I would agree with this. In fact, on the first day of CS2001 (a stupid pass/fail class that's supposed to help us get familiarized with the uni), the professor who was doing the class told us specifically that computer science is *not* just programming, and it's possible to have an IT job without ever programming once.
Based on the people who are/aren't doing well in CS right now, I can say that you need to make sure that you know what you're getting into. In my suite right now, there are 5 computer science majors. The ones who are huge gamers and are just really good at clicking around in Windows are dropping it and moving to MIS. The guys who are always messing with how their computers work (and enjoy it) are doing well.
It doesn't have to be original to still be funny. The great thing about nerd culture now is that it used to be "we got beat up in school, we're still virgins, don't look at us," and now it's become "we may be dorks, but we're smarter than you and we run the world." We can laugh at ourselves now, which is probably why stuff like this keeps getting made. And it's FUNNY.
Given the amount that PC Magazine depends on advertising from companies like Microsoft, I doubt that they'll be reviewing anything written solely for the Linux platform anytime soon.
If a prospective Computer Science major isn't already familiar with Monty Python (to the extent that they can at least quote the opening scene of The Holy Grail) by the time they enter college, they have no business being a Comp Sci major to begin with.
I know that proprietary software companies are capable of making excellent stuff. However, to me it doesn't look like there is a proprietary alternative to Microsoft that stands a chance of breaking their monopoly lock on the market just yet. When Apple releases their OS for the i386 architecture, maybe some of the OEM's will start offering PC's with OS X on them, but until then it's pretty much Windows or Linux/BSD.
My interest in open source, other than the fact that it's such a good development model, is that the cost and quality of it will either make it the predominant solution, or it will force MS to write better stuff in order to compete.
I believe that the reason that OSS often plays catch up with proprietary software is that a lot of the OSS people still have the mindset of what RMS was setting out to do with the GNU project: create replacement software, not unique software (a lot of GNU software was better than the alternatives, but the point still stands). OpenOffice basically tries to replace MS Word but doesn't work hard enough to try to innovate in other areas, for example.
What made Linux viable in the marketplace? Originally, the Apache project. The reason was that Apache actually created something with OSS that hadn't existed before, and all of a sudden there was a definite benefit to using the software other than cost or some intangible ideological benefit.
Firefox is the same thing. The developers added functionality that IE didn't have, and now IE is trying to catch up to them. That's why it's becoming so popular.
Bottom line is, when OSS stops trying to just replace the predominant corporate solution and create a better solution that just happens to be free is when we win.
I can't think of any reason why someone would rather have RPM's than deb's. I know that there are ports of apt-get to work with RPM's, but Debian package management is high class. If you really feel like you need them, I believe that support for RPM's is included in the distro, but I don't know how good it is.
Say what you want about Ubuntu, but I believe it's the closest thing we have to a "user-friendly" desktop Linux distro out there. Setup and tweaking aren't really required, and the ubuntu forums are immensely helpful.
If you want something you can play with, use Slackware, Gentoo, or LFS. Just because it doesn't require any thought to set up doesn't make it a bad distro.
Slashdot Mirror
I would agree with this. In fact, on the first day of CS2001 (a stupid pass/fail class that's supposed to help us get familiarized with the uni), the professor who was doing the class told us specifically that computer science is *not* just programming, and it's possible to have an IT job without ever programming once. Based on the people who are/aren't doing well in CS right now, I can say that you need to make sure that you know what you're getting into. In my suite right now, there are 5 computer science majors. The ones who are huge gamers and are just really good at clicking around in Windows are dropping it and moving to MIS. The guys who are always messing with how their computers work (and enjoy it) are doing well.
It doesn't have to be original to still be funny. The great thing about nerd culture now is that it used to be "we got beat up in school, we're still virgins, don't look at us," and now it's become "we may be dorks, but we're smarter than you and we run the world." We can laugh at ourselves now, which is probably why stuff like this keeps getting made. And it's FUNNY.
Given the amount that PC Magazine depends on advertising from companies like Microsoft, I doubt that they'll be reviewing anything written solely for the Linux platform anytime soon.
If a prospective Computer Science major isn't already familiar with Monty Python (to the extent that they can at least quote the opening scene of The Holy Grail) by the time they enter college, they have no business being a Comp Sci major to begin with.
I know that proprietary software companies are capable of making excellent stuff. However, to me it doesn't look like there is a proprietary alternative to Microsoft that stands a chance of breaking their monopoly lock on the market just yet. When Apple releases their OS for the i386 architecture, maybe some of the OEM's will start offering PC's with OS X on them, but until then it's pretty much Windows or Linux/BSD.
My interest in open source, other than the fact that it's such a good development model, is that the cost and quality of it will either make it the predominant solution, or it will force MS to write better stuff in order to compete.
I believe that the reason that OSS often plays catch up with proprietary software is that a lot of the OSS people still have the mindset of what RMS was setting out to do with the GNU project: create replacement software, not unique software (a lot of GNU software was better than the alternatives, but the point still stands). OpenOffice basically tries to replace MS Word but doesn't work hard enough to try to innovate in other areas, for example. What made Linux viable in the marketplace? Originally, the Apache project. The reason was that Apache actually created something with OSS that hadn't existed before, and all of a sudden there was a definite benefit to using the software other than cost or some intangible ideological benefit. Firefox is the same thing. The developers added functionality that IE didn't have, and now IE is trying to catch up to them. That's why it's becoming so popular. Bottom line is, when OSS stops trying to just replace the predominant corporate solution and create a better solution that just happens to be free is when we win.
I can't think of any reason why someone would rather have RPM's than deb's. I know that there are ports of apt-get to work with RPM's, but Debian package management is high class. If you really feel like you need them, I believe that support for RPM's is included in the distro, but I don't know how good it is.
Say what you want about Ubuntu, but I believe it's the closest thing we have to a "user-friendly" desktop Linux distro out there. Setup and tweaking aren't really required, and the ubuntu forums are immensely helpful. If you want something you can play with, use Slackware, Gentoo, or LFS. Just because it doesn't require any thought to set up doesn't make it a bad distro.