The problem with NFS is that it presumes the clients are trusted. SMB is not the most secure network file system, but it's more secure than NFS, and ubiquitous. Perhaps the next version of NFS will be better in this regard, I'm not sure.
I must apologize. I was drunk, but that's no excuse. This is not the kind of person I am, but more importantly, I'm sure this is not the kind of person Ransom is, either. I really have no idea what inspired me to lash out like that. I'm truly embarrassed and ashamed of myself. Yuck.
Any idiot who thinks that having Ransom Love (sounds like a porn star) on their team gives them an inside advantage should stop with the phlebotomies already. Ransom Love is a washed up loser sales shit for brains, who happened to be on the inside track on a succession of loser tech schenanigans. Anyone delusional enough to think this nitwit has enough insight to propell them to profitability should be forever barred from public trading. The only value nebbishes like Ransom Love add to the market is their ability to ply to the wanton greed of ignorant fools.
I'd say, comparing the US/European software protection racket to the open model apparently endorsed by Latin America and Asia, that we can expect to see innovation wither on the vine in the west, and thrive elsewhere. Unless some global protection racket has its way with international treaties.
Why bother with proprietary file formats when you have DRM? Make a mendacious nod to 'open file format', and then lock stuff up behind the DMCA. If you want to read a DRM encoded word document, you'll need word. Period.
Maybe, but there's a huge branding problem. Redhat is a brand, more than anything. It stands for something. Or used to. Moves like this make people uncertain and uncomfortable. Maybe people will learn to like and love Fedora, but it won't happen overnight. If Redhat really wants this strategy to succeed, they better put some money behind a marketing campaign for Fedora quickly. Everyday lusers like me don't really understand the relationship between Fedora and Redhat right now, except that they are both hats.
Personally, I don't see the logic behind distancing the Redhat brand from what is now Fedora.
Debian can either be a volunteer OS where geeks have perogatives, or it can be an OS that deserves the end-user desktop and has earned the right to replace Windows. Can't be both.
Of course it can. Because some people do care about useability. If enough of those people, of their own volition, decide to contribute their efforts to the Debian project, then it's useability will improve. No? There's nothing inherent to this process to prohibit it from producing useable software, as you suggest.
The main point is that it would be absolutely contrary to every principle Debian stands for to compell developers to develop software a certain way. Your error is to assume that only the top down managerial style that encourages marketroids and money managers to brow beat programmers into complying with their lowest common denomitor vision of greatness will result in useable software. Most of the people I know didn't use much software at all these past few months because they've been too swamped stomping out all the problems caused by this model. It's old school. It's not dead yet, but it will be.
Please do create a public licence that demands developers create useable software. Then define useable. Then convince developers to license their software this way. I won't hold my breath, but I'm certainly in favor of you being able to excercise your own initiative.
If you really do care about making the world a better place, though, perhaps you might begin by refraining from suggesting we should beat projects you don't like to a bloody pulp.
It's been said a million times before, but people like you just don't hear it. If you don't like it, don't use it. Some people who develop free software care about useability. Others don't. That's their perogative. It's their time, it's their energy, it's their project, and it's not for you to dictate terms that they should abide by.
If you want to make the world a better place, contribute something yourself; instead of maligning people who contribute millions of hours worth of work for you to use as you see fit. It's a real act of hubris for you to accuse these charatible contributers of being arrogant.
You will not stand idly by, you say? I say you will. I say you will sit on your ass, bitch, and do nothing. Other than to take advantage of the free software you're complaining about, of course.
I've never bothered with an RHCE, or any other certifications; but I think that for companies without their own trusted in-house experts to do the evaluation, hiring someone with RHCE credentials from a trustworthy corporation like Redhat is the way to go. Of course an RHCE is no proof of people skills, or other attributes that matter.
I should probably just do a little google homework, but I do have a question about RHCE's. Do the exams cover non-Redhat packaging systems, like portage or apt/deb? I.E. - does hiring an RHCE predjudice you toward hiring someone who will tend to use Redhat? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, I'm just wondering. A good model, I'd say.
More generally, what exams predjudice what distributions?
I really wish people would expend as much energy attempting to understant election science as they do attempting to capitalize on people's by-and-large unjustified fears of paper ballots engendered by the last presidential election. That would actually make the world a better place, rather than simply making a few people a litte richer and the rest of us a little poorer.
Let Windows Update patch your drivers for a while. Not the same as applying security upgrades, but nevertheless, it shouldn't hose the system. But often does.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if you're willing to spend the money for a print spooler, whatever that is (linux box, network appliance, etc.), for the same money you could also buy a label printer. They're not that expensive. Is your label printer extra special nice or something?
I didn't blind the dog, you dumbshit. If you hit a fluffy poodle with a laser, it glows red. It's pretty damn funny. How the fuck do you think anyone could hit a dog in the eye and blind it from a distance with a puny laser pointer anyway? Take a valium.
International treaty forbids the use of lasers for blinding people. But there is no legal ban on striking humans
You know, if you take a laser pointer, and you point it at a fluffy poodle being walked by a little old lady at night, she might just get startled and scream a little bit. Not that I would know firsthand or anything...
It's important to remind PHB's that it's really the seamlessness that matters, not the single package part. There's no reason separate packages can't offer the end user the same experience. It just requires that the components interface using known standard protocols.
I'm not saying everyone plays together as nicely as this requires today, but I think it's an eventuality. There are simply too many people running too many different types of computing devices who want to communicate with each other. Open standards can make it happen.
BTW, there are a lot of reasons bosses don't ask for Exchange, also. Not all bosses have been hoodwinked by the airline magazine industry...
You mean you are motivated to promote F/OSS for something less than tens of billions of dollars?!
Not only does Mr. Lyons mischaracterize the value of software; but he then goes on to claim that the FSF appropriates that value. We all appropriate that value, not just the FSF. That's the whole friggin' point.
Mr. Lyons also overlooks the obvious: if you don't like free software, don't use it. No one's holding a gun to your head. Use non-free software, and benefit from the rich ecosystem which characterizes the non-free development model. Why would you want to do anything else? Why pick on free software?
What's the difference? It's a stupid suggestion either way. And even if it were a valid suggestion, it's hardly insightful to point out in hindsight how a problem may have been averted.
Probably the best thing to do to prevent disinformation from entering your company is to block articles by Rob Enderle.
It's not just Rob Enderle, you damn left wing-nut communist pro-choice feminazi Michael! It the Enderle Group!!! The whole damn bunch of them!! Are you trying to say that they're all nuts!? That's just nuts.
You are presenting Microsoft's interest in BIOS technology as a matter of law (you can't install Linux because MS didn't give you a run license), connecting law with jail and a hackneyed homoerotic soap obsession, and then making an analogy with anti-spam legislation.
The world's not so black and white. Your brush is too broad. The US Congress is not evil, they are just normal people having normal human foibles. They sometime do dumb stuff. If enough people bitch about it, maybe mistakes will be corrected. If no one gives a damn, things stay that way.
Competition is good. Please explain how buyers can evaluate different products on their merits when only one product is able to work with existing proprietary data. Clearly, only one product will work best. Now how do you propose we extricate ourselves from this anti-competitive situation?
You say there are "plenty of specific packages for government, that wont [sic] exist in OSS until someone is paid (gobs of cash) to write them." Could you be a little more specific? Have you been paying any attention to what's been happening in the F/OSS world at all? Over and over again, people say "Well, that's all well and good, but no one will ever write F/OSS software to do X, Y, Z." And then someone does. A free operating system kernel? Preposterous. Free commercial grade databases? Out of the question. Viable free software on the desktop? It'll never happen. And on and on. Forget whatever screwed up theory you have in your head; just look at the real world around you! It's happening. I don't know what line of work you're in, but if your in the computer industry, and value your career, it's time to open your eyes.
Or without installing anything from Adobe, you can print to postscript, as long as you have a postscript printer driver. And you can view postscript with ghostview, etc.
What's the advantage of PDF? Crappy encryption that isn't necessary 99.99% of the time? I've generated oodles of PDF files. The need for a device independant read-mostly file format that preserves document formatting is obvious. But the need for PDF rather than postscript eludes me. It's all about marketshare, and what you can expect to find on other people's computers as far as I'm concerned.
How are those people supposed to hang on when the rocket takes off? Do they have seat belts? Are they wearing oxegen masks so they can breathe in space?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with NFS is that it presumes the clients are trusted. SMB is not the most secure network file system, but it's more secure than NFS, and ubiquitous. Perhaps the next version of NFS will be better in this regard, I'm not sure.
I must apologize. I was drunk, but that's no excuse. This is not the kind of person I am, but more importantly, I'm sure this is not the kind of person Ransom is, either. I really have no idea what inspired me to lash out like that. I'm truly embarrassed and ashamed of myself. Yuck.
Oy! I don't know what got into me. Well, besides that fermented stuff I had. Yikes.
I'm certainly no fan of overpaid corporate executives, but lambasting Ransom like that was a little over the top. Not nice. Sorry.
Any idiot who thinks that having Ransom Love (sounds like a porn star) on their team gives them an inside advantage should stop with the phlebotomies already. Ransom Love is a washed up loser sales shit for brains, who happened to be on the inside track on a succession of loser tech schenanigans. Anyone delusional enough to think this nitwit has enough insight to propell them to profitability should be forever barred from public trading. The only value nebbishes like Ransom Love add to the market is their ability to ply to the wanton greed of ignorant fools.
I'd say, comparing the US/European software protection racket to the open model apparently endorsed by Latin America and Asia, that we can expect to see innovation wither on the vine in the west, and thrive elsewhere. Unless some global protection racket has its way with international treaties.
Why bother with proprietary file formats when you have DRM? Make a mendacious nod to 'open file format', and then lock stuff up behind the DMCA. If you want to read a DRM encoded word document, you'll need word. Period.
Maybe, but there's a huge branding problem. Redhat is a brand, more than anything. It stands for something. Or used to. Moves like this make people uncertain and uncomfortable. Maybe people will learn to like and love Fedora, but it won't happen overnight. If Redhat really wants this strategy to succeed, they better put some money behind a marketing campaign for Fedora quickly. Everyday lusers like me don't really understand the relationship between Fedora and Redhat right now, except that they are both hats.
Personally, I don't see the logic behind distancing the Redhat brand from what is now Fedora.
Debian can either be a volunteer OS where geeks have perogatives, or it can be an OS that deserves the end-user desktop and has earned the right to replace Windows. Can't be both.
Of course it can. Because some people do care about useability. If enough of those people, of their own volition, decide to contribute their efforts to the Debian project, then it's useability will improve. No? There's nothing inherent to this process to prohibit it from producing useable software, as you suggest.
The main point is that it would be absolutely contrary to every principle Debian stands for to compell developers to develop software a certain way. Your error is to assume that only the top down managerial style that encourages marketroids and money managers to brow beat programmers into complying with their lowest common denomitor vision of greatness will result in useable software. Most of the people I know didn't use much software at all these past few months because they've been too swamped stomping out all the problems caused by this model. It's old school. It's not dead yet, but it will be.
Please do create a public licence that demands developers create useable software. Then define useable. Then convince developers to license their software this way. I won't hold my breath, but I'm certainly in favor of you being able to excercise your own initiative.
If you really do care about making the world a better place, though, perhaps you might begin by refraining from suggesting we should beat projects you don't like to a bloody pulp.
It's been said a million times before, but people like you just don't hear it. If you don't like it, don't use it. Some people who develop free software care about useability. Others don't. That's their perogative. It's their time, it's their energy, it's their project, and it's not for you to dictate terms that they should abide by.
If you want to make the world a better place, contribute something yourself; instead of maligning people who contribute millions of hours worth of work for you to use as you see fit. It's a real act of hubris for you to accuse these charatible contributers of being arrogant.
You will not stand idly by, you say? I say you will. I say you will sit on your ass, bitch, and do nothing. Other than to take advantage of the free software you're complaining about, of course.
Which, upon entering prison, is reversed to become "get screwed and chew".
I've never bothered with an RHCE, or any other certifications; but I think that for companies without their own trusted in-house experts to do the evaluation, hiring someone with RHCE credentials from a trustworthy corporation like Redhat is the way to go. Of course an RHCE is no proof of people skills, or other attributes that matter.
I should probably just do a little google homework, but I do have a question about RHCE's. Do the exams cover non-Redhat packaging systems, like portage or apt/deb? I.E. - does hiring an RHCE predjudice you toward hiring someone who will tend to use Redhat? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, I'm just wondering. A good model, I'd say.
More generally, what exams predjudice what distributions?
I really wish people would expend as much energy attempting to understant election science as they do attempting to capitalize on people's by-and-large unjustified fears of paper ballots engendered by the last presidential election. That would actually make the world a better place, rather than simply making a few people a litte richer and the rest of us a little poorer.
Let Windows Update patch your drivers for a while. Not the same as applying security upgrades, but nevertheless, it shouldn't hose the system. But often does.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if you're willing to spend the money for a print spooler, whatever that is (linux box, network appliance, etc.), for the same money you could also buy a label printer. They're not that expensive. Is your label printer extra special nice or something?
I didn't blind the dog, you dumbshit. If you hit a fluffy poodle with a laser, it glows red. It's pretty damn funny. How the fuck do you think anyone could hit a dog in the eye and blind it from a distance with a puny laser pointer anyway? Take a valium.
International treaty forbids the use of lasers for blinding people. But there is no legal ban on striking humans
You know, if you take a laser pointer, and you point it at a fluffy poodle being walked by a little old lady at night, she might just get startled and scream a little bit. Not that I would know firsthand or anything...
..in a single package
It's important to remind PHB's that it's really the seamlessness that matters, not the single package part. There's no reason separate packages can't offer the end user the same experience. It just requires that the components interface using known standard protocols.
I'm not saying everyone plays together as nicely as this requires today, but I think it's an eventuality. There are simply too many people running too many different types of computing devices who want to communicate with each other. Open standards can make it happen.
BTW, there are a lot of reasons bosses don't ask for Exchange, also. Not all bosses have been hoodwinked by the airline magazine industry...
You mean you are motivated to promote F/OSS for something less than tens of billions of dollars?!
Not only does Mr. Lyons mischaracterize the value of software; but he then goes on to claim that the FSF appropriates that value. We all appropriate that value, not just the FSF. That's the whole friggin' point.
Mr. Lyons also overlooks the obvious: if you don't like free software, don't use it. No one's holding a gun to your head. Use non-free software, and benefit from the rich ecosystem which characterizes the non-free development model. Why would you want to do anything else? Why pick on free software?
Exactly. Clearly some moderators don't understand humor. Or maybe I'm just not funny.
What's the difference? It's a stupid suggestion either way. And even if it were a valid suggestion, it's hardly insightful to point out in hindsight how a problem may have been averted.
Probably the best thing to do to prevent disinformation from entering your company is to block articles by Rob Enderle.
It's not just Rob Enderle, you damn left wing-nut communist pro-choice feminazi Michael! It the Enderle Group !!! The whole damn bunch of them!! Are you trying to say that they're all nuts!? That's just nuts.
You are presenting Microsoft's interest in BIOS technology as a matter of law (you can't install Linux because MS didn't give you a run license), connecting law with jail and a hackneyed homoerotic soap obsession, and then making an analogy with anti-spam legislation.
The world's not so black and white. Your brush is too broad. The US Congress is not evil, they are just normal people having normal human foibles. They sometime do dumb stuff. If enough people bitch about it, maybe mistakes will be corrected. If no one gives a damn, things stay that way.
Competition is good. Please explain how buyers can evaluate different products on their merits when only one product is able to work with existing proprietary data. Clearly, only one product will work best. Now how do you propose we extricate ourselves from this anti-competitive situation?
You say there are "plenty of specific packages for government, that wont [sic] exist in OSS until someone is paid (gobs of cash) to write them." Could you be a little more specific? Have you been paying any attention to what's been happening in the F/OSS world at all? Over and over again, people say "Well, that's all well and good, but no one will ever write F/OSS software to do X, Y, Z." And then someone does. A free operating system kernel? Preposterous. Free commercial grade databases? Out of the question. Viable free software on the desktop? It'll never happen. And on and on. Forget whatever screwed up theory you have in your head; just look at the real world around you! It's happening. I don't know what line of work you're in, but if your in the computer industry, and value your career, it's time to open your eyes.
Or without installing anything from Adobe, you can print to postscript, as long as you have a postscript printer driver. And you can view postscript with ghostview, etc.
What's the advantage of PDF? Crappy encryption that isn't necessary 99.99% of the time? I've generated oodles of PDF files. The need for a device independant read-mostly file format that preserves document formatting is obvious. But the need for PDF rather than postscript eludes me. It's all about marketshare, and what you can expect to find on other people's computers as far as I'm concerned.
How are those people supposed to hang on when the rocket takes off? Do they have seat belts? Are they wearing oxegen masks so they can breathe in space?