Second, it'd appear you and I might have a different view of what "hardware services" means... Could you please fill us in on your definition of the same? You're handling hardware directly. You're performing a specific service for a client by installing software. Not to demean what you do, but it's like being the electrician who hooks it all together; your time is being directly used and so you can charge whoever wants Ubuntu.
That money isn't going on to the actual programmers, though. It's a lot harder for programmers to make money off open-source code unless they're working for someone else (working for Red Hat or Novell or whoever). That's what the great-grandparent post, the one before mine, was referring to. In those cases, it's damned hard to make any sort of living (contrary to what rms likes to claim).
I do appreciate the stuff that Novell has contributed but personally, I won't touch anything that uses MONO with a 100m Barge Pole. Yes, I know it is apparently free of any potential patent liabilities but I see it as a trojan horse much like Moonlight. And you're wrong. Even disregarding estoppel (look it up), it's an excellent way to leverage cross-platform code without the brain damages of Java. (Hint: it's Mono, not MONO.)
Anyone who uses "hurf durf Mono M$ LOLOLOLOL" as a reason not to take advantage of an awesome set of tools is a fucking moron.
So nothing can ever complete with Exchange; that is the result of this arguement. If something comes down the pipe that can function as a drop-in replacement, I can see it getting used. Otherwise? Not likely. Exchange is excellent at what it does.
So it's now a bloated monstrosity that's impossible to manage and has recurrent security issues? 'As good as Apache' hasn't really been a selling point for a while. In features, it's on par. It feels faster running on the same hardware. I haven't seen any significant security issues for it yet, either.
I've not used Exchange for a while, but perhaps you could let me know what it does that SOGo [opengroupware.org] doesn't? And if this really justifies the cost. Works well on Windows, without changing users' workflow. SOGo is not a drop-in replacement for Exchange, and for that alone it fails because Exchange is, whether you like it or not, the best bet at a shop using Windows desktops due to the easy integration.
You could be right there. As I understand it, Sharepoint's key selling point is integration, which is typically something that the 'small tools doing one job well' model that is popular in the Free Software world does poorly on. Sharepoint does a lot of interesting things and does them considerably better than FOSS apps even where such are available (I haven't seen a FOSS alternative to Office Sharepoint Server, for example). Even the free WSS kit kicks a lot of ass in the plug-in-and-go department and is pretty awesome to use from a user standpoint.
Spoken like somebody who's never administered anything beyond his desktop and maybe his grandma's.
You aren't going to get far on "Microsoft can't do it". IIS7 has gotten excellent; it's on par with Apache. Exchange blows the doors off anything that OSS has. Sharepoint is unparalleled in the OSS world.
It is important to be honest instead of simply some drooling fuckwad. I prefer OSS too, but lying about Microsoft helps no one and doesn't even make your dick bigger.
Why doesn't everyone just nuke each other, if you have to maximize efficiency in order to achieve the win? Reprisal.
As "effective" as the torture of detainees may be, it has dealt a blow to the support-base of the US war in Iraq. I think you put the scare-quotes in the wrong place. This is a largely manufactured controversy. Yes, the techniques used were questionable, but waterboarding being called "torture" is seriously stretching it, given what other regimes in the not-so-distant-past have employed to get information out of captives.
Except that that's a strawman, and as such completely misrepresents the actual argument made.
The majority of technological advances have, historically, been tied to the military, be they medical, computer, or physical. Denying this is to say "hi, I'm a fucking retard."
Christ, you're a stupid fuck. You need economies of scale because there are a fucking lot of people and to supply a fucking lot of people with a fucking lot of stuff it is far less expensive to make that fucking lot of stuff when you're making a whole fucking lot of it at once. Otherwise, it's impractically expensive to create anything for any large-scale demand.
And to save some time: if you're the kind of fucking retarded hippie who says "target a local market," get off the fucking Internet and slit your throat right fucking now. Stop wasting everyone else's oxygen.
I've never seen that necessary in PHP--got a source for it? (Aside from the core libraries--which are written in C for performance reasons more than anything--the commonly available PHP libraries I know of are written in PHP.) Agreed for Python and Ruby though.
Thanks for the downmod on the GP, mods. I hope you went back to wanking over Ruby and all your little buddies congratulated you for STICKIN' IT TO THE HATORZ.
At the very least, if it's an efficiency problem, stop supporting/upgrading the old function, but at least leave the old function in and tell developers that the new method is preferred. Then you get shit like Win32, where you have three versions of "deprecated" functions in some cases and you can never remove them because idiot programmers keep using them. No. Not acceptable.
I don't think that Ruby is bad, not by a long shot. It's seems fairly decent and it doesn't seem to be lacking anything necessary. It makes PHP and Python look fast.
It does nothing notably better than what already exists.
The community is fucking retarded.
It has no legitimate place; it's mostly adopted by people who want to be "different." (Not saying that's you, but seriously--look at all the Ruby code out there and find just one example of it being significantly better than code written in Python or, hell, even PHP.)
You are talking out your ass. How do you expect to maintain economies of scale without large-scale corporate entities to provide the necessary structure?
Slashdot Mirror
That money isn't going on to the actual programmers, though. It's a lot harder for programmers to make money off open-source code unless they're working for someone else (working for Red Hat or Novell or whoever). That's what the great-grandparent post, the one before mine, was referring to. In those cases, it's damned hard to make any sort of living (contrary to what rms likes to claim).
When they're actually drowning people, "motherfucker," then I'll be concerned.
Right, but in a general sense, the "g" in applications tends to suggest GNOME. That's what he's talking about.
First: congratulations on your success, I hope it continues.
Second: that's fine for you, as you're providing what amounts to hardware services. Programmers? Not so much.
Anyone who uses "hurf durf Mono M$ LOLOLOLOL" as a reason not to take advantage of an awesome set of tools is a fucking moron.
To the people who buy the appliances, yes. The GPL is not a requirement to give it to everyone, merely the ones who purchase them.
Spoken like somebody who's never administered anything beyond his desktop and maybe his grandma's.
You aren't going to get far on "Microsoft can't do it". IIS7 has gotten excellent; it's on par with Apache. Exchange blows the doors off anything that OSS has. Sharepoint is unparalleled in the OSS world.
It is important to be honest instead of simply some drooling fuckwad. I prefer OSS too, but lying about Microsoft helps no one and doesn't even make your dick bigger.
Well said.
Except that that's a strawman, and as such completely misrepresents the actual argument made.
The majority of technological advances have, historically, been tied to the military, be they medical, computer, or physical. Denying this is to say "hi, I'm a fucking retard."
Way to mistake me for the person who had the problem. Learn to read.
Christ, you're a stupid fuck. You need economies of scale because there are a fucking lot of people and to supply a fucking lot of people with a fucking lot of stuff it is far less expensive to make that fucking lot of stuff when you're making a whole fucking lot of it at once. Otherwise, it's impractically expensive to create anything for any large-scale demand.
And to save some time: if you're the kind of fucking retarded hippie who says "target a local market," get off the fucking Internet and slit your throat right fucking now. Stop wasting everyone else's oxygen.
And when that cop's conscience tells him that pot smoking is bad?
Or you can deprecate them, keep them around for a bit, and then remove them.
Retaining deprecated functions encourages the use of deprecated functions. It's horrible for maintenance and for keeping a clean design.
I've never seen that necessary in PHP--got a source for it? (Aside from the core libraries--which are written in C for performance reasons more than anything--the commonly available PHP libraries I know of are written in PHP.) Agreed for Python and Ruby though.
Thanks for the downmod on the GP, mods. I hope you went back to wanking over Ruby and all your little buddies congratulated you for STICKIN' IT TO THE HATORZ.
It does nothing notably better than what already exists.
The community is fucking retarded.
It has no legitimate place; it's mostly adopted by people who want to be "different." (Not saying that's you, but seriously--look at all the Ruby code out there and find just one example of it being significantly better than code written in Python or, hell, even PHP.)
You can call it a Super key if you really want to. KDE does.
$69 for a keyboard isn't particularly expensive. True, keyboards around that price usually have whiz-bang features, but not always.
G11 Gaming Keyboard - $69 (And while I like the feel of it for gaming, it sucks to do real work on!)
Das Keyboard II - $79.99
For an outfit as small as Unicomp seems to be, a somewhat minor markup over what it'd cost from somebody else is pretty reasonable.
True. Crashing my X-wing could necessitate one.
You are talking out your ass. How do you expect to maintain economies of scale without large-scale corporate entities to provide the necessary structure?
It detects them via file extension. Remove .exe files (maybe .com, .bat, and .dll too, but I know .exe) and you'll be good.