I think we'll see the desktop share rise exponentially fairly soon, but I don't think this is the result of corporations switching to Linux.
Large corporations, with a large existing IT infrastructure, probably can't be bothered to switch thousands of servers and workstations to Linux -- to ensure that the move is seamless, it requires more resources than just buying more damned Windows licenses.
However, as more smaller, thriftier companies spring up with little money, I think we'll begin to see Linux make a bigger and bigger splash on the desktop. With sub-$400 PCs becoming commonplace, we may see many budget systems that would cost $800 or more if they were bundled with Windows 2000/XP Professional and MS Office. These little companies will add up, and these little companies will eventually become big companies. Then we'll see the figures start to rise.
It's always hard, especially in the corporate world, to be an early adopter. But if there are no interoperability concerns (you have no existing Windows infrastructure) then there's really no barrier to entry and market penetration will be quick and painless (double entendre because I'm a pervert).
I don't think Linux is really "ready" for the desktop just yet. Not mine, anyway. But the corporate desktop? Absolutely.
Now if only Linux had something akin to those ubiquitous Group Policies in Windows.
Have they ever produced a single game that didn't suck? All I can remember is bad 80's arcade games, and Mortal Kombat.
Activision is better, producing Wolfenstein/Enemy Territory and the like, but we're going to need some serious muscle here to fight with the likes of Sony and Nintendo.
IMHO, this is going to be another WonderSwan/Atari Lynx/NeoGeo Pocket Color. Some good ideas, but without developer support you're not going to get any market penetration. Period.
The analogy is flawed; white supremacists aim to suppress other races and take away their rights through intimidation, whereas this was satire and political expression that was not intended to harass or intimidate. This makes your question difficult to answer. I would probably have to say that if the student managed to be "white power" without infringing upon anyone's rights via harassment or acts of violence, then he would have every right. I think everyone should be perfectly allowed to present any viewpoint they please so long as it's done in a civil manner.
The purpose of the "Straight Pride" shirt was to mock people who are flamboyantly openly gay -- not for being gay, but for making a tremendous ordeal out of it. His point was that if you want equality, why should you make every effort to get people to treat you specially? The pendulum is then just swinging the other way.
Additionally, he was attacking the "minorities are always right" mindset which so prevails in our society. Why are "gay pride" shirts more acceptable than "straight pride" ones if it's a "lifestyle choice" and there is no right or wrong?
Frankly, the only experience I ever had with the ACLU was in my junior year of high school, where a student wore a "Straight Pride" shirt into school, and the school, knowing full well it was freedom of speech, wouldn't suspend him, just gave him a stern talking-to letting him know that while he might have the right to say it, it might not necessarily be considered appropriate.
Then some gay student's parents got involved. The lawyers got involved. The ACLU got involved. Next thing you know, the ACLU is threatening to sue the school, and the school finally caves in and assigns some disciplinary measures. I believe he was suspended for 10 days.
While it might not have been the most sensitive thing to say in a school that has an above-average population of liberals in Rent shirts, I am certainly of the mentality "I agree not what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
It's nice to see the ACLU doing something constructive instead of persecuting people.
The problem is that XUL crap -- ditch the "eXtensible User Interface Language" or whatever and just code something that's quick. I want my mail client to be lightweight and fast, and able to start within 3 or 4 seconds. This is why I used Outlook Express for years before I switched to Thunderbird because of all of Outlook Express's security vulnerabilities.
All of our plans have a minimum of 5 included email accounts. We're not cheapasses, we cater to small business and sites that go beyond what would be better off on Geocities where they started.
We do provide a web form, but the fact that 2% of our customers use it over the email-based system does indicate that what you're suggesting is inconvenient for customers. In fact, the only customers we seem to find using the web system are the ones who have web-based mail, such as Yahoo or Hotmail.
And I understand completely -- it's much easier to open up your email client and fire out an email to tech support in 15 seconds that says "OMG HELP ME I CANT GET TO ANY WEBSITES AND MY EMAIL ISENT WORKING!!!!!!1111one" than it is to open up your web browser, navigate to the user login page, log in with SSL, find the support link, then fill in your "issue" and send.
The beauty of SQL is that it's incredibly easy to migrate from one database engine to another.
You have an ease-of-use bonus because Access is so ridiculously featureless, so it's not like you're losing your stored procedures and triggers like if you were switching from SQL Server/MSDE to PostgreSQL or Interbase.
As for training, I think someone else already mentioned, but most people don't really know how to use "Windows" anyway; your average computer user is too clueless to know how to remove a program he's installed. The issue isn't navigating the operating system itself, but the programs they'd be using. Mozilla/Konqueror do a beautiful job of intuitive use, and OpenOffice's look being not very unlike Microsoft Word/Excel eases that transition tremendously too.
I think the real problem most corporations are having is finding a suitable replacement for group policies and user permissions. I know this is one of the goals of GNOME, so I'm going to lay off of them there, but most corporations don't want their users screwing with many settings -- it dramatically reduces IT department staffing needs. I mean, even ACLs aren't implemented in any stable kernel yet (though I'm aware they will be in 2.6.x), and these are important when you have 5,000 employees of different access levels accessing the same shares of a file server in the datacenter.
This is a big issue for me. I work for a web hosting company, and we had two options when it came down to dealing with spam:
Sift through hundreds, sometimes thousands of messages a day searching for legitimate technical support issues
Only accept email from addresses belonging to customers on file.
This has had a detrimental effect, and we often do get calls from customers saying their emails never got through and that they need to know which of their email addresses is on the account because they don't remember. This is inconvenient, and these measures may have led to the loss of a few customers for us. This isn't terrible, however, compared to spending hours a day sifting through spam, which would probably cost us more than the customers we lost.
The only major roadblock we came up against was transferring files to or from the office server over the LAN browser, which runs on a technology called Samba that communicates with Windows networks. Samba had difficulty navigating the way permissions were set up on the network, and was unable to authorise us to read or write files on the server, although we were able to browse the network. After much tinkering, it appeared that the solution would be to change the way the network's permissions were set up -- something many companies would find unacceptable.
Here, you have an a somewhat legitimate issue on the surface, but what it looks like this is boiling down to is that only already-authenticated users have permissions to access network resources on the Windows domain -- if you tried to do this on Windows, you'd have the same problems. It wouldn't prompt you for authentication, just give a big fat "Access denied" error.
Just mount the share using a username and password manually -- sure, mount -t smbfs isn't the most intuitive thing for new administrators, but on a Windows system you'd need to use net use anyway. What's the difference?
Actually, I know I already replied to this, but now I'm just curious. What patents does Microsoft actually have on C#? I would assume they would have patents on.NET, but C# as its own entity is certified by both ECMA and ISO boards. How much of it could they patent, if it's a formal standard?
I'm surprised that someone so focused on the evils of proprietary systems would be decrying C#. After all, C# is a ratified standard, while Java was pulled from standardization so Sun could maintain control of the language.
I'm not trying to start a flamewar, just referring to this:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 03:51:36PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > > If you are trying to copy BK, give it up. We'll simply follow in the > > footsteps of every other company faced with this sort of thing and change > > the protocol every 6 months. Since you would be chasing us you can never > > catch up. If you managed to stay close then we'd put digital signatures > > into the protocol to prevent your clone from interoperating with BK.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we'll see the desktop share rise exponentially fairly soon, but I don't think this is the result of corporations switching to Linux.
Large corporations, with a large existing IT infrastructure, probably can't be bothered to switch thousands of servers and workstations to Linux -- to ensure that the move is seamless, it requires more resources than just buying more damned Windows licenses.
However, as more smaller, thriftier companies spring up with little money, I think we'll begin to see Linux make a bigger and bigger splash on the desktop. With sub-$400 PCs becoming commonplace, we may see many budget systems that would cost $800 or more if they were bundled with Windows 2000/XP Professional and MS Office. These little companies will add up, and these little companies will eventually become big companies. Then we'll see the figures start to rise.
It's always hard, especially in the corporate world, to be an early adopter. But if there are no interoperability concerns (you have no existing Windows infrastructure) then there's really no barrier to entry and market penetration will be quick and painless (double entendre because I'm a pervert).
I don't think Linux is really "ready" for the desktop just yet. Not mine, anyway. But the corporate desktop? Absolutely.
Now if only Linux had something akin to those ubiquitous Group Policies in Windows.
From my experience, mousetraps are much better at catching mice, and you don't have to feed them or change the litter.
:D
THAT's pragmatism.
Honestly, I think we'd all love to forget about the MSN iLoo.
Have they ever produced a single game that didn't suck? All I can remember is bad 80's arcade games, and Mortal Kombat.
Activision is better, producing Wolfenstein/Enemy Territory and the like, but we're going to need some serious muscle here to fight with the likes of Sony and Nintendo.
IMHO, this is going to be another WonderSwan/Atari Lynx/NeoGeo Pocket Color. Some good ideas, but without developer support you're not going to get any market penetration. Period.
Stop terrorists?
Saddam Hussein tried to buy titania nanotubes from Africa!
This is exactly the same thing I thought when I was reading this article, and I'm glad someone else noticed.
I think "immigration status" is a clever euphemism in this instance for "ethnic background."
DRM. Duh.
If I can't listen to the thing in my car, on my stereo and in my portable CD player, what good is the damn thing?
You don't buy DVDs and license them for one DVD player in your house, that you can't lend to a friend or watch in your bedroom, do you?
The analogy is flawed; white supremacists aim to suppress other races and take away their rights through intimidation, whereas this was satire and political expression that was not intended to harass or intimidate. This makes your question difficult to answer. I would probably have to say that if the student managed to be "white power" without infringing upon anyone's rights via harassment or acts of violence, then he would have every right. I think everyone should be perfectly allowed to present any viewpoint they please so long as it's done in a civil manner.
The purpose of the "Straight Pride" shirt was to mock people who are flamboyantly openly gay -- not for being gay, but for making a tremendous ordeal out of it. His point was that if you want equality, why should you make every effort to get people to treat you specially? The pendulum is then just swinging the other way.
Additionally, he was attacking the "minorities are always right" mindset which so prevails in our society. Why are "gay pride" shirts more acceptable than "straight pride" ones if it's a "lifestyle choice" and there is no right or wrong?
That's not the point.
Wal-Mart is one of the biggest proliferators of foreign sweatshop labor out of all US-based corporations. In addition, they're fervently anti-union.
Frankly, the only experience I ever had with the ACLU was in my junior year of high school, where a student wore a "Straight Pride" shirt into school, and the school, knowing full well it was freedom of speech, wouldn't suspend him, just gave him a stern talking-to letting him know that while he might have the right to say it, it might not necessarily be considered appropriate.
Then some gay student's parents got involved. The lawyers got involved. The ACLU got involved. Next thing you know, the ACLU is threatening to sue the school, and the school finally caves in and assigns some disciplinary measures. I believe he was suspended for 10 days.
While it might not have been the most sensitive thing to say in a school that has an above-average population of liberals in Rent shirts, I am certainly of the mentality "I agree not what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
It's nice to see the ACLU doing something constructive instead of persecuting people.
But how would you ever learn about money laundering if not for the door-to-door Vibe magazine salesman?
That's the point. ;)
At least it doesn't say "Death to Smoochy." That movie sucked.
The problem is that XUL crap -- ditch the "eXtensible User Interface Language" or whatever and just code something that's quick. I want my mail client to be lightweight and fast, and able to start within 3 or 4 seconds. This is why I used Outlook Express for years before I switched to Thunderbird because of all of Outlook Express's security vulnerabilities.
All of our plans have a minimum of 5 included email accounts. We're not cheapasses, we cater to small business and sites that go beyond what would be better off on Geocities where they started.
We do provide a web form, but the fact that 2% of our customers use it over the email-based system does indicate that what you're suggesting is inconvenient for customers. In fact, the only customers we seem to find using the web system are the ones who have web-based mail, such as Yahoo or Hotmail.
And I understand completely -- it's much easier to open up your email client and fire out an email to tech support in 15 seconds that says "OMG HELP ME I CANT GET TO ANY WEBSITES AND MY EMAIL ISENT WORKING!!!!!!1111one" than it is to open up your web browser, navigate to the user login page, log in with SSL, find the support link, then fill in your "issue" and send.
Well, it does beget a whole new sub-industry in computing: spam-detection heuristics.
The beauty of SQL is that it's incredibly easy to migrate from one database engine to another.
You have an ease-of-use bonus because Access is so ridiculously featureless, so it's not like you're losing your stored procedures and triggers like if you were switching from SQL Server/MSDE to PostgreSQL or Interbase.
As for training, I think someone else already mentioned, but most people don't really know how to use "Windows" anyway; your average computer user is too clueless to know how to remove a program he's installed. The issue isn't navigating the operating system itself, but the programs they'd be using. Mozilla/Konqueror do a beautiful job of intuitive use, and OpenOffice's look being not very unlike Microsoft Word/Excel eases that transition tremendously too.
I think the real problem most corporations are having is finding a suitable replacement for group policies and user permissions. I know this is one of the goals of GNOME, so I'm going to lay off of them there, but most corporations don't want their users screwing with many settings -- it dramatically reduces IT department staffing needs. I mean, even ACLs aren't implemented in any stable kernel yet (though I'm aware they will be in 2.6.x), and these are important when you have 5,000 employees of different access levels accessing the same shares of a file server in the datacenter.
Sift through hundreds, sometimes thousands of messages a day searching for legitimate technical support issues
Only accept email from addresses belonging to customers on file.
This has had a detrimental effect, and we often do get calls from customers saying their emails never got through and that they need to know which of their email addresses is on the account because they don't remember. This is inconvenient, and these measures may have led to the loss of a few customers for us. This isn't terrible, however, compared to spending hours a day sifting through spam, which would probably cost us more than the customers we lost.
This is still unacceptable.
The only major roadblock we came up against was transferring files to or from the office server over the LAN browser, which runs on a technology called Samba that communicates with Windows networks. Samba had difficulty navigating the way permissions were set up on the network, and was unable to authorise us to read or write files on the server, although we were able to browse the network. After much tinkering, it appeared that the solution would be to change the way the network's permissions were set up -- something many companies would find unacceptable.
Here, you have an a somewhat legitimate issue on the surface, but what it looks like this is boiling down to is that only already-authenticated users have permissions to access network resources on the Windows domain -- if you tried to do this on Windows, you'd have the same problems. It wouldn't prompt you for authentication, just give a big fat "Access denied" error.
Just mount the share using a username and password manually -- sure, mount -t smbfs isn't the most intuitive thing for new administrators, but on a Windows system you'd need to use net use anyway. What's the difference?
Just enter "joshua". It works for everything.
Ah, Spear of Destiny.
Actually, I know I already replied to this, but now I'm just curious. What patents does Microsoft actually have on C#? I would assume they would have patents on .NET, but C# as its own entity is certified by both ECMA and ISO boards. How much of it could they patent, if it's a formal standard?
...touche.
I'm surprised that someone so focused on the evils of proprietary systems would be decrying C#. After all, C# is a ratified standard, while Java was pulled from standardization so Sun could maintain control of the language.
I'm not trying to start a flamewar, just referring to this:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 03:51:36PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > If you are trying to copy BK, give it up. We'll simply follow in the
> > footsteps of every other company faced with this sort of thing and change
> > the protocol every 6 months. Since you would be chasing us you can never
> > catch up. If you managed to stay close then we'd put digital signatures
> > into the protocol to prevent your clone from interoperating with BK.
http://lkml.org/archive/2003/7/19/175/
Now if they'd only get rid of that BitKeeper crap, with the project leader that insists on trying to screw us at every opportunity, we'd be set.