ActiveMac - The Most Activated mac Resource

ActiveMac

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

ActiveMac

Articles

Forums

Links

News

News Search

Reviews

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

DVD

ActiveHardware

Xbox

MaINTosh

News Search

ANet Chats

The Lobby

Special Events Room

Developer's Lounge

XBox Chat

FAQ's

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows "Whistler" XP

Windows CE

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

TopTechTips

Registry Tips

Windows 95/98

Windows 2000

Internet Explorer 4

Internet Explorer 5

Windows NT Tips

Program Tips

Easter Eggs

Hardware

DVD

Latest Reviews

Applications

Microsoft Windows XP Professional

Norton SystemWorks 2002

Hardware

Intel Personal Audio Player 3000

Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer

Site News/Info

About This Site

Affiliates

ANet Forums

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Links

Member Pages

Site Search

Awards

Credits
�1997/2004, Active Network. All Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by Designer Dream. Content written by the Active Network team. Please click here for full terms of use and restrictions or read our Privacy Statement.

Bush totally against scrapping H1-B visas

Time: 11:33 EST/16:33 GMT | News Source: Yahoo News | Posted By: Adrian Latinak

U.S. President George W. Bush is reportedly against a critical bill now in Congress that would cut down H1-B visas dramatically, affecting skilled IT and other workers from India.

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying 26 through 50 of 456
Prev | Last | Next

The time now is 4:44:31 PM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#26 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/18/2003 6:11:40 PM

"I refuse to use tools that aren't as good as the ones available commercially (or available from commercial vendors at no cost) and because of their lacking quality, they make things harder for me which, in turn, significantly raises the costs in time and money for me and my customers."

How 'bout: you're the own who claimed they threaten the employability of every programmer. I didn't say anything about the viability or utility of OSS tools. I'm speaking more broadly: any cost saving measure that can be realized is a boon to business. Which is it? You can have it both ways: it is either a threat that destroys the livelihood of all programmers or it is a viable option for saving money. In fact, it's a spectrum of many things between these two things, but I'm speaking broadly and you are speaking in extremes.

And clearly, now you are speaking personally: you don't want to retrain or learn something new--oh well, too bad for you. Do you think that nothing new is going to come along that's worth learning?

"I personally wouldn't want to work like that. " And that's you. And because of that, you have no one to blame if OSS every comes to really "threaten" you.

"Besides all this, look at the primary drivers of innovation in the Linux community. It's not the community itself. It's commercial companies contributing code and features." And? What's wrong with that? As I said, any cost savings that can be realized will be exploited by some to their advantage. You are the one claiming that no one can make money or be employed creating OS code.

"All code doesn't have a service that you can sell with it, and many times the service offered would be more expensive for the provider than commercially licensing code use rights. " And services aren't the only model and as I said, I'm speaking generally--if it does save money, it does save money.

"Then there's the money put towards R&D that provides acutely focused research into new and existing areas. Right now, other than from established commercial entities, Linux has no focused R&D." And? As I said, this is for businesses to exploit. HP, IBM, Apple, Novell can maximize their R&D because the cost is less.

"The majority what's offered are clones of commercial products." So what? What does that have to do with limiting your employability and the ability to save costs through OS.

"Again, the real developments and additions come mainly from commercial entities." This is fundamental to my ideas. You are the one claiming that commercial entities are threatened and/or cannot or should not use OS.

"When you try to give away the products and base everything off of a service that few will utilize, you get bankruptcy, much like what has and is happening to several Linux distributors." And? Is their a point? Is it a threat or isn't it? More Wintel OEMs have gone out of business than Linux vendors.

"And even the Linux distributors don't try to make a business just out of a service model." What? You can make money in more than one way with OS? My God! That's horrible! I thought it completely destroyed sources of revenue.

"Last I checked, Red Hat was trying to sell as many copies of their distributions as they could at prices comparable to and higher than Microsofts (and with a lot less support than MS to help drive the service revenue)." Wait, it's crappy software and more expensive and it's remaining a viable business? No f'ing way!

"Probably the only service you could offer that would guarantee an adaquate user/revenue base would be offering the software on a subscription basis, but that's hardly different from offering it on a store shelf." Woah! You can even sell OS software through traditional means? Freaking crazy!

#27 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/18/2003 6:21:41 PM

"You're not charging more for the same work/product." You and Bob both said so... Bob specifically said: "OSS replaces my revenue stream with free products." His code costs more. You said: "Why would I need to pay a programmer (or as many programmers) if the solution I need can be cobbled together with various OSS components and/or developed by those willing to work for free?" So you admit that the same product can be provided for less or free. Of course, you also keep jumping back and forth between saying it'll destroy commercial software and that it's unviable all together... so who can make sense of what you have to say. I don't have anything against the cost of a product remaining the same or even getting higher--I jsut said that anything that will produce a cost savings for a business will be exploited for that companies benefit.

"As Bob pointed out, you're charging the same price for a better product." I never said the cost savings have to be passed on to the end product. The business is realizing the cost savings. In this case, Microsft and Apple--and that's good , right? Because I also didn't say you can't save costs other ways. But I did say that if it can happen it will and it will benefit the business as a result.

"That's a lot of added value that is essentially free." What? Added value for free--shouldn't you be maximizing your value by charging what it's worth? (Can't you see that my statement applies no matter what--proprietary or OSS or whatever--you want to realize increased productivity and lower costs but are afraid of something that you in one breath attribute as the death of capitalism and the biggest threat to you and yet... it's worthless horrible crap that you wouldn't touch. Hmmm.)

"Thus the product in that respect was (and is) cheaper, and not the same product because it offers more to the user." I never claimed that OSS was the only way to lower costs. Finding an example of lowering cost that doesn't involve OSS doesn't prove that OSS doesn't lower costs and improve business opportunities.

And what's with this example of Apple? Some nudge or something? It's retarded--for several reasons, it's 100% consistent with my statements, it was actually made possible in part because of OSS so more than being consistent it actually supports my argument--what was the point? A silly little knock against the disconnect between features in OS 9 and OS X? Ooooh. Big deal.

And you also fail to note that because Apple can leverage efficiencies in OSS development it can pursue a yearly upgrade schedule that the consumers feel is a compelling enough product to purchase. While a closed proprietary company is toiling away for years.... Thanks for demonstrating my point.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, September 18, 2003 at 18:58.

#28 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/18/2003 7:35:55 PM

Yeah, I really love this one:

">IBM didn't like it when Microsoft commoditized hardware. I don't like it when IBM tries to do it to software.

ok, I see we understand the real issue... cool! This is exactly what IBM is trying to do. "

Glad you pointed it out, cheeba (sorry, that's what I think when I see your handle).

Oh, but you liked when MS did it though, Bob, because you use their stuff, and now you would probably assert that even if IBM didn't like it the effect was beneficial to all, no?

But, when it happens to you, there can't possibly be any merit to it, no long term benefits to the industry, because now you are in the position that IBM was 20 years ago, Bob. Boo hoo, did you have any sympathy for IBM then? Do you think it provided valuable and beneficial change in the industry to all?

And You, Bob, do see that the same type of change is occurring now? So... was it bad before... or is it good now? It is the same thing after all.

and cheeba, in terms of your question, I have nothing against either (or rather, in the case of the former, I prefer that we bring them over here and integrate them into our society--which is more inline with this story than work going abroad).

This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, September 18, 2003 at 19:41.

#29 By 2459 (69.22.92.164) at 9/18/2003 7:41:27 PM

I have it both ways :)

OSS is sometimes good, sometimes not wanted as a goal of what you're trying to accomplish. While OSS isn't "a threat that destroys the livelihood of all (commercial) programmers," the GPL (and the like) certainly is. Especially given the childish "you can't take it back even though you never offically released it" and "we don't recognize copyright, patents, or IP" attitude of some in the community. Not to mention the "our way or no way" attitude with regard of wanting everything GPLed or ported whether the prospect is viable or not.

And clearly, now you are speaking personally: you don't want to retrain or learn something new--oh well, too bad for you. Do you think that nothing new is going to come along that's worth learning?

lol, I haven't completed my training, so there's nothing to retrain. I've learned plenty of new stuff as it's come along depending on its usefulness/viability/etc. It's a long way from the TI-99/4A or Commadore ADAM I started with. I am learning something new, BTW, it's called .NET, managed DirectX, web services, XML, NGSCB, IPv6 and other networking-related tech, the new tech that comes along on the hardware side like PCI-Express, NEWCARD/ExpressCard, SATA, and whatever else comes along that I find interesting, and that's just in my spare time (which gets smaller all the time).

Concerning formal training, it has covered C++ and currently Java. I place Linux in the same boat as Java. It's something I don't need and I don't need to replace what I currently use with it. If anything, I'm already retraining myself beyond what I've currently been offered formally. You've failed in targeting the motives behind my dislike of the GPL and certain OSS views -- oh, well.

As I said, this is for businesses to exploit. HP, IBM, Apple, Novell can maximize their R&D because the cost is less.
The cost won't be less. You still have to develop new code and new technologies. If you're saying the cost would be less because the companies could effectively pool their money/resources, this occurs currently with commercial vendor research firms. Most cases won't likely be conducive to collaberation however, because different entities often have different needs and different ways of accomplishing the same task. What one company wants a new standard or tech to be doesn't always fit with another company's vision (see XSD).
Thus each company will still spend more money push for research that fits their needs, or to extend the agreed upon standard to fit with their needs. One of the main reasons OSS is currently held back because of failure to focus on one way of doing something instead of having 30 implementations of the same thing.

Also, the model for making money from primarily hardware companies like Apple, IBM, and HP would be different from a software company trying to sell something that's free. When you employ programmers, and are trying to sell the fruits of their labor, but also have to give it away, you're going to have a hell of a time trying to make a profit let alone pay your employees enough to live off of.

#30 By 2459 (69.22.92.164) at 9/18/2003 7:41:56 PM

(continued)

What does that have to do with limiting your employability and the ability to save costs through OS.

When the majority of your work involves working to clone the work of others at a slower pace than the new tech being developed, instead of using the tech that is already developed as the solution to your problem, you aren't saving costs. You're wasting money (in wasted time and redevelopment costs).

This is fundamental to my ideas. You are the one claiming that commercial entities are threatened and/or cannot or should not use OS.

I said they shouldn't use GPL/GPL-like licenses. Whether to use open your code depends on the goals and sensitivity of the project.

More Wintel OEMs have gone out of business than Linux vendors.
That's because there's a heck of a lot more of them. I could say the same about Apple resellers.

What? You can make money in more than one way with OS? My God! That's horrible! I thought it completely destroyed sources of revenue.

And you totally missed the point. If a strict, give away the software, charge only for support model was viable for a distributor like Red Hat, there'd be no need to sell the product. They do so to supplement the support revenue in hopes of pulling a profit.

Wait, it's crappy software and more expensive and it's remaining a viable business? No f'ing way!

Crappy (not as crappy as the others), limited viabillity, though I like RH more than the rest of them. Current sales come mostly from those using it as an alternative to more expensive proprietary UNIX and the ABM crowd. BTW, what happens to Red Hat's service model if all of their customers hire one or two people to serve as in-house support and the in-house guys cost less than Red Hat's service? No money for you !!! Red Hat tanks with the rest of 'em or stops giving away free licenses.

Woah! You can even sell OS software through traditional means? Freaking crazy!

You can try. Why buy when it's free? And again, it's GPL/GPL-like, not OSS in general.

#31 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/18/2003 8:19:21 PM

enforcer, i made a very genral but clear statement which you took umbrage to. Now you are all over the place...

You have it both ways... Whatever, dude, you're being a hypocrite. I am speaking generally--I didn't say all OS is better than proprietary software, I didn't say you need to be a pure OS company, I didn't say you couldn't charge for your products.

I said that if you can leverage OS to save costs (which is what Bob said it did--lowered the cost) than businesses would take advantage of that to be more productive.

Yet you disagree with me, yet concede that that can be true? Whatever.

"The cost won't be less. You still have to develop new code and new technologies." Of course it will. Of course they'll work on new code and new technologies, but some of it will already be built, or the fundamentals will be built, or they can reuse techniques from openly available code. That definitely reduces the cost of development.

#32 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/18/2003 8:20:15 PM

"Also, the model for making money from primarily hardware companies like Apple, IBM, and HP would be different from a software company trying to sell something that's free. When you employ programmers, and are trying to sell the fruits of their labor, but also have to give it away, you're going to have a hell of a time trying to make a profit let alone pay your employees enough to live off of. "

Again, so what? Are thy able to leverage OS? Does it reduce their costs? Yes, yes. Because you can imagine the possibility where this doesn't come true because of who knows what factors doesn't negate my very, very, very basic statement.

"When the majority of your work involves working to clone the work of others at a slower pace than the new tech being developed, instead of using the tech that is already developed as the solution to your problem, you aren't saving costs. You're wasting money (in wasted time and redevelopment costs). "

This is your biased perception of their success or lack of it. Evolution seems to be profitable for Ximian no matter if it is behind on features.

"I said they shouldn't use GPL/GPL-like licenses."

You brought the GPL up for the first time in #37. In 334 you refer to OSS twice, and OSS alone, no GPL.

"More Wintel OEMs have gone out of business than Linux vendors.
That's because there's a heck of a lot more of them. I could say the same about Apple resellers."

My point being by no means have you demonstrated that it's not viable to use OSS by pointing out that, what? 4? Linux companies have failed. Big deal.

"If a strict, give away the software, charge only for support model was viable for a distributor like Red Hat, there'd be no need to sell the product. They do so to supplement the support revenue in hopes of pulling a profit. "

Again, this is your distorted and biased view of OS. No one believes that you are forced to give everything away for free by using OS, that you are trapped in one service model. Numerous companies are pursuing numerous models (most of them are actually 100% proprietary) and yet they still manage to use OS software. Amazing, huh?

"Crappy (not as crappy as the others), limited viabillity, though I like RH more than the rest of them. Current sales come mostly from those using it as an alternative to more expensive proprietary UNIX and the ABM crowd. BTW, what happens to Red Hat's service model if all of their customers hire one or two people to serve as in-house support and the in-house guys cost less than Red Hat's service? No money for you !!! Red Hat tanks with the rest of 'em or stops giving away free licenses."

Again, what does this have to do with anything? My statement was OS can and will lower cost for businesses if it can truly be leveraged and this will lead to savings and productivity boosts. I don't care where Red Hat is getting their customers, or what distorted views you have about RH's future, or if you like them or not. I am attacking your premise that OS will kill proprietary software development, that it isn't a cost saver for businesses--because by disagreeing with me in the first place, that is what you were saying.

"You can try. Why buy when it's free? And again, it's GPL/GPL-like, not OSS in general."

Wait, wait, wait--are people doing it? That's all that's relevent. You are again injecting your distorted bias and presuming failure before it's happened. And, again, you were confident enough to speak generally about OSS before--you have only recently decided to claim that you were simply speaking og the GPL all along.

#33 By 2459 (69.22.92.164) at 9/18/2003 10:07:43 PM

OK, sodajerk, I think the problem is the difference between OSS and GPL-style OSS, and whether you are talking about reusable components or full blown apps when you reference OSS.

Looking back over your posts, I think you mean the former in both cases. If so, then I agree. As I said in previous posts, OSS can be useful depending on the sensitivity and goals of a project.

The main thing I am against are licenses restricting reuse of OS code in proprietary products. For instance, something along the lines of BSD which allows reuse without threat to your own codebase, or components that aid in app development such as those on http://www.codeproject.com I support.

Full blown GPLed applications that seek to replace commercial software development and code that, if used, can compromise the investment in your own codebase is what I don't support. I don't necessarily mind it since it's around, but in no way do I support the community leaders' goals of supplanting commercial development or opening all code (I know all don't share these goals, but the ones that do are generally the more vocal and touted as leaders in that community).

So, in short, I think we agree (still not sure). I think the main thing that spurred the miscommunication was cba's comment: How does Linux threaten your job? How does OSS threaten your job? Isn't it just more tools available?

My initial response was loaded based on this , Bob's code comment, and your response to it. I was thinking more along the lines of GPLed OSS instead of better seperating the two. Blame the media for making OSS synonomous with Linux/GPL. :-)

#34 By 4240821 (45.149.82.86) at 10/26/2023 6:29:46 AM