While I haven't played DDO in a few months, it's still a valid question considering this is obviously going to be more popular due to the LotR IP. What is going to happen to the DDO game?
Judas priest...this post and all the replies should be labeled troll and deleted. It's obvious it's simply there to elicit a response from all the fanboi Gates/Windows haters out there - just have to jump on the wagon to be with the cool crowd on here.
And folks, people with the kind of money Gates have do not normally carry life insurance - they are what's called self-insured - there's no earthly reason for him to pay any kind of premium when he could simply put away whatever amount he wanted to carry on his life into some other kind of investment vehicle (that also pays on his death) - he would be making money instead of paying it. (Don't even get me started on the whole 'but insurance is an investment vehicle' thing...)
You have a cohesive point, if you're simply talking about the acquisition of expertise. I'll especially concede your point as it applies to starting a new company.
However, as it applies to the premise of the original post - that an existing company switching to Linux from Windows has zero (that's $0) additional expenditure - it looses cohesion completely.
>>...Arguing against alternatives to Windows on the basis of cost is the very height of idiocy and is ultimately disingenuous. The real issue when considering alternatives is the fear of change and organizational inertia.
I'm simply stating that in business, time and resources cost money - plain and simple.
For any company that has an existing infrastructure in place, regardless of whether it's Windows, Linux, UNIX, VAX, mainframe, whatever, it's going to cost time and resources to acquire new expertise in a different infrastructure.
Whether that time and resource is spent hiring new people after firing the ones who don't know it (and getting rid of domain knowledge is exceptionally expensive) or if you happen to be outstandingly forward-thinking way back when you did your original hiring and hired only staff who knew both infrastructures equally well, then at the very least the time and resources spent implementing the new infrastructure. Time and resources = money.
Bottom line is this; switching from one existing infrastructure to another will incur additional costs. It may not even be a in an upfront dollar amount as in someone writing a check "to: new infrastructure provider", but that's only one of the very many places that a business expends capital.
Look - all I'm saying is that it's not disingenuous for a business to consider cost when considering "alternatives to Windows" or any business decision whatsoever, it's just smart business.
If you've ever actually been involved in business at a management level, you'll know that a business simply can't just "switch" anything as significant as a network infrastructure and have the cost be zero.
>> Fortunately as slashdot often reminds us. Apache is the number one server (over you know who)...
[implied]Because, as we all know, apache and linux/unix are completely impervious to hacking. Whew - good thing people who run apache/linux don't need to worry about hackers at all - they can blissfully go about their lives without a concern in the world - without needing to take any precautions...[/implied]
wow - talk about head in the sand
>> and the people who use Linux and Unix software are the most intelligent people on the planet (we're command line commandos).
come on - absolutely no one could possibly believe that the cost of switching platforms is $0. If you're willing to submit to reality in even the smallest shard of your life, you have to realize that just because you can download Linux for free that doesn't mean your entire organization has suddenly switched all operations from Windows to Linux - that's only the beginning.
Of the many places I see cost increases, here are just a few:
Cost increase #1: Maybe 70% (being very liberal here) of your IT staff is familiar with Linux enough to support it in the enterprise - so you either train the other 30% or fire them and hire new people who are familiar with it. BIG cost increase either way.
Cost increase #2: Maybe 5% of your non-IT staff is familiar with Linux (again, being very liberal here) - they'll all need training on how to use the operating system - how to install printers, how to access network resources, etc. Okay - not a massive cost here, but big depending on the size of your organization.
Cost increase #3: Maybe 2% of your non-IT staff is familiar with the application equivalents on Linux of what they use in Windows - they'll all need training on how to use the Linux applications that they use for every day business. That's providing there is one, which is certainly not a guarantee, especially if they use any type of specialized software. In that case, not only do you need to teach them the standard application replacements, but you have to pay for your specialized app to be written so it's compatible with Linux (unless it's web-based, of course) and then retrain them (depending on UI differences). Huge cost increase here.
So maybe they use virtualization to access their Windows apps you ask... - legally, they need a Windows license at that point, so your entire argument is gone and in fact they've done nothing but increase the costs in doing business and added a layer of obfuscation to everyone's process.
Face it - the argument that switching an organization from a Microsoft-based environment to a Linux-based environment costs nothing is only true in a vacuum, where your people use nothing but the operating system and 100% of the people in your organization are familiar with Linux, which just simply isn't the case...ANYWHERE.
As for TFA, no one can argue with the fact that as companies scale up, effectively producing software at the same rate with the same quality becomes more and more difficult. Microsoft would be best served by A) splitting itself up at least internally and B) putting backward compatibility on the back-burner and leave it to virtualization.
Will Microsoft go away because of it? Oh, please. Microsoft is so big and they have so many resources, they could probably loose money for 10 years straight before they had to layoff a single person. And if you don't believe for one minute that the first year they loose money, the board would crack down and they'd be trimming fat and processes, then you're just lying to yourself.
You're preaching to a deaf audience that isn't capable of reading lips.
Most people in this particular arena will argue up one end and down the other that they can use someone else's connection if it's available. Nevermind the fact that he purchased the equipment to set it up (and was incapable of purchasing equipment that limited the broadcast to just his yard), is paying the bill to the ISP for the connectivity and probably doesn't understand technology enough to even know that he is letting anyone use his connection.
In fact, screw him because he's such a dumbass. We should probably all download kiddie porn through his router and get his dumb ass sent to jail for being stupid enough to bring this situation on himself!
A lot of the comments revolve around the obligatory "here goes the government again" comments.
Perhaps I'm a bit naive, but it seems obvious to me that jumping on some website hosted in some third-world country and giving them my credit card so I can play poker through some system controlled by the website against God-knows-who just seems like an invitation to get ripped off.
I'm just not surprised in the least bit to hear some online gambling site shut down or involved parties being arrested for fraud or whatever. Frankly, I'm surprised it's taken this long for some government somewhere to actually look at these sites and realize that there is no way at all to stop the owners thereof from ripping off customers coming and going (aside from the massive amounts of money they make simply from the actual gambling itself).
I've got one of the smallest lists of "things I love that our government has its fingers in", but you should also realize that along with the money the government collects around legalized gambling in the US, they also regulate it massivly and crack down fast and hard on places that are ripping people off (above the fact that gambling itself is a ripoff).
Perhaps I am just a nub, but hasn't a byte always been 8 bits? I know we control (well, hardware controls) the size of a WORD, but I don't remember when a byte was different than 8 bits...
While I applaud you voluntarily absolving yourself from contributing to the world gene pool, I have to disagree with the blanket-statement that "large families are doing more long-term damage to our planet than you suspect."
It most certainly is true that some large families are doing more harm than good to our planet. It's also true that some self-righteous individuals who believe we should make no commitment to anything other than what I can have now and who I'm going to be having sex with next are doing equal harm.
I firmly believe that if you produce more than you consume and teach your children to do the same, you're contributing to the planet, not damaging it.
I have four children and they all contribute to society through being well educated, participating in the arts, volunteering in our community, etc. The wholesale paint-swath of a statement like "large families are damaging our planet" is simply an ignorant viewpoint which can't possibly be backed with fact and falls along the bigoted lines of other statements such as "gays are pedophiles" and "blacks are lazy".
Put a little trust back into society and pull your head out of the sand or stop talking.
-
dm
Simply deleting the files means after the scheme is uncovered, anyone with a freeware undelete program can simply recover the files, delete the bogus "encrypted" file and move on.
Slashdot Mirror
While I haven't played DDO in a few months, it's still a valid question considering this is obviously going to be more popular due to the LotR IP. What is going to happen to the DDO game?
Judas priest...this post and all the replies should be labeled troll and deleted. It's obvious it's simply there to elicit a response from all the fanboi Gates/Windows haters out there - just have to jump on the wagon to be with the cool crowd on here.
And folks, people with the kind of money Gates have do not normally carry life insurance - they are what's called self-insured - there's no earthly reason for him to pay any kind of premium when he could simply put away whatever amount he wanted to carry on his life into some other kind of investment vehicle (that also pays on his death) - he would be making money instead of paying it. (Don't even get me started on the whole 'but insurance is an investment vehicle' thing...)
You have a cohesive point, if you're simply talking about the acquisition of expertise. I'll especially concede your point as it applies to starting a new company.
However, as it applies to the premise of the original post - that an existing company switching to Linux from Windows has zero (that's $0) additional expenditure - it looses cohesion completely.
>>...Arguing against alternatives to Windows on the basis of cost is the very height of idiocy and is ultimately disingenuous. The real issue when considering alternatives is the fear of change and organizational inertia.
I'm simply stating that in business, time and resources cost money - plain and simple.
For any company that has an existing infrastructure in place, regardless of whether it's Windows, Linux, UNIX, VAX, mainframe, whatever, it's going to cost time and resources to acquire new expertise in a different infrastructure.
Whether that time and resource is spent hiring new people after firing the ones who don't know it (and getting rid of domain knowledge is exceptionally expensive) or if you happen to be outstandingly forward-thinking way back when you did your original hiring and hired only staff who knew both infrastructures equally well, then at the very least the time and resources spent implementing the new infrastructure. Time and resources = money.
Bottom line is this; switching from one existing infrastructure to another will incur additional costs. It may not even be a in an upfront dollar amount as in someone writing a check "to: new infrastructure provider", but that's only one of the very many places that a business expends capital.
Look - all I'm saying is that it's not disingenuous for a business to consider cost when considering "alternatives to Windows" or any business decision whatsoever, it's just smart business.
If you've ever actually been involved in business at a management level, you'll know that a business simply can't just "switch" anything as significant as a network infrastructure and have the cost be zero.
>> Fortunately as slashdot often reminds us. Apache is the number one server (over you know who)...
[implied]Because, as we all know, apache and linux/unix are completely impervious to hacking. Whew - good thing people who run apache/linux don't need to worry about hackers at all - they can blissfully go about their lives without a concern in the world - without needing to take any precautions...[/implied]
wow - talk about head in the sand
>> and the people who use Linux and Unix software are the most intelligent people on the planet (we're command line commandos).
heh...
come on - absolutely no one could possibly believe that the cost of switching platforms is $0. If you're willing to submit to reality in even the smallest shard of your life, you have to realize that just because you can download Linux for free that doesn't mean your entire organization has suddenly switched all operations from Windows to Linux - that's only the beginning.
Of the many places I see cost increases, here are just a few:
Cost increase #1: Maybe 70% (being very liberal here) of your IT staff is familiar with Linux enough to support it in the enterprise - so you either train the other 30% or fire them and hire new people who are familiar with it. BIG cost increase either way.
Cost increase #2: Maybe 5% of your non-IT staff is familiar with Linux (again, being very liberal here) - they'll all need training on how to use the operating system - how to install printers, how to access network resources, etc. Okay - not a massive cost here, but big depending on the size of your organization.
Cost increase #3: Maybe 2% of your non-IT staff is familiar with the application equivalents on Linux of what they use in Windows - they'll all need training on how to use the Linux applications that they use for every day business. That's providing there is one, which is certainly not a guarantee, especially if they use any type of specialized software. In that case, not only do you need to teach them the standard application replacements, but you have to pay for your specialized app to be written so it's compatible with Linux (unless it's web-based, of course) and then retrain them (depending on UI differences). Huge cost increase here.
So maybe they use virtualization to access their Windows apps you ask... - legally, they need a Windows license at that point, so your entire argument is gone and in fact they've done nothing but increase the costs in doing business and added a layer of obfuscation to everyone's process.
Face it - the argument that switching an organization from a Microsoft-based environment to a Linux-based environment costs nothing is only true in a vacuum, where your people use nothing but the operating system and 100% of the people in your organization are familiar with Linux, which just simply isn't the case...ANYWHERE.
As for TFA, no one can argue with the fact that as companies scale up, effectively producing software at the same rate with the same quality becomes more and more difficult. Microsoft would be best served by A) splitting itself up at least internally and B) putting backward compatibility on the back-burner and leave it to virtualization.
Will Microsoft go away because of it? Oh, please. Microsoft is so big and they have so many resources, they could probably loose money for 10 years straight before they had to layoff a single person. And if you don't believe for one minute that the first year they loose money, the board would crack down and they'd be trimming fat and processes, then you're just lying to yourself.
You're preaching to a deaf audience that isn't capable of reading lips.
/. crowd, right?
Most people in this particular arena will argue up one end and down the other that they can use someone else's connection if it's available. Nevermind the fact that he purchased the equipment to set it up (and was incapable of purchasing equipment that limited the broadcast to just his yard), is paying the bill to the ISP for the connectivity and probably doesn't understand technology enough to even know that he is letting anyone use his connection.
In fact, screw him because he's such a dumbass. We should probably all download kiddie porn through his router and get his dumb ass sent to jail for being stupid enough to bring this situation on himself!
There, now I'm cool to all the
A lot of the comments revolve around the obligatory "here goes the government again" comments.
Perhaps I'm a bit naive, but it seems obvious to me that jumping on some website hosted in some third-world country and giving them my credit card so I can play poker through some system controlled by the website against God-knows-who just seems like an invitation to get ripped off.
I'm just not surprised in the least bit to hear some online gambling site shut down or involved parties being arrested for fraud or whatever. Frankly, I'm surprised it's taken this long for some government somewhere to actually look at these sites and realize that there is no way at all to stop the owners thereof from ripping off customers coming and going (aside from the massive amounts of money they make simply from the actual gambling itself).
I've got one of the smallest lists of "things I love that our government has its fingers in", but you should also realize that along with the money the government collects around legalized gambling in the US, they also regulate it massivly and crack down fast and hard on places that are ripping people off (above the fact that gambling itself is a ripoff).
- dmPerhaps I am just a nub, but hasn't a byte always been 8 bits? I know we control (well, hardware controls) the size of a WORD, but I don't remember when a byte was different than 8 bits...
While I applaud you voluntarily absolving yourself from contributing to the world gene pool, I have to disagree with the blanket-statement that "large families are doing more long-term damage to our planet than you suspect."
It most certainly is true that some large families are doing more harm than good to our planet. It's also true that some self-righteous individuals who believe we should make no commitment to anything other than what I can have now and who I'm going to be having sex with next are doing equal harm.
I firmly believe that if you produce more than you consume and teach your children to do the same, you're contributing to the planet, not damaging it.
I have four children and they all contribute to society through being well educated, participating in the arts, volunteering in our community, etc. The wholesale paint-swath of a statement like "large families are damaging our planet" is simply an ignorant viewpoint which can't possibly be backed with fact and falls along the bigoted lines of other statements such as "gays are pedophiles" and "blacks are lazy".
Put a little trust back into society and pull your head out of the sand or stop talking.
-
dm
Simply deleting the files means after the scheme is uncovered, anyone with a freeware undelete program can simply recover the files, delete the bogus "encrypted" file and move on.