I do not believe that one could say in truth that the moderators should disqualify statements simply because it is controversial, or of a content not dealing with computers. I don't think you could claim that it is offensive, though you could easily say "I dont like guns". Nor is it off topic as it refers directly to the article. Besides, who says guns are not for geeks? I would how ever suggest that this thread (yes I know I am party to it) is progressively slipping off topic.
I cannot pretend understanding all the technology so I wont. But I still have an opinion from an historical point of view. Just before Mr. Cray died a university in alaska procured some funding for a Cray. After the funding was given they decided that an alternative super computer would be more appropriate (Japanese I believe ( I apologize for the lack of information)). At the point of learning this I was indignant. For I believe that it is a matter of heritage and technical ground breaking on the information frontier. It may be just a bit of national pride but damnit they were the first. I personally felt a loss the day that he died even though I literally had no ties to Cray. I assumed that day the comapany would die. If they can find a way to be that pioneer that Mr. Cray once was I am very happy for for them and every one, as we will all benefit. That is, if they truly are pioneering and not just giving their last dyeing gasp.
Here are the possibilities that I see.. 1) This is a sort of play that will allow them to embrace and extend?
Linux have to become MSU-extension compliant? 2) It may be a way of gathering some people who know the industry and the code for whatever reasons they might have (to many to list). 3) Then again, it may be just what the PR guys say, to allow (paraphrase enable) 'all you poor unix guys a chance to catch up.' (paraphrase cancel) 4) anti-antiFUD (who says we are anti-compatable?) 5) Lastly, they have nothing to lose and all the above to gain. A win win situation. But there is another side to this. Who says the whole limited compatabilty thing has to be a streanth for them?
I believe it is a matter of perspective. I for one would find it much easier to tell a customer that I am going to put a *nix box on thier network if I could tell them that win2000(nt) was built to take it.
Lastly I would welcome a real terminal program other than the one they have isued in the past. Man that thing drives me nuts.
As a contractor I have dealt with a few companies of not small size.
A vast amount of users use windows at home or in their past jobs. They almost invariably believe that they would prefer to be using Windows. One major reason is becouse they feel that they can 'control' windows. With its fonts and screen colors. Whereas Unix is 'unfreindly'.(We all know this should be falshood if the admin is worth his salt)
Some of these companies that use Unix primarily, both as servers and workstations, select there IT members based upon there abilties. But they also decide whether these would be IT's would 'give the party line' (Unix) or whether the prospective employe think the company should do something diferent. Like Netware or NT, in which case they are not hired.
I see this as evidence that the people in control wish thier technical crew to preach the party line no matter what it might might be.
Becouse Unix is, at the moment, on the defensive this means this is very important to Unix biased IT departments.
In the future, I believe that it may well be the NT biased departments that may well be on the defensive and holding tooth and nail to thier NT boxes and banishing anyone who speaks heresy.
Slashdot Mirror
I do not believe that one could say in truth that the moderators should disqualify statements simply because it is controversial, or of a content not dealing with computers.
I don't think you could claim that it is offensive, though you could easily say "I dont like guns". Nor is it off topic as it refers directly to the article. Besides, who says guns are not for geeks?
I would how ever suggest that this thread (yes I know I am party to it) is progressively slipping off topic.
I cannot pretend understanding all the technology so I wont. But I still have an opinion from an historical point of view. Just before Mr. Cray died a university in alaska procured some funding for a Cray. After the funding was given they decided that an alternative super computer would be more appropriate (Japanese I believe ( I apologize for the lack of information)). At the point of learning this I was indignant. For I believe that it is a matter of heritage and technical ground breaking on the information frontier. It may be just a bit of national pride but damnit they were the first. I personally felt a loss the day that he died even though I literally had no ties to Cray. I assumed that day the comapany would die. If they can find a way to be that pioneer that Mr. Cray once was I am very happy for for them and every one, as we will all benefit. That is, if they truly are pioneering and not just giving their last dyeing gasp.
Linux have to become MSU-extension compliant?
2) It may be a way of gathering some people who know the industry and the code for whatever reasons they might have (to many to list).
3) Then again, it may be just what the PR guys say, to allow (paraphrase enable) 'all you poor unix guys a chance to catch up.' (paraphrase cancel)
4) anti-antiFUD (who says we are anti-compatable?)
5) Lastly, they have nothing to lose and all the above to gain. A win win situation.
But there is another side to this. Who says the whole limited compatabilty thing has to be a streanth for them?
I believe it is a matter of perspective. I for one would find it much easier to tell a customer that I am going to put a *nix box on thier network if I could tell them that win2000(nt) was built to take it.
Lastly I would welcome a real terminal program other than the one they have isued in the past. Man that thing drives me nuts.
A vast amount of users use windows at home or in their past jobs. They almost invariably believe that they would prefer to be using Windows. One major reason is becouse they feel that they can 'control' windows. With its fonts and screen colors. Whereas Unix is 'unfreindly'.(We all know this should be falshood if the admin is worth his salt)
Some of these companies that use Unix primarily, both as servers and workstations, select there IT members based upon there abilties. But they also decide whether these would be IT's would 'give the party line' (Unix) or whether the prospective employe think the company should do something diferent. Like Netware or NT, in which case they are not hired.
I see this as evidence that the people in control wish thier technical crew to preach the party line no matter what it might might be.
Becouse Unix is, at the moment, on the defensive this means this is very important to Unix biased IT departments.
In the future, I believe that it may well be the NT biased departments that may well be on the defensive and holding tooth and nail to thier NT boxes and banishing anyone who speaks heresy.
Or maybe that is what we are already seeing......