Personally, this submission to Slashdot just looks like a cheap way of advertising a lame job board. If there was a real intent to track the IT market, all one would have to do is go to dice.com, and use the bots that you get for FREE there.
Dice.com is bigger, and nationwide. So you could really track how the IT market is doing over time.
Dice is also the only board which takes consultants seriously. That is, it offers specialized selections to make it easy to track consulting-only gigs, so that you don't have to wade through a bunch of full-time jobs just to find the ones which are for consultants.
Plus Dice doesn't charge you $50 to post your Resume, like this site does.
So, IMHO, this Slashdot submission is just a scam to get free advertising for yet-another-lame job board.
Probably a good deal of it. While the article focused on Russia, another recent article showed how easy it was to get the personal information of people from databases which had been offshored.
$100 (even Canadian) per CD is a worthy amount of money in Russia or other second/third world countries where back-office operations have been off-shored to. This problem is only going to keep growing at these price levels.
The point here is that there is very strong incentive to provide accurate data at these price levels, competition being what it will be.
Here's a babelfish translation of the above mentioned Spiegel Online article, to English:
European parliament is correct against software patents
The European parliament rejected the disputed draft from European Union commission and European Union advice to the introduction of software patents. The delegates rejected the European Union law today in Strasbourg with an overwhelming majority.
Strasbourg - who would have that thought. Still few days ago it seemed hardly possible that of Europe parliamentarians in Strasbourg would express themselves so clearly against the software patent guideline. Today the European parliament of the commission collecting main with a clear majority refused the agreement in addition. 648 voted against the guideline and only 14 for, it compiled by the European Union commission, 18 contained.
The European Union commission explained, it respects the decision of the parliament and does not want to the refusal not with a new suggestion to react. A speaker said, patenting of inventions which are based on software was further possible, however it remains now the different rules in the individual European Union states and with European patent office.
The result is to be attributed above all to the "scandalous procedure" by advice and European Union commission, said the socialist delegate Michel Rocard from France. Advice and commission would have reacted with "ignoring and Sarkasmus" to the demands, which the parliament had raised in first reading. "the vote for today should be a lesson for the advice", stressed Rocard.
To the originally submitted draft the delegates had submitted altogether 178 requests for modification, which were also result of an unparalleled lobbying of opponents such as proponents. Many parliamentarians were afraid last that the guideline thereby could become a bureaucratic monster. Therefore the European Union commission is to submit a new suggestion, was called it in several parliamentary groups.
Large enterprises such as SAP or Nokia endorsed the regulation, while free software developers are against it. In the USA software is patentable; Companies such as Microsoft or IBM have themselves already hundreds of patents secured.
Open Source trailers and smaller software producers fear that they are over-accumulated up after patenting even simplest software modules with financial requirements by patentees. Planned however in principle only patents are to computer-implemented innovations, thus applications for instance for cars, mobile telephones or washing machines in the guideline. Disputed under the delegate is however, as clearly the boundary is to be pulled here.
The fact that the guideline in the parliament would fail had appeared in the past days. The parliamentary group of the conservative EVP tended directly before the crucial tuning to reject the collecting main lying on the table. Also the Greens and Social Democrats had informed themselves first to reject the guideline. "we against it to be correct", the chairman of the socialist parliamentary group, this morning in Strasbourg had announced Martin Schulz (SPD).
"The emotions are at present in such a way loaded that no rational decision is possible", was called it with the EVP. The European Union commission is to compile a new suggestion. The EVP aims at in contrast to the current collecting main that copyright regulations for software were taken up to for years the planned European Union joint patent. The joint patent lies at present however on ice.
resellerratings.com - ALWAYS research the merchant
on
Shopping Online
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I never, ever buy on-line from any site without going here first. The single best place to go first is resellerratings.com. This way you can not only see what the prices are, but (MORE IMPORTANTLY) you can see how reliable that vendor is.
It's absolutely useless to get a cheap deal if the vendor won't ship the product. And problems with the transaction happen all the time. Read some of the horror stories from the review sections there about the merchants with a low approval rating. Or a bad return policy. When buying over the web, you really want to avoid having to return the product, as you will usually have to pay the shipping costs yourself. And that can blow any savings by web-shopping that you might have once had.
What I do is search for the product on resellerratings.com first, and I won't buy from a vendor with a score below 9.0 unless I'm desparate. It's really just not worth the risk.
Doing otherwise is somewhat similar to buying a laptop for a low price from some guy in Romainia.;)
I've bought tens-of-thousands of dollars of things over the past 9-10 years over the Internet/Web, and this is really the way to go. I have never been burned by one of the top rated merchants yet.
"Real men bill the client directly, with an arrow stuck into their door, shot from a bow they've made by hand with a string they've strung themselves from tanned bear entrails."
We have a need for an Accounts Payable person. You're hired.
I think we're going to have to move to something like this in order to protect Open Source. But I'm wondering something. What's the next step if the Patent battle is lost in Europe?
One idea would be to "embrace and extend" (pardon that phrase, but it seems appropriate) the patent system by Open Source.
That is, have all Open Source contributors start to patent everything they can think of related to their code. A "Beowulf Cluster" (again, pardon the phrase) of Open Source Patent submitters. Combine this will a collective agreement for enforcement of Patents, with a bounty system for Lawyers.
Or, more crudely, a Beowulf Cluster of Inventors coupled with a Beowulf Cluster of Lawyers, all working under the flag of Open Source.
I can think of no more effective solution to invalidate the field of Software Patents completely. It certainly seems like the Political System isn't going to do the job.
"I'm sure a team of qualified and certified researchers from teh biggest software company in the world,"
Gotta love those "qualified and certified researchers" from MS. That statement kind of reminds me of "certified MS professionals".
Personally, I'll take results over certifications anyday. Can you show me one single thing out of Microsoft Research which has been bigger than Bittorent in the past 4 years? I can't think of one single thing.
It's really sad that they had several hundred engineers sitting around, getting taught lessons like this. 99% of the so-called hackers out there really aren't that great. And it's unlikely anything earthshattering here was used.
I find it truly surprising that not one single Microsoft Engineer could take it upon himself to discover these flaws beforehand. And that they were surprised by these results.
That tells me a lot about the Engineering talent. Hopefully some small change has been made in the mindset there. It would at least be a good small start; because one key thing about improving security is the mindset.
Well, personally I think you do a great deal of disservice to the actual inventor of the transistor. For example, his name is spelled "Lilienfeld".
Secondly, do you have a source for these claims of yours? They sound like Bell Labs propaganda. Beyond Wikipedia please (which has gotten this information significantly wrong in the past). I've seen it claimed that Lilienfeld used to demonstrate his tubeless radio. I've also seen it claimed that he actually worked with the materials. One has to question your claim that it was all theoretical, since the Patent Office has required that patents only be granted for actual working devices.
Thirdly, the point still stands that it was Lilienfeld who invented the transistor, not Bell Labs. Sadly, Bell Labs is still trying to claim this invention to this day; though I've read that they had to concede their invention claims to Lilienfeld's prior art.
Personally, I think it's shameful that, on the 50th anniversary of Bell Labs' invention, they were STILL
taking complete credit for the invention of the transistor at the actual ceremony.
While everyone seems to accept as fact that Bell Labs invented the transistor, they really didn't. Transistors had been around for quite a long time before the Bell Labs team made their announcement. Alas, even the wonderful Wikipedia is horribly wrong on this point.
What Bell Labs DID invent was the first Silicon Transistor. This was revolutionary. But to give them the credit for the first Transistor is to dismiss a lot of research which went on before this, as well as to show a general ignorance on the history of Electronics.
It would be similar to all of us forgetting the invention of the Silicon Transistor, when Electron Transistors replace them.
For example, the first Field Effect Transistor (FET) was patented by Dr. Julius Lilienfeld of Germany in 1926. Lilienfeld had other patents, such as patent 1,900,018.
But the bottom line is that transistors were well-known long before 1948; it would be utterly silly to think that a lot of new concepts simply sprouted out of nowhere. It is far more accurate to say that Bell Labs took the old concepts and pushed the envelope, by applying them to a new area.
And it's certainly silly to say that Bell Labs invented the transistor. Please, it's the silicon transistor that they invented.
If you take the world's population, and put everyone standing next to each other, the amount of space is really small. It just takes a diameter of about 30 miles (actually, just a little more). This assumes people can fit in a 2'x2' space.
So we have absolutely plenty of space left on Earth; the question is how well we use it. Clearly with the current problems of the world, we're not doing so efficiently.
That may well be, but another way of looking at this is as a revenue enhancement method for the library.
If the library charges a certain amount of money for those who wish the anonymous card, the library can earn interest off of the money.
In short, the library is at no risk financially for lost books, and gets to make money off the interest. Plus it provides a new service for those who want it.
It's a win-win situation all around.
That's why the GP is flat-out wrong; this will work, and work quite well. I'd like to see one single public library which DOESN'T need more funding.
Yes, submarine Patents are indeed the first thing one suspects Microsoft of doing whenever they appear to open some interface up. With good cause too, given Microsofts' current rampage on Patent Filing.
However, Microsoft may be walking a tight line here (at least in theory) as they are a convicted Monopolist. I refer you to this quote from Nolo Press' "Patent It Yourself" (p 1/8), on how Patents can be lost:
"The patent owner engages in certain defined types of illegal conduct, that is, commits antitrust or other violations connected with the patent".
I'm not suggesting that Microsofts' patents aren't a threat to the Open Source community; nor am I suggesting that the patents be taken lightly in any way. However, I do have to wonder how much of Steve Balmer's chest-thumping about Patents is just FUD, and perhaps Microsoft isn't as strong on this point as they'd like everyone to believe.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Microsoft would try to pull whatever they can get away with. The question I would like to raise is whether they would actually be successful (or how successful they might actually be); especially given that there are now deep pockets behind Open Source?
I am not a lawyer (nor ever wish to be one;) ). But I mention this for two reasons. First, for everyone's general awareness. And second, to solicit some input from those who are more knowledgeable in this area of the law.
It could be; I really don't follow the phone market, so I can't say. What I have heard is that it is brutally competitive; so it's really only a matter of time before these cost-sensitive devices switch from an O.S. which costs money to something which is free, wouldn't you say?
Also, don't forget that, according to a Forbes article from years back (which is easily found via google), VxWorks had a 35% marketshare, while Windows had a 33% share. Look at the numbers now; VxWorks is down to 14%, and Windows is at 24%. Linux back then (2000 IIRC) had 10% or so; and now has 25%, and is growing.
My point is that Linux is growing very quickly; and there's a network effect here. Companies which were hesitant to jump on the bandwagon are now looking at being stuck with the minority technology, not the gorilla technology. And having to pay a premium for it, too.
How long do you think the very competitive phone market is going to allow that? I give it 5 years, max.
Linux is at 25% and growing. All of the Windows versions together give 24%, and not one of them on their own tops 10%. This is down from a total of a 33% marketshare from 5 years ago.
So Linux already is the Market Leader in the embedded space. And if it keeps growing like it has, MS will just have a fraction of the sales. Sort of like how VxWorks has gone from a 35% to a 12% marketshare over the past 5 years.
As the original AC to this, I just wanted to say that you are correct; thank you.
The guy who responded impresses me as a whacko, to be honest (judging by his other posts).
"Any business person can tell you that this is 100% wrong."
Actually, no. The market will tell you different things, depending upon what you're looking at. For small businesses, yes, you are right. They usually buy COTS stuff and can't affort to write things from scratch.
As the business grows and gets more complex, then they DO start writing things from scratch. Things like custom spreadsheets and what not. They do this because they need to tune the COTS stuff to their business needs.
As the business gets even bigger, they DO start writing their own software from scratch. You do realize that most programmers don't work for software companies, don't you? I've heard that only 15% of programmers develop commercial software packages; the rest are working for companies whose main business isn't selling software.
So the point is, there is NO One True Solution for all businesses. Indeed, your IT infrastructure can be a serious competitive advantage if you do things right, or a disadvantage if you don't. Most places fall right inbetween.
It's just a standard response to Freedom.
on
McVoy Strikes Back
·
· Score: 3, Informative
What's also interesting is that McVoy's response here is the same exact response that closed-source vendors ALWAYS make when Open Source starts costing them market share. McVoy's statements are nothing new; just a variation on a them.
Let's see some examples:
Microsoft. The OS, Webserver and IE are all classic examples.Their attacks on Open Source are in a league by themselves, including the "stifle innovation" argument of McVoys'.
Windriver. These folks bashed Linux mercilessly while their marketshare dropped from 35% in 2000 to 14% today. They threw in the towel and went with Linux last year (though VxWorks is still around, it's clearly not the priority).
GreeenHills. These folks have been bashing gcc for years, as the embedded market has moved away from speciality development tools except in certain small areas where the performance is required.
So McVoy's response is nothing new here. He must be feeling the pinch of people moving away from his software.
Now, if Slashdot would only stop giving him free publicity, we'd be all set. McVoy has already stated that everytime he's mentioned on Slashdot, his "sales go up".
Jeez, one of the first topics on mice in a long while (and a review no less), 200 comments, not one mention of this Golden Oldy. Let's lighten things up!
"Memo of the Month," From The Washington Monthly, January/February 1991, page 24:
This is an actual alert to IBM Field Engineers that went out to all IBM Branch Offices. The person who wrote it was very serious. The rest of us find it rather funny.
Abstract: Mouse Balls Available as FRU (Field Replacement Unit)
Mouse balls are now available as FRU. Therefore, if a mouse fails to operate or should it perform erratically, it may need a ball replacement. Because of the delicate nature of this procedure, replacement of mouse balls should only be attempted by properly trained personnel.
Before proceeding, determine the type of mouse balls by examining the underside of the mouse. Domestic balls will be larger and harder than foreign balls. Ball removal procedures differ depending upon manufacturer of the mouse. Foreign balls can be replaced using the pop-off method. Domestic balls are replaced using the twist-off method. Mouse balls are not usually static sensitive. However, excessive handling can result in sudden discharge. Upon completion of ball replacement, the mouse may be used immediately.
It is recommended that each replacer have a pair of spare balls for maintaining optimum customer satisfaction, and that any customer missing his balls should suspect local personnel of removing these necessary items.
Slashdot Mirror
The majority of PHBs that I know consider themselves quite brainy - and they know zero as well.
I have no idea what you're referring to. Since you didn't post a link, I guess you're just trolling.
Personally, this submission to Slashdot just looks like a cheap way of advertising a lame job board. If there was a real intent to track the IT market, all one would have to do is go to dice.com, and use the bots that you get for FREE there.
Dice.com is bigger, and nationwide. So you could really track how the IT market is doing over time.
Dice is also the only board which takes consultants seriously. That is, it offers specialized selections to make it easy to track consulting-only gigs, so that you don't have to wade through a bunch of full-time jobs just to find the ones which are for consultants.
Plus Dice doesn't charge you $50 to post your Resume, like this site does.
So, IMHO, this Slashdot submission is just a scam to get free advertising for yet-another-lame job board.
$100 (even Canadian) per CD is a worthy amount of money in Russia or other second/third world countries where back-office operations have been off-shored to. This problem is only going to keep growing at these price levels.
The point here is that there is very strong incentive to provide accurate data at these price levels, competition being what it will be.
European parliament is correct against software patents
The European parliament rejected the disputed draft from European Union commission and European Union advice to the introduction of software patents. The delegates rejected the European Union law today in Strasbourg with an overwhelming majority.
Strasbourg - who would have that thought. Still few days ago it seemed hardly possible that of Europe parliamentarians in Strasbourg would express themselves so clearly against the software patent guideline. Today the European parliament of the commission collecting main with a clear majority refused the agreement in addition. 648 voted against the guideline and only 14 for, it compiled by the European Union commission, 18 contained.
The European Union commission explained, it respects the decision of the parliament and does not want to the refusal not with a new suggestion to react. A speaker said, patenting of inventions which are based on software was further possible, however it remains now the different rules in the individual European Union states and with European patent office.
The result is to be attributed above all to the "scandalous procedure" by advice and European Union commission, said the socialist delegate Michel Rocard from France. Advice and commission would have reacted with "ignoring and Sarkasmus" to the demands, which the parliament had raised in first reading. "the vote for today should be a lesson for the advice", stressed Rocard.
To the originally submitted draft the delegates had submitted altogether 178 requests for modification, which were also result of an unparalleled lobbying of opponents such as proponents. Many parliamentarians were afraid last that the guideline thereby could become a bureaucratic monster. Therefore the European Union commission is to submit a new suggestion, was called it in several parliamentary groups.
Large enterprises such as SAP or Nokia endorsed the regulation, while free software developers are against it. In the USA software is patentable; Companies such as Microsoft or IBM have themselves already hundreds of patents secured.
Open Source trailers and smaller software producers fear that they are over-accumulated up after patenting even simplest software modules with financial requirements by patentees. Planned however in principle only patents are to computer-implemented innovations, thus applications for instance for cars, mobile telephones or washing machines in the guideline. Disputed under the delegate is however, as clearly the boundary is to be pulled here.
The fact that the guideline in the parliament would fail had appeared in the past days. The parliamentary group of the conservative EVP tended directly before the crucial tuning to reject the collecting main lying on the table. Also the Greens and Social Democrats had informed themselves first to reject the guideline. "we against it to be correct", the chairman of the socialist parliamentary group, this morning in Strasbourg had announced Martin Schulz (SPD).
"The emotions are at present in such a way loaded that no rational decision is possible", was called it with the EVP. The European Union commission is to compile a new suggestion. The EVP aims at in contrast to the current collecting main that copyright regulations for software were taken up to for years the planned European Union joint patent. The joint patent lies at present however on ice.
It's absolutely useless to get a cheap deal if the vendor won't ship the product. And problems with the transaction happen all the time. Read some of the horror stories from the review sections there about the merchants with a low approval rating. Or a bad return policy. When buying over the web, you really want to avoid having to return the product, as you will usually have to pay the shipping costs yourself. And that can blow any savings by web-shopping that you might have once had.
What I do is search for the product on resellerratings.com first, and I won't buy from a vendor with a score below 9.0 unless I'm desparate. It's really just not worth the risk.
Doing otherwise is somewhat similar to buying a laptop for a low price from some guy in Romainia. ;)
I've bought tens-of-thousands of dollars of things over the past 9-10 years over the Internet/Web, and this is really the way to go. I have never been burned by one of the top rated merchants yet.
Nope. ;)
And please quit calling me Surely!
We have a need for an Accounts Payable person. You're hired.
One idea would be to "embrace and extend" (pardon that phrase, but it seems appropriate) the patent system by Open Source.
That is, have all Open Source contributors start to patent everything they can think of related to their code. A "Beowulf Cluster" (again, pardon the phrase) of Open Source Patent submitters. Combine this will a collective agreement for enforcement of Patents, with a bounty system for Lawyers.
Or, more crudely, a Beowulf Cluster of Inventors coupled with a Beowulf Cluster of Lawyers, all working under the flag of Open Source.
I can think of no more effective solution to invalidate the field of Software Patents completely. It certainly seems like the Political System isn't going to do the job.
Gotta love those "qualified and certified researchers" from MS. That statement kind of reminds me of "certified MS professionals".
Personally, I'll take results over certifications anyday. Can you show me one single thing out of Microsoft Research which has been bigger than Bittorent in the past 4 years? I can't think of one single thing.
It's really sad that they had several hundred engineers sitting around, getting taught lessons like this. 99% of the so-called hackers out there really aren't that great. And it's unlikely anything earthshattering here was used.
I find it truly surprising that not one single Microsoft Engineer could take it upon himself to discover these flaws beforehand. And that they were surprised by these results.
That tells me a lot about the Engineering talent. Hopefully some small change has been made in the mindset there. It would at least be a good small start; because one key thing about improving security is the mindset.
main() { printf("Goodbye World!\n"); }
Secondly, do you have a source for these claims of yours? They sound like Bell Labs propaganda. Beyond Wikipedia please (which has gotten this information significantly wrong in the past). I've seen it claimed that Lilienfeld used to demonstrate his tubeless radio. I've also seen it claimed that he actually worked with the materials. One has to question your claim that it was all theoretical, since the Patent Office has required that patents only be granted for actual working devices.
Thirdly, the point still stands that it was Lilienfeld who invented the transistor, not Bell Labs. Sadly, Bell Labs is still trying to claim this invention to this day; though I've read that they had to concede their invention claims to Lilienfeld's prior art.
Personally, I think it's shameful that, on the 50th anniversary of Bell Labs' invention, they were STILL taking complete credit for the invention of the transistor at the actual ceremony.
What Bell Labs DID invent was the first Silicon Transistor. This was revolutionary. But to give them the credit for the first Transistor is to dismiss a lot of research which went on before this, as well as to show a general ignorance on the history of Electronics.
It would be similar to all of us forgetting the invention of the Silicon Transistor, when Electron Transistors replace them.
For example, the first Field Effect Transistor (FET) was patented by Dr. Julius Lilienfeld of Germany in 1926. Lilienfeld had other patents, such as patent 1,900,018.
But the bottom line is that transistors were well-known long before 1948; it would be utterly silly to think that a lot of new concepts simply sprouted out of nowhere. It is far more accurate to say that Bell Labs took the old concepts and pushed the envelope, by applying them to a new area.
And it's certainly silly to say that Bell Labs invented the transistor. Please, it's the silicon transistor that they invented.
Note the date: 03.18.03:
"Apple Computer Corp. will switch to Intel processors within the next 12 to 18 mo nths."
Oops. Nope, he's wrong here; off by a few years.
"Apple will announce its Intel initiative by showing a transition machine that us es both the Intel and Motorola processors."
No, wrong again. None of this dual-core nonsense; it's all or nothing.
"Apple will announce its use of the Itanium chip,"
This is funny. Even back in 2003 it was clear that the Itanium was a dog, doomed to fail.
"Waiting until 2004 is too risky,"
Heh. Enough said.
Like someone else said, even a broken clock is right twice a day. So, just refer back to his previous predictions if Dvorak gets too smug for you.
So we have absolutely plenty of space left on Earth; the question is how well we use it. Clearly with the current problems of the world, we're not doing so efficiently.
In short, the library is at no risk financially for lost books, and gets to make money off the interest. Plus it provides a new service for those who want it.
It's a win-win situation all around.
That's why the GP is flat-out wrong; this will work, and work quite well. I'd like to see one single public library which DOESN'T need more funding.
However, Microsoft may be walking a tight line here (at least in theory) as they are a convicted Monopolist. I refer you to this quote from Nolo Press' "Patent It Yourself" (p 1/8), on how Patents can be lost:
"The patent owner engages in certain defined types of illegal conduct, that is, commits antitrust or other violations connected with the patent".
I'm not suggesting that Microsofts' patents aren't a threat to the Open Source community; nor am I suggesting that the patents be taken lightly in any way. However, I do have to wonder how much of Steve Balmer's chest-thumping about Patents is just FUD, and perhaps Microsoft isn't as strong on this point as they'd like everyone to believe.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Microsoft would try to pull whatever they can get away with. The question I would like to raise is whether they would actually be successful (or how successful they might actually be); especially given that there are now deep pockets behind Open Source?
I am not a lawyer (nor ever wish to be one ;) ). But I mention this for two reasons. First, for everyone's general awareness. And second, to solicit some input from those who are more knowledgeable in this area of the law.
Also, don't forget that, according to a Forbes article from years back (which is easily found via google), VxWorks had a 35% marketshare, while Windows had a 33% share. Look at the numbers now; VxWorks is down to 14%, and Windows is at 24%. Linux back then (2000 IIRC) had 10% or so; and now has 25%, and is growing.
My point is that Linux is growing very quickly; and there's a network effect here. Companies which were hesitant to jump on the bandwagon are now looking at being stuck with the minority technology, not the gorilla technology. And having to pay a premium for it, too.
How long do you think the very competitive phone market is going to allow that? I give it 5 years, max.
Don't be; MS is losing the embedded market. Check out this picture of the current market:p g
http://linuxdevices.com/files/article056/vdc_28.j
Linux is at 25% and growing. All of the Windows versions together give 24%, and not one of them on their own tops 10%. This is down from a total of a 33% marketshare from 5 years ago.
So Linux already is the Market Leader in the embedded space. And if it keeps growing like it has, MS will just have a fraction of the sales. Sort of like how VxWorks has gone from a 35% to a 12% marketshare over the past 5 years.
As the original AC to this, I just wanted to say that you are correct; thank you. The guy who responded impresses me as a whacko, to be honest (judging by his other posts).
Personally, I can't believe you are defending this bad idea.
Actually, no. The market will tell you different things, depending upon what you're looking at. For small businesses, yes, you are right. They usually buy COTS stuff and can't affort to write things from scratch.
As the business grows and gets more complex, then they DO start writing things from scratch. Things like custom spreadsheets and what not. They do this because they need to tune the COTS stuff to their business needs.
As the business gets even bigger, they DO start writing their own software from scratch. You do realize that most programmers don't work for software companies, don't you? I've heard that only 15% of programmers develop commercial software packages; the rest are working for companies whose main business isn't selling software.
So the point is, there is NO One True Solution for all businesses. Indeed, your IT infrastructure can be a serious competitive advantage if you do things right, or a disadvantage if you don't. Most places fall right inbetween.
Let's see some examples:
Microsoft. The OS, Webserver and IE are all classic examples.Their attacks on Open Source are in a league by themselves, including the "stifle innovation" argument of McVoys'.
Windriver. These folks bashed Linux mercilessly while their marketshare dropped from 35% in 2000 to 14% today. They threw in the towel and went with Linux last year (though VxWorks is still around, it's clearly not the priority).
GreeenHills. These folks have been bashing gcc for years, as the embedded market has moved away from speciality development tools except in certain small areas where the performance is required.
So McVoy's response is nothing new here. He must be feeling the pinch of people moving away from his software.
Now, if Slashdot would only stop giving him free publicity, we'd be all set. McVoy has already stated that everytime he's mentioned on Slashdot, his "sales go up".
Jeez, one of the first topics on mice in a long while (and a review no less), 200 comments, not one mention of this Golden Oldy. Let's lighten things up!
s .htm
Taken from: http://www.neystadt.org/john/humor/IBM-Mouse-Ball
"Memo of the Month," From The Washington Monthly, January/February 1991, page 24:
This is an actual alert to IBM Field Engineers that went out to all IBM Branch Offices. The person who wrote it was very serious. The rest of us find it rather funny.
Abstract: Mouse Balls Available as FRU (Field Replacement Unit)
Mouse balls are now available as FRU. Therefore, if a mouse fails to operate or should it perform erratically, it may need a ball replacement. Because of the delicate nature of this procedure, replacement of mouse balls should only be attempted by properly trained personnel.
Before proceeding, determine the type of mouse balls by examining the underside of the mouse. Domestic balls will be larger and harder than foreign balls. Ball removal procedures differ depending upon manufacturer of the mouse. Foreign balls can be replaced using the pop-off method. Domestic balls are replaced using the twist-off method. Mouse balls are not usually static sensitive. However, excessive handling can result in sudden discharge. Upon completion of ball replacement, the mouse may be used immediately.
It is recommended that each replacer have a pair of spare balls for maintaining optimum customer satisfaction, and that any customer missing his balls should suspect local personnel of removing these necessary items.
To re-order, specify one of the following:
P/N 33F8462 - Domestic Mouse Balls
P/N 33F8461 - Foreign Mouse Balls