Novell Swings Back at Ballmer 296
Jeff.Ingalls writes "Novell Inc has issued a response to Microsoft Corp CEO Steve Ballmer's recent anti-Linux memo, using the same reports cited by Ballmer in defense of the open source operating system."
Before it gets /.ed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Before it gets /.ed (Score:5, Funny)
I also predict the number of replies to this post will be less than, equal to, or greater than the number of mod points this post receives.
Re:Before it gets /.ed (Score:5, Funny)
1. Make ambiguous statement.
2. Sell it to Microsoft.
3. Profit!
I don't think that Microsoft will be willing to pay you for your prediction.
Sorry.
Acutal response... (Score:5, Informative)
Free T-Shirts for unique anti-M$ FUD hud! (Score:4, Interesting)
Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ballmer noted: "Yankee's study concluded that, in large enterprises, a significant Linux deployment or total switch from Windows to Linux would be three to four times more expensive - and take three times as long to deploy - as an upgrade from one version of Windows to a newer release".
What he failed to point out, according to Novell, was Yankee's statement: "In summary, the Yankee Group's TCO survey found that Linux does offer compelling cost savings, economies of scale and technical advantages, as many a satisfied user will attest...
I can't believe that guy is a top executive of a major corporation. He makes Darl look like a business genius in comparison. He impresses me as some kind of jackass, who just HAPPENED to be in the right place at the right time, and is where he is DESPITE rather than BECAUSE of his business acumen.
It seems that you almost have to have your head up your ass as firmly as Ballmer or Darl to get anywhere in corporate america.
It's examples like this which prove to me that I will never be an executive of any company but my own. I am just too attracted to honesty and integrity.
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because he has the biggest soapbox and no one's loud enough to shout him down.
Ever seen a streetcorner preacher before?
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, they usually have a nice clear space round them as people look the other way, pretend they haven't noticed, and take a sudden new interest which involves moving in another direction.
The shouting loony doesn't notice this, and thinks he's going to convince everyone.
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:2, Funny)
No 800lb gorilla, Novell is only a 150lb monkey. (Score:3, Funny)
Or, lets bulk them up! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not BECOME; BELIEVED (Score:4, Insightful)
The saying goes "Lie to yourself long enough and you might believe it" not "Lie to yourself long enough and it will come true."
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Since Google [google.com]
6. You can make money without doing evil.
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:5, Informative)
That is just as bad as Cisco working with the Chinese gov't to create the great firewall of China. Fuck google and fuck all the naive fanboys who cannot see google for what it really is, just another corporation.
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
A political system that allows the people to choose its leaders or make decisions on issues may tend towards freedom, but this tendancy is not absolute. As Hermann Goering insightfully noted,
While any comparison of the state of affairs in the US today to the situation in Germany under the Third Reich is inappropriate, flaimbait and in violation of Godwin's Law, I think it's important to note that, regardless of how decisions are made, the powerful are in a unique position to influence the decisions of the electorate.
Democracy is most certainly a great and noble thing, and preferable to many of the other systems available, but it is not a panacea. In the US, we have a democratic republic founded on the principle of civil rights. It is this combination of values which the OP was projecting on the Chinese government, not democracy in itself.
For example, many democracies do not grant absolute freedom of speech, and some have attempted to censor hate speech on the internet when they felt it was appropriate.
What most people find reprehensible about Chinese government censorship is the combination of censorship and totalitarianism. Because arguably, if the French or Germans decide that they don't want their people looking at Nazi propaganda, say, it is with the consent of the people that this speech is censored.
A place that respects civil rights (or has historically, at any rate, and continues to do so today, despite the looming threat of crackdown) but is not democratic is Hong Kong.
I know you know all of this, but I think it's important that we use words in a manner consistant with their meaning, because there are exceptions to the generalization "all democracies are against censorship", and to its converse, "all governments against censorship are democracies."
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, fine, but it's not like you could get elected President using that kind of...oh, wait.
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey, don't forget John McCain in there.
The problem however, is that this works best on uneducated people.
Who are in the majority by at least 3 million, according to a survey conducted a couple of days ago. :-)
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sound like he's been taking technique notes from watching Michael Moore movies. Cut, paste, rearrange, and even doctor to make anything fit your "message".
It's not at all limited to one side of the political spectrum.
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:5, Funny)
The problem however, is that this works best on uneducated people.
This [nielsbuus.dk] chart pretty much proves that point :-)
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:3, Informative)
Kerry on top, Bush at the bottom, middle is a mish-mash.
Although not as funny as the
IQs, etc (Score:5, Informative)
Ummmmm no I'm afraid not. I need not refute the study based on its merits because the study was made up.
Check out the Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] on the source. Scroll to the bottom. The authors never broke down IQ below national levels to get state IQs. The numbers cited in that chart came from a hoax--they were likely made up as a joke to make Gore supporters look smarter than Bush supporters from the previous election. Using the results of standardised tests show much less gap between the "smartest" and "dumbest" states and nearly no correlation with their voting preferences.
Also, contrary to the citation, that publication made use of multiple IQ tests conducted at different times (it did not rely predominately on one IQ test), and did some fudging to obtain its numbers (UK was set at 100 and the rest of the world adjusted accordingly, even though IQ tests generally regard the world average to be 100 instead of 90 as they calculated)
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:2)
More and more, "simplified, easily digestible soundbites" are all that the mass media provides. People who make their decisions based on mass media information are going to be ignorant to the details that soundbites obscure. This doesn't mean that they sell, it just means that they're bought (not the same thing). You say as much yourself when you assert that soundbites are "the basis of mainstream private media", implying that for those who o
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if it's bullshit or not. The system rewards what looks appealing, not what *is* appealing.
So a simple speech that looks good is better rewarded than either a long speech that looks good or a short speech that looks bad.
And nothing is better than saying "we have 99% of the marker so that means we are the best".
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:5, Informative)
And, yes. I'm relatively new here.
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
This method unquestionably works in U.S. Politics.
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not completely sure here.
First, if you read his memo, it really sounds like "look what we have shown" rather than a really determined attempt to make a point. It does give Martinta's email. But....
Most execs I know who have read this me
The truth does not count (Score:3, Insightful)
Ballmer's target audience does not really cares whether people tell the truth, they're members of the "Nobody got fired for buying IBM-->Microsoft" brigade. All they want is reassurance and a stream of soundbites to keep them warm and fuzzy. If the repots are doctored, they don't care.
The last thing an IT manager really wants to do is switch from Windows to Linux just because of TCO. In any switch, shit happens and the IT manager gets heat which (s)he does not w
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:2)
Why? Simple - because most people are either a) too lazy or b) too trusting that the soundbites he gives are the most relevant and honest portions of whatever a person is quoting. Especially of topics that the reader/listener is not convinced is important enough to investigate.
Most readers here will already be skeptical of anything coming from Microsoft. But can you say the same about anything coming from Novell, especially in response to Microsoft? Or on any non-geeky topic?
Why? Because he can, and
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
I suppose you can criticize Ballmer for selectively quoting the half that makes his product look good (are there any CEO's who wouldn't do that?) but it hardly seems worth having a seizure over.
Ballmer is getting desperate (Score:5, Interesting)
Also just look at Microsoft's "strategy", it's merely prolonging the status-quo, they don't even try to sell Windows to for example the 80% of webmasters who don't run it. They know that every customer lost won't come back because in the long run Linux is a lot cheaper.
The history of Microsoft will be:
It will take some time, but Microsoft won't be able to stop Linux.
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:2, Informative)
Really? Just wait until you see the monkey boy dance [tarmo.fi] (mirrors [ntk.net]).
Why? They got the money, ppl will believe them. (Score:3, Insightful)
High ranks in businesses ACTUALLY BELIEVE what Microsoft says. "It's Microsoft, why not believe them?". I've SEEN IT.
Ballmer doesn't lie to the people who don't trust them (DOH), but to the people who DO believe every piece of crap that Microsoft says.
Think of Microsoft as a "software cult". Opposers are qualified as evil, while supporters spend lots of resources in mai
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:3, Funny)
"Always two there are, a Master and an apprentice.".
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
"I think what you will never get over is your own arrogance."
It's not arrogance when you're right.
Now, before you write this off as a flame, hear me out. Throughout history, people with unpopular views have believed that if they could just get the information out, their message would be accepted and acted on.
Elsewhere in this thread, someone said that Ballmer was like a street preacher, spouting tales of Armageddon from his soapbox pulpit. That's not true. He is a cardinal in his robes, descending from on high with the Word.
For the agnostics in the audience, those who can see that prima facie his statements are false, their immediate urge is to point out the untruths. In their world, the right information is all that's required to correct false reason.
But there is a significant proportion of the population whose world is not ruled by that same empiricism. For those people, it's more important to follow the appropriate leader than to be right. There are really good reasons to act this way, not the least of which is that it keeps one from being singled out. The only trouble these people experience is shared by everyone. Nonetheless, this drives the empiricists crazy. Their world cannot permit behaviour like this.
Worse, being 'comfortably wrong' (i.e. following the dominant mantra) can prove extremely destructive at times. So the rationalists feel compelled to shout the truth loudly. Problem is, the truth is useless to those who don't operate in a world driven by logic. This is nothing new; the Iliad tells us about Cassandra, doomed to know the future, and never to be believed.
None of this is to excuse those who rant at the 'stupidity' of the majority. Nor is this an attempt to excuse people who will not be swayed by reason. All I'm trying to do is to point out that there are two languages being spoken most of the time. Both may sound like English, but their purposes and means of expression are only close enough to cause confusion.
Again: There is nothing arrogant about being right, and letting the world know it. Arrogance comes when you continue insisting that you're right long after you've been proven wrong.
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Being arrogant and right is a pretty quick way of making everyone hate you."
Good. At least you've got their attention.
For countless years, women fighting for equality have had to cope with being characterised as 'bitches' whenever they tried to be heard. Why? They were ignored until they shouted so loud that people were forced to take notice.
For countless years, African Americans were persecuted, beaten, murdered for being 'uppity'. Anyone who spoke out in even the mildest fashion was subject to extreme punishment.
These days, one of the most significant issues in electronic communication is its abuse by people who systematically spread disinformation and suppress truth. The motives for doing so are manifold. In Microsoft's case, it's likely because the truth is fatal to their way of doing business.
People in a position to know better first assumed that the problem was that others just didn't have access to the right information. They packaged up the data in the proper format, and presented it to the world. They were largely ignored.
Still believing that the word just wasn't getting out, they tried harder, spoke a little more forcefully, worked harder at discrediting the other sources.
At a certain point, the propagandists realised that they could not win the argument on merit. So they attacked the source. They ascribed their own dubious motives to others (Linus 'stole' Linux), they made baseless threats (SCO). And now, they try to kill the messenger, not because of the message, but because he was shouting when he delivered it.
Your post seems to say, 'You may be right, but you're a prick, so nobody's going to believe you.' Problem is: Nobody listened before. Sometimes, there's no option but to be pushy. This fact has given us arrogant pricks from Galileo to Patrick Henry to Martin Luther King.
'Nevertheless, it moves.'
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know a number of intelligent Bush supporters, and I know a number of rather dumb Kerry-supporters. Dumb supporters on both sides of the equation are usually sheep. That is, they can't take the time to form their own political opinions, and so they absorb the opinions of those around them, and end up voting someone else's conscience.
The thing is, intelligent Bush supporters seem to fall into two camps. The wealthy elite support Bush because he serves their own interests; working in investment I know quite a number of them. They make more money when he's in office, and so voting for him is a no-brainer. These people aren't stupid, but their values are not in-line with the majority of the world's -- they live on a different planet.
The other group of intelligent Bush supporters are mostly middle class, educated white folks who aren't the wealthy elite but hope to be. They see the support of tax-cutting, wealthy-favoring government as being a long-term investment -- they're ambitious and expect to eventually be in a position to benefit from the political climate created by the GOP.
Now, with due respect, most people that don't fall into these two categories are sheep. Many of them superficially resemble the second group of intelligent supporters, in the sense that they support Bush's aid to the wealthy because they dream of being wealthy themselves someday -- it's the myth of the American dream, and its the cornerstone of American political and social rhetoric. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (based on social studies of social mobility in American society), people do believe that they can be born on the streets and lift themselves up to the top through hard work.
Unfortunately, the days of that being true are mostly behind us.
The sheep in this case, unlike their intelligent counterparts, don't truly understand the nature of the "fiscally conservative" measures being taken by the Party, but believe that, while they may be hurt in the short term, they will somehow live to see the benefits. They aspire to be wealthy landowning oil barons like Dubya. He represents what they want to be -- and why not? He seems like a simple guy, not overly intelligent or good looking, but just an average joe. If he can do it, why can't I? It's part of what makes him so popular. He seems just like you and me.
Of course, rather like Clinton (a Rhodes scholar who went to Oxford) and his affected southern drawl, it's all an act. Bush went to Yale, grew up in a rich political family, and is essentially the same kind of elitist bastard that made everyone (including myself) dislike Kerry so much. The difference is, Bush knew how to hide this from the American people, but Kerry didn't.
Now, Kerry supporters also can be easily divided into the intelligent and the, shall we say, less than intelligent. Among the poor and uneducated, people supporting the left probably think the idea of greater social benefits doesn't sound half bad, and we lefties make a point of using this to our advantage when trying to recruit votes. These people are no different in terms of education or wealth, essentially, than the "trailer trash Bush supporter" we all love to hate.
But they come overwhelmingly from minorities, and minorities, having been shafted by the system for generations, gobble up the myth of the American Dream with less readiness than poor whites from the midwest, who aren't constantly reminded that everyone in a position of power has a different skin color, ethnicity, or religion than they do.
My personal opinion in all of this is that idiots exist on both sides of the equation, and each party really knows how to play this to their advantage. Democrats play on the disenfranchised minority vote that would benefit most from social aid; Republicans play on the disenfranchised poor white vote by propogating the idea that "if you just wo
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Of the two, W seems more predictable, though many don't seem to view this as a feature...
Re:Why, Ballmer, Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm... in that case I can imagine the scene at a quarterly department meeting:
"PUNCH PRESS OPERATORS!!! PUNCH PRESS OPERATORS!!! PUNCH PRESS OPERATORS!!!"
It's fun to watch the fray... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's fun to watch the fray... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether the programming job that provides all of that also provides freedom is a distant concern by comparison.
Re:It's fun to watch the fray... (Score:5, Interesting)
Whether the programming job that provides all of that also provides freedom is a distant concern by comparison.
Hey, I think I remember you. You were the guy in Boston in 1772 who was saying that the King provided security and jobs. You said revolting for our freedom was too risky.
Or wait, maybe you were the guy in Wittenburg in 1517 who told Martin Luther that he should not oppose the catholic church because they were backed by divine law, and provided comfort and help, and would even take away all your sins, for a small fee.
Or maybe, just maybe, that was you last week in Ohio saying that you were going to vote for George Bush because at least you know what he stands for. Who knows what Kerry stands for.
There is no reason that a software economy built on freedom will take away your job, just like there was no reason that a free America meant a loss of strength, or a freedom from a corrupt church meant a loss of spirituality. (Not sure about the third one - we wont know what a freedom from GW will mean for a while.) Pretty soon free software will provide such a strong backbone upon which to build that it will be crazy to start from scratch with closed source. Just like previous transitions, some parts will be rough, but when we are through it, everyone will look back and wonder how anyone could have conceived of doing it any other way. At least you will understand.
Freedom is a need not a want (Score:4, Informative)
Developers don't like to be told what to do, but more importantly the freedom allows problems to be fixed more effectively and efficiently than closed source.
As an example (one of zillions), there are two widely used programming tools for the Philips LPC21xx microcontrollers. One is written by Philips (closed) and the other by a guy called Martin (open). In approx January tried to use both and neither worked with the hardware combination I have. The code needed to do a retry if comms failed at start up. With Martin's tool I was able to find the problem, fix it and send the patch to Martin. The patch became mainstream within a few days. I also told Philips of the problem and how to fix it, but AFAIK this has not yet been done in Philips' code.
Without open source, progress is very difficult.
Moving the Groupwise/Suse (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm excited and anxious to get this done, I'm looking forward to a lower TCO.
Brandon Petersen
Get Firefox! [spreadfirefox.com]
Re:Moving the Groupwise/Suse (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Moving the Groupwise/Suse (Score:2)
Can I go work for you?
Re:Moving the Groupwise/Suse (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you know how much you spent (in licenses and labor) over the past year or so on the Windows platform? After a year of Groupwise, do the comparison. Remember to include training and the like.
This would be good information for folks to see.
Re:You're in for a fight from your users... (Score:3, Insightful)
The closest thing to a problem in 3 years has been getting Entourage 2004 to work with it, and that was fixed with a post SP3 rollup we hadn't yet installed.
The good thing about a hugely popular email system is the amount of software and third
I just dunno (Score:5, Insightful)
Life is so wierd these days.... (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmmm....maybe drinking might help.
Re:Life is so wierd these days.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Life is so wierd these days.... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's some VERY high quality crack... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have no idea where he came up with those points. He has no problems blantently lieing to everyone I see. Ballmer for president '08?
Re:That's some VERY high quality crack... (Score:5, Informative)
Also, the study says its cheaper on TCO to upgrade windows than convert to Linux. Of course, cause people will need a bit of re-training. The windows interface they are already familiar with. Now an intersting study would be the cost of going from MacOS to linux/winodows, or maybe IBM Mainfraimes to linux/windows.
Re:That's some VERY high quality crack... (Score:2)
Re:That's some VERY high quality crack... (Score:2, Insightful)
You're absolutely right by pointing out the differences between a distribution and a kernel. ... :(
However, you're average PHB, when reading the Ballmer article, doesn't know the difference and believes everything Ballmer is telling about Linux vs. Windows. Worse, I recently had to explain the difference to an ICT professional with 10+ years of experience in ICT
Re:That's some VERY high quality crack... (Score:2, Funny)
the response I am waiting for... (Score:5, Funny)
Recievership 2000 (Score:3, Funny)
Step 2 - embrace linux
Step 3 - Sue IBM
Step 4 - Sell worthless stock at inflated price
linux is just a buzzword to the suits
Countermeasure (Score:2)
Step 2 - wait till people adopt Linux
Step 3 - silently switch from Novell to a free version of Linux.
Step 4 - I don't need you now, fool! BWA HAHAHAHA!
Frankly, Novell is literally putting too much at risk. Maybe it's because they got no choice?
Oh, the irony of it all (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh, the irony of it all (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, if Microsoft wanted to pay you a bunch of money to buy up your predetermined ad space, would you sell it to them? Ad space is there to make money, not to preach to people about morals and good business practices. You use *content* for that, when applicable.
-Jem
Re:Oh, the irony of it all (Score:2)
Re:Oh, the irony of it all (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Oh, the irony of it all (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh, the irony of it all (Score:5, Funny)
How about a link to Novell's actual response... (Score:5, Informative)
...instead of a news article about it?
here [novell.com]
phozz
Re:How about a link to Novell's actual response... (Score:2)
A saleswoman once said.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The customer doesn't want to hear the truth, he wants his hand held, and he wants to hear that spending his money is going to make it all better and life will be good. He may know its all lies, but he still needs to hear it or he won't feel good.
I guess it's not surprising that it was true for befuddled consumers and small businessmen buying what were, in 1985, expensive toys. The sad thing is that this seems to be equally true for CIOs of big corporations twenty years later.
A saleswoman once said..Fear Me! (Score:4, Insightful)
I talked to customers all the time. Some transfered from sales. I didn't have to lie. I was however careful in the way I phrased the truth.
"The customer doesn't want to hear the truth, he wants his hand held, and he wants to hear that spending his money is going to make it all better and life will be good. He may know its all lies, but he still needs to hear it or he won't feel good."
Maybe instead of viewing this as a negative. You should see it as an incentive to produce a product that no one has to lie about?
"I guess it's not surprising that it was true for befuddled consumers and small businessmen buying what were, in 1985, expensive toys. The sad thing is that this seems to be equally true for CIOs of big corporations twenty years later."
Computers have come far, but they still haven't come far enough. That's why people feel nervous around computers.
I like the indemnification part (Score:5, Insightful)
The EULA clearly states that Microsoft does not assert their products' suitability for any purpose whatsoever. And if a mistake is made in keeping records of licensing, they are more likely to sue you than to indemnify you.
Does the Microsoft TCO factor in the wasted hours and paperwork associated with keeping track of various licenses?
Re:I like the indemnification part (Score:3, Insightful)
If you read the Ballmergram, you'll see that he talks not about software brokenness, but about patent lawsuit indemnification. He says that if you get sued over a patent violation in the Microsoftware you're using, Microsoft will pay for your lawyers. So he says. Says he.
Re:I like the indemnification part (Score:3, Informative)
Novell's response to MS's Get The Facts (Score:5, Informative)
Alejo.
*Cringe* (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's hoping that Novell can break it's loosing streak - and not drag Linux down with it.
Re:*Cringe* (Score:5, Insightful)
WordPerfect was a very good contender at the 6.0a level - until Corel took over, and Corel has a good history of making things mediocre. That was when it really started to sink, M$ gained more market share, and the nails were in the coffin.
The one possibility for Novell taking Linux seriously is the fact that Novell's market share just keeps shrinking and shrinking, and there's not much chance for it to ever come back to the glory days of old. If they want to keep being major players, they simply have to latch on to something, and do it right. Linux is an easy choice.
Steve
Re:*Cringe* (Score:4, Informative)
They've continued to refine SUSE for desktop use, which includes players and plugins you won't find in any most any other distribution, for one. YAST being open-sourced/GPLed is another great thing they've done.
On the server side, they've open-sourced Open Exchange. They're certainly doing something with Linux.
No F or D, just U (Score:5, Insightful)
Not FUD, just CYA
Re:No F or D, just U (Score:3, Informative)
TCO? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:TCO? (Score:3, Funny)
Besides, nobody wants Steve Ballmer TCLing them!
After reading Ballmer's letter (Score:3, Funny)
I start wondering if Microsoft has Michael Moore working for them...
I've said it before... (Score:4, Insightful)
To my mind, exactly the same principle applies with Linux. For my residential system, I downloaded Linux From Scratch and built it exactly the way I wanted it from the ground up, following on with the expansion volume from that site as well. Although I haven't had to do a commercial deployment myself before, from the reading I've done I know I'd still get LFS, work on adapting a version of the ports system for it (which I'm currently doing) and then use the information at infrastructures.org as well in order to build a rock solid system in exactly the configuration asked for.
From everything I've seen, self-determination is largely a prerequisite for UNIX use. Predigested package deals might work for Windows...but I think the Open Group's UNIX slogan of Live Free or Die definitely applies...and those sorts of terms do not imply to me that hand-holding is an option.
A desire to refrain as much as possible from exercising either intelligence or responsibility genuinely seems to be the bedrock of the corporate ethos in most cases...I think until that changes, companies like Microsoft are going to continue to hold sway. Corporations seem to want a software company which will do virtually everything for them...and because it only increases their level of control, Microsoft have been only too happy to oblige.
Re:I've said it before... (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree. Look at Mac OS X. Predesigned and packaged seems to work quite well there.
Ballmer's screed is pure desperation. (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Who cares? The OS is a COMMODITY... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Invent something foolproof, and they'll just make a better fool"
Re:Who cares? The OS is a COMMODITY... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's murphey's often mis-quoted law, "If it's in any way possible for the pilot [in a computer's case, user] to screw things up, he will screw things up."
(I may have misquoted also, but at least it's closer to what Murphey actually said than "If something can go wrong, it will go wrong.")
Re:Novell has a heartbeat?? (Score:2, Interesting)
Granted, trying to maintain functionality while avoiding spyware is hard... but we keep a balance. Novell's admin program (ConsoleOne) is a plugin-extensible java program that allows you full admin
Re:officiation request (Score:2)
The Survivor OS!
Computired Idol!
Boot Story!
etc...
Re:debate (Score:3, Funny)
I'm just wondering when will Ballmer call someone a flip-flopper?
So then, what does that make BSD users, Ralph Nader supporters?
Re:Whatever Novell (Score:5, Insightful)
Must be nice to have so much money to throw away. The initial investment in your platforms of choice must've been quite impressively high.
For me, besides money, SQL slammer was enough to make me start wondering and Blaster and its varients were quite compelling reasons for me to look at changing.