I read different reviews of any open source software for different reasons, normally separated by source type.
So for instance, if you want to consider usability go to standard business sources (eWeek comes to mind). If you want the finer technical points (sysadminish stuff) go to the Linux user community... or sites meant for them such as Slashdot or similar sites.
I do think the community driven sites, the ones that most frequently review open source products, tend to focus too much on installation ease and not enough on the ease of use or application side of the equation (meaning finished products.)
I think one of the problems of getting Linux out of the data center and onto the desktops is that to this day it is mainly a developers and sysadmins tool. And the development tends to cater to these audiences, not so much to end users that continue to call their computer their 'hard drive'.
Not true actually; what you're describing is direct democracy. Representative democracy, which is what we have in the state of California, is a system by which we entrust individuals to determine what is in the best interest of the state. Of course, things don't work like this in reality; groups co-opt the process to advance their own agendas.
Another problem with your argument is your suggestion that corporations make these horrible decisions in secret. In reality there are probably more decisions that are publicly available from corporations than from government. Indeed, look back at the human medical trials sponsored by the U.S. Government conducted during the cold war; needless to say they didn't solicit public comment nor even the opinions of the 'subjects'. Is this an example of a looney short lived action that is tolerable? And as I type somehow you know the evil secrets of WalMart.... go fig. That's not to say that corporations can't cause harm, but largely they don't.
Further I submit to you that there is no such thing as corporate greed. There isn't a corporation on earth that can act without the involvement of people and it is the greed of people that you speak. Greed and the lust for power (the two are close cousins) are part of human nature. To suggest that government officials aren't motivated by the same driving forces that drive corporate executives is silly. The only difference is the means by which the people in a corporation and the people that run government pursue their greed. The free market is in fact a more democratic system than any representative democracy that I can think of because a business must obtain the approval of a majority of its intended constituents whereas a government official is easily bought by well place campaign contributions (or worse)from groups that are small when compared to the census count.
Finally, you looney short lived laws directly and negatively impact real people that aren't part of either corporate and government power structures. As you hinder business, especially on a state level, you make it so these greedy companies can't make as much money and hire as many people. A recent study here in California demonstrated that a number of companies have policies that explicity prohibit expansion in California or are actively relocating from California to other states where the regulatory environment is less draconian. This means peoplpe from the management structure down to the junior janitor are shit out of luck.
I read the article and what I can decern, without having read the bill, is that this oversteps... as our (yes I live in California) communist legislature is wont to do.
I can agree to limits about monitoring outside of the store; that's a clear cut invasion of privacy. However, as far as monitoring what gets picked up off a shelf and returned, etc. That's just silly to try and block. Store personnel could (though not as efficiently) monitor customers behavior visually and get the same knowledge.
It seems to me that the general public, rather than trying to slather on a bunch regulation onto business, has a responsibility to shop in those places that have products, services, and policies that they desire. If you think WalMart is going to somehow compromise your privacy, don't shop there. There are thousands of mom and pop shops that can't afford the technology anyway that sell the same products and are dying for your business. If the extra price is worth the privacy you'll not shop WalMart.
If you consumer/privacy advocates want to engage in a moral approach to this problem: encourage a boycott and encourage people to take a little damn responsibility for goes on in their own lives.
Disclaimer: I have not read the article, but the gist of the post is reasonably clear and see things the way I see them... so it must be right!
How many open source projects have non-developer, domain experts with significant roles in their projects? I know there are some efforts to solicit this kind of input, but it seems if you are writing a word processor or an inventory management program a project would do well to recruit end users that are true experts in their respective domains. Even to the point of having them on the project's top management committee. Sure they would probably have to be categorized as 'power users' to be effective and they should be fairly senior (as to understand the big picture, not just their own direct perspective.)
Also, how often do usability studies happen going into a release? It's one thing to get something programed, but another altogether to ensure the good intentions of the developers are really good in a more absolute sense.
Just some thoughts.
Perception is more important than reality.
on
CSS for the LDP?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I can't remember who said that long ago, but it is an important axiom.
Many readers will tune out or find it even daunting to jump into a document that doesn't make an effort to present itself well. Even when the content is top notch, weak presentation will leave a poor first impressions placing the author on the defensive from the get-go. That's not to say good presentation will save a bad document... but every little bit helps!
If using CSS makes the documentation look more professional, more organized, easier on the eyes, and more consistient in presentation I say go for it. Just don't fall into the mistake of overdoing it and continuously changing the presentation... then effort will be wasted.
One final point: corporations (including Microsoft:-) ) pay lots of money to be sure documentation is clear and attractive. Without commenting on success, they do spend those dollars and make the effort for a reason.
Never, ever fall into the trap of predicating the cost picture of one application on the adoption of an entire tech stack. Not unless you are prepared to argue the business case for the entire tech stack. Also, you seem to miss my point: the author's rebuttal to Microsoft was not that good which I would extend now by suggesting that by rebutting Microsoft point by point was not even the right approach; by trying to answer Microsoft as such, you find yourself playing their game by their rules. A better approach might have been to publish a competing document, perhaps even in the same form as the Microsoft document. My argument, on the other hand, was not that there weren't answers for installing OpenOffice, though even as an example your installation methodology, too, has a staffing cost associated with it. But let's examine the complete picture as you present it.
Linux/Unix is still not an appropriate choice (speaking Desktop here, the data center is a way different story) in the majority of businesses and for the majority of users. The familiarity prospective employees have with it, the software availability, and usability of desktop Linux/Unix is just not there enough yet for me to buy that it can replace Microsoft at this point.
Consider my retail chain example from before: Average length of employment of store management personnel (the only ones requiring use of productivity software) was 18 months and these were definitely non-technical people. If you consider the time it takes to train them in the operating system and the post-training productivity hit, what you find is you are spending significant dollars on training. We found that the vast majority of our staff at this level, while having no or little office productivity tool exposure at all, did use some flavor of Windows at home and in prior work. Therefore, it is not a big leap to the question: 'am I spending more on Windows licensing than I am on retraining staff to use a different OS?' Very quickly, even Microsoft's fees begin to seem the more reasonable... and a case for OpenOffice seems viable since I have to show them simple productivity software usage no matter which product I use. The training question is, as the installation comment in my previous post was, an exemplar. There are other elements in both the author's rebuttal and in my arguments against Linux/Unix on the desktop not mentioned here.
Moreover, if it is acceptable that OpenOffice's value proposition (an oldie but a goodie as buzz-phrases go) can only be realized on Linux/Unix I suppose the benefit of adopting open standards is perhaps an oversold concept as well. At least as oversold as Java's 'write once, run anywhere' mantra.
Some of the arguments the author made seemed somewhat naive; and honestly there are good arguments for adoption of OpenOffice. When I see comments to the effect, 'OpenOffice can be installed at no cost, and deployed easily', I have to protest. The technical staff is a cost and their time to install on desktops is incremental cost that rises with the number of desktops to install; I haven't seen any documentation for scripted installs of OpenOffice (note: I can't say I've looked hard either). This is just one such point where the arguments need to be better... at least for business.
I have been in management and made the call to install OpenOffice in the retail stores of a chain retailer, so clearly I am a true believer of what this software can do. But you also have to be realistic about where the limitations are as well. Had this chain been much larger, the costs of installation may well have outweighed the costs saving of the license. There are other points made by the author that again, just seem weak or weakly considered... and having a life I'm not going to go into them here and now. But, someone, help this guy with his arguments... he may do more damage to his cause than good.
It's not spin at all; and if so I challenge you to point out the inherent fallacy of the argument. Failing that I don't see how my suppositions are any less valid than yours.
Look, all I am pointing out is that given the information set at hand there is no way to come to any meaningful conclusion without the noise of bias overwhelming the known facts of this matter. In fact, in my so called spin, I acknowledge that it could very well be intent but even if it is you can't say it's a coordinated Microsoft effort.
So consider my original comment. I don't offer any one cause or theory per se. What I do offer is a suggestion that can produce a tangible result through action or lack thereof on MSN's part. The real underlying message of my comment, and first response to you, is this would not be the first time some accusation about Microsoft tainting search results was posted on Slashdot and made throughout the Linux community in general that was found to be baseless. I know of instances where it was downright untrue. So really, it's more a comment of what any given community is willing to accept as truth/dogma rather than some defense of MS.
I do want to again answer your presumption of cause in this instance (rather than simply dismiss it ad hominem). Clearly there is bias in your response as you prescribe the label 'evil' to Microsoft; so much so that I could summarize your comments: 'Microsoft is evil therefore they must be manipulating their search results to suit their own evil purposes.' I can't say that isn't what's happening... but I can no more say that it is the most sensible conclusion.
If I look at this from MS's point of view, it seems to me that they would actually dimmish their value by clouding searches for open source type projects. While they very decidedly own the desktop and can do what they will there, they don't yet own web search. If they dilute the effectiveness of searches using MSN searchers will catch on and make another choice: net result is that MS fails to earn the advertising revenue and screentime where they can evangelize their own message. If I were an MS senior manager I would try to make the searches as accurate as possible and adopt a modified 'embrace and extend' approach. In so doing I wouldn't alienate anyone with so little upside and I would, for a time capture eyeballs that may be receptive to my messages (i.e. banners, other content). Really, I would manipulate the order of searches long before I did something so blatant as obliterate the results. We also shouldn't forget that MSN is an operating unit and that they have their own financial goals within the larger corporate entity of MS. I really think MS chooses their battles more wisely than you're suggesting.
Wow... I've spent more time on this whole thing than I intended. It's been fun debating, nonetheless... cheers!
Software is an arbitrary, abstract construct that is for the most part only limited by the physical limitations of the hardware that the software is running on. But otherwise, completely spawn by mere mortals. Interestingly enough what constitutes a 'reasonable' quality is equally a human concept without the bounds of hardware. Trying to apply an arbitrary standard of reasonableness to the functionality a code that has few rules outside of the designer's/developer's mind is a fools game.
For as long as I've been involved in implementation project either as an implementer or as a manager I have had many developers tell me what my customers in the field were seeing could not happen. They'd tell me this with a straight face while looking at the code in question. In essence they were taking for granted what was reasonable and saying, "I have seen many bugs mister insightful, but this would be the top." In the end they always failed when I brought them to the customer's environments and said show me. These weren't bad developers either, simply ones that figured they knew what was reasonable and failing to consider tangentally related code that might be causing an outcome.
So maybe it's not a bug at all... it would not be unreasonable to think that some lower level, gung-ho guy at Microsoft may have actually caused this to happen without some conspiracy. Maybe that perrson just did it to get a rise out of the Slashdot crowd. This would still be something that a report to the customer support people at MSN and management would want to correct that they might not know was happening. And it is by no means unreasonable to think that the criteria Microsoft uses for catching porn sites happens to catch XFree86 and nothing else that you consider reasonablly similar (remember most people here have no clue how Microsoft does this). And, yes, just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you; though intentionally obscurring search results doesn't seem to be the most stragically sensible way to achieve the MS's goals in this area.
In honesty, I wonder if there isn't a contingent of Slashdotters that reads Slashdot all day and Art Bell all night.
...to tell the powers that be at MSN that the search is producing 'erroneous results'? It might just be that they're overlooking a problem they don't otherwise know exists.
Of course I haven't done this either... but frankly, I could care less.
First: I am not a developer and I have no stake in -any- OS outside of the business value proposition it offers; yes I am a pointy-haired manager type. OK, except at home where I've got a little of everything (Sun, OS X, Linux, Windows).
Mr. Perens approach is right on the mark. Reducing comlexity in the overall product reduces the cost to support the platform, thus making Userlinux more viable. Even if IT departments were the ones making the choice, in a lot of small & midsize shops you would have a good chance of getting a mixed desktop environment based on the 'technically correct' choice of the moment (i.e. ignoring an overall strategy that factors in business needs and downstream support... which raises costs.)
Choice is good, but an offering where a number of those choices have been made will ultimately present a stronger picture to business. Especially at the desktop level, there is less tolerance for a wide range of choices.
Many managers fear getting into a situation where they are so unique in their implementations that only existing staff can understand them and later choices are limited due to deviation from the norm. Even not controlling versions, of say, Windows/MS Office strategically can complicate the support picture and even reduce the overall efficency of the company. I know from the experience of cleaning it up, and from having made the mistake myself of allowing sys admins having too much choice (letting the purely technical override the strategic).
Clearly making choices at the time of putting a distribution together makes good sense from a Corporate point of view.
If you are simple minded to believe everything Bush tells you, you must be at least as simple minded to believe everything the Arab press says or our own Democrat candidate Howard Dean. I've read over the arguments since my original posting and really need to bring some clarity.
First, having lived less than 40 miles from a chemical weapons dump for many years, I can tell you first hand that those weapons need no special maintenance to be deadly. Most of those weapons were decades old and they were treated gingerly and with great respect by those that handled them I assure you. They burn them in small batches as to exercise the uptmost care.
Second: The U.S. and France will be embarassed by Hussein getting a fair trail? Perhaps France at this juncture, but any embarassing details about the U.S. seems to be public knowledge... afterall, you know about it. Did the U.S. support and supply Saddam? Yes we did. We support Pervez Musharraf now and he is not exactly a saint either. Nonetheless, we need him and so we support him... this may change with time as it did with Saddam. However, this support is broadly and publicly known already.
Third: To even worry that Saddam won't get a fair trial is silly. He has a far better chance of the Iraqi interim authorities giving him a fair trial than did those that he punished. Indeed, the likelihood is that Saddam's trial will be quite public and open. It is in the innterest of the U.S., the Iraqi interim authorities and, yes, the Iraqi people to have a public airing of the horror he perpetuated on his people. Which brings me to number four...
Forth: You mention your Iraqi relatives being without a country... why is the Arab world so hell bent on selling out their brethern to ruthless, Hitlerian, dictators for some perceived honor gained in standinng up to the west (a west largely that could give a rats ass about the region, provided Oil isn't used as a political weapon)? I see nothing that the Palestinians have gained nor anyone else in the Arab world by any of this support of terrorism. Yet, they would rather rally about the killers of women and children (and I mean in the context of them being primary targets as opposed to being unfortunate bystanders, I'm not trying to gloss over the innocents that died in the Iraq war). I'd be more concerned about my own kind than the Americans given how readily my own people are to stand by my oppressors (if I were Arab that is).
Fifth: The presence of WMD in Iraq now is largely irrelevant to justification of the war. U.N. resolution 1441 made clear that Iraq needed to produce evidence that they had, in fact, destroyed them. The relevant section of 1441 says: "3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;"
well said. I would also add that wireless providers fought this at the FCC and continue to fight (last I heard) in the federal courts. Sounds like a lot of effort to defeat a gimmick.
One last point... it's been a week or so? don't expect a whole lot of substantive change for awhile. Companies are trying to get you to lock in now, just off the hype/dissatisfaction of this initial press, as the months go by better deals will emerge in order to keep up conversion/retention rates.
The notice to vendors [...] has to be the most single ridiculous thing that I've read in a while. Given the dysfunctional workings of the county recorders website (last I checked) I would have hoped that there would have been more important issues to address rather than the norms of an entire industry. Whatever petty bureaucrat decided to engage in this infantile show of power, and that's what it is: using race because one can and not because one should, clearly has too much time and should be fired.
The master/slave terminology is common throughout technology, understood by engineers and technical support personnel, and is an accurate technical representation of the process it describes. To top it off, the terminology has been used for many years. What it is not is a reference to an unfortunate part of our history. Of my colleagues, I know of no one that understands it this way nor expressed they've been harmed by the terminology: colleagues of all races all of whom are sufficiently mature to tell the difference between a descriptive piece of jargon and a verbal slight.
This state already causes businesses to jump through too many hoops. Hampering an industry because some inadequate figure within your department can't demonstrate their impact via talent and superior service, but rather has to resort to trivial and self-serving actions clearly shows that the county of Los Angeles doesn't understand the needs of citizens and business. This is why the business I am opening will not be within the county and for similar reasons within the state.
I don't recall the article stating that the weapon was designed for use against terrorists.
Everything you say is true, but to suggest that the military should stop developments on all fronts simply because they don't apply to the conflict of the moment is silly. Clearly the weapon is designed for use against conventional foes with conventional armies. Because the weapon isn't useful for conflict such with child killers such as Al Qaeda, doesn't mean that it's invalid.
What your argument seems to say is as wrong and suggesting that the AK-47 is a bad weapon to take to a tank fight and therefore invalid. Indeed, I suspect that the e-bomb would be a fine weapon against an adversary such as North Korea.
Now for the terrorists, the one thing Saddam did have right was how to handle religious zealots. Saddam didn't have 'terrorist' troubles and when he did, he didn't have them for long. Clearly the least effective weapon in the war against terror is the one to win over the hearts and minds. Maybe the Coalition needs to take a lesson from the past, give up on trying to pull certain peoples in the middle east from their self inflicted dark age, and use good old fashioned brutality to suppress the violence; that's the only weapon against terror I've seen work to-date.
Uhhh... on the MSN search page, search for: 'linux windows'. You do in fact get: "Results 1-15 of about 16 containing "linux windows""... then click the 'next' button and you get: "Results 16-30 of about 8898833 containing "linux windows""
Same sort of thing applies to other searches, here are the results for: 'microsoft windows'. "Results 1-15 of about 713 containing "microsoft windows"" A real big conspiracy to suppress windows information ain't it? Click next (and you need to click it about 20 times) you get: "Results 451-465 of about 7836818 containing "microsoft windows"". You have to dig really deep to get at a larger count for something that Microsoft should want to support.
Pile of crap? I think not.... in fact you prove the point of my concern. By blithely accepting the premise on the front page of the Slashdot article, you believe what is patently not true. You don't dig deeper, and thus believe a falsehood; one you might wish is true, but is not. The concern I have is that you aren't the only one to respond as you did. Many people will take what they read in the article and draw a conclusion. I also did a search for 'linux windows Microsoft google' on google and google dutifully returned: "News: Why Microsoft Wants to Buy Google - Slashdot - 3 hours ago". Google reported the story as news: it was not news, it was the speculation of a reader of the Inquirer.
Don't get me wrong, I do think that the small number of results for initial searches is by intent. One commentator to this article mentions that the sponsored links go first. While I don't know this to be true... and don't care enough to investigate... it would seem a fair assumption that LINUX interests would be less likely to advertise on MSN than Windows interests. The cause of the small number of results is a constant across all search terms and thus fair.
So the moral of the story: don't take every you see on Slashdot as true and don't comment on items you know really nothing about unless you want to look a fool.
You know... given that the story as posted represents that the MSN search will only return 16 links for LINUX, makes you wonder how many people are simply reading the opening story and not digging deeper. Clearly, the 16 result that is reported is byproduct of the search engine design and not necessarily some conspiracy to destroy LINUX. The entire original story is specious in that it proposes a cause for Microsoft's purchase of Google which clearly, on the evidence, is false; but you would never know that until you dig into the comments.
This really makes you wonder how valuable a news source Slashdot is. Long time readers know that stories are moderated to their front page status, but how much do readers understand that that is different than vetting the story for accuracy or truth? Indeed, there is no effort to correct the story in this case... usually 'Updates' are reserved for shutting up complaints about duplicate stories or pointing out updates to previously posted stories.
As for the Microsoft's reason for wanting to buy Google? I wonder if it has to do with being a good company? Being a solid competitor that Microsoft would rather acquire than compete head to head against? I think stories commenting on Microsoft's efforts to buy Google can be better informed by looking at Microsoft's efforts to acquire Intuit some years ago rather than some conspiracy theory hatched by a person that clearly doesn't leave their monitor lit, basement room nearly enough.
Honestly I don't see how that makes a legal distinction. I run a small business (say ~$20 million a year) I can't afford coders, certainly not kernel hackers.
So, I take Linux software because it represents a cost savings. Now there's a problem... the source availability may help a community close bugs more quickly than a closed source solution, but it doesn't change the fact that -software-, with the same legal protections and exclusions as the closed source solution, caused my damages. Indeed tools are sold to fix cars, and I can use those tools as any end user, but that doesn't shift liability away from the car manufacturer from makinng a faulty product. Otherwise, the TCO for Linux will have to be dramatically increased in order to take into account the development staff needed in order to mitigate the risk.
In truth, Microsoft's code is open to the certain customers/academia. Yet I don't see this legally protecting them.
Well... think of the world we'd be in if this suit succeeds. No matter what you think of Microsoft, the precedent set would be dangerous to the software industry as a whole and even individual open source developers. Who do I sue if a Linux vulnerability causes damages? Sure Linux developers disclaim responsibility for these kind of problems... but so does Microsoft. I guess I'd have to go after Linus or his equivelants depending on the project at fault. Maybe I should quit technology and just become a lawyer... I'd make more money if this thing goes through.
It's not nonsense for web based retailers at all... unless you assume the page is all there is to it.
Sure some products are only available in the US, but to get the economies of scale needed to support the logistics operations you can't play the exceptions you must play the rule.
Sure adding a field to a web page and adding extra shipping can help defray some of the costs. But you'd be surprised how expensive even adding a field can be once you program it, test it, get sign-offs and migrate it to production. Even if I take your rationale as being correct... the field isn't the end of the story you have taxation and accounting special shipping rules to add (or hire people to do this manually.) Compare this effort with the return on investment (number of foreign based orders) and you end up with a shipping charge that will discourage most of your potential customers. Most execs just won't bother.
Thinking that these real world issues go away because you are a web retailer is exactly why so many of them die... I have worked for web based retailers (and, true enough, brinks and mortar) and most of them overplayed their hand even in the domestic market. In the end it's just a mail order catalog.
Well said. I've worked in management of a number of retail companies (web based and old fashioned real world stores).
International retail trade just isn't worth it unless you have enough investment dollars to set up physical warehouses, stores, etc. in those countries you wish to sell to.
All the points made by flowerp are right on the money and I would extend it with:
Cost of marketing in foreign countries
Lack of competitive advantages as compared to local business being able to provide the same product (remember that this doesn't necessarily mean better products).
More complicated customer service requirements (multi-multi lingual).
All of these factors mean that the number of foreign customers are too small to overcome the large costs to maintain them. It's a losing proposition for investors and customers alike.
Slashdot Mirror
I read different reviews of any open source software for different reasons, normally separated by source type.
So for instance, if you want to consider usability go to standard business sources (eWeek comes to mind). If you want the finer technical points (sysadminish stuff) go to the Linux user community... or sites meant for them such as Slashdot or similar sites.
I do think the community driven sites, the ones that most frequently review open source products, tend to focus too much on installation ease and not enough on the ease of use or application side of the equation (meaning finished products.)
I think one of the problems of getting Linux out of the data center and onto the desktops is that to this day it is mainly a developers and sysadmins tool. And the development tends to cater to these audiences, not so much to end users that continue to call their computer their 'hard drive'.
Cheers,
SCB
Cheers!
SCB
Not true actually; what you're describing is direct democracy. Representative democracy, which is what we have in the state of California, is a system by which we entrust individuals to determine what is in the best interest of the state. Of course, things don't work like this in reality; groups co-opt the process to advance their own agendas.
Another problem with your argument is your suggestion that corporations make these horrible decisions in secret. In reality there are probably more decisions that are publicly available from corporations than from government. Indeed, look back at the human medical trials sponsored by the U.S. Government conducted during the cold war; needless to say they didn't solicit public comment nor even the opinions of the 'subjects'. Is this an example of a looney short lived action that is tolerable? And as I type somehow you know the evil secrets of WalMart.... go fig. That's not to say that corporations can't cause harm, but largely they don't.
Further I submit to you that there is no such thing as corporate greed. There isn't a corporation on earth that can act without the involvement of people and it is the greed of people that you speak. Greed and the lust for power (the two are close cousins) are part of human nature. To suggest that government officials aren't motivated by the same driving forces that drive corporate executives is silly. The only difference is the means by which the people in a corporation and the people that run government pursue their greed. The free market is in fact a more democratic system than any representative democracy that I can think of because a business must obtain the approval of a majority of its intended constituents whereas a government official is easily bought by well place campaign contributions (or worse)from groups that are small when compared to the census count.
Finally, you looney short lived laws directly and negatively impact real people that aren't part of either corporate and government power structures. As you hinder business, especially on a state level, you make it so these greedy companies can't make as much money and hire as many people. A recent study here in California demonstrated that a number of companies have policies that explicity prohibit expansion in California or are actively relocating from California to other states where the regulatory environment is less draconian. This means peoplpe from the management structure down to the junior janitor are shit out of luck.
Give me corporate greed anyday.
I read the article and what I can decern, without having read the bill, is that this oversteps... as our (yes I live in California) communist legislature is wont to do.
I can agree to limits about monitoring outside of the store; that's a clear cut invasion of privacy. However, as far as monitoring what gets picked up off a shelf and returned, etc. That's just silly to try and block. Store personnel could (though not as efficiently) monitor customers behavior visually and get the same knowledge.
It seems to me that the general public, rather than trying to slather on a bunch regulation onto business, has a responsibility to shop in those places that have products, services, and policies that they desire. If you think WalMart is going to somehow compromise your privacy, don't shop there. There are thousands of mom and pop shops that can't afford the technology anyway that sell the same products and are dying for your business. If the extra price is worth the privacy you'll not shop WalMart.
If you consumer/privacy advocates want to engage in a moral approach to this problem: encourage a boycott and encourage people to take a little damn responsibility for goes on in their own lives.
Disclaimer: I have not read the article, but the gist of the post is reasonably clear and see things the way I see them... so it must be right!
How many open source projects have non-developer, domain experts with significant roles in their projects? I know there are some efforts to solicit this kind of input, but it seems if you are writing a word processor or an inventory management program a project would do well to recruit end users that are true experts in their respective domains. Even to the point of having them on the project's top management committee. Sure they would probably have to be categorized as 'power users' to be effective and they should be fairly senior (as to understand the big picture, not just their own direct perspective.)
Also, how often do usability studies happen going into a release? It's one thing to get something programed, but another altogether to ensure the good intentions of the developers are really good in a more absolute sense.
Just some thoughts.
I can't remember who said that long ago, but it is an important axiom.
:-) ) pay lots of money to be sure documentation is clear and attractive. Without commenting on success, they do spend those dollars and make the effort for a reason.
Many readers will tune out or find it even daunting to jump into a document that doesn't make an effort to present itself well. Even when the content is top notch, weak presentation will leave a poor first impressions placing the author on the defensive from the get-go. That's not to say good presentation will save a bad document... but every little bit helps!
If using CSS makes the documentation look more professional, more organized, easier on the eyes, and more consistient in presentation I say go for it. Just don't fall into the mistake of overdoing it and continuously changing the presentation... then effort will be wasted.
One final point: corporations (including Microsoft
Cheers!
Never, ever fall into the trap of predicating the cost picture of one application on the adoption of an entire tech stack. Not unless you are prepared to argue the business case for the entire tech stack. Also, you seem to miss my point: the author's rebuttal to Microsoft was not that good which I would extend now by suggesting that by rebutting Microsoft point by point was not even the right approach; by trying to answer Microsoft as such, you find yourself playing their game by their rules. A better approach might have been to publish a competing document, perhaps even in the same form as the Microsoft document. My argument, on the other hand, was not that there weren't answers for installing OpenOffice, though even as an example your installation methodology, too, has a staffing cost associated with it. But let's examine the complete picture as you present it.
Linux/Unix is still not an appropriate choice (speaking Desktop here, the data center is a way different story) in the majority of businesses and for the majority of users. The familiarity prospective employees have with it, the software availability, and usability of desktop Linux/Unix is just not there enough yet for me to buy that it can replace Microsoft at this point.
Consider my retail chain example from before: Average length of employment of store management personnel (the only ones requiring use of productivity software) was 18 months and these were definitely non-technical people. If you consider the time it takes to train them in the operating system and the post-training productivity hit, what you find is you are spending significant dollars on training. We found that the vast majority of our staff at this level, while having no or little office productivity tool exposure at all, did use some flavor of Windows at home and in prior work. Therefore, it is not a big leap to the question: 'am I spending more on Windows licensing than I am on retraining staff to use a different OS?' Very quickly, even Microsoft's fees begin to seem the more reasonable... and a case for OpenOffice seems viable since I have to show them simple productivity software usage no matter which product I use. The training question is, as the installation comment in my previous post was, an exemplar. There are other elements in both the author's rebuttal and in my arguments against Linux/Unix on the desktop not mentioned here.
Moreover, if it is acceptable that OpenOffice's value proposition (an oldie but a goodie as buzz-phrases go) can only be realized on Linux/Unix I suppose the benefit of adopting open standards is perhaps an oversold concept as well. At least as oversold as Java's 'write once, run anywhere' mantra.
Cheers!
Some of the arguments the author made seemed somewhat naive; and honestly there are good arguments for adoption of OpenOffice. When I see comments to the effect, 'OpenOffice can be installed at no cost, and deployed easily', I have to protest. The technical staff is a cost and their time to install on desktops is incremental cost that rises with the number of desktops to install; I haven't seen any documentation for scripted installs of OpenOffice (note: I can't say I've looked hard either). This is just one such point where the arguments need to be better... at least for business.
I have been in management and made the call to install OpenOffice in the retail stores of a chain retailer, so clearly I am a true believer of what this software can do. But you also have to be realistic about where the limitations are as well. Had this chain been much larger, the costs of installation may well have outweighed the costs saving of the license. There are other points made by the author that again, just seem weak or weakly considered... and having a life I'm not going to go into them here and now. But, someone, help this guy with his arguments... he may do more damage to his cause than good.
It's not spin at all; and if so I challenge you to point out the inherent fallacy of the argument. Failing that I don't see how my suppositions are any less valid than yours.
Look, all I am pointing out is that given the information set at hand there is no way to come to any meaningful conclusion without the noise of bias overwhelming the known facts of this matter. In fact, in my so called spin, I acknowledge that it could very well be intent but even if it is you can't say it's a coordinated Microsoft effort.
So consider my original comment. I don't offer any one cause or theory per se. What I do offer is a suggestion that can produce a tangible result through action or lack thereof on MSN's part. The real underlying message of my comment, and first response to you, is this would not be the first time some accusation about Microsoft tainting search results was posted on Slashdot and made throughout the Linux community in general that was found to be baseless. I know of instances where it was downright untrue. So really, it's more a comment of what any given community is willing to accept as truth/dogma rather than some defense of MS.
I do want to again answer your presumption of cause in this instance (rather than simply dismiss it ad hominem). Clearly there is bias in your response as you prescribe the label 'evil' to Microsoft; so much so that I could summarize your comments: 'Microsoft is evil therefore they must be manipulating their search results to suit their own evil purposes.' I can't say that isn't what's happening... but I can no more say that it is the most sensible conclusion.
If I look at this from MS's point of view, it seems to me that they would actually dimmish their value by clouding searches for open source type projects. While they very decidedly own the desktop and can do what they will there, they don't yet own web search. If they dilute the effectiveness of searches using MSN searchers will catch on and make another choice: net result is that MS fails to earn the advertising revenue and screentime where they can evangelize their own message. If I were an MS senior manager I would try to make the searches as accurate as possible and adopt a modified 'embrace and extend' approach. In so doing I wouldn't alienate anyone with so little upside and I would, for a time capture eyeballs that may be receptive to my messages (i.e. banners, other content). Really, I would manipulate the order of searches long before I did something so blatant as obliterate the results. We also shouldn't forget that MSN is an operating unit and that they have their own financial goals within the larger corporate entity of MS. I really think MS chooses their battles more wisely than you're suggesting.
Wow... I've spent more time on this whole thing than I intended. It's been fun debating, nonetheless... cheers!
Software is an arbitrary, abstract construct that is for the most part only limited by the physical limitations of the hardware that the software is running on. But otherwise, completely spawn by mere mortals. Interestingly enough what constitutes a 'reasonable' quality is equally a human concept without the bounds of hardware. Trying to apply an arbitrary standard of reasonableness to the functionality a code that has few rules outside of the designer's/developer's mind is a fools game.
For as long as I've been involved in implementation project either as an implementer or as a manager I have had many developers tell me what my customers in the field were seeing could not happen. They'd tell me this with a straight face while looking at the code in question. In essence they were taking for granted what was reasonable and saying, "I have seen many bugs mister insightful, but this would be the top." In the end they always failed when I brought them to the customer's environments and said show me. These weren't bad developers either, simply ones that figured they knew what was reasonable and failing to consider tangentally related code that might be causing an outcome.
So maybe it's not a bug at all... it would not be unreasonable to think that some lower level, gung-ho guy at Microsoft may have actually caused this to happen without some conspiracy. Maybe that perrson just did it to get a rise out of the Slashdot crowd. This would still be something that a report to the customer support people at MSN and management would want to correct that they might not know was happening. And it is by no means unreasonable to think that the criteria Microsoft uses for catching porn sites happens to catch XFree86 and nothing else that you consider reasonablly similar (remember most people here have no clue how Microsoft does this). And, yes, just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you; though intentionally obscurring search results doesn't seem to be the most stragically sensible way to achieve the MS's goals in this area.
In honesty, I wonder if there isn't a contingent of Slashdotters that reads Slashdot all day and Art Bell all night.
...to tell the powers that be at MSN that the search is producing 'erroneous results'? It might just be that they're overlooking a problem they don't otherwise know exists.
Of course I haven't done this either... but frankly, I could care less.
Cheers!
First: I am not a developer and I have no stake in -any- OS outside of the business value proposition it offers; yes I am a pointy-haired manager type. OK, except at home where I've got a little of everything (Sun, OS X, Linux, Windows).
Mr. Perens approach is right on the mark. Reducing comlexity in the overall product reduces the cost to support the platform, thus making Userlinux more viable. Even if IT departments were the ones making the choice, in a lot of small & midsize shops you would have a good chance of getting a mixed desktop environment based on the 'technically correct' choice of the moment (i.e. ignoring an overall strategy that factors in business needs and downstream support... which raises costs.)
Choice is good, but an offering where a number of those choices have been made will ultimately present a stronger picture to business. Especially at the desktop level, there is less tolerance for a wide range of choices.
Many managers fear getting into a situation where they are so unique in their implementations that only existing staff can understand them and later choices are limited due to deviation from the norm. Even not controlling versions, of say, Windows/MS Office strategically can complicate the support picture and even reduce the overall efficency of the company. I know from the experience of cleaning it up, and from having made the mistake myself of allowing sys admins having too much choice (letting the purely technical override the strategic).
Clearly making choices at the time of putting a distribution together makes good sense from a Corporate point of view.
If you are simple minded to believe everything Bush tells you, you must be at least as simple minded to believe everything the Arab press says or our own Democrat candidate Howard Dean. I've read over the arguments since my original posting and really need to bring some clarity.
First, having lived less than 40 miles from a chemical weapons dump for many years, I can tell you first hand that those weapons need no special maintenance to be deadly. Most of those weapons were decades old and they were treated gingerly and with great respect by those that handled them I assure you. They burn them in small batches as to exercise the uptmost care.
Second: The U.S. and France will be embarassed by Hussein getting a fair trail? Perhaps France at this juncture, but any embarassing details about the U.S. seems to be public knowledge... afterall, you know about it. Did the U.S. support and supply Saddam? Yes we did. We support Pervez Musharraf now and he is not exactly a saint either. Nonetheless, we need him and so we support him... this may change with time as it did with Saddam. However, this support is broadly and publicly known already.
Third: To even worry that Saddam won't get a fair trial is silly. He has a far better chance of the Iraqi interim authorities giving him a fair trial than did those that he punished. Indeed, the likelihood is that Saddam's trial will be quite public and open. It is in the innterest of the U.S., the Iraqi interim authorities and, yes, the Iraqi people to have a public airing of the horror he perpetuated on his people. Which brings me to number four...
Forth: You mention your Iraqi relatives being without a country... why is the Arab world so hell bent on selling out their brethern to ruthless, Hitlerian, dictators for some perceived honor gained in standinng up to the west (a west largely that could give a rats ass about the region, provided Oil isn't used as a political weapon)? I see nothing that the Palestinians have gained nor anyone else in the Arab world by any of this support of terrorism. Yet, they would rather rally about the killers of women and children (and I mean in the context of them being primary targets as opposed to being unfortunate bystanders, I'm not trying to gloss over the innocents that died in the Iraq war). I'd be more concerned about my own kind than the Americans given how readily my own people are to stand by my oppressors (if I were Arab that is).
Fifth: The presence of WMD in Iraq now is largely irrelevant to justification of the war. U.N. resolution 1441 made clear that Iraq needed to produce evidence that they had, in fact, destroyed them. The relevant section of 1441 says: "3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;"
I
I only hope they let the Iraqis exercise justice than some limp-wristed international court.
well said. I would also add that wireless providers fought this at the FCC and continue to fight (last I heard) in the federal courts. Sounds like a lot of effort to defeat a gimmick.
One last point... it's been a week or so? don't expect a whole lot of substantive change for awhile. Companies are trying to get you to lock in now, just off the hype/dissatisfaction of this initial press, as the months go by better deals will emerge in order to keep up conversion/retention rates.
The master/slave terminology is common throughout technology, understood by engineers and technical support personnel, and is an accurate technical representation of the process it describes. To top it off, the terminology has been used for many years. What it is not is a reference to an unfortunate part of our history. Of my colleagues, I know of no one that understands it this way nor expressed they've been harmed by the terminology: colleagues of all races all of whom are sufficiently mature to tell the difference between a descriptive piece of jargon and a verbal slight.
This state already causes businesses to jump through too many hoops. Hampering an industry because some inadequate figure within your department can't demonstrate their impact via talent and superior service, but rather has to resort to trivial and self-serving actions clearly shows that the county of Los Angeles doesn't understand the needs of citizens and business. This is why the business I am opening will not be within the county and for similar reasons within the state.
Everything you say is true, but to suggest that the military should stop developments on all fronts simply because they don't apply to the conflict of the moment is silly. Clearly the weapon is designed for use against conventional foes with conventional armies. Because the weapon isn't useful for conflict such with child killers such as Al Qaeda, doesn't mean that it's invalid.
What your argument seems to say is as wrong and suggesting that the AK-47 is a bad weapon to take to a tank fight and therefore invalid. Indeed, I suspect that the e-bomb would be a fine weapon against an adversary such as North Korea.
Now for the terrorists, the one thing Saddam did have right was how to handle religious zealots. Saddam didn't have 'terrorist' troubles and when he did, he didn't have them for long. Clearly the least effective weapon in the war against terror is the one to win over the hearts and minds. Maybe the Coalition needs to take a lesson from the past, give up on trying to pull certain peoples in the middle east from their self inflicted dark age, and use good old fashioned brutality to suppress the violence; that's the only weapon against terror I've seen work to-date.
Same sort of thing applies to other searches, here are the results for: 'microsoft windows'. "Results 1-15 of about 713 containing "microsoft windows"" A real big conspiracy to suppress windows information ain't it? Click next (and you need to click it about 20 times) you get: "Results 451-465 of about 7836818 containing "microsoft windows"". You have to dig really deep to get at a larger count for something that Microsoft should want to support.
Pile of crap? I think not.... in fact you prove the point of my concern. By blithely accepting the premise on the front page of the Slashdot article, you believe what is patently not true. You don't dig deeper, and thus believe a falsehood; one you might wish is true, but is not. The concern I have is that you aren't the only one to respond as you did. Many people will take what they read in the article and draw a conclusion. I also did a search for 'linux windows Microsoft google' on google and google dutifully returned: "News: Why Microsoft Wants to Buy Google - Slashdot - 3 hours ago". Google reported the story as news: it was not news, it was the speculation of a reader of the Inquirer.
Don't get me wrong, I do think that the small number of results for initial searches is by intent. One commentator to this article mentions that the sponsored links go first. While I don't know this to be true... and don't care enough to investigate... it would seem a fair assumption that LINUX interests would be less likely to advertise on MSN than Windows interests. The cause of the small number of results is a constant across all search terms and thus fair.
So the moral of the story: don't take every you see on Slashdot as true and don't comment on items you know really nothing about unless you want to look a fool.
This really makes you wonder how valuable a news source Slashdot is. Long time readers know that stories are moderated to their front page status, but how much do readers understand that that is different than vetting the story for accuracy or truth? Indeed, there is no effort to correct the story in this case... usually 'Updates' are reserved for shutting up complaints about duplicate stories or pointing out updates to previously posted stories.
As for the Microsoft's reason for wanting to buy Google? I wonder if it has to do with being a good company? Being a solid competitor that Microsoft would rather acquire than compete head to head against? I think stories commenting on Microsoft's efforts to buy Google can be better informed by looking at Microsoft's efforts to acquire Intuit some years ago rather than some conspiracy theory hatched by a person that clearly doesn't leave their monitor lit, basement room nearly enough.
Honestly I don't see how that makes a legal distinction. I run a small business (say ~$20 million a year) I can't afford coders, certainly not kernel hackers. So, I take Linux software because it represents a cost savings. Now there's a problem... the source availability may help a community close bugs more quickly than a closed source solution, but it doesn't change the fact that -software-, with the same legal protections and exclusions as the closed source solution, caused my damages. Indeed tools are sold to fix cars, and I can use those tools as any end user, but that doesn't shift liability away from the car manufacturer from makinng a faulty product. Otherwise, the TCO for Linux will have to be dramatically increased in order to take into account the development staff needed in order to mitigate the risk. In truth, Microsoft's code is open to the certain customers/academia. Yet I don't see this legally protecting them.
Well... think of the world we'd be in if this suit succeeds. No matter what you think of Microsoft, the precedent set would be dangerous to the software industry as a whole and even individual open source developers. Who do I sue if a Linux vulnerability causes damages? Sure Linux developers disclaim responsibility for these kind of problems... but so does Microsoft. I guess I'd have to go after Linus or his equivelants depending on the project at fault. Maybe I should quit technology and just become a lawyer... I'd make more money if this thing goes through.
It's not nonsense for web based retailers at all... unless you assume the page is all there is to it. Sure some products are only available in the US, but to get the economies of scale needed to support the logistics operations you can't play the exceptions you must play the rule. Sure adding a field to a web page and adding extra shipping can help defray some of the costs. But you'd be surprised how expensive even adding a field can be once you program it, test it, get sign-offs and migrate it to production. Even if I take your rationale as being correct... the field isn't the end of the story you have taxation and accounting special shipping rules to add (or hire people to do this manually.) Compare this effort with the return on investment (number of foreign based orders) and you end up with a shipping charge that will discourage most of your potential customers. Most execs just won't bother. Thinking that these real world issues go away because you are a web retailer is exactly why so many of them die... I have worked for web based retailers (and, true enough, brinks and mortar) and most of them overplayed their hand even in the domestic market. In the end it's just a mail order catalog.
Well said. I've worked in management of a number of retail companies (web based and old fashioned real world stores). International retail trade just isn't worth it unless you have enough investment dollars to set up physical warehouses, stores, etc. in those countries you wish to sell to. All the points made by flowerp are right on the money and I would extend it with: Cost of marketing in foreign countries Lack of competitive advantages as compared to local business being able to provide the same product (remember that this doesn't necessarily mean better products). More complicated customer service requirements (multi-multi lingual). All of these factors mean that the number of foreign customers are too small to overcome the large costs to maintain them. It's a losing proposition for investors and customers alike.