A *very* legit concern on her and those womens' parts. Sadly we don't have the balls to introduce the hardline clerics in that country to mister summary execution.
In *my* postwar iraq this guy would already be hanging off of a lamp-post on mainstreet. And the people who'd have the balls to show up to his funeral procession/protest would end up with as much napalm on their backs as could be dropped.
so someone who cares about something and wants to improve it versus someone who is emotionally unattached to what they do and use. take your pick, i'd prefer someone who cares about and enjoys what they work with.
People fall in and out of love all the time, but if they don't eat they will ALWAYS get hungry. I'd rather have the person involved doing it for the money, to be honest.
Open source at my workplace is stifled by management who don't know the latest tech stuff and listen to vendors more than the folks in the trenches doing the work. Non-tech people are the key roadblock to FOSS adoption, the ever popular 'stupids'.
I know this is a crazy thought, but have you ever considered the possibility that there is a reason why you dig ditches and they stand off under a tree sipping on lemonade and making sure the line you're digging in is straight?
What corporate executives need to realize is that if they find an open source solution that's "almost" right, but just lacks one or two things, it may be because no one's expressed interest, and a quick email to the developer's mailing list and they're likely to see a beta version of the requested features before the proprietary vendor has even had time to respond to the message.
Serious question for you. If the CIO of coca cola shot you an email and said "Hey, I'd like to see feature XYZ in product ABC" why on earth would you _volunteer_ your time to, in effect, give charity to a company that has more money than god?
Why don't they contribute to the project and help set the roadmap if they are so concerned....
Um, because they are not concerned with helping your open source project for the most part. Their job is to spend as little time and money as possible to get a job done. That's generally how people who are in high places in business think.
or do they only want to take the project's output without contributing anything to it?
Ding ding ding! A winner! And remember that once they DO have to contribute anything to it said software is no longer free. Well its still free as in speech, but not as in "doesn't cost anything". Which of the above free's do you think got said CIO's attention in the first place? And once said CIO finds out that it still costs money, but he has to give it away to his *gasp* competetors... Well you can imagine.
Professors with tenures who can leech off of the residents of massachusets tax dollars might find open source appealing. Kids attending that college on mom and dad's dime might find it appealing. The rest of the people, those who want to eat, just want to be able to show a power point presentation to the boss that shows a budget reduction.
The US would go in there, chemical weapons and depleted-uranium ammunition pouring out liberally over the side of all US craft, and the country would be 'liberated'... much in the same fashion Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq have been 'liberated'.
When did we liberate Palestine? Hell, the Jews have not even done it. And do keep in mind the only reason they have not turned every muslim in the region into a black grease spot in the sand is because we won't let them. God knows they want to.
So we let them have a little fun and kill a cripple now and then. Big deal. Seems like a fair trade to me since if I was in charge over there the next course of action after killing that gimp would have been to carpet bomb his funeral procession and any following processions held for THOSE victims, ad infintum, until the whole problem ended up neatly solved through attrition.
We don't really need your sympathy. Just sitting down and shutting the fuck up when we go drop bombs and who we think did it would be more than enough.
Heh. Sorta. When IBM had promised customers running AT class (286) machines a version of OS/2 Microsoft wisely decided that coding a 16 bit OS was a waste of time and money and left IBM to their own silly devices. IBM through loads of money at the 16 bit version and wasted loads of time. Microsoft must have noticed the way capacity doubled and prices halved when it came to hardware and did the right thing in response.
That's true, but in the absence of a behemoth like Microsoft dictating what a "standard" is we would probably be working with true (ie open) standards rather than simply what Bill declares is Good For You(tm).
Nah, we'd just be running OS/2 or OSX.
But lets answer the actual question that was asked... What would the world look like if we were all running Linux. In my view, it would look a lot different since I'd probably be an auto mechanic or cabinet maker instead of a programmer.
Look, they're going to get that money back from somewhere. And the cost of the army of lawyers who have been working on this thing, until now. If they can find an underhanded way to take it out of their competetors ass, more power to them. Perhaps instead of the MS which has pretty much let anyone who felt like it run roughshod over their IP they'll start collecting, starting with media related patents. My guy is that Apple has enough reciprocal patents to come out unscathed, but if Real is infringing... Woe to them, they'll be taking it up the ass without the benifit of any lubrication.
I find the fact that most OSS projects cant even GIVE THEIR PRODUCTS AWAY FOR FREE AND HAVE PEOPLE USE THEM a reasonable blow against yours. But please come again.
But it does happen. Took well over a month for mine to built, sitting on the 'we have all your parts, and we're gonna build it now' stage, according to the website. Call after call was met with shrugs and 'i dunnos'. Well, met with 'i do not know, my friend' until I found a 'tandori free' phone number. Never did find out what was holding it up (one person said the hard drive, another on a different occaision, the display). Finally filed with the BBB and then they got on the case.
The point is that it MAY take a week, but if it takes a month like it can and will on occaision this guy is fucked. He's better off finding a retail outlet.
Microsoft's main rivals -- probably the big names from the OSS world at this point -- languish with single figures of percent of market share at best, a few niche market exceptions notwithstanding.
Maybe that has more to do with the quality (or lack thereof) of the rival's products than it does with microsoft's market practices? I know it would be hard for a lot of people to stop for a moment and realize that the side for whom they have been cheerleading are not perfect and are in the position they find themselves due to their own mistakes and/or shortcomings. But then maybe if they did the problem could be corrected. Nah, that would be dumb. Better we hope our governments can simple legislate our choosen software products into the number one spot.
Nope, the open source movement would just move to make other companies who still have the nerve to SELL software obsolete. Honestly, I'd rather develop and market something on windows, having a year or so to make a few rupees before they (MS) integrate it into the OS as opposed to developing for linux and never having the chance to net a single dime. I enjoy food and shelter and do not have a 'straight' job, with programming something I do nights, for fun. I actually code during the daylight hours and need to get paid for it.
No, not if it competes with a business interest that they already have. Try going to a rock concert with some freshly printed T-Shirts and then explaining to the nice people that they should be happy you're bootlegging their shit because hey, free advertising!
I said nothing about not buying software if it's what you need, but after doing so and having said software crash and cost me a fortune to recover, I'd like to know that the author of said software be responsible for providing a fix, rather than finding out that they aren't going to help and showing me some cleverly phrased clause in some EULA.
Do the phrases NO CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES or YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES really sound like cleverly worded ploys to make it seem like you'll be compensated in the case use of said software costs you money? When it comes to current software you bought it how you saw it, and that's it. If a different software vendor (who sells into a mass market) has the stupididy to claim anything else you are certainly welcome to purchase that software, but you're going to find it hard to get them to live up the agreement when they're waving bankruptcy paperwork in your face and telling you to get to the back of the line.
So why should a company be FORCED to warrant the software to suit you? Why should the companines who think they can, not be allowed to warrant them in any way they see fit and then let the consumer decide exactly whose product is worth spending the money on based on this? It's not like the existing companies are tricking you into thinking they have when the bits about warranty are generally in bold/and or caps text stating that you are entitled to zero in the way of damages.
When I deliver a product to a client, I give them a period of free support, perhaps only a month or less, depending on the value of the contract. I'm human, I make mistakes, and my fixing them for free for a certain period sure must be appreciated.
I'm quite sure it is appreciated. I do business the same way, myself. And so do the big boys. Not because we're nice, but simply because if don't they'll look elsewhere for people who do. It's why I'll do a small fix, apply it to a customers software, and not charge. It's why mega corps spend a steamer trunk of money every year on fixpacks, service packs, or whatever you want to call it. But thats a TOTALLY different thing from saying "Hey if we eat your data we'll correct the problem, sky's the limit! Would you even do this for your customers knowing that all it takes is one bad night, one stupid bug, one fatal crash for the ball on the end of that chain of events to mean that you can kiss your business, retirement dough, and kids college fund bye bye because you're about to be hauled into court and raked over the coals.
Now assuming you charge a client an hourly rate and have already lifted a few bucks off of them you might well be able to afford to fix the problem outside of court to the customers satisfaction. But what if you're selling a 300 dollar shrink wrapped package that some company, with no backups, sense, or reason is running their entire enterprise on (think Excel)? Do you REALLY think it would be wise to open yourself up to what is an inevitability?
If so, I have about 2 hours worth of work for you, name the rate. Retain a good lawyer before handing over the deliverables, though.
Slashdot Mirror
What features in OOo are you using? I actually gave up on office a while ago (except at work, where my employer paid for the license).
Which means they also bought you a license to use the software at home. Nifty, huh?
A *very* legit concern on her and those womens' parts. Sadly we don't have the balls to introduce the hardline clerics in that country to mister summary execution.
In *my* postwar iraq this guy would already be hanging off of a lamp-post on mainstreet. And the people who'd have the balls to show up to his funeral procession/protest would end up with as much napalm on their backs as could be dropped.
Iraqi cleric: 9/11 was a 'miracle from God'
Never based on merit, eh?
so someone who cares about something and wants to improve it versus someone who is emotionally unattached to what they do and use. take your pick, i'd prefer someone who cares about and enjoys what they work with.
People fall in and out of love all the time, but if they don't eat they will ALWAYS get hungry. I'd rather have the person involved doing it for the money, to be honest.
Open source at my workplace is stifled by management who don't know the latest tech stuff and listen to vendors more than the folks in the trenches doing the work. Non-tech people are the key roadblock to FOSS adoption, the ever popular 'stupids'.
I know this is a crazy thought, but have you ever considered the possibility that there is a reason why you dig ditches and they stand off under a tree sipping on lemonade and making sure the line you're digging in is straight?
Would dual licensing as done by MySQL alleviate this to some degree though?
If its not free then it had better be better.
What corporate executives need to realize is that if they find an open source solution that's "almost" right, but just lacks one or two things, it may be because no one's expressed interest, and a quick email to the developer's mailing list and they're likely to see a beta version of the requested features before the proprietary vendor has even had time to respond to the message.
Serious question for you. If the CIO of coca cola shot you an email and said "Hey, I'd like to see feature XYZ in product ABC" why on earth would you _volunteer_ your time to, in effect, give charity to a company that has more money than god?
Why don't they contribute to the project and help set the roadmap if they are so concerned....
Um, because they are not concerned with helping your open source project for the most part. Their job is to spend as little time and money as possible to get a job done. That's generally how people who are in high places in business think. or do they only want to take the project's output without contributing anything to it?
Ding ding ding! A winner! And remember that once they DO have to contribute anything to it said software is no longer free. Well its still free as in speech, but not as in "doesn't cost anything". Which of the above free's do you think got said CIO's attention in the first place? And once said CIO finds out that it still costs money, but he has to give it away to his *gasp* competetors... Well you can imagine.
Professors with tenures who can leech off of the residents of massachusets tax dollars might find open source appealing. Kids attending that college on mom and dad's dime might find it appealing. The rest of the people, those who want to eat, just want to be able to show a power point presentation to the boss that shows a budget reduction.
Turn the bastards in, then.
The US would go in there, chemical weapons and depleted-uranium ammunition pouring out liberally over the side of all US craft, and the country would be 'liberated' ... much in the same fashion Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq have been 'liberated'.
When did we liberate Palestine? Hell, the Jews have not even done it. And do keep in mind the only reason they have not turned every muslim in the region into a black grease spot in the sand is because we won't let them. God knows they want to.
So we let them have a little fun and kill a cripple now and then. Big deal. Seems like a fair trade to me since if I was in charge over there the next course of action after killing that gimp would have been to carpet bomb his funeral procession and any following processions held for THOSE victims, ad infintum, until the whole problem ended up neatly solved through attrition.
We don't really need your sympathy. Just sitting down and shutting the fuck up when we go drop bombs and who we think did it would be more than enough.
Heh. Sorta. When IBM had promised customers running AT class (286) machines a version of OS/2 Microsoft wisely decided that coding a 16 bit OS was a waste of time and money and left IBM to their own silly devices. IBM through loads of money at the 16 bit version and wasted loads of time. Microsoft must have noticed the way capacity doubled and prices halved when it came to hardware and did the right thing in response.
That's true, but in the absence of a behemoth like Microsoft dictating what a "standard" is we would probably be working with true (ie open) standards rather than simply what Bill declares is Good For You(tm).
Nah, we'd just be running OS/2 or OSX.
But lets answer the actual question that was asked... What would the world look like if we were all running Linux. In my view, it would look a lot different since I'd probably be an auto mechanic or cabinet maker instead of a programmer.
A & B both work fine for closed source applications. Both just as likely to do you any good.
C will negate the cost of any money you THOUGHT you had saved in the first place.
And the sooner I can have 15 different viewers and readers installed on my box. Yay!
Look, they're going to get that money back from somewhere. And the cost of the army of lawyers who have been working on this thing, until now. If they can find an underhanded way to take it out of their competetors ass, more power to them. Perhaps instead of the MS which has pretty much let anyone who felt like it run roughshod over their IP they'll start collecting, starting with media related patents. My guy is that Apple has enough reciprocal patents to come out unscathed, but if Real is infringing... Woe to them, they'll be taking it up the ass without the benifit of any lubrication.
I can't believe this. Sun has resorted to this old pipe dream!?!
Probably because of something called Avalon that some other computer company is working on.
I find the fact that most OSS projects cant even GIVE THEIR PRODUCTS AWAY FOR FREE AND HAVE PEOPLE USE THEM a reasonable blow against yours. But please come again.
But it does happen. Took well over a month for mine to built, sitting on the 'we have all your parts, and we're gonna build it now' stage, according to the website. Call after call was met with shrugs and 'i dunnos'. Well, met with 'i do not know, my friend' until I found a 'tandori free' phone number. Never did find out what was holding it up (one person said the hard drive, another on a different occaision, the display). Finally filed with the BBB and then they got on the case.
The point is that it MAY take a week, but if it takes a month like it can and will on occaision this guy is fucked. He's better off finding a retail outlet.
Microsoft's main rivals -- probably the big names from the OSS world at this point -- languish with single figures of percent of market share at best, a few niche market exceptions notwithstanding.
Maybe that has more to do with the quality (or lack thereof) of the rival's products than it does with microsoft's market practices? I know it would be hard for a lot of people to stop for a moment and realize that the side for whom they have been cheerleading are not perfect and are in the position they find themselves due to their own mistakes and/or shortcomings. But then maybe if they did the problem could be corrected. Nah, that would be dumb. Better we hope our governments can simple legislate our choosen software products into the number one spot.
Nope, the open source movement would just move to make other companies who still have the nerve to SELL software obsolete. Honestly, I'd rather develop and market something on windows, having a year or so to make a few rupees before they (MS) integrate it into the OS as opposed to developing for linux and never having the chance to net a single dime. I enjoy food and shelter and do not have a 'straight' job, with programming something I do nights, for fun. I actually code during the daylight hours and need to get paid for it.
But then T-Shirts are not software, are they?
That and Superbowl commercial spots.
You communi^S^S^S^S^S^S^Sopen source advocates are not going to be able to have it both ways, I'm afraid.
No, not if it competes with a business interest that they already have. Try going to a rock concert with some freshly printed T-Shirts and then explaining to the nice people that they should be happy you're bootlegging their shit because hey, free advertising!
I said nothing about not buying software if it's what you need, but after doing so and having said software crash and cost me a fortune to recover, I'd like to know that the author of said software be responsible for providing a fix, rather than finding out that they aren't going to help and showing me some cleverly phrased clause in some EULA.
Do the phrases NO CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES or YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES really sound like cleverly worded ploys to make it seem like you'll be compensated in the case use of said software costs you money? When it comes to current software you bought it how you saw it, and that's it. If a different software vendor (who sells into a mass market) has the stupididy to claim anything else you are certainly welcome to purchase that software, but you're going to find it hard to get them to live up the agreement when they're waving bankruptcy paperwork in your face and telling you to get to the back of the line.
So why should a company be FORCED to warrant the software to suit you? Why should the companines who think they can, not be allowed to warrant them in any way they see fit and then let the consumer decide exactly whose product is worth spending the money on based on this? It's not like the existing companies are tricking you into thinking they have when the bits about warranty are generally in bold/and or caps text stating that you are entitled to zero in the way of damages.
When I deliver a product to a client, I give them a period of free support, perhaps only a month or less, depending on the value of the contract. I'm human, I make mistakes, and my fixing them for free for a certain period sure must be appreciated.
I'm quite sure it is appreciated. I do business the same way, myself. And so do the big boys. Not because we're nice, but simply because if don't they'll look elsewhere for people who do. It's why I'll do a small fix, apply it to a customers software, and not charge. It's why mega corps spend a steamer trunk of money every year on fixpacks, service packs, or whatever you want to call it. But thats a TOTALLY different thing from saying "Hey if we eat your data we'll correct the problem, sky's the limit! Would you even do this for your customers knowing that all it takes is one bad night, one stupid bug, one fatal crash for the ball on the end of that chain of events to mean that you can kiss your business, retirement dough, and kids college fund bye bye because you're about to be hauled into court and raked over the coals.
Now assuming you charge a client an hourly rate and have already lifted a few bucks off of them you might well be able to afford to fix the problem outside of court to the customers satisfaction. But what if you're selling a 300 dollar shrink wrapped package that some company, with no backups, sense, or reason is running their entire enterprise on (think Excel)? Do you REALLY think it would be wise to open yourself up to what is an inevitability?
If so, I have about 2 hours worth of work for you, name the rate. Retain a good lawyer before handing over the deliverables, though.