Slashdot Mirror

In a recent eWeek analysis/opinion piece, ZDNet's Technical Director Jim Rapoza argues the case for BSD. He talks about some of the history of BSD, and says that "FreeBSD is probably the most Linux-like of the three, with good third-party application packages and user utilities."

By the same token he also says that the greatest weakness of the BSDs "for those seeking an everyday operating system, is the lack of good desktop applications." Then he turns around and says that "if you really want a BSD-based system that has an excellent--maybe even the best--desktop and user application environment, there's always Mac OS X, which is based on BSD."

Interesting analysis and opinion piece. But it's pretty clear that he's a BSD proponent.

Um.... MS is currently developing the .Net framework for *nix, at least according to this article (2nd to last paragraph), but until it's finished, there's the DotGNU Project, or Mono to tide you over.

The main problem with .Net is that it ties you to a specific OS which makes it a pain from a business economics point of view

Hi,
I am all for html hyperlinks but I think I can find Eweek's website, as well as microsoft's website and its dot net section, especially after three years.

Of course I know, I wouldn't be bothered if I didn't try to read the article. Who reads the articles on slashdot anyways?

Hi,
I am all for html hyperlinks but I think I can find Eweek's website, as well as microsoft's website and its dot net section, especially after three years.

Of course I know, I wouldn't be bothered if I didn't try to read the article. Who reads the articles on slashdot anyways?

Here's my link, now where's yours little troll?

Finansial institutions is one of the earliest and most avid adopters of Linux. Use Google for info but here is an eWeek article probabluy not the best (it's eWeek) but the first I found

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=5406

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2093314,00. html

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2093314,00. html

http://linuxtoday.com/high_performance/20010208009 06PSCDHE"

http://www.practical-tech.com/infrastructure/i0331 2003.htm

http://www.practical-tech.com/business/b06122003.h tm

http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3668,a=43186, 00.asp

Japan has given a deadline of 2005 for IPv6 adoption. After that Europe and then, later, the U.S. will also start to adopt. There's a fresher article from this week, but I can't find it again.

Simply put, it's easier to write worms and viruses for MS products.

You completely miss the point of the lower court ruling. Microsoft licensed Java. They didn't adhere to the contract they signed with Sun. This was part of the remedy of that lawsuit. It was thrown out today.

No, I'm afraid you missed the point of the lawsuit.

Sun already sued Microsoft on contract infringement relating to Java, and settled out of court two years ago.

This is a new lawsuit as part of Sun's Strategic Litigation division. (look for the name Lee Patch and check out his title) Sun is now claiming that they were harmed by the earlier lawsuit they settled, after Microsoft announced they were going to pull all versions of Java out of Windows XP.

Well whatever. Anybody who has been in the industry for a while knows why Java failed no the desktop. It had nothing to do with Microsoft's JVM for Internet Explorer. If you wanted to run client-side Java you had to download Sun's JVM anyway. The Microsoft JVM just let you run Java applets in the browser.

But Java applets in the browser never took off, not because Microsoft made a JVM that allowed developers to hang themselves if they wanted to.(Apparently Sun believes developers aren't smart enough to realize interfacing with COM components means your stuff won't run on a Mac) No, Java didn't take off in the browser because it didn't work well. Instead Macromedia came out with what they called Flash which had the same concept of running applets, but was a higher level language that was easier to create content with.

The "chilling reminder" is that, is you do ANY business with Microsoft, prepared to be screwed, with no legal recourse.

Once again, the chilling reminder is that strategic litigation and whining doesn't improve your market position.

Just gotta love those Microsoft apologists.... Geesh.

No, you've gotta love people who don't understand the history of the internet and believe whatever sob story someone tells them.

Please, people, engage your brain!

This just goes to show we have a lot more to learn about wirless technology. To a lot of people it may seem like simple common sense to use WEP or some other serious form of protection for sensitive records like that. But getting wiresless is becoming just as easy as getting a cable modem hooked up so more people are doing it at a faster rate and not researching the risks that come with it.

I read an interesting (all be in short) article not too long ago about the risks that does a nice job of explaining things.

"I've always focused on the desktop..."

Shared source protects national security, it prevents communists, hackers, terrorists and other radicals from accessing source code which could decrease the security of not only our nation but also destroy the economy.

Its easier to write a virus for software thats open source than it is for closed source software, There is even some indications that due to WindowsXP, PCs are more secure on average. eweek report

So as you see, Windows and closed source OS's are more secure.

Also Iraq has WMDs, we have pictures, satelite photographs, spies, electronic wiretaps, taps on their email, and viruses in their Linux servers which special forces agents pretending to be Open Source Zealots installed. According to all the proof, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, our satelites did not detect that Iraq moved or destroyed these weapons so we went to war to force them to do so, and now the weapons have been found.

You'll get an announcement around the time of the next presidential election.

Effect number two:
A complete j2ee free-speech webserver installation online in under two hours.

Effect number three:
???

Effect number four:
PROFIT! :D
(or at least a major headache in Redmond).

+ + + +
Please note that the Java Community Process controls the standard. Of course Sun is a major player in it, but its standards are published, stable, and you know that your code is still going to work in three years or more. Something that doesn't happen when you code in some strange languages. :)

If anyone is going to make a virtual machine platform which takes the general design of Java, adds 3 opcodes to the platform, removes parts of the core libraries and replaces them with optional APIs and ships the platforms as "Java", Sun is going to sue his ass off.
Sun is already strong on the lawsuit against Microsoft.
Microsoft back then tried to replace java access to native machine features - jni - with a Microsoft proprietary library accessing activex objects, and java remote invocation process - rmi, based on Corba's IOOP - with another library based on COM+...
Sun demonstrated that Microsoft was wrong, and then won the lawsuit... the outcome however (barring the monetary reimbursement part) was ludicrous.

At least now we Java Programmers are programming in REAL JAVA, which works REALLY on different platforms, and not something that remembers unportable C/C++ for the splintering and fragmentation between platforms, compilers and coding styles.

+ + + +
No, I don't want to start a Java vs C/C++ flamewar.
Java is a tool suited for some works.
C/C++ are two other tools suited for other works.

Orrin will have a rude awakening from his corporatist wet dream when the Linux kernel hackers start taking down SCO's computers.

Media firms acknowledge they are treading a sensitive line between preserving copyrights and satisfying the consumer. A system that introduces too many limitations will most certainly end in bad PR and a consumer backlash. ... "We have to find ways to mitigate piracy caused by open [technology] formats. But at the same time we have to meet consumer demand for these formats," said Barney Wragg, vice president of Universal Music's eLabs, a technology R&D unit for the world's largest record label. ... Last year, record label Sony Music came under fire when new European CD releases by artists Celine Dion and Shakira wouldn't play on a PC or Apple's Macintosh computer.

This is the precise reason that I simply adore Linux. The megacorps say "We have to walk the fine line between raping our consumers and servicing them," and they team up against us to push that line as close to rape as public opinion permits (a point that has, so far, slowly receeded under their relentless pressure for more and more control). However, with the existence of Linux suddenly the public has a tool by which they can stand firm to resist (and even reverse) this slow oppresion. In opening the operating system and applications, the control over the operating system (and what technologies are supported) is taken from the corporations and placed into the public's hands. This power can then be used to pressure the media megacorps toward using the dreaded "open [technology] formats" rather than closed, secret formats that are under their control and may contain surprising restrictions. With the ability to more clearly voice an opinion on what forms of control they find valid, the general public can draw a line in the sand, one that (in theory) the corporations cannot cross with a new technology without also opening that technology to scrutiny as with existing technologies.

Anyway, I don't expect any form of DRM to take off to the extent the megacorps wish, ever, with or without open technologies. There is too much of an "I own it, I can do what I want" attitude towards media in America for any sort of Digital Rights Manglement -- most expecially, time limiting DRM -- to take off in a significant manner. (Remember Circuit City's failed DiVX players?) All DRM has done so far is reduce the fair use casual copying that many consumers enjoy, while doing nothing to diminish the hardcore piracy that does pure bitcopies of disks -- which is its' reported purpose.

1) Aim shotgun at foot
2) Pull trigger
3) ???
4) PROFIT!!!

IBM got its start providing IT services to the US Census beureau over 100 years ago. Today it is tightly integrated into the business and government fabric of nations around the world. IBM hires the best and brightest MBA and Law school grads every year into their corporate ranks. With that combination of inteligence and connectivity, IBM is not a force you want to fight directly.

Beginning this year, IBM has appointed a new Chairman. Mr. Palmisano has a history of supporting Linux.

This is all the motivation IBM needs to finish migrating its non-x86 platforms all the way over to Linux and completely dumping that antiquated "Unix" stuff.

I see a lot of job opportunities for Linux hackers opening up at IBM shortly. Especially for people with both Linux and IBM mainframe or PPC experience.

1) Aim shotgun at foot
2) Pull trigger
3) ???
4) PROFIT!!!

IBM got its start providing IT services to the US Census beureau over 100 years ago. Today it is tightly integrated into the business and government fabric of nations around the world. IBM hires the best and brightest MBA and Law school grads every year into their corporate ranks. With that combination of inteligence and connectivity, IBM is not a force you want to fight directly.

Beginning this year, IBM has appointed a new Chairman. Mr. Palmisano has a history of supporting Linux.

This is all the motivation IBM needs to finish migrating its non-x86 platforms all the way over to Linux and completely dumping that antiquated "Unix" stuff.

I see a lot of job opportunities for Linux hackers opening up at IBM shortly. Especially for people with both Linux and IBM mainframe or PPC experience.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,541297,00.asp

It's aimed at corporate desktops, not home users - places where companies want to have more control over what users install, but want a complete user-friendly software suite for normal office work. It's also aimed at places where users are likely to move around, and have a need to be able to access their own files on other machines (trying to do that with Windows NT is nearly impossible - while users can have a networked home directory, any applications they installed on their machine are unavailable if they log in elsewhere).

Sun has been working on this area for a long time with different technologies (Java Station, Sun Ray, low cost SPARC systems), but the main obstacle has been the software - Linux and Unix software is now approaching the same completeness as Windows and Macintosh software, so they might have better luck now. If employees can now do the same work with non-Windows computers (the primary advantage of Windows), the advantages of a better fundamental design and central administration will start to influence IT decision-making.

There are quite a few reports that SUN is hoping to make some headway with AIX customers due to the ongoing litigation between SCO and IBM.

So does this mean that, if they want to use the JBoss name for their independent work, Mark Fleury says to "fork off and die?"

Many of my predictions are indeed based on a number of different rumor sites, but not copied directly. Some of the rumors I've read I disagree with, and some I agree with.

For example, I think it was Mac OS Rumors that said the G5 will not be called the G5, and I disagree with them. This issue was also mentioned by As the Apple Turns, who said that according to AppleInsider, it would be called the PowerMac G5. I agree with them. That doesn't mean my prediction is based on theirs, merely that we both made the same prediction.

The nature of the PPC970 chip, and that Apple will use it at all, is based largely on a couple of articles at ArsTechnica, but they didn't say anything about when it would ship.

The 1.4, dual 1.6 and dual 1.8GHz clock speeds are consistent with Mac OS Rumors, although I'm sure I've seen other speeds suggested elsewhere. I believe I've heard 2GHz suggested, and I don't agree with that (not for WWDC). I forgot to mention pricing, but I predict the low-end and mid-range models will be $1499 and $1999 respectively; this is based on Apple's current pricing, not on any rumor site.

USB2 support I heard somewhere, but don't remember where (it had to do with motherboard specs). Bluetooth, FireWire 800 and Airport Extreme are currently shipping features.

I've heard about the 15" Aluminum PowerBook from a few sources I think. The PowerBook G5 has also been mentioned in multiple places including this Slashdot article, but I don't expect to see it until next year, possibly announced at MacWorld San Francisco but probably not.

The G5 shipping with 10.2 was a possibility I had been considering, but was confirmed by ThinkSecret and eWEEK. Same source for gcc 3.3. Pricing is based on Apple's history.

The multiple simultaneous users feature I heard from a few places quite some time ago; I don't remember where. Apple's WWDC material says Panther and WebCore will be demonstrated at WWDC; that's no secret. As for PAC and WPAD, I haven't seen that suggested anywhere.

In any case, a rumor is "A piece of unverified information of uncertain origin usually spread by word of mouth." Many of my predictions are based on rumors. The sites I got the rumors from are mostly just passing on rumors they've heard. I don't feel that not citing sources was inappropriate, since these are MY predictions, BASED ON what many others have said, not simply a copy of someone else's predictions. I would expect others to be able to make similar predictions, based on overlapping sources.

I wonder how valid this is:

eWeek

"SCO insider says SCO used Linux code in V"

FWIW...

I liked
[next]
the article
[next]
but the
[next]
layout
[next]
sucks.

Here is the printer friendly version

print version

Microsoft Corp. is starting to react more aggressively to the Linux and open-source threat, last week slashing the price of its SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition by $450, to $49.
...
For the first time, Microsoft officials are admitting that Linux is affecting the way the company prices products. Paul Flessner, senior vice president of the Server Platform Division, told eWEEK at the Tech Ed conference here last week that Linux factored into Microsoft's decision to cut the price of its SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition, effective Aug. 1.

eWeek.

Chris
www.koozie.org

That needs to be modded Funny.

By my reckoning, MS-Word has had more than 15 different formats in 9 years. I gave up MS-products for Lent a few years ago, but back in the day when my new laptop arrived with MS-Word95 (or whatever it was called), I had to go find MS-Word 6 and resave manually every last word document + metadata in RTF format in order to be able to read them in the new program.

Too bad the data format is tied into specific applications. This is an old archival issue that is fortunately being dealt with by establishing open file formats and cross-platform applications (staroffice, openoffice, wordperfect, abiword).

HTML caused the WWW, it will be interesting to see what happens with file formats for productivity suites.

Specifically, the applications must be able to save by default in the archival quality format.

This brings to mind the discussions of technological obsolesence that surfaced briefly in computer magazines a year or three ago. It's a timely subject, even if it is forbidden by Chairman Bill.

• $18 billion in losses in 1998
• ...hideous losses...
• Xbox losses double
• huge fine over security
• ongoing anti-trust problems

Even MS if survives the summer, they've already left Win95/98 behind and tried (or have) dropped NT. So, in regards to "who do you sue?" logic, read your license. MS-Windows could be chock full of remote exploits or send your personal data abroad or monitor your files and habits or break your third party applications and you'd have no recourse whatsoever -- except maybe upgrade to OS X/*BSD/Linux/QNX/etc.

Nice of Timothy to set up a straw man

Here is the link to the article I mentioned, for the google-challenged.

This has no relevance according to Novell.

Novel isn't so sure about your "smoking gun"...

Novell Douses 'Smoking Gun' Against SCO

oh look, just in. Things do change.
A planar playing field is upon us.

Gartner *would* say that since they are in bed with MS.

Umm... you mean the same Gartner that says companies should drop IIS immediately?

C'mon, just because you disagree with one particular position of an entity doesn't mean they are allied with MS. Hell, the IIS anti-recommandation is a big reason we are able to force some of our third-party vendors to use Apache (and ammunition against any internal departments that try to force IIS-only solutions).

Garg

It makes no sense to duplicate our efforts in research and development.
Ransom Love vnunet interview

if you combine the assets of the United-Linux members, we are the biggest Linux vendor
Darl Mcbride eweek

And after all that:

Backup Glitch in Windows Server 2003

All that money, all that process...

Anyway - on a related note: this is why IBM will not buy SCO. As much as people daydream that IBM is "on our side" and all that, there seem to be all too many who conveniently forgets that IBM is in it for the money, not because they have some kind of conviction that OSI is morally good, or something - it's only good because it's making them money.

Buying SCO, even if it temporarily puts this behind them, makes OSI completely unworkable by IBM - beacuse this would set a precedence of sketchy IP companies suddenly realizing that IBM will actually pay CASH for bullshit patents and stuff. As much cash as IBM have, they can't be buying every bullshit patent touting company out there - at least not doing so while making a buck.

so, if SCO fucks linux over, IBM will just find another route to makey money, and if linux stands, IBM will continue to stand my its side. Regardless, though - don't expect IBM to chump out the change for SCO, though i do think they will push a few lawyers for the good cause, because getting a few lawyers and bust SCO's bs out of the water and keep linux standing will, in the end, mean the best bottom line for its business.

look at the world with an economic eye, guys.

the story I submitted earlier to Ask Slashdot, but didn't make it to press -

Whoah Nelly! looks like SCO has a new indirect backer in the form of Billy and the Gang. According to News.com.com.com, Microsoft has licensed proprietary UNIX code for an undisclosed sum, which prompts this humble reader to question whether this is just another cheap method to clear off some healthy competition.. SCO is gunning for IBM, needs money badly, and Gates foots the bill. Coincidence?

The legal action the SCO Group brought against IBM on Thursday has nothing to do with Linux or the open-source community, Darl McBride, CEO and president of the SCO Group, stressed in a media conference on Friday morning.

"This case is not about the Linux community or us going after them. This is not about the open-source community or about UnitedLinux, of whom we are members and partners. A small part of our business is Linux-based," McBride said. "This case is and is only about IBM and the contractual violations that we are alleging IBM has made and that we are going to enforce."

Kinda like when DanQuayle used to get sent out to publicly spell potato/potatoe/tomato/tomatoe to take the heat off of Big Bush. Or when Monica showed off her stained dress to let the DMCA have a little breathing room.

Furthermoe, the Koreans also viciously attempt to prevent non-Koreans from buying Korean businesses. Please read "Micron/Hynix Deal Dead".

The irony about the xenophobic Korean duplicity is that we Westerners actually subsidize the Koreans to destroy our own industries. Back in 1997, the Korean government subsidizing Korean firms to destroy Western competitors nearly bankrupted the Korean treasury. The kindhearted but naive Americans actually supported the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to give $19 billion to the Korean government to tie it over until the end of the 1997 Asian financial crisis.

What we Westerners should have done was to refuse to give any financial aid to Korea. The Korean government would have then defaulted on its financial obligations. This default would have indirectly bankrupted many Korean companies. Then, companies like IBM, GM, Ford, Micron, etc. could have easily gone into Korea and forcibly bought companies like Samsung, Hyundai, Kia, etc.

I find it staggering that MySQL doesn't have a cache. It's not like it's a difficult thing to write -- you need to have a page in memory to look at it, so it costs almost nothing to keep it there.

It's staggering that you would believe a database that performs as well as or better than Oracle in many applications doesn't have built-in cacheing.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,293,00.asp

Read Microsoft Aims for Protection--From Users

What Microsoft people really mean when they talk about security is security for Microsoft from you. NGSCB's main purpose is to make sure users such as yourself aren't pirating Microsoft's or partners' software or any other copyrighted content--even if that means taking over your system remotely and removing or disabling the offending untrusted software. ...

... It boils down to this: In a traditional security scenario, you as a user have control over your system to protect it from outside attackers who are enemies of your system. With Microsoft's vision of the trusted operating system, some system control is handed over to vendors and copyright holders who see you, the system's owner, as the enemy.

NSA+KGB+CIA = NGSCB.

From the Transcript of Internet Caucus Panel Discussion. Re: Administration's new encryption policy. Rep. Curt Weldon's statement

But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it. Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is.

Attestation Monopoly

Microsoft's NGSCB model for DRM content management grants Microsoft effective root digital certificate control over both software and content. It would be a monopoly even stronger than Microsoft's existing desktop dominance. Just as with Microsoft's proprietary file formats and protocols, the network effect would result in any non-dominate player or vendor facing too great a barrier to provide effective monopoly negating free-market competition.

Loss of Fair Use Rights and doctrine of First Sale

Microsoft's NGSCB DRM model also grants content providers far too much restrictive power. For example, in the USA and in most of the world, you are legally allowed to tape broadcast content for later replay ( timeshifting ), gathering evidence for making a complaint, or legitmate research. The DRM model can be used by content providers to circumvent these legal rights. Also if Microsoft or the Codec developer drops support for a format or even a particular digital key, all that content "protected" by that methord or key becomes unreadable.

The DRM model circumvents the Doctrine of First Sale, by side shifting content from being "goods" into a so-called service. When I purchase a DVD, I own that particular physical instance of that DVD and the right to view the content on it. I expect to be able to play that DVD in any DVD player I choose to, including the DVD drive in my Linux system. Also when I have finished viewing that DVD, I expect to be able to pass or even resell that DVD to any party I choose. I might even give that DVD to my local library, and I am legally entitled to do so. As DMCA protected CSS DVDs already limits what you can do with a DVD, Microsoft's plans for DRM span well beyond pure downloaded digital content.

Microsoft could even make instances of digital downloaded copies tranferable with the same Fair Use rights that you would expect from physical books or DVDs, but chooses not to.

It's all about control and under Microsoft's current model it's definately not where do you want to go today or tommorrow.

It's fun to snipe, of course, and it's nice to feel some kind of safety/security in the fact that they've been very late on many things and/or delivered with bugs.

Sorry, I didn't read the article and just skimmed the headline. Could someone tell me if the story is supposed to be about this or this?

First read Microsoft Aims for Protection--From Users

What Microsoft people really mean when they talk about security is security for Microsoft from you. NGSCB's main purpose is to make sure users such as yourself aren't pirating Microsoft's or partners' software or any other copyrighted content--even if that means taking over your system remotely and removing or disabling the offending untrusted software. ...

... It boils down to this: In a traditional security scenario, you as a user have control over your system to protect it from outside attackers who are enemies of your system. With Microsoft's vision of the trusted operating system, some system control is handed over to vendors and copyright holders who see you, the system's owner, as the enemy.

But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it. Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is.

This commentary from eWeek nicely dissects Ellison's troll...

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.