That's really unfair to the Republican Party. The Republican Party, believe it or not, was a liberal party when it was founded. The Democrats at that time were conservative. So, if I had to guess, I would say the Democrats were pro-business at that time.
You seem like you might know the answer to this: what is a born-again Christian? Can someone explain them to me? Also, what is an evangelical Christian and how do they fit in with Christianity?
Thanks! I'm Canadian but am not a Christian...and some of thos classifications seem to be unique to USA for some reason...
... it is arguable that the USA is a nation decomposing from libertarianism to socialism in time, forming a measurable historical trend.
You have no idea what socialism is, it seems. How can you say it is becoming more socialist when USA is the most capitalist country in the world, and is heading towards pure capitalism.
How about fascism? It is far easier to see USA switching to fascism than to Marxism and its relatives (such as socialism, communism, trotskism). A few more terrorist attacks in USA and it wouldn't surprise me if it moved a few steps closer to fascism.
It seems, in your view, there is only liberatarianism and socialism. That's it. Either you have fallen for US government propaganda, or you need to read up on econopolitical systems more. Opposite of liberatarianism is authoratarianism such as Stalinism and Nazism. Where do they fit into your view? How about monarchy? Or do you consider everything to be socialist?
Even though Republicans spend a lot of money, it is mostly on things like military or where the benefits accrue to the wealthy (eg. tax cuts). Most scientists and others don't benefit much from the Republican policies, mostly because the benefit is directed towards a select few. For example, consider the present Bush administration, who is spending a lot. A huge chunk of the money is tax cuts which benefits the wealthy (if they cut sales tax, then lower classes would benefit but not with income tax). Then you have the US government spending on Iraq and the military. Again, the money goes to a select few. Look up who is benefiting from the money spent in Iraq. You'll find that a few companies (Kellog&Brown, aka Halliburton) is pocketing billions.
Democrats on the other hand are apt to spend the money on some scientific programs (say space) or on environmental research, or social programs.
This make sense, but one fallacy of their reasoning is taking their logic for granted. The populace supposedly served by "greater good" policies are a greedy bunch and merely want the free lunch. If anyone wants to debate this, ask a tax preparer about who comes in for the Earned Income Credit (be ready for an earful).
Do you think everyone, or even a large minority of people, are like that? If that were the case, the system would collapse overnight. Your argument is no different than the right wing argument against welfare simply because some people leech. Yes, people do leech but as long as it is small, it doesn't matter--and no, you can never eliminate it.
I'm getting the impression that the ties between being Republican and being faithful is a fairly recent invention, simply due to the large number of sheep-like Christians who are Republican. GWB is a nauseating example of this.
This isn't new, although it depends on what time frame you are referring to (20 years, 50? 70? 100?). Remember that the Republican Party (when it was founded) was a liberal party, and the Democrats were conservative--this was 100 years ago. The shift, in my opinion, happened during the Great Depression, when the Democrats took a turn left, while the Republicans went right. So, it all depends on the time frame. Even now, it is not just the so-called Christian-Right that is sheep-like. As a matter of fact, they are a pretty small population. Other elements of the right wing exhibit smilar behaviour. For instance, consider how the right wing labels everyone who criticizes the US government or the war as anti-American, unAmerican, traitor, etc. Is this just the Christian Right? Nope. It's most of the Republican Party.
It seems that Libertarians are one of the remaining parties who are fairly objective about preserving personal liberty in the true sense (limited government, distributed government, equitable freedom for all people).
I find it ironic that a so-called Liberatarians (i.e. liberatarian-right, liberatarian-conservative) vote for Republicans. They don't even vote for their own party. On top of that, it is interesting how many so-called Liberatarians value conservatism and capitalism, more than liberatarianism (ie. rights). How many Liberatarians criticize Guantanomo Bay? How about the treatment of Jose Padilla? And so forth. You'll note, for example, that the push to limit government size is driven by captitalist forces rather than liberatarian forces. That is to say, most so-called Liberatarians trying to limit government size want to do it so that capitalism benefits (ie. can privatize and then reap the profits), instead of trying to limit government because it is becoming too powerful and gaining new powers. How many Liberatarians criticize the massive US military and its imperialism all over the world?
Until Liberatarians in USA value liberatarianism over conservatism and capitalism, they will be nothing...that's why Liberatarianism is almost nonexistent in USA. I'm not a liberatarian and could care less about the Liberatarians. However, I can say for sure that most Liberatarians in USA are nothing more than capitalists and conservatives cloaked as Liberatarians.
I agree, but there comes a point when one's outspoken stance on a subject can be detrimental to accomplishing the dictates of one's position.
I don't see how this is detrimental to his position (although admittedly, I don't know much about his position or his job requirements).
The author wrote this piece in as detrimental and inflammatory style as possible. This was not presented as a reasoned and objective analysis.
That is precisely why it is an opinion and not a scientific work. In any case, even if it were a scientific work then science (i.e. scientific process) will take care of it. His peers and others will debunk his views and explain why it is not true. The scientific process of testing, questioning, and (dis)proving will sort all this out. We don't need freedom of speech being trampled by populists.
As to Freedom of Speech... "A Right is simply an opportunity to be responsible." And it appears that the author may have abused that right.
We have different ideological views on freedoms. I'm a radical and you are a conformist (a moderate). You claim that the "author may have abused" his freedom of speech. My view is that you cannot abuse the freedom of speech. No one can--or should be able to--take that away from you, penalize you, claim that you are overstepping the bounds, etc.
I hate to say it but your reasoning is almost like some conservatives claiming that everyone has the right to free speech but criticizing their country is not part of it. What you are supporting here is similar and I am totally against it.
Other posters here have put forth the theory that he presented this as a work of satire. And thus, I am waiting for confirmation of this before I call for the tar and feathers.
From the sound of it, it doesn't look like satire. It is simply a harsh criticism... if he is a satirist, he is a terrible one;)
Your example isn't that great. Making up lies and attacking a person doesn't work in this society. In this case, I would sue you for libel or something like that (I don't know the rules but I think I can sue you if you publish something saying I am a pedophile). Having said that, in my ideal world, I would allow people to say that. It is my belief--and my hope--that the truth will come out in the end. I believe that people will dismiss your views when they realize that you are lying. You have no proof, or my life may be contrary to your description, and so forth. In the end, I believe the truth will come out. I am perfectly ok with you calling me a pedophile, just like I am ok with you calling me 'dumb'. People will realize that truth is on my side.
Free Speech means that you are free to say what you want without any consequences FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
This isn't going to fly well in a capitalist world, but I think that should be extended beyond the government. Freedom of speech should take precedence. It's too bad most humans don't accept that. If I ran a business, I would allow my employee to be a fascist, assuming that he/she doesn't treat customers and other workers differently. Of course, if he/she starts claim an employee is inferior then I'll fire him/her; but if he/she is a fascist on their own time, in their private life, that is cool with me (even though I'm an enemy of fascism). This is something that no one does right now--because no one values absolute freedom. What I am saying is quite radical I admit...
If people believe Howard's an idiot, and more importantly, can convince his superiors he's an idiot, then fine.
That's fine with me. But the truth is that people won't be able to convice his superiors that he is an idiot. All they will do, as one poster in this thread remarked, is to fire/demote/whatever him for going against the status quo. In other words, populism will trample all over free speech. Instead of proving that someone's opinion is wrong (which is almost impossible; consider the 'C++ sucks' case), they will simply punish him for being not being a conformist!
I have no problem with that. People should be allowed to call others 'morons', 'fools', 'idiots', and so forth. That's ok with me. Such consequences are cool with me...
Without providing any information to back up his argument, this guy comes across as a total loon, or at the very least totally unprofessional. He isn't writing fiction, so he must provide factual evidence to reinforce his claims -- I can't "suspend my disbelief," like we all do on some level when we immerse ourselves in fictitious work.
What he is saying is more like an opinion than a scientific work. It's like the example I mentioned in the above post of saying 'C++ sucks; Python rules'. One can't really justify "C++ sucks". You can say it is not elegant, hard to code, etc but ultimately it is an opinion. A lot of what happens in academia, or for that matter anywhere else, is subjective. How many so-called "loony" scientific theories are out there? How many of them turned out to be right? Is Global Warming real or not? Is time travel possible or not? You would never have progress without dissent--regardless of how extreme and idiotic it may sound!
When he is ostracized by his peers for a commentary that smacks in the face of the laws of written communication, it makes Princeton look bad.
See...you don't care about freedom of speech. All you care about is image. You are a conformist. I guess you want everyone conforming to the mainstream status quo.
And you don't make one of the major higher education learning institutions in America look bad. You have to remember that free speech is acceptable as long as it is in the name of the higher cause of learning -- the moment he makes the university look bad, his ass is grass.
Universities don't gain their reputation by canning people for dissenting views. If Princeton keeps doing it, I can guarantee you that it will be nothing in 50 years!
In closing, free speech doesn't protect anyone from making a complete arse out of themselves in a professional community.
No it doesn't...but it certainly should protect someone from being fired for their opinions.
The right to free speech only means that the government can't jail you for saying things it doesn't like. Free speech doesn't immunize you against people thinking you are an ass, nor does it prevent them from having second thoughts about your competence in the job they hired you for.
In my opinion free speech should extend beyond the government--I realize that is a minority opinion shared by only a few in this world. In any case, I agree with what you posted. My problem is that he should not be fired for his opinion. People can think whatever they want of him, but firing him/forcing him to take down his article/etc is suppressing his speech.
Free speech does not mean you can speak with impunity and be immune from the consequences of your actions.
Free speech means what it implies: free speech!!! People should be allowed to say whatever they want without any consequences. I realize the world doesn't work that way, but it should. It's too bad that people don't value freedom for what it is. Freedom should take precedence over everything else. The only way someone should be fired is if they can't perform the job, or something. This case has nothing to do with that. Someone is simply expressing their opinion. It is clear from the words that this is an opionion piece. It's too bad you--and the rest of the world--are conformists and don't like to see dissenting views.
How about taking responsibility for what you say? If you're not willing to back up your speech, your speech is worthless anyway.
One can't back up what he said. It is a subjective opinion. Not everything in the world is as objective as you imagine. It's like a professor saying "USA is practicing imperialism". Some would agree; some won't. Or a professor saying "C++ sucks; Python rules". You can't really back up stuff like that. What you are endorsing is akin to firing someone for saying 'C++ sucks'. C++ may rule the world and people may claim a person who said that is a fool. But you need to let the dissenting view be expressed, regardless of how good C++ is compared to Python.
I haven't read the article (it seems to be down--slashdotted perhaps (although it was down for hours)??). But from the sound of it, this seems like an opinion piece more than anything. People should be allowed to express dissenting views! If Linux sucks and is controlled by some evil penguins from outer space, he/she should be allowed to say it.
Even if people don't take his opinion for much, he should not be fired. One should only be fired if they can't do their job. Having low support is not a good enough reason to suppress him. For instance, the vast majority of professors are totally ignored. Should they all be let go?
To see my point, consider something like science. Say physics. If someone says that time travel is possible should they be fired? The vast majority of scientists don't think it is possible, but so what? Imagine if people were fired for having dissenting views. You wouldn't even have progress...
I am against people being fired for saying unpopular things. I even extend this to corporations (although since we live in a capitalist world, private businesses are a different story). People should only be fired for not performing on the job.
That should never happen. Last thing we need are people's freedom of speech being suppressed. Academia, believe it or not, is the bastion of free speech. I would prefer if it remains that way. If what this guy says is a bunch of nonsense, well, people will just ignore him.
Apart from the fact that ID from lose a lot of money by releasing it for Linux, it would definitely spike Linux use. Doom3 is what I consider a killer application. I don't play FPS games but it is very influential. The original Doom actually drove PC sales.
As far as school is concerned, that could work too but I'm not sure what would be a "killer application" for school. When I was in school, I didn't really use the computer for anything (except for writing essays, and stuff like that).
As a side note, Linux is really excellent for kids. There are some nice applications that come with KDE. It's all free and I like them (I haven't used them much though). If I have kids, that would definitely be a plus. I should note, however, that the Microsoft Encarta for Windows is far more important than anything on Linux (at least if I re-lived my life).
True...but in the end, it's the application that matters. If you want Linux to gain mass appeal, you have to attract game developers. Success requires harmony between different elements. A great OS means nothing if the applications suck, or vice versa.
I use Mandrake Linux as my only OS at home. I have no problems with it other than games/multimedia/etc. I'm unemployed:( so I can't afford games nowadays. But if I get a job, I would have a hard time using Linux. I want to play games (one of my main forms of entertainment), watch DVDs, download QuickTime movie trailers, etc. The general population does things like that too.
I have been saying this over and over: until Linux supports games and other multimedia applications, it won't fly on the home desktop. Not everyone plays games, but it is a killer application. Home users care about multimedia, games, and stuff like that. Linux is weak in those things...
Also, despite his probable lack of computer knowlege, he is probably a lot smarter that your average computer user, so if he doesn't think it's ready, your average computer user won't think it's ready, either.
Can you be so sure of that? A lot of CEOs make mistakes--major mistakes. Unless you work for his company, don't worship authority from someone purporting to be higher than you. You can agree with his point. However, that doesn't mean it is right or should be given much weight.
Slashdot posts are all inflammatory (mostly because people have ideological views here). Nevertheless, the post was somewhat correct. Yes, the CEO doesn't say the same stuff as what was mentioned. But the post articulates his point, that he would never say in public. Regardless of how you dice it, that guy is basically saying that Red Hat is out of the home user market, and he doesn't think Linux is ready for the desktop.
Linux has problems with documentation. The help and various documentation files are just not written well. I guess it kind of makes sense given that the documentation is often written by tech-savvy people, while Windows documents are written by language majors and others who specialize in them.
Whenver I look at Linux documentation, it looks like a scientific work:) When I look at Windows docuemntation, it looks like a novel:) The average user has an easier time reading a novel than a scientific book.
The open source community needs to get non-engineers/non-scientists/etc helping out. As long as it is primarily driven and supported by geeks, it won't gain mass appeal.
lol that is a great comment. Not only is it funny but it's so true! Humour is often at its best when you mix sarcasm and humour...it's kind of like The Onion. It's so funny because a lot of it is partiallly true (it's exagerrated of course).
The thing is... users don't care about that. Why is Yahoo still popular (although not as much as google)? Yahoo forces commercial sites to pay to get listed.
Under capitalism, all that matters are the owners. As long as the stock goes up, it is good. A stock going up by $100million is pretty much the same as the company making $100million more in income (sort of--of course, sales increases are more solid).
Whatever is good for the owners is good for the company...
Slashdot Mirror
That's really unfair to the Republican Party. The Republican Party, believe it or not, was a liberal party when it was founded. The Democrats at that time were conservative. So, if I had to guess, I would say the Democrats were pro-business at that time.
Now, of course, it is the opposite...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You seem like you might know the answer to this: what is a born-again Christian? Can someone explain them to me? Also, what is an evangelical Christian and how do they fit in with Christianity?
Thanks! I'm Canadian but am not a Christian...and some of thos classifications seem to be unique to USA for some reason...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
... it is arguable that the USA is a nation decomposing from libertarianism to socialism in time, forming a measurable historical trend.
You have no idea what socialism is, it seems. How can you say it is becoming more socialist when USA is the most capitalist country in the world, and is heading towards pure capitalism.
How about fascism? It is far easier to see USA switching to fascism than to Marxism and its relatives (such as socialism, communism, trotskism). A few more terrorist attacks in USA and it wouldn't surprise me if it moved a few steps closer to fascism.
It seems, in your view, there is only liberatarianism and socialism. That's it. Either you have fallen for US government propaganda, or you need to read up on econopolitical systems more. Opposite of liberatarianism is authoratarianism such as Stalinism and Nazism. Where do they fit into your view? How about monarchy? Or do you consider everything to be socialist?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Even though Republicans spend a lot of money, it is mostly on things like military or where the benefits accrue to the wealthy (eg. tax cuts). Most scientists and others don't benefit much from the Republican policies, mostly because the benefit is directed towards a select few. For example, consider the present Bush administration, who is spending a lot. A huge chunk of the money is tax cuts which benefits the wealthy (if they cut sales tax, then lower classes would benefit but not with income tax). Then you have the US government spending on Iraq and the military. Again, the money goes to a select few. Look up who is benefiting from the money spent in Iraq. You'll find that a few companies (Kellog&Brown, aka Halliburton) is pocketing billions.
Democrats on the other hand are apt to spend the money on some scientific programs (say space) or on environmental research, or social programs.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
This make sense, but one fallacy of their reasoning is taking their logic for granted. The populace supposedly served by "greater good" policies are a greedy bunch and merely want the free lunch. If anyone wants to debate this, ask a tax preparer about who comes in for the Earned Income Credit (be ready for an earful).
Do you think everyone, or even a large minority of people, are like that? If that were the case, the system would collapse overnight. Your argument is no different than the right wing argument against welfare simply because some people leech. Yes, people do leech but as long as it is small, it doesn't matter--and no, you can never eliminate it.
I'm getting the impression that the ties between being Republican and being faithful is a fairly recent invention, simply due to the large number of sheep-like Christians who are Republican. GWB is a nauseating example of this.
This isn't new, although it depends on what time frame you are referring to (20 years, 50? 70? 100?). Remember that the Republican Party (when it was founded) was a liberal party, and the Democrats were conservative--this was 100 years ago. The shift, in my opinion, happened during the Great Depression, when the Democrats took a turn left, while the Republicans went right. So, it all depends on the time frame. Even now, it is not just the so-called Christian-Right that is sheep-like. As a matter of fact, they are a pretty small population. Other elements of the right wing exhibit smilar behaviour. For instance, consider how the right wing labels everyone who criticizes the US government or the war as anti-American, unAmerican, traitor, etc. Is this just the Christian Right? Nope. It's most of the Republican Party.
It seems that Libertarians are one of the remaining parties who are fairly objective about preserving personal liberty in the true sense (limited government, distributed government, equitable freedom for all people).
I find it ironic that a so-called Liberatarians (i.e. liberatarian-right, liberatarian-conservative) vote for Republicans. They don't even vote for their own party. On top of that, it is interesting how many so-called Liberatarians value conservatism and capitalism, more than liberatarianism (ie. rights). How many Liberatarians criticize Guantanomo Bay? How about the treatment of Jose Padilla? And so forth. You'll note, for example, that the push to limit government size is driven by captitalist forces rather than liberatarian forces. That is to say, most so-called Liberatarians trying to limit government size want to do it so that capitalism benefits (ie. can privatize and then reap the profits), instead of trying to limit government because it is becoming too powerful and gaining new powers. How many Liberatarians criticize the massive US military and its imperialism all over the world?
Until Liberatarians in USA value liberatarianism over conservatism and capitalism, they will be nothing...that's why Liberatarianism is almost nonexistent in USA. I'm not a liberatarian and could care less about the Liberatarians. However, I can say for sure that most Liberatarians in USA are nothing more than capitalists and conservatives cloaked as Liberatarians.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
lol That's a funny story :)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I agree, but there comes a point when one's outspoken stance on a subject can be detrimental to accomplishing the dictates of one's position.
;)
I don't see how this is detrimental to his position (although admittedly, I don't know much about his position or his job requirements).
The author wrote this piece in as detrimental and inflammatory style as possible. This was not presented as a reasoned and objective analysis.
That is precisely why it is an opinion and not a scientific work. In any case, even if it were a scientific work then science (i.e. scientific process) will take care of it. His peers and others will debunk his views and explain why it is not true. The scientific process of testing, questioning, and (dis)proving will sort all this out. We don't need freedom of speech being trampled by populists.
As to Freedom of Speech... "A Right is simply an opportunity to be responsible." And it appears that the author may have abused that right.
We have different ideological views on freedoms. I'm a radical and you are a conformist (a moderate). You claim that the "author may have abused" his freedom of speech. My view is that you cannot abuse the freedom of speech. No one can--or should be able to--take that away from you, penalize you, claim that you are overstepping the bounds, etc.
I hate to say it but your reasoning is almost like some conservatives claiming that everyone has the right to free speech but criticizing their country is not part of it. What you are supporting here is similar and I am totally against it.
Other posters here have put forth the theory that he presented this as a work of satire. And thus, I am waiting for confirmation of this before I call for the tar and feathers.
From the sound of it, it doesn't look like satire. It is simply a harsh criticism... if he is a satirist, he is a terrible one
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Fine. You're a dickhead. And a pedophile(*).
Your example isn't that great. Making up lies and attacking a person doesn't work in this society. In this case, I would sue you for libel or something like that (I don't know the rules but I think I can sue you if you publish something saying I am a pedophile). Having said that, in my ideal world, I would allow people to say that. It is my belief--and my hope--that the truth will come out in the end. I believe that people will dismiss your views when they realize that you are lying. You have no proof, or my life may be contrary to your description, and so forth. In the end, I believe the truth will come out. I am perfectly ok with you calling me a pedophile, just like I am ok with you calling me 'dumb'. People will realize that truth is on my side.
Free Speech means that you are free to say what you want without any consequences FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
This isn't going to fly well in a capitalist world, but I think that should be extended beyond the government. Freedom of speech should take precedence. It's too bad most humans don't accept that. If I ran a business, I would allow my employee to be a fascist, assuming that he/she doesn't treat customers and other workers differently. Of course, if he/she starts claim an employee is inferior then I'll fire him/her; but if he/she is a fascist on their own time, in their private life, that is cool with me (even though I'm an enemy of fascism). This is something that no one does right now--because no one values absolute freedom. What I am saying is quite radical I admit...
If people believe Howard's an idiot, and more importantly, can convince his superiors he's an idiot, then fine.
That's fine with me. But the truth is that people won't be able to convice his superiors that he is an idiot. All they will do, as one poster in this thread remarked, is to fire/demote/whatever him for going against the status quo. In other words, populism will trample all over free speech. Instead of proving that someone's opinion is wrong (which is almost impossible; consider the 'C++ sucks' case), they will simply punish him for being not being a conformist!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I have no problem with that. People should be allowed to call others 'morons', 'fools', 'idiots', and so forth. That's ok with me. Such consequences are cool with me...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
A new company will enter the market after those two companies are bankrupt...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Without providing any information to back up his argument, this guy comes across as a total loon, or at the very least totally unprofessional. He isn't writing fiction, so he must provide factual evidence to reinforce his claims -- I can't "suspend my disbelief," like we all do on some level when we immerse ourselves in fictitious work.
What he is saying is more like an opinion than a scientific work. It's like the example I mentioned in the above post of saying 'C++ sucks; Python rules'. One can't really justify "C++ sucks". You can say it is not elegant, hard to code, etc but ultimately it is an opinion. A lot of what happens in academia, or for that matter anywhere else, is subjective. How many so-called "loony" scientific theories are out there? How many of them turned out to be right? Is Global Warming real or not? Is time travel possible or not? You would never have progress without dissent--regardless of how extreme and idiotic it may sound!
When he is ostracized by his peers for a commentary that smacks in the face of the laws of written communication, it makes Princeton look bad.
See...you don't care about freedom of speech. All you care about is image. You are a conformist. I guess you want everyone conforming to the mainstream status quo.
And you don't make one of the major higher education learning institutions in America look bad. You have to remember that free speech is acceptable as long as it is in the name of the higher cause of learning -- the moment he makes the university look bad, his ass is grass.
Universities don't gain their reputation by canning people for dissenting views. If Princeton keeps doing it, I can guarantee you that it will be nothing in 50 years!
In closing, free speech doesn't protect anyone from making a complete arse out of themselves in a professional community.
No it doesn't...but it certainly should protect someone from being fired for their opinions.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The right to free speech only means that the government can't jail you for saying things it doesn't like. Free speech doesn't immunize you against people thinking you are an ass, nor does it prevent them from having second thoughts about your competence in the job they hired you for.
In my opinion free speech should extend beyond the government--I realize that is a minority opinion shared by only a few in this world. In any case, I agree with what you posted. My problem is that he should not be fired for his opinion. People can think whatever they want of him, but firing him/forcing him to take down his article/etc is suppressing his speech.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't think we will agree but anyway...
Free speech does not mean you can speak with impunity and be immune from the consequences of your actions.
Free speech means what it implies: free speech!!! People should be allowed to say whatever they want without any consequences. I realize the world doesn't work that way, but it should. It's too bad that people don't value freedom for what it is. Freedom should take precedence over everything else. The only way someone should be fired is if they can't perform the job, or something. This case has nothing to do with that. Someone is simply expressing their opinion. It is clear from the words that this is an opionion piece. It's too bad you--and the rest of the world--are conformists and don't like to see dissenting views.
How about taking responsibility for what you say? If you're not willing to back up your speech, your speech is worthless anyway.
One can't back up what he said. It is a subjective opinion. Not everything in the world is as objective as you imagine. It's like a professor saying "USA is practicing imperialism". Some would agree; some won't. Or a professor saying "C++ sucks; Python rules". You can't really back up stuff like that. What you are endorsing is akin to firing someone for saying 'C++ sucks'. C++ may rule the world and people may claim a person who said that is a fool. But you need to let the dissenting view be expressed, regardless of how good C++ is compared to Python.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I haven't read the article (it seems to be down--slashdotted perhaps (although it was down for hours)??). But from the sound of it, this seems like an opinion piece more than anything. People should be allowed to express dissenting views! If Linux sucks and is controlled by some evil penguins from outer space, he/she should be allowed to say it.
Even if people don't take his opinion for much, he should not be fired. One should only be fired if they can't do their job. Having low support is not a good enough reason to suppress him. For instance, the vast majority of professors are totally ignored. Should they all be let go?
To see my point, consider something like science. Say physics. If someone says that time travel is possible should they be fired? The vast majority of scientists don't think it is possible, but so what? Imagine if people were fired for having dissenting views. You wouldn't even have progress...
I am against people being fired for saying unpopular things. I even extend this to corporations (although since we live in a capitalist world, private businesses are a different story). People should only be fired for not performing on the job.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That should never happen. Last thing we need are people's freedom of speech being suppressed. Academia, believe it or not, is the bastion of free speech. I would prefer if it remains that way. If what this guy says is a bunch of nonsense, well, people will just ignore him.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Apart from the fact that ID from lose a lot of money by releasing it for Linux, it would definitely spike Linux use. Doom3 is what I consider a killer application. I don't play FPS games but it is very influential. The original Doom actually drove PC sales.
As far as school is concerned, that could work too but I'm not sure what would be a "killer application" for school. When I was in school, I didn't really use the computer for anything (except for writing essays, and stuff like that).
As a side note, Linux is really excellent for kids. There are some nice applications that come with KDE. It's all free and I like them (I haven't used them much though). If I have kids, that would definitely be a plus. I should note, however, that the Microsoft Encarta for Windows is far more important than anything on Linux (at least if I re-lived my life).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
True...but in the end, it's the application that matters. If you want Linux to gain mass appeal, you have to attract game developers. Success requires harmony between different elements. A great OS means nothing if the applications suck, or vice versa.
:( so I can't afford games nowadays. But if I get a job, I would have a hard time using Linux. I want to play games (one of my main forms of entertainment), watch DVDs, download QuickTime movie trailers, etc. The general population does things like that too.
I use Mandrake Linux as my only OS at home. I have no problems with it other than games/multimedia/etc. I'm unemployed
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I have been saying this over and over: until Linux supports games and other multimedia applications, it won't fly on the home desktop. Not everyone plays games, but it is a killer application. Home users care about multimedia, games, and stuff like that. Linux is weak in those things...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Also, despite his probable lack of computer knowlege, he is probably a lot smarter that your average computer user, so if he doesn't think it's ready, your average computer user won't think it's ready, either.
Can you be so sure of that? A lot of CEOs make mistakes--major mistakes. Unless you work for his company, don't worship authority from someone purporting to be higher than you. You can agree with his point. However, that doesn't mean it is right or should be given much weight.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
So you are one of those rarely seen professional trolls? :) Keep up the good work ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Slashdot posts are all inflammatory (mostly because people have ideological views here). Nevertheless, the post was somewhat correct. Yes, the CEO doesn't say the same stuff as what was mentioned. But the post articulates his point, that he would never say in public. Regardless of how you dice it, that guy is basically saying that Red Hat is out of the home user market, and he doesn't think Linux is ready for the desktop.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Linux has problems with documentation. The help and various documentation files are just not written well. I guess it kind of makes sense given that the documentation is often written by tech-savvy people, while Windows documents are written by language majors and others who specialize in them.
:) When I look at Windows docuemntation, it looks like a novel :) The average user has an easier time reading a novel than a scientific book.
Whenver I look at Linux documentation, it looks like a scientific work
The open source community needs to get non-engineers/non-scientists/etc helping out. As long as it is primarily driven and supported by geeks, it won't gain mass appeal.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
lol that is a great comment. Not only is it funny but it's so true! Humour is often at its best when you mix sarcasm and humour...it's kind of like The Onion. It's so funny because a lot of it is partiallly true (it's exagerrated of course).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The thing is... users don't care about that. Why is Yahoo still popular (although not as much as google)? Yahoo forces commercial sites to pay to get listed.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Under capitalism, all that matters are the owners. As long as the stock goes up, it is good. A stock going up by $100million is pretty much the same as the company making $100million more in income (sort of--of course, sales increases are more solid).
Whatever is good for the owners is good for the company...
Sivaram Velauthapillai