Yeah, VMware or KVM with licensed MSWindows virtual machines is a better bet if you need/can expect support from companies with applications that step on each others shared libraries, but that is making the assumption that such support is even available.
Many of the misbehaving applications do so because the support is sub-standard or non-existent, such as mission critical applications that have outlived their support window (or the producing company, even).
Codeweavers makes their money by providing support for Wine, just as RedHat makes their money by providing support for Linux. This can give companies caught with mission-critical orphan software a vendor of last resort to get some degree of support. They certainly can't get support for the application itself this way, but they can get an environment that will support the application (and still gets security patches!)
If RedHat were building all their own from scratch that argument would hold more water, but RedHat benefits from the development efforts of programmers that they don't need to pay as well as having others benefit from their efforts. Their main staffing costs are for the support they get paid for.
Mind you, a lot of those programmers are paid by other Libris software providers, but others are use-value programmers who submit the odd bugfix or already-programmed feature request upstream.
Of course, some MSWindows apps benefit from the sandboxed environments that Wine can provide, allowing multiple apps to run on the same machine that would otherwise step on each other's shared libraries.
Others require truly native MSWindows support.
So it depends on a lot more than what platform an application says it's for.
Unfortunately, Austrian School adherents seem to think that having "discovered" the law of economic gravity they have the secrets to governance and a host of other issues as well.
Anybody with the observational skills of a blind hamster and a mind that is open to more than one possibility can tell you that no trend is forever and assets must fall as well as rise. Unfortunately having those traits makes Austrian School economists better than average for their profession.
There's types of proof for a case like is proposed that are difficult enough to fake and easy enough to test that the failure to even make the attempt is damning.
For an energy source that is supposed to be able to provide steady-state energy supplies, a steady-state power analysis is a test that is so blindingly obvious to perform that the lack of one is a major alarm bell.
To do a steady-state test you take a system like the one they are showing off, go through the tests that they have displayed, then when the output temperature stabilizes you put a load on the output. The load in this case could be a simple steam engine instrumented to read the output power, though any sensor suite that could measure flow+temperature+pressure would suffice.
The key to the steady-state power analysis is it starts at the end of the tests they have released.
There are other tests that would show what is going on internally that would prove or disprove their claims for a mechanism quite clearly, but they have consistently denied the level of access required for an independent researcher to perform an isotopic ratio measurement or any similar test.
It is the lack of tests that demonstrate what they are claiming to produce as well as failing to give evidence for their proposed mechanism that cause me to dismiss their claims out of hand.
Your comment exhibits a fundamentam misunderstanding of the process involved in making fusion happen to begin with.
There are two layers of electromagnetic walls around the nucleus that must be overcome before fusion can occur, the electron shells form the first. If there isn't enough energy in the process from some source to breach the electron shells (on both atoms involved!) then you can't get the nuclei close enough to each other for fusion to occur even by quantum tunnelling. This first requirement makes fusion in solid (or even liquid) state materials so highly improbable that it must be proven by the claimant before it is worth looking at by anyone else.
Once this first barrier is breached, there is a second, much higher, EM barrier of proton repulsion around the nucleus itself. While it is possible to breach this barrier with quantum tunnelling the probabilities are such that you won't get useful energy out unless you don't need to tunnel to pass this barrier.
Since temperature is the proxy for energy in bulk materials, this means that you have to have a very high tepmerature to ensure that your collisions occur at sufficient energy to breach both these barriers, and the temperatures experimentally proven to do the job effectively are high enough to fully ionize the atoms involved before they collide (thus removing the outer wall completely).
tl;dr version: a darn sight higher temperature than the melting point of nickel for useful quantities of fusion.
Telepathy is actually less outside the realm of established science than cold fusion and homeopathy. At least there is a valid proposed mechanism for telepathy, even if the actuality of it has proven so far to be lacking. In fact, the science behind telepathy shows specific range and information density limitations that telepathic communication must meet to be within the realm of currently understood science. Bonewitz went into some detail here in his book "Real Magic", and though the state of information theory has advanced considerably since then even the most optimistic projections do not yield particularly useful phenomena compatible with our current understanding of physics.
Both cold fusion and homeopathy rely on principles that are currently not supported by the available science in any way, so if anyone comes to you looking for money for anything related to either one the safe move is to laugh in their face and keep your wallet in place.
Actually, we can know, and there are at least small-scale audits. The results of penetration testing that have been made public are disappointing to say the least, not to mention the shoe bomber who was incompetent to carry out his attack but good enough to get past TSA with it.
Given the information in the public domain, I'd say the only reason that we haven't had another successful domestic airline terrorist attack since 2001 is that nobody competent has tried.
I find it sad that NATO is scared of a bunch of random Joes off the Internet.
The military has gotten lazy about IT and let OPSEC standards slip if things have really come to this, and if things have really gotten that bad then the military won't be able to win because they don't even understand the battlefield.
If you assume that you will spend more time getting OSS to work than POS, you might have a point.
Last time I tried to use Windows 7, I ended up with my 6 month old laptop tied up for hours doing "updates" that Linux or MacOS could have done in the background while I was doing other stuff.
My time is worth quite a bit, I refuse to pay companies to waste it.
10 years into a WIndows-Linux transition, isn't changing to Windows 7 an even bigger (and more expensive) risk?
I give the Windows transition a year. The people who got used to Linux will be quite upset about the change and have very real increased expenses to point to.
Don't underestimate the importance of the decomposition reactions.
HFCS is pre-digested by the manufacturing process, less energy is required to get it to your cells in a usable form so more energy is available to your body to use.
"Buy used" is a nice sentiment and all, but if everyone follows that sentiment who the heck are you going to buy it from?
Somebody needs to be first purchaser, and if the only people who are willing to be first purchasers don't buy the cars you want to buy used you are SOL.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, VMware or KVM with licensed MSWindows virtual machines is a better bet if you need/can expect support from companies with applications that step on each others shared libraries, but that is making the assumption that such support is even available.
Many of the misbehaving applications do so because the support is sub-standard or non-existent, such as mission critical applications that have outlived their support window (or the producing company, even).
Codeweavers makes their money by providing support for Wine, just as RedHat makes their money by providing support for Linux. This can give companies caught with mission-critical orphan software a vendor of last resort to get some degree of support. They certainly can't get support for the application itself this way, but they can get an environment that will support the application (and still gets security patches!)
If RedHat were building all their own from scratch that argument would hold more water, but RedHat benefits from the development efforts of programmers that they don't need to pay as well as having others benefit from their efforts. Their main staffing costs are for the support they get paid for.
Mind you, a lot of those programmers are paid by other Libris software providers, but others are use-value programmers who submit the odd bugfix or already-programmed feature request upstream.
Of course, some MSWindows apps benefit from the sandboxed environments that Wine can provide, allowing multiple apps to run on the same machine that would otherwise step on each other's shared libraries.
Others require truly native MSWindows support.
So it depends on a lot more than what platform an application says it's for.
Unfortunately, Austrian School adherents seem to think that having "discovered" the law of economic gravity they have the secrets to governance and a host of other issues as well.
Anybody with the observational skills of a blind hamster and a mind that is open to more than one possibility can tell you that no trend is forever and assets must fall as well as rise.
Unfortunately having those traits makes Austrian School economists better than average for their profession.
I got them, too. Amazing!
There's types of proof for a case like is proposed that are difficult enough to fake and easy enough to test that the failure to even make the attempt is damning.
For an energy source that is supposed to be able to provide steady-state energy supplies, a steady-state power analysis is a test that is so blindingly obvious to perform that the lack of one is a major alarm bell.
To do a steady-state test you take a system like the one they are showing off, go through the tests that they have displayed, then when the output temperature stabilizes you put a load on the output. The load in this case could be a simple steam engine instrumented to read the output power, though any sensor suite that could measure flow+temperature+pressure would suffice.
The key to the steady-state power analysis is it starts at the end of the tests they have released.
There are other tests that would show what is going on internally that would prove or disprove their claims for a mechanism quite clearly, but they have consistently denied the level of access required for an independent researcher to perform an isotopic ratio measurement or any similar test.
It is the lack of tests that demonstrate what they are claiming to produce as well as failing to give evidence for their proposed mechanism that cause me to dismiss their claims out of hand.
Your comment exhibits a fundamentam misunderstanding of the process involved in making fusion happen to begin with.
There are two layers of electromagnetic walls around the nucleus that must be overcome before fusion can occur, the electron shells form the first. If there isn't enough energy in the process from some source to breach the electron shells (on both atoms involved!) then you can't get the nuclei close enough to each other for fusion to occur even by quantum tunnelling. This first requirement makes fusion in solid (or even liquid) state materials so highly improbable that it must be proven by the claimant before it is worth looking at by anyone else.
Once this first barrier is breached, there is a second, much higher, EM barrier of proton repulsion around the nucleus itself. While it is possible to breach this barrier with quantum tunnelling the probabilities are such that you won't get useful energy out unless you don't need to tunnel to pass this barrier.
Since temperature is the proxy for energy in bulk materials, this means that you have to have a very high tepmerature to ensure that your collisions occur at sufficient energy to breach both these barriers, and the temperatures experimentally proven to do the job effectively are high enough to fully ionize the atoms involved before they collide (thus removing the outer wall completely).
tl;dr version: a darn sight higher temperature than the melting point of nickel for useful quantities of fusion.
There is insufficient data in the presentation to evaluate it scientifically.
The claimed results disagree with established science.
This has been bouncing around for many months now, and there is still no proof that it works at all, let alone at the levels claimed.
Therefore, scientists are perfectly justified in dismissing his claims without further examination.
Proof of concept is easy enough. Make a steam engine using one of the prototypes.
It's supposed to produce heat, use it for that.
If it can't produce enough heat to run a small steam engine it's useless anyway.
Once you have filed you are protected in most of the world (assuming the patent is eventually granted).
Telepathy is actually less outside the realm of established science than cold fusion and homeopathy. At least there is a valid proposed mechanism for telepathy, even if the actuality of it has proven so far to be lacking. In fact, the science behind telepathy shows specific range and information density limitations that telepathic communication must meet to be within the realm of currently understood science. Bonewitz went into some detail here in his book "Real Magic", and though the state of information theory has advanced considerably since then even the most optimistic projections do not yield particularly useful phenomena compatible with our current understanding of physics.
Both cold fusion and homeopathy rely on principles that are currently not supported by the available science in any way, so if anyone comes to you looking for money for anything related to either one the safe move is to laugh in their face and keep your wallet in place.
Indeed, give fair notice and make the move if you think the new company is a good match for you.
Loyalty is a good thing, but sometimes it also holds back the people you are being loyal to.
It doesn't help him that 3/4th's of the ads are flash only.
I can only imagine the horror of browsing that site with flash enabled, and I only made it 3 pages in before getting bored.
Actually, we can know, and there are at least small-scale audits. The results of penetration testing that have been made public are disappointing to say the least, not to mention the shoe bomber who was incompetent to carry out his attack but good enough to get past TSA with it.
Given the information in the public domain, I'd say the only reason that we haven't had another successful domestic airline terrorist attack since 2001 is that nobody competent has tried.
I find it sad that NATO is scared of a bunch of random Joes off the Internet.
The military has gotten lazy about IT and let OPSEC standards slip if things have really come to this, and if things have really gotten that bad then the military won't be able to win because they don't even understand the battlefield.
If you assume that you will spend more time getting OSS to work than POS, you might have a point.
Last time I tried to use Windows 7, I ended up with my 6 month old laptop tied up for hours doing "updates" that Linux or MacOS could have done in the background while I was doing other stuff.
My time is worth quite a bit, I refuse to pay companies to waste it.
It got caught. Not immediately, but it got caught.
That appears to me like the system is working as advertised.
10 years into a WIndows-Linux transition, isn't changing to Windows 7 an even bigger (and more expensive) risk?
I give the Windows transition a year. The people who got used to Linux will be quite upset about the change and have very real increased expenses to point to.
Don't diss the interface.
The open source landscape is littered with elegant backends with totally unusable interfaces, a good interface is not a trivial exercise.
They did a solid start on the part that they had talent and interest for, then went to the community. I'd say that they are doing it right.
Yep, it isn't that engineers are more likely to become terrorists than anyone else.
It's that when an engineer goes to the dark side they are more likely to be effective at it.
Don't underestimate the importance of the decomposition reactions.
HFCS is pre-digested by the manufacturing process, less energy is required to get it to your cells in a usable form so more energy is available to your body to use.
Not all calories are created equal.
Once upon a time there was a practice known as the "penny auction".
"Buy used" is a nice sentiment and all, but if everyone follows that sentiment who the heck are you going to buy it from?
Somebody needs to be first purchaser, and if the only people who are willing to be first purchasers don't buy the cars you want to buy used you are SOL.
Some people may not be able to accept the bounty, and others may simply feel they have already gotten sufficient value (free browser!).
Though even those with altruistic motives would find it hard to turn down $3000.
Information hates being anthropomorphized, you insensitive clod!