The unfortunate thing, is that while the ousting of MC would be a good thing for Corel, it is Cowpland's bandwagon jumping short-sitedness that put Corel in the Linux arena at all. MC has always coveted Bill Gates' position and power, and wants it for himself. I doubt whether he actually gives a damn about the GPL or OSS, I think he DOES care about having the money and power to buy his wife million dollar outfits and in being among the "social elite".
Think on it this way: if a new CEO comes in, his first task is taking Corel to profitability. So what are Corel's core strengths? Their sales of Corel Draw, and to a lesser degree Word Perfect, and WP is sold mainly to home users of Windows, who can get the Linux version free. So how do you move into the red? You cut costs and retreat to your core strengths so you have a stable base on which to go forward (just look at what Jobs did with Apple).
So what would a new CEO see? They would see money being invested in Linux, which financially has little return for them (why would someone pay to box Corel's linux distro when they can get the same products for free or cheaper elsewhere, or even just download Corel's distro and use it without paying). Then they would see that they are giving away one of their real chances for profit, so you could likely kiss free WP goodbye. Then, when the company was in the red, would they look to expanding themselves into the linux market.
Which is not to say that I support this, I don't, and I don't support Corel, mainly becuase they have shown in the past that they are simply not to be trusted for long term commitment.
If Corel does ditch linux, I think it will look a lot worse, and do more damage, than if had never of been there in the first place.
First off, You are the reason I got into computer programming, from the first release of Wolf3d, I just thought "Wow! This guy is good" For the question, I am currently taking Applied/Math and computer science at the University of Waterloo (in Canada) and while I know we have 4th year courses in Computer Graphics, I was wondering what maths you would recommend as being useful. I am looking at taking some differential geometry, geometrical optimization, numerical computing, linear and geometrical optimization, among others... will these provide a useful addition to standard CS courses?
I myself goto Waterloo, and am taking Applied Math/Comp Sci Joint Honours, and I can only rave about the program. I think that the reason for Waterloo's high reputation for it's programs is that graduates of Waterloo can THINK and not just code by rote that was drilled into them. Extensive classes in Algorithm Analysis, design and debuggin methodology, as well as a strong background in Discrete Mathematics, and the ability to take courses in Embedded Symtems, Concurrent Programming, Compiler Design, Distributed Comp. Lot's of Architecture courses. The Co-Op rox as well. I am working right now for Versus Technologies (versus.ca). We own the liscence for Etrade Canada, but I do mostly distributed apps under Solaris. I make $2600/month, and this is my second Co-Op (there are 6 in the normal co-op program). This makes paying for tuition a lot easier. As for a school that teaches only "Cutting Edge" things, what happens in 2 years when the market shifts? Do you want to continuously retrain to stay current? Or do you want a strong background in fundamental topics that you can leverage against whatever new technologies arise?
First of all, I have no love for Windows, MS, but I do think that There are a couple valid points in this article, if you look between the piles of FUD. [1] HA clustering needs to be brought to Linux. Maybe the release of SunOS code will give this a little boost. [2] There should be a centralized repository for security updates and such. I don't think this is nessessarily hard to do either... just take a little work. Maybe the guys from l0pht would like this honour:) [3] Security is much harder to achieve under Unix systems than under NT I think. i won't argue as to which is more secure once properly set up, but Unix is a little more work to get there. I do love how MS does not point out the existence of WINE, allowing many windows apps to run under Linux. The supposition of Linux not being a desktop OS is entirely wrong. otherwise I am an idiot for using my gnome/wm desktop so efficiently.:) The anecdotal stories bit confuses me though. Is there some official or recognized manner of validating stability? I would tend to think that simply naming companies which use your solution does not really say ANYTHING non-anecdotal about their product, only that people use it. I do happen to know that the CSE uses a custom cluster solution for NT with like 10+ redundant boxen in order to achieve the same level of reliability as found in 1 Sun E10000 box. Perhaps something should be done to address the measure of system stability? Like a real world stress test in which a system is pushed as hard as it can be, for as long as it can, without failure caused by software (like simulate a 90% load on a webserver, or terminal server)
I think that besides the technological advantages to running a free OS such as Linux, there is a more human advantage, which is that with corporation struggling to increase shareholder value, reigning in on their IT costs by not having to pay for Microsoft OS's may save jobs. The money they trim there might have otherwise come from layoffs.
I hope this is something which is actually going to happen, I live near a car plant (ford) and I know many people who have lost jobs due to "restructuring". It would nice to see Gates' billions get trimmed a little due to "restructuring" instead.
It occurs to me that one of the biggest problems with Windows, aside from the OS itself, is the high cost of entry for any would be programmer. MS thinks it's doing a favour to students by only charging us $140 CDN for their tools, when I can code under Linux for free.
I read above somebody make the comment that if the tools are not free, what difference does it make if the source is? I mean, if it costs me $100+ just to compile the stuff, then forget it.
This to me is the essence of the stranglehold MS has over that market. I can live with paying for the OS (don't flame me, but it just doesn't bother me.... as long as it works) but I should not have to pay to write software. Think about it, MS makes everyone pay for their OS, pay for the tools to develop more apps for their OS, so that more people will buy it. so that more people will develop for it, thus selling them more tools... it's a viscious (sp) cycle. I think that what would start to make a big difference to this would be if decent, free tools were available for Windows, which allow aspiring and experienced programmers alike to write source portable apps.
Think of it, if you could write an app which used GTK+, and have that program source compatible with Windows, would that not rock? For one it would kill Java (which I think is dead with the rise of OSS anyhow.. different story) and it would allow platform agnostism (is that a word?) for programmers.
Personally, I would think this great, since I write Windows apps at work under MFC, and at home I tinker with GTK+, QT, and other *nix based tools and libraries, and would prefer to develop there.
Like it or not, Windows exists, and MS is now plotting directly against Linux/OSS, and MS will win unless the Linux community starts to actively attempt to undermine MS' platform. Take the battle to their own ground. If MS thrives on closed libraries and technologies, start making sure people write to open ones, especially for their windows apps. Everything under windows which MS cannot control is one more thing which lossens their hold on the market.
This is becomming a rant, but I think a lot of the Linux "snobs" need to wake up and smell the stench coming in through the Window, becuase it's time we all work together to freshen the air. (If that was not a well crafted piece of CHEESE I don't know what is).
-------------------- five fingers make a fist amalgamate and resist avail (cldale@uwaterloo.ca)
Slashdot Mirror
The unfortunate thing, is that while the ousting of MC would be a good thing for Corel, it is Cowpland's bandwagon jumping short-sitedness that put Corel in the Linux arena at all. MC has always coveted Bill Gates' position and power, and wants it for himself. I doubt whether he actually gives a damn about the GPL or OSS, I think he DOES care about having the money and power to buy his wife million dollar outfits and in being among the "social elite".
Think on it this way: if a new CEO comes in, his first task is taking Corel to profitability. So what are Corel's core strengths? Their sales of Corel Draw, and to a lesser degree Word Perfect, and WP is sold mainly to home users of Windows, who can get the Linux version free. So how do you move into the red? You cut costs and retreat to your core strengths so you have a stable base on which to go forward (just look at what Jobs did with Apple).
So what would a new CEO see? They would see money being invested in Linux, which financially has little return for them (why would someone pay to box Corel's linux distro when they can get the same products for free or cheaper elsewhere, or even just download Corel's distro and use it without paying). Then they would see that they are giving away one of their real chances for profit, so you could likely kiss free WP goodbye. Then, when the company was in the red, would they look to expanding themselves into the linux market.
Which is not to say that I support this, I don't, and I don't support Corel, mainly becuase they have shown in the past that they are simply not to be trusted for long term commitment.
If Corel does ditch linux, I think it will look a lot worse, and do more damage, than if had never of been there in the first place.
First off, You are the reason I got into computer programming, from the first release of Wolf3d, I just thought "Wow! This guy is good" For the question, I am currently taking Applied/Math and computer science at the University of Waterloo (in Canada) and while I know we have 4th year courses in Computer Graphics, I was wondering what maths you would recommend as being useful. I am looking at taking some differential geometry, geometrical optimization, numerical computing, linear and geometrical optimization, among others... will these provide a useful addition to standard CS courses?
I myself goto Waterloo, and am taking Applied Math/Comp Sci Joint Honours, and I can only rave about the program. I think that the reason for Waterloo's high reputation for it's programs is that graduates of Waterloo can THINK and not just code by rote that was drilled into them. Extensive classes in Algorithm Analysis, design and debuggin methodology, as well as a strong background in Discrete Mathematics, and the ability to take courses in Embedded Symtems, Concurrent Programming, Compiler Design, Distributed Comp. Lot's of Architecture courses. The Co-Op rox as well. I am working right now for Versus Technologies (versus.ca). We own the liscence for Etrade Canada, but I do mostly distributed apps under Solaris. I make $2600/month, and this is my second Co-Op (there are 6 in the normal co-op program). This makes paying for tuition a lot easier. As for a school that teaches only "Cutting Edge" things, what happens in 2 years when the market shifts? Do you want to continuously retrain to stay current? Or do you want a strong background in fundamental topics that you can leverage against whatever new technologies arise?
First of all, I have no love for Windows, MS, but I do think that There are a couple valid points in this article, if you look between the piles of FUD. [1] HA clustering needs to be brought to Linux. Maybe the release of SunOS code will give this a little boost. [2] There should be a centralized repository for security updates and such. I don't think this is nessessarily hard to do either... just take a little work. Maybe the guys from l0pht would like this honour :) [3] Security is much harder to achieve under Unix systems than under NT I think. i won't argue as to which is more secure once properly set up, but Unix is a little more work to get there. I do love how MS does not point out the existence of WINE, allowing many windows apps to run under Linux. The supposition of Linux not being a desktop OS is entirely wrong. otherwise I am an idiot for using my gnome/wm desktop so efficiently. :) The anecdotal stories bit confuses me though. Is there some official or recognized manner of validating stability? I would tend to think that simply naming companies which use your solution does not really say ANYTHING non-anecdotal about their product, only that people use it. I do happen to know that the CSE uses a custom cluster solution for NT with like 10+ redundant boxen in order to achieve the same level of reliability as found in 1 Sun E10000 box. Perhaps something should be done to address the measure of system stability? Like a real world stress test in which a system is pushed as hard as it can be, for as long as it can, without failure caused by software (like simulate a 90% load on a webserver, or terminal server)
I think that besides the technological advantages to running a free OS such as Linux, there is a more human advantage, which is that with corporation struggling to increase shareholder value, reigning in on their IT costs by not having to pay for Microsoft OS's may save jobs. The money they trim there might have otherwise come from layoffs.
I hope this is something which is actually going to happen, I live near a car plant (ford) and I know many people who have lost jobs due to "restructuring". It would nice to see Gates' billions get trimmed a little due to "restructuring" instead.
It occurs to me that one of the biggest problems with Windows, aside from the OS itself, is the high cost of entry for any would be programmer. MS thinks it's doing a favour to students by only charging us $140 CDN for their tools, when I can code under Linux for free.
I read above somebody make the comment that if the tools are not free, what difference does it make if the source is? I mean, if it costs me $100+ just to compile the stuff, then forget it.
This to me is the essence of the stranglehold MS has over that market. I can live with paying for the OS (don't flame me, but it just doesn't bother me.... as long as it works) but I should not have to pay to write software. Think about it, MS makes everyone pay for their OS, pay for the tools to develop more apps for their OS, so that more people will buy it. so that more people will develop for it, thus selling them more tools... it's a viscious (sp) cycle. I think that what would start to make a big difference to this would be if decent, free tools were available for Windows, which allow aspiring and experienced programmers alike to write source portable apps.
Think of it, if you could write an app which used GTK+, and have that program source compatible with Windows, would that not rock? For one it would kill Java (which I think is dead with the rise of OSS anyhow.. different story) and it would allow platform agnostism (is that a word?) for programmers.
Personally, I would think this great, since I write Windows apps at work under MFC, and at home I tinker with GTK+, QT, and other *nix based tools and libraries, and would prefer to develop there.
Like it or not, Windows exists, and MS is now plotting directly against Linux/OSS, and MS will win unless the Linux community starts to actively attempt to undermine MS' platform. Take the battle to their own ground. If MS thrives on closed libraries and technologies, start making sure people write to open ones, especially for their windows apps. Everything under windows which MS cannot control is one more thing which lossens their hold on the market.
This is becomming a rant, but I think a lot of the Linux "snobs" need to wake up and smell the stench coming in through the Window, becuase it's time we all work together to freshen the air. (If that was not a well crafted piece of CHEESE I don't know what is).
--------------------
five fingers make a fist
amalgamate and resist
avail (cldale@uwaterloo.ca)