Slashdot Mirror

U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 for a "system and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data" which was validated in Apple's U.S. International Trade Commission case against HTC. U.S. Patent No. 8,074,172 for a "method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations" or predictive text. U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721 for a system describing "unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image" or the "slide to unlock" function found on iOS devices which was successfully used against Motorola in Germany. U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 for a "universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system" that was the basis of Friday's ruling." http://www.informationweek.com/byte/news/personal-tech/smart-phones/240003036?nomobile=1

I saw this same (or very similar) model on sale at the local CVS.

I'm pretty sure this is the Sylvania netbook that appeared in 2010 for $99 at CVS. Reviewers were not kind about it, but the novelty of buying a $99 computer at a drug store was sort of fun. It's no surprise that 21 months later it's dropped under $50.

These little craptops have always intrigued me, and it's just a matter of time before someone puts out one in the under-$100 range that's not entirely terrible. There's this guy that is available new from lots of ebay sites (I chose this one at random and am not endorsing it). It runs Android 2.2 and sports 256 mb of RAM. I haven't seen any kind words about it and from the specs it's likely still terrible, but you're starting to approach something respectable. It's not that far from being a 7" version of the Efika MX SmartBook, which isn't a world beater by any stretch, but which is light and fanless and runs Linux and sort of harks back to what was fun about early netbook.

Worth watching what NSA is doing.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/mobile/232600238

Oddly enough, that's pretty much what I read routinely here on Slashdot. A trading platform that was managing large sums of money gets hacked after the datacenter providers get socially engineered into providing root on the box, and that's the fault of Bitcoin. Business accounts get drained from stupid US banks which think a secret question or JavaScript gathered browser profile is a "second factor", that's not even newsworthy enough to be a slashdot story because it happens all the time.

Insecure IT systems can affect any currency or payment system. The only difference is with Bitcoin you are in control - you can outsource security of your wallet to competing providers if you want, or handle it yourself, or invent entirely new security technologies. With a bank you can ..... switch to one of a small number of other banks, which probably have the same policies.

The first is "Tivoization". Vendors should not hardwire checks to prevent "unapproved" software from being run. Makes no difference whether these checks are done in the software or hardware. Such a check really is software no matter that it's been hardwired in. With a scheme like that in place, you can't fix so much as a typo let alone a simple bug. Linus is apparently okay with Tivoization.

Of course, Linus cares about the Linux kernel code, not imposing any kinds of restrictions on the other software that you run or imposing any kind of restrictions on the hardware that you run the software on, just the Linux kernel code. He outlines it pretty clearly here, a choice quote: "-- I'm against "you cannot do xyz with the code.""

Vendors should not hardwire checks to prevent "unapproved" software from being run.

Actually you should not buy vendor-locked hardware. Obviously alternatives exist and in the case of TiVo you even have the FOSS software modifications they made so you can see what they do. But for example if you want a tablet to run whatever software you want you don't go and buy an iPad, you choose from one of the many open alternatives, you don't try and force everyone to do things your way. No-one is forcing you to buy a closed device, that's your choice.

Just this morning I read a seemingly unrelated article in which the author, a former Motorola Mobility employee, theorized that a little talked-about possibility for Google wanting to buy MMI centers around set-top boxes.

The Google/Motorola Deal is Done. What Now?
http://www.informationweek.com/byte/news/personal-tech/smart-phones/240000845

According to the article linked above, Motorola moved their "home" division, which includes set-top boxes which Motorola manufacturers, over to Motorola Mobility in an attempt to "sweeten the deal" for Google to buy it. If that assertion is correct then one can conclude that Google is the real entity that just got the ITC to impose a ban on the xBox.

While this may look like another garden-variety patent battle I'll bet it has more to do with the upcoming TV battlefield that, rumor has it, already includes Apple and their yet-to-be-officially-announced AppleTV. The folks at Google appear to be well into their plans to compete with Apple (and Microsoft, which already has a set-top box in xBox).

Silicon Valley is betting huge on TV content streaming and gaming.

Also less powerful than Amazon's cloud hosting or Lolita City which survived Anonymous' best efforts (sadly).

why blame Microsoft? Have they been knowing for astroturfing here before?

Just a little...

http://lists.essential.org/1998/am-info/msg01529.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/27/microsoft_ie8_chain_letter/
http://www.1pstart.com/mercury-news-writer-accuses-microsoft-of-bribery/
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/87901
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57345892-94/microsoft-nokia-linked-to-comments-on-negative-lumia-review/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
http://linkprimer.com/internet-marketing/microsoft-encourages-reputation-management
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t568832-microsoft-well-take-the-astroturf-supreme-please.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/business/smallbusiness/30reputation.html?_r=1
http://www.clickz.com/clickz/news/1698666/microsoft-tests-social-media-monitoring-product
http://www.informationweek.com/news/220200062
etc
etc
etc
etc

"Building better software" is essentially irrelevant in the age of software patents and harassment lawsuits. Too many people in the Linux community still see Microsoft as some kind of honorable competitor who will somehow eventually "see the light" and give up. Microsoft did not become one of the most powerful corporations in the world by bending over to their competition. Phrases like "embrace, extend, extinguish" did not pop up out of thin air. Whether Microsoft apologists or naive Linux developers want to admit it or not, capitalism is played as a zero sum game and it is not enough to just "win", you must also destroy the ability of your competitors to ever be a threat again.

Google (Schmidt, personally) has testified in court that Google did a clean-room implementation of Java.
So far, Oracle's argument that Google did not do a clean-room implementation amounts to, "Uh uh! No they didn't!". Also, to nitpik, you can't "lift code" from an API.

I am fascinated by your post - which I contains so much information that is outright wrong as to appear to be a deliberate attempt to advocate by deception.

Thanks, I think. Of course, you've not shown any of it to be "outright wrong", so I'm not sure what your specific gripes are.

[Citation needed]

Can you cite a software patent that has merit? I have read close on 50 at this point and seen hundreds of summaries and have yet to see it.

Happily, but before I do so, I'd like to call attention to your goalpost moving. You stated "[Software patents] simply memorialize things that everyone always did - commenting inside of curly braces, using tables for compression, having the "AM" flip to "PM" when you scroll the hours past noon, having plugins in web browsers and "one click purchase buttons" and so forth," and I merely asked for some citation. In response, you swiftly discarded that assertion and demanded instead that I produce a software patent.

I'll do so, after you've provided the requested citation. After all, if you're not going to argue in good faith, I see no need to do any further research.

Yes, but the nice part is that you're not going to be responsible for damages until you do get notified that you infringe.

This is part of how software patents kill the economy and destroy jobs, because the "damages" are a legal negotiation of unlimited dimension and cost

Except that they're not unlimited, by definition. If you only made $1000 infringing the patent, then your damages at most can be $1000. Incidentally, this is why small developers, who may infringe hundreds of patents, usually don't need to worry about getting sued. Who's going to spend $100k in a patent litigation lasting 6 months to earn $1k? Trolls exist to earn money, not waste it.

Your software that exists today cannot possibly infringe any patent that is filed for tomorrow, by definition.

That was great, it was true.

Thank you for acknowledging your error.

You'll notice that this didn't mitigate the software patent problem at all, since prior art is virtually ubiquitous among software patents.

Again, this was the assertion that I asked for a [citation] of. So, please do so. Shifting the goalposts and repeatedly making the same assertion without evidence won't work.

But your own AIA instituted First to File, so you are precisely wrong, now, no?

No. First to file actually has nothing to do with prior art. All it affects is the old Interference procedure, under 35 USC 102(g), where two inventors separately and simultaneously file for the same exact patent. It was very rare - about 20 per year - and very expensive - requiring about $25k in costs prior to the application even being examined. All first to file changes is that, rather than going through a long procedure to find out which inventor really thought of the idea first, instead, the one that got to the patent office first wins.

But no, it doesn't affect prior art at all. So, you are "precisely wrong".

You may have missed Congress passing the AIA

Software and "Business Method" Changes: There has been much debate in recent years in the software community about the propriety of software patents, and the America Invents Act does little to clear that up, except in a few minor niches. One provision, for example, specifically excludes tax preparation software from a rule prohibiting the patenting of tax strategies, and another creates a way to defeat patents related to financial products, with the aim of quashing a certain group of patents for check-imaging software.

--5 Key Facts

I am fascinated by your post - which I contains so much information that is outright wrong as to appear to be a deliberate attempt to advocate by deception.

[Citation needed]

Can you cite a software patent that has merit? I have read close on 50 at this point and seen hundreds of summaries and have yet to see it.

For further reference, a post by a different user.

Yes, but the nice part is that you're not going to be responsible for damages until you do get notified that you infringe.

This is part of how software patents kill the economy and destroy jobs, because the "damages" are a legal negotiation of unlimited dimension and cost, that can be held at any time with hundreds or thousands of unknown individuals, some of whom may just be trolls out for a quick mugging, and some may be convicted monopolists like Microsoft who wish to destroy potentially competitive businesses rather than negotiate a "fair" price for, I don't know, their patent on page up and page down. Then their license cannot be had at any cost.

Or you can just not go into business. Which was the point, originally.

Your software that exists today cannot possibly infringe any patent that is filed for tomorrow, by definition.

That was great, it was true.

You'll notice that this didn't mitigate the software patent problem at all, since prior art is virtually ubiquitous among software patents.

You still get to have a multimillion dollar lawsuit proving it. So, discovery, evidentiary quality, motions, debate over applicability, etc etc. All at $500 per hour, on both sides.

But your own AIA instituted First to File, so you are precisely wrong, now, no?

You may have missed Congress passing the AIA

Software and "Business Method" Changes: There has been much debate in recent years in the software community about the propriety of software patents, and the America Invents Act does little to clear that up, except in a few minor niches. One provision, for example, specifically excludes tax preparation software from a rule prohibiting the patenting of tax strategies, and another creates a way to defeat patents related to financial products, with the aim of quashing a certain group of patents for check-imaging software.

--5 Key Facts About Patent Reform Act

Actually, Europe has exactly the same rules as the US on software patents

A categorical and obvious lie. Please see the Proposed Directive on the Patentability of Computer-implemented Inventions of 2002.

There will always be gray areas, as there are in the EU (where patenting software is, if not impossible, very difficult), but the attempt to bring a US-style, "liberal" software patent regime to Europe categorically failed, and the ensuing controversy shed light on the underlying issue: that large companies, especially American ones, had the idea of using patent law as an tool to prevent competition.

The UK is following the EU. India and China do indeed reject them. I'm unaware of Russia or Brazil's policy. But their policies, collectively, matter at least as much as the US and EU.

Japan, South Korea, and some others do allow software patents as of now. Hence this gem from wikipedia:

In South Korea, software is considered patentable and many patents directed towards "computer programs" have been issued.[23] In 2006, Microsoft was ordered to halt sales of its "Office" suite due to a patent infringement ruling by the Supreme Court of Korea.[24][not in citation given] The company was found to have infringed upon patents directed towards aut

Hybrid tablet/laptops would have been great for Windows 8. But there is nothing on the horizon that remotely fits this vision. Intel is pushing for ultrabooks favoring less weight and more power efficiency instead of multi-touch transformable tablets. Seems like MS designed an OS for hardware that doesn't exist and even if it did is a very small percentage of users instead of optimizing for the hardware that is in the near future.

Have you been living under a rock?

Have you checked out the Ideapad Yoga with 10 multitouch points? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIGUwyAXpgQ

And the news that around 32 touch models will debut this year with Windows 8? http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/handheld/232900536

More: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/04/intel-cove-point-ultrabook-tablet-hybrid-running-windows-8/

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9226083/Intel_working_with_10_vendors_on_Windows_8_tablets?taxonomyId=12

I think the reason you think the hardware doesn't exist is that they're keeping it under wraps so that they don't cannibalize existing sales now, which makes sense really.

I'm reading elsewhere that there will be four editions with an Enterprise desktop not mentioned in the summary. Also I didn't read anything about tablet for Intel. Is that dead or will the other editions install on tablet.

Yeah, it's great that this is somehow your big issue now. But would it pain you all too much to get together and maybe concentrate on making the U.S. a country capable of putting a man into space again?

Space is only half of NASA's mission.

The other half is "outreach to the Muslim world". Priorities, man, priorities.

Android's a Linux that's being "torn up" 4 security. See subject-line & what you quoted also: What you quote specifically notes PC's & Servers combined

You mean the already irrelevant niche for the home user - in which the mobile devices outnumbers the PC-es?

Also, I think you shouldn't shout that loud about the failure of Linux on the server, you may cause a market crash if some of the following decide to enter voluntary administration when they hear you qualifying as failures the followings: Google internal infrastructure, NASA and the other major users of OpenStack, IBM and other modern supercomputer builders, VMWare baremetal virtualization products, NYSE and London Stock Exchange...

Deployed phones and PDAs still feature Android 2.x

We need versions of the android OS and apple iOS that are designed from the ground up to be secure. Full drive encryption would be a good start.

Like NSA's SE Android?

I think any office suite for iOS is likely to be stripped down versus its desktop counterpart, so I wouldn't see that as a deal breaker. I expect that MS Office for the iPad will probably show up sometime in 2012 - 2013, and Microsoft has hinted as much.

The FAA nor the FCC has ever proven conclusively that consumer grade GPS, phones, PDAs, tablets, laptop, etc. have ever interfered with flight systems. As a matter of fact, the Air Force recently awarded a contract to procure iPads to replace paper flight manuals for the Air Mobility Command. These iPads will be used in the cockpit, mere inches from these same flight systems, so somehow I doubt that my smartphone that is many feet from the cockpit will interfere with the instruments. And before you go there, I know that much of the wiring going to and from the sensors, instruments, and flight controls run down the fuselage, in some cases, just a few inches from the passenger's seats, but that wiring is shielded and sometimes in its own conduit.

Apples a bit late to the automobile integration game.

It's no secret that RIMs QNX car application platform *actually* powers over 20 million vehicles on the road. They've already taken integration to a whole new level:

QNX lets BlackBerry PlayBook become in-car controller

The QNX car app platform can power your vehicle’s in-car monitors, including the speedometer and the entertainment unit. [...] you can easily bring things like Pandora or even YouTube to you in-car entertainment unit as well as have realistic maps or song album covers overlaid next to your speedometer.
[...] The BlackBerry PlayBook can then be used to control the climate in the car and you can also get the media from the device over to your car’s entertainment unit with just a few clicks.
QNX also showed off how BlackBerry Traffic can be integrated into the in-car unit via Bluetooth and this provides live, turn-by-turn navigation with an emphasis on how long it will actually take you to get there

RIM's strong relationship with Porche is no secret either (see the Porche designed BlackBery 9981) Concept Porsche Shows Off RIM QNX

QNX shows off its versatility, powers OnStar accessories

Police are also starting to use RIM's in-vehicle technologies: Cop Conference Features BlackBerry PlayBook As Law Enforcement Tool Some details: Serving and Protectingwith a BlackBerry PlayBook

It keeps getting better New QNX Platform to Transform the Automotive Experience

You could say that less than impressed with Siri in the Mercedes after seeing what RIM is doing in the same arena with their technology.

A few points to consider.

1) Apple now has a kill switch. Part of the point of pushing application-signing is so that they can disable signed apps which turn out to be malicious. Only one has to wonder if that's all it will be used for. It's not that I'm particularly distrustful of Apple--I'm distrustful of companies with a lot of power. Amazon's used their kill switch to remotely delete content, promised not to do it again, then did it again. If a company is big enough to survive the publicity of using their kill-switch, then it is in their interest to use it when locking out that software benefits them.

Heck, merely having the ability to do such a thing invites having some patent lawyer ask for a court order requiring that they use it against allegedly infringing third-party works, even if Apple itself were inherently trustworthy. Kill-switches from software vendors are a horrible idea. Apple almost certainly wants the ability to disable any software running on their hardware, which partially leads into...

I have the same concern, although it'd be nice to have some way to block stuff that turns out to be bad; yeah, it closes the barn door after some horses have already escaped and shit all over some machines, but at least it might stop them from doing more damage.

2) There's no doubt that Apple would love for all software to be sold through the App store. They make money that way,

Do they make enough money for them to bother getting rid of the "identified developers" option?

and they get people accustomed to relying on them for software. I don't think it's inherently bad to run an app store, however requiring people to use it would be bad. Unfortunately, I'm beginning to think that's the future for Apple.

My prediction is that 10.10 will remove the ability to run unsigned content (after all, it's free to get a signing key.) And 10.11 will probably require all precompiled applications to be acquired through the App store (except on the Server version of the OS, for which the option to run unsigned binaries will almost certainly remain.) 10.9 will keep the defaults, as it will take some time to get a critical mass of non-App store developers signing their work.

OK, you're on the record; I'll go on the record as predicting that the most they'll do is default to "App Store only", and they may well not even do that. (I wish I could also predict that the OS X model will go "back to the iPhone/iPad", as that'd squelch a lot of the complaints about the "walled garden", and make the frog in the pot complain that the hot tub is getting a bit cool, but we'll see what happens in iOS 6.)

3) Virtualization. I expect it to be built into the OS at some point, based upon point 2 above. Maybe they'll acquire Parallels or Virtualbox from Oracle. Maybe they'll write their own. It will be a concession to the fact that they still live in a heavily-Windows world, and interoperability is still sometimes required.

There might be some hooks in the kernel in the future for doing some of the virtualization stuff, to replace any kexts that Parallels/VMware Fusion require, but I don't expect them to build it into the OS, based on my expectation that they won't do the stuff you predict in point 2, so no need to do it themselves, and on virtualization not being as core to desktop/notebook machines as it is to servers. Only if it looks as if all the virtualization projects will go away, or if there's some way they can do virtualization a lot better than anybody else can, do I think they'd bother.

A few points to consider.

1) Apple now has a kill switch. Part of the point of pushing application-signing is so that they can disable signed apps which turn out to be malicious. Only one has to wonder if that's all it will be used for. It's not that I'm particularly distrustful of Apple--I'm distrustful of companies with a lot of power. Amazon's used their kill switch to remotely delete content, promised not to do it again, then did it again. If a company is big enough to survive the publicity of using their kill-switch, then it is in their interest to use it when locking out that software benefits them.

Heck, merely having the ability to do such a thing invites having some patent lawyer ask for a court order requiring that they use it against allegedly infringing third-party works, even if Apple itself were inherently trustworthy. Kill-switches from software vendors are a horrible idea. Apple almost certainly wants the ability to disable any software running on their hardware, which partially leads into...

2) There's no doubt that Apple would love for all software to be sold through the App store. They make money that way, and they get people accustomed to relying on them for software. I don't think it's inherently bad to run an app store, however requiring people to use it would be bad. Unfortunately, I'm beginning to think that's the future for Apple.

My prediction is that 10.10 will remove the ability to run unsigned content (after all, it's free to get a signing key.) And 10.11 will probably require all precompiled applications to be acquired through the App store (except on the Server version of the OS, for which the option to run unsigned binaries will almost certainly remain.) 10.9 will keep the defaults, as it will take some time to get a critical mass of non-App store developers signing their work.

3) Virtualization. I expect it to be built into the OS at some point, based upon point 2 above. Maybe they'll acquire Parallels or Virtualbox from Oracle. Maybe they'll write their own. It will be a concession to the fact that they still live in a heavily-Windows world, and interoperability is still sometimes required.

Google bought a Dornier Alpha (German/French) to use for research. Maybe they wanted something to fly CAP over their Google Maps car?

Of course you have a valid point that nobody ever breaks the law.

Which is why some politicians, unions, researchers and even some companies are promoting the 6 hours a day workday.
http://www.6hourday.org/ http://www.informationweek.com/news/6502155 http://www.petitiononline.com/6hourday/petition.html http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/2001/0901mutari.html

Be well rested, happy and then work more effectively for shorter time produces better end result than less effective work over longer time. Apparently. Maybe more applicable for office / knowledge workers, not so much for tollbooth attendants, truck drivers, shop keepers. But you could say a happy rested waiter gets more tips than a tired snappy one...

Although the 6h day has also been discredited by other researchers. http://www.thelocal.se/2238/20051007/

Personally I think 6 hours is not the solution. It takes a while before I find my flow, my coding happy zone, http://memeagora.blogspot.com/2008/10/code-forrest-code.html and 6 hours would mean most of day is wasted on meetings, lunch, and other interruptions. 40 hours seems a good balance.

Having just had 21 fully paid weeks off last year due to 14 weeks paternity leave and the rest as holiday I shouldn't complain about Norwegian vacation laws. :)

(1) counts all iOS devices, not just phones and (2) speaks about in-app purchases stats.

So when you talk about "OS share" for computers do you exclude either desktops, laptops, or servers? If not, why are Android proponents so interested in only counting phones? Third party developers could usually care less whether someone is running iOS on a phone or a Touch.

As far as app purchases....

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/12/ios-revenues-vs-android/

http://blog.flurry.com/bid/79061/App-Developers-Bet-on-iOS-over-Android-this-Holiday-Season

Not to mention piracy rates are higher on Android....
http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/app-security/231601064

Google could make it happen, a dedicated Android (Linux) version for desktop would be a guaranteed success

You mean Microsoft and Google could make it happen; since Microsoft (apparently) owns significant portions of Linux. The Arab Spring never touched the Western world Intellectual Property.

References:
http://www.google.ca/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=linux+companies+that+pay+royalties+to+microsoft&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest

http://www.techdrivein.com/2011/07/list-of-companies-that-pay-royalties-to.html

http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/microsoft_news/231601809

SCO is not dead, it just metastasized itself to the different legal departments of various corporations.

Let's take another example - Google Maps:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15523050
or Google App Engine:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/cloud-computing/platform/231600672

FTFA: "The Novo7, an Android 4.0 tablet based on the MIPS JZ4770 processor. It retails for under $100."

Stop saying it's available for under $100 because it doesn't really exist

There's no reviews, it's not for sale, it's vaporware. How can you claim it's the year of Android based on a vaporware product?

What type of spying? So far, no one has shown that anything invasive has been sent. Only videos of event triggers, not actual storage or sending. The profile example for my phone looks innocuous enough, and the more I read about CIQ the more I think it does exactly what it says - help the carrier improve the network.

So what exactly is it you want protection against?

My carrier has already asked that it be removed from devices. The free market worked. Mostly because Sprint has been trying very hard to keep customer satisfaction high.

http://informationweek.com/news/mobility/smart_phones/232300799

Heathrow has Iris scanners for the UKs IRIS program that allows you faster access through security.

You'll need a link if you want me to believe you about chicago.. since just a year ago the DHS said about a test of iris scanning at the mexican border:

"This is a preliminary test of how the technology performs -- we have no specific plans for acquiring or deploying this type of technology at this point," she said. Currently, the backend databases the DHS would need to successfully deploy the technology don't exist, and no DHS customers are requesting the use of such technology.

By the same token, everyone can agree that spending cuts are necessary. Except the Dems of course. Note that the biggest proponent of NOT cutting Defense Spending is Obama's Secretary of Defense, not the Republicans

Hold on...this isn't the Secretary of Defense suggesting a spending cuts? What about Obama suggesting Defense Spending Cuts Here. It seems your information is wrong. Every proposal that the Democrats have made included defense spending cuts. It was the Republicans who refused to cut defense spending.

The rest of your post I completely agree with though.

This will get swept under the rug. The lawyers will say that a box of paper records is nothing compared to this -- Sutter Health laptop stolen with unencrypted records of 4 million patients. The defense of saying "but I didn't do nearly as badly as the other idiot" actually works (just ask Stalin about his Hitler excuse). Seriously, the medical industry has worked for decades to make it immune from legal liability, and their efforts have been very effective.

Are you serious? If so, I'd love to get a look at your bank statements...

What if I said I had $240B in my mythical IT bank account?

So that's $7.2 billion... Just for the wages of the people executing the change. Then somebody has to "architect" the project and for consultants those fees are often 25+% of the project... so let's say:
$7.2 billion * 1.25 = $9,000,000,000.

So let's say it is "only" $9 billion. This "isn't a lot" for a government, but it isn't the government who needs to pony up. It's billions of individuals and businesses

Ok, let's say that it's $9B just in the USA (though I assume that 40,000 man-year figure was worldwide since IPv6 it doesn't do much good if only a portion of the internet converts over). Spread it over 3 years, and it's $3B/year.

You seem to be underestimating the resources that are available. Total IT spending in the USA is around $500B:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/desktop/224202347

So you're talking about 0.6% of IT budgets going to IPv6 upgrades.

Their internet does everything they think it should. ...And if they go to IPv6 they have to take steps to access resources that "just work" today under IPv4... What's the motivation?

Companies had nothing to gain from using NAT IPv4 firewalls either (and NAT introduces a lot of complexity with many protocols - IPSec, SIP, h.323, etc) yet they did it anyway. There's nothing (aside from IP address scarcity) stopping a company from using public IP's for all of their workstations with a firewall in front. Once the world starts migrating to IPv6, then there will be incentive to migrate as IPv6-only services become common.

Has some interesting information

http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/cloud-saas/231901731?itc=edit_in_body_cross

Turns out Nasa isn't the only one looking to go to cloud computing: main implication: all systems are penetrable and now all the data will be in one place rather than scattered across agencies. They'll prolly invent cyber m16s soon though to guard it and stuff, so it's ok right?

How about some simple gatekeeping security? In my experience security fails when it becomes too complicated to administer properly or navigate by users - that's when you find all those little post it notes laying around and gaps a 10 year-old could exploit.

Has some interesting information

http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/cloud-saas/231901731?itc=edit_in_body_cross

Turns out Nasa isn't the only one looking to go to cloud computing: main implication: all systems are penetrable and now all the data will be in one place rather than scattered across agencies. They'll prolly invent cyber m16s soon though to guard it and stuff, so it's ok right?

First, like I said, Stallman doesn't get to control the definition of "open source". And he's welcome to try to "bite my head off" - except that he's afraid of dogs that are too big to kill with one good kick, and mine are big enough to bite *his* head off.

The GPL removes the financial incentives, and that's why we've never had a year of the linux desktop, and never will.

And that's why Red Hat is broke. Oh, wait, they aren't.

I guess you forgot that RedHat got out of the consumer desktop market years ago They make (some of) their money selling a support package with their "enterprise desktop", but most of it is support contracts for servers and middleware. So thanks for proving my point that even the #1 player in linux can't figure out how to make money selling GPL software all by itsself, and especially not linux desktops.

Linux on the desktop is dead. Even the holdouts (I've been using it since slackware 3.1 or 3.2 - 12 floppies) are facing the fact that it's a dead end on the consumer front because of the hundreds of forks and the constant breakage and the poor licensing scheme.

Or you really think the average person would find it difficult to read their emails in Ubuntu?

The "average person" wants to do more than read emails. For that, and surfing the web, they have their iPhone and iPad. The vast majority of people still using desktops and laptops have at least one "must-have" or "really really wanna have" program that just will NOT run under linux. For them, linux is a non-starter.

Linux on the desktop is the guy on star trek with the red shirt. At some point, you know what McCoy is going to say. And a large part of that is because the GPL discourages profit from "pure software plays."

If its so great, why didn't it take hold when you could buy a $200 linux desktop machine from WallyWorld during the Vista days? Fact: It died because of the inability to run most software. Why aren't online vendors like Dell really pushing their Linux offerings, instead of burying them? Because of it's inability to run most software.

In both cases, the cost of returns kills it for them. You *literally* cannot give a linux computer away nowadays. Don't believe it? Take that tired Windows XP machine, throw a desktop distro on it to "give it new life", and try to give it away. Nobody wants it after you tell them that it won't run most of their programs. "Well, you can use it to read email and surf the web - IF you can get it to connect. But forget about your multi-function printer, even if it says that it supports linux on the box, because it probably doesn't".

Linux is great for infrastructure, but as a consumer OS, it's not gonna happen. Instead, someone will either throw a layer of proprietary stuff atop it, or do like Apple did, build atop BSD. Then they can actually make money on sales of the package itself, instead of just support, which consumers won't pay for.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/business/231300237

xnews.com/scitech/2011/10/27/class-action-suit-filed-against-rim-after-blackberry-outage/ http://www.itworld.com/mobile-wireless/216895/more-bad-news-rim-playbook-os-update-delayed-4-months-or-maybe-forever

My google search: "RIM News", not "RIM Bad News", http://www.google.com/search?q=RIM+news

Google & MS would just laugh at the silly indians and their depreciation of individual privacy.

First, Apple has sued Microsoft in the past, and Microsoft sued Apple earlier this year over the "App Store" trademark

Microsoft has filed a complaint against Apple with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, claiming that the iPhone maker's attempt to claim exclusive rights to the "App Store" moniker should be voided.

In its filing with the USPTO, Microsoft says "App Store" is too much an everyday term to be trademarked.

So they definitely still do mix it up ...

GP said Apple and MSFT wouldn't sue each other over patents. What you've cited is a trademark dispute. Not the same thing.

First, Apple has sued Microsoft in the past, and Microsoft sued Apple earlier this year over the "App Store" trademark

Microsoft has filed a complaint against Apple with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, claiming that the iPhone maker's attempt to claim exclusive rights to the "App Store" moniker should be voided.

In its filing with the USPTO, Microsoft says "App Store" is too much an everyday term to be trademarked.

So they definitely still do mix it up ...

Apple couldn't care less about what happens to anyone else using BSD. They have their own branches already, the original writers and code can go to heck for all they care.

Additionally, Apple has ~200 opensource projects that they do code commits to, including stuff included in *gasp* bsd and even linux. They employed FreeBSD coders to get their stuff off the ground, btw.

I completely forgot about their stores and didn't realise any opened. I tried looking on the net and there isn't much being said about them. The only thing I found were these.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/26/business/la-fi-microsoft-stores-20101126
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/11/26/lost-in-translation-microsoft-retail-stores-not-matching-apple/
http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/microsoft_news/229401433


The gist of them seem to be that Microsoft is copying Apple so they have the same look but unlike the Apple store the MS stores aren't a good value because they don't carry as much stock and can't compete on price with other shops carrying Windows based computers.

That's always going to be a problem for them. They aren't a hardware company (for the most part) so unlike Apple they don't have a ncie small set of hardware that they can offer at the best price available. Apple computers may cost more than Wintel machines but when you go to an Apple store the price of the Mac is the best price you can get for a mac without a student discount.

You go into a Microsoft store and you see PCs that you can get elsewhere for cheaper. Where's the incentive to buy from Microsoft? Imo, their stores will die out quietly or they'll just sell them to someone who can offer a better deal and probably ask to keep the branding.

No hands needed! It'll be hooked up to Siri and triggered by the phrase "don't tase me bro!"

Then I don't know why more hackers haven't done the fancy C&C stuff. Maybe they didn't need to yet?

Anyway it definitely isn't hard to do. Even I could do it. At work, one of our products has windows, linux/OSX/AIX/Solaris agents that communicate with a central server, but we're in the legit business so we are unlikely to need such C&C stuff. From my experience creating and fixing such agents (I didn't create the windows ones) it's much easier to do such stuff in perl than vbscript or C/C++. I'd gladly replace the windows agent with a bundled perl version if I could get it to be smaller than 1MB (it'll be at least 4MB).

Pwning linux devices/servers isn't that hard in practice. LAMP servers get pwned/defaced very often too (some say most often: http://antiphishing.com/reports/apwg_web_vulberabilities_survey_june_2011.pdf ). linux embedded routers do get pwned ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/10/router_rooting_malware/ ). This sort of thing just doesn't become big news.

Android is more a "java" sort of environment (no perl by default), until the user "roots" it. IIRC some rooted phones end up with an "open" sshd. Some users didn't set passwords and then complained that hackers were slowing their phones down. I think the automated hacks and payload worked on the assumption the victim machine would be more powerful than a phone (and had better internet connections). Doubt that worked so well ;).

Android phones do seem to have more malware than iPhones. Example: http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/03/01/the-mother-of-all-android-malware-has-arrived-stolen-apps-released-to-the-market-that-root-your-phone-steal-your-data-and-open-backdoor/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41867328/ns/technology_and_science-security/t/malware-infects-more-android-apps/
http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/mobile/231300257

This new malware might be a sign that the hackers are starting to need to do more fancy stuff, or someone got bored and decided to do the fancy stuff :).

Ah ha, it came from the second link rather than the PDF it appeared to be linked to. Come on guys, at least link silly quotes like that to the right article.

---- http://www.informationweek.com/news/healthcare/security-privacy/231700161
Tricare did not indicate whether SAIC encrypted the information on the stolen tapes, but Raley said, "It's very hard to encrypt a backup tape." Tricare did not respond to a request for comment on the HIPAA issues.
---

Brilliant :(

Leave JS alone and create a new language that's a better fit for "deep guts" programming.

Google agrees with you

Sounds exactly like extortion to me.

There are grown-ups signing these licensing deals.

Companies like General Dynamics. the six largest defense contractor in the world.

General Dynamics Itronix makes the GD300, a portable computer running Android software for the military to use in the field. It can be worn on the wrist or the chest, it uses GPS and it can be connected to tactical radios. It has a touchscreen that soldiers can use even if they are wearing gloves. The device runs chips designed by ARM.

General Dynamics Itronix will pay Microsoft to use Google Android

The Sectera Edge devices the Air Force is acquiring have their own security built in. The smartphones support the Secure Communications Interoperability Protocol (SCIP) and thus interoperable with the more than 350,000 devices that use it.

The devices also are certified to provide secure data communications that the military classifies as "secret" or less, as well as secure voice communications classified as "top secret" and less. Additionally, it is compliant with the High Assurance Internet Protocol Encryptor Interoperability Specification (HAIPEIS) for interoperability with in-line encryption devices that secure information on the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) the DOD and State Department use to transmit classified information, according to General Dynamics.

Air Force Brass Get Secure Smartphones

Casio, best known for its watches and calculators, has 11,000 employees and revenues of $4.6 billion a year.

The company was founded in the darkest days of postwar industry for Japan. It is quite capable of fighting its own battles and not as weak as a kittten.

I think you are basing your ideas on Microsoft's vapourware. There's just been a new announcement and the Windows tablets will in fact be crippled and unable to run desktop apps. I know Microsoft specifically denied this when Intel stated the same, but that's Microsoft for you. Notice, by the way, the way they continue to trick people; “We’ve been very clear since the very first CES demos and forward that the ARM product won’t run any x86 applications,” they do not say "desktop applications" and the reason is that people were assuming that they would make the desktop applications source code portable. They haven't. I guess there are a number of CEOs that have committed to a Windows tablet future and are now starting to wonder what they hell they have done.

It would be short sighted to not build in extra capacity to handle bursts and natural growth, ever see anyone on the top500 drastically increase their capacity? If the poster's company have a HPC and are upgrading then business must be good to the point that the current infrastructure is loaded (possibly overloaded). Rollouts like these are not exactly quick and easy, so whatever goes in now has to be able to do what they want for at least as long as it takes to demonstrate ROI.

Amazon is probably the poster child for this mindset. They built in enough capacity and redundancy to handle the seasonal spikes in traffic around the holidays, the result of the extra capacity? EC2, which sounds eerily similar to what the poster hopes to do.

A bit off-topic question, where did the assumption that the US federal government (or any government entity) is paying for this? Last news I heard on this matter is that quite a few government data centers were being shutdown http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/leadership/231002215 so it seems unlikely that they would now be setting up such a large one (especially since that would create a large single point of failure in a hurricane prone area). Also if the government is paying for it why would the poster care about recouping some of the costs?

Probably the same way that Frank McCabe feels about 'Go':
http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/soa_webservices/221601351