Does SEIV run on XP????

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
That is somewhat shortsighted if you have to warrant for the software as a business company. Linux is great for the average consumer but it has its problems when you want to use it in a company-to-company environment.

Really? I always thought it the other way around.
or it might depend on how you are thinking of it being used. Everything has its pros and cons but I think in general Windows is still best for the desktop machines. And Linux is better for the networking or server apps. Especially if its going to be any company-to-company link.
(and MAC is the best webserver)

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
That is somewhat shortsighted if you have to warrant for the software as a business company. Linux is great for the average consumer but it has its problems when you want to use it in a company-to-company environment.

Such as?

[Mephisto]

If you as a company give/sell Linux to another company/consumer, you have to warrant for it. If Linux is violating IP-Rights (possible risk: SCO vs. the World) you have to indemnify you partner when he cannot use Linux any more or has to pay for it. Can you imagine how much money that is when you have supplied a large consumer like a bank with Linux and their whole production is on a standstill for one or two days?
You have to provide patches for problems with Linux ASAP, i.e. you cannot wait until the community has fixed the problem. You even cannot wait if the community is working on the problem because if not you have lost several days and you partner could hold you responsible for any damage resulting from it. So you have to have some Linux programmers to fix the problems on standby. If, on the other hand, you buy the software yourself from a partner such as Microsoft and a problem with their software arises you will give the OS seller hell to fix it for your customer. And yes, even Microsoft bows to this.
Oh, another problem with open source software for a company is of course the GNU/GPL. First you have to make your work on the product open source itself which means you have to provide your work the customer paid for to gain a business advantage to his market opponents as well (your customer is not delighted about that) and you cannot impose most of the warrant limitations in the GPL to your customers because they violate national law. Oh, if you use Linux in a confidential government environment you are in for another problem: Try to preserve your NDA and to make your confidential government work open source at the same time.

[Phoenix-D]

Originally posted by Magnum357:
[QB] Strange, I swear I did an entire paper in college on the topic of "differences between processors" and I kept running into example where Celerons where made too be more energy effecient then Pentiuams

The only difference between a Celeron and a Pentium is that the Celeron lacks some of the onboard memory.

Video cards are a different matter; they do draw somewhat more power -but- they're limited by the AGP bus, which can't deliver anything close to 60% of the powerput of a normal power supply. If no CDs, disk drives, or the latter are running, THEN it might take that much power, but not before.

[parabolize]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
If you as a company give/sell Linux to another company/consumer, you have to warrant for it. If Linux is violating IP-Rights (possible risk: SCO vs. the World) you have to indemnify you partner when he cannot use Linux any more or has to pay for it. Can you imagine how much money that is when you have supplied a large consumer like a bank with Linux and their whole production is on a standstill for one or two days?
You have to provide patches for problems with Linux ASAP, i.e. you cannot wait until the community has fixed the problem. You even cannot wait if the community is working on the problem because if not you have lost several days and you partner could hold you responsible for any damage resulting from it. So you have to have some Linux programmers to fix the problems on standby. If, on the other hand, you buy the software yourself from a partner such as Microsoft and a problem with their software arises you will give the OS seller hell to fix it for your customer. And yes, even Microsoft bows to this.
Oh, another problem with open source software for a company is of course the GNU/GPL. First you have to make your work on the product open source itself which means you have to provide your work the customer paid for to gain a business advantage to his market opponents as well (your customer is not delighted about that) and you cannot impose most of the warrant limitations in the GPL to your customers because they violate national law. Oh, if you use Linux in a confidential government environment you are in for another problem: Try to preserve your NDA and to make your confidential government work open source at the same time.

Linux does not have to be GNU/GPL. The programs made for Linux don't have to be GNU/GPL.

[Fyron]

Mephisto, you do not have to release ANY code you write under GPL/GNU to be able to use it with or on Linux. All you can not do is claim that actual Linux code is yours. But everything you write can be as closed source as you want it to be.

The case with SCO is a sham.

If Microsoft was so responsive to customers complaining about bugs, why are there still dozens of unpatched security exploits in their software? Surely large companies have complained about them by now.

[Atrocities]

I dream of the day that I can buy a MS product and it be complete, solid, bullet proof, and well MS proof.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
I dream of the day that I can buy a MS product and it be complete, solid, bullet proof, and well MS proof.

Part of the impossibility of that is the popularity of it. The more people who have it, the more people there will be chipping away at it, which will always exceed the number of programmers trying to protect it.

[Magnum357]

True, but maybe their wouldn't be so many people "chipping away at it" if M$ would just stop trying too be the Evil Empire of the Computer world (you hear the Drum role of Star Wars Music as Darth Vader/Bill Gates enters the room).

Seriously though, why does Bill Gates have too rule the entire Computer world? Isn't part of what makes our contry great in the United States is the limitation of Monopolies?

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by Magnum357:
Seriously though, why does Bill Gates have too rule the entire Computer world? Isn't part of what makes our contry great in the United States is the limitation of Monopolies?

Like anyone else who feels that their way is best. We should be glad he didnt start a cult (or did he?)

I guess the new social rule is that politics, religion, and operating system are not topics for polite company.

[ May 24, 2004, 15:11: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]