But that responsibility does not extend to lifetime employment. This may be a standard "right" demanded by unions, but having worked in a few union shops, it causes far more problems than it solves. If employees reserve the right to leave a company at any time for any reason, then the company should get the reciprocal right without having to ask your permission first.
Nope, not IBM. I wish I knew the source for this statistic, but it really doesn't surprise me. As for Microsoft, they really are a tiny company, and are in no way comparable to your standard multinational corporation.
You are so out of touch with reality it's not even funny. There are many purposes to business, but being a guaranteed source of employment is not one of them.
You may of course complain all you want about the whacked out corporate culture in North America and Europe, and I'll probably agree with you. It is whacked out. But your solution, making employment an entitlement, is even further out past the fringe of reason.
Did you want AOL to provide "make work" employment for these people? Send them out back digging holes in the morning and filling them back up again in the afternoon? Send them all out in vans to shopping malls across the country to hand out AOL CDs?
A piece of trivia came up in my department meeting today. The company I work for has 60,000 software developers worldwide. That's just the software developers. So reading that 750 got laid off doesn't make me raise any eyebrows.
do we really need a CVS clone, where the only difference is the license?
If you would have bothered to read the article, instead of relying and the biased slashdot blurb, you would have realized that licensing isn't even offered as a reason. Really it's not!
For your edification, here is the complete stated rational for OpenCVS: "The OpenCVS project was started after discussions regarding the latest GNU CVS vulnerabilities that came out. Although CVS is widely used, its development has been mostly stagnant in the last years and many security issues have popped up, both in the implementation and in the mechanisms."
Whether or not people are offended, merely surprised, or bored to tears, depends entirely on the context.
If it's 10:00pm on Showtime, expect to see some tits and ass and pubes, extreme profanity, and graphic violence. That's what people pay Showtime for. On the other hand, if it's 4:00pm and the same content shows up on broadcast TV, people are going to get offended.
One reason people get shocked or offended over certain content on broadcast television is that it's an affront to their culture. When I was a kid people did not go around in public saying "fuck". That wasn't my culture. So when we first heard people saying "fuck" on broadcast television, we were shocked. Now it's old hat, but only because thirty years of television have been saying "fuck you" to the viewers.
Another good example was Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction". The objection to it wasn't an accidental display of a breast, but rather the violent and deliberate manner in which it was done. While there are certainly cultures in the US where sexual violence towards women is normal, it isn't in mine. Many people in my culture simply don't want their children watching men ripping clothing off women.
But times have changed. Times have changed. We've gotten to the point where we expect network television to push the boundaries of good taste, whether we want them to or not. We say "can they do that on television" because we're no longer offended by the offenses of the networks. It's only a matter of time before graphic blow jobs or live death row executions are televised.
The Pope/Michelangelo analogy falls flat on its face because Al Gore simply was not involved in any manner with the creation of the internet. A better analogy would be if Pope Leo X (Julius' successor) claimed he took initiative in painting the ceiling.
You see, while Al Gore certainly should be credited with lots of things, he simply wasn't around at the beginning of the internet. He didn't get to the senate until 1977. According to the internet histories, it was already present at the time in the form of the ARPANET.
Al Gore didn't have anything to do with the creation of the internet any more than Pope Leo X had in the painting the Sistine Chapel.
What a load of crap! There are still "internets" today, only they're called "intranets". ARPANET was the internet, and no amount of semantic wordplay by Gore apologists can change that. It was a network that linked nearly every university in the US, and several non-US universities. The government and several commercial companies were a part of it.
The Internet today may be a few magnitudes larger in size, but ARPANET was the acorn from which the tree grew. Don't tell me I don't know, because I was there! Gore may have encouraged its adoption but sure as fuck wasn't involved in its creation.
So taking "the initiative in creating" something isn't inventing it? Am I unreasonable in thinking otherwise?
You are being unreasonable. In most situations, "creating" is indeed synonymous with "inventing"! I've seen non-technical marketroids at work attempt to get their name on a patent simply because they "took the initiative in creating" the project that came up with the invention.
ore was not involved in any manner with the *creation* of the internet. It already existed by the time he got around to it. Please read the freaking story.
And stop acting like this is religious heresy or something.
So let me get this straight: We can make fun of all the misspeaking that Dubya does, but we can't mock Gore for saying "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."?
Precisely. Didn't you get your Slashdot rules of conduct? This is a "blue" site. You must never criticize liberals or Democrats. You must always criticize conservatives and Republicans. This is particularly important in the case of Al Gore versus the shrub. Mr. Gore is an intellectual giant, so any mispeaks must be ignored out of respect to his stature. However, Shrub II is mental midget, so any mispeaks he makes must be Freudian slips reflecting his true evil nature.
Any attempts to bridge the left/right polarity we've spent the last decade creating will be met with extreme moderation...
If there were a superpower around that the US could hide behind while pretending it only needs a small army, then of course you would be right. But while the current military budget is way too large, IMHO, a budget of only one billion is absurdly low. Other countries can get away with tiny armies because there's a friendly superpower out there that will protect them if they get invaded. It's called the $400 billion military budget USA! Iraq only got screwed because Hussein was a dick.
My last full build of FreeBSD took half an hour. Not bad, not bad at all. Of course it's a much faster machine than yours. When it's actually faster to cvsup and build than to download an install ISO image, why do the latter?
Heck, I wonder when they're going to SUPPORT Lotus! I'm not talking about Notes, I'm talking about all the other Lotus products. Lotus 123 was the world's leading spreadsheet until IBM got their hands on it. Wordpro was not as popular, but was still a viable competitor to Word and WordPerfect.
Unfortunately, IBM doesn't care one whit about the client side of computing. If it isn't a server they ignore it. Thus the demise of both OS/2 and Lotus SmartSuite. Even the PC was a minor (and embarrasing) sideline to them.
Was this a really a problem out in the field, or was it merely pro-NT FUD that too many people believed? The story was that it was a bottle-neck, but I find it hard to imagine circumstances where it would be a problem. Single input queues didn't sure didn't slow the adoption of Win95 and Win98!
What killed IBM was a series of minor to moderate marketing mistakes. Oh, and their excellent Windows compatibility that discouraged native applications didn't help either, but don't tell that to any WineX advocates or they'll mod you down as a troll.
Re:Just use BSD or Linux or OS X, forget about win
on
Bugzilla on Windows?
·
· Score: 1
I've done this. I'm on the third box.
And I'll bet that you are the guy maintaining these boxes. I managed to convert three PII systems in my lab to FreeBSD. I wrote up an installation guide to do it. I trained someone how to do it. There have been exactly zero complaints on these machines.
But I'm not the guy maintaining these machines. I only did it as a proof of principle. To the guy in charge of the lab, a brand spanking new Dell/Windows system with flat panel monitor, is what's easiest. Besides the $1500 in cost, these systems also lack the lab's traditional suite of Unix tools and customized environment.
While those FreeBSD systems are still there, all new systems are Dell/Windows, and the scrap room is filling up with old PII and PIII Microns and 15" Trinitron CRTs.
I absolutely agree. Bugzilla is one of the worst bug tracking systems I have ever used. The only reason Bugzilla is popular is because a handful of large projects use it, so that it was a lot of name recognition.
I have nothing against choice. Heck, the reason I want people to continue working on KHTML is precisely because I WANT choice. But I'm tired of this constant whine that KHTML sucks. It does not suck. If Gmail didn't work with KHTML in the *past* then that was Google's fault, and not an excuse to dump KHMTL wholesale. And yes, there are people who want to do that.
I draw the line at: If it's actively pestering you without any sort of provocation and without any way for you to stop it by other means
What's "pestering"? Even though the average spammer sends out millions of messages, you youself only get one of them. One message isn't "pestering". On a day when I get one hundred spams, they're coming from only ninety or so spammers. Even if you manage to trace the ultimate origin of them, there might only be ten spammers. That's ten messages. I get more than that from most mailing lists. Heck, I get more than that from my mom forwarding stupid jokes.
I think the line's definition needs to include the concept of "unsolicited" and "no prior or existing relationship".
I'm using both Konqueror and Firefox and I see absolutely no differences in rendering speed. In fact, now that I think of it, what kind of pages are you looking at that take so long to render that you can actually *SEE* a delay?
If you seeing any kind of noticable lag in Konqueror rendering with a reasonably fast CPU, there's something wrong with your system or configuration. I've run Konqi on a 100MHz P1 and the rendering was still usably quick. Of course, I'm running FreeBSD, but that couldn't be it, because everyone says Linux is the fastest...
Please explain what is wrong with the menu editor, and why it's such a high priority to you? No, it's not perfect, but it works a lot better than most menu editors I've seen, including that of Windows.
A marginally politer answer would be: why do you care? So let me ask it. Why do you care? Everything Gecko has, KHTML has. Both are free and open. Both implement almost all current HTML/CSS/ECMA standards. Both will correctly render almost all web content. Both have very similar performance (as stand alone engines).
The point is not to develop a new monopolistic monoculture on the web, but to promote open standards. As such, there's simply no need to promote one engine over the other. In fact, promoting one over the other would be counterproductive. If you find a standards-compliant site that KHTML won't render, the proper course of action is to fix the bug in KHTML. Ditto for Gecko.
Slashdot Mirror
Being an employer carries a responsibility.
But that responsibility does not extend to lifetime employment. This may be a standard "right" demanded by unions, but having worked in a few union shops, it causes far more problems than it solves. If employees reserve the right to leave a company at any time for any reason, then the company should get the reciprocal right without having to ask your permission first.
Nope, not IBM. I wish I knew the source for this statistic, but it really doesn't surprise me. As for Microsoft, they really are a tiny company, and are in no way comparable to your standard multinational corporation.
You are so out of touch with reality it's not even funny. There are many purposes to business, but being a guaranteed source of employment is not one of them.
You may of course complain all you want about the whacked out corporate culture in North America and Europe, and I'll probably agree with you. It is whacked out. But your solution, making employment an entitlement, is even further out past the fringe of reason.
Did you want AOL to provide "make work" employment for these people? Send them out back digging holes in the morning and filling them back up again in the afternoon? Send them all out in vans to shopping malls across the country to hand out AOL CDs?
A piece of trivia came up in my department meeting today. The company I work for has 60,000 software developers worldwide. That's just the software developers. So reading that 750 got laid off doesn't make me raise any eyebrows.
do we really need a CVS clone, where the only difference is the license?
If you would have bothered to read the article, instead of relying and the biased slashdot blurb, you would have realized that licensing isn't even offered as a reason. Really it's not!
For your edification, here is the complete stated rational for OpenCVS: "The OpenCVS project was started after discussions regarding the latest GNU CVS vulnerabilities that came out. Although CVS is widely used, its development has been mostly stagnant in the last years and many security issues have popped up, both in the implementation and in the mechanisms."
Whether or not people are offended, merely surprised, or bored to tears, depends entirely on the context.
If it's 10:00pm on Showtime, expect to see some tits and ass and pubes, extreme profanity, and graphic violence. That's what people pay Showtime for. On the other hand, if it's 4:00pm and the same content shows up on broadcast TV, people are going to get offended.
One reason people get shocked or offended over certain content on broadcast television is that it's an affront to their culture. When I was a kid people did not go around in public saying "fuck". That wasn't my culture. So when we first heard people saying "fuck" on broadcast television, we were shocked. Now it's old hat, but only because thirty years of television have been saying "fuck you" to the viewers.
Another good example was Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction". The objection to it wasn't an accidental display of a breast, but rather the violent and deliberate manner in which it was done. While there are certainly cultures in the US where sexual violence towards women is normal, it isn't in mine. Many people in my culture simply don't want their children watching men ripping clothing off women.
But times have changed. Times have changed. We've gotten to the point where we expect network television to push the boundaries of good taste, whether we want them to or not. We say "can they do that on television" because we're no longer offended by the offenses of the networks. It's only a matter of time before graphic blow jobs or live death row executions are televised.
The Pope/Michelangelo analogy falls flat on its face because Al Gore simply was not involved in any manner with the creation of the internet. A better analogy would be if Pope Leo X (Julius' successor) claimed he took initiative in painting the ceiling.
You see, while Al Gore certainly should be credited with lots of things, he simply wasn't around at the beginning of the internet. He didn't get to the senate until 1977. According to the internet histories, it was already present at the time in the form of the ARPANET.
Al Gore didn't have anything to do with the creation of the internet any more than Pope Leo X had in the painting the Sistine Chapel.
What a load of crap! There are still "internets" today, only they're called "intranets". ARPANET was the internet, and no amount of semantic wordplay by Gore apologists can change that. It was a network that linked nearly every university in the US, and several non-US universities. The government and several commercial companies were a part of it.
The Internet today may be a few magnitudes larger in size, but ARPANET was the acorn from which the tree grew. Don't tell me I don't know, because I was there! Gore may have encouraged its adoption but sure as fuck wasn't involved in its creation.
I have a post graduate teaching degree. Was it an intellectual challenge to aquire? Please, don't make me laugh!
So taking "the initiative in creating" something isn't inventing it? Am I unreasonable in thinking otherwise?
You are being unreasonable. In most situations, "creating" is indeed synonymous with "inventing"! I've seen non-technical marketroids at work attempt to get their name on a patent simply because they "took the initiative in creating" the project that came up with the invention.
ore was not involved in any manner with the *creation* of the internet. It already existed by the time he got around to it. Please read the freaking story.
And stop acting like this is religious heresy or something.
So let me get this straight: We can make fun of all the misspeaking that Dubya does, but we can't mock Gore for saying "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."?
Precisely. Didn't you get your Slashdot rules of conduct? This is a "blue" site. You must never criticize liberals or Democrats. You must always criticize conservatives and Republicans. This is particularly important in the case of Al Gore versus the shrub. Mr. Gore is an intellectual giant, so any mispeaks must be ignored out of respect to his stature. However, Shrub II is mental midget, so any mispeaks he makes must be Freudian slips reflecting his true evil nature.
Any attempts to bridge the left/right polarity we've spent the last decade creating will be met with extreme moderation...
If there were a superpower around that the US could hide behind while pretending it only needs a small army, then of course you would be right. But while the current military budget is way too large, IMHO, a budget of only one billion is absurdly low. Other countries can get away with tiny armies because there's a friendly superpower out there that will protect them if they get invaded. It's called the $400 billion military budget USA! Iraq only got screwed because Hussein was a dick.
My only comment on this subject is this: Sounds like Jayson Blair's dream come true...
My last full build of FreeBSD took half an hour. Not bad, not bad at all. Of course it's a much faster machine than yours. When it's actually faster to cvsup and build than to download an install ISO image, why do the latter?
This happened under Win9x as well, so arguing that it caused the demise of OS/2 is odd.
I wonder when IBM is going to jettison Lotus
Heck, I wonder when they're going to SUPPORT Lotus! I'm not talking about Notes, I'm talking about all the other Lotus products. Lotus 123 was the world's leading spreadsheet until IBM got their hands on it. Wordpro was not as popular, but was still a viable competitor to Word and WordPerfect.
Unfortunately, IBM doesn't care one whit about the client side of computing. If it isn't a server they ignore it. Thus the demise of both OS/2 and Lotus SmartSuite. Even the PC was a minor (and embarrasing) sideline to them.
Most notably the single system input queue
Was this a really a problem out in the field, or was it merely pro-NT FUD that too many people believed? The story was that it was a bottle-neck, but I find it hard to imagine circumstances where it would be a problem. Single input queues didn't sure didn't slow the adoption of Win95 and Win98!
What killed IBM was a series of minor to moderate marketing mistakes. Oh, and their excellent Windows compatibility that discouraged native applications didn't help either, but don't tell that to any WineX advocates or they'll mod you down as a troll.
I've done this. I'm on the third box.
And I'll bet that you are the guy maintaining these boxes. I managed to convert three PII systems in my lab to FreeBSD. I wrote up an installation guide to do it. I trained someone how to do it. There have been exactly zero complaints on these machines.
But I'm not the guy maintaining these machines. I only did it as a proof of principle. To the guy in charge of the lab, a brand spanking new Dell/Windows system with flat panel monitor, is what's easiest. Besides the $1500 in cost, these systems also lack the lab's traditional suite of Unix tools and customized environment.
While those FreeBSD systems are still there, all new systems are Dell/Windows, and the scrap room is filling up with old PII and PIII Microns and 15" Trinitron CRTs.
I absolutely agree. Bugzilla is one of the worst bug tracking systems I have ever used. The only reason Bugzilla is popular is because a handful of large projects use it, so that it was a lot of name recognition.
I have nothing against choice. Heck, the reason I want people to continue working on KHTML is precisely because I WANT choice. But I'm tired of this constant whine that KHTML sucks. It does not suck. If Gmail didn't work with KHTML in the *past* then that was Google's fault, and not an excuse to dump KHMTL wholesale. And yes, there are people who want to do that.
I draw the line at: If it's actively pestering you without any sort of provocation and without any way for you to stop it by other means
What's "pestering"? Even though the average spammer sends out millions of messages, you youself only get one of them. One message isn't "pestering". On a day when I get one hundred spams, they're coming from only ninety or so spammers. Even if you manage to trace the ultimate origin of them, there might only be ten spammers. That's ten messages. I get more than that from most mailing lists. Heck, I get more than that from my mom forwarding stupid jokes.
I think the line's definition needs to include the concept of "unsolicited" and "no prior or existing relationship".
I'm using both Konqueror and Firefox and I see absolutely no differences in rendering speed. In fact, now that I think of it, what kind of pages are you looking at that take so long to render that you can actually *SEE* a delay?
If you seeing any kind of noticable lag in Konqueror rendering with a reasonably fast CPU, there's something wrong with your system or configuration. I've run Konqi on a 100MHz P1 and the rendering was still usably quick. Of course, I'm running FreeBSD, but that couldn't be it, because everyone says Linux is the fastest...
Please explain what is wrong with the menu editor, and why it's such a high priority to you? No, it's not perfect, but it works a lot better than most menu editors I've seen, including that of Windows.
A rude answer would be: who cares?
A marginally politer answer would be: why do you care? So let me ask it. Why do you care? Everything Gecko has, KHTML has. Both are free and open. Both implement almost all current HTML/CSS/ECMA standards. Both will correctly render almost all web content. Both have very similar performance (as stand alone engines).
The point is not to develop a new monopolistic monoculture on the web, but to promote open standards. As such, there's simply no need to promote one engine over the other. In fact, promoting one over the other would be counterproductive. If you find a standards-compliant site that KHTML won't render, the proper course of action is to fix the bug in KHTML. Ditto for Gecko.