By trying to compete with Microserf and the Barfintosh, Linux has come out looking like some ten-dollar infected whore, all dolled up but no one is buying except the peasants.
Back in the day, Linux has a noble thing. It has dignity because it had its down direction. Now it is just an imitator.
Fact: It takes a bachelor's degree to do coding well, and usually several years of experience. Software engineering is just like any form of engineering.
Fact: Although 40% of "coders" (an insulting term when used to described an employed software engineer) don't have even a bachelor's, you can see the result when you run some of the software out there. Windows is probably a good example.
If they're going to move my job to India, then it is time for me to begin writing open source software again, since doing so could prevent them from making a profit.
Admins: an army of uneducated overbearing people. And now they won't let us do our jobs. If ever there was a case for anarchism, the existence of admins is it.
You know a study is bogus when they announce their conclusions while it is still in progress. And if it's not legit, if it's not scientific, then what's the point of it? Answer: propaganda.
Open source has some usefulness, but it doesn't need a bunch of twerps from a lame college to advocate for it, presumably while being paid by some corporation that can't outsource fast enough. The limited benefits of open source are evident enough.
You attempted analogy with mechanics is inappropriate: software engineers such as myself would be better compared to automotive engineers, who design cars, not to people who service them. To be a successful engineer of any kind takes at least a four-year degree.
A better analogy is to compare sysadmins to mechanics. These seem to require as you say, only certifications.
As for personal benefit from free code, I think many people are writing the code for other reasons entirely. To get attention, to prove oneself, to feel "cool", or just because they don't think they can sell the code to anyone--which for Linux is the rule, not the exception.
Well, my concern is that they seem to control the FCC, which leaves me with less resource when they screw around. If I recall, I contacted the FTC but was directed to the FCC. Maybe another govt department would be more helpful. But I doubt it, they're all crooked.
The other company I've used is Sprint. They were good. They only ever tried once to add an unfamiliar charge to my bill, and it was only $8. But their coverage outside of big cities is terrible.
And if the executables are packaged and sold for money, do all the volunteers get a cut of the profits? Just wondering.
No! That's the insidious thing about open source. There is no way for those people who do the actual work to reap any benefits. Imagine an artist who is told by an art dealer "I'm going to make all the money and you will get nothing for your painting"... people would be outraged. But the propaganda of the open source movement says that this is not only good but the best way.
Clearly the open source movement is being run by scoundrels and thieves.
And not surprisingly, guess who is funding the Free Software Foundation? Dell, IBM, Cisco, HP, etc...all companies that have shipped jobs to India lately.
I used to use AT&T, but when they ripped me off I stopped using all cell phones.
What they did was take about 50 calls I had made and re-dated them to be 3 months later. Their customer support people repeatedly said "we wouldn't do that, that's illegal". I had proof of it but they didn't care.
I even complained to the FCC, who just referred me back to AT&T, just more proof that corporations really do control the government.
People can be rewarded for their work in many ways.
True, but programming is a serious undertaking. It's not like fixing a bike or even a car. To be done right it needs to be done by a person trained in engineering. The reason why Linux has fared well is that it is a copy of an existing engineered product, Unix.
Furthermore if I as a software engineer am going to code a serious project for no money, I at least have to have a paying job elsewhere. But why would I do what I do for money for free also?
Think about it, it makes no sense.
If a person does type-of-work A for money,
sure he will have no problem doing type-of-work B for free, because he is secure and sees no immediate threat to his livelihood.
Unfortunately, work type B will have to be fairly
easy for him to do it for free.
And serious programming is NOT easy.
You can't expect to just tell Joe Random Developer "write this code for me" and then get a top-quailty piece of software for free.
Well, the emails I've received for support on my open source code would surprise you then. I've gotten all sorts of idiots asking me to add this or that feature for free. The corporate users are the worst by far--they're arrogant on top of demanding.
Most people just don't understand why anyone would
offer software for free, because indeed it is
illogical.
Hasn't anyone learned from the warnings issued by K Eric Drexler or even Michael Crichton? Will we jump headlong into creating tiny machines with the only aim being making money and doing something "cool"? Technology people are so predictable, maybe what's needed is to station a psychology on every street corner in areas where nanotech is being done and pay them to remind people to have a conscience and grow up a little.
If you don't pay people to write code...then don't expect much.
Just as:
If you didn't pay a plumber to fix your toilet, you shouldn't expect a working toilet.
Or if you don't pay someone to fix your car's radiator, their work may be shoddy, but you can only blame yourself.
Open source has a lot of good justifications, but the argument that open source equals quality is just bogus.
And Linux? It's only good because it copies 20 year old Unix technology to the letter. And who wrote Unix? PAID programmers. And is Unix really all that great? NO: monolithic kernels are OLD technology.
Given that the FSF will not pursue anyone who abuses the GPL unless the abused code's copyright is owned by the FSF, and given that no other organization seems to be protecting the GPL, what guarantee do we have that the sources will be included and this will be legit? Answer: None.
For some reason makers of diesel cars can't get their cars certified over here without a lot of pain. Yet if you look at our tractors, large trucks, etc. they are often diesel and they put out huge amounts of pollution. Heck, I read that one jetski running all day puts out more pollution than a car in a month, but that may not be diesel. I wonder if the Smart company or VW were to take this to the WTO, what would happen.
Up is down, black is white. It's the politicians who are fucked up. The rest of us are downloading our porn and playing video games just fine, thank you.
Problem is, our two-party political system has been bought-and-paid-for by corporations and other special interests: that's the REAL issue, but no one is allowed to talk in any serious way about it or its numerous chilling implications.
Therefore we see these moronic moral debates over things like video games, sodomy, WMDs and flag burning. They can't discuss the real issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Back in the day, Linux has a noble thing. It has dignity because it had its down direction. Now it is just an imitator.
Fact: Although 40% of "coders" (an insulting term when used to described an employed software engineer) don't have even a bachelor's, you can see the result when you run some of the software out there. Windows is probably a good example.
If they're going to move my job to India, then it is time for me to begin writing open source software again, since doing so could prevent them from making a profit.
Payment implies quality.
Or logically,
No quality implies no payment.
Admins: an army of uneducated overbearing people. And now they won't let us do our jobs. If ever there was a case for anarchism, the existence of admins is it.
Open source has some usefulness, but it doesn't need a bunch of twerps from a lame college to advocate for it, presumably while being paid by some corporation that can't outsource fast enough. The limited benefits of open source are evident enough.
A better analogy is to compare sysadmins to mechanics. These seem to require as you say, only certifications.
As for personal benefit from free code, I think many people are writing the code for other reasons entirely. To get attention, to prove oneself, to feel "cool", or just because they don't think they can sell the code to anyone--which for Linux is the rule, not the exception.
The other company I've used is Sprint. They were good. They only ever tried once to add an unfamiliar charge to my bill, and it was only $8. But their coverage outside of big cities is terrible.
Dear Anonymous Coward,
What you may not realize is that open source is ideologically opposed to communism.
Think about it: even in Cuba, people are paid for their labor.
In freedom-loving open source, no one is paid except the reseller (and the very rare, lucky programmer).
Not paying workers is 100% compatible with CAPITALISM and exploitation of workers.
Sincerely,
plinius
No! That's the insidious thing about open source. There is no way for those people who do the actual work to reap any benefits. Imagine an artist who is told by an art dealer "I'm going to make all the money and you will get nothing for your painting"... people would be outraged. But the propaganda of the open source movement says that this is not only good but the best way.
Clearly the open source movement is being run by scoundrels and thieves.
And not surprisingly, guess who is funding the Free Software Foundation? Dell, IBM, Cisco, HP, etc...all companies that have shipped jobs to India lately.
Gee!
What they did was take about 50 calls I had made and re-dated them to be 3 months later. Their customer support people repeatedly said "we wouldn't do that, that's illegal". I had proof of it but they didn't care.
I even complained to the FCC, who just referred me back to AT&T, just more proof that corporations really do control the government.
You want good quality software? You gotta pay for it. Even if you only plan to give it away for nothing, the coding part really requires that you pay.
Because we programmers have to live, you know.
You are female, yes?
Oh wait, you ended a sentence with "heh".
That indicates a male.
True, but programming is a serious undertaking. It's not like fixing a bike or even a car. To be done right it needs to be done by a person trained in engineering. The reason why Linux has fared well is that it is a copy of an existing engineered product, Unix.
Furthermore if I as a software engineer am going to code a serious project for no money, I at least have to have a paying job elsewhere. But why would I do what I do for money for free also? Think about it, it makes no sense.
If a person does type-of-work A for money, sure he will have no problem doing type-of-work B for free, because he is secure and sees no immediate threat to his livelihood. Unfortunately, work type B will have to be fairly easy for him to do it for free. And serious programming is NOT easy.
You should think these things through.
Then read K Eric Drexler's "Engines of Creation", available in any library, for a more serious treatment of the huge risks that nanotechnology brings.
FreeBSD more free? Last I checked the kernel coders were a small closed group. Their sources may be open but not the group!
Well, the emails I've received for support on my open source code would surprise you then. I've gotten all sorts of idiots asking me to add this or that feature for free. The corporate users are the worst by far--they're arrogant on top of demanding.
Most people just don't understand why anyone would offer software for free, because indeed it is illogical.
Hasn't anyone learned from the warnings issued by K Eric Drexler or even Michael Crichton? Will we jump headlong into creating tiny machines with the only aim being making money and doing something "cool"? Technology people are so predictable, maybe what's needed is to station a psychology on every street corner in areas where nanotech is being done and pay them to remind people to have a conscience and grow up a little.
Just as:
If you didn't pay a plumber to fix your toilet, you shouldn't expect a working toilet.
Or if you don't pay someone to fix your car's radiator, their work may be shoddy, but you can only blame yourself.
Open source has a lot of good justifications, but the argument that open source equals quality is just bogus.
And Linux? It's only good because it copies 20 year old Unix technology to the letter. And who wrote Unix? PAID programmers. And is Unix really all that great? NO: monolithic kernels are OLD technology.
Given that the FSF will not pursue anyone who abuses the GPL unless the abused code's copyright is owned by the FSF, and given that no other organization seems to be protecting the GPL, what guarantee do we have that the sources will be included and this will be legit? Answer: None.
For some reason makers of diesel cars can't get their cars certified over here without a lot of pain. Yet if you look at our tractors, large trucks, etc. they are often diesel and they put out huge amounts of pollution. Heck, I read that one jetski running all day puts out more pollution than a car in a month, but that may not be diesel. I wonder if the Smart company or VW were to take this to the WTO, what would happen.
Encryption within P2P can easily prevent "authorities" from knowing what kind of data is being transferred, so it's a non-issue!
The following link quotes them as having only $1.8 billion. http://www.geocities.com/combusem/FORBES.HTM Have you better info?
Hey, there's a clever idea: make the removable faceplate of a car's stereo the thing itself: the mobile MP3 player.
Two birds, one stone!
Problem is, our two-party political system has been bought-and-paid-for by corporations and other special interests: that's the REAL issue, but no one is allowed to talk in any serious way about it or its numerous chilling implications.
Therefore we see these moronic moral debates over things like video games, sodomy, WMDs and flag burning. They can't discuss the real issues.