I, on the other hand, have only one stomach and that's been tweaked by millenia of evolution to break down a mixure of fairly soft plants with not much cellulose and meat.
you've been evolving over the last millenia? wow. you're old.
he doesn't know much about the OSS culture. He sees the business end, but does he know the "gift culture" OSS lives in? Yeah, developers do it for the bullet points on their CV, but also because they can. They develop because they can. Some of us see OSS as the utopia where free information exchange is happening and commerce is less important. I agree that smaller project might see volunteers dry up as they spend their time job seeking. I do not agree that hardware vendors will see a recession and stop Linux driver development. Do they make their money from drivers? Or do they need to support the growing numbers of Linux users in their customer base? Do developers of Linux drivers make OSS drivers? (*caugh* *ATI* *caugh*) Do those developers get paid or are they volunteer? Are all OSS developers volunteer? See - he doesn't seem to know that money can be made from open source. Just because I publish my code doesn't mean my customers can use it on their own. Otherwise, they might not have contracted me.
I have to agree. As customers learn that there are alternatives, they will run from MS. MS is MS's biggest problem, but their savior is lack of apparent solutions. As MS's "we're MS, b**ch" marketing strategy is worsened by consumer education, they will slip deeper into the background. That's where LUGs come in - working at community level to educate the ignorant masses. Get your neighbors onto Linux. and if they get two people each on Linux and each of those neighbors gets two neighbors on to Linux...:-)
someone is using the same "wipe them out. all of them." approach to free wifi as those who appose illegal use of P2P technologies. maybe free wifi providers should have some kind of filtering or whatever, but i dont think federal government is the one to push such law. especially not at the risk of destroying the provider. i mean, what reason will i have to _stay_ at my coffee shop if i cant get a few minutes of peaceful surfing with a nice cup of joe.
remember that all of the carbs you eat are converted to blood sugar. low carb has value, but us lazy americans are looking for the quick-fix diet to chop those extra 100lbs off during the next week.
(i'm not a doctor, nutritionist, et al but...) the real secret to low-carb dieting is portion control. count carbs, but avoid "low carb" foods. read labels and compare calories, carbs (total), fat, and salt. most "low carb" or "low fat" foods trade one of those other things. (i.e. low carb cereal might have more fat in it.) remember that you should limit your carbs to 60g per meal and spread that out over the day. (no saving point ala weight watchers). limit salt to 2400mg per day. (look at the label of a frozen meal one day for a nice scare) limit fat and make sure saturated fat is kept below 33% total fat.
and most of all the phrase should be "exercise and diet" not diet then exercise. again, us lazy americans dont want to hear that our bloated butts need to hit the treadmill 3 times a day.:-)
I have to chime in here. Not in response to parent - i just wanted in the discussion and this was my entry point.
As a matter of ethics, journalists should report the truth, facts. As a matter of privacy "Freedom of the press" is not a pass to report every fact about individuals. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that certain things about you won't be known. I'm not talking about matters of public record or advocating against the Press's freedom. I'm reminding people that freedom is from punishment when the truth is reported. It keeps them publishing reports about the president's record or government/corporate negligence. It does not give anyone the right to find out whatever they want. As a matter of decency, the press should respect a person's right to privacy. People who make their living off of celebrity life are not doing anyone favors. If journalists report to the wider population, they have responsibilities too many to list here. Unfortunately, responsible journalists don't sell.
end users don't buy operating systems - they buy computers. the price tag is not itemized. it's $X and that covers hardware and preinstalled software. It won't be until OEMs distribute Linux side-by-side with Windows and people see that the equivalent box is $Y cheaper to have Linux on board. and yes... it needs to be a distro with preconfigured repositories to add the software people want/need. It also will require developers (ie the Linux community and major commercial vendors) to write the software people want/need.
btw: all I did was regurgitate exactly the answer everyone provides when someone poses that question. I guess I should have prefaced my response with "dude - search the archives before asking".
Novell can buy a Linux, partner, with M$, and be a "Linux company".
It's good to use Linux to our advantage and bad to support Linux when it doesn't.
(Mod -15 karma. you know you want to)
Isn't it the job of the distro to choose how the kernel should be configure "out of the box"? If Red Hat (as example) wants to have server and desktop versions, wouldn't they configure the respective kernels for the respective environments? Why do this so specifically down to the kernel development level? If you're talking about bloat and usability, you're probably not "rolling your won" Linux. You have some distro and use its automated installation tools (ie yum and apt). Let the distro decide what their stock kernel should have and base your Linux decisions on the distro you choose.
does private ownership of intellectual property hinder scientific research? Should publicly funded science be required to release findings using creative commons (or other such) license? Does it bother us that a large chunk of DNA research IP is help by private parties?
should we just give up because M$ is too big? Can we make the argument that is in the same boat because the equivalent M$ product is widely adopted?
fsck M$ and all their blind worshipers. I say fight the power! Long live Linux! Long live The Community!
that assumes the purchaser can do what you did or pay someone else to work with your code. in the case they pay someone else, under gpl you still get credit (ok - credit != pay)
oops. You've made the classic mistake of confusing free with free. Remember, the term 'open and free' means open source and free as in freedom. closed-source binaries do not offer the community the freedom to adjust the driver (read hack - in a good way) to make it fit any related hardware not directly supported by the company. One of the first fires that lit up Richard Stallman was the closed-source printer driver necessary (but not provided) to make his older server play with the new printer.
You can and will get compensated for your work under a 'free as in freedom' open-source model. That's one of the reasons the GPL exists - to give authors credit for 'free as in freedom' work.
they should (in addition to general linux advocacy) help train people in the ways of linux development. we always respond to 'linux doesn't have X' with 'well then you should make X'. A LUG should openly help train people in some of those areas. A lot of LUGs i know are all about how to configure some service or the new features of the latest release of a distro. We (the community) need some meat - not just installfests and meet-and-greets.
This is not to say that one is better than the other -- just that they meet different needs in the marketplace.
Didn't a M$ VP in Europe say something to the effect 'there are those customers who find value in the community built around open-source. Then there are those customers who want quality and they come to us.'
So what M$ means here is if you want to be successful in the marketplace, you want to run with whatever M$ says you should.
but what about lecture techniques? the instructor should move around the room. i see lots of instructors tied to a PC because it is their entire lecture medium. now, electronic whiteboards are nice and have some of the benefits you list. bottom line - i don't like technology in place of good techniques, especially questioning and interaction. those see to get lost when the instructor (over) uses the PC.
yeah in the case of a comprehensive look at what coding one can do in Linux, a look at kernel-level tools has its place. I, on the other hand, would rather focus on GUI development (and prefer KDE), so Qt is the way to go.
Why must every file sharing conversation be about music? (ok, because the *IA say they're getting robbed by file sharing of movies and music.) I was accused of music sharing at work when I tried to torrent Fedora Linux. Why can't we share that which we own or have permission to distribute?
The uneducated, unwashed masses the *IA cry to about "theft" are my main concern. P2P (and the Internet as a P2P conduit) should not suffer just because some industry exec can't explain why hard copy of music and movie is on the decline. We are in an information age and will not evolve past it if we continue to get caught up in information ownership. (What is so much of our DNA decoding owned by corporations?) At some point, profit from information has to be limited.
In their defense, I do feel for them. just a little.. I have to explain numbers all the time and come up with improvement plans for masters.. I mean.. managers. That's not to say I blame low numbers on "piracy" and the Internet.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I, on the other hand, have only one stomach and that's been tweaked by millenia of evolution to break down a mixure of fairly soft plants with not much cellulose and meat.
you've been evolving over the last millenia? wow. you're old.
does this surprise anyone? it's a well-known fact we're only the 3rd most intelligent species on the planet.
he doesn't know much about the OSS culture. He sees the business end, but does he know the "gift culture" OSS lives in? Yeah, developers do it for the bullet points on their CV, but also because they can. They develop because they can. Some of us see OSS as the utopia where free information exchange is happening and commerce is less important. I agree that smaller project might see volunteers dry up as they spend their time job seeking. I do not agree that hardware vendors will see a recession and stop Linux driver development. Do they make their money from drivers? Or do they need to support the growing numbers of Linux users in their customer base? Do developers of Linux drivers make OSS drivers? (*caugh* *ATI* *caugh*) Do those developers get paid or are they volunteer? Are all OSS developers volunteer? See - he doesn't seem to know that money can be made from open source. Just because I publish my code doesn't mean my customers can use it on their own. Otherwise, they might not have contracted me.
I have to agree. As customers learn that there are alternatives, they will run from MS. MS is MS's biggest problem, but their savior is lack of apparent solutions. As MS's "we're MS, b**ch" marketing strategy is worsened by consumer education, they will slip deeper into the background. That's where LUGs come in - working at community level to educate the ignorant masses. Get your neighbors onto Linux. and if they get two people each on Linux and each of those neighbors gets two neighbors on to Linux... :-)
even for 64-bit HP, I'm cranking along... oh ..what? no I didn't RTFM why?
someone is using the same "wipe them out. all of them." approach to free wifi as those who appose illegal use of P2P technologies. maybe free wifi providers should have some kind of filtering or whatever, but i dont think federal government is the one to push such law. especially not at the risk of destroying the provider. i mean, what reason will i have to _stay_ at my coffee shop if i cant get a few minutes of peaceful surfing with a nice cup of joe.
remember that all of the carbs you eat are converted to blood sugar. low carb has value, but us lazy americans are looking for the quick-fix diet to chop those extra 100lbs off during the next week.
:-)
(i'm not a doctor, nutritionist, et al but...)
the real secret to low-carb dieting is portion control. count carbs, but avoid "low carb" foods. read labels and compare calories, carbs (total), fat, and salt. most "low carb" or "low fat" foods trade one of those other things. (i.e. low carb cereal might have more fat in it.) remember that you should limit your carbs to 60g per meal and spread that out over the day. (no saving point ala weight watchers). limit salt to 2400mg per day. (look at the label of a frozen meal one day for a nice scare) limit fat and make sure saturated fat is kept below 33% total fat.
and most of all the phrase should be "exercise and diet" not diet then exercise. again, us lazy americans dont want to hear that our bloated butts need to hit the treadmill 3 times a day.
I have to chime in here. Not in response to parent - i just wanted in the discussion and this was my entry point.
As a matter of ethics, journalists should report the truth, facts. As a matter of privacy "Freedom of the press" is not a pass to report every fact about individuals. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that certain things about you won't be known. I'm not talking about matters of public record or advocating against the Press's freedom. I'm reminding people that freedom is from punishment when the truth is reported. It keeps them publishing reports about the president's record or government/corporate negligence. It does not give anyone the right to find out whatever they want. As a matter of decency, the press should respect a person's right to privacy. People who make their living off of celebrity life are not doing anyone favors. If journalists report to the wider population, they have responsibilities too many to list here. Unfortunately, responsible journalists don't sell.
You can only eat steak so many times...
before you start ordering lobster...
end users don't buy operating systems - they buy computers. the price tag is not itemized. it's $X and that covers hardware and preinstalled software. It won't be until OEMs distribute Linux side-by-side with Windows and people see that the equivalent box is $Y cheaper to have Linux on board. and yes... it needs to be a distro with preconfigured repositories to add the software people want/need. It also will require developers (ie the Linux community and major commercial vendors) to write the software people want/need. btw: all I did was regurgitate exactly the answer everyone provides when someone poses that question. I guess I should have prefaced my response with "dude - search the archives before asking".
Novell can buy a Linux, partner, with M$, and be a "Linux company". It's good to use Linux to our advantage and bad to support Linux when it doesn't. (Mod -15 karma. you know you want to)
and I approve this Linux.
all the geek women want to keep those geek men to themselves. that's why they don't want more geek women around. :-)
Isn't it the job of the distro to choose how the kernel should be configure "out of the box"? If Red Hat (as example) wants to have server and desktop versions, wouldn't they configure the respective kernels for the respective environments? Why do this so specifically down to the kernel development level? If you're talking about bloat and usability, you're probably not "rolling your won" Linux. You have some distro and use its automated installation tools (ie yum and apt). Let the distro decide what their stock kernel should have and base your Linux decisions on the distro you choose.
does private ownership of intellectual property hinder scientific research? Should publicly funded science be required to release findings using creative commons (or other such) license? Does it bother us that a large chunk of DNA research IP is help by private parties?
if they made you agree with M$, the terrorists have won. (end sarcasm)
should we just give up because M$ is too big? Can we make the argument that is in the same boat because the equivalent M$ product is widely adopted?
fsck M$ and all their blind worshipers. I say fight the power! Long live Linux! Long live The Community!
ok... i've calmed down now....
that assumes the purchaser can do what you did or pay someone else to work with your code. in the case they pay someone else, under gpl you still get credit (ok - credit != pay)
oops. You've made the classic mistake of confusing free with free. Remember, the term 'open and free' means open source and free as in freedom. closed-source binaries do not offer the community the freedom to adjust the driver (read hack - in a good way) to make it fit any related hardware not directly supported by the company. One of the first fires that lit up Richard Stallman was the closed-source printer driver necessary (but not provided) to make his older server play with the new printer.
You can and will get compensated for your work under a 'free as in freedom' open-source model. That's one of the reasons the GPL exists - to give authors credit for 'free as in freedom' work.
a major company like Dell using its enormous influence and... i'm sorry. i can't finish that with a straight face.
they should (in addition to general linux advocacy) help train people in the ways of linux development. we always respond to 'linux doesn't have X' with 'well then you should make X'. A LUG should openly help train people in some of those areas. A lot of LUGs i know are all about how to configure some service or the new features of the latest release of a distro. We (the community) need some meat - not just installfests and meet-and-greets.
This is not to say that one is better than the other -- just that they meet different needs in the marketplace.
Didn't a M$ VP in Europe say something to the effect 'there are those customers who find value in the community built around open-source. Then there are those customers who want quality and they come to us.'
So what M$ means here is if you want to be successful in the marketplace, you want to run with whatever M$ says you should.
but what about lecture techniques? the instructor should move around the room. i see lots of instructors tied to a PC because it is their entire lecture medium. now, electronic whiteboards are nice and have some of the benefits you list. bottom line - i don't like technology in place of good techniques, especially questioning and interaction. those see to get lost when the instructor (over) uses the PC.
C/C++ use Qt, kdevelop, or gnomes IDE
yeah in the case of a comprehensive look at what coding one can do in Linux, a look at kernel-level tools has its place. I, on the other hand, would rather focus on GUI development (and prefer KDE), so Qt is the way to go.
Why must every file sharing conversation be about music? (ok, because the *IA say they're getting robbed by file sharing of movies and music.) I was accused of music sharing at work when I tried to torrent Fedora Linux. Why can't we share that which we own or have permission to distribute?
:-)
The uneducated, unwashed masses the *IA cry to about "theft" are my main concern. P2P (and the Internet as a P2P conduit) should not suffer just because some industry exec can't explain why hard copy of music and movie is on the decline. We are in an information age and will not evolve past it if we continue to get caught up in information ownership. (What is so much of our DNA decoding owned by corporations?) At some point, profit from information has to be limited.
In their defense, I do feel for them. just a little.. I have to explain numbers all the time and come up with improvement plans for masters.. I mean.. managers. That's not to say I blame low numbers on "piracy" and the Internet.