I'm a c programmer. Does anybody work like me?

[zzuse]

I have been working in one company for nearly one year as a c
programmer.I want to write more codes to improve my programming
skills.But I found my work was just change some configuration files .
I need to change the configuration files to fit for the new
business.Sometimes I want to quit the job.What should I do?

[Klarth]

On Apr 2, 12:26 pm, "zzuse" <[e-mail]:

I have been working in one company for nearly one year as a c
programmer.I want to write more codes to improve my programming
skills.But I found my work was just change some configuration files .
I need to change the configuration files to fit for the new
business.Sometimes I want to quit the job.What should I do?

Quit and find something you enjoy. Or you can talk to your boss first
and see if anything happens and then decide from there.

[Chris Hills]

In article <11**********************@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups. com>, zzuse
<zz***@hotmail.comwrites

>I have been working in one company for nearly one year as a c
programmer.I want to write more codes to improve my programming
skills.But I found my work was just change some configuration files .
I need to change the configuration files to fit for the new
business.Sometimes I want to quit the job.What should I do?

To some extant it depends on which country you are in and which sector
of the industry.

It also depends on the company you are in some put new programmers on
simple jobs for a year to see how they get on and then move them up or
sideways when the get the new intake.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[santosh]

zzuse wrote:

I have been working in one company for nearly one year as a c
programmer.I want to write more codes to improve my programming
skills.But I found my work was just change some configuration files .
I need to change the configuration files to fit for the new
business.Sometimes I want to quit the job.What should I do?

Milk your job for all it's worth and join, or start, a programming
project which you like.

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

zzuse <zz***@hotmail.comwrote:

I have been working in one company for nearly one year as a c
programmer.I want to write more codes to improve my programming
skills.But I found my work was just change some configuration files .
I need to change the configuration files to fit for the new
business.Sometimes I want to quit the job.What should I do?

If you don't have a degree, be careful. Or go get one. If you've got
a degree, take immediate action - either aggressively seek some real
programming responsibilities at your current job or start working on
your resume. It's amazing how many companies will pay good money to
highly-skilled or potentially-skilled workers to do silly things like
edit configuration files. You're not doing your career any favors by
sticking with a dead-end job that gets you no marketable skills.

--
C. Benson Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
cbmanica(at)gmail.com | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Charlton Wilbur]

>>>>"CBM" == Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@vinland.freeshell.orgwrites:

CBMIf you've got a degree, take immediate action - either
CBMaggressively seek some real programming responsibilities at
CBMyour current job or start working on your resume. It's
CBMamazing how many companies will pay good money to
CBMhighly-skilled or potentially-skilled workers to do silly
CBMthings like edit configuration files. You're not doing your
CBMcareer any favors by sticking with a dead-end job that gets
CBMyou no marketable skills.

A lot depends on how onerous the job is, and how scarce employment is.

It's better to be editing configuration files for good money than to
be programming C for nothing. Another route out of this is to keep
the job, but find an open-source project to work on: this is a sort of
resume building, and good code that an employer can see is better than
a resume so polished it gleams.

Then, when you can say "I'm the lead developer of <project>," you'll
have accomplished a few things: you have a good body of code that
potential employers can look at, you've got a program that does
something useful, and you'll have sharpened your coding, architecture,
and project management skills. And possibly even people-management
skills, if a team assembles around your project.

Alternately, if you have a good idea that you can develop on your own
and sell, you can go the micro-ISV route. It used to be called
"shareware"; the idea is, you produce a program that fills a need, and
you sell it for $20-$40. If 1000 people buy it in a year, you've got
money to live on.

(I'm in a position similar to the original poster, and these are
solutions I'm pondering for myself. I've pretty firmly established, I
think, that there are few to no programming jobs available in the area
that would suit me, and if there are, I'm only going to find one by
luck. The micro-ISV approach really looks appealing, except for the 3
to 6 month ramp-up time before I can see any income from it, let alone
start to figure out whether my idea will be commercially successful,
and the concomitant lack of paychecks....)

Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cw*****@chromatico.net

[santosh]

Charlton Wilbur wrote:

>>>"CBM" == Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@vinland.freeshell.orgwrites:

CBMIf you've got a degree, take immediate action - either
CBMaggressively seek some real programming responsibilities at
CBMyour current job or start working on your resume. It's
CBMamazing how many companies will pay good money to
CBMhighly-skilled or potentially-skilled workers to do silly
CBMthings like edit configuration files. You're not doing your
CBMcareer any favors by sticking with a dead-end job that gets
CBMyou no marketable skills.

<snip>

Then, when you can say "I'm the lead developer of <project>," you'll
have accomplished a few things: you have a good body of code that
potential employers can look at,

You have to also ensure that the body of code is good.

<snip>

Alternately, if you have a good idea that you can develop on your own
and sell, you can go the micro-ISV route. It used to be called
"shareware"; the idea is, you produce a program that fills a need, and
you sell it for $20-$40. If 1000 people buy it in a year, you've got
money to live on.

<snip>

The trick of course is to create a program that enough people are
willing to buy. With the amount of OSS around for just about
everything, it presumably harder to earn your living out of writing
shareware.

[Malcolm McLean]

"santosh" <sa*********@gmail.comwrote in message

>
The trick of course is to create a program that enough people are
willing to buy. With the amount of OSS around for just about
everything, it presumably harder to earn your living out of writing
shareware.

It is hard enough to give BASICdraw away for free. I know it is basically a
good program, though of course it is a one-man bedroom programmed job.
However I always cheer whenever the download count on SoftPedia goes up a
tick.

[Chris Hills]

In article <LM******************************@bt.com>, Malcolm McLean
<re*******@btinternet.comwrites

>"santosh" <sa*********@gmail.comwrote in message

>>
The trick of course is to create a program that enough people are
willing to buy. With the amount of OSS around for just about
everything, it presumably harder to earn your living out of writing
shareware.

It is hard enough to give BASICdraw away for free. I know it is
basically a good program, though of course it is a one-man bedroom
programmed job. However I always cheer whenever the download count on
SoftPedia goes up a tick.

Open source values the programmer at ZERO and that is exactly what the
industry is doing.

The question is how the hell did so many fall for it?

Cue the Who " won't get fooled again"

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Malcolm McLean]

"Chris Hills" <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrote in message
news:1y**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...

In article <LM******************************@bt.com>, Malcolm McLean
<re*******@btinternet.comwrites

>>"santosh" <sa*********@gmail.comwrote in message

>>>
The trick of course is to create a program that enough people are
willing to buy. With the amount of OSS around for just about
everything, it presumably harder to earn your living out of writing
shareware.

It is hard enough to give BASICdraw away for free. I know it is basically
a good program, though of course it is a one-man bedroom programmed job.
However I always cheer whenever the download count on SoftPedia goes up a
tick.

Open source values the programmer at ZERO and that is exactly what the
industry is doing.

The question is how the hell did so many fall for it?

Cue the Who " won't get fooled again"

I know I know I know. Far too few pennies come my way, and it is largely
because programming is such a low status job. There must be some way of
turning my Killer Sudoku solver into money, but I haven't found it. I'd
rather people use my stuff than not use it.
--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

[user923005]

On Apr 2, 3:05 pm, Chris Hills <[e-mail]:

In article <[e-mail]>, Malcolm McLean
<[e-mail]

"santosh" <[e-mail] in message

The trick of course is to create a program that enough people are
willing to buy. With the amount of OSS around for just about
everything, it presumably harder to earn your living out of writing
shareware.

It is hard enough to give BASICdraw away for free. I know it is
basically a good program, though of course it is a one-man bedroom
programmed job. However I always cheer whenever the download count on
SoftPedia goes up a tick.

Open source values the programmer at ZERO and that is exactly what the
industry is doing.

The question is how the hell did so many fall for it?

It works like this:

Flatware company "A" builds silverware for sale.

Flatware company "B" wants to sell silverware.

In order to get workers, Flatware company "B" tells anyone who will
listen that Flatware company "A" is doing something evil by charging
for their flatware. I mean, everybody's gotta eat, and here are some
people forcing users to pay for flatware! So what we would like you
kids to do is build flatware for us and we are going to GIVE IT AWAY
FREE! So the kids all work feverishly designing flatware, improving
flatware and building flatware. Then Flatware company "B" takes the
flatware and gives it away. But they do attach a small "Flatware
instructions and technical support fee" for those who want the free
flatware. Coincidentally, this fee is exactly the same as the amount
that Flatware company "A" charges for the flatware. The kids who did
the work get nothing, and the Flatware company "B" executives get
millions of dollars. The uncompensated (read:"slave") labor extracted
from the workers is somehow viewed as wonderful, fruitful, useful by
the slaves, who continue unabated in their quest to punish Flatware
company "A" for their evil propensity to have the absolute gall to
charge money for flatware!

Of course, this is too extreme (and I have contributed GPL, LGPL,
Berkeley style, and Public Domain software). But there is something
to think about here.

IMO-YMMV.

Cue the Who " won't get fooled again"

[Al Balmer]

On 3 Apr 2007 16:12:15 -0700, "user923005" <dc*****@connx.comwrote:

>Then Flatware company "B" takes the
flatware and gives it away. But they do attach a small "Flatware
instructions and technical support fee" for those who want the free
flatware. Coincidentally, this fee is exactly the same as the amount
that Flatware company "A" charges for the flatware

? The most I've ever paid for Linux (Suse 10.2) is $8.99. Where can I
get Vista for that price? I'd be willing to go as high as $10.00.

If I wanted, I could pay for technical support, but I could pay extra
for Windows technical support, too. I don't have to get the support
from Company "B", either.

There are legitimate pros and cons to open source - no need to make up
strawmen.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

[user923005]

On Apr 3, 5:06 pm, Al Balmer <[e-mail]:

On 3 Apr 2007 16:12:15 -0700, "user923005" <[e-mail]:

Then Flatware company "B" takes the
flatware and gives it away. But they do attach a small "Flatware
instructions and technical support fee" for those who want the free
flatware. Coincidentally, this fee is exactly the same as the amount
that Flatware company "A" charges for the flatware

? The most I've ever paid for Linux (Suse 10.2) is $8.99. Where can I
get Vista for that price? I'd be willing to go as high as $10.00.

If I wanted, I could pay for technical support, but I could pay extra
for Windows technical support, too. I don't have to get the support
from Company "B", either.

There are legitimate pros and cons to open source - no need to make up
strawmen.

Give away the razor and sell the blades for $2499:
https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/server/

$45,000:
http://www.novell.com/products/server/howtobuy.html

What, do you think I made that stuff up?

As of September 30, 2006, Red Hat had approximately 191 million shares
outstanding of common stock. Do you think that the college kids who
worked on GPL stuff got to put that money in their pockets?

[Ben Pfaff]

"user923005" <dc*****@connx.comwrites:

As of September 30, 2006, Red Hat had approximately 191 million shares
outstanding of common stock. Do you think that the college kids who
worked on GPL stuff got to put that money in their pockets?

Some folks who hacked on free software got offered the chance to
buy Red Hat stock at the "friends and family" price during their
IPO. Being in college at the time, I didn't have a spare $5k at
the time (or even $5k total) so I didn't get to take advantage of
it myself.
--
"Your correction is 100% correct and 0% helpful. Well done!"
--Richard Heathfield

[Al Balmer]

On 3 Apr 2007 17:15:32 -0700, "user923005" <dc*****@connx.comwrote:

>On Apr 3, 5:06 pm, Al Balmer <[e-mail]:

>On 3 Apr 2007 16:12:15 -0700, "user923005" <[e-mail]:

>Then Flatware company "B" takes the
flatware and gives it away. But they do attach a small "Flatware
instructions and technical support fee" for those who want the free
flatware. Coincidentally, this fee is exactly the same as the amount
that Flatware company "A" charges for the flatware

? The most I've ever paid for Linux (Suse 10.2) is $8.99. Where can I
get Vista for that price? I'd be willing to go as high as $10.00.

If I wanted, I could pay for technical support, but I could pay extra
for Windows technical support, too. I don't have to get the support
from Company "B", either.

There are legitimate pros and cons to open source - no need to make up
strawmen.

Give away the razor and sell the blades for $2499:
https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/server/

$45,000:
http://www.novell.com/products/server/howtobuy.html

What, do you think I made that stuff up?

Here's a secret - you don't have to buy the product from RedHat or
Novell. If you want, you can buy an enhanced (not all open source)
product, or you can buy a different product (services) from those
companies, but if you do, they will provide what you buy, at a cost to
them, just like any other business.

>
As of September 30, 2006, Red Hat had approximately 191 million shares
outstanding of common stock. Do you think that the college kids who
worked on GPL stuff got to put that money in their pockets?

The people who work for Red Hat get paid. The college kids who work on
open source stuff get exactly what they want and expect.

I'm curious - do you feel that you personally have been negatively
impacted by free open source software? I'm in the software business, I
get paid well, and I use open source tools to aid and enhance what I
get paid for.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

[user923005]

On Apr 3, 5:31 pm, Al Balmer <[e-mail]:

On 3 Apr 2007 17:15:32 -0700, "user923005" <[e-mail]:

On Apr 3, 5:06 pm, Al Balmer <[e-mail]:

On 3 Apr 2007 16:12:15 -0700, "user923005" <[e-mail]:

Then Flatware company "B" takes the
flatware and gives it away. But they do attach a small "Flatware
instructions and technical support fee" for those who want the free
flatware. Coincidentally, this fee is exactly the same as the amount
that Flatware company "A" charges for the flatware

? The most I've ever paid for Linux (Suse 10.2) is $8.99. Where can I
get Vista for that price? I'd be willing to go as high as $10.00.

If I wanted, I could pay for technical support, but I could pay extra
for Windows technical support, too. I don't have to get the support
from Company "B", either.

There are legitimate pros and cons to open source - no need to make up
strawmen.

Give away the razor and sell the blades for $2499:
https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/server/

$45,000:
http://www.novell.com/products/server/howtobuy.html

What, do you think I made that stuff up?

Here's a secret - you don't have to buy the product from RedHat or
Novell. If you want, you can buy an enhanced (not all open source)
product, or you can buy a different product (services) from those
companies, but if you do, they will provide what you buy, at a cost to
them, just like any other business.

As of September 30, 2006, Red Hat had approximately 191 million shares
outstanding of common stock. Do you think that the college kids who
worked on GPL stuff got to put that money in their pockets?

The people who work for Red Hat get paid. The college kids who work on
open source stuff get exactly what they want and expect.

Sure, just like my post said.

I'm curious - do you feel that you personally have been negatively
impacted by free open source software?

Not at all.
I gladly use open source tools all the time.
I have participated in at least 50 open source projects from GPL to
Public Domain (might be as many as 200 but I have not really kept
track).

I'm in the software business, I
get paid well, and I use open source tools to aid and enhance what I
get paid for.

I do not object to GPL or LGPL or Berkeley style or Public Domain or
any other sort of open license.
It's not a miracle cure for software woes.
I *do* believe that some people are being exploited. Exploitation
(willing or unwilling) is still exploitation.

I think you mistake my eye for realism with dislike. The outcome of
the open source projects is almost always excellent. I think that
sometimes the pathway to get there is a little odd. While some people
work on these projects with both eyes open (I like to think that I
do), I also believe that some people are duped out of free labor.
Even that would not be so bad -- but others are filling bathtubs with
cash from their work. That is what smells bad to me.

[user923005]

On Apr 3, 5:22 pm, Ben Pfaff <[e-mail]:

"user923005" <[e-mail]:

As of September 30, 2006, Red Hat had approximately 191 million shares
outstanding of common stock. Do you think that the college kids who
worked on GPL stuff got to put that money in their pockets?

Some folks who hacked on free software got offered the chance to
buy Red Hat stock at the "friends and family" price during their
IPO. Being in college at the time, I didn't have a spare $5k at
the time (or even $5k total) so I didn't get to take advantage of
it myself.

I guess that your story is typical (I guess that *most* free GPL work
is by college kids, though I do lots of it myself and I have been out
of college for *cough* quite a while). I want to reiterate that I do
not object to open source software.
The thing that bothers me is when the workers are not compensated at
all and the big companies that sell "tech support" make millions.
*IF* the workers know that this is exactly what is happening then I
have no objection even to that.

[user923005]

On Apr 3, 5:31 pm, Al Balmer <[e-mail]:
[snip]

Here's a secret - you don't have to buy the product from RedHat or
Novell. If you want, you can buy an enhanced (not all open source)
product, or you can buy a different product (services) from those
companies, but if you do, they will provide what you buy, at a cost to
them, just like any other business.

Buying a product without technical support is an insane policy for a
big business.
IMO-YMMV.
My opinion is that Redhat/Novell/etc. have simply stuck a label on the
box that says "tech support" instead of "software sales"
In any case, to have reliable service you need to pay the money.

Now, a small shop that is very Unix savvy can probably get away with
just downloading tar balls and supporting it themselves (of course,
that isn't free either, but it may be the cheapest alternative)
[snip]

As always
IMO-YMMV.

I guess this is turning into an advocacy thread and it probably should
go off to some other newsgroups. I don't know which ones would be
appropriate because nothing useful takes place in them (IMO -- of
course), so I don't read them.

[santosh]

user923005 wrote:

<snip>

I guess this is turning into an advocacy thread and it probably should
go off to some other newsgroups. I don't know which ones would be
appropriate because nothing useful takes place in them (IMO -- of
course), so I don't read them.

news:comp.os.linux.advocacy is an high volume alternative, but all it
might do is to start a flame thread there. Better to quietly bury this
here.

[CBFalconer]

user923005 wrote:

>

.... snip ...

>
The thing that bothers me is when the workers are not compensated at
all and the big companies that sell "tech support" make millions.
*IF* the workers know that this is exactly what is happening then I
have no objection even to that.

However the market system works. If the 'bigs' are making more
than they deserve for their effort, the underlying material is
available to anybody who wants to undercut them. Meanwhile those
who don't need (or want) the additional services don't need to buy
them. Win-win as I see it.

Operations such as RH, Debian, Ubuntu even hire people (and
actually pay them) to create material that they GPL and include in
their own offerings.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[CBFalconer]

Al Balmer wrote:

>

.... snip ...

>
? The most I've ever paid for Linux (Suse 10.2) is $8.99. Where can
I get Vista for that price? I'd be willing to go as high as $10.00.

Hmm. Looks you might be a suitable customer for this bridge I have.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Anthony Irwin]

Al Balmer wrote:

On 3 Apr 2007 16:12:15 -0700, "user923005" <dc*****@connx.comwrote:

>Then Flatware company "B" takes the
flatware and gives it away. But they do attach a small "Flatware
instructions and technical support fee" for those who want the free
flatware. Coincidentally, this fee is exactly the same as the amount
that Flatware company "A" charges for the flatware

? The most I've ever paid for Linux (Suse 10.2) is $8.99. Where can I
get Vista for that price? I'd be willing to go as high as $10.00.

If I wanted, I could pay for technical support, but I could pay extra
for Windows technical support, too. I don't have to get the support
from Company "B", either.

There are legitimate pros and cons to open source - no need to make up
strawmen.

I can download pretty much every major distro for free with my isp as
they have a mirror they also have package repositories for about half
a dozen of the most popular distros so downloading software and
updates does not cost me a cent either because anything through their
mirrors are not included in your bandwidth usage try that with mac os
x or windows.
--
Kind Regards,
Anthony Irwin

http://www.irwinresources.com
email: anthony at the above domain, - www.

[user923005]

On Apr 3, 7:08 pm, CBFalconer <[e-mail]:

user923005 wrote:

... snip ...

The thing that bothers me is when the workers are not compensated at
all and the big companies that sell "tech support" make millions.
*IF* the workers know that this is exactly what is happening then I
have no objection even to that.

However the market system works. If the 'bigs' are making more
than they deserve for their effort, the underlying material is
available to anybody who wants to undercut them. Meanwhile those
who don't need (or want) the additional services don't need to buy
them. Win-win as I see it.

I agree in part with this[1] but I do not think it addresses my point.

[1] this bit:
"If the 'bigs' are making more than they deserve for their effort, the
underlying material is available to anybody who wants to undercut
them."
has a caveat as I see it. If you don't have a million dollars to set
up the infrastructure for big-time tech support, then it's not going
to work.
In fact, I think that UBUNTU is an example of what you are talking
about:
http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid
For that matter, every commercial Linux variant besides Redhat came
after and are also examples of this.
Now, someone could say:
"There is nothing that prevents me from downloading a free instance of
Redhat tarball, removing the Redhat copyright specific stuff, and
reselling the CDs as "Greenhat Linux". This is true, of course. But
who is going to buy the tech support from you? You will need a
considerable work force to handle that end of the business. That
means considerable capital and takes it out of the hands of small
corporations.

Operations such as RH, Debian, Ubuntu even hire people (and
actually pay them) to create material that they GPL and include in
their own offerings.

Yes, and I do like this.

[Richard Bos]

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrote:

user923005 wrote:

The thing that bothers me is when the workers are not compensated at
all and the big companies that sell "tech support" make millions.
*IF* the workers know that this is exactly what is happening then I
have no objection even to that.

However the market system works. If the 'bigs' are making more
than they deserve for their effort, the underlying material is
available to anybody who wants to undercut them.

Except, of course, that anybody _doesn't_.

It doesn't matter a jot how "Frea" you are. What matters is how few
scruples you have, to abuse whatever "Frea"dom, _real_ freedom (for
which, see the dictionary, not the Open Sores Holy Writs), or unfreedom
you can.

Richard

[Richard Bos]

Anthony Irwin <no****@noemailhere.nowherewrote:

Al Balmer wrote:

On 3 Apr 2007 16:12:15 -0700, "user923005" <dc*****@connx.comwrote:

Then Flatware company "B" takes the
flatware and gives it away. But they do attach a small "Flatware
instructions and technical support fee" for those who want the free
flatware. Coincidentally, this fee is exactly the same as the amount
that Flatware company "A" charges for the flatware

? The most I've ever paid for Linux (Suse 10.2) is $8.99. Where can I
get Vista for that price? I'd be willing to go as high as $10.00.

I can download pretty much every major distro for free with my isp as
they have a mirror they also have package repositories for about half
a dozen of the most popular distros so downloading software and
updates does not cost me a cent either because anything through their
mirrors are not included in your bandwidth usage try that with mac os
x or windows.

Yeah, but with Vista you get the shift and punctuation keys for Frea.

Richard

[Al Balmer]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:00:28 -0400, CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Al Balmer wrote:

>>

... snip ...

>>
? The most I've ever paid for Linux (Suse 10.2) is $8.99. Where can
I get Vista for that price? I'd be willing to go as high as $10.00.

Hmm. Looks you might be a suitable customer for this bridge I have.

Sorry, you lost me on that one. Do you think that Vista is not worth
$10? I might agree, but I'd pay that much just for the experience,
even if I wiped the disk after.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

[CBFalconer]

Al Balmer wrote:

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrote:

>Al Balmer wrote:

... snip ...

>>>
? The most I've ever paid for Linux (Suse 10.2) is $8.99. Where can
I get Vista for that price? I'd be willing to go as high as $10.00.

Hmm. Looks you might be a suitable customer for this bridge I have.

Sorry, you lost me on that one. Do you think that Vista is not worth
$10? I might agree, but I'd pay that much just for the experience,
even if I wiped the disk after.

I am intimating that Vista buyers, at any price, are suckers.
Especially see third link below.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>

"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Malcolm McLean]

"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:46***************@yahoo.com...

Al Balmer wrote:

>Sorry, you lost me on that one. Do you think that Vista is not worth
$10? I might agree, but I'd pay that much just for the experience,
even if I wiped the disk after.

I am intimating that Vista buyers, at any price, are suckers.
Especially see third link below.

The problem is that computers can be used to pirate video and audio. It is
very hard to stop. Eventually copyright laws are going to have to change.
But Microsoft have been very responsible in trying to make sure that their
products are not used to break the law as it now stands. The result is an
unacceptable level of interference with the consumer, and one that is
perceived as destroying the functionality of the machine.

Microsoft are shooting themsleves in the foot with the anti-piracy. The
reason is that they sell expensive software to companies and other
institutions. People at home want software that they use at work, but they
generally can't afford to buy copies. So there is a raft of illegal cracks
sitting on home machines. Software is a natural monopoly, since everyone
wants a wordprocessor that can read everyone else's files, and so no new
companies can get into the market.
Remove that raft of illegal software, and suddenly a small product can
compete on price. Before you know it, MegaCorps finds that its staff are
using Bloggsware wordprocessors at home, and want the same program at work.
So there is no longer any pressing reason to have Microsoft.

[Richard Heathfield]

Malcolm McLean said:

The problem is that computers can be used to pirate video and audio.

Similarly, knives can be used to kill people. That doesn't mean we
should only allow the sale of blunt knives. Knives have legitimate
purposes other than killing people, and for that purpose they need to
be sharp. Computers can be used for other things than mere AV piracy,
and for that purpose they need to be sharp.

It is very hard to stop. Eventually copyright laws are going to have
to change. But Microsoft have been very responsible in trying to make
sure that their products are not used to break the law as it now
stands.

A lump of wood can't be used to rip off video and audio either. If you
want to buy something not on the basis of what it can do but on the
basis of what it *can't* do, you may find a lump of wood rather cheaper
than a copy of Vista.

The result is an unacceptable level of interference with the
consumer,

Right.

and one that is perceived as destroying the functionality of
the machine.

Right again. Worse, it will have a knock-on effect in the driver world
which will also affect Linux (and this is possibly the real motivation
behind MS's move).

Microsoft are shooting themsleves in the foot with the anti-piracy.
The reason is that they sell expensive software to companies and other
institutions. People at home want software that they use at work, but
they generally can't afford to buy copies.

In many cases, I wouldn't touch the software they use at work with a
bargepole.

So there is a raft of
illegal cracks sitting on home machines. Software is a natural
monopoly, since everyone wants a wordprocessor that can read everyone
else's files, and so no new companies can get into the market.

No, I don't want any such thing - all I want is for people to stop
assuming that everyone has such a wordprocessor (because the real truth
is that nobody has such a wordprocessor).

Remove that raft of illegal software, and suddenly a small product can
compete on price. Before you know it, MegaCorps finds that its staff
are using Bloggsware wordprocessors at home, and want the same program
at work. So there is no longer any pressing reason to have Microsoft.

Well, be fair - Visual C is worth having. But there is certainly no
pressing reason to have Vista. (In any case, someone here - was it you?
- reported that their copy of Visual C doesn't work on Vista, thus
neatly removing one of the very few reasons to have any Microsoft-based
machines at all!)

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Al Balmer]

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 08:13:57 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:

>Malcolm McLean said:

>The problem is that computers can be used to pirate video and audio.

Similarly, knives can be used to kill people. That doesn't mean we
should only allow the sale of blunt knives. Knives have legitimate
purposes other than killing people, and for that purpose they need to
be sharp. Computers can be used for other things than mere AV piracy,
and for that purpose they need to be sharp.

In fact, you can still kill someone with a dull knife, but you can't
chop onions with it ;-)

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ