Red Hat terminated
-
Yes, I realize that, my "stab" was at the fact that "in the beginning" it was all about "power to the people! It's all free!" ... but as time wore on, and small open source movement progressed, later becoming public and having serious growing pains, they have come to realize that it order to continue to grow and provide to "the people" that they have to focus on those products that make them money ... They ran as fast as they could to escape the mighty corporation they call Microsoft, only to become more and more like them everyday. "Luke, I am your Father ..." ;P D.
Douglas Troy wrote: Yes, I realize that, my "stab" was at the fact that "in the beginning" it was all about "power to the people! That's not what RedHat was ever about. They were always about making money. The above is more what Linux as a larger movement is about. That RedHat can stand to make any money whatsoever selling a "free" product is rather remarkable. More power to 'em if they can make it work :)
-
Yes, I realize that, my "stab" was at the fact that "in the beginning" it was all about "power to the people! It's all free!" ... but as time wore on, and small open source movement progressed, later becoming public and having serious growing pains, they have come to realize that it order to continue to grow and provide to "the people" that they have to focus on those products that make them money ... They ran as fast as they could to escape the mighty corporation they call Microsoft, only to become more and more like them everyday. "Luke, I am your Father ..." ;P D.
RedHat is only one of many Linux distributions, many of the others are still free. the source code will always be free, and people still work on it for free. i really don't understand people's depserate need to disparage the open source movement. what's the point? ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
RedHat is only one of many Linux distributions, many of the others are still free. the source code will always be free, and people still work on it for free. i really don't understand people's depserate need to disparage the open source movement. what's the point? ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: i really don't understand people's depserate need to disparage the open source movement. what's the point? I think it comes as a reaction to the desperate need of many open source enthusiasts to disparage anything 'closed source'. It becomes a kind of knee jerk reaction. As I said earlier, most open source people are victims of their own bravado. Open source is what it is, and nothing more. Paul
-
Douglas Troy wrote: Yes, I realize that, my "stab" was at the fact that "in the beginning" it was all about "power to the people! That's not what RedHat was ever about. They were always about making money. The above is more what Linux as a larger movement is about. That RedHat can stand to make any money whatsoever selling a "free" product is rather remarkable. More power to 'em if they can make it work :)
David Kentley wrote: That RedHat can stand to make any money whatsoever selling a "free" product is rather remarkable. More power to 'em if they can make it wo I totally agree with this statement, however, I disagree that RedHat was always about making money. If "They were always about making money" then I seriously overlooked something along the lines, because until RedHat started pushing to go public, their "front" was that it was all about Open Source and a Free OS, and "making money" was just a means to keep it all going, for the people, of course. Now it's all about making money. Period. D.
-
RedHat is only one of many Linux distributions, many of the others are still free. the source code will always be free, and people still work on it for free. i really don't understand people's depserate need to disparage the open source movement. what's the point? ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Ah Chris, I'm not bashing the Open Source movement at all. I'm not saying it's bad, the wrong thing, or the like, nor do I feel the "need" to ... although this being a message board where people post their opinions, I've done just that, as you have. I'm saying it's about time these groups that touted it could all be done for free have come to realize that 'you know what, that just doesn't work'. Our industry seems to be the only one where people feel compelled to give entire software packages away for free; which is very different than sharing information for free like here on CP; many groups share information for free. Giving away full blown software packages threatens our lively hood, and as a group we should be smarter than that. I've yet to go to the doctor's office, a grocery store, or the "mall" and find a shop that says, "Hey, you know what? Take this for free". Matter of fact, our Medical insurance coverage just jumped up almost $50/mo. and will now cost my family more than a monthly car payment so we can have health insurance to go see a doctor. The only other group I can think of that gives something away for free, at least initially, are drug pushers. What I find most disturbing is that more people don't understand how giving things away for free has negatively impacted our industry. Again, that was my original "point" - that they've come to realize that it just doesn't work like that. I completely and totally respect what you've said, and agree with some of it, but I'm still happy these groups are coming around to reality. D.
-
Ah Chris, I'm not bashing the Open Source movement at all. I'm not saying it's bad, the wrong thing, or the like, nor do I feel the "need" to ... although this being a message board where people post their opinions, I've done just that, as you have. I'm saying it's about time these groups that touted it could all be done for free have come to realize that 'you know what, that just doesn't work'. Our industry seems to be the only one where people feel compelled to give entire software packages away for free; which is very different than sharing information for free like here on CP; many groups share information for free. Giving away full blown software packages threatens our lively hood, and as a group we should be smarter than that. I've yet to go to the doctor's office, a grocery store, or the "mall" and find a shop that says, "Hey, you know what? Take this for free". Matter of fact, our Medical insurance coverage just jumped up almost $50/mo. and will now cost my family more than a monthly car payment so we can have health insurance to go see a doctor. The only other group I can think of that gives something away for free, at least initially, are drug pushers. What I find most disturbing is that more people don't understand how giving things away for free has negatively impacted our industry. Again, that was my original "point" - that they've come to realize that it just doesn't work like that. I completely and totally respect what you've said, and agree with some of it, but I'm still happy these groups are coming around to reality. D.
Douglas Troy wrote: I'm saying it's about time these groups that touted it could all be done for free have come to realize that 'you know what, that just doesn't work'. what groups? the news here is that one company decided it didn't want to support one product line any more. there are still plenty of free ditribs out there, and (nearly) all the software in them is GPL'd. there are still people doing it for free. Douglas Troy wrote: Giving away full blown software packages threatens our lively hood, and as a group we should be smarter than that. MS crushes a new set of toolkit vendors and independent developers each time they bundle some new functionality with their OS or with their compiler. i don't see many people complaining about that. -c ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
ColinDavies wrote: Personally I think a lot of business' should factor in replacing 100% of there IT Hard and SoftWare every 30 - 60 months. To me this sounds like the viewpoint of someone who is hopelessly "inside" the industry and can't see the end users' standpoint. You know, the people who all this crap is supposed to serve. Our job as developers should be first and foremost to make the lives of our users easier. That does NOT include forcing them to gut their entire infrastructure every 2.5-5 years. That this is considered normal operating procedure to some proves just how far we have to go.
David Kentley wrote: To me this sounds like the viewpoint of someone who is hopelessly "inside" the industry and can't see the end users' standpoint. No, you obviosly don't know me well :-) . I'm more involved in business then I am in the IT world now. And what I really care about in business is the increase in Shareholder Value. If human computer users are involved in this so be it, but really they are just another resource. David Kentley wrote: Our job as developers should be first and foremost to make the lives of our users easier. I never said I was a developer? :-) And I was talking about business not users. Their is a slight difference in how the terms are used. David Kentley wrote: That does NOT include forcing them to gut their entire infrastructure every 2.5-5 years. No, the market is what forces them to UPGRADE every couple of years. Any company that is interested in increasing their revenues year after year must be crafting their portfolio or strategic initiatives over several horizons. The need initiatives to fortify and extend their position in the existing business world. They need to leverage existing resources and abilities that promise growth potential. And they need Strategic initaives to cultivate ventures or products that do not yet exist. Example. Company A and B and C are all competing in manufacturing a similar product. Company A purchases a new IT system that improves their efficiencies after installation. Thus Company B and C start losing there market share to Company A. Ok, Company B gets wise and decides to upgrade but they take it one step further than company A. Now Company B wins back not only it's market share but some of Company C's By this time Company C's revenues are not sufficient for them to upgrade to a new IT system. Scenarios like this have been happening for quite a few years now and will continue to happen as long as technology improves. Another example is a "Earth Moving Business" I am involved with. This is not a typical business that you would think would be affected by technology. But last year they installed a new Logistics simulation package, and were able to reduce their transportation diesel fuel usage by almost 12%. Hence they are far more competitive then their competitors in the tendering of contracts. They are already looking at upgrading the current system to get a few more savings from a newer version. I think they will be lloking at le
-
Ah Chris, I'm not bashing the Open Source movement at all. I'm not saying it's bad, the wrong thing, or the like, nor do I feel the "need" to ... although this being a message board where people post their opinions, I've done just that, as you have. I'm saying it's about time these groups that touted it could all be done for free have come to realize that 'you know what, that just doesn't work'. Our industry seems to be the only one where people feel compelled to give entire software packages away for free; which is very different than sharing information for free like here on CP; many groups share information for free. Giving away full blown software packages threatens our lively hood, and as a group we should be smarter than that. I've yet to go to the doctor's office, a grocery store, or the "mall" and find a shop that says, "Hey, you know what? Take this for free". Matter of fact, our Medical insurance coverage just jumped up almost $50/mo. and will now cost my family more than a monthly car payment so we can have health insurance to go see a doctor. The only other group I can think of that gives something away for free, at least initially, are drug pushers. What I find most disturbing is that more people don't understand how giving things away for free has negatively impacted our industry. Again, that was my original "point" - that they've come to realize that it just doesn't work like that. I completely and totally respect what you've said, and agree with some of it, but I'm still happy these groups are coming around to reality. D.
Giving away full blown software packages threatens our lively hood, and as a group we should be smarter than that. I've yet to go to the doctor's office, a grocery store, or the "mall" and find a shop that says, "Hey, you know what? Take this for free". Matter of fact, our Medical insurance coverage just jumped up almost $50/mo. and will now cost my family more than a monthly car payment so we can have health insurance to go see a doctor. The only other group I can think of that gives something away for free, at least initially, are drug pushers. What I find most disturbing is that more people don't understand how giving things away for free has negatively impacted our industry. Heheheheh.... I can sum up all of this in one neat link. Warning: The following link refers to satire, and should not be taken literally Red Penguins
-
David Kentley wrote: To me this sounds like the viewpoint of someone who is hopelessly "inside" the industry and can't see the end users' standpoint. No, you obviosly don't know me well :-) . I'm more involved in business then I am in the IT world now. And what I really care about in business is the increase in Shareholder Value. If human computer users are involved in this so be it, but really they are just another resource. David Kentley wrote: Our job as developers should be first and foremost to make the lives of our users easier. I never said I was a developer? :-) And I was talking about business not users. Their is a slight difference in how the terms are used. David Kentley wrote: That does NOT include forcing them to gut their entire infrastructure every 2.5-5 years. No, the market is what forces them to UPGRADE every couple of years. Any company that is interested in increasing their revenues year after year must be crafting their portfolio or strategic initiatives over several horizons. The need initiatives to fortify and extend their position in the existing business world. They need to leverage existing resources and abilities that promise growth potential. And they need Strategic initaives to cultivate ventures or products that do not yet exist. Example. Company A and B and C are all competing in manufacturing a similar product. Company A purchases a new IT system that improves their efficiencies after installation. Thus Company B and C start losing there market share to Company A. Ok, Company B gets wise and decides to upgrade but they take it one step further than company A. Now Company B wins back not only it's market share but some of Company C's By this time Company C's revenues are not sufficient for them to upgrade to a new IT system. Scenarios like this have been happening for quite a few years now and will continue to happen as long as technology improves. Another example is a "Earth Moving Business" I am involved with. This is not a typical business that you would think would be affected by technology. But last year they installed a new Logistics simulation package, and were able to reduce their transportation diesel fuel usage by almost 12%. Hence they are far more competitive then their competitors in the tendering of contracts. They are already looking at upgrading the current system to get a few more savings from a newer version. I think they will be lloking at le
Good points, Colin; I wish I could have made them clearly to my last employer. Unfortunately they argued against instead of investing in advanced technology and, when threatened by their first serious competitor - Home Depot, which is heavily invested in IT - they chose to lay off their only IT guy. It's sad to drive by a year later and see the empty parking lots at their stores, but it was entirely predictable, and preventable. "Your village called -
They're missing their idiot." -
Good points, Colin; I wish I could have made them clearly to my last employer. Unfortunately they argued against instead of investing in advanced technology and, when threatened by their first serious competitor - Home Depot, which is heavily invested in IT - they chose to lay off their only IT guy. It's sad to drive by a year later and see the empty parking lots at their stores, but it was entirely predictable, and preventable. "Your village called -
They're missing their idiot."Thanks Roger. Yeah, these days I think it's happening with far greater frequency. The function of "Information" and it's usage as knowledge is just as important now for a business' survival as Operations or Accounting. Even one man and donkey businesses need to consider 'information' in a new light, because if the other one man and donkey businesses are using information, your business will be severly dis-advantaged. Roger Wright wrote: but it was entirely predictable, and preventable. Now that I'm aware of this is in business scenarios, I can see it a good mile off. The Hard-ware place you were at may now be past the recovery point. In a similar vein reading about Wal-Mart, most small businesses seem to think that their success is attributed to buying power. That might be part of the reason, but the big thing Walmart ahs going for it is usage of knowledge. Better than the rest, they know what to buy, then how, where and when to sell it and at what price. Most small retailers pluck numbers out of the air, compared to the scientific approach that Wal-Mart takes. This doesn't mean I'm suggesting that a business should purchase the first pretty box they find. Just that they need to look at there IT section in a different way. Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox