In my experience, your best bet in these cases is to walk the company's official path for software acquisition.
If no such path exists, your first step is to convince management to create it. Your common goal is to get the best sollutions for the problems at hand.
Here is a very usefull link of the dutch government on making FLOSS a viable option for software acquisition:
The reason I get a paycheck twice is month, in part, is because you can create efficient algorithms to make money in financial markets. But please don't let that dissuade you from your obviously very informed opinion. Care to switch jobs and move to Amsterdam?:)
"A team of Dutch and German astronomers have discovered part of the missing matter in the Universe using the European X-ray satellite XMM-Newton. They observed a filament of hot gas connecting two clusters of galaxies. This tenuous hot gas could be part of the missing "baryonic" matter. Their findings are being published in Astronomy & Astrophysics."
Microsoft has every right to create a web browser and integrate it into their other products. It is no fundamentally different than Konqueror being the default browser within the KDE environment.
Actually, it is fundamentally different.
Different rules (should) apply to monopolies. Therefor you should not compare Microsoft and KDE, but for example: Microsoft and the US telephone company Bell (from the olden days).
You would never allow a monopolistic phone company to only hook you up to the phonesystem if you were using their (free) phone? Would you?
(Disclaimer: I have no knowledge of the whole Bell history. But the comparison still works, IMHO.)
Imagine the range if you put a large exernal antenna on a bluetooth dongle. We got about a range of 1km IIRC. (This was at the Wireless Community Camp 2007 in the Netherlands.)
Funny you should mention Hula. Look what I found the otehr day:
"Messaging Architects Announces the Purchase of NetMail and the Hula Project
From January 30, 2007 onwards, Messaging Architects will own all of the associated Intellectual Property, including full copyright and all trademarks for NetMail and the Myrealbox.com public email server.
In addition, leadership of the Hula open source project is being assigned to Messaging Architects."
Yes, they will most likely crack Joost. That will not keep this from being a huge success.
Joost is free, easy, instant access to primary content. No Joe Sixpack that I know of is going to be wanting anything more.
Just click on a movie and 2 seconds later, it starts. Why (apart from the annoying ads) would Joe Sixpack want to be downloading the 'cracked' version through bittorrent/edonkey/whatever?
It is not about the jointly selling of their products. It's about the way the products are developed.
Microsoft and Novell have agreed not to sue each other over patent violations. Therefor, Novell can now (continue to?) develop software that violates Microsoft's "Intellectual Property".
The catch is: Novell develops GPL software. It helps *existing* GPL'd projects, like Evolution, SAMBA, OpenOffice.org.
Novell doesn't have to worry about patent violation anymore, so they can code whatever they want into those type of projects. The Community, however, does not have this luxury deal with Microsoft.
SAMBA could get sued. Debian could get sued for distributing SAMBA. All kinds of nastiness that may never happen, but scares the hell out of people. Scares them enough to stay away from all those 'nasty hacker' distributions, and go for Litigation Free Novell Linux.
*That* is why it is bad. That is why we should do everything and anything to stay away from Novell.
Reactie op TV uitzending Een Vandaag
In de uitzending "Een Vandaag" op 4 oktober werd uitgebreid aandacht besteed aan de Nedap stemmachine, en dan met name aan de werking van deze machine.
Het viel ons op dat aangetoond werd dat de machine uitstekend werkt. De stemmachine doet precies wat opgedragen wordt. Dit werd overigens ook door alle betrokkenen verwacht en bevestigd.
Op grond hiervan concluderen wij dat door de naam van de stichting "Wij vertrouwen stemcomputers niet" de machine onrecht wordt aangedaan.
Beter zou het zijn geweest als de oprichters van de stichting de naam "Wij vertrouwen mensen niet" hadden gekozen.
Translation:
Reaction on the TV showing Een Vandaag
In the show "Een Vandaag" on october 4th, there was a lot of focus on the Nedap votingmachine, and in particular how this machine works.
What we noticed was that it showed this machine works excellent. The votingmachine does exactly what it is told. This was also expected and confirmed by all parties involved.
On these grounds we conclude that the name of the foundation "We Don't Trust Votingmachines" does the machine injustice. It would have been better if the founders of the foundation had given it the name "We Don't Trust People".
If you make 1000's of people vote for a person by putting a gun against their head, you have succesfully manipulated the election.
It is rather easy to detect though. Rigging the electronical votes can be done by a small number of people, without detection. And _that_ is what scares this dutchy.
--
mverwijs
Very true. Everyone also has the freedom to *take that freedom away*. That is the only thing that the GPL was intended to limit (afaik). It's a safe-keep for freedom. *That* is the restriction, too my understanding.
Naming the GPL restrictive is like saying laws cannot be used to safe-keep freedom.
The criteria for writing a 5150 includes danger to self, danger to others, and/or grave disability - as noted below. The conditions must exist under the context of a mental illness and the person must be refusing psychiatric treatment.
Danger to self - the person must be an immediate threat to themselves, usually by being suicidal. Someone who is severely depressed and wishes to die would fall under this category.
Danger to others - the person must be an immediate threat to someone else. A person hearing voices telling them to kill someone would fall under this category.
Gravely disabled, Adult - the person (over 18 years old) is unable to provide for their food, clothing, and/or shelter - and there is no indication that anyone is willing or able to assist them in procuring these needs. This does not necessarily mean homeless, as a homeless person who is able to seek housing (even in a temporary shelter) when weather demands it would not fall under this category.
Gravely disabled, Minor - the person (under 18 years old) is unable to provide for their food, clothing, and/or shelter - even if these are supplied directly.
Slashdot Mirror
> So here's the question: Why should nursing mothers be accommodated
> by changes in Facebook policies, but exhibitionists / nudists not?
Because nursing a baby actually has a function. You know: feeding a helpless infant?
In my experience, your best bet in these cases is to walk the company's official path for software acquisition.
If no such path exists, your first step is to convince management to create it. Your common goal is to get the best sollutions for the problems at hand.
Here is a very usefull link of the dutch government on making FLOSS a viable option for software acquisition:
--> http://www.ososs.nl/files/acquisition_of_open-source_software_-_text.pdf
--
mverwijs
unix admin @ optiver
Not to blow my former employers whistle, but:
* http://www.huliq.com/59000/xmmnewton-discovers-part-missing-matter-universe
* http://www.sron.nl/ (dutch)
Quoting:
"A team of Dutch and German astronomers have discovered part of the missing matter in the Universe using the European X-ray satellite XMM-Newton. They observed a filament of hot gas connecting two clusters of galaxies. This tenuous hot gas could be part of the missing "baryonic" matter. Their findings are being published in Astronomy & Astrophysics."
Disclaimer: I've no clue about astronomy.
Last I checked, IIS was at about 35% and Apache at 50%.
--> http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2008/02/06/february_2008_web_server_survey.html
Of course, these are just statistics...
-mverwijs
Actually, it is fundamentally different.
Different rules (should) apply to monopolies. Therefor you should not compare Microsoft and KDE, but for example: Microsoft and the US telephone company Bell (from the olden days).
You would never allow a monopolistic phone company to only hook you up to the phonesystem if you were using their (free) phone? Would you?(Disclaimer: I have no knowledge of the whole Bell history. But the comparison still works, IMHO.)
Imagine the range if you put a large exernal antenna on a bluetooth dongle. We got about a range of 1km IIRC. (This was at the Wireless Community Camp 2007 in the Netherlands.)
[0] http://www.wifisoft.org/trac/wcc-2007/attachment/wiki/WikiStart/IMG_0127_mod.jpg
Funny you should mention Hula. Look what I found the otehr day:
www.hula.org
> Seems that any fanboy whether it's a Microsoft fanboy or not is susceptible :-)
;-)
> to giving people this treatment
Of course, you would have known that already if you had used google!
http://www.hp.com/go/debian
HP seems to get it. Why don't you?
Yes, they will most likely crack Joost. That will not keep this from being a huge success.
Joost is free, easy, instant access to primary content. No Joe Sixpack that I know of is going to be wanting anything more.
Just click on a movie and 2 seconds later, it starts. Why (apart from the annoying ads) would Joe Sixpack want to be downloading the 'cracked' version through bittorrent/edonkey/whatever?
Kindest regards,
mverwijs, occasional beta-tester for joost.
It is not about the jointly selling of their products. It's about the way the products are developed.
Microsoft and Novell have agreed not to sue each other over patent violations. Therefor, Novell can now (continue to?) develop software that violates Microsoft's "Intellectual Property".
The catch is: Novell develops GPL software. It helps *existing* GPL'd projects, like Evolution, SAMBA, OpenOffice.org.
Novell doesn't have to worry about patent violation anymore, so they can code whatever they want into those type of projects. The Community, however, does not have this luxury deal with Microsoft.
SAMBA could get sued. Debian could get sued for distributing SAMBA. All kinds of nastiness that may never happen, but scares the hell out of people. Scares them enough to stay away from all those 'nasty hacker' distributions, and go for Litigation Free Novell Linux.
*That* is why it is bad. That is why we should do everything and anything to stay away from Novell.
Regards,
mverwijs
Hi,
And after giving them the CD, tell them they can get support from you. Give them your email-address and phonenumber. Be kind and helpful.
Don't tell the guy to 'find someone in their neighborhood that knows Linux'. He's already found someone! It's you!
mverwijs
How about offering to help the guy yourself?
You're the one using Linux. Give him your email address. Tell you'll support him and actually do it.
This is the only way to convert people to another operating system. Make it less scary.
Regards,
mverwijs
> Surely something less expensive then $29 would win the market ... *rolls eyes*
What market?
42
> Is it available for Debian?
e ases/2.0rc1/linux-i686/en-US
Sure.
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/rel
Good luck!
M.
Being an animal-lovin'-tree-huggin'-hippie, I have to wonder: how did they get them to bleed?
Guess all is fair in love and wa^H^Hscience.
M.
Oops. Forgot the URL.
-> http://www.nedap.nl/nieuws.php?id=30
Translation:
> Using ldap itself is really not much better than using NIS,
> aside from the fact that it can contain much more than just
> the user database.
NIS can handle more than just a passwd or shadow. We've still got NIS distributing automount scripts, for example.
> Everyone has freedom.
Very true. Everyone also has the freedom to *take that freedom away*. That is the only thing that the GPL was intended to limit (afaik). It's a safe-keep for freedom. *That* is the restriction, too my understanding.
Naming the GPL restrictive is like saying laws cannot be used to safe-keep freedom.
FTA:
So it would actually be 2002. ;-)
5150!??! But that's *insane* [1]!
5150 criteria
The criteria for writing a 5150 includes danger to self, danger to others, and/or grave disability - as noted below. The conditions must exist under the context of a mental illness and the person must be refusing psychiatric treatment.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5150_(Involuntary_psy chiatric_hold)