I was using O2000 and had to do some work in O2003. The file...open threw me the first time, as instead of a large dialog box appearing, it instead appeared stealthily on the right. Personally, I preferred it the way it was before.
Changing to OOo can find people wondering where a few things are, but mostly, people get used to it very quickly.
It's a question of how good you are, how much money you want, how much freedom you want.
Quite a lot of people in the UK are signed up with indie labels, and whilst this means they don't have an apartment on Park Lane, they do have a good living. They also have a huge amount of artistic control.
These artists often do well as a result of grass roots promotion. Played by DJs who champion the music, or as a result of great live performance or word of mouth. Most fans of The Fall didn't hear them on MTV.
In my days as a mainframe developer, I remember how much more I enjoyed development. Software was annually licensed, and produced a better solution. Changes to the OS were limited. A few new features per year which progressed the use of the system, not rewriting the world to a new philosophy to justify their existence. Changes were mostly about stability and faults, meaning that the thing ran like a rock. These also resulted in systems that could run for many years without reinvestment.
I think the rental/service model works much better than the pre-packaged. VB6 is going to die and companies are going to lose their investment. While COBOL mainframe developers are still running stuff from 20 years ago.
Personally, I'm switching to free software (RoR book on order!).
Copyright at the current term is too long. I'd argue for about 20 years - that allows all manner of music and movies that missed being an instant hit to be eventually get recognition and reward the creator.
Because phishing is an attempt to take something that is not yours by your own wilful actions, where this is just buying something at the price offered. The defence of staff who don't care or bad computers is no defence. You, the CEO are responsible for that.
A discussion about ethics, when talking about large stores is about the most batshit thing I've heard today. Do you have any idea how most of them treat their suppliers?
If you know the price is definitely wrong, you are basically stealing.
Rubbish. You are taking something at the price offered. It's completely legitimate as you have carried out your side of the bargain. If someone isn't checking their prices offered, then that's their lookout. Completely different to deliberately creating the situation.
That doesn't mean that sometimes I won't tell a store, though. I'd generally let a struggling small retailer know.
The two things are in competition, in the same way that buses and cars are. Granted, the reliability may not be so good. But if it is free/very cheap, lots of people will accept it.
The problem with government supplying is like what you get with UK healthcare, though. You pay regardless, and so if you then opt for private healthcare, you have to pay again. It doesn't give the people running the service much incentive to improve.
Where businesses have a massive investment, and to create a competitor would take too long, regulation is a better option. OFTEL did a lot of good things, like forcing cellphone operators to do number transfers, and the DSL market is extremely competitive right now.
The problem is that often people are either charged with a job, which means that they pursue it, as it is not their job to do a "big picture" view.
Also, a lot of companies don't get the whole counter-logic pro-emotion/cool/mindshare thing. It's a little like music - you may lose some sales as a result of someone downloading an MP3 of your single, but you also might just raise the awareness, which will increase sales and compensate for the loss.
Google get this. They could have shut down people ripping Google maps, but decided to open up the API instead. They're probably watching what people are doing with the API and learning what people look for and how.
Sure, a lot of apps don't run on a Mac, but for a home user, it seems to me that as long as you don't want a specific app (eg Picasa) but will settle for an app that basically does the same job, then you are sorted. The only exception is probably games.
As I'm thinking of getting a Mini next year, I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.
As far as I know, it's not about people who know the defendant, it's more based in the principle that they should be normal people, off the street, as opposed to legal experts.
One thing that I have noticed companies starting to do (even if using.net) is that they are building more and more apps as browser based. The reason is to do with simplicity of deployment and flexibility, but it may have an impact - the more that is done as web based, the easier the switch to another platform is possible.
When I've put my systems live, I normally stand in front of a large banner with the words "Mission Accomplished", before spending a few years fixing a broken system that was poorly designed and planned for.
Looks like you missed the part about "Pay for it to be fixed".
I'm not pushing it as a religion. I'm trying to be realistic about people's expectations with regards to it.
Even if you are seeking fame, are you going to look after every single users needs? Of course not. You will look after a broad range of customer needs.
No, it's not. But the people looking after this aren't earning. Put yourself in their shoes. If I was on this project, and I wanted a media player to work, I'd fix it and release it. If however, a media player wasn't an issue to me, why should I fix it? So I can keep everyone who isn't paying my bills happy? Pay for it to be fixed, do it yourself, or accept it as is. You are asking a lot from a project that has cost you nothing.
Yes, because users complain about it! But, I forgot, user complaints are ignored.... So become a coder, you l4m0r, and solve it yourself! It will take only a couple of months up to several years (depending on the experience) to understand all the Linux interna from scratch, but people aren't supposed to spend their time with anything else than digging through Linux internals, right?
Not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is: Donate or fix it. Maybe even get involved in a capacity where you contribute something back which means that you become part of the team and get listened to. And how many people are actually complaining about this issue you have?
Because they promised it on their ads (website counts as advertisement)?
So? They don't owe you anything. What are you going to do? Quit using it? They'll miss you. Find another distro and move on.
They are working for nothing already, arent they? They ask for suggestions and criticism so they can improve their projects, don't they?
Well, firstly, re:"don't they?" I don't know if they do. Secondly, if I asked for suggestions and criticisms, it's my OSS project development. It doesn't mean I have to do any of them. People don't work for free on these projects out of pure altruism (as a rule). They want motivation. They are currently working for free on the projects that suit them. If I build a component for my company and decide to OSS it, I might add some features suggested (either because it will be useful to me, get more users who might buy some support, or it might be fun). But, you want me to get my component to read from say, a database format that you use that is quite obscure - you're going to do it yourself or pay.
Ubuntu is supposed to be an END-USER-DISTRO. NOT a programmer's distro
Which doesn't mean it should do everything that a user expects it to. The GPs comments were not to do with bugs, but hardware compatibility and the existence of two "system settings menus" (both of which I would class as features). Firstly, you cannot expect a bunch of volunteers to support every piece of hardware. Volunteers will support hardware for the reasons I gave before (scratch an itch, fun, pay, self-support). Why should they do otherwise? With regards to the two "system settings menus", that's a configuration issue, which could be resolved with a code change. Again, why should someone who is happy with the control mechanism change it for one user who doesn't like it. No commercial company would without payment, but at least you have the source code.
When a company includes a clause in their EULA that the user has no rights to complain everyone (also people like you) here in Slashdot scream how evil this company is. Free software does the same, and its ok? Oh come on.
Well, what a shocker! Let's start with this word: Free. Got it? It's free. That means that you gave nothing in return for receiving it. So, why the heck do you deserve any guarantees in terms of product quality? On the other hand, an EULA that has no returns is basically saying that even though you've done your half of the bargain, the supplier isn't going to. If a neighbour lent you his drill out of being neighbourly, and it stopped working, do you think you can sue him as you could a hire shop?
I'm amazed at how many people look at the free lunch of OSS and complain that it's a burger and not the filet mignon they get from the $100 a plate restaurant.
My attitude to OSS is that it's free, and I'm grateful for what I've been given. I contribute bug fixes back, I give feedback, I've made suggestions and donations, and I've provided low-level support (like telling Firefox users to retry their problem using the latest browser, but at least it lowers the queue).
I'm grateful because when I choose to use OSS, it's mostly because of massive cost savings - I got some shareware and some OSS software working together and saved me a few hundred over buying Visio. In addition, it's given me flexibility. I found a.net web control that saved me a few hundred, but I decided that an extra feature was required. I got in there and changed it. Try getting a vendor to make a small change for one customer and see how much it costs you.
You are right about hardware, and even though I've only used Linux a little, I now choose hardware in part on this basis - that it gives me flexibility. My next laptop will probably be Lenovo because they get written up well for Linux compatibility. You can even buy machines like Shuttles that have been tested with Mandrake.
the snotty answer is "if YOU want it to do X, then code it yourself"
So, as well as someone giving you a piece of software for free (often done as a labour of love), you expect them to add in your features? Would you do some work for nothing? People do things for many motivations. If you aren't a friend or a member of my family, I'll do things for you for two reasons - a) because I really want to (like the project might be fun, challenging or for a good cause) or b) because you pay me.
Want an example? I dropped an Ubuntu 5.10 CD into my athlon workstation which has a Geforce3 card in it, and a 17" Viewsonic monitor. When it finished installing, X came up, but at a resolution and frequency rate the monitor didn't support, so I could barely read the screen. I got that fixed, then discovered OpenGL wasn't hardware accelerated, so I installed the nvidia driver package.
Your example being a completely free distro. And it doesn't support your hardware. What have you done to help? Offered a donation? Written some code? This is completely free. Do you think you have some right to complain?
I then tried to figure out how to change my screen saver. It wasn't in the Gnome menus- I finally found it under a "debian" menu elsewhere. Apparently my system has at least two "system settings" menus. What the...
And Windows has how many? Again, Ubuntu is free, it's open source, put them together or suggest a move. I guess you can show that you've already done that and no-one listened?
As for your "surveying users", that's what I'd do if I wanted to have commercial customers. You expect an OSS developer to go asking users what they want, which will cost them time and effort. And for what gain?
Personally, I've downloaded and used OSS software and it's been a big help to me. But I accept it in the spirit it is donated - that often people build something for their own purpose and for some reason decide to give it away. Here's what I feel about OSS:-
It's free and I'm grateful.
I can choose not to use it.
I expect no help (but sometimes people have been good enough to point me to some code). I support it in a production environment, or presume to pay for support.
If I find a bug, I fix it and send back the fix to the author.
Slashdot Mirror
Changing to OOo can find people wondering where a few things are, but mostly, people get used to it very quickly.
Hi-definition could be "good enough" for video. If not, there's one more stage after until someone figures out holographic TV.
Quite a lot of people in the UK are signed up with indie labels, and whilst this means they don't have an apartment on Park Lane, they do have a good living. They also have a huge amount of artistic control.
These artists often do well as a result of grass roots promotion. Played by DJs who champion the music, or as a result of great live performance or word of mouth. Most fans of The Fall didn't hear them on MTV.
I think the rental/service model works much better than the pre-packaged. VB6 is going to die and companies are going to lose their investment. While COBOL mainframe developers are still running stuff from 20 years ago.
Personally, I'm switching to free software (RoR book on order!).
A discussion about ethics, when talking about large stores is about the most batshit thing I've heard today. Do you have any idea how most of them treat their suppliers?
Rubbish. You are taking something at the price offered. It's completely legitimate as you have carried out your side of the bargain. If someone isn't checking their prices offered, then that's their lookout. Completely different to deliberately creating the situation.
That doesn't mean that sometimes I won't tell a store, though. I'd generally let a struggling small retailer know.
The publics will to live by laws is weakened by the existence of bad laws with no moral authority behind them.
The other way would be for someone to create a multi-platform account. I don't have a link, but there's someone doing it in the UK.
The two things are in competition, in the same way that buses and cars are. Granted, the reliability may not be so good. But if it is free/very cheap, lots of people will accept it.
Where businesses have a massive investment, and to create a competitor would take too long, regulation is a better option. OFTEL did a lot of good things, like forcing cellphone operators to do number transfers, and the DSL market is extremely competitive right now.
Also, a lot of companies don't get the whole counter-logic pro-emotion/cool/mindshare thing. It's a little like music - you may lose some sales as a result of someone downloading an MP3 of your single, but you also might just raise the awareness, which will increase sales and compensate for the loss.
Google get this. They could have shut down people ripping Google maps, but decided to open up the API instead. They're probably watching what people are doing with the API and learning what people look for and how.
go on then...
As I'm thinking of getting a Mini next year, I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.
There's a few crimes that over time, government found juries finding people not guilty.
As far as I know, it's not about people who know the defendant, it's more based in the principle that they should be normal people, off the street, as opposed to legal experts.
One thing that I have noticed companies starting to do (even if using .net) is that they are building more and more apps as browser based. The reason is to do with simplicity of deployment and flexibility, but it may have an impact - the more that is done as web based, the easier the switch to another platform is possible.
When I've put my systems live, I normally stand in front of a large banner with the words "Mission Accomplished", before spending a few years fixing a broken system that was poorly designed and planned for.
I'm not pushing it as a religion. I'm trying to be realistic about people's expectations with regards to it.
Even if you are seeking fame, are you going to look after every single users needs? Of course not. You will look after a broad range of customer needs.
No, it's not. But the people looking after this aren't earning. Put yourself in their shoes. If I was on this project, and I wanted a media player to work, I'd fix it and release it. If however, a media player wasn't an issue to me, why should I fix it? So I can keep everyone who isn't paying my bills happy? Pay for it to be fixed, do it yourself, or accept it as is. You are asking a lot from a project that has cost you nothing.
Yes, because users complain about it! But, I forgot, user complaints are ignored.... So become a coder, you l4m0r, and solve it yourself! It will take only a couple of months up to several years (depending on the experience) to understand all the Linux interna from scratch, but people aren't supposed to spend their time with anything else than digging through Linux internals, right?
Not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is: Donate or fix it. Maybe even get involved in a capacity where you contribute something back which means that you become part of the team and get listened to. And how many people are actually complaining about this issue you have?
Because they promised it on their ads (website counts as advertisement)?
So? They don't owe you anything. What are you going to do? Quit using it? They'll miss you. Find another distro and move on.
Back that up then. Find me a number of posts on slashdot complaining about the EULA terms of a free piece of software.
Well, firstly, re:"don't they?" I don't know if they do. Secondly, if I asked for suggestions and criticisms, it's my OSS project development. It doesn't mean I have to do any of them. People don't work for free on these projects out of pure altruism (as a rule). They want motivation. They are currently working for free on the projects that suit them. If I build a component for my company and decide to OSS it, I might add some features suggested (either because it will be useful to me, get more users who might buy some support, or it might be fun). But, you want me to get my component to read from say, a database format that you use that is quite obscure - you're going to do it yourself or pay.
Ubuntu is supposed to be an END-USER-DISTRO. NOT a programmer's distro
Which doesn't mean it should do everything that a user expects it to. The GPs comments were not to do with bugs, but hardware compatibility and the existence of two "system settings menus" (both of which I would class as features). Firstly, you cannot expect a bunch of volunteers to support every piece of hardware. Volunteers will support hardware for the reasons I gave before (scratch an itch, fun, pay, self-support). Why should they do otherwise? With regards to the two "system settings menus", that's a configuration issue, which could be resolved with a code change. Again, why should someone who is happy with the control mechanism change it for one user who doesn't like it. No commercial company would without payment, but at least you have the source code.
When a company includes a clause in their EULA that the user has no rights to complain everyone (also people like you) here in Slashdot scream how evil this company is. Free software does the same, and its ok? Oh come on.
Well, what a shocker! Let's start with this word: Free. Got it? It's free. That means that you gave nothing in return for receiving it. So, why the heck do you deserve any guarantees in terms of product quality? On the other hand, an EULA that has no returns is basically saying that even though you've done your half of the bargain, the supplier isn't going to. If a neighbour lent you his drill out of being neighbourly, and it stopped working, do you think you can sue him as you could a hire shop?
I'm amazed at how many people look at the free lunch of OSS and complain that it's a burger and not the filet mignon they get from the $100 a plate restaurant.
My attitude to OSS is that it's free, and I'm grateful for what I've been given. I contribute bug fixes back, I give feedback, I've made suggestions and donations, and I've provided low-level support (like telling Firefox users to retry their problem using the latest browser, but at least it lowers the queue).
I'm grateful because when I choose to use OSS, it's mostly because of massive cost savings - I got some shareware and some OSS software working together and saved me a few hundred over buying Visio. In addition, it's given me flexibility. I found a .net web control that saved me a few hundred, but I decided that an extra feature was required. I got in there and changed it. Try getting a vendor to make a small change for one customer and see how much it costs you.
You are right about hardware, and even though I've only used Linux a little, I now choose hardware in part on this basis - that it gives me flexibility. My next laptop will probably be Lenovo because they get written up well for Linux compatibility. You can even buy machines like Shuttles that have been tested with Mandrake.
So, as well as someone giving you a piece of software for free (often done as a labour of love), you expect them to add in your features? Would you do some work for nothing? People do things for many motivations. If you aren't a friend or a member of my family, I'll do things for you for two reasons - a) because I really want to (like the project might be fun, challenging or for a good cause) or b) because you pay me.
Want an example? I dropped an Ubuntu 5.10 CD into my athlon workstation which has a Geforce3 card in it, and a 17" Viewsonic monitor. When it finished installing, X came up, but at a resolution and frequency rate the monitor didn't support, so I could barely read the screen. I got that fixed, then discovered OpenGL wasn't hardware accelerated, so I installed the nvidia driver package.
Your example being a completely free distro. And it doesn't support your hardware. What have you done to help? Offered a donation? Written some code? This is completely free. Do you think you have some right to complain?
I then tried to figure out how to change my screen saver. It wasn't in the Gnome menus- I finally found it under a "debian" menu elsewhere. Apparently my system has at least two "system settings" menus. What the...
And Windows has how many? Again, Ubuntu is free, it's open source, put them together or suggest a move. I guess you can show that you've already done that and no-one listened?
As for your "surveying users", that's what I'd do if I wanted to have commercial customers. You expect an OSS developer to go asking users what they want, which will cost them time and effort. And for what gain?
Personally, I've downloaded and used OSS software and it's been a big help to me. But I accept it in the spirit it is donated - that often people build something for their own purpose and for some reason decide to give it away. Here's what I feel about OSS:-
It's free and I'm grateful.
I can choose not to use it.
I expect no help (but sometimes people have been good enough to point me to some code). I support it in a production environment, or presume to pay for support.
If I find a bug, I fix it and send back the fix to the author.
Greatly inferior, but with a feature not found in another browser that you class as being "addicted to".
You aren't making much of a case here.