as much as one of these PCs.
Something about this strikes me as being really funny, but I'm not quite sure what it is. (Though I know XP home is only about $99, now, but, whatever...)
remaining Enron shareholders are suing IBM for a billion dollars, stating that they have proof that proprietary "Enron accounting practices" were used in IBM's bookkeeping.
Microsoft has already agreed to pay Enron for a license to use these same accounting practices.
once said that he and Dennis Ritchie had come up with an identical 25-line assembly program, independently. Apparently neither of them thought to check that the other might be working on the same portion of a larger project.
The point being, given a certain programming task, there are enough common ideas about the Right Way to Do It, that I don't find it too unreasonable that different programmers could have written similar or identical blocks of code. Especially given that both Unix and/or Linux programmers probably have a similar problem-solving mindset.
Slashdot Mirror
rms said, "Well, God told me that GNU/Linux was the One True Linux. Nobody else."
Seibt said, "Well, God told me that Redhat and SuSE were the One True Distros. Nobody else."
Linus said, "Wait, wait -- I never said that."
Sorry, but I can't help but feeling that you either didn't read the article or don't work with a large company. Keeping track of licenses is not as trivial and easy as you make it out to be. I work at a non-profit organization with 350+ employees, all of whom have computers, ranging from W95 to XP.. Not every department allocates much money to technology, hence the persistence of W95 machines; they just keep getting passed down. No matter how good your `procedure' is for tracking PCs and licenses, if you have three people doing the work, short of alway checking up on each other or having a micromanager in charge of you all, there is no way to `know' that everything is always correct. Especially when you have users and departments doing things (like buying new Macs without checking if OS X works with Netware!) without telling you.
Do I have time to track all our licenses and make sure they are all correct?
No I don't.
You seem to think it's really easy; maybe you'd like to come audit our licensing for us. You know, in an afternoon or on a saturday morning. It's so easy, it couldn't take very long to make sure that 350 PCs all have the correct licenses for each bit of software, right?
Right.
Did you read the article? Oh wait, I've been trolled.
The panmillenialist joke is still pretty funny, though.
So, we've been attempting this human-rabbit hybrid for some time, have we?
At last! Success!
Anti-Microsoft Pessimist: Microsoft code is responsible for half the OS crashes!
Engineer: There are twice as many crashes than any OS should have.
Your comment is similar to saying we can't read Tolkien to find out what happened to Frodo because how do we know Tolkien really knew what happened?
Besides, we can easily summarize the next set of SCO stories:
- SCO sues everybody
- Everybody gives SCO the finger
Followed by,
- Everybody gives SCO the finger, in court.
IMHO, none of our Netware problems couldn't be fixed with a few new servers (okay, easier said than done) or a broader knowledge base. For example, our Groupwise 5.5 server crashed regularly (although it was an old box) -- but since we moved to GW 6.5 (and a new server), it hasn't crashed at all. GW 5.5 had compatibility issues with Outlook (fixed in 6.5).
We're still on Netware 5.x, and we have one other server that crashes once in awhile, and a third which hangs during backup every week. Every week! Sometimes that last one is rebooted twice a week. But, OTOH, that is also a very old box. (I should mention this is in a school, low funds, etc, etc).
The third issue we've had is the graphics and music department insisting on Macs. Now, I like macs, but there is no Novell client (yet) for Netware or Groupwise for OSX, and even their clients for earlier Mac OSes are not perfect. At the moment you still need to go to a third party to get a client for OSX.
Even more frustrating, when we moved some of the school PCs to WinXP, some of the ZenWorks login scripts started making explorer (not IE -- the actual explorer.exe, defacto the whole desktop) fail to load. So one of us has to debug the scripts for XP...
On top of this, add an environment that includes Win95 all the way through WinXP(not to mention A handful of Mac OSes), and you have an administrative headache.
And despite it all, I still like Netware. It must be a decent product for me to like it amid all that...
...the Mafia is sueing SCO for violating it's Racketeering(TM) IP. The Mafia intends to settle out of court, however, and has already sent representatives Vinnie and Guido to visit McBride....
I wonder what will happen with Ximian's Exchange connector for Evolution? I hope Novell keeps it around, because it's probably my sole hope of getting a boss-approved Linux box at work...
Funny, my last three page refreshes were delivered by Ultra Squirrels, Ultra Elephants, and Super Geese. Are these cyborg animals, or merely elite, neiszchean, uber-species? Is there a difference?
To actually try to duplicate this cd changer with lego seems a little impractical.
Can the author or someone else fill me in on the ones I missed, or any I got wrong? It's bugging the snot out of me.
And I will not buy you a drink.
But if understand the extreme Strong-AI viewpoint (I may not), isn't it basically saying that if a sufficiently complicated algorithm to emulate the human thought process were run on a sufficiently complex machine, then those 'intangible' features of the mind (identity, self-awareness, feelings, and, by logicaly extension, some sort of values, hence ethics) would arise naturally, just like they do in humans.
All that nothwithstanding, even presuming it is meaningful to talk about programming `ethics', isn't the concept of ethics linked to the presence of free will? The human idea of ethical seems to be linked to the concept of doing the Right Thing, instead of the Wrong Thing, even if the Wrong Thing were more profitable. (Well, that's the idea, anyway)
So, (maybe I'm missing the point here) wouldn't we need to give our machines `free will' before any talk of their `ethics' would be meaningful? And then, if their ethics were programmed, would we still be able to say they had `free will'?
It's too early in the morning to think on these things.
To be fair, Douglas Hofstadter has written his share of books and articles in favor of the Strong-AI viewpoint, and has many interesting things to say about it.
Personally, I have to admit that while I expect AI to become more convincing, I don't expect to ever find my computer in an ethical dilemma. My God! What if your computer decided file-sharing was `wrong'?
English-speaking americans have difficulty understanding Japanese.
Bell Labs' next project: ManOS
Argh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry....
...waves good-bye to karma
But then you answer my question by pointing out that your inlaws use Lindows... So I think I have a reasonable idea of the target market for Lindows boxes....
- Journalists doing software reviews: 25%
- Relatives of
/.ers and other geeks: 25%
- *nix geeks who want a $200 box, but plan to run a different OS: 50%
I'm just guessing. The third category might be a lot higher...Good thing I haven't bought it yet.
It seems to be a distro aimed at software-review journalists.
I'll end with my favorite lines from the review:
Something about this strikes me as being really funny, but I'm not quite sure what it is. (Though I know XP home is only about $99, now, but, whatever...)
Microsoft has already agreed to pay Enron for a license to use these same accounting practices.
Doesn't sound too secure...
The point being, given a certain programming task, there are enough common ideas about the Right Way to Do It, that I don't find it too unreasonable that different programmers could have written similar or identical blocks of code. Especially given that both Unix and/or Linux programmers probably have a similar problem-solving mindset.