"How does an IT department reliably evaluate the big vendors to determine who's going to go the necessary distance and be a good business partner, especially for a smaller customer?"
The truth is nowadays you simply cannot take apart big names from local builders. But you know big names are more expensive (once upon a time Dell managed to ship decent equipment cheaper than a local builder could do, but that's not true anymore except for the cheapest crapware).
"there can be a longevity issue there, as well as priority. Who says he can be there tomorrow with a replacement part in hand to get you back up and running?"
The question is: who says the big name will have spare parts for you in a three year timeframe? The plain answer is that unless you buy their very latest shiny model (which brings with it all its uncertainty about how will it behave in the future) you are risking not being able to get a new motherboard in three years, even in two years -and when they have it, they'll sell it at a price-tag that you could make worth the time to even deploy a new different model. It's true the same goes with the local store but, at least, you can force it to ship with an extensive bill of materials (try to know what in heaven will really be the modem chip for your next Dell/HP/Lenovo laptop *even* if you buy the same brand and model than previous one) so you can buy the spare parts directly from the vendor, from another local store, or from an eBay auction.
"staff time is more expensive than any single technology decision, so Linux and used computers are really not the way to go"
Unless, of course, you have trained Linux people in place, I suppouse -and having them *is* a technology decision. It's your decision.
"when ordering 100 - 120 computers every 4 year cycle, paying an extra $50-$100 per computer can be worth it"
If you're decided to accept such an overprice any local store will gladly accept stocking spare parts for you (on such a renew numbers, you will be able to find local sellers that will do it anyway if you buy support contracts and extended garanty from them).
The truth is that currently for a short company (or a non-profit) big names don't offer anything really valuable except for you, the manager: they make you fell warmer (after all nobody has been fired by choosing IBM) and can make your day easier; you will have them at a phone call apart, and probably you won't be the want waiting half an hour on the on-hold music -but this comes at a money and operations cost. If you really want to do your job you will find more valuable and even cheaper deals with local shops -but, hey, then you probably will need to work harder and wiser.
"It's kind of astonishing to think that security around the President was so much less then"
[...]
"I wonder if they were just naive about security, or if perhaps it was a more genteel time in general."
"Then?" What do you mean by "then"? I thought Ronald Reagan was president *after* Lincoln, and I thought he was shouted almost within hand-range back then, hummm... about 1987.
"would I be able to effectively have a fully functioning machine in the living room, running on a small, low powered, set top box? Moreover, wouldn't it be great to be able to update the OS on all the hardware in the house in one go?"
For that very purpouse you have that little thing invented... what? twenty? twentyfive years ago? X-Window, I mean. It's already time for you to get notice of it, don't you think so?
"And do you also not agree that, outside of a directed, intentional effort to bypass through faulty software or firmware, a machine behind a NAT device is essentially protected from the outside?"
Well, I'll deny it since it's ludicrous. A system behind a (proper) NAT can truly be the target of an attack. Prove: most corporate Windows boxes are indeed beehind a NAT and still they are targeted -and gained; quite a lot home Windows systems are behind xDSL nat-ed connections and still they are "owned" by gazillions.
"There are a small-but-growing number of so-called "pundits" who like to make outrageous, offensive statements"
There has never been outage of so-called "pundits" who like to make outrageous, offensive statements.
It's only that every day that passes Cowboy Neal et al. are more shameless about moving to frontpage marketroid outrageous and nonsensical "news" to inflate their pockets through marketing income.
No matter if Ms is found to be able to go against end users, software productions or corporations, USA is quite a big country: they'll find some suited target (it has to be somehow notorious, with some cash, but not big mountains of them, etc.), so the target settles for their own good. Then Microsoft will waive the hell out of it in press so other possible targets within that level will take the FUD quite seriously so they stop developing, distributing or using open source software.
So no, they'll avoid going against IBM, Apache Foundation or Chase Bank. They'll firstly will try a marketing campaing FUD'ing mid-size companies to see what happens but ir they decide to trial they'll go against, say, ComPiere, Inc., Slackware Linux, Inc. or Military Outlet Co. and once they settle they'll push their marketing mill saying "See? Next one can be you!" -quite alike what ie. RIAA is already doing.
"The problem with bugzilla is that after 9 years it still has the same horrible interface."
Yeah, but that's the problem to whom? It seems obvious it's not a significative problem to those developing bugzilla at least or else, they probably would have expent some time/effort on that issue as they have done on whatever they've been devoloping all this time. If if it's not *their* problem, maybe it is *your* problem, isn't it? But then, what have *you* done about it? Maybe, hummm... nothing?
"There are no excuses"
I'll take your word for it.
"all it would take is a little touching up. Surely after 9 years you can expect someone to have looked at that last 10%?"
Now I know there are no excuses, what are *your* excuses not to do even a "little touching up" on a long "9 years time span" so bugzilla shows not "such a problem" to *you*? Please put your money/effort where your mounth is.
Anyway, it really doesn't matter: bugzilla has shown a very good track record about returning money to disatisfied customers. I suggest you ask them for your license money returned plus a 50% on top of it for mislead advertisement and another 10% for each day you lost on it due to their mislead advertisement.
"I suggested bugzilla to a colleague in a different organisation and they were far from satisfied. A more intuitive gui and some pleasing css works would have saved the day for bugzilla."
Was the guy to provide developer time or money to Bugzilla? Probably not.
As you already said Buzguilla can stand feature-to-feature against solutions more expensive and (probably) with their own sets of problems (like being privative, for instance). So in the end, your colleague dismissed bugzilla not on a technical background but on aesthetics thus missing the chance of using a powerful, cheap and easily tweakeable tool for the task. On the other hand, bugzilla neither won nor lost no matter if your colleague used it or not.
No sir. A more intuitive gui and some pelasing css would have saved *your colleague's day*, not bugzilla's.
"If what you say is correct, then fine, my objections are gone."
And even if he is wrong, you objections doesn't substantiate, because they are based on a false premise.
Where did you took the idea that if something is not on the official repos of a distribution you have no other options but compile or using an autopackage??? Do you thing there's anything stoping the people after Wine to build their own Ubuntu-compatible repositories so you can install their packages from Synaptic just as any other?
Surely you don't see this approach so much (while, for instance you *do* have Oracle -no less, repositories for Debian) but that's not because any limitation but for the fact that it is not sooo difficult to compile from sources (barely anything more than./configure && make && make install), so there's no pressing need and there isn't a clear target for a repo (I don't want to build half a dozen repos, but there's no single one that offers a hughe competitive advantage by itself).
"It makes no sense to saying "XYZ won't be shipped with Dell machines" when in distro-parlance to "ship" means to make available in a repository"
Ahhh, the wonders of marketing! On one hand 90% of marketing speech doesn't make any sense; this is already so buried in our brains that we even pay attention to the utter stupidities the typical TV commercial spouts. If a friend of yours suddently started to say half the stupidities you see in five minutes of TV you'd think he became crazy and you'd call a doctor. On the other hand you can see the statement was not only "wine won't be shipped on Dells" but "wine won't be shipped on Dells *AND* we love VMWare (a somehow competing product) sooo much". That's a market statement (based on Suttleworth having stocks on VMWare, or Michael Dell, or both, or a secret partnership, or whatever), not a technical one.
"The fact that you feel the need to say documentation and code are not two different things is ALSO one of the roots of all evils in IT."
But I don't "feel" the need to say it. I *see* the need, since somebody else said otherwise. Just like you don't feel the need to tell everybody that 2+2=4, since that's obvious... unless, of course, someone says it's 5.
"While comments like "a = a + 1 # increment a" are less than useless, a document that says..."
That's why I talked about documentation, not code commenting. But still, I think you too "feel" code and documentation are two distinct things. I'm even more drastical than that. Just like "a==3 ? b=4 : b=5;" is a needed sentence on any given program to by compiled by a "computer compiler" as soon as it's needed, another one saying "/* this program will do this and that in such and such manner */" is just as needed for the program to work properly; it's only this second one will be "compiled" by a "human compiler" (aka programmer) as soon as the need arise. *Both* are *equally* important for the program to be considered bug free. Why should one consider more important and respectable a compiler whining about a lost semicolon than a senior programmer pointing out that an API is not properly documented in order to be usable is something that goes beyond my understanding.
And then, a comment like/* this is an iterator */, although having a precise meaning is a bug just as "a=3 ? b=4 : b=5;" is a bug though sintactically correct.
"Documentation helps on almost every level."
It's much more than this. It is an intrinsic property of any given program just as source code is.
How can this be insigthful? TheRaven64 starts from the implicit assumption than one thing is coding and a different once is documenting. The "code" is both computer understandable sentences *and* human explanatory sentences (aka documentation). *That* is insightful.
The fact that you feel you need to say "don't only code, but document too" because you see it as two different things is the root of all evils on IT.
"Start by reading Producing Open Source Software."
What for?
"Setup Trac"
What for?
"or use Google Code Project Hosting."
What for?
*FIRST* you START thinking about a very gross app design you really want to see in existance and really want to use yourself (I'm with the one that said that having such an app and *not* having to develop I myself would be the real triumph).
Then you look on the Internet for an open project that could be developed towards your own goals.
*IMMEDIATELY* you start CODING and sending patches to such project.
You stay sometime coding on said project. With enough luck you won't need to start your own project. Starting your own project so you can say it's your own project only shows lack of selfsteem.
Only if after some time collaborating to that project (you must show to yourself you are able to code up to other's standars and that you are able to colaborate with other people on a codebase that maybe you don't completly know/understand) you find there's no real perspective for the project to achive your desired goals you think about starting your own project.
Then again you start it by a gross desing (your experience on the previous project will help you a lot here) and immediatly start *CODING*.
Only when you have some code that does "something" on proper fashion (better if it's something innovative, not another half-assed LAMP photoalbum, please) you use your usual Internet communication channels (maybe a newsgroup, maybe some tech blog you use to visit, maybe the previous project your worked on mail lists) to announce your "something". On proper time, if your "something" is of any interest, your home ADSL won't be enough to cope with people wanting to download your code.
Only *now* it's time to open a project within freshmeat, sourceforge, berlios or some other place of your preference (if you don't have a preference maybe it's time now to do some research about them. Do not lose your precious time doing it before you need it: just code).
Some time after that, if you're not bored yet (your previous participation on another's project will serve you to test your strength) and your pet project gains some other commiters, the time will come to some reads about producing/managing open projects/open communities. Again do not lose you time doing in it before you need it (and you won't need it while your project is a "solo show" or you have less than half a dozen commiters).
When/if your project gains momentum and you learn how to manage it, time will come to enterily rewrite your app (what? did you think your first model would be "the right one"? You fool). Opinions from both users and your other committers will point you towards proper toolkits/proper design/ proper functionality. Just don't forget those opinions are *very* valuable but now it is *your* project and it is *you* the one with a goal.
If you follow these steps in the proper outlined order your project maybe will be the one out of a hundred that goes beyond the "half-assed petty project" stage to become a real "something".
"The concern corporations have over licensing of open source has very much to do with licensing and support."
The concern corporations have over licensing of open source is a hill completly made out of FUD shit, full stop.
"They do not want to be compelled to release their own software"
There *own* software? Are we talking about software they themselves developed? The article was clearly about software *used* by companies, not *developed* by them. Anyway the GPL doesn't compell anyone to release or redistribute neither their own software nor software externaly aquired. So that's nothing but FUD.
"and GPL does not make clear what constitutes distribution"
So what!!!??? On one hand I think is almost perfectly clear what constitutes distribution, but in case it wasn't clear, are there not lawyers and judges? On the other, what if it really wasn't clear? In case of doubt you don't redistribute and you are safe -that's what you do with privative software, don't you? And on the other hand (yes, I'm three-handed) how in hell can anyone seriously say that's a problem "with OS software"? Are not privative licences subjected to *exactly* the same kind of problems? So how can someone say on straigth face "that's a problem on the OS camp" when *exactly* the same problem, only worse lives within privative licenses? FUD, I say.
Just exactly about the "worriness" of the excess of open software licenses. How in hell came this issue when *each and every* license for a closed software product is different to any one else? At least (quote from the very article) about 60% of all open source is license under the GPL, you see, the exactly same license: once you validate it within your company you gain access to 60% of all open source. Can you please tell me two single instances of privative software from two different companies with *exactly* the same license, like is the case with the GPL? Does have Microsoft Office the same license than Autodesk's Autocad? How can anyone say on straight face that sees a problem on managing about half a dozen "main" open source licenses and at the same time not seeing a problem managing hundreds of privative ones? FUD again, I must say.
"They send their internally-developed software to company divisions all over the world, which may or may not be sold in the future"
Try to tell me on straight face you are not FUD-ing. How in hell would made any difference what the license (either privative or open -or more than probably no specific license at all) is in this case?
"and to vendors and suppliers"
Again, can you please explain us, black on white, what's the exact danger, or are you just FUDing? Oh! and good luck trying to do the same with privative software. Does your "corporate license" of your privative-licensed ERP solution allow you to deploy it on a different division? On the new premises acquired on a merger? Are you allowed to distribute it to internal contractors? what about consultors?
"Does that constitute distribution?"
So what? What your all-in-house internal deployments license exactly is? How will you be sure there will be no more "legal holes" than in the GPL? Are you sure you aren't going to expend more attorney-money trying to validate all those single-case (and different) licenses you must prepare for those different cases? Can you really say it won't be legally easier (or at least not more complicated) to use whatever code you see fit and then -exactly as you would do otherwise, make a two-part agreement whenever you see rise the need? FUD, FUD and only FUD is what I see here.
"So, they play it safe and forbid the use of GPL code for development."
Yeah, that's the safe bet. So you haven't provided a single factical proof (Uncertainty) except general waving (Doubt) in order to create Fear. What do you think we have here? Yes, you are right: F-U-D. FUD.
"2) Who do you call for support?"
How the hell can be any relationship between what's the distribution li
"The only advantage *nix or any non-Windows OS MIGHT have is that they are so un-user-friendly that those who work with them can't do anything without first getting some training."
That is true... to some misled extent.
Unix-like systems are not user unfriendly. Quite to the contrary they come from the fact that you will be "learning computers" maybe one or two years and then using them for decades. Windows is (used to be) more ignorant-friendly at the price of being quite user unfriendly (facts are there: Windows users tend to lose their data from time to time; they have to relearn the same simple things with each release and they usually don't pass the "starting user" stage no matter how many years they use their computers). On the other hand (old style) unix-like systems seemed a bit daunting to the novice, but once you passed beyond the starting point everything fits naturally and you can construct your learning in a very progressive and effective manner. On general terms you cannot say a three years Windows user from a ten years one while you certainly can say one from the other on unix-like systems. And that doesn't mean that the three-years unix users can't do what the three year Windows user can; usually is much to the contrary and the computer effectiveness of the former is much greater than the later (while the ten year unix "expert" can do things that simply seem wizardry to their Windows counterparts).
This is true even to a much higher degree when we talk about systems administrators: a ten year Windows one is not much more than a glorified systems operator (he knows some cute tricks about the Windows version du-jour, but probably not so much about the very basis of the systems he manages) while the ten year unix one is already almost a guru. That's because how good unix systems "nake" themselves so you can learn not only how but why they work while on the windows camp it's almost like trying to be a car mechanic by always repairing models that can't open their engine hood (and this is not only or mainly because Windows is proprietary -many unices are privative too, but because its architecture and goals. I now how much did I learn on HP-Ux in the early nineties and how much of it is still current knowledge today in contrast to... Windows 3.1 and 95 -and things are not much better today: you can bet today's pyfs can learn more by a vast amount about sysadmin trade by being exposed to Linux, *BSD or any privative-source unix than to Vista and that the basic knowledge learnt by the former today will be of so much use in ten years than whatever learns the later).
The head says that fax is a problem for the poster because it costs him money, not like e-mail spam. That means to me he doesn't count his time as money.
I'll make the assumptions that his "fax costs" come from paper and ink and that he owns at least a PC (or else he wouldn't mention e-mail spam). Well, then the answer is easy: don't use paper and ink. There're aplenty of "fax in your computer" solutions so you will see the fax on your computer screen prior to print it (if there's still the need to print it).
"My copy of Zone Alarm(not the only app I use, either), has logged 1,640,000 attempts to get into my computer in the last SIX months."
How many of them came form "owned" Windows computers?
"We sure as hell do need such an industry"
Sure. That's why I managed to run my linux box for years without buying any "zone alarm" for it.
The point of the article is not that you do need Zone Alarm now, but that if Windows was focused on security (not "security out of proportion" but simply "security as circumnstances mandates" -just like your home has a pretty decent front door and a lock, no need for Fort Knox security here) you wouldn't see those millions of atack attempts (since there wouldn't be millions of "owned" PCs) and you wouldn't need to buy a third party product to protect your OS since it would be secure enough to start with, just as I don't need to buy a third party product to protect mine.
"1. Fonts, they are simply not as good as Windows."
Maybe. But just now I'm writing this on a Linux desktop while a Windows XP laptop is near left. I really can't apreciate any significative difference. Maybe I lack good taste or something, but I can say that no people that saw my Linux desktop (neither this one at home nor the one at work -basically the same) said "oh, those fonts are so ugly!"
"2. Ease of use. Nobody has sat first time users in front of a linux desktop and watch them puzzle over what those multiple desktops do, or how to switch between them."
On the table to the left (that's left from my laptop) stays my girfriend's laptop I gifted her. She's musician and graduated on History (go figure her techy abilities) and she was simply amazed when she turned on her new computer and saw the pretty login screen (while eventually I teached her how to change it, and she in fact tried some variants she returned to the "original" one since "it's so cute"). And I still remember she was just in heaven when she discovered she had "four computers in one" (four desktops) instead of just one like those poor windows users ("they'll be green with envvy" were her words more or less). Obviously she doesn't use the command line for anything and still manages quite well on her day-to-day tasks and asks my help no more (well, much *less* in fact) than she did when she used Windows on her previous computer.
"3. Basic styling problems. Needless flickery redraws of desktops. Uneven and asymetric layouts, huge icons in some places, tiny icons in others. Isometric icons"
Again, my girlfriend doesn't seem to be so much affected by this (and, by the way, what the heck is an "isometric" icon? The only thing I can imagine is a family of icons that maintain their aspect ratio disregarding scale, but this do seem to me an advantage much more than a defect), nor does my on-her-sixties mother which is so happy with her Linux box (I doubt very much she's even concious she's using Linux -she knows there exists some "gadgets" known as "computers" and barely anything else) and her ability to play some card games and talk to her daughter few thousand miles away through IM.
"4. Lack of help, I try to save, it fails, where's the link to the help that tells me..."
True enough. But if you are trying to imply that other operative systems' help is of any use -cough- Windows -cough- I'll say that in my more than a decade of professionally dealing with computers (while I never did "pure" helpdesk I've been always more or less near to end users) I *never* saw the case that the including help was of any aid to any user to solve their problems. Not a single time. Never.
"5. I am not interested in your philosophy, assemble me a bundle of software that fits my needs regardless of whether than software fits your philosophy."
Good luck using any version of a Microsoft solution and its "bundle of software" fitting your needs. Do you really have all your needs covered out of Notepad and Minesweeper?
"If there is one thing I would suggest, get Ubuntu played with by ordinary grandma"
I *already* did the experiment out to the letter (you see, my mother doubles as a grandma too). And yes, she was quite confused at the begining even pointing and clicking with the mouse (it's not such an easy task for an old woman, did you know?). On one hand I can't see how pointing-and-clicking would have been any easier on Windows; on the other she manages now to do with the computer anything she was interested at (playing some easy games, using IM, ordering her photo collections, writing an odd e-mail...) and I honestly feel that her using Windows wouldn't make her experience any easier. And please, pay attention that I'm not even living in the same city so I really can't "babysit" her on the computer but the odd weekends I visit her. Oh! and the OS isn't even one of those "easy Ubuntus": she must be a hardcore hacker, since she's using Debian "Sarge". Yeah, she must be a hardcore hacker since now I remember her computer has been free of virus and spyware all this time, not as some friends of her that doesn't happen to use the same OS.
" Once a day I go to a different office, a different section or division head, and to their staff offices and ask, "Hows the IT today? Everything working alright? You have everything you need?""
Then some PHB realizes that all you do is wandering here and there and that your wages will look much better on his anual bonus.
"There's numbers behind the differences in a RAID + DAT solution compared to a using random pc solution."
Yeah, sure there are. The problem is where are they? A company with a "random pc solution" is almost surely not making numbers out of them (they are el'cheapo after all), and even if they are, you are probably going f* as well as not. Hey, I had this rsync script and a single hughe SATA drive and we haven't had a problem in five years. Total cost of ownership? 1000US$, beat that.
Slashdot Mirror
"Don't let the facts get in the way of a clever argument"
The facts are that in 1981 a guy was able to shoot a United State's president from about two meters away. Those are the facts.
"How does an IT department reliably evaluate the big vendors to determine who's going to go the necessary distance and be a good business partner, especially for a smaller customer?"
The truth is nowadays you simply cannot take apart big names from local builders. But you know big names are more expensive (once upon a time Dell managed to ship decent equipment cheaper than a local builder could do, but that's not true anymore except for the cheapest crapware).
"there can be a longevity issue there, as well as priority. Who says he can be there tomorrow with a replacement part in hand to get you back up and running?"
The question is: who says the big name will have spare parts for you in a three year timeframe? The plain answer is that unless you buy their very latest shiny model (which brings with it all its uncertainty about how will it behave in the future) you are risking not being able to get a new motherboard in three years, even in two years -and when they have it, they'll sell it at a price-tag that you could make worth the time to even deploy a new different model. It's true the same goes with the local store but, at least, you can force it to ship with an extensive bill of materials (try to know what in heaven will really be the modem chip for your next Dell/HP/Lenovo laptop *even* if you buy the same brand and model than previous one) so you can buy the spare parts directly from the vendor, from another local store, or from an eBay auction.
"staff time is more expensive than any single technology decision, so Linux and used computers are really not the way to go"
Unless, of course, you have trained Linux people in place, I suppouse -and having them *is* a technology decision. It's your decision.
"when ordering 100 - 120 computers every 4 year cycle, paying an extra $50-$100 per computer can be worth it"
If you're decided to accept such an overprice any local store will gladly accept stocking spare parts for you (on such a renew numbers, you will be able to find local sellers that will do it anyway if you buy support contracts and extended garanty from them).
The truth is that currently for a short company (or a non-profit) big names don't offer anything really valuable except for you, the manager: they make you fell warmer (after all nobody has been fired by choosing IBM) and can make your day easier; you will have them at a phone call apart, and probably you won't be the want waiting half an hour on the on-hold music -but this comes at a money and operations cost. If you really want to do your job you will find more valuable and even cheaper deals with local shops -but, hey, then you probably will need to work harder and wiser.
"It's kind of astonishing to think that security around the President was so much less then"
[...]
"I wonder if they were just naive about security, or if perhaps it was a more genteel time in general."
"Then?" What do you mean by "then"? I thought Ronald Reagan was president *after* Lincoln, and I thought he was shouted almost within hand-range back then, hummm... about 1987.
"would I be able to effectively have a fully functioning machine in the living room, running on a small, low powered, set top box? Moreover, wouldn't it be great to be able to update the OS on all the hardware in the house in one go?"
For that very purpouse you have that little thing invented... what? twenty? twentyfive years ago? X-Window, I mean. It's already time for you to get notice of it, don't you think so?
No. It's called "cost aware".
"And do you also not agree that, outside of a directed, intentional effort to bypass through faulty software or firmware, a machine behind a NAT device is essentially protected from the outside?"
Well, I'll deny it since it's ludicrous. A system behind a (proper) NAT can truly be the target of an attack. Prove: most corporate Windows boxes are indeed beehind a NAT and still they are targeted -and gained; quite a lot home Windows systems are behind xDSL nat-ed connections and still they are "owned" by gazillions.
"I thought the BSD folks *WERE* the token elite"
Humm... that's Plan9 and Inferno.
"There are a small-but-growing number of so-called "pundits" who like to make outrageous, offensive statements"
There has never been outage of so-called "pundits" who like to make outrageous, offensive statements.
It's only that every day that passes Cowboy Neal et al. are more shameless about moving to frontpage marketroid outrageous and nonsensical "news" to inflate their pockets through marketing income.
I think you forget the obvious target is PR.
No matter if Ms is found to be able to go against end users, software productions or corporations, USA is quite a big country: they'll find some suited target (it has to be somehow notorious, with some cash, but not big mountains of them, etc.), so the target settles for their own good. Then Microsoft will waive the hell out of it in press so other possible targets within that level will take the FUD quite seriously so they stop developing, distributing or using open source software.
So no, they'll avoid going against IBM, Apache Foundation or Chase Bank. They'll firstly will try a marketing campaing FUD'ing mid-size companies to see what happens but ir they decide to trial they'll go against, say, ComPiere, Inc., Slackware Linux, Inc. or Military Outlet Co. and once they settle they'll push their marketing mill saying "See? Next one can be you!" -quite alike what ie. RIAA is already doing.
"The problem with bugzilla is that after 9 years it still has the same horrible interface."
Yeah, but that's the problem to whom? It seems obvious it's not a significative problem to those developing bugzilla at least or else, they probably would have expent some time/effort on that issue as they have done on whatever they've been devoloping all this time. If if it's not *their* problem, maybe it is *your* problem, isn't it? But then, what have *you* done about it? Maybe, hummm... nothing?
"There are no excuses"
I'll take your word for it.
"all it would take is a little touching up. Surely after 9 years you can expect someone to have looked at that last 10%?"
Now I know there are no excuses, what are *your* excuses not to do even a "little touching up" on a long "9 years time span" so bugzilla shows not "such a problem" to *you*? Please put your money/effort where your mounth is.
Anyway, it really doesn't matter: bugzilla has shown a very good track record about returning money to disatisfied customers. I suggest you ask them for your license money returned plus a 50% on top of it for mislead advertisement and another 10% for each day you lost on it due to their mislead advertisement.
"I suggested bugzilla to a colleague in a different organisation and they were far from satisfied. A more intuitive gui and some pleasing css works would have saved the day for bugzilla."
Was the guy to provide developer time or money to Bugzilla? Probably not.
As you already said Buzguilla can stand feature-to-feature against solutions more expensive and (probably) with their own sets of problems (like being privative, for instance). So in the end, your colleague dismissed bugzilla not on a technical background but on aesthetics thus missing the chance of using a powerful, cheap and easily tweakeable tool for the task. On the other hand, bugzilla neither won nor lost no matter if your colleague used it or not.
No sir. A more intuitive gui and some pelasing css would have saved *your colleague's day*, not bugzilla's.
"If what you say is correct, then fine, my objections are gone."
./configure && make && make install), so there's no pressing need and there isn't a clear target for a repo (I don't want to build half a dozen repos, but there's no single one that offers a hughe competitive advantage by itself).
And even if he is wrong, you objections doesn't substantiate, because they are based on a false premise.
Where did you took the idea that if something is not on the official repos of a distribution you have no other options but compile or using an autopackage??? Do you thing there's anything stoping the people after Wine to build their own Ubuntu-compatible repositories so you can install their packages from Synaptic just as any other?
Surely you don't see this approach so much (while, for instance you *do* have Oracle -no less, repositories for Debian) but that's not because any limitation but for the fact that it is not sooo difficult to compile from sources (barely anything more than
"It makes no sense to saying "XYZ won't be shipped with Dell machines" when in distro-parlance to "ship" means to make available in a repository"
Ahhh, the wonders of marketing! On one hand 90% of marketing speech doesn't make any sense; this is already so buried in our brains that we even pay attention to the utter stupidities the typical TV commercial spouts. If a friend of yours suddently started to say half the stupidities you see in five minutes of TV you'd think he became crazy and you'd call a doctor. On the other hand you can see the statement was not only "wine won't be shipped on Dells" but "wine won't be shipped on Dells *AND* we love VMWare (a somehow competing product) sooo much". That's a market statement (based on Suttleworth having stocks on VMWare, or Michael Dell, or both, or a secret partnership, or whatever), not a technical one.
"The fact that you feel the need to say documentation and code are not two different things is ALSO one of the roots of all evils in IT."
/* this is an iterator */, although having a precise meaning is a bug just as "a=3 ? b=4 : b=5;" is a bug though sintactically correct.
But I don't "feel" the need to say it. I *see* the need, since somebody else said otherwise. Just like you don't feel the need to tell everybody that 2+2=4, since that's obvious... unless, of course, someone says it's 5.
"While comments like "a = a + 1 # increment a" are less than useless, a document that says..."
That's why I talked about documentation, not code commenting. But still, I think you too "feel" code and documentation are two distinct things. I'm even more drastical than that. Just like "a==3 ? b=4 : b=5;" is a needed sentence on any given program to by compiled by a "computer compiler" as soon as it's needed, another one saying "/* this program will do this and that in such and such manner */" is just as needed for the program to work properly; it's only this second one will be "compiled" by a "human compiler" (aka programmer) as soon as the need arise. *Both* are *equally* important for the program to be considered bug free. Why should one consider more important and respectable a compiler whining about a lost semicolon than a senior programmer pointing out that an API is not properly documented in order to be usable is something that goes beyond my understanding.
And then, a comment like
"Documentation helps on almost every level."
It's much more than this. It is an intrinsic property of any given program just as source code is.
"Document as well"
How can this be insigthful? TheRaven64 starts from the implicit assumption than one thing is coding and a different once is documenting. The "code" is both computer understandable sentences *and* human explanatory sentences (aka documentation). *That* is insightful.
The fact that you feel you need to say "don't only code, but document too" because you see it as two different things is the root of all evils on IT.
"Start by reading Producing Open Source Software."
What for?
"Setup Trac"
What for?
"or use Google Code Project Hosting."
What for?
*FIRST* you START thinking about a very gross app design you really want to see in existance and really want to use yourself (I'm with the one that said that having such an app and *not* having to develop I myself would be the real triumph).
Then you look on the Internet for an open project that could be developed towards your own goals.
*IMMEDIATELY* you start CODING and sending patches to such project.
You stay sometime coding on said project. With enough luck you won't need to start your own project. Starting your own project so you can say it's your own project only shows lack of selfsteem.
Only if after some time collaborating to that project (you must show to yourself you are able to code up to other's standars and that you are able to colaborate with other people on a codebase that maybe you don't completly know/understand) you find there's no real perspective for the project to achive your desired goals you think about starting your own project.
Then again you start it by a gross desing (your experience on the previous project will help you a lot here) and immediatly start *CODING*.
Only when you have some code that does "something" on proper fashion (better if it's something innovative, not another half-assed LAMP photoalbum, please) you use your usual Internet communication channels (maybe a newsgroup, maybe some tech blog you use to visit, maybe the previous project your worked on mail lists) to announce your "something". On proper time, if your "something" is of any interest, your home ADSL won't be enough to cope with people wanting to download your code.
Only *now* it's time to open a project within freshmeat, sourceforge, berlios or some other place of your preference (if you don't have a preference maybe it's time now to do some research about them. Do not lose your precious time doing it before you need it: just code).
Some time after that, if you're not bored yet (your previous participation on another's project will serve you to test your strength) and your pet project gains some other commiters, the time will come to some reads about producing/managing open projects/open communities. Again do not lose you time doing in it before you need it (and you won't need it while your project is a "solo show" or you have less than half a dozen commiters).
When/if your project gains momentum and you learn how to manage it, time will come to enterily rewrite your app (what? did you think your first model would be "the right one"? You fool). Opinions from both users and your other committers will point you towards proper toolkits/proper design/ proper functionality. Just don't forget those opinions are *very* valuable but now it is *your* project and it is *you* the one with a goal.
If you follow these steps in the proper outlined order your project maybe will be the one out of a hundred that goes beyond the "half-assed petty project" stage to become a real "something".
I really desire you bests of lucks.
"How about the "Open Source Pontification and Debate". "Lab."?"
I think that, given is Slahsdot "Open Surveillance Tank Global" would be somehow better.
"The concern corporations have over licensing of open source has very much to do with licensing and support."
The concern corporations have over licensing of open source is a hill completly made out of FUD shit, full stop.
"They do not want to be compelled to release their own software"
There *own* software? Are we talking about software they themselves developed? The article was clearly about software *used* by companies, not *developed* by them. Anyway the GPL doesn't compell anyone to release or redistribute neither their own software nor software externaly aquired. So that's nothing but FUD.
"and GPL does not make clear what constitutes distribution"
So what!!!??? On one hand I think is almost perfectly clear what constitutes distribution, but in case it wasn't clear, are there not lawyers and judges? On the other, what if it really wasn't clear? In case of doubt you don't redistribute and you are safe -that's what you do with privative software, don't you? And on the other hand (yes, I'm three-handed) how in hell can anyone seriously say that's a problem "with OS software"? Are not privative licences subjected to *exactly* the same kind of problems? So how can someone say on straigth face "that's a problem on the OS camp" when *exactly* the same problem, only worse lives within privative licenses? FUD, I say.
Just exactly about the "worriness" of the excess of open software licenses. How in hell came this issue when *each and every* license for a closed software product is different to any one else? At least (quote from the very article) about 60% of all open source is license under the GPL, you see, the exactly same license: once you validate it within your company you gain access to 60% of all open source. Can you please tell me two single instances of privative software from two different companies with *exactly* the same license, like is the case with the GPL? Does have Microsoft Office the same license than Autodesk's Autocad? How can anyone say on straight face that sees a problem on managing about half a dozen "main" open source licenses and at the same time not seeing a problem managing hundreds of privative ones? FUD again, I must say.
"They send their internally-developed software to company divisions all over the world, which may or may not be sold in the future"
Try to tell me on straight face you are not FUD-ing. How in hell would made any difference what the license (either privative or open -or more than probably no specific license at all) is in this case?
"and to vendors and suppliers"
Again, can you please explain us, black on white, what's the exact danger, or are you just FUDing? Oh! and good luck trying to do the same with privative software. Does your "corporate license" of your privative-licensed ERP solution allow you to deploy it on a different division? On the new premises acquired on a merger? Are you allowed to distribute it to internal contractors? what about consultors?
"Does that constitute distribution?"
So what? What your all-in-house internal deployments license exactly is? How will you be sure there will be no more "legal holes" than in the GPL? Are you sure you aren't going to expend more attorney-money trying to validate all those single-case (and different) licenses you must prepare for those different cases? Can you really say it won't be legally easier (or at least not more complicated) to use whatever code you see fit and then -exactly as you would do otherwise, make a two-part agreement whenever you see rise the need? FUD, FUD and only FUD is what I see here.
"So, they play it safe and forbid the use of GPL code for development."
Yeah, that's the safe bet. So you haven't provided a single factical proof (Uncertainty) except general waving (Doubt) in order to create Fear. What do you think we have here? Yes, you are right: F-U-D. FUD.
"2) Who do you call for support?"
How the hell can be any relationship between what's the distribution li
"The only advantage *nix or any non-Windows OS MIGHT have is that they are so un-user-friendly that those who work with them can't do anything without first getting some training."
That is true... to some misled extent.
Unix-like systems are not user unfriendly. Quite to the contrary they come from the fact that you will be "learning computers" maybe one or two years and then using them for decades. Windows is (used to be) more ignorant-friendly at the price of being quite user unfriendly (facts are there: Windows users tend to lose their data from time to time; they have to relearn the same simple things with each release and they usually don't pass the "starting user" stage no matter how many years they use their computers). On the other hand (old style) unix-like systems seemed a bit daunting to the novice, but once you passed beyond the starting point everything fits naturally and you can construct your learning in a very progressive and effective manner. On general terms you cannot say a three years Windows user from a ten years one while you certainly can say one from the other on unix-like systems. And that doesn't mean that the three-years unix users can't do what the three year Windows user can; usually is much to the contrary and the computer effectiveness of the former is much greater than the later (while the ten year unix "expert" can do things that simply seem wizardry to their Windows counterparts).
This is true even to a much higher degree when we talk about systems administrators: a ten year Windows one is not much more than a glorified systems operator (he knows some cute tricks about the Windows version du-jour, but probably not so much about the very basis of the systems he manages) while the ten year unix one is already almost a guru. That's because how good unix systems "nake" themselves so you can learn not only how but why they work while on the windows camp it's almost like trying to be a car mechanic by always repairing models that can't open their engine hood (and this is not only or mainly because Windows is proprietary -many unices are privative too, but because its architecture and goals. I now how much did I learn on HP-Ux in the early nineties and how much of it is still current knowledge today in contrast to... Windows 3.1 and 95 -and things are not much better today: you can bet today's pyfs can learn more by a vast amount about sysadmin trade by being exposed to Linux, *BSD or any privative-source unix than to Vista and that the basic knowledge learnt by the former today will be of so much use in ten years than whatever learns the later).
"And get rid of your fax machine!"
That's the right answer after all.
The head says that fax is a problem for the poster because it costs him money, not like e-mail spam. That means to me he doesn't count his time as money.
I'll make the assumptions that his "fax costs" come from paper and ink and that he owns at least a PC (or else he wouldn't mention e-mail spam). Well, then the answer is easy: don't use paper and ink. There're aplenty of "fax in your computer" solutions so you will see the fax on your computer screen prior to print it (if there's still the need to print it).
"The sad truth is that it DOES all exist."
The sad truth is you didn't understand a word.
"My copy of Zone Alarm(not the only app I use, either), has logged 1,640,000 attempts to get into my computer in the last SIX months."
How many of them came form "owned" Windows computers?
"We sure as hell do need such an industry"
Sure. That's why I managed to run my linux box for years without buying any "zone alarm" for it.
The point of the article is not that you do need Zone Alarm now, but that if Windows was focused on security (not "security out of proportion" but simply "security as circumnstances mandates" -just like your home has a pretty decent front door and a lock, no need for Fort Knox security here) you wouldn't see those millions of atack attempts (since there wouldn't be millions of "owned" PCs) and you wouldn't need to buy a third party product to protect your OS since it would be secure enough to start with, just as I don't need to buy a third party product to protect mine.
"1. Fonts, they are simply not as good as Windows."
Maybe. But just now I'm writing this on a Linux desktop while a Windows XP laptop is near left. I really can't apreciate any significative difference. Maybe I lack good taste or something, but I can say that no people that saw my Linux desktop (neither this one at home nor the one at work -basically the same) said "oh, those fonts are so ugly!"
"2. Ease of use. Nobody has sat first time users in front of a linux desktop and watch them puzzle over what those multiple desktops do, or how to switch between them."
On the table to the left (that's left from my laptop) stays my girfriend's laptop I gifted her. She's musician and graduated on History (go figure her techy abilities) and she was simply amazed when she turned on her new computer and saw the pretty login screen (while eventually I teached her how to change it, and she in fact tried some variants she returned to the "original" one since "it's so cute"). And I still remember she was just in heaven when she discovered she had "four computers in one" (four desktops) instead of just one like those poor windows users ("they'll be green with envvy" were her words more or less). Obviously she doesn't use the command line for anything and still manages quite well on her day-to-day tasks and asks my help no more (well, much *less* in fact) than she did when she used Windows on her previous computer.
"3. Basic styling problems. Needless flickery redraws of desktops. Uneven and asymetric layouts, huge icons in some places, tiny icons in others. Isometric icons"
Again, my girlfriend doesn't seem to be so much affected by this (and, by the way, what the heck is an "isometric" icon? The only thing I can imagine is a family of icons that maintain their aspect ratio disregarding scale, but this do seem to me an advantage much more than a defect), nor does my on-her-sixties mother which is so happy with her Linux box (I doubt very much she's even concious she's using Linux -she knows there exists some "gadgets" known as "computers" and barely anything else) and her ability to play some card games and talk to her daughter few thousand miles away through IM.
"4. Lack of help, I try to save, it fails, where's the link to the help that tells me..."
True enough. But if you are trying to imply that other operative systems' help is of any use -cough- Windows -cough- I'll say that in my more than a decade of professionally dealing with computers (while I never did "pure" helpdesk I've been always more or less near to end users) I *never* saw the case that the including help was of any aid to any user to solve their problems. Not a single time. Never.
"5. I am not interested in your philosophy, assemble me a bundle of software that fits my needs regardless of whether than software fits your philosophy."
Good luck using any version of a Microsoft solution and its "bundle of software" fitting your needs. Do you really have all your needs covered out of Notepad and Minesweeper?
"If there is one thing I would suggest, get Ubuntu played with by ordinary grandma"
I *already* did the experiment out to the letter (you see, my mother doubles as a grandma too). And yes, she was quite confused at the begining even pointing and clicking with the mouse (it's not such an easy task for an old woman, did you know?). On one hand I can't see how pointing-and-clicking would have been any easier on Windows; on the other she manages now to do with the computer anything she was interested at (playing some easy games, using IM, ordering her photo collections, writing an odd e-mail...) and I honestly feel that her using Windows wouldn't make her experience any easier. And please, pay attention that I'm not even living in the same city so I really can't "babysit" her on the computer but the odd weekends I visit her. Oh! and the OS isn't even one of those "easy Ubuntus": she must be a hardcore hacker, since she's using Debian "Sarge". Yeah, she must be a hardcore hacker since now I remember her computer has been free of virus and spyware all this time, not as some friends of her that doesn't happen to use the same OS.
"Sorry. I patented vomit last year."
DON'T be so nasty, please...
I hope you tried no to be too dirty by properly casting you vomit:
void vomit()
"But c++ is still c !"
I know you tried a joke here but, no sir, c++ is c no more.
On the other hand, ++c was not c even at the moment you told it.
Wait a moment... how does c# compare to c++ (or even to ++c)?
I think I got it...
++c ? c++ : c#;
" Once a day I go to a different office, a different section or division head, and to their staff offices and ask, "Hows the IT today? Everything working alright? You have everything you need?""
Then some PHB realizes that all you do is wandering here and there and that your wages will look much better on his anual bonus.
"There's numbers behind the differences in a RAID + DAT solution compared to a using random pc solution."
Yeah, sure there are. The problem is where are they? A company with a "random pc solution" is almost surely not making numbers out of them (they are el'cheapo after all), and even if they are, you are probably going f* as well as not. Hey, I had this rsync script and a single hughe SATA drive and we haven't had a problem in five years. Total cost of ownership? 1000US$, beat that.