a origem do walloween.
Soluções para a tarefa
Respondido por
0
A brincadeira de "doces ou travessuras" é originária de um costume europeu do século IX, chamado de "souling" (almejar).
No dia 2 de novembro, Dia de Todas as Almas (ou Finados aqui no Brasil), os cristãos iam de vila em vila pedindo "soul cakes" (bolos de alma), que eram feitos de pequenos quadrados de pão com groselha.
Para cada bolo que ganhasse, a pessoa deveria fazer uma oração por um parente morto do doador.
Acreditava-se que as almas permaneciam no limbo por um certo tempo após sua morte e que as orações ajudavam-na a ir para o céu.
No dia 2 de novembro, Dia de Todas as Almas (ou Finados aqui no Brasil), os cristãos iam de vila em vila pedindo "soul cakes" (bolos de alma), que eram feitos de pequenos quadrados de pão com groselha.
Para cada bolo que ganhasse, a pessoa deveria fazer uma oração por um parente morto do doador.
Acreditava-se que as almas permaneciam no limbo por um certo tempo após sua morte e que as orações ajudavam-na a ir para o céu.
Respondido por
0
{ The body of the Halloween Document is an internal strategy memorandum on Microsoft's possible responses to the Linux/Open Source phenomenon.
(This annotated version has been renamed ``Halloween I''; there's a sequel, ``Halloween II'', which marks up a second memo more specifically addressing Linux.)
Microsoft has publicly acknowledged that this memorandum is authentic, but dismissed it as a mere engineering study that does not define Microsoft policy.
However, the list of collaborators mentioned at the end includes some people who are known to be key players at Microsoft, and the document reads as though the research effort had the cooperation of top management; it may even have been commissioned as a policy white paper for Bill Gates's attention (the author seems to have expected that Gates would read it).
Either way, it provides us with a very valuable look past Microsoft's dismissive marketing spin about Open Source at what the company is actually thinking -- which, as you'll see, is an odd combination of astuteness and institutional myopia.
Despite some speculation that this was an intentional leak, this seems quite unlikely. The document is too damning; portions could be considered evidence of anti-competitive practices for the DOJ lawsuit. Also, the author ``refused to confirm or deny'' when initially contacted, suggesting that Microsoft didn't have its story worked out in advance.
Since the author quoted my analyses of open-source community dynamics (The Cathedral and the Bazaar and Homesteading the Noosphere) extensively, it seems fair that I should respond on behalf of the community. :-)
Key Quotes:
Here are some notable quotes from the document, with hotlinks to where they are embedded. It's helpful to know that ``OSS'' is the author's abbreviation for ``Open Source Software''. FUD, a characteristic Microsoft tactic, is explained here.
* OSS poses a direct, short-term revenue and platform threat to Microsoft, particularly in server space. Additionally, the intrinsic parallelism and free idea exchange in OSS has benefits that are not replicable with our current licensing model and therefore present a long term developer mindshare threat.
* Recent case studies (the Internet) provide very dramatic evidence ... that commercial quality can be achieved / exceeded by OSS projects.
* ...to understand how to compete against OSS, we must target a process rather than a company.
* OSS is long-term credible ... FUD tactics can not be used to combat it.
* Linux and other OSS advocates are making a progressively more credible argument that OSS software is at least as robust -- if not more -- than commercial alternatives. The Internet provides an ideal, high-visibility showcase for the OSS world.
* Linux has been deployed in mission critical, commercial environments with an excellent pool of public testimonials. ... Linux outperforms many other UNIXes ... Linux is on track to eventually own the x86 UNIX market ...
* Linux can win as long as services / protocols are commodities.
* OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.
* The ability of the OSS process to collect and harness the collective IQ of thousands of individuals across the Internet is simply amazing. More importantly, OSS evangelization scales with the size of the Internet much faster than our own evangelization efforts appear to scale.
How To Read This Document:
Comments in green, surrounded by curly brackets, are me (Eric S. Raymond). I have highlighted what I believe to be key points in the original text by turning them red. I have inserted comments near these key points; you can skim the document by surfing through this comment index in sequence.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
.
(This annotated version has been renamed ``Halloween I''; there's a sequel, ``Halloween II'', which marks up a second memo more specifically addressing Linux.)
Microsoft has publicly acknowledged that this memorandum is authentic, but dismissed it as a mere engineering study that does not define Microsoft policy.
However, the list of collaborators mentioned at the end includes some people who are known to be key players at Microsoft, and the document reads as though the research effort had the cooperation of top management; it may even have been commissioned as a policy white paper for Bill Gates's attention (the author seems to have expected that Gates would read it).
Either way, it provides us with a very valuable look past Microsoft's dismissive marketing spin about Open Source at what the company is actually thinking -- which, as you'll see, is an odd combination of astuteness and institutional myopia.
Despite some speculation that this was an intentional leak, this seems quite unlikely. The document is too damning; portions could be considered evidence of anti-competitive practices for the DOJ lawsuit. Also, the author ``refused to confirm or deny'' when initially contacted, suggesting that Microsoft didn't have its story worked out in advance.
Since the author quoted my analyses of open-source community dynamics (The Cathedral and the Bazaar and Homesteading the Noosphere) extensively, it seems fair that I should respond on behalf of the community. :-)
Key Quotes:
Here are some notable quotes from the document, with hotlinks to where they are embedded. It's helpful to know that ``OSS'' is the author's abbreviation for ``Open Source Software''. FUD, a characteristic Microsoft tactic, is explained here.
* OSS poses a direct, short-term revenue and platform threat to Microsoft, particularly in server space. Additionally, the intrinsic parallelism and free idea exchange in OSS has benefits that are not replicable with our current licensing model and therefore present a long term developer mindshare threat.
* Recent case studies (the Internet) provide very dramatic evidence ... that commercial quality can be achieved / exceeded by OSS projects.
* ...to understand how to compete against OSS, we must target a process rather than a company.
* OSS is long-term credible ... FUD tactics can not be used to combat it.
* Linux and other OSS advocates are making a progressively more credible argument that OSS software is at least as robust -- if not more -- than commercial alternatives. The Internet provides an ideal, high-visibility showcase for the OSS world.
* Linux has been deployed in mission critical, commercial environments with an excellent pool of public testimonials. ... Linux outperforms many other UNIXes ... Linux is on track to eventually own the x86 UNIX market ...
* Linux can win as long as services / protocols are commodities.
* OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.
* The ability of the OSS process to collect and harness the collective IQ of thousands of individuals across the Internet is simply amazing. More importantly, OSS evangelization scales with the size of the Internet much faster than our own evangelization efforts appear to scale.
How To Read This Document:
Comments in green, surrounded by curly brackets, are me (Eric S. Raymond). I have highlighted what I believe to be key points in the original text by turning them red. I have inserted comments near these key points; you can skim the document by surfing through this comment index in sequence.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
.
Perguntas interessantes
Inglês,
10 meses atrás
Física,
10 meses atrás
Física,
10 meses atrás
Matemática,
1 ano atrás
Ed. Física,
1 ano atrás
História,
1 ano atrás
Português,
1 ano atrás
Filosofia,
1 ano atrás