The whole concept of scientifically testing prayer is ridiculous, anyway. Prayer is -- at the end of the day -- a request to suspend the concept of cause and effect. "I want this to happen, even though it shouldn't." The problem is, any scientific test of prayer relies on cause and effect to demonstrate that prayer works. "I pray, therefore cause-and-effect don't apply."
Well, that is certainly one interpretation. However, let me propose another (which could be scientifically proven or disproven by expirement, I might add):
Premise 1 / Hypothesis 1: There is a low level empathic or perhaps even modestly telepathic ability inherent in all humans (and/or animals, but not relevant for now).
Premise 2 / Hypothesis 2: Empathic support, whether through touching, verbal communication or other human-to-human communication builds confidence, strength and desire (to live / get well / etc..) in human beings. This translates into a higher probability for recovery.
Premise 3 / Hypothesis 3: The act of praying for another (known and loved) individual activates our innate empathic / mildly telepathic abilities and results in feelings of support in the target individual.
Conclusion 1: The act of praying results in feelings of support, love, etc.. and therefore results in a higher probability of recovery in the target individual.
While I am postulating this argument scientifically, those more theological amung us may look upon this, if it were true (and it may well not be) as simply the means by which their respective higher power allows prayer to operate and manifest results. It in no way cancels faith, in fact, like so much of science, it just takes the mystery away. The more theologically minded viewers will be quick to interpret this happily through their "faith" perspective. And that's cool.
What I was trying to say before, and clarifying here, is (A) This sort of research is useful, and should have many control groups (including those with real bonds to the target) and (B) It is science, what we will discover (if anything) will be natural phenomena and (C) It should not be scary to those who have "faith". In fact, if results are real, you should be gleeful of these tests - they will show that to be the case, and as always, will show that god's hand (choose your god, or whether this sentence is even meaningful to you) in our reality plays by the rules of that reality.
To those of you who may have a problem with hypothesis of empathy / telepathy, I will say only this: Inductance proves that signals can be passed between similar circuits. The physics works. While the math shows that the amount of signal available between two human brains is probably too miniscule to be "interpreted", we also have to remember that the brain is an incredibly complex, highly adapted and specialized organ. Also remember that billions of years of evolution, squeezing every imaginable advantage out of reality is working in our brains and that electromagnetsim may not be the only means for communication between these circuits to operate. Who knows, there may even be quantum entanglement factors or other such weirdness that could come into play). We are early on in the search for how our own minds operate and we shouldn't be too quick to discount the possible, even if seemingly unlikely.
I wonder wether it would have made a difference if the group of "prayers" included loved ones / family members of the sick person's.
Not that I ascribe any powers to prayer, but if there is *any* phenomena that would raise odds through focus and concentration, my guess is that without a bond to the person being focused on, it wouldn't work. Sorta like concentrating on some guy named George... Even if some as-yet-undiscovered psychic phenomena would be helpful, how helpful would it be for poor George, if no-one can even find his.... eh, what should we call it? person? body? mind?
What really ticks me (us?) off is being ignored when we I know a better way, or being over-ruled because he doesn't understand some basic concept. (like IP addressing, hardware interaction, RAID levels, or software security).
Heh... There is a little trick I used to use to get by when I found myself working for one of those "I know better than you, oops, is that my thumb up my ass" types... You might want to try this:
These guys want to be involved. They think it is their job to make decisions and they really believe that because they are above you in some org chart, they are your mental superior (yes, they do believe it). So, let them.... Here is how:
Every time he/she wants to know what you are working on, tell the truth. Similarly, when they want to know how far along you are, tell the truth (of couse pad it, because there are always unforseen circumstances, and they will never understand that something is hard, only that you didn't meet deadlines). However, when they want to know details, make them up. Completely. Depending on how stupid your PHB is, tell them about VB problems when you are working in Java. Or give them a classic Computer Science problem to chew on that has nothing to do with what you are working on.
Keep doing this, make sure you can talk competently about your fake problem, and always take their advice and string them along... Change problems from time to time so that they think you are making progress and always give them credit for helping you fix these (made up) problems. Meet your milestones and keep moving on.
Here is what you get out of it: (A) PHB will love you. You keep them involved and give them credit. (B) PHB will show his idiocy to his peers when he talks about the problems he is solving and his tutoring, helping of poor you... Generally, only competent people will get the joke anyway, so you are safe - all the other PHB's will respect your PHB even more... It makes for really good laughs and doesn't hurt a soul...
Think this is cruel? If so, you may qualify for the PHB position... In truth, it is a very balanced approach to dealing with incompetent leadership... I did this for years and it actually reduced tension in the workpace and helped everyone with their morale... In some ways, it's like making subtle adult jokes in front of children - they never get it, never could and that's cool... You get to have a little fun and are being kind to them for not rubbing it in their faces. Just remember, the depth that you are swimming in is truly unfathomable to these people - if they had any idea how complex the work you did really was, it may drive them insane.
No. Floundering in ignorance is much less destructive than "a little knowledge"
Absolutely true. There are only two cases that have merit; (A) Boss is a pro and deserves respect / knows what he/she is talking about, (B) Boss has expertise in something else and leaves tech to those who understand it. Any other case is useless.
A great general once said: There are 4 types of people in the world. There are stupid, lazy people... These are useful and common and make up your footsoldiers... There are smart and hardworking people... These are rare and indispensible, these are your lieutenants... There are smart and lazy people, like me, these are you thinkers, your generals... But beware the 4th type, the supid and hardworking, who are sometimes difficult to detect and distinguish from the smart and hardworking, for their hard-work may deceive you... These people are forces of natural destruction and will certainly spell out your doom.
It is an unfortunate reality that most PHB's fall into the last category...
Desktop is taken by MS. Contrary to other countries, there is no reason to switch to Linux to save money because Linux and WinXP costs the same - about $3. You can buy pirated XP and almost any Windows software and development tools for the same cost - about 100 rubels - everywhere. What works for Linux in eastern countries doesnt work in Russia.
I don't know what rock you are living under, but there is a very heavy Linux base in Russia... Just go google for Russian Linux sites if you want verification... I think you are just tossing around wishful thinking. It is hard for some of you MS fanatacs / zealots to stomache the idea that when MS software is also free, people and business still choose OSS. But that is the deal. It is about control and quality more than costs.
Why do I get the feeling that the posts about $2 MS products in Russia are being made by MS representatives?
Is it possible that MS actually wants piracy to be widespread in economically underdeveloped nations in order to compete with free alternatives? Am I just being paranoid?
The main reason that I ask is that I keep seeing all of these posts about how Linux isn't used much in Russia because MS is $2 on the corner (always $2). But, everyone I know in Russia uses Linux and there is a ton of OSS activity there with many many OSS contributors.
So what's the scoop? The people posting here that nobody uses Linux because MS is $2... Where do these people get their info? Is there a different part of Russia that is all MS?
And in order to keep getting those commisions in the future, they've better not to hide blatant problems with the product (of course they don't have to advertise them either) or lie in your face about the support.
You obviously never met an Oracle salesperson, particularly back when they were a small company. Salespeople know one thing for certain: Once they get you to buy, you will stay with them for a long time, because admitting to your superiors that you made a purchasing mistake puts you in the hotseat.
Indeed. And the parent poster complained that he had not received proper proposals from the open source companies. That simply means that RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake or whomever simply failed in their marketing.
The parent poster (you) complained that no one showed up with 3 color brochures. It says nothing about RedHat, SuSE or Mandrake. It says that he knows nothing about procuring software. This of course would make since, since by your definition and his admission, he is only an ameteur (He admitted that he does this voluntarily and by your definition that makes him an amateur).
What makes you a professional in some field? You do it for a living. If the OSS developers do not code for money, they're amateurs by definition. For instance, Alan Cox was an OSS pro a few years ago when he was still on RedHat's payroll. On the other hand the likes of Donald Becker or Linus Torvalds are not pros since they do not code OSS for a living.
This is an incredibly ignorant (and may I say it? Amateur) attempt at wordsmithing. It may be true that one of the dictionairy definitions of professional is one who earns his/her living in the field in question. However, the use of amateur and professional in common culture invokes the definition of competency rather than sustenance. Attempting to take a dictionairy definition to categorize a thing that will be interpreted with the extremely incompatible common cultural definition is a very *ameteur attempt* at a wordsmithed insult, even if you are being paid to do it.
As far as these individuals that you mention are concerned, even your own convoluted logic falls apart because these individuals do indeed draw salaries from the technology industry.
No, educating themselves is not an option, because they already have a dayjob and designing a governmental datacenter requires a corporate level experience and skills - not some grubby group of "let's throw something together" open source linux hippies.
That is some pretty disturbing, uninformed, mindless, insulting and bantering language, Tim, err.. I mean, Eric. Did you come up with this yourself, or is this some common preconception that passes between you and your co-workers before you jump online and, uhh... ironically, start chatting on the biggest "linux hippie geek" website in the known universe. Why are you here?
I think it's pretty obvious. If you don't like us, don't be here. If you have to be here, even if you don't like us, then either you have some really serious problems or you aren't here because you want to be. Obviously if you are here even when you don't want to be, it must mean you are here for a reason. There is an objective. What is your objective, Eric?
Is it working? Have you convinced us that using Open Source in government is a bad idea? Or simply that it is a bad idea to listen to you... In fact...
No, read my original post, I am not "refusing to consider", I am disappointed that it's not making a better case for itself as there is a distinct possibility that it is actually the best answer.
That is not how you are coming across. You are coming across as someone who is trying very hard to justify a course that you have already decided on (proprietary). I'm not sure if the AC making the TROLL posts is right or wrong, but if you are "Eric Ass Raymond", which seems likely, then it is pretty clear that this whole exercise (chatting with you about this) is just a big adventure in FUD. In which case, shame on you.
But if you are being straight-up here and just want feedback, then take it and try it. Open Source is not always the answer. But in government, there are strong reasons to believe that anything else is not in the best interest of your government or taxpayers. Think carefully about it and make a decision that is best for your comunity for the long term. Remember that your choice now has long-term ripple effects.
The software - open or closed - does not maintain itself. The mere existence of the source code is as good as nothing if there is no-one who understands it.
If no one is using it, it probably isn't very good and you should find another option. One would think that this would be obvious, both for commercial software and for Open Source software.
It's dangerous to start thinking that as long as the source code exists, anyone (with a CS degree) can just take it up, fix it and start maintaining it. In less than a decade the languages and architectures change so much that a newly graduated person will have difficulties in dealing with ancient code.
No, I don't think so. I think it is much more dangerous to allow your government to lock itself into a relationship with a vendor that will never release the source code. The government will never have control over those systems and the people being governed will never have the right to inspect and audit how those systems work.
Any competent engineer coming out of University today could very easily deal with twenty year old code. In fact, they could probably write scripts (or find conversion utilities) that would allow them to bring it up-to-current, converting source code and whatnot. But in a case like this, one would think that any system that the government is considering would have enough of an interest level (certainly after it is put into practice) such that it will be supported continuously. But if it is not, at least we are safe in the knowledge that the code is not lost and CAN be updated at any time without lawsuits and Indiana-Jones style find-the-source-code adventures.
Just remember all those Y2K projects? Sure we had the source code for critical projects but the code was in Cobol or some other antiquated language. We suddenly found out that we need loads and load of people who know Cobol, but the people who had the skills to deal with it were already gone. A lifespan measured in decades is particularly typical for governmental projects. You see how silly your argument is? The availability of the source code is good but doesn't save you.
This is funny, because you are actually making MY argument for Me. Y2K is a great example. There was certainly an IT spending boost, but so far as I am aware, all of the real problems encountered were encountered with systems that came from out-of-business vendors and/or vendors that couldn't locate source for decommissioned products. The other major problem was in-house projects that had been in the attic for twenty years and often just trying to figure out how to do a build or install the build. Had these projects been open-source, there would have been a virtual guarantee that a small community would have formed around those projects to update them (you being one of the members), saving money, time and in many cases, just making it possible.
Getting and using the Cobol programmers? That was just a matter of money (consultants), and quite a temporary problem. I know of many instances of 'C' or ''VB' programmers grabbing COBOL books and jumping in the fray.
If did you homework when writing the contract you have nothing to fear. The company will be obliged to help you over the transition period.
When a company goes out of business, your belief that they will honor their contracts with you may help you sleep at night, but those beliefs are not going to pay the costs or motivate the people at the company that is going out of business to do such a thing. Your comment is silly. You know what happens when a company goes out of business? THEY STOP HONORING ALL CONTRACTS BECAUSE THE COMPANY IS DEAD.
As far as the end-of-life products go, that's just natural. I've never quite understood the obsession the open source has with maintaining obsolete code. From time to time it's good to end an old product line and write another one from scratch to meet the challenges of today not the past.
Actually, in my experience, Open Source documentation is often better than documentation for proprietary software - at least in content.
Generally, the documentaiton for proprietary software is written by tech-writers who have a less than perfect understanding of what the developers have done. However, they do have a particular skill for wordsmithing and polish. So the documentation often ends up looking better.
On the other hand, Open Source documentation is generally a living thing, starting with the original docs written by the authors and eventually weaving in information collected in support message boards, live FAQs, etc..
As Open Source software matures, the documentation becomes startlingly good, having been contributed and distilled from the user base and the group of authors and supporting individuals and companies. In the maturing portion of the lifecycle of Open-Source, there are often those with tech-writing talents that jump in to help as well.
So, of course, a new, small team project has ugly, yet powerfully relevant documentation (often with bad grammar and badly organized), or perhaps none at all. But mature Open Source projects have absolutely incredible documentation, generally on a level that proprietary documentation cannot touch.
And don't forget, the penultimate documentation is the source code (which isn't even published by proprietary software vendors).
Certainly you can't do that to those parts of the software that you did not write. However, I believe you can attach additional restrictions upon the portion that you write, can you not?
So, for instance, a contributor to the SAMBA project could, perhaps, insist that SCO be explicitly prohibited from redistributing any work containing his contributioins. This does not affect any contribution other than that of the specific copyright holder (the contributor).
ISTR that the SAMBA team is particularly pissed at them and would love a legitimate excuse for preventing them from including SAMBA in their Unix line.
Perhaps the SAMBA team could add a clause to their grant of copyright that excludes SCO. Is this posible with the GPL?
I would like to urge those of you that are in a position to do so to add a clause to your conditions of copyright (e.g. GPL) that excludes SCO from participating due to it's posture against the GPL.
How this thing runs Linux once it has been optimized for it (correct drivers, kernel patches, compiler switches, compiler version, etc..)
MRAM for fast boots? Just learn from "OS X"
on
MRAM in 2004?
·
· Score: 1
"How many people keep their computer on 24 hours a day simply because they can't stand to sit around for four or five minutes waiting for it to boot up?" he asked. "I don't think anyone has researched that particular issue, but I'll bet there are a lot of them.
I guess it must just be a PC thing. I have a PowerMac, an iMac, two PowerBooks and my wife has an iBook. I can't remember the last time I booted a single one of those devices. On the laptops, you just close the cover and they go to sleep. On the desktops, they are set to sleep after a period of inactivity. And with Macs, going to sleep / waking from sleep is essentially instantanious....
So my question is, "Do you really need MRAM to solve that problem, or maybe just some lessons from Cupertino?
255 states? You think you can fit 255 states in a 1V voltage range? Without state 221 and 222 getting mixed up? With lets say a 1Ghz clock and all the electrical fields and line reflections etc. influencing your signal?
I know my comment wasn't entirely clear, but what I was trying to say is that combining multiple fbits to reach a precision of 255 states would be enough for most applications. I understand the issues associated with discreet voltage differences in silicon and agree. But the possibility of digitally clocked, analog signals allowing for a fuzzy-logic (De-Morgan Algreba) on silicon is interesting... Not binary. Not Analog. The real issue there would be AD to go back and forth to memory... Oh well.. maybe next century...
Then SCO is beyond stupid, becuase the GPL is NOT a licence of use, it is a Copyright protected fair copy statement (read distribution), allowed and tested in other forms under present copyright laws.
You must understand that "legal thinking" is different than 'logical thinking" and that SCO's claims are related to copyright of derivative works which "may" be interpreted by courts to be a symmetrical issue to the GPL's viral copyright. Do not take this issue lightly or brush it off because you think it is different. There is a lot of money at stake and some very good minds working on this... Conspiracy theories are silly when they make no sense. When there are billions of dollars at stake, conspiracies are not theories - they are the modus operandi...
I think that the best thing the Samba team could do would be to draft a letter, asking Darl and Co. to reaffirm their commitment to complying with the terms under which SCO received their intellectual property. Chances are, SCO will ignore it--as I said, I don't think that Samba currently has grounds to revoke the license--but at least it will highlight the hypocrisy of SCO's behavior and provide some good PR for the community.
Interesting idea. Perhaps it should be taken further. Perhaps a coallition of Open Source project groups should send SCO a letter demanding that SCO publicly acknowledge it's responsibility with respect to Intellectual Property that belongs to the Open Source community. This letter should further state that failure to do so will lead to a cease and desist from the Open Source community (all members of the coalition), barring SCO from continuing to distribute intellectual property from that community due to it's lack of respect and acknowledgement of the terms of legal redistribution of that property.
Sprint was set to release the t608 bluetooth enabled phone (a dream come true for powerbook owners), but something happened. They are not releasing it...
Voice your support at the following web petition if you, like me, would like a bluetooth sprint pcs phone:
http://www.petitiononline.com/sellt608/petition.ht ml
I think any geek worth his salt can see that they're lying about the merits of the suit, they've already released everything with thier Linux distributions, and they top execs are dumping stock as fast as they can.
You go back to being a scientist and I'll go back to saving people like you from yourselves with your lack of understanding regarding the need for real security policy. I promise I won't pick apart or call FUD when you speak of something technical regarding your line of work... That is, if you don't tell me ficticous realities about how employees are to be trusted.
You are damned lucky you never encountered me in your control-freak carreer. You and your kind create the atmosphere that you talk about with such disdain (employee is not trusted, enemy of corporation).
You have no clue how to build or operate a secure network which empowers it's users and provides them with the FLEXIBILITY and FREEDOM REQUIRED for them to DO THEIR JOBS.
Let me give you a hint: DOMAINS and SEGMENTATION with CABLES and FIREWALLS. Not a bunch of winny little software nazis running around abusing the tiny squirt of power they have. I have encountered your kind before, trying to waylaste productivity in order to ego masterbate. I enjoy bleeding people like you, slowly, before putting you in the HR meatgrinder.
While you are running around pissing off all of those that you are jealous of becuase they have better jobs than you, the dude in the corner with the laptop is sucking data off the sensitive fileservers that you set up (with the mistaken belief that no-one could connect to them because everyone is running your software).
Slashdot Mirror
The whole concept of scientifically testing prayer is ridiculous, anyway. Prayer is -- at the end of the day -- a request to suspend the concept of cause and effect. "I want this to happen, even though it shouldn't." The problem is, any scientific test of prayer relies on cause and effect to demonstrate that prayer works. "I pray, therefore cause-and-effect don't apply."
Well, that is certainly one interpretation. However, let me propose another (which could be scientifically proven or disproven by expirement, I might add):
Premise 1 / Hypothesis 1: There is a low level empathic or perhaps even modestly telepathic ability inherent in all humans (and/or animals, but not relevant for now).
Premise 2 / Hypothesis 2: Empathic support, whether through touching, verbal communication or other human-to-human communication builds confidence, strength and desire (to live / get well / etc..) in human beings. This translates into a higher probability for recovery.
Premise 3 / Hypothesis 3: The act of praying for another (known and loved) individual activates our innate empathic / mildly telepathic abilities and results in feelings of support in the target individual.
Conclusion 1: The act of praying results in feelings of support, love, etc.. and therefore results in a higher probability of recovery in the target individual.
While I am postulating this argument scientifically, those more theological amung us may look upon this, if it were true (and it may well not be) as simply the means by which their respective higher power allows prayer to operate and manifest results. It in no way cancels faith, in fact, like so much of science, it just takes the mystery away. The more theologically minded viewers will be quick to interpret this happily through their "faith" perspective. And that's cool.
What I was trying to say before, and clarifying here, is (A) This sort of research is useful, and should have many control groups (including those with real bonds to the target) and (B) It is science, what we will discover (if anything) will be natural phenomena and (C) It should not be scary to those who have "faith". In fact, if results are real, you should be gleeful of these tests - they will show that to be the case, and as always, will show that god's hand (choose your god, or whether this sentence is even meaningful to you) in our reality plays by the rules of that reality.
To those of you who may have a problem with hypothesis of empathy / telepathy, I will say only this: Inductance proves that signals can be passed between similar circuits. The physics works. While the math shows that the amount of signal available between two human brains is probably too miniscule to be "interpreted", we also have to remember that the brain is an incredibly complex, highly adapted and specialized organ. Also remember that billions of years of evolution, squeezing every imaginable advantage out of reality is working in our brains and that electromagnetsim may not be the only means for communication between these circuits to operate. Who knows, there may even be quantum entanglement factors or other such weirdness that could come into play). We are early on in the search for how our own minds operate and we shouldn't be too quick to discount the possible, even if seemingly unlikely.
I wonder wether it would have made a difference if the group of "prayers" included loved ones / family members of the sick person's.
Not that I ascribe any powers to prayer, but if there is *any* phenomena that would raise odds through focus and concentration, my guess is that without a bond to the person being focused on, it wouldn't work. Sorta like concentrating on some guy named George... Even if some as-yet-undiscovered psychic phenomena would be helpful, how helpful would it be for poor George, if no-one can even find his.... eh, what should we call it? person? body? mind?
Waddya think?
What really ticks me (us?) off is being ignored when we I know a better way, or being over-ruled because he doesn't understand some basic concept. (like IP addressing, hardware interaction, RAID levels, or software security).
Heh... There is a little trick I used to use to get by when I found myself working for one of those "I know better than you, oops, is that my thumb up my ass" types... You might want to try this:
These guys want to be involved. They think it is their job to make decisions and they really believe that because they are above you in some org chart, they are your mental superior (yes, they do believe it). So, let them.... Here is how:
Every time he/she wants to know what you are working on, tell the truth. Similarly, when they want to know how far along you are, tell the truth (of couse pad it, because there are always unforseen circumstances, and they will never understand that something is hard, only that you didn't meet deadlines). However, when they want to know details, make them up. Completely. Depending on how stupid your PHB is, tell them about VB problems when you are working in Java. Or give them a classic Computer Science problem to chew on that has nothing to do with what you are working on.
Keep doing this, make sure you can talk competently about your fake problem, and always take their advice and string them along... Change problems from time to time so that they think you are making progress and always give them credit for helping you fix these (made up) problems. Meet your milestones and keep moving on.
Here is what you get out of it: (A) PHB will love you. You keep them involved and give them credit. (B) PHB will show his idiocy to his peers when he talks about the problems he is solving and his tutoring, helping of poor you... Generally, only competent people will get the joke anyway, so you are safe - all the other PHB's will respect your PHB even more... It makes for really good laughs and doesn't hurt a soul...
Think this is cruel? If so, you may qualify for the PHB position... In truth, it is a very balanced approach to dealing with incompetent leadership... I did this for years and it actually reduced tension in the workpace and helped everyone with their morale... In some ways, it's like making subtle adult jokes in front of children - they never get it, never could and that's cool... You get to have a little fun and are being kind to them for not rubbing it in their faces. Just remember, the depth that you are swimming in is truly unfathomable to these people - if they had any idea how complex the work you did really was, it may drive them insane.
No. Floundering in ignorance is much less destructive than "a little knowledge"
Absolutely true. There are only two cases that have merit; (A) Boss is a pro and deserves respect / knows what he/she is talking about, (B) Boss has expertise in something else and leaves tech to those who understand it. Any other case is useless.
A great general once said: There are 4 types of people in the world. There are stupid, lazy people... These are useful and common and make up your footsoldiers... There are smart and hardworking people... These are rare and indispensible, these are your lieutenants... There are smart and lazy people, like me, these are you thinkers, your generals... But beware the 4th type, the supid and hardworking, who are sometimes difficult to detect and distinguish from the smart and hardworking, for their hard-work may deceive you... These people are forces of natural destruction and will certainly spell out your doom.
It is an unfortunate reality that most PHB's fall into the last category...
Desktop is taken by MS. Contrary to other countries, there is no reason to switch to Linux to save money because Linux and WinXP costs the same - about $3. You can buy pirated XP and almost any Windows software and development tools for the same cost - about 100 rubels - everywhere. What works for Linux in eastern countries doesnt work in Russia.
I don't know what rock you are living under, but there is a very heavy Linux base in Russia... Just go google for Russian Linux sites if you want verification... I think you are just tossing around wishful thinking. It is hard for some of you MS fanatacs / zealots to stomache the idea that when MS software is also free, people and business still choose OSS. But that is the deal. It is about control and quality more than costs.
Why do I get the feeling that the posts about $2 MS products in Russia are being made by MS representatives?
Is it possible that MS actually wants piracy to be widespread in economically underdeveloped nations in order to compete with free alternatives? Am I just being paranoid?
The main reason that I ask is that I keep seeing all of these posts about how Linux isn't used much in Russia because MS is $2 on the corner (always $2). But, everyone I know in Russia uses Linux and there is a ton of OSS activity there with many many OSS contributors.
So what's the scoop? The people posting here that nobody uses Linux because MS is $2... Where do these people get their info? Is there a different part of Russia that is all MS?
And in order to keep getting those commisions in the future, they've better not to hide blatant problems with the product (of course they don't have to advertise them either) or lie in your face about the support.
You obviously never met an Oracle salesperson, particularly back when they were a small company. Salespeople know one thing for certain: Once they get you to buy, you will stay with them for a long time, because admitting to your superiors that you made a purchasing mistake puts you in the hotseat.
Indeed. And the parent poster complained that he had not received proper proposals from the open source companies. That simply means that RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake or whomever simply failed in their marketing.
The parent poster (you) complained that no one showed up with 3 color brochures. It says nothing about RedHat, SuSE or Mandrake. It says that he knows nothing about procuring software. This of course would make since, since by your definition and his admission, he is only an ameteur (He admitted that he does this voluntarily and by your definition that makes him an amateur).
What makes you a professional in some field? You do it for a living. If the OSS developers do not code for money, they're amateurs by definition. For instance, Alan Cox was an OSS pro a few years ago when he was still on RedHat's payroll. On the other hand the likes of Donald Becker or Linus Torvalds are not pros since they do not code OSS for a living.
This is an incredibly ignorant (and may I say it? Amateur) attempt at wordsmithing. It may be true that one of the dictionairy definitions of professional is one who earns his/her living in the field in question. However, the use of amateur and professional in common culture invokes the definition of competency rather than sustenance. Attempting to take a dictionairy definition to categorize a thing that will be interpreted with the extremely incompatible common cultural definition is a very *ameteur attempt* at a wordsmithed insult, even if you are being paid to do it.
As far as these individuals that you mention are concerned, even your own convoluted logic falls apart because these individuals do indeed draw salaries from the technology industry.
No, educating themselves is not an option, because they already have a dayjob and designing a governmental datacenter requires a corporate level experience and skills - not some grubby group of "let's throw something together" open source linux hippies.
That is some pretty disturbing, uninformed, mindless, insulting and bantering language, Tim, err.. I mean, Eric. Did you come up with this yourself, or is this some common preconception that passes between you and your co-workers before you jump online and, uhh... ironically, start chatting on the biggest "linux hippie geek" website in the known universe. Why are you here?
I think it's pretty obvious. If you don't like us, don't be here. If you have to be here, even if you don't like us, then either you have some really serious problems or you aren't here because you want to be. Obviously if you are here even when you don't want to be, it must mean you are here for a reason. There is an objective. What is your objective, Eric?
Is it working? Have you convinced us that using Open Source in government is a bad idea? Or simply that it is a bad idea to listen to you... In fact...
NO CARRIER
No, read my original post, I am not "refusing to consider", I am disappointed that it's not making a better case for itself as there is a distinct possibility that it is actually the best answer.
That is not how you are coming across. You are coming across as someone who is trying very hard to justify a course that you have already decided on (proprietary). I'm not sure if the AC making the TROLL posts is right or wrong, but if you are "Eric Ass Raymond", which seems likely, then it is pretty clear that this whole exercise (chatting with you about this) is just a big adventure in FUD. In which case, shame on you.
But if you are being straight-up here and just want feedback, then take it and try it. Open Source is not always the answer. But in government, there are strong reasons to believe that anything else is not in the best interest of your government or taxpayers. Think carefully about it and make a decision that is best for your comunity for the long term. Remember that your choice now has long-term ripple effects.
The software - open or closed - does not maintain itself. The mere existence of the source code is as good as nothing if there is no-one who understands it.
If no one is using it, it probably isn't very good and you should find another option. One would think that this would be obvious, both for commercial software and for Open Source software.
It's dangerous to start thinking that as long as the source code exists, anyone (with a CS degree) can just take it up, fix it and start maintaining it. In less than a decade the languages and architectures change so much that a newly graduated person will have difficulties in dealing with ancient code.
No, I don't think so. I think it is much more dangerous to allow your government to lock itself into a relationship with a vendor that will never release the source code. The government will never have control over those systems and the people being governed will never have the right to inspect and audit how those systems work.
Any competent engineer coming out of University today could very easily deal with twenty year old code. In fact, they could probably write scripts (or find conversion utilities) that would allow them to bring it up-to-current, converting source code and whatnot. But in a case like this, one would think that any system that the government is considering would have enough of an interest level (certainly after it is put into practice) such that it will be supported continuously. But if it is not, at least we are safe in the knowledge that the code is not lost and CAN be updated at any time without lawsuits and Indiana-Jones style find-the-source-code adventures.
Just remember all those Y2K projects? Sure we had the source code for critical projects but the code was in Cobol or some other antiquated language. We suddenly found out that we need loads and load of people who know Cobol, but the people who had the skills to deal with it were already gone. A lifespan measured in decades is particularly typical for governmental projects. You see how silly your argument is? The availability of the source code is good but doesn't save you.
This is funny, because you are actually making MY argument for Me. Y2K is a great example. There was certainly an IT spending boost, but so far as I am aware, all of the real problems encountered were encountered with systems that came from out-of-business vendors and/or vendors that couldn't locate source for decommissioned products. The other major problem was in-house projects that had been in the attic for twenty years and often just trying to figure out how to do a build or install the build. Had these projects been open-source, there would have been a virtual guarantee that a small community would have formed around those projects to update them (you being one of the members), saving money, time and in many cases, just making it possible.
Getting and using the Cobol programmers? That was just a matter of money (consultants), and quite a temporary problem. I know of many instances of 'C' or ''VB' programmers grabbing COBOL books and jumping in the fray.
If did you homework when writing the contract you have nothing to fear. The company will be obliged to help you over the transition period.
When a company goes out of business, your belief that they will honor their contracts with you may help you sleep at night, but those beliefs are not going to pay the costs or motivate the people at the company that is going out of business to do such a thing. Your comment is silly. You know what happens when a company goes out of business? THEY STOP HONORING ALL CONTRACTS BECAUSE THE COMPANY IS DEAD.
As far as the end-of-life products go, that's just natural. I've never quite understood the obsession the open source has with maintaining obsolete code. From time to time it's good to end an old product line and write another one from scratch to meet the challenges of today not the past.
Actually, in my experience, Open Source documentation is often better than documentation for proprietary software - at least in content.
Generally, the documentaiton for proprietary software is written by tech-writers who have a less than perfect understanding of what the developers have done. However, they do have a particular skill for wordsmithing and polish. So the documentation often ends up looking better.
On the other hand, Open Source documentation is generally a living thing, starting with the original docs written by the authors and eventually weaving in information collected in support message boards, live FAQs, etc..
As Open Source software matures, the documentation becomes startlingly good, having been contributed and distilled from the user base and the group of authors and supporting individuals and companies. In the maturing portion of the lifecycle of Open-Source, there are often those with tech-writing talents that jump in to help as well.
So, of course, a new, small team project has ugly, yet powerfully relevant documentation (often with bad grammar and badly organized), or perhaps none at all. But mature Open Source projects have absolutely incredible documentation, generally on a level that proprietary documentation cannot touch.
And don't forget, the penultimate documentation is the source code (which isn't even published by proprietary software vendors).
Certainly you can't do that to those parts of the software that you did not write. However, I believe you can attach additional restrictions upon the portion that you write, can you not?
So, for instance, a contributor to the SAMBA project could, perhaps, insist that SCO be explicitly prohibited from redistributing any work containing his contributioins. This does not affect any contribution other than that of the specific copyright holder (the contributor).
Am I wrong?
ISTR that the SAMBA team is particularly pissed at them and would love a legitimate excuse for preventing them from including SAMBA in their Unix line.
Perhaps the SAMBA team could add a clause to their grant of copyright that excludes SCO. Is this posible with the GPL?
I would like to urge those of you that are in a position to do so to add a clause to your conditions of copyright (e.g. GPL) that excludes SCO from participating due to it's posture against the GPL.
So Bill and friends somehow managed to get a bill into law so that they can have a new toy?
And we dare to wonder why or how his company so elusively avoids legal responsibility for it's actions?
How this thing runs Linux once it has been optimized for it (correct drivers, kernel patches, compiler switches, compiler version, etc..)
"How many people keep their computer on 24 hours a day simply because they can't stand to sit around for four or five minutes waiting for it to boot up?" he asked. "I don't think anyone has researched that particular issue, but I'll bet there are a lot of them.
I guess it must just be a PC thing. I have a PowerMac, an iMac, two PowerBooks and my wife has an iBook. I can't remember the last time I booted a single one of those devices. On the laptops, you just close the cover and they go to sleep. On the desktops, they are set to sleep after a period of inactivity. And with Macs, going to sleep / waking from sleep is essentially instantanious....
So my question is, "Do you really need MRAM to solve that problem, or maybe just some lessons from Cupertino?
255 states? You think you can fit 255 states in a 1V voltage range? Without state 221 and 222 getting mixed up? With lets say a 1Ghz clock and all the electrical fields and line reflections etc. influencing your signal?
I know my comment wasn't entirely clear, but what I was trying to say is that combining multiple fbits to reach a precision of 255 states would be enough for most applications. I understand the issues associated with discreet voltage differences in silicon and agree. But the possibility of digitally clocked, analog signals allowing for a fuzzy-logic (De-Morgan Algreba) on silicon is interesting... Not binary. Not Analog. The real issue there would be AD to go back and forth to memory... Oh well.. maybe next century...
Then SCO is beyond stupid, becuase the GPL is NOT a licence of use, it is a Copyright protected fair copy statement (read distribution), allowed and tested in other forms under present copyright laws.
You must understand that "legal thinking" is different than 'logical thinking" and that SCO's claims are related to copyright of derivative works which "may" be interpreted by courts to be a symmetrical issue to the GPL's viral copyright. Do not take this issue lightly or brush it off because you think it is different. There is a lot of money at stake and some very good minds working on this... Conspiracy theories are silly when they make no sense. When there are billions of dollars at stake, conspiracies are not theories - they are the modus operandi...
I think that the best thing the Samba team could do would be to draft a letter, asking Darl and Co. to reaffirm their commitment to complying with the terms under which SCO received their intellectual property. Chances are, SCO will ignore it--as I said, I don't think that Samba currently has grounds to revoke the license--but at least it will highlight the hypocrisy of SCO's behavior and provide some good PR for the community.
Interesting idea. Perhaps it should be taken further. Perhaps a coallition of Open Source project groups should send SCO a letter demanding that SCO publicly acknowledge it's responsibility with respect to Intellectual Property that belongs to the Open Source community. This letter should further state that failure to do so will lead to a cease and desist from the Open Source community (all members of the coalition), barring SCO from continuing to distribute intellectual property from that community due to it's lack of respect and acknowledgement of the terms of legal redistribution of that property.
Is the purpose of SCO's actions to attempt to legally damage or destroy the GPL?
Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye: Is the purpose of SCO's actions to damage the GPL?
Sprint was set to release the t608 bluetooth enabled phone (a dream come true for powerbook owners), but something happened. They are not releasing it... Voice your support at the following web petition if you, like me, would like a bluetooth sprint pcs phone: http://www.petitiononline.com/sellt608/petition.ht ml
I think any geek worth his salt can see that they're lying about the merits of the suit, they've already released everything with thier Linux distributions, and they top execs are dumping stock as fast as they can.
Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye: Is the purpose of SCO's actions to damage the GPL?
You go back to being a scientist and I'll go back to saving people like you from yourselves with your lack of understanding regarding the need for real security policy. I promise I won't pick apart or call FUD when you speak of something technical regarding your line of work... That is, if you don't tell me ficticous realities about how employees are to be trusted.
You are damned lucky you never encountered me in your control-freak carreer. You and your kind create the atmosphere that you talk about with such disdain (employee is not trusted, enemy of corporation).
You have no clue how to build or operate a secure network which empowers it's users and provides them with the FLEXIBILITY and FREEDOM REQUIRED for them to DO THEIR JOBS.
Let me give you a hint: DOMAINS and SEGMENTATION with CABLES and FIREWALLS. Not a bunch of winny little software nazis running around abusing the tiny squirt of power they have. I have encountered your kind before, trying to waylaste productivity in order to ego masterbate. I enjoy bleeding people like you, slowly, before putting you in the HR meatgrinder.
While you are running around pissing off all of those that you are jealous of becuase they have better jobs than you, the dude in the corner with the laptop is sucking data off the sensitive fileservers that you set up (with the mistaken belief that no-one could connect to them because everyone is running your software).