Trust me, if a company invests in Red Hat Linux, they *will* be stuck with Red Hat Linux for a while.
Its very hard changing Distros.
How does Google make money?
on
Has Google Peaked?
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
The problem with Google is that they are not diversified enough. They only have ONE revenue stream from Adsense. Google Search and to a lesser extent, Gmail, are the vehicles driving it.
Now what? Desktop Search, Google News, Gtalk, Picasso, Gmaps, GEarth are all interesting apps/services, however, they...don't...make...money.
Microsoft has like 10 different revenue streams, some completely separate from Windows (e.g. Xbox), so does Apple and so do most companies who are smart. Even Yahoo has diversified, offering paid services, making deals with cable providers. Google is very very dependant on search.
"Whether the attacks constitute a coordinated Chinese government campaign to penetrate U.S. networks and spy on government databanks has divided U.S. analysts. Some in the Pentagon are said to be convinced of official Chinese involvement; others see the electronic probing as the work of other hackers simply using Chinese networks to disguise the origins of the attacks."
I would say... a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B
I mean seriously, what is the worst case scenario in this situation? That a die hard football and video game addict will only be able to buy an EA branded NFL game for the next 5 years? So what? Cry me a river.
A Playstation NFL game is not water, nourishment, shelter or air. In fact, it is so far away from being anything close to basic necessity (or any kind of necessity for that matter) that its just pathetically funny how rilled up a few individuals get over it.
YOU might not care whether or not a website is made with HTML3.2 or CSS or whether it uses php scripting with a Database backend but the guy behind the scenes probably does; especially if the time to edit,add or format content will decrease from 5 hours to 10 seconds.
It seems like the internet peaked for you back in 1996.
If that means a few information providers have to revise their business models -- hey thats life.
Yes.. they will revise just for you.. you special person you......
Why is Google releasing products that have little to no chance of being profitable. Don't get me wrong, I like gmail, google news, picasso, desktop search etc.
My digital picture collection has reached ~4GB and is slowely becoming a storage/sorting problem. Right now 70% of everything I have is stored on one HD partition. If the HD goes so do these pictures. CDs and DVDs with their 5-10 year lifespan won't do it either.
I'm looking at various methods of backup redundancy but it will take conscious effort over many years, transfering and re-transfering these files to keep them intact.
Cards are stacked against me. I've already lost my porn collection a few times. The burning of the Alexandrian library was devestating but the loss of 100Gb of movies was unimaginable.
is why people automatically assume that using an Open Source opertating system (e.g. Linux) implies using open source applications.
This is not how the world will work, and this is now how the world works now.
Whats wrong with moving to Linux and using X (where x is some proprietary application that is easy-to-use, well-supported and does the job you need it to do?).
This applies to the other path as well; Proprietary operating system and Open Source applications.
I've read studies comparing Windows/IIS to Linux/Apache.. yet I've not read any study comparing Windows/Apache and Linux/Apache.
No matter what some zealots will try to feed up, there is nothing wrong with having a mix that works for you.
"The first fallacy is its claim that evolution is a "random" process. Evolution is not random at all, as its progress is determined by natural selection (or the selection of God, if you prefer)."
Not quite right. The mutations in the DNA itself are random. There is no disputing that. It is observable, and neither Creationists nor Scientists dispute that. Whether or not these mutations get passed on to the next generation depends on whether or not the organism survives long enough to procreate. This is also not disputed.
Evolution itself is also not disputed by any party. For example, breeding dogs for a particular trait is an example of evolution (and actually an example of Intelligent Design).
What IS disputed is whether the above-mentioned random mutations in the DNA along with the various environmental factors are enough to explain how we evoloved from complex amino-acids to our present state. Scientits say yes, Creationists say no.
Any social system have a form of property, if i think in socialism i also think in colective property, like GNU and GPL software.
GPL is a certainly a form of collective property but it is one that is *freely* given out by private individuals. NO PRIVATE PROPERTY IS EVERY TAKEN WITHOUT OWNER'S APPROVAL. This is why you cannot just arbitrarily GPL Windows XP.
Under socialism/communism the government can arbitraily take an individual's house and the land it sits on, or claim his income anytime for public re-distribution. An owner cannot say no, else he might be thrown in jail.
Capitalism is freedom to do what you want with your property, but if you don't have anything you need to do the only thing that left: sell your self to other.
Trade is a better word. You trade your skills for money.
>Any social system have a form of property, if i think in socialism i also think in colective property, like GNU and GPL software.Capitalism is freedom to do what you want with your property, but if you don't have anything you need to do the only thing that left: sell your self to other.
Trade is a better word. You trade your skills for money.
GPL is capitalistic because: 1) It respects property rights. In fact, GPL could not exist in a system that doesn't protect intellectual rights.
2) Capitalism is about freedom of the individual do what what he wills with his property. GPL is an extension of that. It is a written permission from the original creator to the user.
GPL is not socialist because it is not government mandated, and anyone is free to NOT license their code under the GPL (unless of course they extended GPLed code).
Profit motive is not the basis for capitalism. Freedom to do what you want with your property is. Profiting from your property is as capitalistic as giving it away.
What are the odds that any extra functionality MS adds to Windows will result in another $500 million fine and a plethora of Slashdot comments decrying it as another example of MS leveraging their 'monopoly' to drive out competition?
We must be hopeful of the possibility that those companies which want to mix NT with UNIX will poison themselves, and lose. The drag of NT licensing and unreliability will put them at a competitive disadvantage.
You never actually worked in the industry, have you?
from article: "IBM says to a customer, 'Do you want proprietary or open software?' Then [if they want open source] they say 'OK, you want IBM open source.' It is [always] IBM or Sun or HP open source,"asserted Villasante,
There's only ONE kind of open source software. By the very definition of open source, "IBM open source software"(if there is such a thing) lets you do the same things as all the other similarly licensed software.
Does IBM push certain kind of open source software and no others?.. YEAH! And there's good reason for that. Supporting a SUSE and RedHat Linux distros is much easier than supporting SUSE, RedHat and 30 other distros. Besides why wouldn't you push open source software that you invested heavily in developing, have intimate knowledge of and can certify its quality.
Villasante sounds like a dumbass and definitely is a nutcase and the Open Source movement does not need people like him.
"Open source is a complete mess -- many people do lots of different things. There's total confusion today," Villasante said.
All it needs is good old fashioned European regulation.
Which are the OS targets which should be supported? Support for proprietary OSes should be dropped. Free software should only support free OSes and even among those the group needs to be trimmed significantly (ideally to one).
Sounds like someone wants to take his ball and go home.
Mac OS, Windows, Solaris, BSD pretty much anything that isn't Linux, or specifically Red Hat Linux
I highly value the open source ports made to Mac OS X, such as firefox.
As do I, considering I am obliged to work under Windows 2000 at work.
Bottom line is that he's right. Ports do cost time and effort and probably slow development, but the reason they are there is because there is a need. People want to run OpenOffice on Windows, FireFox on Linux and Apache on FreeBSD.
Slashdot Mirror
Trust me, if a company invests in Red Hat Linux, they *will* be stuck with Red Hat Linux for a while.
Its very hard changing Distros.
The problem with Google is that they are not diversified enough. They only have ONE revenue stream from Adsense. Google Search and to a lesser extent, Gmail, are the vehicles driving it.
Now what? Desktop Search, Google News, Gtalk, Picasso, Gmaps, GEarth are all interesting apps/services, however, they...don't...make...money.
Microsoft has like 10 different revenue streams, some completely separate from Windows (e.g. Xbox), so does Apple and so do most companies who are smart. Even Yahoo has diversified, offering paid services, making deals with cable providers. Google is very very dependant on search.
"Whether the attacks constitute a coordinated Chinese government campaign to penetrate U.S. networks and spy on government databanks has divided U.S. analysts. Some in the Pentagon are said to be convinced of official Chinese involvement; others see the electronic probing as the work of other hackers simply using Chinese networks to disguise the origins of the attacks."
I would say... a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B
Who gives a crap?
I mean seriously, what is the worst case scenario in this situation? That a die hard football and video game addict will only be able to buy an EA branded NFL game for the next 5 years? So what? Cry me a river.
A Playstation NFL game is not water, nourishment, shelter or air. In fact, it is so far away from being anything close to basic necessity (or any kind of necessity for that matter) that its just pathetically funny how rilled up a few individuals get over it.
People, get a hold of yourselves.
CSS is mostly for web builders.
,add or format content will decrease from 5 hours to 10 seconds.
..
YOU might not care whether or not a website is made with HTML3.2 or CSS or whether it uses php scripting with a Database backend but the guy behind the scenes probably does; especially if the time to edit
It seems like the internet peaked for you back in 1996.
If that means a few information providers have to revise their business models -- hey thats life.
Yes.. they will revise just for you.. you special person you....
Keep waiting.
Why is Google releasing products that have little to no chance of being profitable. Don't get me wrong, I like gmail, google news, picasso, desktop search etc.
But does google actually make any money of them?
You're absolutely right.
My digital picture collection has reached ~4GB and is slowely becoming a storage/sorting problem. Right now 70% of everything I have is stored on one HD partition. If the HD goes so do these pictures. CDs and DVDs with their 5-10 year lifespan won't do it either.
I'm looking at various methods of backup redundancy but it will take conscious effort over many years, transfering and re-transfering these files to keep them intact.
Cards are stacked against me. I've already lost my porn collection a few times. The burning of the Alexandrian library was devestating but the loss of 100Gb of movies was unimaginable.
is why people automatically assume that using an Open Source opertating system (e.g. Linux) implies using open source applications.
This is not how the world will work, and this is now how the world works now.
Whats wrong with moving to Linux and using X (where x is some proprietary application that is easy-to-use, well-supported and does the job you need it to do?).
This applies to the other path as well; Proprietary operating system and Open Source applications.
I've read studies comparing Windows/IIS to Linux/Apache.. yet I've not read any study comparing Windows/Apache and Linux/Apache.
No matter what some zealots will try to feed up, there is nothing wrong with having a mix that works for you.
"The first fallacy is its claim that evolution is a "random" process. Evolution is not random at all, as its progress is determined by natural selection (or the selection of God, if you prefer)."
Not quite right. The mutations in the DNA itself are random. There is no disputing that. It is observable, and neither Creationists nor Scientists dispute that. Whether or not these mutations get passed on to the next generation depends on whether or not the organism survives long enough to procreate. This is also not disputed.
Evolution itself is also not disputed by any party. For example, breeding dogs for a particular trait is an example of evolution (and actually an example of Intelligent Design).
What IS disputed is whether the above-mentioned random mutations in the DNA along with the various environmental factors are enough to explain how we evoloved from complex amino-acids to our present state. Scientits say yes, Creationists say no.
Stole how exactly?
Oh you mean use the code as allowed by the BSD license. Yep.. definitely stolen.
Take, Strong Bad, for example. I would easily pay like $5/year to watch this creativity a couple times per month.
Woah.. slow down.. you big spender you. You patron of the arts you...You.. well you get my point.
What happens if 30 million others feel the same way? Instant negation of Big Business, that is what.
Nah, I'd say 'slashdot effect' and big bandwidth bills.
Any social system have a form of property, if i think in socialism i also think in colective property, like GNU and GPL software.
GPL is a certainly a form of collective property but it is one that is *freely* given out by private individuals. NO PRIVATE PROPERTY IS EVERY TAKEN WITHOUT OWNER'S APPROVAL. This is why you cannot just arbitrarily GPL Windows XP.
Under socialism/communism the government can arbitraily take an individual's house and the land it sits on, or claim his income anytime for public re-distribution. An owner cannot say no, else he might be thrown in jail.
Capitalism is freedom to do what you want with your property, but if you don't have anything you need to do the only thing that left: sell your self to other.
Trade is a better word. You trade your skills for money.
>Any social system have a form of property, if i think in socialism i also think in colective property, like GNU and GPL software.Capitalism is freedom to do what you want with your property, but if you don't have anything you need to do the only thing that left: sell your self to other.
Trade is a better word. You trade your skills for money.
You're both wrong.
GPL is capitalistic because:
1) It respects property rights. In fact, GPL could not exist in a system that doesn't protect intellectual rights.
2) Capitalism is about freedom of the individual do what what he wills with his property. GPL is an extension of that. It is a written permission from the original creator to the user.
GPL is not socialist because it is not government mandated, and anyone is free to NOT license their code under the GPL (unless of course they extended GPLed code).
Profit motive is not the basis for capitalism. Freedom to do what you want with your property is. Profiting from your property is as capitalistic as giving it away.
What are the odds that any extra functionality MS adds to Windows will result in another $500 million fine and a plethora of Slashdot comments decrying it as another example of MS leveraging their 'monopoly' to drive out competition?
I say.. pretty good.
For starters... they would have added more RAM =/
We must be hopeful of the possibility that those companies which want to mix NT with UNIX will poison themselves, and lose. The drag of NT licensing and unreliability will put them at a competitive disadvantage.
You never actually worked in the industry, have you?
1) BSD
2) Apple
3) Microsoft
4) PC Gaming?
from article:
"IBM says to a customer, 'Do you want proprietary or open software?' Then [if they want open source] they say 'OK, you want IBM open source.' It is [always] IBM or Sun or HP open source,"asserted Villasante,
There's only ONE kind of open source software. By the very definition of open source, "IBM open source software"(if there is such a thing) lets you do the same things as all the other similarly licensed software.
Does IBM push certain kind of open source software and no others?.. YEAH! And there's good reason for that. Supporting a SUSE and RedHat Linux distros is much easier than supporting SUSE, RedHat and 30 other distros. Besides why wouldn't you push open source software that you invested heavily in developing, have intimate knowledge of and can certify its quality.
Villasante sounds like a dumbass and definitely is a nutcase and the Open Source movement does not need people like him.
"Open source is a complete mess -- many people do lots of different things. There's total confusion today," Villasante said.
All it needs is good old fashioned European regulation.
Which are the OS targets which should be supported? Support for proprietary OSes should be dropped. Free software should only support free OSes and even among those the group needs to be trimmed significantly (ideally to one).
Sounds like someone wants to take his ball and go home.
Are they referring to Mac OS here ?
Mac OS, Windows, Solaris, BSD pretty much anything that isn't Linux, or specifically Red Hat Linux
I highly value the open source ports made to Mac OS X, such as firefox.
As do I, considering I am obliged to work under Windows 2000 at work.
Bottom line is that he's right. Ports do cost time and effort and probably slow development, but the reason they are there is because there is a need. People want to run OpenOffice on Windows, FireFox on Linux and Apache on FreeBSD.
- Apple ...
- BSD
- Microsoft
My question is what are the second world regions?
"Second World" was a term used to describe the old communist block (Soviet Russian and Eastern Europe).
I'm not sure if there are any second-world countries right now. Cuba and China maybe?
Something tells me that the $160 million Thursday-Sunday gross opened his mind to more Star Wars movies.
From the site:
The keyboard also features three Windows application keys.