Some people are incredibly productive for 2 hours, and do nothing for the rest. Others work diligently, but slowly, for 8 hours. At the end of the day, if they turn out the same product, what does it matter?
Both of these employees suck and should be fired immediately! (half-joking and half-serious)
While everyone here would from an emotional standpoint prefer option 2, I'm not sure the Supreme Court's 3+4 position isn't the best way to achieve 2 over the long term.
Unfortunately, it's also the best way to acheive 1 over the long term.
How then would it be helping people to shove the wrong tool down their throats?
Why does everyone keep saying that every user and every computer will be required to use Linux? From TFA:
The selected government and university will be required to install open-source software as a main operating infrastructure, for which the MIC will support with funds and technologies.
In the long run, they will have to migrate most of their desktop and notebook computers away from the Windows program of Microsoft, the world's biggest maker of software.
It seems that they are allowing for the fact that there will still be some users that need to use Windows (or more likely applications developed for Windows). Sounds to me like they are taking the right approach, moving most machines over to Linux but blindly forcing everyone to switch regardless of need.
I would like to personally thank Microsoft for giving the world yet another good reason for using linux (not that I needed any more). Anyone now using a pirated copy of windows is now faced with three options, 1) stop updating their machine, 2) switch to another OS (most likely linux) or 3) spend $100 plus for a licensed copy of windows. I think 80% of people will opt for 1 or 2 (with most opting for 1), I would be willing to be they will lose more desktops to linux because of this, than they will sell additional copis of Windows.
Virus writer of the world rejoice you will now have access to tens of millions of more machines than you alredy have!!!
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget about leap years.
While everyone here would from an emotional standpoint prefer option 2, I'm not sure the Supreme Court's 3+4 position isn't the best way to achieve 2 over the long term.
Unfortunately, it's also the best way to acheive 1 over the long term.
Why does everyone keep saying that every user and every computer will be required to use Linux? From TFA: It seems that they are allowing for the fact that there will still be some users that need to use Windows (or more likely applications developed for Windows). Sounds to me like they are taking the right approach, moving most machines over to Linux but blindly forcing everyone to switch regardless of need.
I would like to personally thank Microsoft for giving the world yet another good reason for using linux (not that I needed any more). Anyone now using a pirated copy of windows is now faced with three options, 1) stop updating their machine, 2) switch to another OS (most likely linux) or 3) spend $100 plus for a licensed copy of windows. I think 80% of people will opt for 1 or 2 (with most opting for 1), I would be willing to be they will lose more desktops to linux because of this, than they will sell additional copis of Windows. Virus writer of the world rejoice you will now have access to tens of millions of more machines than you alredy have!!!