Actually I'm one of a group of the 'brilliant people' who can get it done but don't document (haven't been insulting staff members lately but I promise to try harder). I became a sudo manager last year and I've noticed something. As much as we can quickly and 'instantly' fix a problem. 'We' always have to be there to fix it.
The organisation is under as much threat from a loss of knowledge or lack of stability because of these people as it is a loss of productivity if we lose them.
Might be an extreme example but these days I want people who share with their team mates and take time to document because people that are ultimately a LOT more productive that the one off brilliant guys.
Funny thing I've noticed. (I'm a US citizen, grew up in Oz, also an Australian Citizen).
The US has the worst health care system on the planet... bar none. Why? It's not for the people.
And stuff socialism. The US appears to be so scared of the communist block (that collapsed) it won't accept any concept that is at it's core, helping each other.
Lets go over a few things.
1. Market freedom does not intrinsically create better products on offer. Or necessarily any real choice.
2. Your health is not a product to bargin.
3. No private health insurance company will flat out cover your health, unless it's profitable.
4. Countries such as Australia and Sweden have public health systems and aren't communist or socialist.
Examples. My partner recently found out she could have had certain medical problems, won't explain that's her business. When she found out what the condition might be she did a search for it and found an example of a woman with the same condition in the U.S. This woman detailed her traumas, which as it had turned out had nothing to do with the condition, just with getting some one to recognise it and have the insurance company pay for an operation to diagnose it. This particular condition requires surgery to diagnose. There is no way around it, there is no other definitive method. This woman's doctor referred her to a specialist who decided that they needed to perform the operation to get a diagnosis. When she took it to the insurance company who wanted a separate (one of their own) specialists to confirm. This specialist was in a related field, but not the same one. She had a meeting, he decided there was something else wrong with her and after some arguing between them admitted that in addition to what he thought was there she could well also have this condition and approved the surgery.
Compare with my partner's experience.
She went to her G.P. for a standard exam. G.P. noted a problem. Referred her to several specialists. The specialist took her on and examined several of the problems she was displaying. Within about two months of consultation (not one off visits) he arranged for a surgeon to see her and surgery was booked, she was given a time. We turned up, booked her into the hospital. By midday she was done, an hour later she went home. And the kicked. She DOESN'T have health insurance and didn't pay for it.
What do I pay for this? about 1.5% medicare level on my income, 2.5% when I start earning a lot more.
Sorry I'll take the tax imposition. Why? Because when my Aunt got breast cancer, she was covered. When I turn up a emergency, I don't need worry about having the money to get looked at. When my mother came off a horse she was taken to hospital and we could worry about her not paying for it, when my partner needs surgery she gets it. We don't have a full cover health system, but it's enough that when I start looking for work I stop considering the U.S. even though the incomes are higher.
Why? Essential because you get taxed less, and that means the government has less money to SPEND ON YOU. Free markets don't care about citizens. They care about consumers. Big difference.
Get a little socialist and you might get a little healthier.
I agree with you. I only disagreed with the taxation concept. It irks me for two reasons. One, it is a biased concept and two you are right that the GPL doesn't make software free and that it instead aims for freedom, and that same freedom would be impinged by taxation style grabbing of funds. I didn't become a membery of the OSS community simply because it had better software, or more secure or even cheaper. One of my strongest reasons for using OSS and for wanting to contribute is one very simple difference in terms between being an open source community member or a Microsoft customer. That difference is simply commumnity member Vs. customer. Think of the inherent differences in those two terms. One is faceless cold and without loyalty the other is exactly the opposite. I feel that taxation of any sort is a step towards the customer concept and away from the community. I don't believe companies (or anyone else) would be as willing to contribute in the ways you mentioned if they were already paying in some other form for it. Look for example at what happened to Microsofts products when they introduced their version 6 licenses. Taxation itself could be argued as a case against that freedom that RMS was striving for...
Be that as it may I don't want to get into an argument about it.
I agree with you. I simply think it should be loudly 'encouraged' rather than 'policed'.
Hey do any of you remember the concept of the GPL. It's free. I do a piece of software and give it away. No strings attached. Now I know it's always better to have people turn around and say hey this is great thanks. But the GPL itself say they are not obliged to. The next problem I see is that no government could really impose an OSS tax or similar because you can quite probably class this as discrimination (the government is helping out open source, perhaps they should be paying for MS's activation systems as well). Anyway the government itself makes use of OSS.
Other problems: Its underhanded. To say a product (or anything is free) and then charge you extra on the back end is well devious. The OSS community has gained a reputation for always beingclear and honest. Raise your hands if you want MS's reputation for dishonesty.
Broader Reach: OSS has a far broader reach than any proprietary software. Who remembers Brasils comments on taking up Linux. One of which was they couldn't afford MS products. Ford Europe because they didn't like being restricted by MS's licenses (I may be wrong on that. Its been a while).
Less Penetration: I remember reading about how Caldera got started. It didn't necissarily sell Linux to companies. It simple sold licenses to those companies who found their IT blokes had already started using it and they were feeling a little uncomfortable about it. NO IT employee of any sort is going to simply use Linux for the odd job if in three years someone audits them and hits the company for a major tax bill (or anything else for that matter). Geuss who loses their job. Stick your hand up if you would still do it (No zealots here just common sense please).
TCO: The big thing that MS is pushing at the moment is TCO. MS says the TCO for it's products is far lower than Linux. Add the tax to OSS and they will certainly be right. Remember those companies that are 'defecting' to OSS. Part of that reason is MS's move to renewable style licenses. You pay MS every year over and over. It wasn't a popular move. In fact from memory it was very unpopular. From memory one of Munich cities reasons for going OSS was that they didn't like MS telling them when to upgrade (as a result of the licensing scheme). Add taxes to OSS and it will suffer dramaticly. It will be a point against it. Quite possibly a very large point against it. Would IBM have tried out Apache if it had been taxed. Probably not. Why because no one would have been looking at it, for fear of the taxes.
Solutions: I don't think forcing a company into paying for what they have been told is free, is either moral or going to win any of the browny points that has made software like Linux the great avengers of our time. Alternatives. 1. Try establishing a very large, very very public foundation for OSS, and I'm not talking about the GNU Foundation. Guilt people and companies into giving a little back. But don't force them. Think about it. You can always look benevolent when you donate money. Paying you taxes is simply what you do and has no PR benefits. 2. Don't OSS it. If you don't like the possibility that somebody will use it and not contribute, don't OSS it. It has to be said. Not everyone out there shares in that same community ideal. Would you prefer them to use MS products (this is for the zealots).
I can probably go on all day about this but to keep it brief, I shall stop here.
Consider how much money MS has sunk into PR, and how much OSS has. Though I don't have any figures, I can imagine MS spends far more. Think about every benchmark MS has put out. How many times have they been challenged. I get the impression that these days no MS benchmark goes without dispute. Linux fairs far better. Why, one reason I submit is simple goodwill Linux benefits far more often than it hurts. The simple concept of free software lends far more than you might realise. I can use Linux experiment and then toss it, without consequence and without losing out. To try the same with MS products I would still
I think the point to remember is that the age they want to restrict them to is when minds are IMPRESSIONABLE. Up until around 18 any human mind is still developing, what it results in is the culmination of everything it has experienced until then.
Why is such a bad thing that a child is not given violent games to play until he/she actually understands them?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I'm one of a group of the 'brilliant people' who can get it done but don't document (haven't been insulting staff members lately but I promise to try harder). I became a sudo manager last year and I've noticed something. As much as we can quickly and 'instantly' fix a problem. 'We' always have to be there to fix it. The organisation is under as much threat from a loss of knowledge or lack of stability because of these people as it is a loss of productivity if we lose them. Might be an extreme example but these days I want people who share with their team mates and take time to document because people that are ultimately a LOT more productive that the one off brilliant guys.
Funny thing I've noticed. (I'm a US citizen, grew up in Oz, also an Australian Citizen). The US has the worst health care system on the planet... bar none. Why? It's not for the people. And stuff socialism. The US appears to be so scared of the communist block (that collapsed) it won't accept any concept that is at it's core, helping each other. Lets go over a few things. 1. Market freedom does not intrinsically create better products on offer. Or necessarily any real choice. 2. Your health is not a product to bargin. 3. No private health insurance company will flat out cover your health, unless it's profitable. 4. Countries such as Australia and Sweden have public health systems and aren't communist or socialist. Examples. My partner recently found out she could have had certain medical problems, won't explain that's her business. When she found out what the condition might be she did a search for it and found an example of a woman with the same condition in the U.S. This woman detailed her traumas, which as it had turned out had nothing to do with the condition, just with getting some one to recognise it and have the insurance company pay for an operation to diagnose it. This particular condition requires surgery to diagnose. There is no way around it, there is no other definitive method. This woman's doctor referred her to a specialist who decided that they needed to perform the operation to get a diagnosis. When she took it to the insurance company who wanted a separate (one of their own) specialists to confirm. This specialist was in a related field, but not the same one. She had a meeting, he decided there was something else wrong with her and after some arguing between them admitted that in addition to what he thought was there she could well also have this condition and approved the surgery. Compare with my partner's experience. She went to her G.P. for a standard exam. G.P. noted a problem. Referred her to several specialists. The specialist took her on and examined several of the problems she was displaying. Within about two months of consultation (not one off visits) he arranged for a surgeon to see her and surgery was booked, she was given a time. We turned up, booked her into the hospital. By midday she was done, an hour later she went home. And the kicked. She DOESN'T have health insurance and didn't pay for it. What do I pay for this? about 1.5% medicare level on my income, 2.5% when I start earning a lot more. Sorry I'll take the tax imposition. Why? Because when my Aunt got breast cancer, she was covered. When I turn up a emergency, I don't need worry about having the money to get looked at. When my mother came off a horse she was taken to hospital and we could worry about her not paying for it, when my partner needs surgery she gets it. We don't have a full cover health system, but it's enough that when I start looking for work I stop considering the U.S. even though the incomes are higher. Why? Essential because you get taxed less, and that means the government has less money to SPEND ON YOU. Free markets don't care about citizens. They care about consumers. Big difference. Get a little socialist and you might get a little healthier.
What it isn't already. No wait that's python. I just missed an indent, there goes the planet.
The dot has been fired. Long live the slash.
I agree with you. I only disagreed with the taxation concept. It irks me for two reasons. One, it is a biased concept and two you are right that the GPL doesn't make software free and that it instead aims for freedom, and that same freedom would be impinged by taxation style grabbing of funds. I didn't become a membery of the OSS community simply because it had better software, or more secure or even cheaper. One of my strongest reasons for using OSS and for wanting to contribute is one very simple difference in terms between being an open source community member or a Microsoft customer. That difference is simply commumnity member Vs. customer. Think of the inherent differences in those two terms. One is faceless cold and without loyalty the other is exactly the opposite. I feel that taxation of any sort is a step towards the customer concept and away from the community. I don't believe companies (or anyone else) would be as willing to contribute in the ways you mentioned if they were already paying in some other form for it. Look for example at what happened to Microsofts products when they introduced their version 6 licenses. Taxation itself could be argued as a case against that freedom that RMS was striving for...
Be that as it may I don't want to get into an argument about it.
I agree with you. I simply think it should be loudly 'encouraged' rather than 'policed'.
Hey do any of you remember the concept of the GPL. It's free. I do a piece of software and give it away. No strings attached. Now I know it's always better to have people turn around and say hey this is great thanks. But the GPL itself say they are not obliged to. The next problem I see is that no government could really impose an OSS tax or similar because you can quite probably class this as discrimination (the government is helping out open source, perhaps they should be paying for MS's activation systems as well). Anyway the government itself makes use of OSS.
Other problems:
Its underhanded. To say a product (or anything is free) and then charge you extra on the back end is well devious. The OSS community has gained a reputation for always beingclear and honest. Raise your hands if you want MS's reputation for dishonesty.
Broader Reach: OSS has a far broader reach than any proprietary software. Who remembers Brasils comments on taking up Linux. One of which was they couldn't afford MS products. Ford Europe because they didn't like being restricted by MS's licenses (I may be wrong on that. Its been a while).
Less Penetration: I remember reading about how Caldera got started. It didn't necissarily sell Linux to companies. It simple sold licenses to those companies who found their IT blokes had already started using it and they were feeling a little uncomfortable about it. NO IT employee of any sort is going to simply use Linux for the odd job if in three years someone audits them and hits the company for a major tax bill (or anything else for that matter). Geuss who loses their job. Stick your hand up if you would still do it (No zealots here just common sense please).
TCO: The big thing that MS is pushing at the moment is TCO. MS says the TCO for it's products is far lower than Linux. Add the tax to OSS and they will certainly be right. Remember those companies that are 'defecting' to OSS. Part of that reason is MS's move to renewable style licenses. You pay MS every year over and over. It wasn't a popular move. In fact from memory it was very unpopular. From memory one of Munich cities reasons for going OSS was that they didn't like MS telling them when to upgrade (as a result of the licensing scheme). Add taxes to OSS and it will suffer dramaticly. It will be a point against it. Quite possibly a very large point against it. Would IBM have tried out Apache if it had been taxed. Probably not. Why because no one would have been looking at it, for fear of the taxes.
Solutions:
I don't think forcing a company into paying for what they have been told is free, is either moral or going to win any of the browny points that has made software like Linux the great avengers of our time. Alternatives.
1. Try establishing a very large, very very public foundation for OSS, and I'm not talking about the GNU Foundation. Guilt people and companies into giving a little back. But don't force them. Think about it. You can always look benevolent when you donate money. Paying you taxes is simply what you do and has no PR benefits.
2. Don't OSS it. If you don't like the possibility that somebody will use it and not contribute, don't OSS it. It has to be said. Not everyone out there shares in that same community ideal. Would you prefer them to use MS products (this is for the zealots).
I can probably go on all day about this but to keep it brief, I shall stop here.
Consider how much money MS has sunk into PR, and how much OSS has. Though I don't have any figures, I can imagine MS spends far more. Think about every benchmark MS has put out. How many times have they been challenged. I get the impression that these days no MS benchmark goes without dispute. Linux fairs far better. Why, one reason I submit is simple goodwill Linux benefits far more often than it hurts. The simple concept of free software lends far more than you might realise. I can use Linux experiment and then toss it, without consequence and without losing out. To try the same with MS products I would still
I think the point to remember is that the age they want to restrict them to is when minds are IMPRESSIONABLE. Up until around 18 any human mind is still developing, what it results in is the culmination of everything it has experienced until then. Why is such a bad thing that a child is not given violent games to play until he/she actually understands them?