Believed it or not, but a friend of my cousin works in a bank. She acknowledged to him that her bank took small amounts with customers with the hazard, in a repetitive way. At the end of some taking away, if the customer did not say anything, the bank classifies it in category B: "customers whom one can swindle". If not, it is category A: "vigilant customers".
Imagine the amount if one looks with the size of the customers of the banks. When it is known that they make profits record years by years, there are grounds for reflexion. This kind of mentality makes me sick. Especially when it is thought that the bank charges us so that our money is lent to them.
No moral or ethical direction. But they are the businesses will say some... I disagree
I am in a hurry to go towards version 2.6. But before it is necessary that I would be sure of a thing : does that violate the intellectual properties of SCO?
If so, then I switch!;-)
-- Roger, there's a bug with #21890, go check, STOP
-- Ok Houston. STOP ...
-- Houston, I lost my map. I can't find my way back. STOP
-- euh.. Roger, don't panic, we'll do somthing... ...
-- Houston, this computer is alive!
-- Yes Roger, he got self repare functions and evolution capabilities.
-- I s... I see something moving towards me!!
-- Can you repeat Roger?
-- mayday!.. heeeelp aarrGrgghh!!.......
-- Oh gosh, we lost one more.
Where is the review?!? Did I miss something or this "5 years Linux user" just wrote some text to prove he doesn't know how to install a software?
Come on, don't write something like this... please! If you have nothing constructive to say, shut up.
To be listened by several brings you responsabilities.
Why the software which makes function the banks is reliable as opposed to what one finds elsewhere?
1.The bill books and the allocated resources are realistic.
An error in the banking medium is almost unforgivable. The banks cannot allow it. Moreover, the banks are so profitable that the enormous cost of computerization in this sector, is not only accessible, but also profitable. It is not always the case in the software industry.
2.The systems are adapted.
All that supports the banking networks is adapted to this task, is developed, by experts, specifically for this one. All opposite of the Microsoft ideology which voluntarily wants to be insecure and accessible to the greatest number.
3.People who make the software are tested and qualified.
The programmers who work in the banks on the systems of bases are experts who were trained to do it and who have worked above for several years. They are conscious of all the repercussions that a new module can cause in the system because they knows it : they have access to each line of code. All the lines are scanned with the magnifying glass. Some know only that, but they are experts in the field. They know their tools perfectly because in this medium, the things do not evolve so quickly. Nobody of other has this expertise. Microsoft cannot offer a comparable solution. Microsoft cannot be even praised to know its code. Windows is one monolithic bloc not flexible which does not meet the needs for this industry. Not only Windows is not appropriate, but the development tools are unsuited. Microsoft philosophy is: "let us make the simple things since the majority of people cannot manage complexity". It is perhaps well for somebody who does not know large thing of computer science, but worst philosophy in this case!
4.At present, all is developed in the company or by firms which come to develop code personalized for the bank.
Microsoft sells closed code. Impossible to adapt, modify, improve, configure as it is wanted. One becomes depend on the salesman and it is the worst thing which can arrive for banking industry. In the event of bug, to wait one month for a patch means the apocalypse. Microsoft is recognized to make code full with bugs and prone to the attacks. The viruses, worms and attacks of crackers are a continual threat in the Windows environment. It is false to believe that these machines will be safe from these threats or external communications. This does not exist in reality. That it is by a misconfiguration network, a software bug, a human error or an attack of the interior or outside, these systems will be vulnerable. It is a certainty especially if it is thought that the invasion of Microsoft will not stop there.
Microsoft invaded the banks, that does not predict anything good. I hope that it does not announce the replacement of the experienced programmers by beginners in Visual Basic. Closed code is bad, especially in the case of the banks.
My opinion is that this decision is an error. To save money on systems which function well, one will waste some in a technology transfer. Let us bet that this decision does not come from somebody with real technical skills and a good vision of the future.
I do not know if I should laugh at it or cry, but the attitude of several vis-a-vis this decision is eloquent on the human nature. Fascinating to see how people are egoistic...
Who are you to criticize the decision of somebody whom you do not know? Because not only you do not know him, but he never asked for your approval! I can understand that that makes sad several people. Alan did good work. Those which criticize its decision are also those which appreciated its work. Did you already say him? In any event it is one goodbye, not a good-bye. Remember that he owes you nothing.
Even if I would never advise with somebody to make a MBA, I do not allow myself therefore to criticize his decision. I know Alan Cox only by reputation and if I had something to say to him, it would be: "Thank you for all that you made, I hope that you will return and good luck in your projects!".
They are really desperate to do such thing. My guess is that the CEO already know they are doomed and want to leave something to history like : "dumbest action ever" or something like this...
If there is some one sane one the SCO ship, please get out of it before it sinks and don't tell anyone you worked for this company! Especially not in your CV!
If they had a single chance to win a little part in this story, they just lost it. No credibility left to my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine the amount if one looks with the size of the customers of the banks. When it is known that they make profits record years by years, there are grounds for reflexion. This kind of mentality makes me sick. Especially when it is thought that the bank charges us so that our money is lent to them.
No moral or ethical direction. But they are the businesses will say some... I disagree
If so, then I switch!
Hey, this will be my biggest Christmas gift!
But I don't have much money, so I'll choose carefully to who I give money.
I'll give it to EFF, they truly deserve it.
-- Roger, there's a bug with #21890, go check, STOP
-- Ok Houston. STOP
-- Houston, I lost my map. I can't find my way back. STOP
-- euh.. Roger, don't panic, we'll do somthing...
-- Houston, this computer is alive!
-- Yes Roger, he got self repare functions and evolution capabilities.
-- I s... I see something moving towards me!!
-- Can you repeat Roger?
-- mayday!.. heeeelp aarrGrgghh!!
-- Oh gosh, we lost one more.
Slashdot needs more user capable of such argumentation.
VERY NICE!! great speech.
Come on, don't write something like this... please! If you have nothing constructive to say, shut up.
To be listened by several brings you responsabilities.
1. The bill books and the allocated resources are realistic.
An error in the banking medium is almost unforgivable. The banks cannot allow it. Moreover, the banks are so profitable that the enormous cost of computerization in this sector, is not only accessible, but also profitable. It is not always the case in the software industry.
2. The systems are adapted.
All that supports the banking networks is adapted to this task, is developed, by experts, specifically for this one. All opposite of the Microsoft ideology which voluntarily wants to be insecure and accessible to the greatest number.
3. People who make the software are tested and qualified.
The programmers who work in the banks on the systems of bases are experts who were trained to do it and who have worked above for several years. They are conscious of all the repercussions that a new module can cause in the system because they knows it : they have access to each line of code. All the lines are scanned with the magnifying glass. Some know only that, but they are experts in the field. They know their tools perfectly because in this medium, the things do not evolve so quickly. Nobody of other has this expertise. Microsoft cannot offer a comparable solution. Microsoft cannot be even praised to know its code. Windows is one monolithic bloc not flexible which does not meet the needs for this industry. Not only Windows is not appropriate, but the development tools are unsuited. Microsoft philosophy is: "let us make the simple things since the majority of people cannot manage complexity". It is perhaps well for somebody who does not know large thing of computer science, but worst philosophy in this case!
4. At present, all is developed in the company or by firms which come to develop code personalized for the bank.
Microsoft sells closed code. Impossible to adapt, modify, improve, configure as it is wanted. One becomes depend on the salesman and it is the worst thing which can arrive for banking industry. In the event of bug, to wait one month for a patch means the apocalypse. Microsoft is recognized to make code full with bugs and prone to the attacks. The viruses, worms and attacks of crackers are a continual threat in the Windows environment. It is false to believe that these machines will be safe from these threats or external communications. This does not exist in reality. That it is by a misconfiguration network, a software bug, a human error or an attack of the interior or outside, these systems will be vulnerable. It is a certainty especially if it is thought that the invasion of Microsoft will not stop there.
Microsoft invaded the banks, that does not predict anything good. I hope that it does not announce the replacement of the experienced programmers by beginners in Visual Basic. Closed code is bad, especially in the case of the banks.
My opinion is that this decision is an error. To save money on systems which function well, one will waste some in a technology transfer. Let us bet that this decision does not come from somebody with real technical skills and a good vision of the future.
Who are you to criticize the decision of somebody whom you do not know? Because not only you do not know him, but he never asked for your approval! I can understand that that makes sad several people. Alan did good work. Those which criticize its decision are also those which appreciated its work. Did you already say him? In any event it is one goodbye, not a good-bye. Remember that he owes you nothing.
Even if I would never advise with somebody to make a MBA, I do not allow myself therefore to criticize his decision. I know Alan Cox only by reputation and if I had something to say to him, it would be: "Thank you for all that you made, I hope that you will return and good luck in your projects!".
If there is some one sane one the SCO ship, please get out of it before it sinks and don't tell anyone you worked for this company! Especially not in your CV!
If they had a single chance to win a little part in this story, they just lost it. No credibility left to my opinion.
This is good for GNU/Linux!
The kind of message which one often does not see on behalf of companies.
Glad to have IBM opting for open source.
Go IBM, boo SCO!
Maybe this is not a bug, maybe this is just Intel's new anti-overclocking technology!