Let me also add that I believe you are the only one so far to acknowledge that breast feeding DOES have issues.
So far I've been attacked for notifying the public about known, unpublicized, issues with breastfeeding and because I've been able to counter the "Forumla is strychnine!" rants with personal experience.
What a world. I thought information wanted to be free;)
I go along with everything, because it's true (though rarely publicised - hence my problem) BUT:
Your experience with breastfeeding doesn't mean that contamination of breast milk isn't a public health problem.
Aye. But at the same time, lack of knowledge and the fundamental flaws of the pursuit of breast feeding has made it more of a public health issue than it really is.
See Radon for another example of overhyped public safety issues.
Taking your example, I think I'll go and preach to the masses that sulfa shouldn't be prescribed as an antibiotic, because it causes me to break out in hives. If I'm allergic to it, then it's usefulness as a drug must be hype.
Note: My wife does not have known liver problems, and it's accepted as a non-event that jaundice can be passed to a baby through the mothers milk.
Also, I never said don't use breast milk, I merely said that you will not hear about the 'bad' things until they happen to you. Conspiracy? I have no idea.
IMHO, you're reply is typical of someone who never had a problem, and is blissfully unaware because of the lack of information from the medical community. I don't fault you for not knowing. It's the medical community's "Don't tell unless they ask" policy on the issue that ticks me off.
You got lucky with your kids not having digestive problems. If my next door neighbor had breastfed her son he probably would not have the issues he's having, but unfortunately once you discover the problems it's too late to turn back the clock.
I disagree (Yes, I've seen negative formula, and positive breast - but that's the current 'trend' - breast is best until you find out otherwise). Your neighbor got unlucky with having a kid with digestive issues. I don't know of anyone, breastfed or not, with those issues. A new ped might be in order. Again, my only kid (out of 4) to even throw up was the 1st, she had milk issues. But she was on Soy formula long before 1-1/2 yrs.
Yes, I think a new ped is in order if they haven't already determined the kid has a major medical condition with his digestive system.
No - Breastmilk doesn't naturally have ENOUGH Iron. The mother has to take supplements.
It may be that it's a good idea to take supplements, but since supplements have only been around for a short period of human existence, I think that perhaps doing things like increasing the intake of iron-rich foods (meats, seeds, nuts, beens, many fruits) is a more natural and probably better way of getting the needed nutrient.
Were I a health nut, I would tend to agree. Though it's really nothing more than nitpicking a single tidbit of my point: Breastmilk isn't the end-all-be-all that it's proclaimed to be in the first place. This "You could tarnish the purity of breastmilk" rant some people have is merely another variation of the "it's for the children!" theme.
Once you have breastmilk 'problems', you'll discover everything that's wrong with it. Not that formula is all that great either, just take a bucket of salt with you..
The iron in breastmilk is far better absorbed in the baby's system than the iron in infant formulas. So breastmilk doesn't need to have more iron.
No - Breastmilk doesn't naturally have ENOUGH Iron. The mother has to take supplements.
Yours is the first time I've heard of a breastfed baby being jaundiced for longer than the first couple weeks (I'm assuming, you didn't say). It can't be that common.
It is common, but like I said, there is a campaign to push breast milk. You don't hear about breast milk issues until you experience it.
Infant formula has its own laundry list of issues that crop up. Namely, recalls (contaminants getting into the final product) and digestive problems. Babies that have trouble digesting ANYTHING even after their first year of life, I've seen it several times with friends who formula feed but have never seen it with friends who breastfeed. I've also read that it is fairly common in formula fed babies to have the digestive problems.
Never heard of it. All my kids are/were on Isomil/Enfamil. There should be a tax deduction for that stuff. Maybe your friends use the cheapo formula.
My first had a problem with milk (my MOM has a problem with milk), so she was on Soy, but that's about it.
I have a hard time believing babies have problems digesting 'anything' even after their first year. All my kids have been on table food by 1.
-shrug- Of course, the 3 kids also go through 6 gallons of milk a week (#4 is 6 months).
I get your point, but maybe you aren't remembering how the whole nursing scene works? During the first, oh, six months of life, babies that are breastfed basically get all their nourishment from mom. They're not eating fish themselves, no. And their nervous system isn't a fully-developed adult one at that time, it's developing -- so mercury, say, can do more damage to them.
Ah.. You've been drawn into the "Mother's milk is best for the baby" campaign. It might be, and it might not be. It all depends. For example, my 4th child was breast fed, and was jaundice the whole time. Why? Because my wife's body doesn't sufficiently clean her blood. This is not uncommon. Nor is the lack or Iron in breast milk, and a laundry list of other issues that might crop up.
Granted, it's cheaper. But I chuckled at the submitted article comment, and am here to enlighten the unsexed masses;)
namely using XML as data storage when we already have gobs and gobs of systems (think SQL DBMS products) that do this in a much faster, more compact, safer, better way.
I'm with ya there buddy.. If it wasn't for a corporate buyout, my OS/2 box with REXX scripts would still be ftp'ing files (I was really hoping for 10 years - but I've been gone for 3 now).
Now they'll do it in some xxx.Net, because it's all new and cool. Whatever, at least my stuff was readable with 'edit'.
*sigh*
1. The IT staff is not supposed to pick software any more than the motor pool is supposed to decide what cars the company buys. The IT staff has a right to offer input, but not a right to make purchase decisions.
Wrong. A single car in the motor pool cannot, without gross misuse, put the entire company in limbo for an extended period of time. You are allowing those with little knowledge to put the company at great risk because of that.
2. Managers are no more likely to buy software they've never heard of than they are to hire employees without an interview. That's just common sense. Familiarity breeds acceptance. Again, you are supposing that the only factor involved in choosing software is technical merit. That's wrong.
Wrong again. You INQUIRE about software that will fit your needs. By thinking I am choosing software on technical merit (which, if you read, I did not), you are taking the opposite stance of assuming all software 'just works', and 'always fits' any given situation. Unless of course, you're talking about something as simplistic as a web browser - which I then have no idea what you're complaining about.
3. Applications don't run without an OS. Presumbably, you know this are and being deliberately sophistic. My obvious point is this: changing platforms incurs a ccan'tost, of which the purchase price of the OS is only a small part, even if the OS is priced at $0.00.
What the hell are you talking about? Are you an MBA? Of course an Application runs ON TOP of an OS. The users use the application, NOT the OS. Just like a user uses WinAmp, not a sound card.
4. No, I did not say that managers only choose software they are familiar with. I said they are more likely to do so. (You can call it stupidity or ignorance, and I will still call it bigotry on your part because you are linking use of Wndows to stupidity and ignorance.) However, I did say that, in my experience, IT managers and staffers don't know enough about the business of the company that pays them and the actual on-the-job behavior of their fellow empoloyees to be trusted to choose software. I've had IT people removed from contracts for refusing to spend as little as 8 hours observing an employee.
Keep in mind that not only do IT people need to observe employee behavior, but the employee also needs to be a beta-tester when required. This is all, of course, after IT has selected a list of applications that are well-suited to what the user needs that fit the IT philosophy.
5. Choice of software is not a technical decision. How can an IT staff possibly select software for a business if it doesn't know what the business does? IT managers are not competenmt to determine the software needed to run a business. Once purchased, employees have no ability to choose the software the use.
Answered above. But.. I'm confused as to why you'd have employees using already purchased software that they never tested.
6. I didn't mention the public domain. Nor did I mention paying an open source developer.
No - you said users were criticized by Open Source developers for wanting new features... and I agreed that you didn't mention paying those developers:)
7. If I'm not running X, why would I ask "Does this run on X?"
You mean you have NO idea where your network may be headed in the next 5 years?
If I had any sense, I'd ask: "Does this software left my employees do something they can't do now that will increase profit? If it does, can we install it, train for it, and use it at a cost that doesn't negate those profits?"
Of course those are nice general questions, but when you start asking "Can I click one button to ship a whole invoice, or do I have to do each line item manually." Then you can find out how flexible the software is.
8. I'm not complaining about my perception of what open source people should do. I don't care what they do, any more than
The people in charge make decisions. Most of them are busy running companies and are bored stiff by computers and software. You're implying that Windows is never a rational choice and its use is always the result of ignorant executives being influenced by "consultants and MBAs".
Yes. This is why the IT staff exists: To determine what software is required by the company (that does not exclude talking to users).
The OS is baggage. I'll agree that, for example, a calculator app that requires Oracle is an example of unnecessary bagge. But, then, I've seen a number of simple desktop open source apps that require Apachage, php and mysql.
I assume you meant is. Apache and MySQL should not be required, but not requiring PHP is like not requiring VRUN300.DLL. You have to be able to interpret the code. PHP is done runtime, VB is compiled, and requires a DLL. IMHO, no difference. Apache should be able to be replaced by any web server, and MySQL should be able to be replaced by any SQL Server. Fortunately, if it's open source, you have that choice whether or not the developer provided it.
No? Where do you buy them?
Resellers. You have to talk to a lot of them to determine if the application they're selling fits your business
Here's the point: A manager isn't likely to respond positively to a sotware brand if he's never heard of it. Windows is everywhere; he's heard of it; he probably uses it at home. For better or worse, that counts when trying to make a sale. (As for the "wrong" people making decisions, I suspect you mean that software types ought to be deciding what software a company uses. God forbid. In my own experience, "software types" ere even more clueless about what people really do on the job that managers. I've led several corporate-scale development efforts and the single most difficult task was always persuading the software folks to actually spend a few days on-the-job with the people they were being paid to write code for.)
Holy Shit. You mean you aren't able to deploy applications because the department manager wasn't familiar with the name? Think about that.
$0.00 is better than $100.00, but both figures pale in comparison to the cost of sending employees off to training, lost revenue due to downtime during the transition, etc.Linux might be "free", but no one trains people for free and no one compensates a company for lost revenue.
You still can't seem to seperate the OS from the Application. Corporate users don't use OS's, they use Applications.
What itch? If it's the itch of developers and geeks to have a free Unix to play with, that's fine. But recognize that it is transparently hypocritical argue that Linux is a plaything of geeks and, as well, to argue that it meets business needs better than Windows.
As an OS, it just needs to run the Application of choice
(If a user has a need for software that doesn't exist in the open source world, why should he not be insulted by a response that says "write it yourself"? )
Umm If the user OFFERS PAYMENT FOR SERVICES, then no, they shouldn't be insulted. Why do you think your application should be written for free for you to use for free? Sounds like you have an itch. Scratch it;)
An assertion, not a statement of fact. It certainly begs the questions of what defines a "good" desktop. I will assert that, beyond the "doesn't crash" threshold, technical merit is not important to users.
Exactly. The users use Applications, not the OS. Therefore an OS that doesn't crash is superior to one that does. Not much of a leap there.
>>...the problem is stupid people are locking themselves into Windows.
Another unproven, and unprovable, assertion. Like so many others, you are associating use of Windows with "stupidity". This is simple bigotry.
You are correct, I should have said ignorant, because t
Lots of sane people use Windows on servers, but little to do with the failure of Linux to make inroads on the desktop.
No, Consultants and MBA's do that. It's an example of the industry's back-asswards way of doing things. The people in the know aren't making the decisions
Don't understand your point about "baggage". I'm just asserting that it seems most Linux developers are ignorant of the needs of office workers, and don't show any interest in learning.
"Baggage" is the applications requirements. If a new application requires me to be on windows, it's 'baggage'. If it requires Oracle, it's baggage. I don't want anything that requires anything specific. That has nothing to do with that apps Open Source people are developing, but everything the commercial people are developing.
Linux is failing to make inroads on the office desktop because:
1. It's essentailly invisible to people who work in offices. When was the last time you saw a commercial for a shrinkwrapped Linux application? Or saw one sitting on a store shelf?
Who needs that? I don't buy business applications 'off the shelf'. What does that have to do with anything. Oh, the WRONG people are making decisions.
2. Linux doesn't offer any compelling reason for offices to abandon Windows as a desktop OS. If you are using a Windows app and someone tell you that Linux now has an app that is "just as good", your likely response will be "So what?"
That's true. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have no argument there. In that case there is no upgrade requiremnt.
3. The "free" aspect of Linux isn't a selling point in the office arena. Businesses typically aren't interested in RMS-inspired ideological arguments, and realize that the cost of buying software is a small part of the total cost of switching platforms.
I disagree. The platform is nothing. It's middleware. It enable an application to talk to the hardware. The user needs to be able to use the application. AFAIC, they can use OS/2 on the desktop, as long as the application they need runs on it.
Free is it. Why should I pay $100 per desktop for an application enabler?
4. The open source community evinces a strong disdain for corporate office employees and shows little understanding of their requirements.
Huh? The OS community exists to scratch an itch. The only time I see disdain is when a corporate employee says "I need this" and expects it done for them for free. (And then those same people complain there is no Open Source business model... ummm)
5. The open source community often attributes Windows' success in the office to "evil" MS business practices, "stupid" workers, and "stupid" bosses. This blinds them to the reality that they need to start learning what their customers want.
Actually, that's entirely true. There ARE better desktops (and servers), and there always have been. I was impressed the first time I ran Win2k, and saw it was as stable as OS/2 Warp from 1994. Windows Server have no value whatsoever - Well, unless you're only trained in the ways of Windows, and don't mind using newfangled technology instead of a good old batch file. I say, good luck in your disaster recovery.
So, yes, the problem is stupid people are locking themselves into Windows. Why is that my problem?
I have not locked myself into Windows, and the business applications that _I_ am looking at give me the flexibility of using whatever Server/Desktop combination that I decide is best for my company. Maybe if those corporate people weren't buying software off the shelf, and actually letting their IT staff do their jobs (After of course hiring competant ones), we wouldn't be as fucked up as we are.
Before Linux stands a real chance in the office, Linux developers need to spend a lot of time with real office workers and their employers.
It depends on the Office. Windows networks are prevalent because it's a desktop OS. There is no sane person who would create a Windows file 'server' on their own.
You also have to consider applications. Applications are chosen more on the basis of what the business requires, not the baggage they carry with them.
I've been able to successfully move some servers for clients from MS Small Business Server 2000 to Linux simply because of the reliability and "don't have to fix/patch it daily" issues.
Ahh, I'm a Netware guy - but same idea;)
Workstations have always been a problem because of the apps they use -- some don't exist on Linux. I'm investigating Citrix or Win Terminal Services for those cases.
Yeah. That's almost definitely an 'inside job'. It takes quite a long time to find comparable Linux apps, or for Wine to support an app adequately. WinTS works well for me for a few apps, but it's best used on the local LAN - printer redirection and cut/paste didn't work from Linux last I checked (using rdesktop). Citrix is a bit overpriced just to run a couple Windows apps (But does have a native Linux client).
Consider it part of the monthly maintenance. You still need to check the roof, fix plumbing issues, clean the chimney, etc.
Check yes. Actually DO Each of those monthly, no.
Hell, OS/2 ran better on our desktops than Windows, without the update nightmare.
No, it isn't right. It is, however, the way it is.
I'm working on that. ACCPAC Advantage runs on Linux, and uses DB2 and Oracle as opposed to only running on MS products. I have an MS Consultant coming in for a comparison to the ACCPAC solution who supposedly also supports ACCPAC (but it's hard to tell from the web site - and the first meeting - it was all MS talk.), who I'm sure will have things to say if the MS software (with the MS middleware requirement) doesn't have enough on ACCPAC to get us to lock into MS middleware.
I told him right off that ACCPAC has an 'Advantage' because I have both a desktop _and_ a server choice. And running Win98 on all the desktops makes us a prime target for OS upgrades.
From the first meeting, we weren't very impressed. (Considering he spent half his time trying to make us 'comfortable' with running MS middleware)
So you *THINK* that's the way it is... My job is to make it WORK. If a product requires another SPECIFIC product, that specific product needs just as much attention before a purchase is decided.
I run Mandrake 9.2 as my desktop. I think my some of my users will be doing some Linux desktop beta testing soon.
MS makes an update server freely available, and it can serve XP Pro, NT Workstation and 2000 Workstation -- the official corporate clients.
So let me get this straight. I'm supposed to install an OS on the PC so the user can run an application. THEN, I'm supposed to build another computer, to make sure that middleware software ( the OS) is constantly updated?
Why am I the only person who see's a problem with this? My job isn't to keep the part of the computer that the users _don't_ use up and running, it's to provide the users with the tools they need to do their jobs.
What happened that the middleware all of a sudden became such a problem?
It's like forcing a home builder to replace nails on a regular basis instead of building new additions or adding some nice finishing.
Well, given that MS claims that IE is an integral part of Win 98 (yeah, I know,... Gag me with a lawyer...) I think that it would be fair to argue what what you're running is no longer really Win 98,
I disagree. It's just like running Program Manager on Win3.1, or Program Manager isn't of Explorer in Win98. Just change the shell= line in your system.ini, and reboot. No big deal, MS allows for it, nothing is really replaced. IMHO, it's just like running KDR instead of GNOME.
We wouldn't bother upgrading because they will be moving to a new building with a new network and everything two years, but the fact of the matter is that you can't set up a Windows 98 network, work through all the pain and pathetic Microsoft crap and then leave it alone once it works because it never stays working for long.
Heh. Netware to the rescue. Win98 runs like a dream on Netware;).
Just don't expect a clean shutdown:P (damn mapped drives patch)
Orrrrrrrr, it could mean a *significant* fraction of the speed of light. If we're talking about radiation here, what good would a particle traveling at.5c do? Unless it's a DAMN massive particle (let's say a cow)...
WHHHOOOOOSSSSSSHHHH!!!
The sound of udders flapping.
All of a sudden, Norman thinks windshield wipers on the spaceshuttle is a pretty damn good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
So far I've been attacked for notifying the public about known, unpublicized, issues with breastfeeding and because I've been able to counter the "Forumla is strychnine!" rants with personal experience.
What a world. I thought information wanted to be free ;)
Your experience with breastfeeding doesn't mean that contamination of breast milk isn't a public health problem.
Aye. But at the same time, lack of knowledge and the fundamental flaws of the pursuit of breast feeding has made it more of a public health issue than it really is.
See Radon for another example of overhyped public safety issues.
Note: My wife does not have known liver problems, and it's accepted as a non-event that jaundice can be passed to a baby through the mothers milk.
Also, I never said don't use breast milk, I merely said that you will not hear about the 'bad' things until they happen to you. Conspiracy? I have no idea.
IMHO, you're reply is typical of someone who never had a problem, and is blissfully unaware because of the lack of information from the medical community. I don't fault you for not knowing. It's the medical community's "Don't tell unless they ask" policy on the issue that ticks me off.
I disagree (Yes, I've seen negative formula, and positive breast - but that's the current 'trend' - breast is best until you find out otherwise). Your neighbor got unlucky with having a kid with digestive issues. I don't know of anyone, breastfed or not, with those issues. A new ped might be in order. Again, my only kid (out of 4) to even throw up was the 1st, she had milk issues. But she was on Soy formula long before 1-1/2 yrs.
Yes, I think a new ped is in order if they haven't already determined the kid has a major medical condition with his digestive system.
Were I a health nut, I would tend to agree. Though it's really nothing more than nitpicking a single tidbit of my point: Breastmilk isn't the end-all-be-all that it's proclaimed to be in the first place. This "You could tarnish the purity of breastmilk" rant some people have is merely another variation of the "it's for the children!" theme.
Once you have breastmilk 'problems', you'll discover everything that's wrong with it. Not that formula is all that great either, just take a bucket of salt with you..
No - Breastmilk doesn't naturally have ENOUGH Iron. The mother has to take supplements.
Yours is the first time I've heard of a breastfed baby being jaundiced for longer than the first couple weeks (I'm assuming, you didn't say). It can't be that common.
It is common, but like I said, there is a campaign to push breast milk. You don't hear about breast milk issues until you experience it.
Infant formula has its own laundry list of issues that crop up. Namely, recalls (contaminants getting into the final product) and digestive problems. Babies that have trouble digesting ANYTHING even after their first year of life, I've seen it several times with friends who formula feed but have never seen it with friends who breastfeed. I've also read that it is fairly common in formula fed babies to have the digestive problems.
Never heard of it. All my kids are/were on Isomil/Enfamil. There should be a tax deduction for that stuff. Maybe your friends use the cheapo formula.
My first had a problem with milk (my MOM has a problem with milk), so she was on Soy, but that's about it.
I have a hard time believing babies have problems digesting 'anything' even after their first year. All my kids have been on table food by 1.
-shrug- Of course, the 3 kids also go through 6 gallons of milk a week (#4 is 6 months).
Ah.. You've been drawn into the "Mother's milk is best for the baby" campaign. It might be, and it might not be. It all depends. For example, my 4th child was breast fed, and was jaundice the whole time. Why? Because my wife's body doesn't sufficiently clean her blood. This is not uncommon. Nor is the lack or Iron in breast milk, and a laundry list of other issues that might crop up.
Granted, it's cheaper. But I chuckled at the submitted article comment, and am here to enlighten the unsexed masses ;)
I'm with ya there buddy.. If it wasn't for a corporate buyout, my OS/2 box with REXX scripts would still be ftp'ing files (I was really hoping for 10 years - but I've been gone for 3 now).
Now they'll do it in some xxx.Net, because it's all new and cool. Whatever, at least my stuff was readable with 'edit'.
The tighter you squeeze, the more users will slip through your fingers...
Wrong. A single car in the motor pool cannot, without gross misuse, put the entire company in limbo for an extended period of time. You are allowing those with little knowledge to put the company at great risk because of that.
2. Managers are no more likely to buy software they've never heard of than they are to hire employees without an interview. That's just common sense. Familiarity breeds acceptance. Again, you are supposing that the only factor involved in choosing software is technical merit. That's wrong.
Wrong again. You INQUIRE about software that will fit your needs. By thinking I am choosing software on technical merit (which, if you read, I did not), you are taking the opposite stance of assuming all software 'just works', and 'always fits' any given situation. Unless of course, you're talking about something as simplistic as a web browser - which I then have no idea what you're complaining about.
3. Applications don't run without an OS. Presumbably, you know this are and being deliberately sophistic. My obvious point is this: changing platforms incurs a ccan'tost, of which the purchase price of the OS is only a small part, even if the OS is priced at $0.00.
What the hell are you talking about? Are you an MBA? Of course an Application runs ON TOP of an OS. The users use the application, NOT the OS. Just like a user uses WinAmp, not a sound card.
4. No, I did not say that managers only choose software they are familiar with. I said they are more likely to do so. (You can call it stupidity or ignorance, and I will still call it bigotry on your part because you are linking use of Wndows to stupidity and ignorance.) However, I did say that, in my experience, IT managers and staffers don't know enough about the business of the company that pays them and the actual on-the-job behavior of their fellow empoloyees to be trusted to choose software. I've had IT people removed from contracts for refusing to spend as little as 8 hours observing an employee.
Keep in mind that not only do IT people need to observe employee behavior, but the employee also needs to be a beta-tester when required. This is all, of course, after IT has selected a list of applications that are well-suited to what the user needs that fit the IT philosophy.
5. Choice of software is not a technical decision. How can an IT staff possibly select software for a business if it doesn't know what the business does? IT managers are not competenmt to determine the software needed to run a business. Once purchased, employees have no ability to choose the software the use.
Answered above. But.. I'm confused as to why you'd have employees using already purchased software that they never tested.
6. I didn't mention the public domain. Nor did I mention paying an open source developer.
No - you said users were criticized by Open Source developers for wanting new features... and I agreed that you didn't mention paying those developers :)
7. If I'm not running X, why would I ask "Does this run on X?"
You mean you have NO idea where your network may be headed in the next 5 years?
If I had any sense, I'd ask: "Does this software left my employees do something they can't do now that will increase profit? If it does, can we install it, train for it, and use it at a cost that doesn't negate those profits?"
Of course those are nice general questions, but when you start asking "Can I click one button to ship a whole invoice, or do I have to do each line item manually." Then you can find out how flexible the software is.
8. I'm not complaining about my perception of what open source people should do. I don't care what they do, any more than
Yes. This is why the IT staff exists: To determine what software is required by the company (that does not exclude talking to users).
The OS is baggage. I'll agree that, for example, a calculator app that requires Oracle is an example of unnecessary bagge. But, then, I've seen a number of simple desktop open source apps that require Apachage, php and mysql.
I assume you meant is. Apache and MySQL should not be required, but not requiring PHP is like not requiring VRUN300.DLL. You have to be able to interpret the code. PHP is done runtime, VB is compiled, and requires a DLL. IMHO, no difference. Apache should be able to be replaced by any web server, and MySQL should be able to be replaced by any SQL Server. Fortunately, if it's open source, you have that choice whether or not the developer provided it.
No? Where do you buy them?
Resellers. You have to talk to a lot of them to determine if the application they're selling fits your business
Here's the point: A manager isn't likely to respond positively to a sotware brand if he's never heard of it. Windows is everywhere; he's heard of it; he probably uses it at home. For better or worse, that counts when trying to make a sale. (As for the "wrong" people making decisions, I suspect you mean that software types ought to be deciding what software a company uses. God forbid. In my own experience, "software types" ere even more clueless about what people really do on the job that managers. I've led several corporate-scale development efforts and the single most difficult task was always persuading the software folks to actually spend a few days on-the-job with the people they were being paid to write code for.)
Holy Shit. You mean you aren't able to deploy applications because the department manager wasn't familiar with the name? Think about that.
$0.00 is better than $100.00, but both figures pale in comparison to the cost of sending employees off to training, lost revenue due to downtime during the transition, etc.Linux might be "free", but no one trains people for free and no one compensates a company for lost revenue.
You still can't seem to seperate the OS from the Application. Corporate users don't use OS's, they use Applications.
What itch? If it's the itch of developers and geeks to have a free Unix to play with, that's fine. But recognize that it is transparently hypocritical argue that Linux is a plaything of geeks and, as well, to argue that it meets business needs better than Windows.
As an OS, it just needs to run the Application of choice
(If a user has a need for software that doesn't exist in the open source world, why should he not be insulted by a response that says "write it yourself"? )
Umm If the user OFFERS PAYMENT FOR SERVICES, then no, they shouldn't be insulted. Why do you think your application should be written for free for you to use for free? Sounds like you have an itch. Scratch it ;)
An assertion, not a statement of fact. It certainly begs the questions of what defines a "good" desktop. I will assert that, beyond the "doesn't crash" threshold, technical merit is not important to users.
Exactly. The users use Applications, not the OS. Therefore an OS that doesn't crash is superior to one that does. Not much of a leap there.
>> ...the problem is stupid people are locking themselves into Windows.
Another unproven, and unprovable, assertion. Like so many others, you are associating use of Windows with "stupidity". This is simple bigotry.
You are correct, I should have said ignorant, because t
No, Consultants and MBA's do that. It's an example of the industry's back-asswards way of doing things. The people in the know aren't making the decisions
Don't understand your point about "baggage". I'm just asserting that it seems most Linux developers are ignorant of the needs of office workers, and don't show any interest in learning.
"Baggage" is the applications requirements. If a new application requires me to be on windows, it's 'baggage'. If it requires Oracle, it's baggage. I don't want anything that requires anything specific. That has nothing to do with that apps Open Source people are developing, but everything the commercial people are developing.
Linux is failing to make inroads on the office desktop because:
1. It's essentailly invisible to people who work in offices. When was the last time you saw a commercial for a shrinkwrapped Linux application? Or saw one sitting on a store shelf?
Who needs that? I don't buy business applications 'off the shelf'. What does that have to do with anything. Oh, the WRONG people are making decisions.
2. Linux doesn't offer any compelling reason for offices to abandon Windows as a desktop OS. If you are using a Windows app and someone tell you that Linux now has an app that is "just as good", your likely response will be "So what?"
That's true. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have no argument there. In that case there is no upgrade requiremnt.
3. The "free" aspect of Linux isn't a selling point in the office arena. Businesses typically aren't interested in RMS-inspired ideological arguments, and realize that the cost of buying software is a small part of the total cost of switching platforms.
I disagree. The platform is nothing. It's middleware. It enable an application to talk to the hardware. The user needs to be able to use the application. AFAIC, they can use OS/2 on the desktop, as long as the application they need runs on it.
Free is it. Why should I pay $100 per desktop for an application enabler?
4. The open source community evinces a strong disdain for corporate office employees and shows little understanding of their requirements.
Huh? The OS community exists to scratch an itch. The only time I see disdain is when a corporate employee says "I need this" and expects it done for them for free. (And then those same people complain there is no Open Source business model... ummm)
5. The open source community often attributes Windows' success in the office to "evil" MS business practices, "stupid" workers, and "stupid" bosses. This blinds them to the reality that they need to start learning what their customers want.
Actually, that's entirely true. There ARE better desktops (and servers), and there always have been. I was impressed the first time I ran Win2k, and saw it was as stable as OS/2 Warp from 1994. Windows Server have no value whatsoever - Well, unless you're only trained in the ways of Windows, and don't mind using newfangled technology instead of a good old batch file. I say, good luck in your disaster recovery.
So, yes, the problem is stupid people are locking themselves into Windows. Why is that my problem?
I have not locked myself into Windows, and the business applications that _I_ am looking at give me the flexibility of using whatever Server/Desktop combination that I decide is best for my company. Maybe if those corporate people weren't buying software off the shelf, and actually letting their IT staff do their jobs (After of course hiring competant ones), we wouldn't be as fucked up as we are.
It depends on the Office. Windows networks are prevalent because it's a desktop OS. There is no sane person who would create a Windows file 'server' on their own.
You also have to consider applications. Applications are chosen more on the basis of what the business requires, not the baggage they carry with them.
I thought that video was...
Entertaining?
Never mind.
Good move. Might as well see Gigli.
Thanks
I've been able to successfully move some servers for clients from MS Small Business Server 2000 to Linux simply because of the reliability and "don't have to fix/patch it daily" issues.
Ahh, I'm a Netware guy - but same idea ;)
Workstations have always been a problem because of the apps they use -- some don't exist on Linux. I'm investigating Citrix or Win Terminal Services for those cases.
Yeah. That's almost definitely an 'inside job'. It takes quite a long time to find comparable Linux apps, or for Wine to support an app adequately. WinTS works well for me for a few apps, but it's best used on the local LAN - printer redirection and cut/paste didn't work from Linux last I checked (using rdesktop). Citrix is a bit overpriced just to run a couple Windows apps (But does have a native Linux client).
Check yes. Actually DO Each of those monthly, no. Hell, OS/2 ran better on our desktops than Windows, without the update nightmare.
No, it isn't right. It is, however, the way it is.
I'm working on that. ACCPAC Advantage runs on Linux, and uses DB2 and Oracle as opposed to only running on MS products. I have an MS Consultant coming in for a comparison to the ACCPAC solution who supposedly also supports ACCPAC (but it's hard to tell from the web site - and the first meeting - it was all MS talk.), who I'm sure will have things to say if the MS software (with the MS middleware requirement) doesn't have enough on ACCPAC to get us to lock into MS middleware.
I told him right off that ACCPAC has an 'Advantage' because I have both a desktop _and_ a server choice. And running Win98 on all the desktops makes us a prime target for OS upgrades.
From the first meeting, we weren't very impressed. (Considering he spent half his time trying to make us 'comfortable' with running MS middleware)
So you *THINK* that's the way it is... My job is to make it WORK. If a product requires another SPECIFIC product, that specific product needs just as much attention before a purchase is decided.
I run Mandrake 9.2 as my desktop. I think my some of my users will be doing some Linux desktop beta testing soon.
So let me get this straight. I'm supposed to install an OS on the PC so the user can run an application. THEN, I'm supposed to build another computer, to make sure that middleware software ( the OS) is constantly updated?
Why am I the only person who see's a problem with this? My job isn't to keep the part of the computer that the users _don't_ use up and running, it's to provide the users with the tools they need to do their jobs.
What happened that the middleware all of a sudden became such a problem?
It's like forcing a home builder to replace nails on a regular basis instead of building new additions or adding some nice finishing.
Only if you want to see how full of herself she really is..
I disagree. It's just like running Program Manager on Win3.1, or Program Manager isn't of Explorer in Win98. Just change the shell= line in your system.ini, and reboot. No big deal, MS allows for it, nothing is really replaced. IMHO, it's just like running KDR instead of GNOME.
There are still some people who need NNTP NTLM auth - is anyone working on that? I see:3
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22465
Anyone else care to comment?
Heh. Netware to the rescue. Win98 runs like a dream on Netware ;).
Just don't expect a clean shutdown :P (damn mapped drives patch)
I thought you were talking about running Win-98 for weeks without a reboot.
I've done that - no troll. The trick is to replace Explorer as your shell with something stable, like litestep. My personal setup is on my website.
Hmm does the body (ie, biomass) have to be living?
Seriously..
WHHHOOOOOSSSSSSHHHH!!!
The sound of udders flapping.
All of a sudden, Norman thinks windshield wipers on the spaceshuttle is a pretty damn good idea.
BAH! He's trying to get his hands on a good cab cheap! I have two Tempests cabs in my garage that I just picked up ;)
The XY monitors on the other hand are hard to find..