"There are, unfortunately, many hacking manuals available in bookshops today. A few titles to be on the lookout for are: "Snow Crash" and "Cryptonomicon" by Neal Stephenson; "Neuromancer" by William Gibson; "Programming with Perl" by Timothy O'Reilly; "Geeks" by Jon Katz; "The Hacker Crackdown" by Bruce Sterling; "Microserfs" by Douglas Coupland; "Hackers" by Steven Levy; and "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" by Eric S. Raymond." I just wet my pants:-))
"BSD, Lunix, Debian and Mandrake are all versions of an illegal hacker operation system, invented by a Soviet computer hacker named Linyos Torovoltos, before the Russians lost the Cold War." Ahahaha, too funny:-)
I would really see more kids become hackers instead of just consumer/lusers that think that software grows on trees in India. Of course I am using 'hacker' in the original sense and not as 'cracker'. I think this guy is really confusing 'hacker' with 'script kiddie'.
No, MS sucks as a company, but it's products are ok (read: good enough).
The whole problem with MS is that it doesn't compete on quality, or price, but it sells through vendor lock-in (read: through the nose). MS has a broad product suite, where each product has hooks into their other products. If you buy product X, then you need product Y, or it only really really works nice with product Z. And the more products you buy, the more you need to buy their other products.
The main vector for this extremely contagious MS disease are their OSes. Their OSes are the bait in 'bait, hook and switch'.
So, if you think you can compete with MS by providing a better product, and you think that more competition will provide this better product, think again. MS doesn't compete by providing better products, it just grows it's market share and then let their weight do the work. The only way to compete with MS is to prevent them from growing their market share too much. And if you just concentrate on competing with other Unices, then you (and the other Unices) will lose, because behind your back MS will eat the total Un*x-likes market share.
Look at it from a PHB point of view. Say that there is a 75% market share of Un*x-likes and a 25% market share of Windows-likes (which is in effect 25% for Windows itself). What OS would you choose, an OS with a 25% market share in a fragmented market of total 75%, that means 18.75% of the total market, or an OS with 25% of the total market? Let alone that the position of this last OS will be perceived as more stable, because there is so much turmoil in the Un*x-like market.
I'd rather have RH aiming at MS' market share. If he just wants to compete with other Unices, then in the end MS will prevail.
The combination of Palladium in OS and hardware would be really uncomfortable for up-and-rising Asian countries. I think that now is a big chance to gain a lot of market share with Linux or BSD. Those countries don't have a lot to spend (yet) and you can ask yourself if they will want to commit themselves to Microsoft vendor lock-in (read: License 6.0). I wouldn't if I were them.
So Linux/Un*x vendors should unite, and not compete (too much). If they will, then the third dog will grab the bone.
Me too, I'd love that. I work for a consulting firm and the client I work for want you to work on location for 8 hrs a day, 40 hrs a week. Hours are checked through the entrance system (badges). You can work at home, if you want to, but then you have to ask permission up front and afterwards have to be able to show what you've done at home. Sounds sensible, but OTGH noone asks what you've done all day when you're at the office 8-)
Anyway, working fixed hours sucks. I'd rather be paid for the work I actually do. Like, here you get 12000 euros if you write this architecture, you got 3 months to do it. Then *you* decide whetehr you sit on your butt for 2 months and then work 1 month flat-out, instead having to suffer 8 hours a day when you don't have a creative streak.
Agree with you, I don't see why your post is a troll. Especially not since a former colleague of mine told me about his adventures in Japan. He said that Japanese women are very willing. They have a different moral than our christian puritan one.
I thought the biggest advantage of the deal was that you don't necessarily have to keep to office hours?
I mean, if working at home still amounts to just do your 8 hrs of time a day, then I would just as well take a regular job. Do you get paid by the hour or paid for results? Because if you get paid for results, you can manage your own work and work when and where you want.
Are there any experimental distros with kernel 2.6 and KDE 3.2 already? I don't have time to compile everything myself, so it has to be at least a little user friendly;-)
Can you explain to me what the difference is with the old scheduler? I'm not atechnical (software engineer/architect), but kernel schedulers are not my field of expertise.
Because when you start using a CLI you don't have a clue as to what you can do. With a graphical UI the learning curve is not as steep.
Then again, yes, when you do know what you're doing a CLI is usually faster, but only for known tasks.
Incidently, drag-and-drop is counter intuitive too, because it's often not clear that you can drag and drop something, not clear where and what it does.
I don't have a stance per se, I was merely asking myself this question, because I see a *lot* of OSS copying/implementing features in commercial software.
Actually I was triggered by reading about the Mono project. Why try to implement someone else's (read: proprietry) API/framework? Why not try to make a better, easier framework that profits all OSS, instead of implementing a proprietry framework that you don't have any control of and that is bound to change as soon as your project starts to really get serious? I don't like that kind of copying, it's running after the facts and it gives someone else the initiative. I think that you shouldn't merely copy an idea, but also take it a step further and add value to it. Otherwise there is no reason for someone to use *your* product.
I think this is true for both commercial and OSS products.
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't there a guy in South Korea who died after playing a game for a whole weekend?
I guess gaming must be really big in South Korea, otherwise I don't see why you should sponsor people.
Microsoft needs their OS as a hook for their other applications. It's not just an OS, it's the vector for a contagious disease.
Where did you get this funny piece? :-D
:-))
:-)
"There are, unfortunately, many hacking manuals available in bookshops today. A few titles to be on the lookout for are: "Snow Crash" and "Cryptonomicon" by Neal Stephenson; "Neuromancer" by William Gibson; "Programming with Perl" by Timothy O'Reilly; "Geeks" by Jon Katz; "The Hacker Crackdown" by Bruce Sterling; "Microserfs" by Douglas Coupland; "Hackers" by Steven Levy; and "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" by Eric S. Raymond."
I just wet my pants
"BSD, Lunix, Debian and Mandrake are all versions of an illegal hacker operation system, invented by a Soviet computer hacker named Linyos Torovoltos, before the Russians lost the Cold War."
Ahahaha, too funny
I would really see more kids become hackers instead of just consumer/lusers that think that software grows on trees in India.
Of course I am using 'hacker' in the original sense and not as 'cracker'. I think this guy is really confusing 'hacker' with 'script kiddie'.
No, MS sucks as a company, but it's products are ok
(read: good enough).
The whole problem with MS is that it doesn't compete on quality, or price, but it sells through vendor lock-in (read: through the nose).
MS has a broad product suite, where each product has hooks into their other products. If you buy product X, then you need product Y, or it only really really works nice with product Z. And the more products you buy, the more you need to buy their other products.
The main vector for this extremely contagious MS disease are their OSes. Their OSes are the bait in 'bait, hook and switch'.
So, if you think you can compete with MS by providing a better product, and you think that more competition will provide this better product, think again. MS doesn't compete by providing better products, it just grows it's market share and then let their weight do the work. The only way to compete with MS is to prevent them from growing their market share too much. And if you just concentrate on competing with other Unices, then you (and the other Unices) will lose, because behind your back MS will eat the total Un*x-likes market share.
Look at it from a PHB point of view. Say that there is a 75% market share of Un*x-likes and a 25% market share of Windows-likes (which is in effect 25% for Windows itself).
What OS would you choose, an OS with a 25% market share in a fragmented market of total 75%, that means 18.75% of the total market, or an OS with 25% of the total market? Let alone that the position of this last OS will be perceived as more stable, because there is so much turmoil in the Un*x-like market.
I'd rather have RH aiming at MS' market share. If he just wants to compete with other Unices, then in the end MS will prevail.
The combination of Palladium in OS and hardware would be really uncomfortable for up-and-rising Asian countries.
I think that now is a big chance to gain a lot of market share with Linux or BSD. Those countries don't have a lot to spend (yet) and you can ask yourself if they will want to commit themselves to Microsoft vendor lock-in (read: License 6.0). I wouldn't if I were them.
So Linux/Un*x vendors should unite, and not compete (too much). If they will, then the third dog will grab the bone.
Hoy sh*t, never thought of that, but you're absolutely right. Good thing you have 2 eyes, not?
If you expect to be called a lot, then a library may not be for you.
I agree, there must be an easier way to profit.
...
Let's keep it like this then:
step 1: get laptop.
step 2: leave appartment
step 3: find interesting place
step 4: work
step 6: profit!
Could be. Maybe I forget 1 step.
step 1: get laptop.
step 2: leave appartment
step 3: find interesting place
step 4: work
step 5: get paid!!
step 6: profit
Sounds sensible, so that means you probably wouldn't profit very much. Hmm. Bad idea I guess.
Me too, I'd love that. I work for a consulting firm and the client I work for want you to work on location for 8 hrs a day, 40 hrs a week. Hours are checked through the entrance system (badges). You can work at home, if you want to, but then you have to ask permission up front and afterwards have to be able to show what you've done at home. Sounds sensible, but OTGH noone asks what you've done all day when you're at the office 8-)
Anyway, working fixed hours sucks. I'd rather be paid for the work I actually do. Like, here you get 12000 euros if you write this architecture, you got 3 months to do it.
Then *you* decide whetehr you sit on your butt for 2 months and then work 1 month flat-out, instead having to suffer 8 hours a day when you don't have a creative streak.
Maybe an idea to share the office space with other home workers? That way you can share costs, gossip, and share info if you're on the same field.
The good bits of a company, but without the bad (boss) bits.
Agree with you, I don't see why your post is a troll.
:-(
Especially not since a former colleague of mine told me about his adventures in Japan. He said that Japanese women are very willing. They have a different moral than our christian puritan one.
Couldn't tell myself, never been there tho.
I thought the biggest advantage of the deal was that you don't necessarily have to keep to office hours?
I mean, if working at home still amounts to just do your 8 hrs of time a day, then I would just as well take a regular job.
Do you get paid by the hour or paid for results? Because if you get paid for results, you can manage your own work and work when and where you want.
You forget:
Step 5. PROFIT!
Good idea, thanks!
9.2 has kernel 2.6? Cool, shame I just ran out of blank CDs :-(
Are there any experimental distros with kernel 2.6 and KDE 3.2 already? ;-)
I don't have time to compile everything myself, so it has to be at least a little user friendly
So you don't want to store the files themselves, but just symbolic links/shortcuts/aliases/whatever in these folders. Hmmm. Think I'll start coding :-)
Good point, only I don't seem to have time for it :-(
I'll have to restrict myself to advising about OSS to my customers, where possible.
Good point, true, but a little off-topic for parent.
Anyway, what do you think the right solution is?
Thanks!
Can you explain to me what the difference is with the old scheduler?
I'm not atechnical (software engineer/architect), but kernel schedulers are not my field of expertise.
Because when you start using a CLI you don't have a clue as to what you can do.
With a graphical UI the learning curve is not as steep.
Then again, yes, when you do know what you're doing a CLI is usually faster, but only for known tasks.
Incidently, drag-and-drop is counter intuitive too, because it's often not clear that you can drag and drop something, not clear where and what it does.
Borderless windows? How do you resize?
Pronounced somewhat like 'dikestra' :-)
I don't have a stance per se, I was merely asking myself this question, because I see a *lot* of OSS copying/implementing features in commercial software.
Actually I was triggered by reading about the Mono project. Why try to implement someone else's (read: proprietry) API/framework? Why not try to make a better, easier framework that profits all OSS, instead of implementing a proprietry framework that you don't have any control of and that is bound to change as soon as your project starts to really get serious?
I don't like that kind of copying, it's running after the facts and it gives someone else the initiative.
I think that you shouldn't merely copy an idea, but also take it a step further and add value to it. Otherwise there is no reason for someone to use *your* product.
I think this is true for both commercial and OSS products.