(Granted, Windows can be run in the same way, but since it breaks so many things, it's rarely done unless programatically enforced by an IT department.)
I must respectfully disagree with you. Every IT department I've worked with has done just that. Good security practices are the best defense against malicious software, regardless of the OS in use. This includes restricting user access by policy and good application portfolio management tools and practices.
Maybe you're right about the eventual collapse of the system, I couldn't say. The principle behind shareholder control is fairly fundamental to being human, I think. If someone gives you a lot of money to do something, you give up absolute control over how you choose to do that something. That's human nature and I don't see any newfangled thing on the horizon that threatens to change it.
There's a lot at stake here for a lot of people; Google has collected a huge pile of investor money, and they should expect to be scrutinized, speculated about and puzzled over endlessly.
I wonder how much longer they'll be able to get away with their "black box" style of product development before investors get nervous about it and run away? This article is a symptom of that nervousness, and represents a great example of the media doing it's job to raise questions.
Exactly. How much worse can Sarge's anger be than an exploding mortar shell? Trust is an essential part of the equation (that the mission requires this potentially fatal act on Jones's part) and fairness (that everyone in the unit will share the risk of death equally.) That's not manipulation, and that, poorly worded as it was, was my point as well.
When Jones attacks that machine gun nest, it's probably not because he's afraid of Sarge's ire, it's more likely that it's because a) he know's it's his turn, and b) that it's utterly necessary for the survival of the unit or the accomplishment of the mission.
Mod 4, insightful? Puh-leeze. These are NOT the choices I as a business person face.
1. Vendor lock-in is a red herring, IHMO. Business is about delivering value for value. If I'm receiving value from a solution, why would I change, and more importantly, why would I dump a vendor who consistently delivers the goods? The economics of migration just suck, regardless of whether I'm moving from or to OSS.
2. Customization is absolutely the very LAST thing I want to do with the software that runs my business. Doesn't mean I don't do it, it means that I don't want to. If I can get along with off-the-shelf features, I will. The use of most software in my business can be considered a negative differentiator. Email is a great example. I'm dead if I don't use it, but my competition has pretty much the same thing. The opportunity cost of funds spent on customization is much too high. And how do I monetize the risk? Yikes. The best risk/reward scenario (for me) is to procure solid off the shelf stuff from reliable vendors who have been and will be around for a very long time. To do otherwise is irresponsible to my business and my employees.
No, I do NOT have to migrate sometime. To migrate means to disrupt. Ideally I will run this software till I am very, very old, at which point we will all be on quantum computers anyway and vendor lock-in is a moot point.
Thanks for your response, you make good points regarding the OSS business model, and your reasonable approach is a breath of fresh air. I refer specifically to the broader notion prevalent in this community that proprietary producers of software (or books, or movies) are somehow less noble than those who would chose to build a business with F/OSS.
My post attempted (perhaps ineffectively) to use irony to make the point that we've somehow come to understand that to consult is divine, and to produce foundation code is worthless in the marketplace since, economically speaking, that which is free is worthless.
Sounded a lot better when it was phrased as a troll.:)
Let's see, produce 50+ distros of a command line-based OS, all with different support levels, klunkly (and ugly) user interfaces and package installation mechanisms, and couple that with an innovative marketing campaign consisting of whiny, sniveling teenagers screaming "M$ SUX", and my GOD, you just HAVE to conclude that Microsoft's Monopoly STILL HOLDS!
First, the need for corporations as entities of commerce is real, since it is undersirable for the company to die when the owner dies. Corporations create continuity, jobs and shareholder wealth, all very good things to have. As has been stated before, individuals commit crimes and individuals should be held responsible for them.
The all too common practice of anthropomorphizing corporations (Microsoft as the Evil Empire, Apple as the Source for All Good Things, etc. etc.) is silly and unuseful at best, and destructive at worst. Silly, because corporations employ perhaps thousands of individuals who cannot be characterized by any one trait, and harmful, because thousands (and perhaps millions) are damaged economically when broad-brush penalties are applied to corporate entities.
Finally, the fact that Westerners are employed in China, free (after a fashion) to live and work normally is a breathtaking change from twenty-five years ago, and amply demonstrates the value of allowing corporations the ability to participate in China's economy. Does anyone believe that the China of twenty-five years hence will look anything like the China we see today? If we ban corporate participation in China, it's a good bet that we will indeed see little move toward personal freedom.
Because it's not always obvious to the compiler that it would be more efficient to do so. Structs are value types allocated on the stack. Fast and lean and no GC pressure gives them a valued place in the toolbox..NET qualifies as a gen-yoo-wine innovation in my book, and judging by all the open source.net-based activity on source forge, I'm not the only one who thinks so.
You people are too much. You are every bit as smug as you accuse Microsoft of being. You're so sure of your own invincibility, so certain that whatever technological shift that makes Microsoft irrelevant will somehow magically leave Linux alone. The truth is, there isn't any real conceptual difference between Windows and Linux. In fact it's much more likely that Microsoft Watch and Microsoft Shoe and Microsoft Leg Warmer and Microsoft Hairbrush will all be busily beaming status packets into your wireless jaw-bone receivers while you wait in the unemployment line, reminiscing about the days when you could make a living with Linux. Oh, that's right, you work for free. Nevermind.
Slashdot Mirror
(Granted, Windows can be run in the same way, but since it breaks so many things, it's rarely done unless programatically enforced by an IT department.)
I must respectfully disagree with you. Every IT department I've worked with has done just that. Good security practices are the best defense against malicious software, regardless of the OS in use. This includes restricting user access by policy and good application portfolio management tools and practices.
Maybe you're right about the eventual collapse of the system, I couldn't say. The principle behind shareholder control is fairly fundamental to being human, I think. If someone gives you a lot of money to do something, you give up absolute control over how you choose to do that something. That's human nature and I don't see any newfangled thing on the horizon that threatens to change it.
There's a lot at stake here for a lot of people; Google has collected a huge pile of investor money, and they should expect to be scrutinized, speculated about and puzzled over endlessly.
I wonder how much longer they'll be able to get away with their "black box" style of product development before investors get nervous about it and run away? This article is a symptom of that nervousness, and represents a great example of the media doing it's job to raise questions.
Maybe so, but the odds are better than with atheism.
Exactly. How much worse can Sarge's anger be than an exploding mortar shell? Trust is an essential part of the equation (that the mission requires this potentially fatal act on Jones's part) and fairness (that everyone in the unit will share the risk of death equally.) That's not manipulation, and that, poorly worded as it was, was my point as well.
When Jones attacks that machine gun nest, it's probably not because he's afraid of Sarge's ire, it's more likely that it's because a) he know's it's his turn, and b) that it's utterly necessary for the survival of the unit or the accomplishment of the mission.
Because money doesn't grow on trees?
Mod 4, insightful? Puh-leeze. These are NOT the choices I as a business person face.
1. Vendor lock-in is a red herring, IHMO. Business is about delivering value for value. If I'm receiving value from a solution, why would I change, and more importantly, why would I dump a vendor who consistently delivers the goods? The economics of migration just suck, regardless of whether I'm moving from or to OSS.
2. Customization is absolutely the very LAST thing I want to do with the software that runs my business. Doesn't mean I don't do it, it means that I don't want to. If I can get along with off-the-shelf features, I will. The use of most software in my business can be considered a negative differentiator. Email is a great example. I'm dead if I don't use it, but my competition has pretty much the same thing. The opportunity cost of funds spent on customization is much too high. And how do I monetize the risk? Yikes. The best risk/reward scenario (for me) is to procure solid off the shelf stuff from reliable vendors who have been and will be around for a very long time. To do otherwise is irresponsible to my business and my employees.
No, I do NOT have to migrate sometime. To migrate means to disrupt. Ideally I will run this software till I am very, very old, at which point we will all be on quantum computers anyway and vendor lock-in is a moot point.
Thanks.
Thanks for your response, you make good points regarding the OSS business model, and your reasonable approach is a breath of fresh air. I refer specifically to the broader notion prevalent in this community that proprietary producers of software (or books, or movies) are somehow less noble than those who would chose to build a business with F/OSS.
My post attempted (perhaps ineffectively) to use irony to make the point that we've somehow come to understand that to consult is divine, and to produce foundation code is worthless in the marketplace since, economically speaking, that which is free is worthless.
Sounded a lot better when it was phrased as a troll. :)
Chapter 1: Any Company Can Profit from OSS (Except software companies, which would be Evil)
There was a pretty big difference between target hardware platforms, to be fair.
Let's see, produce 50+ distros of a command line-based OS, all with different support levels, klunkly (and ugly) user interfaces and package installation mechanisms, and couple that with an innovative marketing campaign consisting of whiny, sniveling teenagers screaming "M$ SUX", and my GOD, you just HAVE to conclude that Microsoft's Monopoly STILL HOLDS!
First, the need for corporations as entities of commerce is real, since it is undersirable for the company to die when the owner dies. Corporations create continuity, jobs and shareholder wealth, all very good things to have. As has been stated before, individuals commit crimes and individuals should be held responsible for them. The all too common practice of anthropomorphizing corporations (Microsoft as the Evil Empire, Apple as the Source for All Good Things, etc. etc.) is silly and unuseful at best, and destructive at worst. Silly, because corporations employ perhaps thousands of individuals who cannot be characterized by any one trait, and harmful, because thousands (and perhaps millions) are damaged economically when broad-brush penalties are applied to corporate entities. Finally, the fact that Westerners are employed in China, free (after a fashion) to live and work normally is a breathtaking change from twenty-five years ago, and amply demonstrates the value of allowing corporations the ability to participate in China's economy. Does anyone believe that the China of twenty-five years hence will look anything like the China we see today? If we ban corporate participation in China, it's a good bet that we will indeed see little move toward personal freedom.
Because it's not always obvious to the compiler that it would be more efficient to do so. Structs are value types allocated on the stack. Fast and lean and no GC pressure gives them a valued place in the toolbox. .NET qualifies as a gen-yoo-wine innovation in my book, and judging by all the open source .net-based activity on source forge, I'm not the only one who thinks so.
You people are too much. You are every bit as smug as you accuse Microsoft of being. You're so sure of your own invincibility, so certain that whatever technological shift that makes Microsoft irrelevant will somehow magically leave Linux alone. The truth is, there isn't any real conceptual difference between Windows and Linux. In fact it's much more likely that Microsoft Watch and Microsoft Shoe and Microsoft Leg Warmer and Microsoft Hairbrush will all be busily beaming status packets into your wireless jaw-bone receivers while you wait in the unemployment line, reminiscing about the days when you could make a living with Linux. Oh, that's right, you work for free. Nevermind.