First of all, of course Microsoft won't be open sourcing the Linux source code. A) The Linux source code is already freely available, and B) Microsoft doesn't have the authority to do that anyway.
Also, what you say about licensing the viewing of the source....Uh, Microsoft already does EXACTLY what you propose. What changes, is the fact that Microsoft is willing to open the source to their *competitors*. Microsoft has openly admitted on SEVERAL occasions that Linux is a competitor, so they would have an obligation to show whatever source they open to the Linux community.
Gates said he would agree to open the source code for the company's Windows operating system as part of a settlement, a move that would allow competitors to create and sell their own modified versions of Windows.
You said: "they will license out the viewing of the source code to other companies." I would say that creating and selling modified versions of Windows goes a bit beyond "viewing."
Intel said it will offer only minimal help to Sun because Sun wasn't doing enough to encourage software companies to use Intel chips instead of Sun's own UltraSparc chips.
I guess since it's Intel's ball. If they don't want to play, They'll take their ball and go home.
This can backfire though. Okay, so Intel is doing the same thing Sun did, and most likely will have a similar result. So Sun won't encourage users to run Solaris on Intel chips. (It's not going to have a huge impact on Intel, but it's a factor.)
Are we going to start posting articles every time some game is announced?
Are we going to fucking complain every time the Slashdot staff posts something that THEY think is relevant? Nobody is forcing this content down your throat! If you don't want to read it, DON'T READ IT. Then move on with life!
This is not your website. Start your own website, then you can put up whatever the hell you want. In the interim, don't bitch about what Slashdot puts out. Some people enjoy the subject matter, and could live without your complaints.
I never said closed source was more secure, my point is open source is easier to find problems with. (Which is why Linux is fixed so fast when bugs arise.)
Has he even heard of Mobile Linux? Apparently so, because he mentions it in his column. What about the Quanta Web Pad? That doesn't run Windows. Wake up, Bob. This is an x86 processor. (Duh, what's that mean?) Meaning, you can run anything your spiffy Pentium processor runs, INCLUDING Linux, and INCLUDING (But not limited to) Windows, DOS, and every other x86 OS/Program out there.
For a start, why aren't the Crusoe chip's mask sources published for modification and manufacture by anyone?
Would you want everyone to have the code that runs the hardware of a ton of computers? How about crackers who would love to find a way to cripple your processor, all because they have the source code. It's not necessarily a matter of Open Source, it's a matter of security. You can draw the comparison by saying "Linux is open source, and Linux is secure." Sure, but Linux is software -- easily fixed. Are you going to get a new processor every time an issue comes up? Sure you can flash the ROM, but what if an issue comes up that makes your processor useless? How are you going to flash it THEN?
Worse, Crusoe is touted for running Intel X86 software, and in particular, Microsoft Windows. Doesn't the open-source community say Windows is beneath contempt?
Does that erase the fact that Windows is used by most end users who own a computer? Yes, Windows is a piece of crap but it's a POPULAR piece of crap. Does it make sense to build an x86 processor, and remove Windows compatibility because you think it's crappy? Sure, let's remove an entire market from our product because of personal opinion. Get real. Oh, and there is no "particular" about it. It's a processor for God's sake. It doesn't run one piece of software any more "particular" than any other software.
Where is the outrage?
I'm guessing this dude WANTS outrage, and if he doesn't see it where he wants it, he writes articles like this to generate it.
So just to keep Torvalds honest, I'm thinking that Crusoe chips, which are mostly software, should be open source and basically free.
Since when is Linus in charge of Transmeta operations? He works there, and has a hand in development. He's not the company's marketing department, CEO, or anything else like that. He works there. So this affects his honesty how? (I'm thinking Mr. Metcalfe isn't too honest either, be it intentional or not I don't know.)
I must ask this guy to grab a clue. He shouldn't be writing articles... (But in this screwed up world of ours, he is. And in this screwed up world of ours, people listen to him.) It's a shame really. Maybe Bob should go to work for Microsoft. Their marketing department is expanding.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Do you always look at it in code?
on
Textmode Quake
·
· Score: 2
What? I don't even see the code. All I see is Blonde, Brunette, Redhead...
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Re:Marketing? Deadlines? Pah....
on
Textmode Quake
·
· Score: 2
ACK! MODERATE DOWN! WRONG ARTICLE!!!
Sorry.:(
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Marketing? Deadlines? Pah....
on
Textmode Quake
·
· Score: 0
"Our customers do not want us to sell them products with over 63,000 potential known defects. They want these defects corrected," stated one of Microsoft's Windows development leaders, Marc Lucovsky, in the memo. "How many of you would spend $500 on a piece of software with over 63,000 potential known defects?"
So instead of correcting the problem and pushing back the release date, Microsoft is going to release Windows 2000 upon thousands of unsuspecting retailers, and millions of unsuspecting users JUST to meet the deadline. "That's okay, we'll fix it in service pack 1."
The only problem with that is, Service pack 1 is a good 6 months away. In the meantime, what do the users do?
"Our goal for the next release of Windows 2000 is to have zero bugs."
WHO do these people think they're KIDDING? The next release? Okay, we're at Service pack 6 for NT 4. Several of those service packs actually BROKE more stuff than they fixed, and the goal for Windows 2000 OSR2 is zero bugs? Sure, I'll hand it to them - They have the right idea, but:
A) it's more than likely just marketspeak: "This one may have 63,000 problems, but the NEXT one will have zero, enabling you to have fun, and be more productive than ever! Blah Blah..."
B) How about attainable goals? How many people believe in their hearts that Microsoft will put out a Bug-free operating system? There is no such thing. Also, Microsoft is so concerned about market share that they could care less about present problems. "Fix it later."
Market researchers have repeated warnings to their clients against upgrading immediately to Win2000.
Go back about 5 years, replace "Win2000" with "Windows 95", and we have the SAME EXACT situation all over again. (Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.)
Several outfits have advised customers to wait until Microsoft issues its first or second service pack before deploying Win2000.
*Ahem* - Replace "Win2000" with NT 4.0. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
"Our customers do not want us to sell them products with over 63,000 potential known defects. They want these defects corrected," stated one of Microsoft's Windows development leaders, Marc Lucovsky, in the memo. "How many of you would spend $500 on a piece of software with over 63,000 potential known defects?"
So instead of correcting the problem and pushing back the release date, Microsoft is going to release Windows 2000 upon thousands of unsuspecting retailers, and millions of unsuspecting users JUST to meet the deadline. "That's okay, we'll fix it in service pack 1."
The only problem with that is, Service pack 1 is a good 6 months away. In the meantime, what do the users do?
"Our goal for the next release of Windows 2000 is to have zero bugs."
WHO do these people think they're KIDDING? The next release? Okay, we're at Service pack 6 for NT 4. Several of those service packs actually BROKE more stuff than they fixed, and the goal for Windows 2000 OSR2 is zero bugs? Sure, I'll hand it to them - They have the right idea, but:
A) it's more than likely just marketspeak: "This one may have 63,000 problems, but the NEXT one will have zero, enabling you to have fun, and be more productive than ever! Blah Blah..."
B) How about attainable goals? How many people believe in their hearts that Microsoft will put out a Bug-free operating system? There is no such thing. Also, Microsoft is so concerned about market share that they could care less about present problems. "Fix it later."
Market researchers have repeated warnings to their clients against upgrading immediately to Win2000.
Go back about 5 years, replace "Win2000" with "Windows 95", and we have the SAME EXACT situation all over again. (Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.)
Several outfits have advised customers to wait until Microsoft issues its first or second service pack before deploying Win2000.
*Ahem* - Replace "Win2000" with NT 4.0. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
(For the curioius, those Latitude/Longiude numbers are in the vicinity of Nellis Air Force base, the area of Rachel Nevada, Groom Lake, and surrounding parts.)
I would have at least said that perhaps they were slightly misinformed. Letting someone carry one like that (at least from where I come from) is bad manners.
HELLO! MY PAGE DID SAY THAT! Here's a few excerpts:
"Yes, I know that not everyone can be totally informed of a product, but that's not an excuse for giving misinformation, as you will read below."
"Conclusion: This sales associate was VERY uninformed. Okay, she may have not been the most technical person in the world, but at several points in our conversation she gave me total misinformation. It would have been perfectly okay to say "I don't know", but instead she insisted RPM was a programming language, and that Apache was a server architecture."
....Or did you even BOTHER to read the whole thing?
You then asked if there were methods of programming in rpm and such. I am sorry as I cannot view your page now but I got the impression that you were toying with the person and allowing them to continue to think that what they said was correct when it wasn't.
Wrong. I was asking the questions that a "person who didn't know anything" would ask. If I was toying with them, I would have phrased the entire conversation a lot more lower in intelligence. I acted like an interested business person, and phrased my questions accordingly. I didn't ask any questions that would be considered out of line, especially considering the information I was given. Sorry, but your argument just doesn't hold up.
Sure, I could see the humor in this (in fact, I tried hard several times to keep from laughing.;), however that was not the intended effect.
When you read the transcript, you notice the conversation was between "Accipiter" and "LinuxOne", not "Accipiter" and "Salesperson" or "Name". Throughout the entire phone call, this woman was representing her company. She was very professional, helpful, and polite....but quite uninformed.
Okay. I give you a point on that one. Except when I say funny, it is in it's most sarcastic tone. (Or maybe you missed that because you were too interested in misjudging me.) I agree, it's very sad.
They are phone staff because they aren't the smartest or the quickest or the luckiest people but they still have to make a living.
Guess what? I answer phones for a living where I work too. That puts me in the same boat as this person. But -- There's a difference. The point of placing people on the telephones is not just to take orders and write up an invoice. What if the person calling wants to know a little about the product? Hmm? Does that mean that the people who aren't "the smartest or the quickest or the luckiest" are allowed to be uninformed about the products they are supposed to be selling? Now picture this: Suppose I decide "Hey, this LinuxOne shit sounds GREAT! Especially that RPM programming language. I want it!" Then I buy it, and find that two-thirds of the information given to me was an outright lie. How would I feel? Replace me with the Corporate Suit who decides to give Linux a try. How is HE going to feel?
Oh, and don't throw a guilt trip at me about these people "making a living." I do the same thing where I work, and I'm damn sure informed about the products we sell. You just missed my point.
See the problem with what you did irrevelent of the fact that it was tapes and potentially illegal was the fact that the person is potentially publically libeled against; or more precisely the company.
Lets see here....Libel? I don't think so. Libel is publishing falsities in order to damage someone's reputation. I published no false information, so where do you get Libel from? That being the case, I suppose the Slashdot article is Libel too? Libel....pfft, you sound like JP.
This person could loose their job because you as the shittless little punk that you are had the gaul to actually deliberately lead the person on with false data of your own.
I was leading the SALESPERSON on? If you read the transcript, I believe you will find the opposite is true. If I had not known a damn thing about anything, I would have been led to believe that apache was a server architecture, RPM is a programming language, and EVERY distribution of Linux is insecure. I fed absolutely no information to this person, yet you insist that I "lead the person on with false data".
You know not everyone knows everything all at once we all learn.
If she doesn't know what the product is/does, why is she selling it? Who qualified her to answer the phones?
I would respectively ask that you grow up and live and let live. You can't really believe that you actually treated that human like a human do you?
Tell me what was so inhuman about what was done. This was not a personal attack against this single person, and I state that fact on the page. What you missed, was the fact this was to show the unprofessionalism of the company, as well as the uninformed nature of it's employees. I called LinuxOne back on the weekend after this phone call was made. The person answered the phone "Hello?" I thought I had a wrong number, and called back. Same thing. I had to ASK if that number was for LinuxOne. Laer in the conversation, I told this person I wanted to order 2000 copies, and I was told to call Red Hat. Is this what people expect from a company? Would you want to deal with this company?
Hmm well if you call up about your car or whatnot that gets into the shop that the mechanics should deliberately make you look like an ass right?
Sorry. I know enough to take my car to several places to get several opinions before I get it fixed. Oh, and the car shop is the one offering the service, not the customer. You've got your metaphor backwards.
So not only are their Booth people (executives?) very uninformed, so are their phone staff.
The following URL has a quick wrap-up of the LinuxOne situation, as well as a call I placed to them. I spoke with a salesperson who frankly, didn't know a damn thing about what she was pitching. That's quite evident in the transcript that's on the same page.
I found it interesting that Intel is scrambling to respond to the Crusoe. A few days after the announcement by Transmeta, my immediate supervisor at my job (a major computer retailer) called me to let me know that there was going to be a "mandatory Intel meeting next friday" (Which was last night.)
The representative didn't talk at all about the Crusoe or ANY competition, but talked about the features of the NEW Mobile Pentium III, such as SpeedStep technology, which adjusts the processor's clock speed on the fly to conserve power (ala LongRun), as well as the new Mobile Pentium III's socket, heat dissipation, etc.
While Intel training events aren't uncommon, a MANDATORY one never happens. This is the first MANDATORY training that there ever has been. My guess is, Intel got with the retailers, and said "Look, we have to educate the retail workforce on why the Pentium III is the ONLY choice for any computer." (They emphasized that a LOT, mind you.) They touted things like Intel's experience in the microprocessor field, their well known market share, the Intel "name", and the Intel Inside marketing campaign. A lot was fluff, but there was tech talk too. (Talk about Coppermine, etc. No mention of this "Northwood" though, but I'd imagine it's going to rip off some features of the Crusoe.)
What is your opinion on the position the MPAA has taken regarding DeCSS? Why are they making this out to be a piracy issue when it's clear that it's not?
Do you have any plans to talk to media outlets that will listen to your side of the story? Do you KNOW of any such outlets? I believe the word needs to spread to everyone who has ever touched a DVD movie, the net, or even a computer. The only problem with that is it is SO SEXY to portray people like you in a mischevious light, and to make you out to be the bad guy. WE know that's not the case, but every medium and their company (save Slashdot) paints this as a "they-want-to-copy-movies" situation. How do you think we should educate the masses, and through which mediums?
I agree. I love widescreen movies, and watching a Pan & Scan movie makes me sick. (Especially the ones where the Pan & Scan is done badly, and it's obvious. Ugh...)
What I can't understand, is my brother and my parents. They HATE widescreen, and insist that you're losing the top and bottom when you watch it that way. (I've tried explaining to them that you are actually losing the sides of the picture when you DON'T watch it widescreen, but those "big black spaces" bother them.)
My brother would rather watch a widescreen movie squashed horozontally to fit the screen, than watch it regular widescreen. God, you thought Pan & Scan was bad? Try squishing a widescreen movie into a square box, and watch it that way. (He watches all of his widescreen movies like that. Ugh....)
A friend of mine had gotten DirecPC a while back, and it was very disappointing. Sure, it was a bit fast on the downstream, but you still need a modem connection to a traditional ISP. (Therefore, uploading goes at 56K Max, and you still tie up a phone line.)
I would definitely recommend cable. It's cheaper, more reliable, easier to set up, and Linux friendly. (At least, mine was. I just did dhcpcd eth1, and it was hot.)
You know, it's comments such as yours that bother me.
Ok, you don't care about the subject being discussed. Fine. BUT you couldn't leave it there. You took the time to hit Reply, Write out a post to complain, and submit.
If you don't care, SHOW YOU DON'T CARE. Don't clog up the discussion with complaints! That annoys the people who ARE interested.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, of course Microsoft won't be open sourcing the Linux source code. A) The Linux source code is already freely available, and B) Microsoft doesn't have the authority to do that anyway.
Also, what you say about licensing the viewing of the source....Uh, Microsoft already does EXACTLY what you propose. What changes, is the fact that Microsoft is willing to open the source to their *competitors*. Microsoft has openly admitted on SEVERAL occasions that Linux is a competitor, so they would have an obligation to show whatever source they open to the Linux community.
Gates said he would agree to open the source code for the company's Windows operating system as part of a settlement, a move that would allow competitors to create and sell their own modified versions of Windows.
You said: "they will license out the viewing of the source code to other companies." I would say that creating and selling modified versions of Windows goes a bit beyond "viewing."
Looks like someone didn't read the article WELL.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Sun makes UltraSparc. Intel is complaining because Sun didn't endorse Intel Chips. WHY would Sun advertise for Intel?
So BECAUSE Sun didn't endorse Intel, Intel won't help them port Solaris to Itanium.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
I guess since it's Intel's ball. If they don't want to play, They'll take their ball and go home.
This can backfire though. Okay, so Intel is doing the same thing Sun did, and most likely will have a similar result. So Sun won't encourage users to run Solaris on Intel chips. (It's not going to have a huge impact on Intel, but it's a factor.)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Are we going to fucking complain every time the Slashdot staff posts something that THEY think is relevant? Nobody is forcing this content down your throat! If you don't want to read it, DON'T READ IT. Then move on with life!
This is not your website. Start your own website, then you can put up whatever the hell you want. In the interim, don't bitch about what Slashdot puts out. Some people enjoy the subject matter, and could live without your complaints.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Has he even heard of Mobile Linux? Apparently so, because he mentions it in his column. What about the Quanta Web Pad? That doesn't run Windows. Wake up, Bob. This is an x86 processor. (Duh, what's that mean?) Meaning, you can run anything your spiffy Pentium processor runs, INCLUDING Linux, and INCLUDING (But not limited to) Windows, DOS, and every other x86 OS/Program out there.
For a start, why aren't the Crusoe chip's mask sources published for modification and manufacture by anyone?
Would you want everyone to have the code that runs the hardware of a ton of computers? How about crackers who would love to find a way to cripple your processor, all because they have the source code. It's not necessarily a matter of Open Source, it's a matter of security. You can draw the comparison by saying "Linux is open source, and Linux is secure." Sure, but Linux is software -- easily fixed. Are you going to get a new processor every time an issue comes up? Sure you can flash the ROM, but what if an issue comes up that makes your processor useless? How are you going to flash it THEN?
Worse, Crusoe is touted for running Intel X86 software, and in particular, Microsoft Windows. Doesn't the open-source community say Windows is beneath contempt?
Does that erase the fact that Windows is used by most end users who own a computer? Yes, Windows is a piece of crap but it's a POPULAR piece of crap. Does it make sense to build an x86 processor, and remove Windows compatibility because you think it's crappy? Sure, let's remove an entire market from our product because of personal opinion. Get real. Oh, and there is no "particular" about it. It's a processor for God's sake. It doesn't run one piece of software any more "particular" than any other software.
Where is the outrage?
I'm guessing this dude WANTS outrage, and if he doesn't see it where he wants it, he writes articles like this to generate it.
So just to keep Torvalds honest, I'm thinking that Crusoe chips, which are mostly software, should be open source and basically free.
Since when is Linus in charge of Transmeta operations? He works there, and has a hand in development. He's not the company's marketing department, CEO, or anything else like that. He works there. So this affects his honesty how? (I'm thinking Mr. Metcalfe isn't too honest either, be it intentional or not I don't know.)
I must ask this guy to grab a clue. He shouldn't be writing articles... (But in this screwed up world of ours, he is. And in this screwed up world of ours, people listen to him.) It's a shame really. Maybe Bob should go to work for Microsoft. Their marketing department is expanding.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Sorry.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
So instead of correcting the problem and pushing back the release date, Microsoft is going to release Windows 2000 upon thousands of unsuspecting retailers, and millions of unsuspecting users JUST to meet the deadline. "That's okay, we'll fix it in service pack 1."
The only problem with that is, Service pack 1 is a good 6 months away. In the meantime, what do the users do?
"Our goal for the next release of Windows 2000 is to have zero bugs."
WHO do these people think they're KIDDING? The next release? Okay, we're at Service pack 6 for NT 4. Several of those service packs actually BROKE more stuff than they fixed, and the goal for Windows 2000 OSR2 is zero bugs? Sure, I'll hand it to them - They have the right idea, but:
A) it's more than likely just marketspeak: "This one may have 63,000 problems, but the NEXT one will have zero, enabling you to have fun, and be more productive than ever! Blah Blah..."
B) How about attainable goals? How many people believe in their hearts that Microsoft will put out a Bug-free operating system? There is no such thing. Also, Microsoft is so concerned about market share that they could care less about present problems. "Fix it later."
Market researchers have repeated warnings to their clients against upgrading immediately to Win2000.
Go back about 5 years, replace "Win2000" with "Windows 95", and we have the SAME EXACT situation all over again. (Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.)
Several outfits have advised customers to wait until Microsoft issues its first or second service pack before deploying Win2000.
*Ahem* - Replace "Win2000" with NT 4.0. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
So instead of correcting the problem and pushing back the release date, Microsoft is going to release Windows 2000 upon thousands of unsuspecting retailers, and millions of unsuspecting users JUST to meet the deadline. "That's okay, we'll fix it in service pack 1."
The only problem with that is, Service pack 1 is a good 6 months away. In the meantime, what do the users do?
"Our goal for the next release of Windows 2000 is to have zero bugs."
WHO do these people think they're KIDDING? The next release? Okay, we're at Service pack 6 for NT 4. Several of those service packs actually BROKE more stuff than they fixed, and the goal for Windows 2000 OSR2 is zero bugs? Sure, I'll hand it to them - They have the right idea, but:
A) it's more than likely just marketspeak: "This one may have 63,000 problems, but the NEXT one will have zero, enabling you to have fun, and be more productive than ever! Blah Blah..."
B) How about attainable goals? How many people believe in their hearts that Microsoft will put out a Bug-free operating system? There is no such thing. Also, Microsoft is so concerned about market share that they could care less about present problems. "Fix it later."
Market researchers have repeated warnings to their clients against upgrading immediately to Win2000.
Go back about 5 years, replace "Win2000" with "Windows 95", and we have the SAME EXACT situation all over again. (Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.)
Several outfits have advised customers to wait until Microsoft issues its first or second service pack before deploying Win2000.
*Ahem* - Replace "Win2000" with NT 4.0. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Specifically:
http://slashdot.org/articles/98
I loved it both times!
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
I'm gonna have to think this one over, but mind you, I intend to give that lizard a hell of a name.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Great! I'd like shots of the following locations, as well as their surrounding areas:
115-49'00"W 37-14'00"N
115-44'00"W 37-38'30"N
115-51'30"W 37-7'30"N
115-47'30"W 37-16'30"N
(For the curioius, those Latitude/Longiude numbers are in the vicinity of Nellis Air Force base, the area of Rachel Nevada, Groom Lake, and surrounding parts.)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
HELLO! MY PAGE DID SAY THAT! Here's a few excerpts:
"Yes, I know that not everyone can be totally informed of a product, but that's not an excuse for giving misinformation, as you will read below."
"Conclusion: This sales associate was VERY uninformed. Okay, she may have not been the most technical person in the world, but at several points in our conversation she gave me total misinformation. It would have been perfectly okay to say "I don't know", but instead she insisted RPM was a programming language, and that Apache was a server architecture."
....Or did you even BOTHER to read the whole thing?
You then asked if there were methods of programming in rpm and such. I am sorry as I cannot view your page now but I got the impression that you were toying with the person and allowing them to continue to think that what they said was correct when it wasn't.
Wrong. I was asking the questions that a "person who didn't know anything" would ask. If I was toying with them, I would have phrased the entire conversation a lot more lower in intelligence. I acted like an interested business person, and phrased my questions accordingly. I didn't ask any questions that would be considered out of line, especially considering the information I was given. Sorry, but your argument just doesn't hold up.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Actually, Linus pronounces it "Lee-Nicks", if I remember correctly.
His name is pronounced similarly. "Lee-Nis", rhyming with "Knee Miss"
But, Linus also said he doesn't care how people pronounce it, just so long as they use it. No arguments here.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Sure, I could see the humor in this (in fact, I tried hard several times to keep from laughing.
When you read the transcript, you notice the conversation was between "Accipiter" and "LinuxOne", not "Accipiter" and "Salesperson" or "Name". Throughout the entire phone call, this woman was representing her company. She was very professional, helpful, and polite....but quite uninformed.
But thanks for the comment.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
No I think that's sad.
Okay. I give you a point on that one. Except when I say funny, it is in it's most sarcastic tone. (Or maybe you missed that because you were too interested in misjudging me.) I agree, it's very sad.
They are phone staff because they aren't the smartest or the quickest or the luckiest people but they still have to make a living.
Guess what? I answer phones for a living where I work too. That puts me in the same boat as this person. But -- There's a difference. The point of placing people on the telephones is not just to take orders and write up an invoice. What if the person calling wants to know a little about the product? Hmm? Does that mean that the people who aren't "the smartest or the quickest or the luckiest" are allowed to be uninformed about the products they are supposed to be selling? Now picture this: Suppose I decide "Hey, this LinuxOne shit sounds GREAT! Especially that RPM programming language. I want it!" Then I buy it, and find that two-thirds of the information given to me was an outright lie. How would I feel? Replace me with the Corporate Suit who decides to give Linux a try. How is HE going to feel?
Oh, and don't throw a guilt trip at me about these people "making a living." I do the same thing where I work, and I'm damn sure informed about the products we sell. You just missed my point.
See the problem with what you did irrevelent of the fact that it was tapes and potentially illegal was the fact that the person is potentially publically libeled against; or more precisely the company.
Lets see here....Libel? I don't think so. Libel is publishing falsities in order to damage someone's reputation. I published no false information, so where do you get Libel from? That being the case, I suppose the Slashdot article is Libel too? Libel....pfft, you sound like JP.
This person could loose their job because you as the shittless little punk that you are had the gaul to actually deliberately lead the person on with false data of your own.
I was leading the SALESPERSON on? If you read the transcript, I believe you will find the opposite is true. If I had not known a damn thing about anything, I would have been led to believe that apache was a server architecture, RPM is a programming language, and EVERY distribution of Linux is insecure. I fed absolutely no information to this person, yet you insist that I "lead the person on with false data".
You know not everyone knows everything all at once we all learn.
If she doesn't know what the product is/does, why is she selling it? Who qualified her to answer the phones?
I would respectively ask that you grow up and live and let live. You can't really believe that you actually treated that human like a human do you?
Tell me what was so inhuman about what was done. This was not a personal attack against this single person, and I state that fact on the page. What you missed, was the fact this was to show the unprofessionalism of the company, as well as the uninformed nature of it's employees. I called LinuxOne back on the weekend after this phone call was made. The person answered the phone "Hello?" I thought I had a wrong number, and called back. Same thing. I had to ASK if that number was for LinuxOne. Laer in the conversation, I told this person I wanted to order 2000 copies, and I was told to call Red Hat. Is this what people expect from a company? Would you want to deal with this company?
Hmm well if you call up about your car or whatnot that gets into the shop that the mechanics should deliberately make you look like an ass right?
Sorry. I know enough to take my car to several places to get several opinions before I get it fixed. Oh, and the car shop is the one offering the service, not the customer. You've got your metaphor backwards.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
So not only are their Booth people (executives?) very uninformed, so are their phone staff.
The following URL has a quick wrap-up of the LinuxOne situation, as well as a call I placed to them. I spoke with a salesperson who frankly, didn't know a damn thing about what she was pitching. That's quite evident in the transcript that's on the same page.
http://hackphreak.org/~accipiter/
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
The representative didn't talk at all about the Crusoe or ANY competition, but talked about the features of the NEW Mobile Pentium III, such as SpeedStep technology, which adjusts the processor's clock speed on the fly to conserve power (ala LongRun), as well as the new Mobile Pentium III's socket, heat dissipation, etc.
While Intel training events aren't uncommon, a MANDATORY one never happens. This is the first MANDATORY training that there ever has been. My guess is, Intel got with the retailers, and said "Look, we have to educate the retail workforce on why the Pentium III is the ONLY choice for any computer." (They emphasized that a LOT, mind you.) They touted things like Intel's experience in the microprocessor field, their well known market share, the Intel "name", and the Intel Inside marketing campaign. A lot was fluff, but there was tech talk too. (Talk about Coppermine, etc. No mention of this "Northwood" though, but I'd imagine it's going to rip off some features of the Crusoe.)
Just some speculattion on my part.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
http://www.hackphreak.org/~accipiter
This is a transcript (mp3 included) of a call I made to them.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Do you have any plans to talk to media outlets that will listen to your side of the story? Do you KNOW of any such outlets? I believe the word needs to spread to everyone who has ever touched a DVD movie, the net, or even a computer. The only problem with that is it is SO SEXY to portray people like you in a mischevious light, and to make you out to be the bad guy. WE know that's not the case, but every medium and their company (save Slashdot) paints this as a "they-want-to-copy-movies" situation. How do you think we should educate the masses, and through which mediums?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
I agree. I love widescreen movies, and watching a Pan & Scan movie makes me sick. (Especially the ones where the Pan & Scan is done badly, and it's obvious. Ugh...)
What I can't understand, is my brother and my parents. They HATE widescreen, and insist that you're losing the top and bottom when you watch it that way. (I've tried explaining to them that you are actually losing the sides of the picture when you DON'T watch it widescreen, but those "big black spaces" bother them.)
My brother would rather watch a widescreen movie squashed horozontally to fit the screen, than watch it regular widescreen. God, you thought Pan & Scan was bad? Try squishing a widescreen movie into a square box, and watch it that way. (He watches all of his widescreen movies like that. Ugh....)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
I would definitely recommend cable. It's cheaper, more reliable, easier to set up, and Linux friendly. (At least, mine was. I just did dhcpcd eth1, and it was hot.)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Ok, you don't care about the subject being discussed. Fine. BUT you couldn't leave it there. You took the time to hit Reply, Write out a post to complain, and submit.
If you don't care, SHOW YOU DON'T CARE. Don't clog up the discussion with complaints! That annoys the people who ARE interested.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?