"If a luser is too thick skulled to figure out what a web browser is, then they deserve to be stuck with IE."
Actually, if a user is too thick skulled to figure out what a web browser is, he should never ever access his bank account through his computer *for his own benefit* because he is not able to maintain a minimal secure environment to do so.
Seriously, I don't mean this as putting anyone down - using a computer to access his bank account is simply way too dangerous *to him*.
Because asopposed to those Cognac glasses I bought which are my property, you don't sell me those movies / songs or software - you license them to me.
That is, I pay for the licecnse to use (actually to get it ditributed to me, but who cares) and not for the item I buy.
The MPAA and other robber barons of IP can't have it both ways - if I'd be buying ther songs / movies to do as I please I wouldn't need to ask your damn premission to back them up in the first place.
But of course, you knew that already. The issue here is NOT about backup or even about should I be paying money to the copyright holder (I should) - the issue is that you want to CONTROL what I do with the songs / movies etc.
A couple of years ago pSOS was the king of RTOS. Then came VxWorks and in the end WindRiver, owners of VxWorks, bought pSOS.
Fast forward several years into the future and now we have hordes of pSOS developer getting sub standart support (even for a propritery product) from WindRiver for pSOS, because they want them to move to VxWorks plus the added effect of a niche leader eating up it's major competition and therfore development of the part of the product which are basic being put on the side burner if favour of "optional" (and costly) componenets (Anyone said MMU? Networking?)
Then conmes Linux - Free as in source code availablity and no per unit license fees and guess what? Linux is the new pSOS, except that it's doing so well that even VxWorks shops are starting to notice and ask questions.
In short - Open Source economy at it's finest.
StdDisclaimer: I make a living supporting many Linux embedded clients.
> mozilla was last released yesterday - ie6 was > released 2+ years ago
So, you're saying that the problem is not IE but the broken proprietry way of building softwarwe that can't can release new versions in time to answer real customer needs?
This statement came out only after the Israeli government effort to help organise and partly finanace a Sun, IBM & Israeli Open Source activists project to drive Hebrew and Arabic support to Open Office became a success with the results showing in version 1.1 - the first stable penOffice version that supports Bidi languages (Hebrew & Aarabic) in a close to decent way.
Forget what they say about the reasons for this move and look at the facts - this is a premeditated move and a damn smart one.
People with these kinds of opinion don't give a rat's behind about productivity - they are simply control freaks, the kind of manager that enjoys the power he has.
And they're dumb - because in the end while the current job market might promise that he always has employees to fill the chairs if he treat them badly he wobnt have *good* employees, as in creative, willing to go that slightly little further then the jobs demands and use their brain power to the employers advantage.
And in THIS kind of economical climate, if you're not the best (and in software this means have the best people) you're toast.
Working long hours may or may not get you there on time, may or may not actually be more productive. The question you really have to ask yourself though is: "How many workers will I have left after the project is over?".
Your boss might think that this is not important because he can get new programers. Your boss is wrong. Getting mnew programers costs (and big time!) in productivity because the new ones have to learn everything from scratch.
In short, do your boss a favour and buy him a book named "peopleware". Tell him to read it or you and your entire stff will resign:-)
True story, happend today - a friend of mind got a USB connected digital camera. He took some pictures and needed to send them pronto to be included in some newspapaer story (long story...).
He plugs it in, XP crashes. Every time the camera goes in XP goes out the Windows...
Friend remembers me saying that I think Linux can handles this easily and gives me a phone call. I'm away from my desk so friend decides to try on his own: He boots Linux, camera gets detected automatically, friend grabs photos easily and send newspaper.
When I called him there was nothing for me to do but say: "So, Linux saved the day once again:-)"
That's realy nice cscx, but did you and Mr. Hufschmid noticed that his web pahes are server by AOLServer - a free (as in speech) web server developed by AOL?
The logic presented in the article goes soemthing like this:
1. Good software won't be created if there's no money in it.
2. You can't earn money from Open/Free software because you can't limit it's distribution.
3. Therefore, open source cannot in itself be a viable alternative to proprietery software.
Now, these arguments are flawed in many ways as others have already pointed out. I would like to sepcifically relate to article '2':
We are supposed to be believe that since the you cannot limit the distribution of free software then you are burdened to leave of 'services' and since this is a hard and not very scalable business plan to execute this wont happen.
Well, consider a completly different field which seems to work under the very same rules and no one seems to think that it fails to generate enough wealth to attract people to this field. I'm speaking of course on the practice of law.
Lawyers cannot in effect limit the distributuion of their work. When a lawyer presents a winning argument in a case, not only he is not allowed to control the distribution of that argument and charge for using, the entire american legal system is based on the idea that anyone anywhere can use it!
If we were to believe to the reporter, we should have assumed that since they can't limit the distrubution of their work, thaey can't make enough money of it and we won't have enough lawyers around.
I think it goes to show that no matter how hard headed and inflexible Mr. Stallman may sometime apear to be, the current events are starting to show that the reasons behind that have more to do with his far reaching sight and less with personal character.
Do we really have to wait for Moon colonies to regain the right to read?:-(
> Under the MOSIX model, when a process forks > the child may run on the current machine or > it may migrate somewhere else. If the job is > short lived (ls, echo whatever | sed > s/blah/baz, you get the point) MOSIX will > perform poorly because it will > spend more time trying to figure out where > the process should run than would have if it > had just run the program on the local host.
No. openMOSIX keeps statistisc on what proccess do and use it to decide whether migrating them will be usefull, so short lived jobs will never be considered for migration.
As a matter of fact the greedy algorythm that openMOSIX use (developed by Prof. Amnon Barak and his team from the Hebrew university) will pretty much avoid migration at all cost unless it is absoultly positive that migration will be usefull: Most of the time the problem is that proccess you want migrate don't migrate and not the other way around.
It is of course true that openMOSIX has some limitations. For example, proccess using shared memory can't migrate at the moment.You just can't win them all;-)
Of course the ratio in RHAT is heavily tipped to the marketters side! they are using the development power of the entire open source community, they don't need a lot of developers on their pay roll - that is the entire "open source for business" idea, you twit!
I guess they have a very thin hard core experts layer (think Alan Cox) and the rest are integration geeks to do QA and problem solving. Most of the development happens outside.
This is why most of RHAT can be sales engineers and staff and not coders, as opposed to closed soruce company that must carry on their pay roles the R&D departmen. Most of RHAT R&D dept., including some of the worlds greatest coders, aren't working for RHAT at all...
1. MOSIX was developed for other systems, including BSD and Solaris before the Linux version. 2. About the MOSIX license: there in longer any mention of the GPL as the license for MOSIX on the MOSIX web site. There used to be one. The lawyers may enforce the GPL of the Linux kernel, but the lawyers can't enforce anyone to continue and maintain that project. This is why we now have openMosix. 3. Moshe Bar had a very enlightening chat/intrerview at the SourceForge clusters foundry a couple of days ago: http://foundries.sourceforge.net/clusters/index.pl ?node_id=41457&lastnode_id=131 4. Regardless of anything else, I thing Prof. Amnon Barak (the original auther of MOSIX) have done a great thing by releasing as GPL the versions he did and we should all be thankfull. 5. Take this with a grain of salt, I'm going to be part of the openMosix team (still learning the code) and work for Qlusters. Prof. Amnon Barak may or may not have another story...;-)
1. There exists a MOSIX implmented as a linux patch. 2. With MOSIX, the migration is largely a function of network. 100BaseT is low, but Ethernet over PCI, Infniband and friends can make this work well.
3. The MOSIX advantage over NUMA is that it is linearily scalable in the number of machines, NUMA can't go beyond a certain limit.
Re:He SHOULD care about the competition...
on
Torvalds Tells All
·
· Score: 1
You missed just one thing - this is not aq bloody war, it's all just for fun...;-))
Slashdot Mirror
"If a luser is too thick skulled to figure out what a web browser is, then they deserve to be stuck with IE."
Actually, if a user is too thick skulled to figure out what a web browser is, he should never ever access his bank account through his computer *for his own benefit* because he is not able to maintain a minimal secure environment to do so.
Seriously, I don't mean this as putting anyone down - using a computer to access his bank account is simply way too dangerous *to him*.
Because asopposed to those Cognac glasses I bought which are my property, you don't sell me those movies / songs or software - you license them to me.
That is, I pay for the licecnse to use (actually to get it ditributed to me, but who cares) and not for the item I buy.
The MPAA and other robber barons of IP can't have it both ways - if I'd be buying ther songs / movies to do as I please I wouldn't need to ask your damn premission to back them up in the first place.
But of course, you knew that already. The issue here is NOT about backup or even about should I be paying money to the copyright holder (I should) - the issue is that you want to CONTROL what I do with the songs / movies etc.
Gilad
1. have you read "Peopleware"?
2. What do you think about it?
If the answer to 1 is "no", don't bother.
Listen well to the answer to 2. That's all you need to know.
Gilad
A couple of years ago pSOS was the king of RTOS. Then came VxWorks and in the end WindRiver, owners of VxWorks, bought pSOS.
Fast forward several years into the future and now we have hordes of pSOS developer getting sub standart support (even for a propritery product) from WindRiver for pSOS, because they want them to move to VxWorks plus the added effect of a niche leader eating up it's major competition and therfore development of the part of the product which are basic being put on the side burner if favour of "optional" (and costly) componenets (Anyone said MMU? Networking?)
Then conmes Linux - Free as in source code availablity and no per unit license fees and guess what? Linux is the new pSOS, except that it's doing so well that even VxWorks shops are starting to notice and ask questions.
In short - Open Source economy at it's finest.
StdDisclaimer: I make a living supporting many Linux embedded clients.
> mozilla was last released yesterday - ie6 was
:-)
> released 2+ years ago
So, you're saying that the problem is not IE but the broken proprietry way of building softwarwe that can't can release new versions in time to answer real customer needs?
I think I agree
Gilad
Bluetooth controller vaginal vibrators anyone? :-)
This statement came out only after the Israeli government effort to help organise and partly finanace a Sun, IBM & Israeli Open Source activists project to drive Hebrew and Arabic support to Open Office became a success with the results showing in version 1.1 - the first stable penOffice version that supports Bidi languages (Hebrew & Aarabic) in a close to decent way.
Forget what they say about the reasons for this move and look at the facts - this is a premeditated move and a damn smart one.
I just wish other givernment would be as smart.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Satire is a protected Fair Use right... :-)
Gilad.
"It's hard to believe since I just laid off our last two Win32 guys Friday."
That's right. Win32 guys... or are you too dumb to get the message?
Granny Places Command & Conquer on Restricted List :-)
No, it's not Al-Qaeda. It something much much worse...
:-)
AOL-Qaeda. Soon, an AOL user as a sysadmin in a data center near you.
Gilad
People with these kinds of opinion don't give a rat's behind about productivity - they are simply control freaks, the kind of manager that enjoys the power he has.
And they're dumb - because in the end while the current job market might promise that he always has employees to fill the chairs if he treat them badly he wobnt have *good* employees, as in creative, willing to go that slightly little further then the jobs demands and use their brain power to the employers advantage.
And in THIS kind of economical climate, if you're not the best (and in software this means have the best people) you're toast.
You missed the point. The engineer they *FIRED* were good and bright. Doesn't that say anything to you? :-)
Working long hours may or may not get you there on time, may or may not actually be more productive. The question you really have to ask yourself though is: "How many workers will I have left after the project is over?".
:-)
Your boss might think that this is not important because he can get new programers. Your boss is wrong. Getting mnew programers costs (and big time!) in productivity because the new ones have to learn everything from scratch.
In short, do your boss a favour and buy him a book named "peopleware". Tell him to read it or you and your entire stff will resign
Have you published any open / free software and if so what's the URL?
If he answers yes you can go and look exactly what this guy knows and does he plays well with other.
True story, happend today - a friend of mind got a USB connected digital camera. He took some pictures and needed to send them pronto to be included in some newspapaer story (long story...).
:-)"
He plugs it in, XP crashes. Every time the camera goes in XP goes out the Windows...
Friend remembers me saying that I think Linux can handles this easily and gives me a phone call. I'm away from my desk so friend decides to try on his own: He boots Linux, camera gets detected automatically, friend grabs photos easily and send newspaper.
When I called him there was nothing for me to do but say: "So, Linux saved the day once again
Gilad.
That's realy nice cscx, but did you and Mr. Hufschmid noticed that his web pahes are server by AOLServer - a free (as in speech) web server developed by AOL?
:-)
Isn't it ironic, don't you think?
The logic presented in the article goes soemthing like this:
:-)
1. Good software won't be created if there's no money in it.
2. You can't earn money from Open/Free software because you can't limit it's distribution.
3. Therefore, open source cannot in itself be a viable alternative to proprietery software.
Now, these arguments are flawed in many ways as others have already pointed out. I would like to sepcifically relate to article '2':
We are supposed to be believe that since the you cannot limit the distribution of free software then you are burdened to leave of 'services' and since this is a hard and not very scalable business plan to execute this wont happen.
Well, consider a completly different field which seems to work under the very same rules and no one seems to think that it fails to generate enough wealth to attract people to this field. I'm speaking of course on the practice of law.
Lawyers cannot in effect limit the distributuion of their work. When a lawyer presents a winning argument in a case, not only he is not allowed to control the distribution of that argument and charge for using, the entire american legal system is based on the idea that anyone anywhere can use it!
If we were to believe to the reporter, we should have assumed that since they can't limit the distrubution of their work, thaey can't make enough money of it and we won't have enough lawyers around.
Need I really continue...?
RMS wrote this in 1997.
I think it goes to show that no matter how hard headed and inflexible Mr. Stallman may sometime apear to be, the current events are starting to show that the reasons behind that have more to do with his far reaching sight and less with personal character.
Do we really have to wait for Moon colonies to regain the right to read? :-(
> Under the MOSIX model, when a process forks
;-)
> the child may run on the current machine or
> it may migrate somewhere else. If the job is
> short lived (ls, echo whatever | sed
> s/blah/baz, you get the point) MOSIX will
> perform poorly because it will
> spend more time trying to figure out where
> the process should run than would have if it
> had just run the program on the local host.
No. openMOSIX keeps statistisc on what proccess do and use it to decide whether migrating them will be usefull, so short lived jobs will never be considered for migration.
As a matter of fact the greedy algorythm that openMOSIX use (developed by Prof. Amnon Barak and his team from the Hebrew university) will pretty much avoid migration at all cost unless it is absoultly positive that migration will be usefull: Most of the time the problem is that proccess you want migrate don't migrate and not the other way around.
It is of course true that openMOSIX has some limitations. For example, proccess using shared memory can't migrate at the moment.You just can't win them all
Of course the ratio in RHAT is heavily tipped to the marketters side! they are using the development power of the entire open source community, they don't need a lot of developers on their pay roll - that is the entire "open source for business" idea, you twit!
I guess they have a very thin hard core experts layer (think Alan Cox) and the rest are integration geeks to do QA and problem solving. Most of the development happens outside.
This is why most of RHAT can be sales engineers and staff and not coders, as opposed to closed soruce company that must carry on their pay roles the R&D departmen. Most of RHAT R&D dept., including some of the worlds greatest coders, aren't working for RHAT at all...
1. MOSIX was developed for other systems, including BSD and Solaris before the Linux version.l ?node_id=41457&lastnode_id=131 ;-)
2. About the MOSIX license: there in longer any mention of the GPL as the license for MOSIX on the MOSIX web site. There used to be one. The lawyers may enforce the GPL of the Linux kernel, but the lawyers can't enforce anyone to continue and maintain that project. This is why we now have openMosix.
3. Moshe Bar had a very enlightening chat/intrerview at the SourceForge clusters foundry a couple of days ago: http://foundries.sourceforge.net/clusters/index.p
4. Regardless of anything else, I thing Prof. Amnon Barak (the original auther of MOSIX) have done a great thing by releasing as GPL the versions he did and we should all be thankfull.
5. Take this with a grain of salt, I'm going to be part of the openMosix team (still learning the code) and work for Qlusters. Prof. Amnon Barak may or may not have another story...
1. There exists a MOSIX implmented as a linux patch.
2. With MOSIX, the migration is largely a function of network. 100BaseT is low, but Ethernet over PCI, Infniband and friends can make this work well.
3. The MOSIX advantage over NUMA is that it is linearily scalable in the number of machines, NUMA can't go beyond a certain limit.
You missed just one thing - this is not aq bloody war, it's all just for fun... ;-))