What I mean is, for myself, I enjoy "building" computers. I do it at work, and I enjoy putting together slick systems for myself and others I know. If I could install Mac OS X on these machines, I would in a heartbeat.
Count me in the same category.
In fact, back in the late 80s and early 90s, I worked at a Motorola subsidiary where every desktop was a Macintosh (mine was an SE80 if I remember correctly). We ran MS-Word and Excel from before I can remember.
I wanted a computer for home. I wanted to be able to bring my work home - and of course play games and dial into billboards...
I was going to buy a Macintosh for home, until I saw the prices! Gadzooks!
I ended up building my first PC and running Windows 3.0 which supported Word for Windows 1.0 as well as Excel.
It's strange to recall that MS-Word and Excel ran in the Macintosh OS long before MS-Windows was even functional.
But some things never change. Apple is still cool, a step ahead of everyone else, but their business model depends on closed, proprietary hardware and software - for which they can charge a premium.
Meanwhile, I am building some pretty cool systems - all running Linux these days.
If you do not like Orbitz decision, then the simplest way to get their attention is to vote with your dollars.
If you use Orbitz to make your travel arrangements, then send them an email letting them know that you are taking your business elsewhere. And then do it!
I also in noted another post above, that by forcing users to remove all of their links to Orbitz, that Orbitz will see it's ranking in search engines drop. That ought to wake a few people at Orbitz up as well.
Based on the information reported on Yahoo Finance, SCO has a cash balance of $68.52M. If you divide this by the number of outstanding shares, this translates to $4.78 per share.
So with their stock trading at about $7.70 per shares, the entire value of the rest of their assets, including their intellectual property rights (whatever they really own) is valued at only around $3.00 per share and dropping like a rock.
I remember near the end of the dot com bubble when confidence was lown and many companies were burning cash so quickly that their total stock valuation was less than their available cash.
I believe we may see SCO in the same position shortly.
I'm a west coast guy, it's late in the day, so nobody will read this anyway, but...
I've read all of the analog vs. digital debate. It's great to see such spirited debate over these simple devices.
This is the way I see it:
Analog watches prevail because the user interface is better. The time can be read and comprehended more quickly.
Digital watches provide extraneous data. Knowing that the time is 5:13:47 PM adds no value. We really just need to know it's about a quarter past 5pm.
The technology of how the information gets displayed is unimportant. The analog display could be electronically instead of mechanically driven. All I care about is the results.
My watch needs to show me the time in an analog fashion (until something better comes along), look good and last for a long time.
So here is my takeaway:
As we techies develop our software, we need to remember that our user does not care about what goes on under the hood, as long as the program delivers the right results. And the most important part of the results is the user interface.
The user interface does not necessarily need to be sexy. It just needs to serve the need.
Termination shock refers to the point where the solar wind first meets interstellar plasma. It is the innermost edge where the two mix.
The heliopause marks the region where the solar wind no longer exists and interstellar plasma rules. It represents the outmost boundary of our solar system.
It will take a number of years more for Voyager 1 to reach heliopause. Voyager 1 is currently about 90 AUs away. Heliopause is speculated to exist at 110 to 150 AUs.
I am responding to the article "Linux's Hit Men"
by Daniel Lyons.
I am shocked that a publication as prestigious as Forbes
would release an article that is filled with misinformation, written in such an
inflammatory tone and blatantly biased.
Where are the problems? Let's start with this statement.
"The dispute, which was leaked to an Internet message
board, offers a rare peek into the dark side of the free software movement--a
view that contrasts with the movement's usual public image of happy software
proles linking arms and singing the 'Internationale' while freely
sharing the fruits of their code-writing labor."
"...leaked to an Internet message board"?
Let's search Google (+linksys +gpl +violations). I get 903 results. One of the links near the top
of the list will display a nice article (not a message board) on The O'Reilly
Network titled "Is Linksys shirking the GPL? (Maybe not.)". There are many older links.
The reality is that the violation of the GPL by Linksys has
been a very public issue within the software development community for quite a
while. The Free Software Foundation
(FSF) has been under significant pressure from the copyright holders who
published their work under the GPL to protect their interests.
"...dark side of the free software
movement"?
What is dark about about holding an organization accountable
to the terms of the license under which you published your software?
"...the movement's usual public image of happy software
proles linking arms and singing the "Internationale" while freely
sharing the fruits of their code-writing labor."
Is this really Forbes' impression of the highly professional
developers who contribute code under the GPL, many of whom work independently
and many more who work for highly respected organizations like IBM, HP, SGI and
many others.
"For months, in secret, the Free Software Foundation, a
Boston-based group that controls the licensing process for Linux and other
"free" programs, has been making threats to Cisco Systems and
Broadcom over a networking router that runs the Linux operating system."
"...in secret...threats"?
This statement creates the image of the FSF addressing the
issue with a Mafioso approach.
Don't professional organizations who have disputes normally
try to work out their differences in private first?
"But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want
royalties--it wants you to burn down your house..."
Isn't this a little out of character for Forbes? Any respectable publication would have
stripped these words long before the article hit press.
This is not the first article in Forbes that casts Linux and
the open software development community in a poor light. There seems to be a consistent bias against
the community.
However, I am disappointed with the lack of editor oversight
on this article in particular.
Slashdot Mirror
Count me in the same category.
In fact, back in the late 80s and early 90s, I worked at a Motorola subsidiary where every desktop was a Macintosh (mine was an SE80 if I remember correctly). We ran MS-Word and Excel from before I can remember.
I wanted a computer for home. I wanted to be able to bring my work home - and of course play games and dial into billboards...
I was going to buy a Macintosh for home, until I saw the prices! Gadzooks!
I ended up building my first PC and running Windows 3.0 which supported Word for Windows 1.0 as well as Excel.
It's strange to recall that MS-Word and Excel ran in the Macintosh OS long before MS-Windows was even functional.
But some things never change. Apple is still cool, a step ahead of everyone else, but their business model depends on closed, proprietary hardware and software - for which they can charge a premium.
Meanwhile, I am building some pretty cool systems - all running Linux these days.
If you use Orbitz to make your travel arrangements, then send them an email letting them know that you are taking your business elsewhere. And then do it!
I also in noted another post above, that by forcing users to remove all of their links to Orbitz, that Orbitz will see it's ranking in search engines drop. That ought to wake a few people at Orbitz up as well.
Based on the information reported on Yahoo Finance, SCO has a cash balance of $68.52M. If you divide this by the number of outstanding shares, this translates to $4.78 per share.
So with their stock trading at about $7.70 per shares, the entire value of the rest of their assets, including their intellectual property rights (whatever they really own) is valued at only around $3.00 per share and dropping like a rock.
I remember near the end of the dot com bubble when confidence was lown and many companies were burning cash so quickly that their total stock valuation was less than their available cash.
I believe we may see SCO in the same position shortly.
I'm a west coast guy, it's late in the day, so nobody will read this anyway, but...
I've read all of the analog vs. digital debate. It's great to see such spirited debate over these simple devices.
This is the way I see it:
So here is my takeaway:
For what it's worth...
I understand what you are saying - and I hate to nitpick (but I guess I am)...
Here is a better picture of the subject.
Termination shock refers to the point where the solar wind first meets interstellar plasma. It is the innermost edge where the two mix.
The heliopause marks the region where the solar wind no longer exists and interstellar plasma rules. It represents the outmost boundary of our solar system.
Just trying to be accurate...
For those interested in scientific accuracy, there is a little bit of misinformation in the statement:
What scientists are speculating is that Voyager 1 has reached termination shock, which is the where the solar wind first meets interstellar plasma.
Heliopause is the outer boundary of the solar wind. This Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD) from June 24, 2002 provides a nice graphically illustrated explanation of Heliopause and Terminal Shock.
It will take a number of years more for Voyager 1 to reach heliopause. Voyager 1 is currently about 90 AUs away. Heliopause is speculated to exist at 110 to 150 AUs.
SCO's decision to limit sales to Fortune 1000 companies is simply an effort to restrict their litigation exposure.
If they sell licenses to Linux zealots, they open themselves to civil (and possibly criminal) charges.
The worst of all cases would be a class action lawsuit from Linux zealots that would be very expensive to litigate and have major cost potential.
I'm just in awe of their ability to spin the facts for the PR world.
I have used all of the mentioned mapping programs and a few more.
MapBlast was my favorite.
It always had the most accurate directions. It used to let you plan a multiple stop route. And I loved the line drive directions.
But now that it is part of MSN...
Well honestly, I still use it. But I don't inhale...
Dear Editor,
I am responding to the article "Linux's Hit Men" by Daniel Lyons.
I am shocked that a publication as prestigious as Forbes would release an article that is filled with misinformation, written in such an inflammatory tone and blatantly biased.
Where are the problems? Let's start with this statement.
"The dispute, which was leaked to an Internet message board, offers a rare peek into the dark side of the free software movement--a view that contrasts with the movement's usual public image of happy software proles linking arms and singing the 'Internationale' while freely sharing the fruits of their code-writing labor."
"...leaked to an Internet message board"?
Let's search Google (+linksys +gpl +violations). I get 903 results. One of the links near the top of the list will display a nice article (not a message board) on The O'Reilly Network titled "Is Linksys shirking the GPL? (Maybe not.)". There are many older links.
The reality is that the violation of the GPL by Linksys has been a very public issue within the software development community for quite a while. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has been under significant pressure from the copyright holders who published their work under the GPL to protect their interests.
"...dark side of the free software movement"?
What is dark about about holding an organization accountable to the terms of the license under which you published your software?
"...the movement's usual public image of happy software proles linking arms and singing the "Internationale" while freely sharing the fruits of their code-writing labor."
Is this really Forbes' impression of the highly professional developers who contribute code under the GPL, many of whom work independently and many more who work for highly respected organizations like IBM, HP, SGI and many others.
"For months, in secret, the Free Software Foundation, a Boston-based group that controls the licensing process for Linux and other "free" programs, has been making threats to Cisco Systems and Broadcom over a networking router that runs the Linux operating system."
"...in secret...threats"?
This statement creates the image of the FSF addressing the issue with a Mafioso approach.
Don't professional organizations who have disputes normally try to work out their differences in private first?
"But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house..."
Isn't this a little out of character for Forbes? Any respectable publication would have stripped these words long before the article hit press.
This is not the first article in Forbes that casts Linux and the open software development community in a poor light. There seems to be a consistent bias against the community.
However, I am disappointed with the lack of editor oversight on this article in particular.
Sincerely,