Your average user is not a computer geek and so does not have the interest to do the research required to figure out which linux distro is best for them, how to use it, or what apps they will need to change and how to use those apps.
I wouldn't call that the Linux community being out of touch with regular users. I call that human nature. It's much related to the same reason I drive a relatively new, bone stock, car which needs minimal repairs rather than an older, cooler, car which may need more frequent repairs and has a bunch of aftermarket modifications to make it faster. It's the reason why I do not have a beautifully manicured lawn and garden. Those communities are not out of touch with me in a bad way, I just don't have other things that I would prefer to put my time into learning and researching which does not leave me with the time and inclination for those.
Re:But will they be cheaper?
on
Dell Linux Details
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I would think we could look at their current Linux supported offerings, the PowerEdge line, to get an idea.
Base price is no OS. + $261 for RHEL5 w/ 1 year support + $785 for RHEL5 w/ 3 year support + $105 for Suse 10 EL w/ 1 year support + $262 for Suse 10 EL w/ 3 year support + $599 for Windows Server 2003 Standard + $974 for Windows 2003 SBS
This seems pretty in-line with what the pricing was when the company I work for bought a Linux compatible Optiplex last year.
With that in mind, I would imagine that the Ubuntu desktops will also be less expensive than the same desktop with Windows on it.
Is this some attempt at a joke or troll that went over my head? Firefox is not written in Java. Much of the UI is done in JavaScript, but JavaScript is not Java.
Hey, this is the internet. I'm not going to tolerate that friendly reply when I was kind of a dick. That's now how we do things on the Internet. Now I feel like a dick.
Had you bothered to RTFA, you'd see that while you are right about the intended use of H1-B visas, the investigation is because senators (probably correctly) believe that is NOT how the visas are being used. They believe instead that contracting firms are bringing workers over on H1-B visas temporarily, frequently for lower pay than an american will do the same job, then sending them back to the homeland with their new skills, training, and experience.
...or at a low enough salary. While there may be some shortage of US citizens willing to learn to do "difficult" things like science, math, engineering and good programming, I think the desire of many companies to pay (much) less for such talent is at least as big a factor as any shortage.
This is definitely the case, at least in my area. I recently went through a bout of unemployment after getting laid off from my first Jr. Developer role. I applied for everything from phone support to mid-level developer type jobs. During this process I got on the good side of a few of the better local headhunters. The recruiters there confirmed to me that most of the "entry level" developer positions they had were not entry level. They said entry level to justify the pay. In reality, they were looking for someone with 3-5 years full time development experience, preferably specifically in the language/tech used at that company, who would work at the pay of someone with 6 months to a year full time experience or fresh out of college with a CS related degree. In other words, H1-B employees.
#3. "Third, the additional bugs that external hackers find are commonly found by examining the patches we apply to our software."
I had to post that verbatim. They're releasing new bugs in their patches.
That's not how I read the response, not that how I read it is better.
What I got from reading the entire paragraph about that was that they patch the exact issue found, but do a terrible job of making sure that the same or similar bugs are not in other similar or related parts of the code. Hackers then see the bug fix report then go look for similar exploits abusing the same bug in other parts of the program. These new exploits would not be found if they hadn't fixed and published the first one.
This is not any better than causing new security issues with their security patches, but let's at least bash them for the right thing.
I'm with you, I've been through a similar-ish situation. I was slowly working my way up the IT ranks and finally got a direct hire job (as opposed to all the contract work before) as a junior level software developer for a small company along with 2 more senior level guys. I was always being told how good of a job I was doing both for the quality of the work and speed with which I was getting it done.
5 months later I buy my first house. 1 after that? We all get laid off due to changes in the way the company wants to do business. I've got referrals from the COO, CTO, and Director of IT from this company. But you know what? I couldn't get a job anywhere. When I applied for development related jobs they didn't want me because I didn't have enough experience. When I applied for support related jobs they didn't want me because between my previous job experience and referrals, I was obviously overqualified.
Fortunately my ex-employer got their shit together and are my employer again (and appear to be much more stable this time). This was when I had 1 week left of unemployment. Without my unemployment to get me through that period, though, I would have been in a lot of trouble.
Because a nationally trackable "state" ID which will be required for me to get into various places which will log the fact I was there using the info from that national "state" ID and has provisions in place to expand where it's required is in no way going to be used for tracking people.
You're right, I've got my extra large tinfoil hat on today, I'll give you that. Has this administration or any laws or actions that use the 9/11 attacks as an excuse given me a reason not to? Hell, how many have just not given me a reason TO have my tinfoil hat on?
3) There's no requirement to use a REALID-compliant license for anything except a) Airplanes, b) Federal facilities, c) Nuclear power plants. I'll gladly get a REALID passport for those purposes (which I keep in an RFID-resistant bag) and lobby my state to provide non-REALID licenses.
So far, anyway. The answer to the third question there says "DHS may consider expanding these official purposes through future rulemakings to maximize the security benefits of REAL ID." I'm pretty certain that can be translated as "DHS has already decided it is going to expand the official purposes for the Real ID as soon as it has passed because it appears fairly harmless at the moment."
4) The federal government isn't providing funds to states, but that's good. The states SHOULD be paying for it so they (and in turn, their voters) maintain control. If we raise local taxes and lower federal taxes, or local governments will have more power and, in turn, each of us will have more power since our votes are part of a smaller state and local pool. How many of us can even name the mayor of our city? Why? Because he's not that important.
So the federal government is going to set rules for how a state ID must be and require that the ID which is supposedly completely state determined and maintained meet those requirements for use in several places, but the states are going to pay for it. That's good? Where is this control the voters are maintaining that you speak of? The only control is to have one or not and based on the quote above, it's quite likely it will be nearly impossible to not have one in the near future.
To be fair, I'll take off my tinfoil hat. Let's say that nothing bad comes of this. What good comes of it? We've already got state ID's and several other forms of ID that are considered to be valid and secure forms of identification. Why would I want to have my taxes go to having another one instead of something useful (not that I really think that money would otherwise go to something useful).
Man, it's like you have no idea what's been going on in our country for the last 6 years (well... longer, but you guys all know what I mean). We've had new "security" measures and things done in the name of security over and over, none of which have any chance of providing more security or would have stopped the 9/11 attack (which almost all of them, including Real ID, use as the basis for why they were thought up). Almost all of them do, on the other hand, infringe on the rights and privacy of law abiding Americans.
You want to see what scares me the most about Real ID and what I really think is "the bid deal"? This does. Specifically this line:
DHS may consider expanding these official purposes through future rulemakings to maximize the security benefits of REAL ID.
They are ALREADY planning on adding more restrictions and monitoring of the people by using this thing.
It matters so much, they'll even put you on a nice list, so you get extra-special treatment at airports. I know I'm going to feel much safer now that I'll be receiving my complimentary bomb check to make sure no terrorists stuffed one into my pockets, luggage, or bodily cavities while I wasn't looking.
Is it helpful for non USA citizens to also voice their disquiet? I have my doubts that it's even useful for us USA citizens to voice our disquiet. The people making these decisions have been bought and made up their mind long before us citizens even know about it and I highly doubt a few angry e-mails will change their minds.
Sure, let me know when you figure out how to force people to pay attention and educate themselves.
Seriously, though, as I'm sure everyone here knows (but I enjoy preaching to the choir) this is useless. The problem isn't that people can't tell they're not at the actual bank website because it's hard, they can't tell because they don't fucking look and/or don't understand. If after clicking the link (which they shouldn't have clicked to start with) they are incapable of looking at the address bar and thinking to themselves "hey, that doesn't say http://www.wachovia.com/ like the e-mail said" then why would they look at it and think "hey, that doesn't say http://www.wachovia.bank/ like the e-mail said"?
Not because of being accused of spying but because of being accused of being stupid enough to implant "super secret spy technology that is intending to go completely unnoticed" in a non-standard object that stands out and draws attention instead of in a perfectly normal looking quarter.
I have a Dell not 10 feet from me that is from one of the "Linux Compatible" lines that had the option of coming with Linux pre-installed. If you ordered it with Linux pre-installed, yeah, it cost about as much as it did with Windows. That was with RHEL or SuSE Enterprise, the expensive ass support package, etc. You also had the option of ordering it with no OS installed, which is what we did, at a discount of a couple hundred dollars (I don't remember the exact cost) that you're not spending on either a support license from RH or SuSE or a software license for Windows.
Why would you create a business around your rankings on search engines which everyone knows can change from day to day depending on other sites and ever changing ranking algorithms? Even when you're not paying some SEO guy ridiculous amounts of money to scam the system and get you stuck in Google Hell that's a rather obvious huge risk to be taking.
I understand that proper advertising is expensive, I've got a failed business of my own due to not being able to put the necessary money into it, but guess what? That's business. You pick the risks you're willing to take and deal with the results. Basing the majority of your business on search result ranking is low cost (unless you pay an SEO expert $35k which would have been better spent elsewhere, like real advertising, or a new car, or a 35,000 cheeseburgers from a fast food value menu) but high risk due to the constant changes.
I don't think anyone here denies that young kids playing violent video games may cause them to be more violent. The question is whether the games do more to cause violence than watching violent tv and movies, reading violent books, or playing potentially violent sports. These studies quoted do nothing to show that or if they did, the article does not mention it.
Also, we still have to question how/why these 3rd and 4th graders in the last study got the violent games. Well, no, we know how and why but I'm sure you know what I mean. Sure, perhaps the game did cause them to be more violent overall, but guess what, the game was clearly fucking marked as being something they weren't supposed to be playing in the first place. Again, nothing learned. Mature games may not be good for young kids to play, which is why they are marked as being for 17+.
Then of course there is the type/level of violence. The article did mention this, which is good. There is a big difference between the increased vulgar language, trash talking someone you are in competition with, shooting extra long in a game, and even punching someone and the much more violent action of grabbing a gun and shooting someone in an attempt to kill them.
So basically, they've done a bunch of studies that when combined together suggest what we already know. Violent games may or may not cause extra violence if played by young children who the game is clearly marked as not being for. Way to go.
A bit late on the reply, but I still say Rockstar is in no way at fault, or at least not in any way that matters. At worst, they respectably decided the content wasn't appropriate, but went with the lazy way of removing it which made it easier/more likely for a 3rd party to put pornographic content in the playable game but probably not at all on purpose.
If not putting pornographic material on the disc, but inaccessible, prevented pornographic mods then the Sims skins that I created back in the day never would have been created, the Doom 2 mod that changed some or all of the sprites to naked women wouldn't have been created, etc.
Granted, it's a bit late now, but that's exactly what I said. The code was on the disc, and so created by Rockstar, but the patch that made it accessible was not created or distributed by them.
When I was in school, given the choice between "do actual work of some sort" and "play an old ass, out of date, video game", which was an option in some of my classes, I always went with the latter. Of course I'm a geek and gamer, so that certainly played a role. Also, my choice for doing that was never gym class, which I enjoyed anyway.
Of rather more interest, however, is the stupidity on the behalf of Rockstar. As a gamer, I'd personally like to deliver a solid kick to the nads of the person or persons responsible for the "Hot Coffee" code. The gaming community already gets enough bad press without dipshits like Rockstar giving our detractors more ammunition.
Perhaps I missed some part of the news revolving around this, but my understanding is that the mod that actually made the Hot Coffee stuff available was not produced or distributed by Rockstar. The code was on the disc but not accessible in any way without a 3rd party mod that to my knowledge was created and distributed by someone completely unaffiliated with Rockstar. It's only slightly different than drawing some tits on a picture in the newspaper and then claiming the newspaper is both at fault and pornographic because a 3rd party modification shows the tits that were under the shirt, but in no way accessible, in the picture in the newspaper.
Slashdot Mirror
Your average user is not a computer geek and so does not have the interest to do the research required to figure out which linux distro is best for them, how to use it, or what apps they will need to change and how to use those apps.
I wouldn't call that the Linux community being out of touch with regular users. I call that human nature. It's much related to the same reason I drive a relatively new, bone stock, car which needs minimal repairs rather than an older, cooler, car which may need more frequent repairs and has a bunch of aftermarket modifications to make it faster. It's the reason why I do not have a beautifully manicured lawn and garden. Those communities are not out of touch with me in a bad way, I just don't have other things that I would prefer to put my time into learning and researching which does not leave me with the time and inclination for those.
If I only had mod points for you.
I would think we could look at their current Linux supported offerings, the PowerEdge line, to get an idea.
Base price is no OS.
+ $261 for RHEL5 w/ 1 year support
+ $785 for RHEL5 w/ 3 year support
+ $105 for Suse 10 EL w/ 1 year support
+ $262 for Suse 10 EL w/ 3 year support
+ $599 for Windows Server 2003 Standard
+ $974 for Windows 2003 SBS
This seems pretty in-line with what the pricing was when the company I work for bought a Linux compatible Optiplex last year.
With that in mind, I would imagine that the Ubuntu desktops will also be less expensive than the same desktop with Windows on it.
I was responding to his post as if it were one of these, which are quite common on slashdot, as opposed to a somewhat serious response.
Wait, does that mean in the rest of the world a syringe full of polonium is better than a nice gesture?
Is this some attempt at a joke or troll that went over my head? Firefox is not written in Java. Much of the UI is done in JavaScript, but JavaScript is not Java.
Hey, this is the internet. I'm not going to tolerate that friendly reply when I was kind of a dick. That's now how we do things on the Internet. Now I feel like a dick.
Had you bothered to RTFA, you'd see that while you are right about the intended use of H1-B visas, the investigation is because senators (probably correctly) believe that is NOT how the visas are being used. They believe instead that contracting firms are bringing workers over on H1-B visas temporarily, frequently for lower pay than an american will do the same job, then sending them back to the homeland with their new skills, training, and experience.
This is definitely the case, at least in my area. I recently went through a bout of unemployment after getting laid off from my first Jr. Developer role. I applied for everything from phone support to mid-level developer type jobs. During this process I got on the good side of a few of the better local headhunters. The recruiters there confirmed to me that most of the "entry level" developer positions they had were not entry level. They said entry level to justify the pay. In reality, they were looking for someone with 3-5 years full time development experience, preferably specifically in the language/tech used at that company, who would work at the pay of someone with 6 months to a year full time experience or fresh out of college with a CS related degree. In other words, H1-B employees.
That's not how I read the response, not that how I read it is better.
What I got from reading the entire paragraph about that was that they patch the exact issue found, but do a terrible job of making sure that the same or similar bugs are not in other similar or related parts of the code. Hackers then see the bug fix report then go look for similar exploits abusing the same bug in other parts of the program. These new exploits would not be found if they hadn't fixed and published the first one.
This is not any better than causing new security issues with their security patches, but let's at least bash them for the right thing.
I'm with you, I've been through a similar-ish situation. I was slowly working my way up the IT ranks and finally got a direct hire job (as opposed to all the contract work before) as a junior level software developer for a small company along with 2 more senior level guys. I was always being told how good of a job I was doing both for the quality of the work and speed with which I was getting it done.
5 months later I buy my first house. 1 after that? We all get laid off due to changes in the way the company wants to do business. I've got referrals from the COO, CTO, and Director of IT from this company. But you know what? I couldn't get a job anywhere. When I applied for development related jobs they didn't want me because I didn't have enough experience. When I applied for support related jobs they didn't want me because between my previous job experience and referrals, I was obviously overqualified.
Fortunately my ex-employer got their shit together and are my employer again (and appear to be much more stable this time). This was when I had 1 week left of unemployment. Without my unemployment to get me through that period, though, I would have been in a lot of trouble.
Because a nationally trackable "state" ID which will be required for me to get into various places which will log the fact I was there using the info from that national "state" ID and has provisions in place to expand where it's required is in no way going to be used for tracking people.
You're right, I've got my extra large tinfoil hat on today, I'll give you that. Has this administration or any laws or actions that use the 9/11 attacks as an excuse given me a reason not to? Hell, how many have just not given me a reason TO have my tinfoil hat on?
To be fair, I'll take off my tinfoil hat. Let's say that nothing bad comes of this. What good comes of it? We've already got state ID's and several other forms of ID that are considered to be valid and secure forms of identification. Why would I want to have my taxes go to having another one instead of something useful (not that I really think that money would otherwise go to something useful).
You want to see what scares me the most about Real ID and what I really think is "the bid deal"? This does. Specifically this line:
They are ALREADY planning on adding more restrictions and monitoring of the people by using this thing.
It matters so much, they'll even put you on a nice list, so you get extra-special treatment at airports.
I know I'm going to feel much safer now that I'll be receiving my complimentary bomb check to make sure no terrorists stuffed one into my pockets, luggage, or bodily cavities while I wasn't looking.
Is it helpful for non USA citizens to also voice their disquiet?
I have my doubts that it's even useful for us USA citizens to voice our disquiet. The people making these decisions have been bought and made up their mind long before us citizens even know about it and I highly doubt a few angry e-mails will change their minds.
Sure, let me know when you figure out how to force people to pay attention and educate themselves.
Seriously, though, as I'm sure everyone here knows (but I enjoy preaching to the choir) this is useless. The problem isn't that people can't tell they're not at the actual bank website because it's hard, they can't tell because they don't fucking look and/or don't understand. If after clicking the link (which they shouldn't have clicked to start with) they are incapable of looking at the address bar and thinking to themselves "hey, that doesn't say http://www.wachovia.com/ like the e-mail said" then why would they look at it and think "hey, that doesn't say http://www.wachovia.bank/ like the e-mail said"?
Not because of being accused of spying but because of being accused of being stupid enough to implant "super secret spy technology that is intending to go completely unnoticed" in a non-standard object that stands out and draws attention instead of in a perfectly normal looking quarter.
I have a Dell not 10 feet from me that is from one of the "Linux Compatible" lines that had the option of coming with Linux pre-installed. If you ordered it with Linux pre-installed, yeah, it cost about as much as it did with Windows. That was with RHEL or SuSE Enterprise, the expensive ass support package, etc. You also had the option of ordering it with no OS installed, which is what we did, at a discount of a couple hundred dollars (I don't remember the exact cost) that you're not spending on either a support license from RH or SuSE or a software license for Windows.
Why would you create a business around your rankings on search engines which everyone knows can change from day to day depending on other sites and ever changing ranking algorithms? Even when you're not paying some SEO guy ridiculous amounts of money to scam the system and get you stuck in Google Hell that's a rather obvious huge risk to be taking.
I understand that proper advertising is expensive, I've got a failed business of my own due to not being able to put the necessary money into it, but guess what? That's business. You pick the risks you're willing to take and deal with the results. Basing the majority of your business on search result ranking is low cost (unless you pay an SEO expert $35k which would have been better spent elsewhere, like real advertising, or a new car, or a 35,000 cheeseburgers from a fast food value menu) but high risk due to the constant changes.
I don't think anyone here denies that young kids playing violent video games may cause them to be more violent. The question is whether the games do more to cause violence than watching violent tv and movies, reading violent books, or playing potentially violent sports. These studies quoted do nothing to show that or if they did, the article does not mention it.
Also, we still have to question how/why these 3rd and 4th graders in the last study got the violent games. Well, no, we know how and why but I'm sure you know what I mean. Sure, perhaps the game did cause them to be more violent overall, but guess what, the game was clearly fucking marked as being something they weren't supposed to be playing in the first place. Again, nothing learned. Mature games may not be good for young kids to play, which is why they are marked as being for 17+.
Then of course there is the type/level of violence. The article did mention this, which is good. There is a big difference between the increased vulgar language, trash talking someone you are in competition with, shooting extra long in a game, and even punching someone and the much more violent action of grabbing a gun and shooting someone in an attempt to kill them.
So basically, they've done a bunch of studies that when combined together suggest what we already know. Violent games may or may not cause extra violence if played by young children who the game is clearly marked as not being for. Way to go.
A bit late on the reply, but I still say Rockstar is in no way at fault, or at least not in any way that matters. At worst, they respectably decided the content wasn't appropriate, but went with the lazy way of removing it which made it easier/more likely for a 3rd party to put pornographic content in the playable game but probably not at all on purpose.
If not putting pornographic material on the disc, but inaccessible, prevented pornographic mods then the Sims skins that I created back in the day never would have been created, the Doom 2 mod that changed some or all of the sprites to naked women wouldn't have been created, etc.
Granted, it's a bit late now, but that's exactly what I said. The code was on the disc, and so created by Rockstar, but the patch that made it accessible was not created or distributed by them.
When I was in school, given the choice between "do actual work of some sort" and "play an old ass, out of date, video game", which was an option in some of my classes, I always went with the latter. Of course I'm a geek and gamer, so that certainly played a role. Also, my choice for doing that was never gym class, which I enjoyed anyway.
Perhaps I missed some part of the news revolving around this, but my understanding is that the mod that actually made the Hot Coffee stuff available was not produced or distributed by Rockstar. The code was on the disc but not accessible in any way without a 3rd party mod that to my knowledge was created and distributed by someone completely unaffiliated with Rockstar. It's only slightly different than drawing some tits on a picture in the newspaper and then claiming the newspaper is both at fault and pornographic because a 3rd party modification shows the tits that were under the shirt, but in no way accessible, in the picture in the newspaper.