Considering I'm using a CRT right now and recording stuff to VHS tapes, I think I could live with the limitations of the all-in-one I described for a good long while.
I've actually looked at building a HTPC with all this built-in. It's not easy. Probably because my other requirement is that it be small and fanless, which probably means an Atom-based solution. There are plenty out there, but all that I've seen lack enough slots to support WiFi + Bluetooth + TV Receiver without one of those coming via an external USB device. Also there seems to be a dearth of Bluetooth remote controls, meaning I need an IR receiver built in to the chassis (and support on the mobo).
If I were going to use something other than Windows it would be OS X. I'm almost to the point where I'm fine with OS X, due mainly to the fact that I can run native Windows on a Mac and/or run it in a virtual machine. That said, here are the reasons I feel I need to keep Windows around at all:
1. Software without an "equally good" equivalent on the Mac. Excel comes to mind, but only because I don't own a copy of Office for the Mac. Also a little client I use to connect to certain text-based games.
2. Freedom to choose whatever hardware I want.
Of course the down side of running Windows: inability to use certain Apple hardware (specifically iMac). I haven't found a good non-Apple all-in-one desktop. Yeah I could run Windows on an iMac through Boot Camp, but I tried that once and there were a few quirky things that never worked quite right.
Basically I want the iMac version of a TV. That is to say I want a large-ish flat screen that can be hung on a wall and that has the following baked in:
1. Blu-ray player (so I don't have to have an external player)
2. WiFi (for streaming and internet, e.g. hulu/netflix)
3. Bluetooth (for the remote control and keyboard/mouse)
4. Two digital HDTV receivers (watch one thing while recording another)
5. USB 3.0 (so I can plug in a thumb drive and show pictures)
6. HDMI (so I can plug in a camcorder and show videos and/or connect an external PC and use the TV as "just a screen")
7. Storage and DVR capabilities for both cable and over-the-air broadcasts
8. The ability to open a browser and browse the web, play videos at random sites (e.g. Youtube, Vimeo, etc.)
I would pay a premium (more than the sum of the parts) to get all that in a single attractive package. I'm looking at you, Apple.
People wander around. Verizon cannot possibly design their network to accomodate, say, 100,000 people packed in close quarters. To adapt your plane analogy, imagine if planes were general seating like city buses. The two obvious choices are: "first come first serve" and "everybody gets to bid". First come first serve might actually be a good idea for cell networks. Everybody gets guaranteed service *if* you can even connect. If the network already has enough attached devices that adding another one might render it unable to meet its service guarantees then that person doesn't get to connect at all.
how would you like to go to mcdonalds and then after you've made the deal to purchase the burger they then two minutes later tell you and other customers who need a burger that you must bid on the burger to actually get it?
I'd hate it. Which is why I'd expect any scheme similar to what I suggested to be spelled out clearly in the initial ToS.
Roads and schools are public goods. Their intent is to be available to everyone equally, not based on ability to pay. That is not the case for mobile network bandwidth, which you're already paying a company to provide.
I'm assuming it would be automated and handled algorithmically. One simple way would be to sell different grades of accounts. When there's contention, "first class" accounts take precedence over "coach". When there's no contention they're exactly the same. That's not really bidding, but it approximates the same principle.
Ignoring the technical impracticality of this idea, the most equitable solution would seem to be one based on bidding. When local network usage is low and bandwidth isn't constrained its cost is very, very low, and there are hardly any restrictions on both total usage and maximum rate. When local network usage is high and bandwidth is at a premium, each potential user is forced to bid on it. It's a limited resource; those willing to pay the most get whatever amount they're willing to pay for.
Could it be because the set of target environments is so large compared to Windows / OS X? You've got to support multiple distros (and versions of distros), multiple desktop environments, etc.
Wouldn't you be able to evaluate all these things to an even greater degree by sticking the candidate in a room for 2 hours and having him complete a slightly more involved coding task instead of ask him to write out snippets on a white board by hand?
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! I've had one interview that went like this. Exactly one. Didn't get the job, but I thought it was a better measure of my ability to write code than having me write up non-recursive Fibonacci or binary search on a white board.
It sounds like CentOS is a non-issue then. The OP should feel free to install it and not pay Red Hat a dime because, as you point out, Red Hat is doing just fine thankyouverymuch.
What happens to Linux as a whole tomorrow if RedHat dies today? There won't be a next version of CentOS. A huge number of contributors to F/OSS projects will have to take jobs elsewhere - and those jobs may not involve F/OSS.
If F/OSS would suffer unduly from Red Hat's absence (due to lack of profitability) and if the F/OSS model allows CentOS to legally exist and if CentOS really does represent a drain on Red Hat's profitability then the F/OSS model is broken.
While I generally agree with your post, I thought I'd point out that good grades and high test scores are no guarantee of willingness to pay back a loan. They probably correlate with a greater level of financial responsibility and likelihood of high earnings, but consider that the typical college graduate has almost no assets. He's the perfect candidate for bankruptcy, supposing education loans were covered. As a 22 year old I'd totally file bankruptcy to get $100k worth of education loans off my back. Or, as a late-20s student getting out of graduate school with an even larger debt burden. With no assets, all I'd lose is my credit rating. That's fine. I can rent for the amount of time it takes me to nurse it back to health.
Again, everything you've said argues against Red Hat's business model. They're contributing to the linux kernel and not getting paid for it. They're trying to eke revenue out of providing support for something that, apparently, many people feel they don't need support for, as evidenced by the popularity of CentOS. If Red Hat's kernel contributions aren't adding to the company's bottom line then they owe it to their shareholders to stop spending money paying developers to contribute. If it is adding to their bottom line then you shouldn't feel as if you "owe it to them" to buy their support services as a means of subsidizing their kernel work.
You make an excellent case against Red Hat's business model. A company that has to survive on charity isn't so much a company as it is...a charity. Personally, I would never fault anyone for choosing CentOS (and thereby choosing not to pay Red Hat) if CentOS meets their needs. They are in no way obligated to Red Hat as a corporate entity. If Red Hat can't hack it in the presence of competition from CentOS then Red Hat needs to die, because it's not providing a service anyone values enough to actually pay for.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems fairly ill-advised for a company whose business is developing iOS apps to post their reverse engineering exploits on the corporate blog.
I wasn't necessarily saying I need a TV from Apple. So long as it met all those requirements (and looked presentable) I'd plunk down my cash.
Make it a serviceable part.
Considering I'm using a CRT right now and recording stuff to VHS tapes, I think I could live with the limitations of the all-in-one I described for a good long while.
I've actually looked at building a HTPC with all this built-in. It's not easy. Probably because my other requirement is that it be small and fanless, which probably means an Atom-based solution. There are plenty out there, but all that I've seen lack enough slots to support WiFi + Bluetooth + TV Receiver without one of those coming via an external USB device. Also there seems to be a dearth of Bluetooth remote controls, meaning I need an IR receiver built in to the chassis (and support on the mobo).
If I were going to use something other than Windows it would be OS X. I'm almost to the point where I'm fine with OS X, due mainly to the fact that I can run native Windows on a Mac and/or run it in a virtual machine. That said, here are the reasons I feel I need to keep Windows around at all:
1. Software without an "equally good" equivalent on the Mac. Excel comes to mind, but only because I don't own a copy of Office for the Mac. Also a little client I use to connect to certain text-based games.
2. Freedom to choose whatever hardware I want.
Of course the down side of running Windows: inability to use certain Apple hardware (specifically iMac). I haven't found a good non-Apple all-in-one desktop. Yeah I could run Windows on an iMac through Boot Camp, but I tried that once and there were a few quirky things that never worked quite right.
Basically I want the iMac version of a TV. That is to say I want a large-ish flat screen that can be hung on a wall and that has the following baked in:
1. Blu-ray player (so I don't have to have an external player)
2. WiFi (for streaming and internet, e.g. hulu/netflix)
3. Bluetooth (for the remote control and keyboard/mouse)
4. Two digital HDTV receivers (watch one thing while recording another)
5. USB 3.0 (so I can plug in a thumb drive and show pictures)
6. HDMI (so I can plug in a camcorder and show videos and/or connect an external PC and use the TV as "just a screen")
7. Storage and DVR capabilities for both cable and over-the-air broadcasts
8. The ability to open a browser and browse the web, play videos at random sites (e.g. Youtube, Vimeo, etc.)
I would pay a premium (more than the sum of the parts) to get all that in a single attractive package. I'm looking at you, Apple.
People wander around. Verizon cannot possibly design their network to accomodate, say, 100,000 people packed in close quarters. To adapt your plane analogy, imagine if planes were general seating like city buses. The two obvious choices are: "first come first serve" and "everybody gets to bid". First come first serve might actually be a good idea for cell networks. Everybody gets guaranteed service *if* you can even connect. If the network already has enough attached devices that adding another one might render it unable to meet its service guarantees then that person doesn't get to connect at all.
I'd hate it. Which is why I'd expect any scheme similar to what I suggested to be spelled out clearly in the initial ToS.
Roads and schools are public goods. Their intent is to be available to everyone equally, not based on ability to pay. That is not the case for mobile network bandwidth, which you're already paying a company to provide.
I'm assuming it would be automated and handled algorithmically. One simple way would be to sell different grades of accounts. When there's contention, "first class" accounts take precedence over "coach". When there's no contention they're exactly the same. That's not really bidding, but it approximates the same principle.
For what it's worth, the 13" Macbook Pro is fairly competitive with a Thinkpad X1 when you up the RAM to 8GB and go with an i5 on the Thinkpad.
Ignoring the technical impracticality of this idea, the most equitable solution would seem to be one based on bidding. When local network usage is low and bandwidth isn't constrained its cost is very, very low, and there are hardly any restrictions on both total usage and maximum rate. When local network usage is high and bandwidth is at a premium, each potential user is forced to bid on it. It's a limited resource; those willing to pay the most get whatever amount they're willing to pay for.
Could it be because the set of target environments is so large compared to Windows / OS X? You've got to support multiple distros (and versions of distros), multiple desktop environments, etc.
I'd still think you could learn more about someone's design skills with a larger, more involved task. Something not suited to whiteboard work.
Wouldn't you be able to evaluate all these things to an even greater degree by sticking the candidate in a room for 2 hours and having him complete a slightly more involved coding task instead of ask him to write out snippets on a white board by hand?
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! I've had one interview that went like this. Exactly one. Didn't get the job, but I thought it was a better measure of my ability to write code than having me write up non-recursive Fibonacci or binary search on a white board.
It sounds like CentOS is a non-issue then. The OP should feel free to install it and not pay Red Hat a dime because, as you point out, Red Hat is doing just fine thankyouverymuch.
If F/OSS would suffer unduly from Red Hat's absence (due to lack of profitability)
and if the F/OSS model allows CentOS to legally exist
and if CentOS really does represent a drain on Red Hat's profitability
then the F/OSS model is broken.
Depending on his job after college (and potentially graduate school), buying a BMW with cash would be very doable.
Don't individual universities also make loans to students? It's been a while since I was in school.
While I generally agree with your post, I thought I'd point out that good grades and high test scores are no guarantee of willingness to pay back a loan. They probably correlate with a greater level of financial responsibility and likelihood of high earnings, but consider that the typical college graduate has almost no assets. He's the perfect candidate for bankruptcy, supposing education loans were covered. As a 22 year old I'd totally file bankruptcy to get $100k worth of education loans off my back. Or, as a late-20s student getting out of graduate school with an even larger debt burden. With no assets, all I'd lose is my credit rating. That's fine. I can rent for the amount of time it takes me to nurse it back to health.
Again, everything you've said argues against Red Hat's business model. They're contributing to the linux kernel and not getting paid for it. They're trying to eke revenue out of providing support for something that, apparently, many people feel they don't need support for, as evidenced by the popularity of CentOS. If Red Hat's kernel contributions aren't adding to the company's bottom line then they owe it to their shareholders to stop spending money paying developers to contribute. If it is adding to their bottom line then you shouldn't feel as if you "owe it to them" to buy their support services as a means of subsidizing their kernel work.
You make an excellent case against Red Hat's business model. A company that has to survive on charity isn't so much a company as it is...a charity. Personally, I would never fault anyone for choosing CentOS (and thereby choosing not to pay Red Hat) if CentOS meets their needs. They are in no way obligated to Red Hat as a corporate entity. If Red Hat can't hack it in the presence of competition from CentOS then Red Hat needs to die, because it's not providing a service anyone values enough to actually pay for.
Agree as well. If individual universities (or states) want to maintain the status quo then it's easy enough for them to do.