Faster than a 3GHz processor, I assume, which would make it about 8 times faster, not 8 orders of magnitude. Plus, it's not taking into account how many ops a P IV or Athlon could do in one cycle...
The point I was attempting to make, for the second time now, is that if we are talking about replacing back-end systems that have the same functionality and users don't even notice, then your arguments are not applicable and are bordering on trolling. That's my understanding of what this study took a look at. Not replacing user's workstations or laptops with Linux.
In you last paragraph you go really off topic and I can only assume you are trolling, which is why this will be my last reply to you. Nowhere do I say or even suggest that you are asking for "functions" that you don't need, or that you are a fool, or that you should be fired. I have no idea where you get that from. It's just flame. And then you go on to say you'd recommend that I consider new career opportunities? Heck, I even said in MY post that your arguments have merrit if we were talking about desktop/laptop systems.
No, you tell the manager that instead of taking all 10 of his highly productive, highly trained, highly paid administrator staff to maintain his current operations, it will only take him 5. He is then free to pursue taking over some other part of the business with this additional "increase" in his staff and build his/her piece of the empire larger. Or, if it is someone that already "owns" the entire empire then you tell him that he/she will be able to go after more business because he has freed up resources, expand into other areas of business and offer more services for the companies customers...
We are talking transparent to users here. They could still use Outlook on their Windows 2K workstations. They would connect to the same machine "name" in the same exact manner, it's just that the server would be running Linux with Thnidnifv3.14 instead of Windows with Exchange. We are not talking about any changes that would effect user productivity at all, just replacements on the server end to reduce the number of admins needed to run the enterprise. The thought being that although those admins would cost more than Windows admins the reduced number required would more than make up for the additional fully burdened cost. Add in the severely reduced cost of the software, and reduced hardware costs, and Linux supposedly has a much lower TCO.
A laptop? You are assuming that all this talk is about user's workstations as opposed to servers. I think the original hypothesis was that Linux is cheaper because a smaller number of admins can administer more systems than a comparable Windows solution. That says nothing about users or their perception of what the underlying technology is. If users are happily running Windows 2K Pro on thier laptops and currently connect to Windows 2K servers, what do they care if they are swapped out for Linux servers with Samba? If they don't see any detectable change at all what is the issue? You seem to be thinking we are talking about swapping out Windows 2K on their laptops with Linux. If that is the case then some of your arguements have merrit. Since that's not what we are talking about you arguments are moot.
Your kidding right? 80K for a CCIE? I think you are a little low. BTW, I'd find it Real Hard to believe that someone who only makes 35K a year knows enough about the underlying technology and protocols to configure an internet backbone router...
So syntax driven? Do you mean like the English language? There is nothing wrong with syntax. Syntax is what brings order to an otherwise chaotic system. Yes, you need to be somewhat educated in order to speak proper English, and it is not unreasonable to expect one to require some education in order to use a computer.
It's amazing that in a topic such as "Do the math" everyone assumes a 2-dimentional space. Must not have gotten much further than geometry and basic trig...
A) The license forbids you to use BK to further a direct competitor to BK. Distributing a competitor, while using BK, like Red Hat does, is allowed.
Ah, I see you choose your words carefully. I have to grudgingly agree what you say here. However, you are misleading. Distributing a competitor, while using BK may be allowed, but contributing to a competitor (while not using BK for that purpose) while using BK for a non-competing project is NOT allowed. Does RedHat contribute to any competing products? If so, and that would mean ANY of their employees, then they, and that would mean any of their employees, can not use BK for kernel development. Heck, if you were a disgruntaled RedHat employee and wanted to screw over the company all you would have to do is contribute to one of BK's competitors. Then NO OTHER RedHat employees could use BK for any purpose.
Would it sit well with you as a kernel developer if, for instance, microsoft was using linux as their development platform for their next OS?
I don't see why it would bother kernel developers.
What if you knew that they were using it in production with in house changes and additions with out releasing source code?
This is explicitly allowed by the GPL, so for any kernel developers to have a problem with this would be hypocritical. Anyone can use any GPL software in house in a production environment with as many custom changes they want without releasing those changes to everyone in the world as long as they do not distribute their custom version outside their organization. Perhaps you meant something else than what your words clearly say? That you mean an "in house" "production" environment is somehow equivalent to distributing a version of a GPL software package outside (not in house) your organization with custom changes and not releasing the source code? That would be illegal, but that's not what you said.
This is where BitMover is sitting. Developers are using their software to assist in developing their competition and doing it in violation of their licensing agreement.
Not it is not. Their new license apparently goes well beyond that. It says that developers using (the free license version of) their software for a non-competing product, such as the kernel, can not work on a competing product, regardless of what other revision control software they use to build the competing product. So, no Linux kernel developers, or anyone else that uses the "free" version of BK, can contribute to some competing products. This is quite different than you portray.
BitMover is just doing what we would do if the shoe was on the other foot. This issue will be solved in the same way the open source community always deals with challenges.
I don't believe you understand what the issue is.
The open source community will produce a better alternative under the GPL without using their software. Just like Windows is not the developer enviroment for the kernel, BitKeeper will not be the revision control software used for Subversion.
One would hope that the community produces a better alternative under the GPL. If BM wants to limit the use of their software to create a competing product then I don't see a problem with this as much as what they are doing, which is described above.
Another thing to think about is that some people like KDE to look the same on their Linux box as on their Solaris box or other platform. Same goes for GNOME. If RedHat wants to create a third unique desktop using aspects of both GNOME and KDE and meshing them together then that's great, but don't F-up the look and feel of the original desktops...
Well, as someone who IS using the RedHat beta I find the lack of difference in the look and feel of the two desktops confusing. That may seem like an oxymoron, but it's not. I'm used to having KDE and GNOME look and feel differently, and now it just about looks the same whether I choose KDE or GNOME from the login screen. That lack of difference is now confusing, making me feel like they took something away...
With a 47 second transfer time for a full resolution picture I'd say the device is practically useless. Time between pictures is, IMO, one of the most important aspects of a digital camera, as longer timeframes means many missed perfect shots...
I'd say that you have a lot to learn about Slashdot. While most of the stories on here are technical in nature or have something to do with technology a large percentage of them have to do with the legal and political issues surrounding something technical.
Think about all the stories on copy protection for CD's. Yes, it has to do with a technical issue, but the discussions are certainly not technical. I've seen no code posted no how to defeat the copy protection. 99% of the posts are opinions about whether it is right for the producers to restrict use of purchased CD's in the way they want to, and the other 1% are First Post!
Why don't you just come out and say it? You are a Microsoft appologist that wants to ignore the issue with their EULA by making fun of the issue and calling it a waste of time. You say it's an invalid clause, but you don't indicate that you are a lawyer (and even if you were I doubt you'd be offering official legal advise). So you want us to just ignore the issue and "agree" to the EULA?
What happens if the EULA is allowed to stand and then Microsoft actually builds in more of this access that you granted them? What happens when it eventually gets installed on all Windows systems and then the crackers find out how to manipulate it and steal information off your computer? Then it wouldn't be Microsoft accessing the sensitive information, as I doubt they actually would do something like that, but because of the EULA they provide additional access methods for others.
There are plenty of valid discussion items surrounding this issue. Ignoring them is not going to make them go away, and they definately fall right smack into the favorite topic on Slashdot -- Microsoft bashing.
Only if your time machine was capable of both forward and backwards time travel. If you could only move forward then there would be no "uninventing." Forwards-only time travel has many practical uses, such as inter-planetary and interstellar travel (no worries about bone/muscle delepetion...
Holy Crap! So is this monster canola going to grow into a man eating plant like on the Rocky Horror Picture Show or something?!?! I'm sure glad I live on the East Coast, or I'd have to barracade myself in my own house!
Waste is not stored in "ponds" at plants, it is stored in pools. Quite a different thing, as calling them ponds brings to mind sepage and contamination of water supply, etc. Even if it IS unintentional, you are spreading FUD.
You think wrong. I think you are spreading FUD, because you obviously don't know anything about the containers themselves or the tests that they have been through.
Umm, TCL was not designed for GUI scripting. John Ousterhout desinged TCL in the spring of 1988 as a generic command language, to replace the command languages for various different tools used mainly for integrated circuit design. It had nothing to do with any sort of GUI whatsoever.
Tk was spawned out of his frustration with Apple's HyperCard system and his belief that a "shared scripting language" could provide the glue to tie together components that a small group such as a university research team could build up over time. Plus, I personally suspect, his desire to reuse Tcl for more than its original design.
Pick up "Tcl and the TK Toolkit" by John K. Ousterhout published by Addison-Wesley. The info above is gleaned from page xvii, the first page of the preface...
I think you meant that Windows' behavior is not deterministic. Partly because it is a closed and proprietary system. Partly because there are so many bugs in the system that there are an unlimited combination of potential patches and fixes that can be installed on any particular system. Partly because determining the correct combination of those patches/registry entries for a particular workstation is a difficult task, and determining the right combination that will "work" on a bunch of workstations that do quite different things and have quite specific patches in order to work correctly is an almost impossible task. Non-deterministic because you can never >really determine what patches or work-arounds are installed on a particular system.
Slashdot Mirror
Amazingly, it only takes six Microsoft employees to product +5 posts. Think about it!
Faster than a 3GHz processor, I assume, which would make it about 8 times faster, not 8 orders of magnitude. Plus, it's not taking into account how many ops a P IV or Athlon could do in one cycle...
What?
You totally missed my point.
Did you even read my post, completely?
The point I was attempting to make, for the second time now, is that if we are talking about replacing back-end systems that have the same functionality and users don't even notice, then your arguments are not applicable and are bordering on trolling. That's my understanding of what this study took a look at. Not replacing user's workstations or laptops with Linux.
In you last paragraph you go really off topic and I can only assume you are trolling, which is why this will be my last reply to you. Nowhere do I say or even suggest that you are asking for "functions" that you don't need, or that you are a fool, or that you should be fired. I have no idea where you get that from. It's just flame. And then you go on to say you'd recommend that I consider new career opportunities? Heck, I even said in MY post that your arguments have merrit if we were talking about desktop/laptop systems.
I'm done now, go away.
No, you tell the manager that instead of taking all 10 of his highly productive, highly trained, highly paid administrator staff to maintain his current operations, it will only take him 5. He is then free to pursue taking over some other part of the business with this additional "increase" in his staff and build his/her piece of the empire larger. Or, if it is someone that already "owns" the entire empire then you tell him that he/she will be able to go after more business because he has freed up resources, expand into other areas of business and offer more services for the companies customers...
We are talking transparent to users here. They could still use Outlook on their Windows 2K workstations. They would connect to the same machine "name" in the same exact manner, it's just that the server would be running Linux with Thnidnifv3.14 instead of Windows with Exchange. We are not talking about any changes that would effect user productivity at all, just replacements on the server end to reduce the number of admins needed to run the enterprise. The thought being that although those admins would cost more than Windows admins the reduced number required would more than make up for the additional fully burdened cost. Add in the severely reduced cost of the software, and reduced hardware costs, and Linux supposedly has a much lower TCO.
A laptop? You are assuming that all this talk is about user's workstations as opposed to servers. I think the original hypothesis was that Linux is cheaper because a smaller number of admins can administer more systems than a comparable Windows solution. That says nothing about users or their perception of what the underlying technology is. If users are happily running Windows 2K Pro on thier laptops and currently connect to Windows 2K servers, what do they care if they are swapped out for Linux servers with Samba? If they don't see any detectable change at all what is the issue? You seem to be thinking we are talking about swapping out Windows 2K on their laptops with Linux. If that is the case then some of your arguements have merrit. Since that's not what we are talking about you arguments are moot.
Hmm...
I just got a prompt to update to Windows Update V4, signed by Microsoft. Should I trust this???
Your kidding right? 80K for a CCIE? I think you are a little low. BTW, I'd find it Real Hard to believe that someone who only makes 35K a year knows enough about the underlying technology and protocols to configure an internet backbone router...
So syntax driven? Do you mean like the English language? There is nothing wrong with syntax. Syntax is what brings order to an otherwise chaotic system. Yes, you need to be somewhat educated in order to speak proper English, and it is not unreasonable to expect one to require some education in order to use a computer.
I think you missed the word signed in the previous post.
It's amazing that in a topic such as "Do the math" everyone assumes a 2-dimentional space. Must not have gotten much further than geometry and basic trig...
Ah, I see you choose your words carefully. I have to grudgingly agree what you say here. However, you are misleading. Distributing a competitor, while using BK may be allowed, but contributing to a competitor (while not using BK for that purpose) while using BK for a non-competing project is NOT allowed. Does RedHat contribute to any competing products? If so, and that would mean ANY of their employees, then they, and that would mean any of their employees, can not use BK for kernel development. Heck, if you were a disgruntaled RedHat employee and wanted to screw over the company all you would have to do is contribute to one of BK's competitors. Then NO OTHER RedHat employees could use BK for any purpose.
I don't see why it would bother kernel developers.
This is explicitly allowed by the GPL, so for any kernel developers to have a problem with this would be hypocritical. Anyone can use any GPL software in house in a production environment with as many custom changes they want without releasing those changes to everyone in the world as long as they do not distribute their custom version outside their organization. Perhaps you meant something else than what your words clearly say? That you mean an "in house" "production" environment is somehow equivalent to distributing a version of a GPL software package outside (not in house) your organization with custom changes and not releasing the source code? That would be illegal, but that's not what you said.
Not it is not. Their new license apparently goes well beyond that. It says that developers using (the free license version of) their software for a non-competing product, such as the kernel, can not work on a competing product, regardless of what other revision control software they use to build the competing product. So, no Linux kernel developers, or anyone else that uses the "free" version of BK, can contribute to some competing products. This is quite different than you portray.
I don't believe you understand what the issue is.
One would hope that the community produces a better alternative under the GPL. If BM wants to limit the use of their software to create a competing product then I don't see a problem with this as much as what they are doing, which is described above.
Another thing to think about is that some people like KDE to look the same on their Linux box as on their Solaris box or other platform. Same goes for GNOME. If RedHat wants to create a third unique desktop using aspects of both GNOME and KDE and meshing them together then that's great, but don't F-up the look and feel of the original desktops...
Well, as someone who IS using the RedHat beta I find the lack of difference in the look and feel of the two desktops confusing. That may seem like an oxymoron, but it's not. I'm used to having KDE and GNOME look and feel differently, and now it just about looks the same whether I choose KDE or GNOME from the login screen. That lack of difference is now confusing, making me feel like they took something away...
With a 47 second transfer time for a full resolution picture I'd say the device is practically useless. Time between pictures is, IMO, one of the most important aspects of a digital camera, as longer timeframes means many missed perfect shots...
I'd say that you have a lot to learn about Slashdot. While most of the stories on here are technical in nature or have something to do with technology a large percentage of them have to do with the legal and political issues surrounding something technical.
Think about all the stories on copy protection for CD's. Yes, it has to do with a technical issue, but the discussions are certainly not technical. I've seen no code posted no how to defeat the copy protection. 99% of the posts are opinions about whether it is right for the producers to restrict use of purchased CD's in the way they want to, and the other 1% are First Post!
Why don't you just come out and say it? You are a Microsoft appologist that wants to ignore the issue with their EULA by making fun of the issue and calling it a waste of time. You say it's an invalid clause, but you don't indicate that you are a lawyer (and even if you were I doubt you'd be offering official legal advise). So you want us to just ignore the issue and "agree" to the EULA?
What happens if the EULA is allowed to stand and then Microsoft actually builds in more of this access that you granted them? What happens when it eventually gets installed on all Windows systems and then the crackers find out how to manipulate it and steal information off your computer? Then it wouldn't be Microsoft accessing the sensitive information, as I doubt they actually would do something like that, but because of the EULA they provide additional access methods for others.
There are plenty of valid discussion items surrounding this issue. Ignoring them is not going to make them go away, and they definately fall right smack into the favorite topic on Slashdot -- Microsoft bashing.
Only if your time machine was capable of both forward and backwards time travel. If you could only move forward then there would be no "uninventing." Forwards-only time travel has many practical uses, such as inter-planetary and interstellar travel (no worries about bone/muscle delepetion...
Holy Crap! So is this monster canola going to grow into a man eating plant like on the Rocky Horror Picture Show or something?!?! I'm sure glad I live on the East Coast, or I'd have to barracade myself in my own house!
So why doesn't Zimbabwe just mill the friggin corn themselves and stop crying over it?
Er, did you mean "isotope" instead of "species?" And were you making some sort of reference to a breeder-reactor?
Waste is not stored in "ponds" at plants, it is stored in pools. Quite a different thing, as calling them ponds brings to mind sepage and contamination of water supply, etc. Even if it IS unintentional, you are spreading FUD.
You think wrong. I think you are spreading FUD, because you obviously don't know anything about the containers themselves or the tests that they have been through.
Umm, TCL was not designed for GUI scripting. John Ousterhout desinged TCL in the spring of 1988 as a generic command language, to replace the command languages for various different tools used mainly for integrated circuit design. It had nothing to do with any sort of GUI whatsoever.
Tk was spawned out of his frustration with Apple's HyperCard system and his belief that a "shared scripting language" could provide the glue to tie together components that a small group such as a university research team could build up over time. Plus, I personally suspect, his desire to reuse Tcl for more than its original design.
Pick up "Tcl and the TK Toolkit" by John K. Ousterhout published by Addison-Wesley. The info above is gleaned from page xvii, the first page of the preface...
I think you meant that Windows' behavior is not deterministic. Partly because it is a closed and proprietary system. Partly because there are so many bugs in the system that there are an unlimited combination of potential patches and fixes that can be installed on any particular system. Partly because determining the correct combination of those patches/registry entries for a particular workstation is a difficult task, and determining the right combination that will "work" on a bunch of workstations that do quite different things and have quite specific patches in order to work correctly is an almost impossible task. Non-deterministic because you can never >really determine what patches or work-arounds are installed on a particular system.