Slashdot Mirror

It doesn't seem that Sun has abandoned Java to mobile devices, however they had to be enticed to it... This article announces a colaboration between Sun and Intel to improve Java support and performance on X-Scale based devices (this includes some cell phones, PalmOS PDAs and Pocket PC PDAs). Now, if it only told you where to download the software up...

It seems that they can not even perform basic background checks on their own employees: CIO of Department of Homeland Security Suspended. Seems she got her "doctorate in computer information systems" from a phony college.

Yeah, that is the type of thing that inspires confidence.

• @stake
• BindView
• Caldera International (The SCO Group)
• Foundstone
• Guardent
• ISS
• Microsoft
• NAI
• Oracle
• SGI
• Symantec

Check this out:

SCO's CEO says buyout could end Linux fight

If IBM wants to buy The SCO Group Inc. and end SCO's ongoing Unix licensing assault on Linux, CEO Darl McBride is apparently all ears.

Is it stretching the imagination too much to suppose that SCO are simply pissing people off in order to get themselves bought out in a settlement?

One, they don't take Linux seriously. They're saying the same things in their brainless complaint that they said in early 1999. They just don't get it.

Two, they're stupid enough to expect IBM to cave in on a bluff. And if IBM aply the wrong lawyers to the case (things aren't looking so crash-hot on that front judging by their last filing), SCO's stupidity may actually pay off. Even so, it would have been an unjustifiable gamble if SCO hadn't already been doomed anyway.

I think SCO's desperate and technically baseless actions are a reasonably clear indicator that they do know that they're doomed if this doesn't work.

"The only way that the pathway is an "eight-lane highway" for Linux to achieve the scalability, SMP support, fail-over capabilities and reliability of UNIX is by the improper extraction, use, and dissemination of the proprietary and confidential UNIX Software Code and libraries. Indeed, UNIX was able to achieve its status as the premiere operating system only after decades of hard work, beginning with the finest computer scientists at AT&T Bell Laboratories, plaintiff's predecessor in interest."

Ironically, UnixWare did not get usable SMP on Intel until after Linux. The UnixWare implememtation was unstable until mid-1997; Linux got working SMP in 1996 with the release of 2.0.

[...]

SCO/Caldera's claim to own the scalability techniques certainly cannot be supported from the feature list of its own SCO OpenServer, a genetic Unix. The latest version[41] advertises SMP up to only 4 processors (a level which SCO's complaint dismisses as inadequate), no LVM, no NUMA, and no hot-swapping. That is, SCO/Caldera is alleging that IBM misappropriated from SCO technologies which do not appear in SCO's own product.

That is to say, it virtually never needs repair, it performs well under a wide variety of adverse circumstances, and it can be extended throughout an enterprise and across multiple processors to perform unified or disparate tasks in a seamless computing environment.

Although effective, massively parallel computing is far from seamless. Think of a MPP as a Beowulf with fast interconnects. It is not the seamless architecture that is described in SCO's complaint.

A company cannot slander Linux. Slander is the oral communication of false statements that injure a person's reputation. As Linux is not a person, slander doesn't apply. Also, Linus would not have a great case for the guy at SCO slandering him because of the nature of the statement. Stating that you are considering bringing a lawsuit against someone is not slander since it is probable that this statement is true, and hard to prove otherwise.

I would have to beg to differ. Firstly, SCO has directly slandered RMS and others in the Free Software movement with their statements, particularly their misquotes. They have directly slandered IBM (which is a corporation and therefore a person). They have indirectly slandered Linus yesterday, for I quote :

Think about if I was the CIO of a company and I'm going to be running my business on an operating system that has an intellectual property foundation that, by almost everyone's admission, is built on quicksand. There is no mechanism in Linux to ensure [the legality of] that intellectual property of the source code being contributed by various people.

...

based on the research that we have done, we have identified specific Unix System V code for which we have ownership rights that have ended up in Linux against our wishes. There is inappropriate intellectual property in Linux. The development process has no one that is ensuring that inappropriate code is not getting into Linux. All that's there is an honor system, and obviously there are a few, at least, that have broken that honor.

Also:

How many lines of code in the Linux kernel are a direct copyright violation? It's very extensive. It is many different sections of code ranging from five to 10 to 15 lines of code in multiple places that are of issue, up to large blocks of code that have been inappropriately copied into Linux in violation of our source-code licensing contract. That's in the kernel itself, so it is significant. It is not a line or two here or there. It was quite a surprise for us.

Now remember first that this is in the context of directly suing Linus. They are talking directly about code which is being committed to the kernel, which is Linus' job as maintainer of the Linux kernel. They are publicly claiming not only that Linus' methods are negligent, but that this idea is widely accepted and patently obvious. They are directly attacking his skills as an engineer and his reputation as an honest man.

Reading what Sontag had to say pissed me off because firstly it was a lie and secondly it was a direct attack on Linus' character and skills. If that is not slander, I do not know what is.

That said, I do not expect Linus to sue anyone, because

1) He is just not a suing kind of guy

2) He is not a hothead like me ;)

3) He is pretty wise in his dealings

Linus knows to keep his mouth shut and not be baited by SCO because he knows he is in a fight for his life, but also that SCO is going to hang themselves if we can be patient. Besides, all indications so far are that SCO has nothing. Linus, as the quintessential engineer, is waiting to see what the problem really is so he can fix it. Until SCO "produces the body" (GOD, can there be a habeus corpus for a situation like this? Too bad IANAL!) we don't know what they are talking about. By SCO's own admission, neither do they at this point.

As for RMS, well, damnit, many slashdotters have claimed he has no reputation to smear, and that is really very sad. I don't think he deserves half the hell people give him, and I think if he has lost reputation it is only because he has suffered many slings and arrows and continued to go on with his Holy Quest.

How many lines of code in the Linux kernel are a direct copyright violation?
It's very extensive.

Saw that earlier and did some digging.

It would appear that SCO agreed to pay 95% of Unixware 2+ licences back to Novell until 2002 and all of the Unixware 2- licences in perpituity.

I was unable to come up with the text of the 6th December 1995 agreement between the two although at the time it was anounced (september) SCO thought they would get all the Unix IP but by the time it was finalised the claimed they owned the 'UNIX source code business', or words to that effect.

However I did also find this.

That would indicate that Novell did indeed plan to keep important parts of the Unix IP all along.

Sadly, only SCO can tell if there has been any infringment on their closed source code. Novel might give you a copy of system V to play with, but only SCO has their newer code. When you conceal details of your work, no one but you can tell. It's one of those problems with the much less than honest aproach that closed source is.

Let them do it, if there is anything to find you would think they would be happy to display it. There is no valid reason for them to not tell what parts of the kernel are infringing, because Linux is publically published. Let them show us the wonderous efficiency of their closed source auditing system. Sure. Total Bullshit.

The only help this Armarni clad greaser needs is for a reduced roid perscription. That, and someone needs to slap that smirk off his face. It came from marketing. "Sontag has extensive experience in building exceptional corporate teams and lasting strategic alliances " I wonder if he considers sucking Bill Gates dick a strategic alliance?

Really? 'Cause that's not what you said before, you bunch of assholes. Last month, it was patents, copyrights, AND trade secrets. Then they got outted about the patents, and the fact they don't own any (Novell and Tarantella do I believe). Then it was copyrights and trade secrets, according to Darl. Now, they drop the copyright argument, after Novell decides to shame them, and evidently are down to trade secret.

Of course, if he's punting the copyright argument, that puts linux out of damage, or should.

Naturally, they're still lying, since they don't know how to do anything else. My favorite line from their press release today:

"SCO owns the contract rights to the UNIX® operating system. SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code, methods or concepts into Linux by any UNIX vendor."

Really? They do? That little bitty circle-R there seems to imply a copyright. I wonder if the Open Group will bitchslap them the way Novell just did, since they own that trademark. Anyone can call any product Unix if Open Group says so, and SCO ain't got a thing to do with it. The only way to make the above sentence true is to substitute UNIX with OpenUnix. Now, the only thing they can hang on to is if IBM put some project Monterrey into linux. That's it, and good luck SCO.

I mean, I understand lying and all to get some cash through FUD, but they're losing their skill at it, because their latest is just bunk through and through.

I suppose it makes sense for Novell to defend Linux (and UNIX) since many of the services provided by NetWare 7 will also be available for Linux!

While I don't discount the possiblity, I find it hard to believe. Not only has Novell given the linux community its blessing, it's building the new Netware 7 OS on top of linux. If it were to come up that Novell's UNIX code was stolen at some point, Novell would be just as guilty as anyone as distributing copyrighted code under the GPL. They couldn't pull a SCO and sue every corporation, because they'd end up suing themselves.

802.11g transfer rate controversy meaningless, says Apple By Jim Dalrymple jdalrymple@maccentral.com May 23, 2003 10:10 pm ET

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. (IEEE), the group responsible for setting standards in the networking industry, approved a new and final draft standard for 802.11g wireless LANs. The standard was approved by the IEEE on May 15, but will not be made publicly available until members of the IEEE 802.11 working group ratify it next month.

Recent published reports that the final standard for 802.11g will be throttled down to 20Mbit/sec aren't an indication of any actual change to the spec, according to Apple's Vice President of Software, Mike Bell.

Bell said the spec has not been throttled back at all, and explains using the familiar 802.11b specification.

"802.11g is still a 54Mbit/sec standard," Bell told MacCentral. "802.11b is 11Mbit/sec, but your actual throughput is somewhere between 4 and 5-1/2Mbit/sec. The number that's quoted is the data rate that's used between the radios (raw data rate, which includes the protocols etc.)"

Although internal tests have shown slightly higher data rates, the actual data rate for 802.11g will be approximately 20Mbit/sec, which is 4 to 5 times higher than 802.11b. Bell said the data rate has always been around 20Mbit/sec and hasn't changed in the final draft standard.

Apple chose 802.11g because of its backward compatibility with 802.11b devices. Many of Apple's own customers in business, education and in the home use the original AirPort for their wireless Internet access, as well as the many wireless HotSpots throughout the United States that use 802.11b.

If you own an 802.11g Base Station and plan to allow 802.11b devices on your network, the changes in the final specification will actually be better for you, according to Apple.

"The only change of any substance is that options were put in place so that if you want to allow legacy 'b' clients on your network, they will co-exist better with 'g' clients," said Bell. "In fact, your throughput is probably better and smoother now than what it was before. There is absolutely no difference in the data rate -- it is still 54Mbit/sec."

Apple has maintained since its release that AirPort Extreme products would follow the final specifications agreed on by the IEEE and Apple's Vice President of Hardware Product Marketing, Greg Joswiak, said on Friday that commitment has not changed.

"We applaud the changes they have made in the final specification," said Joswiak. "As we always said, there is nothing of significance technically that we can't put out in a software update. We expect to have an update available in the future for the final specification."

Apple was one of the first companies to ship a wireless product based on the new 802.11g standard when they announced AirPort Extreme at Macworld Expo in San Francisco in January. Joswiak said Apple picked 802.11g because it was the best choice for Apple's customers.

"We could have chosen any standard we wanted; we had no obligations that would make us select 'g' over 'a' except it was a better solution for our customers," said Joswiak. "We feel really good about out decision, but unfortunately there are some folks out there that are making a last ditch effort to try to cause confusion in the market and that's really unfortunate."

i stopped reading computerworld after this article even if it was a joke i am not laughing. bad journalism:

"Finally, Ximian Inc. walks away with "The Mouse That Squeaked" award for continuing to reproduce the .Net development framework as an open-source project called Mono. The value of Mono eludes me, but perhaps there's a secret contingent of open-source programmers itching to write code in Visual Basic .Net.

Nevertheless, only delusions of grandeur could account for the notion that Microsoft won't bankrupt Ximian and stop the project on claims of patent violations the moment Mono poses a threat."

The problem here is just that the reporter seems to be twisting the numbers to try to make it sound worse than it is. His very first sentence compares "true throughput for Internet-type connections of between 10M and 20Mbit/sec" with "54Mbit/sec. raw data rate", which is misleading. Raw data rate and actual throughput are (unfortunately) only vaguely related. If you want accurate numbers for g and b, compare apples to apples. According to the article, if you pay close enough attention, the real numbers are:

• 802.11b
  • Raw Data Rate: 11Mbps
  • Actual Throughput: 5-6Mbps
• 802.11g (pure)
  • Raw Data Rate: 54Mbps
  • Actual Throughput: 20Mbps
• 802.11g (mixed with b)
  • Raw Data Rate: 54Mbps
  • Actual Throughput: 10Mbps

Now, maybe in earlier drafts the actual throughput numbers for 802.11g were supposed to be higher, but you wouldn't know it from reading the article. Looking at his past articles it seems like the reporter might just not know the difference, he uses 'throughput', 'data', 'data rate', 'raw data rate', 'data speeds', 'raw data speeds', and 'bandwidth' all interchangeably. The differences between some of those are subtle (or non-existent), but if he's confused enough then comparing 'raw data rate' to 'actual throughput' could conceivably have been an honest mistake...

The problem here is just that the reporter seems to be twisting the numbers to try to make it sound worse than it is. His very first sentence compares "true throughput for Internet-type connections of between 10M and 20Mbit/sec" with "54Mbit/sec. raw data rate", which is misleading. Raw data rate and actual throughput are (unfortunately) only vaguely related. If you want accurate numbers for g and b, compare apples to apples. According to the article, if you pay close enough attention, the real numbers are:

• 802.11b
  • Raw Data Rate: 11Mbps
  • Actual Throughput: 5-6Mbps
• 802.11g (pure)
  • Raw Data Rate: 54Mbps
  • Actual Throughput: 20Mbps
• 802.11g (mixed with b)
  • Raw Data Rate: 54Mbps
  • Actual Throughput: 10Mbps

Now, maybe in earlier drafts the actual throughput numbers for 802.11g were supposed to be higher, but you wouldn't know it from reading the article. Looking at his past articles it seems like the reporter might just not know the difference, he uses 'throughput', 'data', 'data rate', 'raw data rate', 'data speeds', 'raw data speeds', and 'bandwidth' all interchangeably. The differences between some of those are subtle (or non-existent), but if he's confused enough then comparing 'raw data rate' to 'actual throughput' could conceivably have been an honest mistake...

The problem here is just that the reporter seems to be twisting the numbers to try to make it sound worse than it is. His very first sentence compares "true throughput for Internet-type connections of between 10M and 20Mbit/sec" with "54Mbit/sec. raw data rate", which is misleading. Raw data rate and actual throughput are (unfortunately) only vaguely related. If you want accurate numbers for g and b, compare apples to apples. According to the article, if you pay close enough attention, the real numbers are:

• 802.11b
  • Raw Data Rate: 11Mbps
  • Actual Throughput: 5-6Mbps
• 802.11g (pure)
  • Raw Data Rate: 54Mbps
  • Actual Throughput: 20Mbps
• 802.11g (mixed with b)
  • Raw Data Rate: 54Mbps
  • Actual Throughput: 10Mbps

Now, maybe in earlier drafts the actual throughput numbers for 802.11g were supposed to be higher, but you wouldn't know it from reading the article. Looking at his past articles it seems like the reporter might just not know the difference, he uses 'throughput', 'data', 'data rate', 'raw data rate', 'data speeds', 'raw data speeds', and 'bandwidth' all interchangeably. The differences between some of those are subtle (or non-existent), but if he's confused enough then comparing 'raw data rate' to 'actual throughput' could conceivably have been an honest mistake...

The problem here is just that the reporter seems to be twisting the numbers to try to make it sound worse than it is. His very first sentence compares "true throughput for Internet-type connections of between 10M and 20Mbit/sec" with "54Mbit/sec. raw data rate", which is misleading. Raw data rate and actual throughput are (unfortunately) only vaguely related. If you want accurate numbers for g and b, compare apples to apples. According to the article, if you pay close enough attention, the real numbers are:

• 802.11b
  • Raw Data Rate: 11Mbps
  • Actual Throughput: 5-6Mbps
• 802.11g (pure)
  • Raw Data Rate: 54Mbps
  • Actual Throughput: 20Mbps
• 802.11g (mixed with b)
  • Raw Data Rate: 54Mbps
  • Actual Throughput: 10Mbps

Now, maybe in earlier drafts the actual throughput numbers for 802.11g were supposed to be higher, but you wouldn't know it from reading the article. Looking at his past articles it seems like the reporter might just not know the difference, he uses 'throughput', 'data', 'data rate', 'raw data rate', 'data speeds', 'raw data speeds', and 'bandwidth' all interchangeably. The differences between some of those are subtle (or non-existent), but if he's confused enough then comparing 'raw data rate' to 'actual throughput' could conceivably have been an honest mistake...

The problem here is just that the reporter seems to be twisting the numbers to try to make it sound worse than it is. His very first sentence compares "true throughput for Internet-type connections of between 10M and 20Mbit/sec" with "54Mbit/sec. raw data rate", which is misleading. Raw data rate and actual throughput are (unfortunately) only vaguely related. If you want accurate numbers for g and b, compare apples to apples. According to the article, if you pay close enough attention, the real numbers are:

• 802.11b
  • Raw Data Rate: 11Mbps
  • Actual Throughput: 5-6Mbps
• 802.11g (pure)
  • Raw Data Rate: 54Mbps
  • Actual Throughput: 20Mbps
• 802.11g (mixed with b)
  • Raw Data Rate: 54Mbps
  • Actual Throughput: 10Mbps

Now, maybe in earlier drafts the actual throughput numbers for 802.11g were supposed to be higher, but you wouldn't know it from reading the article. Looking at his past articles it seems like the reporter might just not know the difference, he uses 'throughput', 'data', 'data rate', 'raw data rate', 'data speeds', 'raw data speeds', and 'bandwidth' all interchangeably. The differences between some of those are subtle (or non-existent), but if he's confused enough then comparing 'raw data rate' to 'actual throughput' could conceivably have been an honest mistake...

Ah, that unsecheduled downtime, like what happens when you forget to put ECC on your cpu's cache? Kind of like what Sun was doing until a two years ago? Sure sucked for companies like ebay and the others that had to sign NDA's prohibiting them from talking about the lack of ECC in order to get a patch to disable cache use (and take a big perf hit as a result, better than random unscheduled downtime though).

Like the article says, ECC on cache has been a standard part of Intel CPUs forever (well, in computer years at least). Sun blew it by not doing the same, and double blew it by by being so evasive about it for years before finally publically answering up for it.

Fundamentally, it ain't about the CPU, it is about the infrastructure and there is nothing technically stopping a company from dropping an x86 chip into mainframe-class infrastructure and getting mainframe-class reliability and performance. Intel would rather you do it with an Itanic, but their 2MB cache Xeons and of course AMD's Opteron are perfect candidates for such a job. It doesn't hurt that they are also tops in computation and bandwidth.

But the group also included an exception provision that will make it possible for members to consider alternate licensing terms when it's deemed impossible to meet the royalty-free goal, he said.

...

Don Deutsch, vice president of standards strategy at Oracle Corp., said the provision was a last-minute compromise designed to address the concerns of IBM and Microsoft. Deutsch added that he expects it to be approved.

All the news reports I saw mentioned royalty-free. This is the first I've heard about an exception.

Slashdotters defending DRM... am I crazy or am I the last sane one? I'm not sure sure anymore.

Slashdot continues to get more mainstream readership, even getting mentioned in print articles these days. As a side effect of this visibility, the activity of astroturfers has increased -- notice that the pro-MS AC(s) tend to have the same writing style and logical fallacies. When other readers put them in their place, a handful UIDs dog pile one or two posters with ad hominem attacks or the "you-just-don't-like-Microsoft" (appeal to emotion?) attack. Microsoft has a long practice of 'turfing in it's marketing:

• MSFT paid Gartner to publish MSFT material as Gartner's
• fake "grass roots" letter writing
• another fake letter writing campaign
• paid for people to hang out in AOL forums
• paid for people to hang out in ZDNet "talkback" forums
• paid for people to hang out in CompuServe forums
• MSNBC doctored Wall Street Journal material
• Stuffed an on-line ballot box
• planned to plant fake op-ed pieces in local newspapers
• funded favorable think-tank whitepapers
• 'Astroturf' PR campaign exposes Microsoft goals.
• Joseph Menn. "Lobbyists Tied to Microsoft Wrote Citizens' Letters." The Los Angeles Times; Aug 23, 2001; pg. A.1 (print)
• Windows Outstuffs Linux in Poll
• Dead People, Fake Letters, Support Microsoft - Report
• Dead people rise in support of Microsoft
• Microsoft employee's move against AOL backfires
• The Freedom to Innovate Network - an 'Astroturf' Organisation

Also, right now MS is in a panicked marketing blitz. notice all the product placement on the tech sites. The embarassing stuff just disappears from the top page less than a day, but the press releases sit there for weeks.

It makes sense. Most Windows users have both Windows and Office because it's what the OEMs had installed on the machines they bought, nothing more or less. Most of these are either apathetic or know nothin else, so they will not write. Others are pissed off at the low quality, made worse by Microsoft treating security and stability issues as PR issues -- How many times have you heard "computers" crash from BSD, Novell, QNX, Linux, or OS X users? Or is it just the MSCEs? Most remaining clients could go easily over to OS X or one of the Linux distros and the next IT boom would start, like the previous one, without Microsoft.

In short, they need DRM to survive the summer and few, except for MS and RIAA staff

According to this Computer World article discussed here on Slashdot, mainframe operators in IT are still needed.

Could it be that people simply make up stats to put in their articles? You be the judge.

Through the magic of Google, here is a definitive list of what ~65% of IT managers thought, through the ages (of the net that is):

65% of IT managers report that their websites were unavailable to customers over a 6-month period

65% of IT managers surveyed by InformationWeek Research say Windows 2000 won't reduce their number of system administrators or related costs a year from now.

65% of IT managers said it's very important for vendors to offer consistent PC configurations over the course of a multiphase PC rollout.

Over 65% of IT Managers and CIOs in Southern California expected their level of hiring to remain the same or even increase in the post-Y2K age

67% of IT managers have been contacted by headhunters in the last year

67% of IT managers would rather pretend to understand an acronym than admit they didn't know what it meant. [tlu - here's one that sounds low to me]

66% of IT Managers have experienced "complete project failure" [tlu - hopefully not in bed]

(66%) of IT managers said the best solution for preventing monopolies in IT is a combination of moderate government regulation and market forces

at least according to this Computerworld article, "Postwar Iraq seen as big potential tech market."

"Every business-minded person is looking at Iraq after the war because it is a very rich country," said Riad Safar... Iraq's market potential, as it moves to replace out-of-date business and health systems, is bigger than that of many of its neighbors, including Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and perhaps Saudi Arabia....
The senior official at Kuwait-based systems integrator International Turnkey Systems, said in a telephone interview today that he thinks "it's going to be a huge market."

And that's just one of a number of articles I've read lately salivating over the prospects of Iraq as a market for American goods.

Maybe the broadband Internet will be up and running before the water is.

That's a lot of viagra emails to send to get to 25k

2 500 emails at $10.00 is $25 000 dollars. AOL claims to block up to one billion spam messages per day.

Ralsky claims to be able to send 650 000 messages per hour on each of his 190 email servers.

If AOL sues Ralsky, the maximum they can get from him, per day, is $25 000. Meanwhile, he can throw 2 964 000 000 emails per day at AOL, if he so chooses.

Statutory damages should be $500.00 per email. ISPs could claim $500 multiplied by the number of undelivered emails in damages, with no maximum. That would change Ralsky's $25K per day habit with AOL, to a $250 000 000+ per day habit --- assuming that Ralsky is responsible for 10% of the spam at AOL.

Wind under Thy Wings

Amber

our customers have seen a lot more innovation from us than they have seen from that [open-source] community

That's certainly true. They have come up with far more innovative ways to introduce fatal security holes, integrate flawed and overly restrictive DRM into their products, and come out with countless patches and service packs that sometimes even break basic system functionality. On top of that, M$ continues to complain that the very existence of open source might actually force them to improve their products! Sorry about that Bill, we obviously miscalculated what a burden we were placing on you. Please let us know what we can do to help your business stay the way it is and keep pissing off your users.

I shit you not! I don't think Google would ever use this kind of dirty, underhanded trick. Great "hand-picking", mate.

Yes, Google's algo only asked Microsoft to go to hell, of course, taking it down after the story was reported far and wide.

• Also, offering linux for PS2 can't hurt.

Yeah, they don't oppose and even encourage Linux on the PS2. That's important around here.

Also, they sell (sold? haven't seen one recently) CD-RW drives, DVD-RW drives, MP3 players, etc. even though they are into producing content in a BIG way.

Their laptops are cool (but pricey) and run Linux pretty well.

They just seem to "get it". They may be bare knuckled when dealing with competitors and collaborators, but they make/sell and support things that people want, without regard to some grand lockin strategy. Unlike certain Massive Software vendors I can think of.

Sony also faught MS on the provisions in Windows licenses sold to PC Manufacturers that would limit their ability to sue MS over patent infringement. On the other hand, Sony did make a side deal with MS so that provision of the Windows' licenses didn't apply to them, which could be viewed as a way to attack other PC makers.

Ah, but the same can be said of many, many, many Windows exploits.

It's not like the majority of Windows bugs appear out of nowhere and are patched in the next week/month/year/whenever MS feels like it. They sit there, unnoticed, for however long, and then they're trumpeted about and patched.

So while you say, "The samba root exploit ... went a decade without being patched," that's only because it was only a week ago that it was discovered.

The difference is in how it was dealt with. Microsoft like to, and they've said this publicly, sit on security problems until they've been announced by a third party. Usually, only then do the problems get fixed. For those in risk-sensitive environments, or anyone really concerned about security, this is a bit more than annoying. In 100% honest-to-the-mirror fact, Microsoft doesn't want you to know how your system is vulnerable until they've had a chance to announce a fix.

So excuse me if I have a problem with your comment. I use Mac OS X, and if I didn't have that, I'd be on straight-up FreeBSD or Linux. Windows can eat a fat one as far as I'm concerned.

A few months ago, you could type "go to hell" in Google's search box, and it would return www.microsoft.com as the first link. You can read more about this here, here and here.

A few months ago, you could type "go to hell" in Google's search box, and it would return www.microsoft.com as the first link. You can read more about this here, here and here.

How can you raise the slammer worm and then say that Microsoft doesn't respond quickly? . . . People aren't applying the patches in spite of clear warnings.

Yeah, right. And the patches work so well, too.

I've spent the last two years being subjected to biased slashdot propaganda. I couldn't hack into a properly configured windows system if my life depended on it

Absolutely right. Microsoft's latest patches are unbeatable. If you can't boot the OS, ain't nobody gonna crack the box.

Well, since nowadays hiring an American "Windows" programmer who only knows how to do things the "Windows way" is just like hiring a drug addict, whaddya expect?

But there must be a lot of ex-Sun people out there. After all, Sun has laid off several of thousand of them in the past few years, with over 4,000 in October. Granted those ex-employees might not have been programmers, but it's still an enormous exodus.

I often wonder why Sun, with its remaining 30,000 employees, can't do a desktop, when a small handful of geeks are able to slap together KDE and Gnome.

Welcome to every company everywhere.

Actually, that's not entirely true. To the original poster's questions:

Employers: what have you done to improve employee morale in your company? As an employee, what can I do to improve the morale in the people I work with? How can I make my work environment more enjoyable? What kind of constructive suggestions can I take to management so that they can help improve the situation?

Here's what I've learned in my brief time spent on this earth about management and leadership. I've learned most of what I know from real-world inferences derived from what not to do. However, I have read a fair amount of leadership, management and sales literature (it should probably be said that I'm a software engineer by training/trade). I've found it boils down to a few things along one main theme:

1. The more closely the dynamic of company (and in turn, each of it's sub groups) resembles that really fun softball/basketball/water polo/lacrosse team you played on before high school (before sports got really competitive) or that club team you played on in college, the better and more productive it will be. Companies that have a strong family dynamic will always be more productive than those that don't. People want to belong, but they have to have something to want to belong to. The less the company acts like a high school and the more it acts like a volunteer community center the more vested everyone will be in making sure things go well.
2. Ownership by every member of the company is essential. I've learned that ownership does not mean stock options. Ownership means getting to make decisions, realizing the importance of those decisions and getting to make more decisions, even when mistakes are made. On a side note, if everyone feels ownership, the person most critical of the mistake will be the person who made it. Don't fuck with this dynamic or try to compete with it or your will harbor resentment.
3. There is no "by the numbers". Managers who stress numerical measurements as the sole method for advancement, and process and documentation as the sole way to solve problems are shitty managers. I'm not saying process (and to a very minimal extent documentation) and measurements are not tools which can be effectively applied, I'm saying that managers should be somewhat protective and nurturing mothers first and save the accounting for the accountants.
4. People are your most important asset, so treat them like it, damn it. Processes, products, service offerings, any kind of innovation/change in business practice or offerings can be copied (most often at a fraction of the cost incurred by the initial innovator). Your people are what allow you to maneuver more quickly than the competition. If you've got good people and good teams, and you're still tempted to down-size or (a personal favorite) "right"-size, you're doing something wrong. Not only will it cost you a buttload to get rid of them, you will have just sold your company (and your long-term shareholders/investors) down the tubes. This is a good way to demonstrate you don't give a flying fuck about the people "beneath" you.

You've probably already spotted the theme here: people, people and people. Unfortunately, if upper management doesn't buy into this, you're fucked. There's very little you can do (unless you're in a leadership position yourself) to combat this.The best you can hope for is to be laid off so you can collect unemployment while you search for a new job. Think of it as bozo cancer which has metastasized. If you are in a position of leadership, here's some things you can do:

1. Make sure everyone in your team gets a sincere compliment (doesn't have to be from you) at least once every couple of weeks (once a week is better). For engineers, compliments that start with, "

The release date of April 22 was released a long time ago

(ie: January 21, 2003, just incase you didn't get the picture)

Tcl runs the operator interface of Shell Oil's Auger, a drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico. See pictures of the rig here, and read about the system integrators here.

Don't like oil rigs? Well, it's highly unlikely that you can mod this post down without the Tcl that's built into practically every Cisco router on the planet. Read Cisco's tesimonial.

Once you've done that, go log off and watch TV. Oh yeah, did you know that the NBC network control system is a Tcl application? It is; it's been in the digital broadcast system from prototype all the way to full 24x7 operation. ComputerWorld ran an article about the project.

Science geeks will be interested that a Tcl interface is used to program the Hubble Space Telescope

Database heavies will be intrigued by the intimate role that Tcl has in Oracle Enterprise Manager.

I could go on all evening, this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Tcl runs the operator interface of Shell Oil's Auger, a drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico. See pictures of the rig here, and read about the system integrators here.

Don't like oil rigs? Well, it's highly unlikely that you can mod this post down without the Tcl that's built into practically every Cisco router on the planet. Read Cisco's tesimonial.

Once you've done that, go log off and watch TV. Oh yeah, did you know that the NBC network control system is a Tcl application? It is; it's been in the digital broadcast system from prototype all the way to full 24x7 operation. ComputerWorld ran an article about the project.

Science geeks will be interested that a Tcl interface is used to program the Hubble Space Telescope

Database heavies will be intrigued by the intimate role that Tcl has in Oracle Enterprise Manager.

I could go on all evening, this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Actually, it seems as though the trend in the US is to invest those precious R&D dollars into massive lawsuits against Microsoft.

From the article:
"Computerworld also checked the price of the Men in Black DVD today and discovered that on Netscape the quoted price was $25.97, while it cost $23.97 on Internet Explorer. After completely clearing the cache and cookie files of the PC being used, the price remained $25.97 using the Netscape browser but had risen to $27.97 with Internet Explorer. Oddly enough, people using Lynx were simply given items gratis."

Acording to Computerworld support has been extended to 2004. I am sorry, and perhaps you are correct. However, there is a distinct difference in the way the apps run. If this wasn't the case, XP would not have distinct binary compatibility layers in the compatibility modes, however... it does. The over all picture I explained is correct. Eventually, native application support will be removed. Curently, Microsoft has stated that Exchange 2000 will NOT be able to run on Server 2003. Also, please remember, you are running a beta version. Even if it is a Release Canadite, it is not the Final Retail Version yet.

"But lets not forget that as of a little while ago, Linux is on more desktops than MacOS is! [...] [Apple] dying a slow painfull death? Maybe."

Uhh... No.

While Linux desktop market share is slowly increasing, it would still have a way to go before it catches up. An IDC analyst recently predicted that in 2003/2004 Linux desktops would outnumber Mac desktops, but even with this liberal estimation Linux has yet to surpass the MacOS current shipments & installed base. Further, estimations like these do not take into account that more Linux success means more Mac success - the more people considering Liunx, the more are willing to consider MacOS X too (and vice-versa). The "momentum hump" for switchers to get over is the willingness to seriously consider an alterative to Windows; once they make that decision they are often willing to experiement with many systems.

There is also the recent phenomenon of what Tim O'Reilly describes as the migration of the alpha geeks. He has noticed over the last year that many of the influential core developers and stakeholders (the alpha geeks) in the open source movement especially are "choosing Mac OS X." Linux Journal Senior Editor Doc Searls seems to agree, and - will wonders never cease? - there's evidence of IT types now considering Mac solutions.

The reason that these influential adopters are important beyond their mere numbers is that often where they go, much of the industry goes too. Not necessarily resulting in huge market share, but in mindshare and driving a core part of the industry. In fact, contrary to what many people in this forum think, the almighty goal of market share is usually not a worthwhile central objective for a company such as Apple; read Dave Minter's The Myth of Market Share: Why Market Share is the Fool's Gold of Business for some much needed common sense in operating system market share discussions.

ENUM in the News

EFA expresses security concerns over ENUM, SMH, November 27, 2002.

Enum's potential applications aren't as widespread as promised, New Architect, July 2002.

Internet Telephone Numbering System (ENUM) offers promise of a single point of contact for all communication devices, ITU Press Release, May 31, 2002.

Listing Again, The Economist, April 11, 2002.

Phone number-to-e-mail service raises privacy concerns, Computerworld, October 5, 2001.

Your Rights Online: A Number For Everything, Slashdot, September 4, 2001.

One number & and no escape anywhere, The Times, September 3, 2001.

>also, this is civil.

Alas you're wrong there. The No Electronic Theft act makes sharing copyrighted material over a certain threshhold into a federal offense. Consider the feds' raid on DrinkOrDie. All these guys were doing was running warez FTP servers - not all that different from sharing a few gigs of MP3s on KaZaAaAaA - and they were busted by the US Customs Services.

>Do the police get to come to enforce a civil warrant?

Yes, when the laws are bought and paid for by large corporations. Sad but true.

I would partially agree; for me 3.5 hours on a charge would be fine for average use, but for burst mode use I need longer, e.g. when I attend a conference and want to take notes during several sessions I could easily exceed 3 hours of use.

My Handera with rechargeable pack is good for several weeks of average use; I can also attend a two day conference and take extensive notes using my GoType keyboard for several hours a day with no fear of running out of batteries.

Perhaps someday all desks will come with one of those Power Pad thingies that recharge your handheld device.

Here is some more info

On the black-box thing...

I found this while jobhunting; it's a rather interesting article on the data collection/transmission path for the shuttle system with some discussion on what steps may be taken to clean up/recover the 'unreliable' 32 seconds of data post-LOS (which sounds like an oxymoron, but LOS in this case [and as described bt Dittemore in various tech briefings] is Loss Of RELIABLE Signal).