The competing versions of Linux are worse than the browser competition. Microsoft has made sure that HTML, and now XML, are proprietary depending on how you choose to implement them. The divisions are killing the effort. Is this the future of Linux? Or is this the fate of open source?
I'm so with you brother. It's all about the install. There will NEVER be a mainstream Linux until after the intall process is made simple. Pick whatever version you like, it'll never reach mainstream ears until they can 1. download it 2. install it 3. use it
Okay, this is a totally outside the box way of thinking but I think Linux could win the desktop wars if it were "one-click" installable and ready to use. But it isn't. It never is. Get that part right, and maybe this discussion is worth something.
It's not about what version, it's about ease of use.
I'm sorry, the graphs don't lie. sorry. As the Open Source Movement adjusts, it does not have the funding or the backing of commercial development. There can never be a replacement for funding. Any curve will tell you that. Argue with me if you will, but look at the graphs. All other models are hopeful but false.
This one is a quick market. Anyone who knows anything about market strategy will tell you that the first one in gets to set the price, product name, and features of the product category. It's valuable to the maker to be in there before the competitors.
The U.S.A. is a republic of States and by no means a direct democracy. Of course, by your standards we'd let the crack heads and illiterates ellect the president. Yes, that would be nice. Take a sun shiney look at your voter base. They're the same ones who couldn't figure out how to punch a hole in the ballots in Florida.
I can't pass these exams. I give up. I can't do this job, I give up. It's been one year since I tried to get a job and now I give up. Ladies and Gentlemen, it takes years to succeed at anything. Some people take their entire lifetimes to suceed. Why are we giving up on this war after one year? Also, the voters in El Salvador had bombs blowing up and bullets wizzing past their ears when they went to the polls and they didn't give up. Get over yourselves, democracy is no cake walk.
THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003: AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION
"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
(2003 report) UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.
There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.
I would now like to turn to the so-called "Air Force document" that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.
The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.
The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.
The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.
I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.
Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.
Biological weapons
I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.
Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which i
THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003: AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION
"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
(2003 report) UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.
There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.
I would now like to turn to the so-called "Air Force document" that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.
The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.
The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.
The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.
I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.
Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.
Biological weapons
I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.
Re:I'm 35 and I'm quite happy ... but I'm quite ol
on
The Internet At 35
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Yep, All f=d up. Bout time someone started a tech discussion on Slashdot. I thought that would get attention. My post was messed up, and now those in the know would jump in. I know zero about databases., but you all know. So, Discuss! Let's get it on with the object oriented and that all and such....
I'm 35 and I'm quite happy ... but I'm quite old.
on
The Internet At 35
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Hello, Wow. I just posted and the Slashdot system just broke down... That makes me feel much much younger. I'm about as young as the relationship model of databases; or now I'm SRB young.... now I'm Hier....wait... I'm so young I'm network young....... Now I'm file system young...... Oh God! I'm File System young..... waaaaa! Waaaa!!!! No, stop... I'm a cobol baby.
If it looks like an Apple product and it Talks like an Apple product, I should have know. This guys product was awesome, and it was totally carbon. Should have known it was pure apple all the way. Not to say he shouldn't be compensated, but it was obvious all the way that this guy was an Apple guy...
Re:The answer is both, duh.
on
Does IT Matter?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The reason IT is in and not out is the competition's need to out compete it's rivals. IT is the cutting edge capability in competition right now. As basic as it sounds, the fear of another company coming up with a competitive edge beyond your own will drive the need for IT until a greater edge is found. Until something replaces IT as that edge, IT will continue to be king.
Re:The question is when will IT blow itself out?
on
Does IT Matter?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Here's why he's wrong. Supply Chain Management. E-commerce has completely re-written all the rules of businesses and the information sharing btwn them up and down the supply chain from resource suppliers to recyclers. Does anyone here know why they're able to get something they've ordered on the internet (even a computer) shipped in 3 days? Because of the changes IT has made on the Business model. Most people who know what they're talking about believe 'SAME DAY SHIPPING" is not a dream but a reality within a year or two. If IT can accomplish that, there are no ceilings.
The question is when will IT blow itself out?
on
Does IT Matter?
·
· Score: 1
Seems to me that he's right about the Current state, and about the possible Future state of IT, but has he addressed the distance btwn the two? Businesses are finding greater and greater growth and opportunity thru the use of IT, when does the upward curve level out. Is it an s-curve? That's the real issue. Has anyone done a forecast, or can anyone?
No, both will win. The execs see the cost cutting and opportunities of outsourcing as a winning business model. It's streamlining, or supply chain management - the workers have become the supply. The talent pool companies will also win, at least their upper management and owners will. It's a mutual relationship. Also, It's not fair to say the big biz guys know "money" but not their business, it's impossible to know one without the other.
Slashdot Mirror
If by "overzealous" you mean hilarious, then yes, its overzealousness has caused milk to come out my nose.
Seriously think about it. Put handle bars on a segway and no one want's it. Take them off, and it's cool? World's stupist idea.
Windows is self installing, self fixing, self updating. As broken as all those things are, how does Linux answer that?
Look, there is no way Linux even comes close to the daily needs of the user like Windows does. Windows=automated, Linux=start reading.
-personally, I use a Mac.
The competing versions of Linux are worse than the browser competition. Microsoft has made sure that HTML, and now XML, are proprietary depending on how you choose to implement them. The divisions are killing the effort. Is this the future of Linux? Or is this the fate of open source?
I'm so with you brother. It's all about the install. There will NEVER be a mainstream Linux until after the intall process is made simple. Pick whatever version you like, it'll never reach mainstream ears until they can 1. download it 2. install it 3. use it
Okay, this is a totally outside the box way of thinking but I think Linux could win the desktop wars if it were "one-click" installable and ready to use. But it isn't. It never is. Get that part right, and maybe this discussion is worth something.
It's not about what version, it's about ease of use.
I'm sorry, the graphs don't lie.
sorry. As the Open Source Movement adjusts, it does not have the funding or the backing of commercial development. There can never be a replacement for funding. Any curve will tell you that. Argue with me if you will, but look at the graphs. All other models are hopeful but false.
This one is a quick market. Anyone who knows anything about market strategy will tell you that the first one in gets to set the price, product name, and features of the product category. It's valuable to the maker to be in there before the competitors.
The U.S.A. is a republic of States and by no means a direct democracy. Of course, by your standards we'd let the crack heads and illiterates ellect the president. Yes, that would be nice. Take a sun shiney look at your voter base. They're the same ones who couldn't figure out how to punch a hole in the ballots in Florida.
I can't pass these exams. I give up. I can't do this job, I give up. It's been one year since I tried to get a job and now I give up. Ladies and Gentlemen, it takes years to succeed at anything. Some people take their entire lifetimes to suceed. Why are we giving up on this war after one year? Also, the voters in El Salvador had bombs blowing up and bullets wizzing past their ears when they went to the polls and they didn't give up. Get over yourselves, democracy is no cake walk.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm
Tell me I'm wrong. This report was filed in January of 2003. 2 months before the "evil" George Bush began the war.
THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003:
AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION
"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
(2003 report)
UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.
There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.
I would now like to turn to the so-called "Air Force document" that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.
The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.
The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.
The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.
I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.
Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.
Biological weapons
I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.
Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which i
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm
THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003:
AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION
"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
(2003 report)
UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.
There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.
I would now like to turn to the so-called "Air Force document" that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.
The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.
The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.
The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.
I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.
Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.
Biological weapons
I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.
Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,50
(Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs!)
Yep,
All f=d up.
Bout time someone started a tech discussion on Slashdot. I thought that would get attention. My post was messed up, and now those in the know would jump in. I know zero about databases., but you all know. So, Discuss! Let's get it on with the object oriented and that all and such....
Hello, Wow. I just posted and the Slashdot system just broke down... That makes me feel much much younger. I'm about as young as the relationship model of databases; or now I'm SRB young.... now I'm Hier....wait... I'm so young I'm network young....... Now I'm file system young...... Oh God! I'm File System young..... waaaaa! Waaaa!!!! No, stop... I'm a cobol baby.
Hubble is our proudest and best space innovation. Why are they doing this? I just can't keep saying why?
Whatever anyone thought before, Apple is now achieving their profits from music sales. The profits from iTunes will eclipse hardware in the future.
Damnit, when am I supposed to buy my parents a mac when they keep coming out with this stuff...
If it looks like an Apple product and it Talks like an Apple product, I should have know. This guys product was awesome, and it was totally carbon. Should have known it was pure apple all the way. Not to say he shouldn't be compensated, but it was obvious all the way that this guy was an Apple guy...
The reason IT is in and not out is the competition's need to out compete it's rivals. IT is the cutting edge capability in competition right now. As basic as it sounds, the fear of another company coming up with a competitive edge beyond your own will drive the need for IT until a greater edge is found. Until something replaces IT as that edge, IT will continue to be king.
Here's why he's wrong. Supply Chain Management. E-commerce has completely re-written all the rules of businesses and the information sharing btwn them up and down the supply chain from resource suppliers to recyclers. Does anyone here know why they're able to get something they've ordered on the internet (even a computer) shipped in 3 days? Because of the changes IT has made on the Business model. Most people who know what they're talking about believe 'SAME DAY SHIPPING" is not a dream but a reality within a year or two. If IT can accomplish that, there are no ceilings.
Seems to me that he's right about the Current state, and about the possible Future state of IT, but has he addressed the distance btwn the two? Businesses are finding greater and greater growth and opportunity thru the use of IT, when does the upward curve level out. Is it an s-curve? That's the real issue. Has anyone done a forecast, or can anyone?
No, both will win. The execs see the cost cutting and opportunities of outsourcing as a winning business model. It's streamlining, or supply chain management - the workers have become the supply. The talent pool companies will also win, at least their upper management and owners will. It's a mutual relationship. Also, It's not fair to say the big biz guys know "money" but not their business, it's impossible to know one without the other.
But , Oh m lord, didn't you even spell check your super statement. Your mission was to flame someone and you didn't even proof it?