Well...let me make an analogy. There are people that say "I don't care where my hamburgers come from as long as they taste good." They're the people who are primarily responsible for the destruction of rain forests.
There are people who say "I don't care where my tennis shoes come from as long as they fit well." They're the people who allow shoe manufacturers to get away with child labor atrocities in the pacific rim.
I guess all I'm saying is, you are free to have an opinion, but don't be surprised when some of us adopt a very moral stance on the GPL. It's not JUST about software being Free($). It's about the freedom behind the software....and that's why the license DOES matter.
What i'm about to describe is a company that does things the wrong way. So don't argue with me that they're wrong. I know they are, and that's not why i'm writing.
I'm writing because, while Alan's analogy above makes sense (by comparing close hardware to closed software), it's inherently flawed.
Companies DO commit to closed hardware solutions. And for the same reason they commit to closed hardware solutions, I believe they'll continue (in some cases) to commit to closed software solutions. It's sad, but true. On the other hand, it's not a lost battle, and it's not an omnipotent problem. It doesn't have to be this way everywhere....but it will continue to be this way in some places.
My example: Just a few weeks ago, the call went out that we needed some new workstations. Not TONS of them, just 2. The matter was discussed and I said almost exactly what Alan said: "Buy commodity parts for the computers, and they'll last you longer. Total cost of ownership will be less. We'll all be happy." They all looked at me and said "You're right, but we want cheaper machines and we can get these barebones systems for $300." SO in the end, I lost, and we bought systems where everything was hardwired to the motherboard...which is pretty damn closed.
This attitude, namely the "It's cheaper, and we don't have to worry about it once we've bought it" really attracts companies to closed solutions. They're wrong and they will have to worry about it once they've bought it....but they still, in many places, equate "closed" to mean "finished" and/or "solid". Yuck.
This doesn't sound too far from the truth. I'll side with you. Everytime (it would seem) there is a high profile, elderly war criminal in captivity being extradited he dies of a heart attack.
My question is always did he die from being tortured or something? Or even more sinister, was he set free and told "lay low for the rest of your life." Both scenarios seem realistic to me.
While sendmail might be bloated, I think it has GOT to be the most complete, and configurable piece of software on earth. As well as being a major success story for the whole opensource revolution thing-a-ma-jig.
While I agree that this sucks, I don't think you can blame Comdex for this. 18 is a magical age in the USA (where COmdex is held I think) and there are quite simply things you cannot do until you turn 18.
Don't flame. I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to go. I"m just saying that some lawyer somewhere probably told the COmdex organizers "You're going to get sued if people under the age of 18 attend your show." And in all honesty, the lawyer might be right....ultra-conservative parents can be a nightmare.
So my question is, how do you bend the rules to allow a CTO of a company to attend who isn't 18? I submit that it's probably harder than just saying "Come on in!".
While this presents both sides of the story, I still feel like it's just a regurgitation of old worries. There is not a valid argument in this article that would suggest in any way that Linux is more susceptible than any other open source project to fragmentation.
Your idealistic argument feels good. however, it's un-realistic. If you define the success of Linux as I do: it's ability to be used in your workplace as a viable alternative to anything else out there, then the ignoarance and misunderstanding of major companies CAN move mountains. What's worse, it's MY mountain they can move. So for me, Sun it the enemy...maybe not THE enemy...but an enemy non the less.
They're not just trying to "get things their way". They could be attempting one of the following things I thin:
Win over public favor. - By saying "the governemtn is spending to much. cut government spending!" you win over the marjority of americans. Especially when it's on a subject that most of them don't see as all that useful in their daily lives (flame retardant: I said most).
MS THinks they'll win the current case, wants to prevent further action down the road by hamstringing the gov't's anti-trust dogs. - Sure. This could be the answer. If you're into the paranoia aspect of MS as a global world power trying to take over everything, then this makes the most sense. But I don't buy it.
Instead, I think they're trying to turn the attention away from their actual business practices, and on to something less dangerout to their monopoly. - By getting people to talk about the governemtn, it's spending, and why MS is giving them money, you'l divert public attention away from the case at hand, and into the realms of ethics (as in corp's giving gov't money) and maybe eventhe realm of "boy! MS has never really been a strong lobby before...wonder why they started now."
Either way, I don't think it matters much in the big picture....the anti-trust unit of the DOJ is going to be all fine and good for years to come.
Regardless of how you feel about Sun, you have to admit, they do one thing better than Microsoft: turn on a dime.
The author states "Eight months ago Linux didn't even exist as far as it was concerned. Now it's a key stepping stone in its 'network is the computer' strategy. Not bad for a slow-moving high-tech behemoth." "...and he's right. Sun reacted reasonably quickly to the Linux phenomenon and has attempted (for whatever their goal) to position themselves in a positive light. Interesting to say the least.
Maybe. But you're missing my point. There are TONS of fools out there buying software at BestBuy/CompUSA/Circuit City/etc. If the fools walk out with Debian, go home, and hate it because it's harder to install than say Red Hat, we will never see that user touching Linux again...to me, THAT is a potential problem. I know people who tried the first version of MS Word, compared it to Word Perfect, and didn't even want to HEAR about MS-Word for another 5 years. NOw, I know you'd love to tell me how bloated and piss-poor MS-Word is, but you ahve to admit, it's better than trying to use Word Perfect.
You're missing my point partially. I'm trying to say that for someone that walks into Best Buy and says "wonder what the LInux thing is all about. " and walks home with Debian, it WILL be harder to install. You obviously know what you're doing, and that puts you in the same category as me: Debian User. However, my friend dennis for example was a first time insatller about 2 months ago. He installed Debian on one box, Red Hat on the other, and never used Debian again. It is NOT as easy.
This is great for Debian! They deserve all the recognition they can get.
But can anyone but me see this as a potential problem? Right now, newbies who walk into Best Buy (for instance) can choose any Linux they want and it runs easily...Debian is, even though I love it dearly, much MUCH harder to get running to the level that a newbie expects.
Without proper packaging and some warning, it could actually damage Linux's inroads into the mainstream if all of a sudden people are getting home and trying to install Debian...
Don't think I'm trying ti diss Debian. I use it on about 3 machines right now. But just because I use it, doesn't mean everyone should...and retail purchases are going to consist largely of people just getting their feet wet with Linux. Seems risky to me.
There are 5 time zones in the US. Therefore, it is theoretically possible for it to be latenight (1am) in one part of the U.S. and be only 7pm (early evening) in another. So why are you assuming 'sonoffreak' is fromt he US? Maybe he's from somewhere else.
This is a big problem that needs more clarification. I've heard so many people say "X Crashed my system!" that it almost makes me sick. I would wager (IANAXP...err I am not an X programmer) that 90% or more of the problems people experience are really just the fault of some buggy program. FUD like this only makes it even harder for people to draw the line between XF86 as the problem causer and something else like the crap I wrote last week that always locks X when I start it.:)
I'm no longer impressed with the various companies that invest in Linux. Before you call this "flamebait" listen to why.
The Good Old Days: The first few companies to invest in Linux (IBM, Intel, etc.) did so for 2 reasons. 1) Money. They wouldn't do it if it wasn't going to make them some money. 2) Interest/Excitement. I truly believe that a year or so ago when they were giving money to RedHat, these large corporations saw something exciting in Linux. They wanted to be a part of it (for reason #1) and they thought that it might be a good way to expand their reach.
New World Order: Nowadays, companies like SCO and Sun just invest in Linux (or open source parts of their software) out of mere survival. THey're afraid that if they don't hitch themselves to the rising star that is Linux, they'll just go out of business.
I"m not saying I resent their investment,and I'm not saying it's a bad idea. But I AM saying that it's no longer impressive or newsworthy.
Slashdot Mirror
Hip Hip Hooray!
VMWare is REALLY cool. I'd suggest it to anyone who was even thinking of running an X Server on a windows box (like I used to).
There are people who say "I don't care where my tennis shoes come from as long as they fit well." They're the people who allow shoe manufacturers to get away with child labor atrocities in the pacific rim.
I guess all I'm saying is, you are free to have an opinion, but don't be surprised when some of us adopt a very moral stance on the GPL. It's not JUST about software being Free($). It's about the freedom behind the software....and that's why the license DOES matter.
I'm writing because, while Alan's analogy above makes sense (by comparing close hardware to closed software), it's inherently flawed.
Companies DO commit to closed hardware solutions. And for the same reason they commit to closed hardware solutions, I believe they'll continue (in some cases) to commit to closed software solutions. It's sad, but true. On the other hand, it's not a lost battle, and it's not an omnipotent problem. It doesn't have to be this way everywhere....but it will continue to be this way in some places.
My example: Just a few weeks ago, the call went out that we needed some new workstations. Not TONS of them, just 2. The matter was discussed and I said almost exactly what Alan said: "Buy commodity parts for the computers, and they'll last you longer. Total cost of ownership will be less. We'll all be happy." They all looked at me and said "You're right, but we want cheaper machines and we can get these barebones systems for $300." SO in the end, I lost, and we bought systems where everything was hardwired to the motherboard...which is pretty damn closed.
This attitude, namely the "It's cheaper, and we don't have to worry about it once we've bought it" really attracts companies to closed solutions. They're wrong and they will have to worry about it once they've bought it....but they still, in many places, equate "closed" to mean "finished" and/or "solid". Yuck.
My question is always did he die from being tortured or something? Or even more sinister, was he set free and told "lay low for the rest of your life." Both scenarios seem realistic to me.
SKip the paranoia. Sendmail is one of the biggies when it come to Open Source success stories. Not to mention it's staggering market share.
While sendmail might be bloated, I think it has GOT to be the most complete, and configurable piece of software on earth. As well as being a major success story for the whole opensource revolution thing-a-ma-jig.
Don't flame. I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to go. I"m just saying that some lawyer somewhere probably told the COmdex organizers "You're going to get sued if people under the age of 18 attend your show." And in all honesty, the lawyer might be right....ultra-conservative parents can be a nightmare.
So my question is, how do you bend the rules to allow a CTO of a company to attend who isn't 18? I submit that it's probably harder than just saying "Come on in!".
I already know that this will be on the 6pm news today. Make me want to read my old copy of BIll Gates' The Road Ahead.
I'm confused.
I think you're referring to persian-kitty.com....but I'm not sure.
yOu'd still have to go to the bathroom unfortunately. That's the task that can really put a crimp in my coding. :)
While this presents both sides of the story, I still feel like it's just a regurgitation of old worries. There is not a valid argument in this article that would suggest in any way that Linux is more susceptible than any other open source project to fragmentation.
Your idealistic argument feels good. however, it's un-realistic. If you define the success of Linux as I do: it's ability to be used in your workplace as a viable alternative to anything else out there, then the ignoarance and misunderstanding of major companies CAN move mountains. What's worse, it's MY mountain they can move. So for me, Sun it the enemy...maybe not THE enemy...but an enemy non the less.
- Win over public favor. - By saying "the governemtn is spending to much. cut government spending!" you win over the marjority of americans. Especially when it's on a subject that most of them don't see as all that useful in their daily lives (flame retardant: I said most).
- MS THinks they'll win the current case, wants to prevent further action down the road by hamstringing the gov't's anti-trust dogs. - Sure. This could be the answer. If you're into the paranoia aspect of MS as a global world power trying to take over everything, then this makes the most sense. But I don't buy it.
- Instead, I think they're trying to turn the attention away from their actual business practices, and on to something less dangerout to their monopoly. - By getting people to talk about the governemtn, it's spending, and why MS is giving them money, you'l divert public attention away from the case at hand, and into the realms of ethics (as in corp's giving gov't money) and maybe eventhe realm of "boy! MS has never really been a strong lobby before...wonder why they started now."
Either way, I don't think it matters much in the big picture....the anti-trust unit of the DOJ is going to be all fine and good for years to come.The author states "Eight months ago Linux didn't even exist as far as it was concerned. Now it's a key stepping stone in its 'network is the computer' strategy. Not bad for a slow-moving high-tech behemoth." "...and he's right. Sun reacted reasonably quickly to the Linux phenomenon and has attempted (for whatever their goal) to position themselves in a positive light. Interesting to say the least.
Maybe. But you're missing my point. There are TONS of fools out there buying software at BestBuy/CompUSA/Circuit City/etc. If the fools walk out with Debian, go home, and hate it because it's harder to install than say Red Hat, we will never see that user touching Linux again. ..to me, THAT is a potential problem. I know people who tried the first version of MS Word, compared it to Word Perfect, and didn't even want to HEAR about MS-Word for another 5 years. NOw, I know you'd love to tell me how bloated and piss-poor MS-Word is, but you ahve to admit, it's better than trying to use Word Perfect.
You're missing my point partially. I'm trying to say that for someone that walks into Best Buy and says "wonder what the LInux thing is all about. " and walks home with Debian, it WILL be harder to install. You obviously know what you're doing, and that puts you in the same category as me: Debian User. However, my friend dennis for example was a first time insatller about 2 months ago. He installed Debian on one box, Red Hat on the other, and never used Debian again. It is NOT as easy.
But can anyone but me see this as a potential problem? Right now, newbies who walk into Best Buy (for instance) can choose any Linux they want and it runs easily...Debian is, even though I love it dearly, much MUCH harder to get running to the level that a newbie expects.
Without proper packaging and some warning, it could actually damage Linux's inroads into the mainstream if all of a sudden people are getting home and trying to install Debian...
Don't think I'm trying ti diss Debian. I use it on about 3 machines right now. But just because I use it, doesn't mean everyone should...and retail purchases are going to consist largely of people just getting their feet wet with Linux. Seems risky to me.
speaking of your sig, they did that in Johnny Mnemonic...which was like 2 years BEFORE teh matrix.
I wasn't suprised as in "holy cow! Girls can be funny!". I was just suprised as in "hey! that's funny". DOn't be so quick to jump to conclusions.
There are 5 time zones in the US. Therefore, it is theoretically possible for it to be latenight (1am) in one part of the U.S. and be only 7pm (early evening) in another. So why are you assuming 'sonoffreak' is fromt he US? Maybe he's from somewhere else.
This is a big problem that needs more clarification. I've heard so many people say "X Crashed my system!" that it almost makes me sick. I would wager (IANAXP...err I am not an X programmer) that 90% or more of the problems people experience are really just the fault of some buggy program. FUD like this only makes it even harder for people to draw the line between XF86 as the problem causer and something else like the crap I wrote last week that always locks X when I start it. :)
There are several English phrases that translated into other languages are either profane, or just plain hilarious :)
So how can they get away with this? My guess is that it's becuase there is no competition. Maybe AMD needs to start making POwerPC clones :)
The Good Old Days: The first few companies to invest in Linux (IBM, Intel, etc.) did so for 2 reasons. 1) Money. They wouldn't do it if it wasn't going to make them some money. 2) Interest/Excitement. I truly believe that a year or so ago when they were giving money to RedHat, these large corporations saw something exciting in Linux. They wanted to be a part of it (for reason #1) and they thought that it might be a good way to expand their reach.
New World Order: Nowadays, companies like SCO and Sun just invest in Linux (or open source parts of their software) out of mere survival. THey're afraid that if they don't hitch themselves to the rising star that is Linux, they'll just go out of business.
I"m not saying I resent their investment,and I'm not saying it's a bad idea. But I AM saying that it's no longer impressive or newsworthy.