Slashdot Mirror

Article: Portland, Oregon insufficient city management: Examples in 9 areas (PDF file). When I tell people about the article, they say, "Only 9?".

1) Portland city management is allowing the construction of large buildings with no parking.

2) The traffic is TERRIBLE.

3) The pollution is extremely unpleasant during the summer. It appears that there is no effective pollution management.

"Funny thing is ..."

It's NOT funny. Microsoft has a LONG history of releasing buggy programs.

Microsoft fixed more than 2,403 bugs in Windows XP, before abandoning it.

Microsoft Windows XP "end of life": Conflict of interest.

Scary part is that this was posted by a person working as a Technology Support Consultant. Make me want to hire him just to see how many Pis he could string together before he realized that the project was a joke. Just wait for the Ask Slashdot article "Best way to daisy chain 423 Raspberry Pi computers".

Microsoft Windows XP "end of life": Conflict of interest.

Ideas: (partly a re-post from Stop updating completely? Methods and comments)

1) Autopatcher and WSUS Offline Update: Use Autopatcher until Microsoft begins its new system of hiding even more completely what it is doing with its updates. Kvasio said to use WSUS Offline Update, another community driven solution.

Apparently Microsoft approves of WSUS Offline Update. This is from the Microsoft web site: Update Offline Virtual Machine with PowerShell and WSUS Offline Update: Part 1

Update Offline Virtual Machine with PowerShell and WSUS Offline Update: Part 2

2) Windows on an isolated network: Don't allow any Microsoft operating system to have a connection to the internet. Use Linux on a separate computer on a separate network for internet connections. Use Bluetooth to communicate between the Windows OS network and the Linux network.

For Microsoft, convincing people that Windows is buggy is profitable. An article I wrote last year, Microsoft Windows XP "end of life", makes the point that Microsoft fixed 319+828+459=1,606 bugs in Windows XP since Windows XP SP1 was released. Now Microsoft says Windows XP is still too buggy to use. We have 16 computers running Windows XP and haven't had any problems. And software does not have an "end of life", it continues to do what it always did.

Do secret government agencies pay for vulnerabilities? Why do Adobe Flash and the Windows operating system have so many vulnerabilities? Do Adobe Systems and Microsoft sell vulnerabilities to secret government agencies and fix them when they are publicly discovered?

Get serious about recognizing abuse. Quoting this comment, with modifications: We've seen Microsoft's continuous stream of lies and incompetence... including a number of "bugs" and "mistakes" that appear deliberate.

Quoting the parent comment, with modifications: We've seen Microsoft's continuous stream of lies and incompetence... including a number of "bugs" and "mistakes" that appear deliberate.

An article I wrote last year, Microsoft Windows XP "end of life", makes the point that Microsoft fixed 319+828+459=1,606 bugs in Windows XP since Windows XP SP1 was released. Now Microsoft says Windows XP is still too buggy to use. We have 16 computers running Windows XP and haven't had any problems. And software does not have an "end of life", it continues to do what it always did.

Why do Adobe Flash and the Windows operating system have so many vulnerabilities? Do Adobe Systems and Microsoft sell vulnerabilities to secret government agencies and fix them when they are publicly discovered?

Ideas:

1) Use Autopatcher until Microsoft's begins its new system of hiding even more completely what it is doing with its updates.

2) Don't allow any Microsoft operating system to have a connection to the internet. Use Linux on a separate computer on a separate network for internet connections. Use Bluetooth to communicate between the Windows OS network and the Linux network.

My article about Windows XP: Microsoft Windows XP "end of life": Conflict of interest.

Wow! Many of the comments above have somewhat justified or accepted Microsoft's abuse.

1) Can we have a court case to force Microsoft to sell everyone the Enterprise version of Windows 10?

2) On Windows 7 and 8, turn off automatic updates and use Autopatcher. Unfortunately, Autopatcher has not begun supporting Windows 10. We need independent control over Windows operating system updates. How can we achieve that?

3) Don't let Windows connect to the internet. Use 2 separate networks. There would need to be some way for the separate networks to communicate. Internet access could be done using separate computers running Linux.

Microsoft has a long, long history of releasing defective code and fixing it later. After fixing 2,722 vulnerabilities and other defects, Microsoft declared Microsoft Windows XP "end of life". After fixing almost 3,000 defects, Microsoft declared Windows XP was too vulnerable to use.

We still have 17 computers running Windows XP with a software firewall. We've had no problems. Everyone is a limited rights user.

4) We need international support for a Windows-compatible operating system, like ReactOS.

5) Maybe the U.S. government now only helps the rich gets richer. The European government could bring a huge court case against Microsoft.

It amazes me that people have been so accepting of Microsoft's abuse. 3 ideas: 1) Autopatcher has not begun supporting Windows 10. We need independent control over Windows operating system updates. How can we achieve that? 2) Don't let Windows connect to the internet. Microsoft has a long, long history of releasing very buggy code and fixing it later. After fixing 2,722 vulnerabilities and bugs, Microsoft declared Microsoft Windows XP "end of life". 3) We need international support for a Windows-compatible operating system, like ReactOS.

1. Don't automatically install Recommended updates. Only security updates. 2. If you're a business then run an internal WSUS server. It doesn't take much power at all. Or run it off your domain controller. 3. Every product has buggy code. There's a big difference between stop/break fixes and minor inconveniences.

It amazes me that people have been so accepting of Microsoft's abuse.

3 ideas:

1) Autopatcher has not begun supporting Windows 10. We need independent control over Windows operating system updates. How can we achieve that?

2) Don't let Windows connect to the internet. Microsoft has a long, long history of releasing very buggy code and fixing it later. After fixing 2,722 vulnerabilities and bugs, Microsoft declared Microsoft Windows XP "end of life".

3) We need international support for a Windows-compatible operating system, like ReactOS.

"There's no doubt that the Slashdot community is one of the most thoughtful, intelligent, and prolific communities on the web."

I agree with that. Unfortunately, there are people who use Slashdot comments as a way of acting out their anger and wasting everyone's time. I have some ideas about how to help improve that situation.

I'd like to help Slashdot, as a volunteer.

Slashdot has a higher percentage of stories interesting to me than any other site I've been able to find. To choose stories interesting to technically-knowledgeable people, it is necessary to understand their sub-culture. Dice Holdings didn't seem to have anyone who even began to understand that culture.

I've seen ads on Slashdot from IBM, for example. The person who wrote those ads obviously didn't understand how to get technically-knowledgeable people interested. One opportunity for Slashdot managers is to help technology companies improve the quality of their advertising. Too often ads are designed and written by departments that have no one interested in the product. Better ads would draw more customers and would make Slashdot more popular with advertisers.

I was an advertising copywriter for technology ad agencies in Los Angeles. This is an ad I wrote to get business: Professional writing is more than just writing. (That sentence is a Service Mark.)

Let me know if there is some way to have a discussion about how I might be able to help.

Mod parent up. That, it seems to me, is the beginning of a realistic assessment of the difficulties.

These ideas may be useful in seeing more of the long, difficult story:

1) Governments are spending billions. There is money for doing the job correctly.

2) Libre Office could have an option to make the user interface whatever is familiar to the user.

3) The MariaDB CEO seems sensible to me. He seems like the kind of person who could coordinate moving away from what I understand are the many, many problems of SharePoint. (But, of course, I haven't investigated that in detail. I had only a short conversation with him.)

4) The "transitional process" could be carefully designed to take one step at a time.

5) The Excel transition seems difficult to me. I have ideas about that too complicated to mention here.

6) Microsoft has, apparently, been slowly killing Mozilla Thunderbird. Most of Mozilla Foundation's money comes from Microsoft through Yahoo for making "Yahoo Search", which is actually Microsoft Bing search, the default in Firefox. Somehow the Thunderbird user interface is being damaged. The damage looks deliberate to me. So, the world needs a comprehensive open source email client.

7) I've noticed that technically-knowledgeable people usually don't deal very well with conflicts or abuse. That is, however, what we need.

8) Microsoft's business is deflating. Sooner or later people won't need another version of an operating system, or another version of office software. So, Microsoft is trying to get more control of Windows customers by making Windows 10 even more dependent on Microsoft. It is easy to guess that the unhealthy dependence that exists now will become far worse in the future.

9) Governments can say that they will buy no more new versions, only additional copies if needed.

10) I wrote an example of ideas about living with older software: Microsoft Windows XP "end of life": Conflict of interest. Many people who do routine things every day don't want new software, with what they view as the annoying necessity of learning new methods of doing the things they already know how to do robotically.

11) There is comflict of interest. If Microsoft delivers very few needed improvements in each version, Microsoft can sell more versions.

12) Unfortunately, the world doesn't have very many people who are both technically knowledgable and socially sophisticated enough to coordinate that work.

Those are 12 more ideas. I'd love to see 100 more. Humans found a way to cure polio. We can find a way to cure unhealthy dependence on flawed software.

Alternative viewpoint: Microsoft Windows XP "end of life": Conflict of interest

"April 8, 2014: Microsoft began charging millions for support of its Windows XP product. "

Yes, I do.

One story: Corrupted PC's Find New Home in the Dumpster (July 17, 2005)

Most people don't have the technical ability or time to deal with computer problems. They buy new computers. That makes more money for Microsoft, because Microsoft get the full wholesale price again, even if the new computer has the same Microsoft operating system version.

Also, I wrote this article that discusses the conflict of interest: Microsoft Windows XP "end of life": Conflict of interest.

There is a conflict of interest. Microsoft makes more money if its software is considered insecure. Microsoft effectively has a monopoly, but it was somehow decided by the U.S. government that Microsoft's monopoly was not covered by U.S. laws against monopoly.

There are many situations in which Windows XP is secure. For example, XP is secure when run on a network that is solely internal, and every computer on that network is run as a limited user. Businesses doing the same work every day don't need new hardware or software if the equipment they have now is serving them well.

Software doesn't have a "lifespan". It works the same as it always did, with the same hardware.

See my article, Microsoft Windows XP "end of life": Conflict of interest.

"... runs into the millions."

Yes, but Microsoft is taking in millions from "Enterprise" users. See the sub-heading "Large customers are paying huge amounts" in Microsoft Windows XP "end of life": Conflict of interest.

Software does not have an "end of life". It continues to do what it always did.

"End of life" is a marketing term used so Microsoft can sell more copies of Windows, apparently. My understanding is that fixing newly discovered vulnerabilities in Windows XP or Windows Server 2003 would be fairly inexpensive.

I've explored the issues concerning Windows XP: Microsoft Windows XP "end of life": Conflict of interest.

"Windows XP's lifespan wasn't short."

Software doesn't have a "lifespan". It works the same as it always did, with the same hardware.

Businesses doing the same work every day don't need new hardware or software if the equipment they have now is serving them well.

It wasn't until Service Pack 2 was released on August 10, 2004 that many of the very serious problems in Windows XP were fixed. Windows XP with Service Pack 2 might be considered to be a different version of the Windows XP operating system, it was so different from the initial Windows XP version. See the Microsoft article, List of fixes included in Windows XP Service Pack 2. There were 828 fixes.

See the article, Microsoft Windows XP "end of life": Conflict of interest.

In many cases, XP vulnerabilities are minimal. Don't use Internet Explorer. Every user should have limited rights. Users should be trained not to open files that haven't been arranged in advance. Use a software firewall that monitors outgoing traffic.

Most writers for technical publications have limited technical knowledge. What is not said in the article linked by Slashdot is that computers that run software firewalls that monitor outgoing traffic are far more protected.

Quoting from the article: "For this attack scenario to be successful, the user must be convinced to open the specially crafted file containing the malicious OLE object. All Microsoft Office file types as well as many other third-party file types could contain a malicious OLE object."

Another quote: "A successful exploitation could lead to the attacker gaining same user rights as the current user, and if that means administrative user rights, the attacker can install programs; access, modify, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights."

This article explains some of the issues: Microsoft Windows XP "end of life": Conflict of interest.

Microsoft has been, in my opinion, extremely abusive. See my article, Microsoft Windows XP "end of life": Conflict of interest. Part of the story: Steve Ballmer was fired after being called the "worst CEO". Firing a CEO with no technical knowledge did not fix the problems. Microsoft has been collapsing.

The comments on this Tom's Guide article are interesting: TrueCrypt Encryption Software Shut Down, May Be Compromised.

Not the FULL story, but quite complete: Microsoft Windows XP "end of life": What to do?. Short version: Microsoft makes more money if there are more vulnerabilities.

Mod parent up to +10. A CEO of a technological company should have technical knowledge.

Not like Steve Ballmer, fired from Microsoft. (The paragraphs about Steve Ballmer link to a BusinessWeek magazine cover that calls Mr. Ballmer "Monkey Boy", an article that says he was the "worst CEO", and an article about Ballmer's "temper tantrums".)

Not like Paul Otellini, fired from Intel. Quote from that Wikipedia article: "Otellini was considered a departure from the norm when he was promoted to CEO because he was not formally trained as an engineer."

As I said elsewhere here and in my article, the question is, should Microsoft, a company with a virtual monopoly, be allowed to create anti-customer profit-making arrangements?

Microsoft is being PAID by the U.S. government for continued fixes to Windows XP. Should governments allow Microsoft to prevent those fixes being given to taxpayers?

Should a company be allowed to manage software development in such a way that there are many defects, and then pressure customers to pay for new software with some of those defects fixed?

I just added a better explanation of that to my article, Microsoft Windows XP "end of life": What to do?, which is written to explain the issues for people with little technical knowledge. See the section titled, Can Microsoft prevent distribution to taxpayers?

"And guess who's footing the bill??"

Lots of taxpayers and corporations. It is hugely profitable for Microsoft. Here are stories about 2 other governments, from an article I wrote:

Dutch government to pay Microsoft 'millions' to extend XP support (April 4, 2014)

(U.K.) Government signs 5.5m [pounds] Microsoft deal to extend Windows XP support (April 2, 2014)

Windows XP did not instantly become unsafe on April 8, 2014...

That's correct, it was instantly unsafe on August 24, 2001.

"That amount wont cover the cost for a whole year."

Several governments are paying, not just the U.S. government. I give links in my article.

Others have said, and I agree, the amount the U.S. government is paying should be far more than enough to provide fixes for the few vulnerabilities that are found in the next year.

Remember, there have already been 2,722 fixes in Windows XP. It seems that eventually, no matter how sloppy the coding was in the beginning, Windows XP will have very few additional vulnerabilities. Perhaps a widely fixed OS is more secure than an new OS.

You are apparently not aware of what the media has said about Microsoft. From my article:

The cover of the January 16, 2013 issue of BusinessWeek magazine has a large photo of Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer with the headline calling him "Monkey Boy". See the cover by scrolling down in the article Microsoft sued for misrepresentation. The BusinessWeek cover says "No More" and "Mr.", but that doesn't take much away from the fact that the magazine called him Monkey Boy -- on its cover.

In my years of following such things I have never seen such disrespect of a CEO. Of course, whoever wrote the cover headline was merely repeating a common phrase applied to Steve Ballmer by people in the computer industry.

Worst CEO: Quote from an article in Forbes Magazine about Steve Ballmer: "Without a doubt, Mr. Ballmer is the worst CEO of a large publicly traded American company today."

Another quote: "The reach of his bad leadership has extended far beyond Microsoft when it comes to destroying shareholder value -- and jobs." (May 12, 2012)

Fired for temper tantrums: In my opinion, there is something that is necessary to understand about the Microsoft Windows 8 operating system. It is a typical attempt of Microsoft to make more money by releasing software that is not finished. But even for a company that intends to be abusive, releasing it was an example of extreme incompetence. News stories say that Steve Ballmer was fired because of severely incompetent behavior that lasted many years. For example, see the article Steve Ballmer's temper tantrum over Nokia buyout led to his firing, says report. (March 5, 2014)

"Also keep in mind that GM will pay for SAFETY DEFECTS, not just ANY defects..."

That's what we are discussing, the defects in Windows XP that cause safety vulnerabilities.

I said this in my article: When Windows XP was first released, it was extremely sloppy. It seems to me that it is reasonable to say that Service Pack 3 for Windows XP finally made the OS a somewhat finished product. Service Pack 3 of Windows XP was released on May 6, 2008. By that measure, Windows XP is 6 years old.

"All software has defects, it's the nature of the beast."

There is a HUGE difference between the situation that Microsoft is in, in which defects are allowed to be a way to make more money, and a healthy arrangement. Why has OpenBSD had so few defects? Because that organization looks for defects before they release software.

"... since you're so convinced that MS is outright evil". First, that is not a logical argument against what I said. Second, I don't say that Microsoft is "outright evil".

Also, it surprises me that you don't know what is generally being said about Microsoft: Steve Ballmer, former CEO of Microsoft, was fired for abuse! Bill Gates, a board of directors member, agreed that he should be fired! A magazine called him the worst CEO in the United States! Another magazine called Steve Ballmer "Monkey Boy" on its cover. Several years ago, it was common that people called Bill Gates "Satan". For links to all that, see my article.

"What makes XP so terrible to technically knowledgeable people? The ease with which software may be installed and configured."

I have never seen an XP limited user be able to install software. The problem is that the default user has administrator privileges, as I explain in the section One of Microsoft's methods of making money: Provide safety methods only professionals are likely to know. I regard that as intentional abuse by Microsoft.

For external information, use another network. There are ways of making networks extremely secure, even if there are security vulnerabilities in an operating system. I will add a discussion of that to my article.

MightyMartian, I want to be a MightyEarthman. It is my opinion that many of Microsoft's practices are abusive. There is a long history: Search for "Satan" in my article.

U.S. taxpayers should pay Microsoft to make fixes for the U.S. government, but not get those fixes themselves?

We must recognize and counteract abuse.

"Software ... has ongoing discovery of security vulnerabilities that require maintenance from the vendor."

Almost all vulnerabilities are caused by sloppy coding. Should only users be responsible for Microsoft's extreme sloppiness? Can software vendors profit if their software has defects?

Microsoft has issued 2,722 fixes for Windows XP. Is it still full of defects? See the section History of Windows XP.

"... the last update on April 8th is good for at least May 8th right?"

Updates already issued will still be available. I read somewhere that updates are still available for Windows 98.

I agree; I also get tired of Microsoft's abuse of its customers. Go to my article and search for "Satan". How does it happen that the media allows Microsoft's abuse?

And, you can always use AutoPatcher to put all updates on your computer.

It's like Toyota told all owners of older Toyota vehicles that the vehicles are unsafe now and owners must buy new vehicles or pay millions of dollars to keep them. Except its worse: Software doesn't have mechanical wear.

A better analogy would be for Toyota to stop manufacturing parts for very old cars, and most car manufacturers do just that. Aftermarket is more able to fill the void in that case, but it's the same concept. And let's be real, $200 scaled up to a car would be thousands, not millions. Software doesn't have "mechanical" wear, but it has ongoing discovery of security vulnerabilities that require maintenance from the vendor. Delivering that maintenance costs money.

Even the newest systems that shipped with XP are really old now. Hell, I still use one at work (not by choice), and it's a slow piece of shit by today's standards. It's nice that so many have been able to sit on similar rigs for this long, but it's time to move on. That kind of service life in commodity-level PCs was almost unheard of a decade ago. Upgrades are a part of life in the tech business, and I don't think it's fair to bitch this time just because you got a little extra mileage out of the last round.

The masses of now-unsupported XP users reflects badly on the users, not Microsoft. If you missed the boat on a Windows 7 upgrade, it's your own damn fault. On the upside, the ensuing clusterfucks at various large enterprises should teach yet another hard lesson about the perils of under-funding your IT department.

Nice plug, by the way, though it's amusing that "Futurepower" is so willing to cling to the past.

That's not my point. My point is that Microsoft is already calling Windows 7 an out-of-date product. See my article for more about that: Windows XP did not instantly become unsafe on April 8, 2014,

"Upgrading tens of thousands of systems with a myriad of specialized software isn't as easy as upgrading your home computer."

Thanks for the realistic statement. ALL of the media articles I have read have been wildly out of touch.

Somehow, maybe because public relations agencies advertise his philanthropy, Bill Gates is now considered a good person. Not so many years ago, Gates was often called "Satan". For quotes, search for "Satan" in my article about Windows XP: Windows XP did not instantly become unsafe on April 8, 2014.

...By the end of the year, Microsoft will have already stopped selling Windows 7.

Selling and supporting are two different things.

"... until they can get Windoze 7 deployed by probably the end of the year..."

By the end of the year, Microsoft will have already stopped selling Windows 7.

Windows XP did not instantly become unsafe on April 8, 2014, the date Microsoft calls the "end of life" for Windows XP.

Governments and big corporations are often influenced by people with no technical knowledge. Because of their ignorance, governments have already paid Microsoft probably more than it costs to fix the few security defects found each year. However, the taxpayers of those governments will not be allowed to have the fixes. "End of life" is a way for Microsoft to make more money.

It's like Toyota told all owners of older Toyota vehicles that the vehicles are unsafe now and owners must buy new vehicles or pay millions of dollars to keep them. Except its worse: Software doesn't have mechanical wear.

This article contains tips about how to use any version of Microsoft Windows safely that can be shared with people you want to help. Unnecessary computer maintenance is an ugly way to make money.

Communication is important, not just marketing. Many problems occur when not everyone in a company understands the issues.

You can get some free help from our web site: Futurepower.

Major points:

No one else can know your products as well as people inside your company. An outsider with experience can help, but you must guide the work. Yes, that is difficult and time-consuming, but it is necessary.

Don't be overly influenced by marketing for consumer products. Almost all consumer product marketing contains some dishonesty. Some marketing people are financially successful abusing the customer, but there are always drawbacks. For example, after 8 years of suffering from cancer, Steve Jobs died; I'm sure you will consider that a drawback.

There are many, many people who think they get away with their own methods of being abusive. It is a reasonable theory that they don't.

Every writer needs an editor. Truly professional writers want as many people as possible to search for mistakes and insufficiencies in what they have written.

Deal creatively with the tough conflicts. Resolve conflicts, don't avoid them. Often advertising that has helped readers understand conflicts has been extremely successful.

Everything is marketing. As it says on our web site, "Every public activity of a company helps form the public view of the company and is therefore advertising."

See other issues on our web site: For example, "Give one thing one name." Don't be like Intel and give one thing, a storage driver, 5 names.

Quote from the parent comment: '... that can legally only happen if Nokia moves away from the currently mandatory "right to relicense..." '

Could you explain the "right to relicense" and provide a link? I don't see a reference to that on the Qt web site.

This paragraph illustrates two issues with Qt: 1) a possibly impossible licensing provision, and 2) managerial sloppiness. Quoting exactly:

"You must purchase a Qt Commercial Developer License from us or from one of our authorized resellers before you start developing commercial software as you are not permitted to begin your development with an open source licensed Qt version and convert to the commercially license version at a later ."

License provision: If someone develops some code using a free version of Qt at home, and re-implements that at work, an entire commercial project can be corrupted, apparently. It seems that license provision is impossible for Nokia to enforce, and also impossible for a company to defend against, if Nokia brings a case against a particular project. It's common that commercial programmers consider programming issues at home. How would a company show that there was no contribution to a commercial product from the free version of Qt?

Why should open-source developers care about close-source licensing provisions? Because, historically, technological development moves away from undesirable conditions. That makes the long-term prospects uncertain.

Sloppiness: At present, 2010-10-31, 16:34 PDT, the last word of the quoted paragraph is missing. What will happen now that Nokia bought Qt? Will there be internal politics at Nokia that prevents sensible management? There is a lot of sloppiness; that's only one example.

Don't Nokia managers look at their own web site? My company does that kind of work, and we've found that, perhaps surprisingly, sloppiness in communication generally indicates serious problems with management.

First, I'm very impressed with what Mark Shuttleworth and Canonical have done with Ubuntu and Kubuntu. It is my impression that the effect of Ubuntu has been to encourage everyone to fix a lot of configuration and other problems that were, in the aggregate, creating a barrier to beginning to use Linux.

There was a period of of years in which I would load new versions of Linux from several sources and be amazed at how much a new user was expected to know about configuration.

It doesn't matter if Ubuntu and Canonical did the work; Canonical's leadership caused the job to be done.

You said, "Isn't that what Shuttleworth is trying to assess?"

Assessing, being analytical, is what I think Mark Shuttleworth should do. Instead, he is doing very little assessing or analyzing. He is using a common word, tribalism, apparently to avoid taking an interest in all the steps of a complex social phenomenon.

He apparently hopes someone else will do the analyzing and theorizing about how to handle his problem.

In his article, he has made some useful comments. But calling anger a "playground squabble" shows the lack of depth in his thinking. When he says "playground squabble" he is implying that the people to whom he is talking are acting like children. That's an attempt to shame or intimidate; it's not analysis.

What is happening in actuality? My guess is that the anger comes from trying to work on a complicated project with too little coordination. People are blaming each other rather than the cause of the problem. They do that because they don't feel socially empowered to criticize the lack of true leadership.

Notice that Linux Torvalds gets different results. Although Mr. Torvalds sometimes lacks social elegance, he has provided true leadership, and that leadership has provided an atmosphere in which people work together. I am not saying Mr. Torvalds' leadership has been perfect. It has been amazingly good, however. Who would have thought the world would come together and create the kernel of a good computer operating system for everyone to use?

When we talked at OSCON 2008, Mr. Shuttleworth asked me what I thought about how to handle anger. I've done extensive analysis of anger, and I told him what I think. However, as I said in the former paragraph, I don't think anger is the correct fundamental diagnosis of his present problem. The "tribalism" he describes is in this case just a symptom of the lack of sufficient coordination, I'm guessing.

I gave Mr. Shuttleworth printed copies of a 27-page manual that can be downloaded from my web site that shows part of my ability to understand how sociology and technology interact. I have no evidence that he read it.

My understanding is that Mark Shuttleworth's Canonical has never made a profit. For example, see the November 2, 2008 article Canonical founder will wait for profits. Canonical's biggest shortcoming, in my opinion, is the poor marketing and public relations. The article referenced in this Slashdot story is a good example of poor public relations. It says to the business community, "I don't know how to handle this situation well."

I think that, if Canonical had professional marketing and public relations, it would have no trouble making a profit. Numerous articles say, "You can't make a profit selling a desktop operating system", but I think that is not the problem.

In my opinion, Mr. Shuttleworth is facing a problem that, if solved, could be life-changing for him. If he is willing to encounter the difficulties of personal growth, Canonical will be a success, and his life will be enriched. If he is not willing, Canonical may never make a profit.

"Is he paying attention?"

No, he isn't. He does not have the social ability to handle the enormous conflicts inside the U.S. Department of Energy. I sent him a long letter before he decided to take the job expressing that opinion.

He doesn't give politics or social conflicts much attention: "Mr. Secretary, I would say I'm worried that you only know what you read in the papers about what's being approved."

There is more about my opinions concerning the DOE on my web site.

Dr. Chu is, however, FAR better than the Secretary of the DOE under President George W. Bush.

Hi FuturePower,

I think that is a salient comment. One of the reasons Ive chosen to participate here on Slashdot is to be an apologist for Microsoft people specifically, and for the company to an extent.

Two things bug me the most

• When people just make stuff up about Microsoft. As a company, we certainly deserve criticism, but wow, some people sure make up some goofy stuff. I ask people to criticize all they like, just dont make stuff up.
• A certain class of people say really nasty personal things about people that work at Microsoft. This is really uncalled for and needs to be stood up to. These people are simply bullies. Its worse when they are anonymous. To those folks I say this.

IIm still learning about the best way to post here on Slashdot. But I hope Im having some positive effect. I think your comment above is a good result.

I cannot disagree that our senior execs have made some bad decisions. It happens. I also agree that we collectively stumbled in shipping Vista. It wasnt our best work. While you may not see it, there were many significant repercussions in the Windows organization due to this. Windows-7 was the result.

One thing I find interesting is they visceral dislike that many in the FOSS community have for Microsoft people and products. I can tell you this - it is not reciprocal at all, not even with our senior execs. Yes, Ballmer has made some famous quotes about the GPL, but notice hes talking about even this from a business perspective. I can honestly say that among Microsoft people there is very widespread respect for Linux, Apache, Perl, MySQL, and many other open source projects. Many softies also consider the idea of free and open software a noble purpose. I do.

Ill tell you another thing: We learn a lot from FOSS projects and the open source approach. While being open isnt the right thing for many of our products and businesses, it is for some and I think youll see more of this over time (I say this with no insider knowledge except for my projects). For example, Im a proponent of making the source of my next major project open. There is broad agreement and support to do so. It really is a no brainer.

What I find almost fascinating , is that the FOSS community doesnt seem to learn from Microsoft. [ pre-emptive snarky comment "We learn what not to do..." ]. We do a lot of things very, very well. Despite some obvious exceptions, our senior execs are very good. Ive worked at several big companies that were (and remain) very poorly run.

I suggest that if some people in the FOSS community spent as much energy focusing on delivering great products instead of focusing on beating Microsoft then they might be more successful. Microsoft is not in the list tiny little bit afraid of competition. We have lots of it. Personally, I think it makes us better. We compete by focusing on delivering great products that our customers like. While we pay attention to our competition, we dont spend a lot of time talking about how to beat it. Our strategy is to focus on what customers need first. Sometimes we screw up (like with Vista), but more often than not, we succeed.

In closing, I appreciate your comment and find much truth in it. I read your companys white paper /a>aand found it quite insightful.

Best Regardsbr /> --Foredecker

CBS News, the New York Times, and other publications suggest that your skepticism is correct: Be skeptical about flu reports. There appears to be manipulation of government warnings to increase profit for vaccine makers.

It scares me how much joking there is when there is corruption in government. Plenty of evidence shows that there is pressure to elect senators and representatives who are not skilled at thinking for themselves, and this Slashdot story provides more of that evidence.

Here is what is apparently a worse example: Articles in The Atlantic magazine, CBS News, the New York Times, and other publications suggest that you should be skeptical about flu reports. There appears to be manipulation of government warnings to increase profit for vaccine makers.

If you love your country, you will think seriously about your country's problems.

Be skeptical about flu reports. For example, almost all reports about the flu give an incorrect name, possibly showing the level of understanding of the author. "H1N1" is a major type of flu, not a specific strain.

I notice that whenever there is a lot of joking on Slashdot, there is apparently an underlying feeling of skepticism, even if the skepticism is not conscious.

Note that the map linked in the grandparent comment says "*This map indicates geographic spread and does not measure the severity of influenza activity." Apparently that means that, if one person in a state had the flu, the entire state would be marked by the CDC as having flu activity.