Slashdot Mirror

"I don't think Apple is going anywhere because of its high costs and its inability to produce machines with superior value and/or price."

Given the insane rush to the bottom of the barrel by the entire PC hardware industry, Apple has done surprising things to stay innovative and at the top of the game in price, features and "quality".

Price: At the low end, on any given day of the week, Apple's machines cost no more than $100 more than the equivalent Dell junk-box, at best Apple will best their price by $100.

Features: At the integration level, you're guaranteed to have the best interconnectivity with an Apple computer. Apple packages the best USB and Firewire support available. With expandability options that run from ATA/133 and 4xAGP to Gigabit and Wireless Ethernet, you're unlikely to find something in the real world you can't connect to.

"Quality": Clearly, on a hardware basis, Apple offers more...

1. PowerMac gives you a case design to put all other case designs to shame.
2. iMac offers form and function simply not available elsewhere in Apple's product line or anyone else's.
3. PowerBook and iBook hit the high and low end of the laptop market equally hard with light, efficient, feature-rich designs.

To make the point, in todays market, there's only one other way to offer "superior value and/or price", and that happens to lead directly to your disappearance from the market a la Compaq, Packard Bell, Acer, Gateway, etc.

From what we can tell, there's not going to be much of a business left for whoever is left standing. There's no support for the already-razor-thin profit margins of the PeeCee maker.

You'll have to forgive Apple from taking the road less-traveled for their customers' sake!

here's his 2002 predictions.

Here's another article about a $2 trillion class action lawsuit based on violation of the junk fax law, in effect since 1991. I suspect - but cannot confirm - that a true anti-spam federal law would prompt suits similar to this one. After all, one you ban something and create a statutory violation penalty, lawyers have an incentive to invest in the lawsuit based on the likelihood of success.

Although this guy has only circumvented the encryption by using Print Scrn type of approach, I wouldn't be surprised if someone actually breaks the Microsoft reader encryption in 30 minutes. After all Brian Valentine, the senior VP of Microsoft has admitted that: "Microsoft products just aren't engineered for security"

I'm kinda pissed that slashdot completely neglected my submission of the same story (I submitted it 3 weeks ago), but I'll reprint what I said here here. Please give your comments, but I still stand by what I said.

8/30/2002 2:49:15 AM

I'm writing this to the people in charge of Resnet policy, but also to people using Resnet. An outright ban on Windows 2000 will prove to be a costly and ineffective policy for increasing the security of Resnet.

1. Software and Bugs

Windows 2000, like any operating system, is a complex bundle of computer code. Like Windows XP, GNU/Linux, or MacOS, people find bugs in the software from time to time. Certain malicious people try to exploit the bugs to damage networks, reputations, etc. Other people develop software patches to fix the bugs.

Oftentimes, bugs are found with application software, like web browsers, web servers, e-mail clients, and the like. The operating system is generally not at fault. In this case, it just so happened that problems with some Microsoft application software were found in 2001 and combined creatively to create a series of rather devastating worldwide attacks.

2. Who is to Blame

It is important to realize that Windows 2000 was not the vulnerable software in these cases. Rather, bugs in Internet Information Server and Internet Explorer were exploited; they were the cause of the widespread effectiveness of the worms called "Code Red" and "Nimda." In other words, there are computers running Windows 2000 that are not and never were susceptible to Code Red, and there are devices not running Windows 2000 that were susceptible. Similarly, there are plenty of computers not running Windows 2000 that helped spread the problem through the Nimda worm.

Thus, these problems cannot be blamed on Windows 2000. Where does the blame lie? Programmers are bound to make mistakes, especially in an environment where a for-profit company is trying to produce and sell a modern operating system. Since few pieces of software are ever bug-free, it is ultimately up to system administrators and everyday users to make sure that their systems are as secure as possible (or practical). One of the ways to help increase the security of a computer is to apply security patches once they are released.

3. Patching Problems

A properly maintained computer is like a properly maintained car. Using a two-year-old unpatched computer on the Internet is like driving a car too fast on a twisting mountain road during an ice storm on bald tires. Using such a system or driving such a car is asking for trouble.

The bug in IIS that made it vulnerable to Code Red was announced two months before Code Red. The bug in Internet Explorer used by the Nimda worm was announced a full 5 months before Nimda. Yet even today, nearly a year after these attacks, thousands of machines worldwide are still unpatched. In other words, they are either infected with Code Red, or vulnerable to it. Unfortunately, many of these machines are likely to remain unpatched forever.

With that in mind, we turn now to the proposed ban of Windows 2000.

4. What problems does it solve?

Windows XP is not vulnerable to Code Red and Nimda. So upgrading to Windows XP does protect against certain problems.

5. What problems doesn't it solve?

It does not change the fact that improperly configured or improperly managed systems are vulnerable. It does not protect against attacks that have yet to be developed. It does not help educate users about ways to make their systems more secure. It does not help users of other operating systems running vulnerable versions of Internet Explorer. It does not protect against the thousands of other vulnerabilities that plague other operating systems. It does not stop denial of service attacks and port scans (that for some reason were blamed on Windows 2000 by the Resnet web page).

6. What problems does it cause?

Bugs that were introduced during the development of Windows XP could conceivably outweigh the bugs that were patched during that time. It would be naive to think that every bug in Windows XP is also present in older Windows operating systems.

The Products Use Rights document for Windows XP now includes a clause saying that Microsoft may access and change the operating system and its components without your agreement, and in fact without your knowledge. Suggesting that users of Resnet upgrade to Windows XP puts them in a position where they agree to relinquish control of their computers. Incidentally, versions of Windows 2000 up to service pack 2 do not contain this clause.

The ban of an operating system creates a dangerous precedent. Nowhere in the Resnet Acceptible Use Policy has there been any mention of the ban of a specific software product. The AUP does state that users cannot interfere with others, or with the proper functioning of the network. However, anyone would be hard put to prove that Windows 2000 was the sole cause of any problems by virtue of any fundamental and uncorrectable security flaws.

7. What are the costs of the upgrades?

As always, these costs are generally borne by the end users. They must acquire and install the software and learn to use it. This costs time and money and doesn't appreciably increase the security of the network.

8. What are the alternatives?

Requiring that users patch Windows 2000 systems would take less time and money. Verifying that a system was patched by probing the computer for the Red Alert vulnerability is no more difficult than fingerprinting the OS and checking that it is not Windows 2000. Certainly, installing a patch is a less intensive operation than upgrading an operating system and dealing with any problems and incompatibilities that may arise, so support problems faced by the RCCs are fewer.

In conclusion, the proposed Windows 2000 ban is both costly and ineffective. It seems as if the Resnet staff has already decided on implementing this "solution," which is lamentable. As there has been no discussion of or opposition to the ban on this forum, I felt it was necessary to provide a different opinion.

9. Resources:

Resnet Policy:
http://www.resnet.ucsb.edu/information/win2k.html
http://www.resnet.ucsb.edu/information/use_policy. htm#policy

Code Red:
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-19.html (exploit)
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-12.html (bug)

Nimda:
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-26.html (exploit)
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-06.html (bug)

Windows XP PUR:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/resources
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/02/11/ 020211opfoster.xml

An anonymous reader writes " According to this InfoWorld article, chief technologist Leonard Tsai, of NEC Solutions, has been fired over his criticism of Intel's new Itanium platform. At a conference in July, Tsai said 'that it would take years for engineers to learn the EPIC (Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computing) instruction set used in the Itanium chips, and that this would delay the adoption of the chip,' that it would 'take a massive effort to educate enough people about EPIC and the Itanium processors to make them successful,' and that 'Intel had "bullied" NEC into picking Itanium for its servers and that HP, as co-designer of EPIC, received preferential treatment from Intel.' So much for freedom of speech."

Becuase this story was posted on Wednesday already. Not only that, but it was the very last story on the topic of the "Internet". Either the mods have short memory loss, or they did not bother to look at the first posting which mentioned the IRIS grant as well.

NOTE to Mods: DifferentTitle != DifferentStory

"Dammed hackers! Now, put my fucken eyeball back in my head instead of my ass!"

Hilary Rosen? Is that you? Nah, her whole head would be up there...

Jack Valente? Maybe, but his foot would already be in his mouth - to difficult to pull it off...

Brian Valentine? Dude? No, couldn't be him - BillGs foot is probably already there...

Larry Elliston? Is that you? Hmmmmm... no, too big of an asshole - his eye would need to be the size of a cantaloupe.

Steve Jobs? Never - not nearly "artsy" enough.

Scott McNealy: Same as Larry. Actually, Scottie might have that done to BillG, so he could, ahem, poke him in the eye...

Steve! Stevie Ballmer! Hey, Monkey Boy, I bet it's you! Your outlook is already shitty, so it stands to reason...

Anonymous Slanderer. :-P

I hadn't kept up with the 802.3ae working group. You're correct there. However on pricing, try $80k per port.

Ugh!

I would expect Firewire-2 to be somewhere in the sub $1 per port range. At that price differential, I would expect Firewire to win out for quite some time.

In a parallel story by InfoWeek:

Microsoft pushes on in server OS market

By Stacy Cowley
September 24, 2002 9:18 am PT

LINUX IS THE only serious threat to Microsoft's increasing dominance of the market for server operating systems, according to new research from IDC.

Microsoft's share of new server operating environment license shipments grew from just under 42 percent in 2000 to nearly 49 percent in 2001, IDC of Framingham, Mass., said in a summary of its recently released "Worldwide Client and Server Operating Environment Market Forecast and Analysis: 2002-2006."

On the client side, Microsoft's already overwhelming 92 percent share crept up to 93 percent in 2001. IDC analyst Al Gillen attributes the company's continued growth to its licensing programs and to customer transitions from older Microsoft products to its current software.

Click Here for the rest of the story.

In a parallel story by InfoWeek:

Microsoft pushes on in server OS market

By Stacy Cowley
September 24, 2002 9:18 am PT

LINUX IS THE only serious threat to Microsoft's increasing dominance of the market for server operating systems, according to new research from IDC.

Microsoft's share of new server operating environment license shipments grew from just under 42 percent in 2000 to nearly 49 percent in 2001, IDC of Framingham, Mass., said in a summary of its recently released "Worldwide Client and Server Operating Environment Market Forecast and Analysis: 2002-2006."

On the client side, Microsoft's already overwhelming 92 percent share crept up to 93 percent in 2001. IDC analyst Al Gillen attributes the company's continued growth to its licensing programs and to customer transitions from older Microsoft products to its current software.

Click Here for the rest of the story.

... and Brian Valentine is excellent teacher:

"We all suck."

From Inforworld article

Steve Ballmer not only searches for and uses unprotected net, but tells others where to get access to Mountaineer services. Check the InfoWorld article.

SuSE is the current "preferered" distribution for both PPC iSeries & pSeries platforms in addition to the mainframe zSeries. With the imminent release of UnitedLinux at the same kind of cost the SLES version distribution seems to be competing with the consortium.

Bruce Perens disclosed Thursday that he is planning to leave the company in order to become more politically active he said. So is he an activist putting his money where his mouth is or a holy martyr killed by the faceless corporation? You can't have it both ways. Hopefully Bruce was smart enough to get a good job first or that 2 year old kid might be getting hungry soon. It's a crappy market to be all principled and shit. Yeah your emperor has no clothes, mod me down again.

Bruce Perens leaving HP was reported in an Infoworld article on August 15. Although it is essentially the same story, the emphasis seems somewhat different. That article suggests that HP was restricting the level of activism, and Bruce would leave rather than put up with that. It does not mention Microsoft-baiting.

Note also that HP is cutting jobs at the moment; people who are given the boot get some money, those who walk don't. I would not read too much into "being fired" rather than "resigning" at the moment, it could just be a procedural device that Bruce goes as part of the cuts, so gets some money on the way out.

It is not only Microsoft that is to blame for the creation of faulty software, said Chandra Mugunda, a software consultant with Dell Computer in Round Rock, Texas, who attended Valentine's presentation here. "It's an industry-wide problem, it's not just a Microsoft problem," he said. "But they're the leaders, and they should take the lead to solve these problems"

Valentine, too, took the opportunity to point out the widespread bugs that have been discovered in competing operating products such as Linux and Unix.

"Every operating system out there is about equal in the number of vulnerabilities reported," he said. "We all suck."

The result is that is far easier to exploit an easy, scriptable vulnerability in a Microsoft system, that has no patch for months, than to exploit a difficult, binary hole in a LInux/BSD system that has a patch within days.

It'll probably stop Steve and Bill from stealing your service, though :-)

yea you could call it a troll, but i have to say this isnt really like slashdot.

Well, perhaps I'm not as suprised, now, that these didn't make it: the RIAA website defaced Wednesday; a possible class-action lawsuit against Microsoft

I had a zaurus for a while and I really liked it for the most part. The problem I had with it that finally made me get rid of it and go back to palm is the complete lack of security as well as the lack of applications that you could get for the Zaurus. It really should have been in testing a bit longer. w

Why would they want to switch to an inferior processor? You don't buy that GHz myth do you? Intel gets less bang for the GHz with each revision. RISC is the way to go. And IBM is about to release a 2GHz 64 bit PowerPC chip!

Do you think they would be doing that if they didn't already have *ahem* a big buyer lined up?

It was on slashdot last week. The actual story is here.

There was some debate as to whether that made the book into a gift and/or unordered merchandise (under the laws of the postal service), or if the shrinkwrapped contract was enforceable. While the postal rules say you can recieve it as a gift, the cover states that opening the shrinkwrap implies acceptance of the license agreement.

An anonymous reader writes "A flaw in Apache 2.0's interpretation of the backslash delimiter allows for a remote r00ting on NetWare, Windows, and OS/2. InfoWorld has an overview; the attack was discoverd by PivX's Auriemma Luigi, and he describes it in this technical document. I don't know whether there is such a thing as an OS/2 shop anymore, and most Microsoft shops probably run IIS, but Apache now ships as the default web server for NetWare 6, so Novell shops: Take note. A patch is available from Apache, and Luigi describes a workaround in his article."

Don't get excited yet, According to Infoworld the new Solaris x86 will only run on Sun hardware such as the Sun LX50. You won't be able to download it for free and use it on any system as in the past.

They are only doing this for the admins who want cheap Solaris hardware to mix in with their SPARC stuff. No more free lunches.

The scam: the spammer pays nothing for the cell calls since no-one answered. The target sees a "missed call" with an unfamiliar caller ID number, they call back and get a phone sex line. In doing so they incur at least cell phone charges plus the operators use anything else they can to persuade/intimidate people to pay more to the operator for the "service".

This is really large scale, and unlike the US Japan already had rules preventing phone email spam:

... the volume of calls started rising at around 10 a.m. in the morning and within 15 minutes the carrier had been forced to place a 50 percent curb on the number of calls that could be made, to keep the network operating. The disruption, which lasted for several hours and affected more than 5 million telephone lines, was traced to a one-giri operator that began making more than 4,000 calls every three minutes over roughly 200 telephone lines.

For Japan's cell-phone users, the rise in one-giri calls came just as they were getting relief from another annoyance: unwanted e-mail. A new law prohibiting mass e-mailing to random cell phone users went into effect on July 1.

Remeber when HP was going to buy Price Waterhouse Cooper a year or two ago?

HP wanted to buy it for 17-18 Billion.

IBM will now be buying it for 1/5 of that.

Here is the link if no one remembers.

What a mistake that would have been!

... compared to the
17 to 18 billion HP wanted to pay 2 years ago.

Try this link.

For those of you who (like me) have a limited knowledge about the UCITA, Infoworld as an excellent summary of what it is and the problems with it.

What it essentially seems to do is make EULA's legally binding and allows them to be undisclosed until after the sale is made. It doesn't seem so much anti-open source as it pro-commercial software.

According to this article in InfoWorld, Linux cracks are getting just as bad as IIS stuff.

However, it doesn't mention any particular crack or even web server - it's pretty light on details really. Looks like FUD to me.

According to this article in InfoWorld, Linux cracks are getting just as bad as IIS stuff.

However, it doesn't mention any particular crack or even web server - it's pretty light on details really. Looks like FUD to me.

The U.S. "Federal Communications Commission" (FCC) set forth new rules this week on how telecommunications carriers can share certain customer information, giving telecom-related service providers a faster track to consumer data.

Carriers can share caller information with affiliates or third-party agents that provide communications-related services using an "opt-out" approach, the FCC said. The policy means that consumers' information will be shared unless they opt-out when receiving a notice of the carrier's intent to share their information.

However, when a carrier wishes to share customer information with an unrelated third party or affiliate that does not provide telecommunication-related services, the carrier must adopt an "opt-in" approach, which requires consumers to provide their consent, the FCC said.

The rules govern what the FCC calls "customer proprietary network information" (CPNI), which includes information on what services consumers subscribe to and to whom and where they call.

Up until 1999, the FCC held an opt-in policy for the sharing of all CPNI by carriers. However, these rules were vacated when a Tenth Circuit appeals court ruled in favor of U.S. West, which had filed suit claiming a "First Amendment" right to share the information under an opt-out approach.

Since then, the rules have been in a "state of play," an FCC spokesman said, with all information being shared under an opt-out approach.

Privacy advocates are taking a wait-and-see approach to the new guidelines, saying will lie in how carriers go about informing consumers of their sharing practices.

"The test is going to be whether the opt-out option is easily available and exercised," said Paula Bruening, staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology ("CDT").

Telephone companies will be allowed to share, without consent, private customer data with affiliates that offer communications-related services, under rules adopted by the "Federal Communications Commission" on Tuesday.

Consumers will have to opt out of having their information used for marketing purposes, including where, when and to whom they place calls, as well as the types of services subscribers use and how frequently they use them.

The FCC left the door open for companies to use an opt-in approach if they so choose, but the agency refused to mandate that method.

However, the agency said consumers must approve when a telephone company wants to share their private information with unrelated third parties or affiliated companies that do not provide communications-related services.

The decision drew a sharp rebuke from the lone Democrat on the panel, who argued that companies would be allowed to sell information without customer consent to the highest bidder who has just the faintest association with providing telecommunications services.

"FCC"'s contentious ruling gives 'affiliated' parties default access to customer data, requires opt-in for others.

Phone companies now can share a consumer's private information with certain affiliates without first getting that customer's consent, a new Federal Communications Commission ruling says.

Details of who customers call, when they call, and how long they talk may be shared with communications-related corporate affiliates, the ruling says. Customers can choose to keep such information private, but must initiate the request. The carrier does not have to ask permission.

When it comes to sharing customer data with unaffiliated third parties, the default is reversed under the FCC's new rule. Telecom companies must get the consumers' express consent to "opt in," the FCC says.Advertisement

The decision, announced Tuesday by a somewhat divided FCC, has roiled privacy advocates who say data could be used for consumer profiling by companies with only weak links to the phone carriers.

"Everyone should understand that this decision is neither narrow or pro-privacy," says FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, who dissented in part with the decision over privacy concerns.

The unclear definition of "corporate affiliates" that can access customer data invites abuse, Copps says. Consumers might find their phone companies "selling to the highest bidder personal and detailed information...as long as these companies use it for some 'communications-related' purpose and have some undefined murky affiliation," he says.

Privacy advocates expressed similar concerns.

"Corporate families are pretty big. I don't know [that] customers feel as familial about the relationship as corporations," says Mikal Condon, staff counsel at the "Electronic Privacy Information Center".

[ ... ]

However, Condon says the court ruling will likely be used as precedent in the states, discouraging any change from the FCC's new rule. States are "pretty much guaranteed litigation" if they require consumer consent, she says.

Legislation introduced by Senator Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota) would require consumer consent in all cases. However, the measure, Senate Bill 1928, but it does appear to have enough support to pass, Condon says.

I forgot these links, the market is trying to control distruptive technologies that break there power hold for a little while

www.disruptivetechnologies.com
and
infoworld

When is the security end-user community going to come together and fight this as a united front? Make the repurcussions for releasing exploit code so financially devastating, that companies will tremble in fear of releasing -anything- without following proper disclosure [vulnwatch.org].
Perhaps litigation and financial awards would be a good start.

UCITA allows software publishers to sell their products "as is" and to disclaim liability for product shortcomings.

>'A version of Mandrake Linux dedicated to these powerful
>64-bit processors can certainly accelerate MandrakeSoft's
>growing adoption in the Linux corporate market' said
>Jacques Le Marois, CEO of MandrakeSoft.

*swat* Bad CEO! Bad, bad! AMD is not doing very well in the corporate market. PHBs just don't like it. Sure, the grunts that take care of the machines like it, but they (we) just don't have the pull when it comes to writing a check. Imagine this conversation:

Me:"Hey boss, if we went with Corp_PC-A instead of Corp_PC-B, we would save about $200 per computer!"
Boss:"Really? What's the difference between the two?"
Me:"Corp_PC-B uses an AMD processor instead of an Intel."
Boss:"Whoa, now. The processor is pretty important, right? I don't think that we want to skimp there. We better 'go long' on the processor and trim the fat on memory and disk space. Oh, and stick a Trident video card in there for good measure! Silly hacker, what do you know about corporate responsibility. Go fix me turkey pot pie!"

OK, a little creative leeway. The point is that Intel has the aura of a rock-solid performer, while AMD has a hacker/gamer hippie case-modder feel.

Besides, AMD lost it's underdog luster to me when they struck a deal with Microsoft to testify on their behalf for an endorsement.

Matthew
In or near St. Louis? Hire me

This should make it illegal for someone to include what UCITA (Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act) calls "electronic remedies", sell the product in England and then use the electronic remedy to disable the product. Here's a link to the Inforworld site that has more information about UCITA.

This should make it illegal for someone to include what UCITA (Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act) calls "electronic remedies", sell the product in England and then use the electronic remedy to disable the product. Here's a link to the Inforworld site that has more information about UCITA.

Slahdot poster who reads articles???

Seriously, I read a different article on Paladium and only skimmed this one - thanks for the quote though.

This "personal" stuff is just fluff for the real initiative - DRM chips in the HW. Read this article and see for yourselves Infoworld.com .

You can't download a current JVM from MS, but that is only important to Sun's PR lackey's, not in the real world.

MS's own JVM works flawlessly on every web site I've ever visited which required Java. Joe Average Consumer doesn't care who wrote it or or even what it is, as long as it works.

Joe Educated Consumer might care, but there aren't enough of that breed to ever make Sun an important player in the client-side language market.

No flaming here, but I've never seen a client-side Java application that wasn't mediocre, anyway. I know that it has been relatively successful in the area of web services, but the public doesn't see that, so Sun's mindshare is particularly low, despite their recent move toward a more open Java.

• Death of the Browser? (on Microsoft's site) and
  
• The Return of Client/Server -- or, at Least, Rich Clients
  

But first go see how Debate foams over SOAP 1.2 in the W3C working groups for XML, SOAP and Web Services.

It seems that Roy Fielding, one of the key architects of HTTP and a member of the W3C TAG (Technical Architecture Group), which essentially defines the principles of Web architecture inside the W3C, pointed out that the SOAP specification broke universally-accepted WWW protocols and would be unlikely to succeed. At the same time Fielding and others have pointed out that Web Services can easily be implemented today including all desired security and authentication by using current WWW protocols and by judicious use of what he calls a REST Architecture, a subset of the current WWW architecture.

Microsoft's plan is unlikely to work: the members of the involved working groups have realized that failure of SOAP to be consistent with WWW will doom it to failure because of the additional complexity and lack of scalability that would entail.

See also

• Paul Prescod's Home Page and especially the section "HTTP and REST" wherein he elucidates the subtleties of REST and how SOAP breaks the WWW. Prescod is one of the most vociferous and well-written supporters of the REST architectural style in the W3C working groups.
  
• A REST Tutorial for Roger Costello's brief but excellent introduction to Roy Fielding's REST and why it will be the basis for any viable Web Services architecture.
  
• Visit the REST Wiki to relax in an oasis of ideas that explains how Web Services can be implemented today in a manner
  
  • not as complex as the proprietary vendors and current and pending specifications of SOAP appear to require,
    
  • using the technology and tools you already know.

Finally, dive into the waters of the oasis and wash the SOAP off of your soul. Now pure of heart, make a pilgrimage to Tim Berners-Lee's Design Issues for the World Wide Web where you can

• re-examine the issues of the WWW,
  
• renew your commitment to doing things "the right way",
  
• revive your passion for excellence and
  
• remind yourself that indeed, sometimes "less is more."
  

additional links:

washington post

newsbytes

Solaris 9 is getting great reviews. Between the strengths of the traditional open source community and IBM's resources, do you see a point in the next several years where you expect Linux to surpass Solaris in all of its core strengths? Or does Solaris have some unique values which will allow Sun to continue to position itself to advantage, at least for some applications? Please answer this as a technical rather than marketing question.
___

...is perhaps more interesting and is becoming more widespread.

Reuters recently announced that it's market news aggregation system (RMDS) is being ported to run on Linux servers. The system currently is running on Solaris and was ported to Windows (but the Windows port is no longer support/persued)

This is just the latest example of the financial industry turning to Linux. Morgan Stanely, Credit Suisse, E-Trade, the NYSE have all started to move to Linux.

It's true that the migrations are generally coming out of the hide of Solaris and AIX. IBM is coming to terms with Linux, and recent signs look hopeful that Sun will follow suite as well.

I suspect that the economy has had a hand to play in the receptiveness of the big players in the financial industry to start looking to Linux-based solutions: everyone is looking to save money right now, and I think it's no accident that the financial industry seems to be taking the lead in terms of being early adopters of Linux in the enterprise.

I can only hope that with the trend towards moving systems over to Linux, these business will be exposed to open source ideals, which -- who knows -- might one day lead to MSFTs fall from dominance.

Isn't it plausible that while Linux may be eating Unix's lunch, this gives it a better chance to spread open source/free software ideals in a new environment, which -- in the long run -- might be what takes the *big* chunk out of MSFT's hide...

Foster's essay on UICTA and firestone tyres

Ed Foster's Gripe Line column in InfoWorld coberd this recently. It's a real problem, although you should be able to get your money back, either from the retailer or the software vendor, if you're persistent enough.

Ed Foster's Gripe Line column in InfoWorld coberd this recently. It's a real problem, although you should be able to get your money back, either from the retailer or the software vendor, if you're persistent enough.

Key Sun Linux executive departs as drain continues

One analyst was a bit surprised to hear that DeWitt is departing before Sun launched its Linux products. The company has only said it will roll out the servers later this year.

"I suspect it had something to do with unhappiness with the overall product organization," said Gordon Haff, an analyst at Illuminata, which is based in Nashua, New Hampshire. "I assume there was unhappiness, some disagreement or something there."

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

...but to make sure that there are alternatives, and to ensure that people have the right to choose. If you love to surf without security, and have no problem with microsoft 0wning your computer, or give a shit about you computer being hijacked by spyware (see if you can find one spyware program for linux) then go ahead, use Microsoft.

I, honestly, deeply, do not give half a rats ass.

The sad thing about Joe User is that he does not want to understand anything, and starts bitching immediatly if things dont work the way he wants them to work. He doesnt want to remember passwords, and much less to turn on the brain for a minute while installing something he just downloaded from the internet. His disgrace is thus of his own making, and I can only hope he gets a tenth of a clue someday (Mind you, I'm not saying he is supposed to be a guru. He just should have basic knowledge about what is going on)

But I don't want me nor anybody to be forced to this way of doing things, and I insist on Joe User having a chance of changing his ways. Viewed this way, linux and OSS have been very successfull.

If the formats used by microsoft were really open, if they didn't insist on being on every computer sold (and thus forcing me to buy what I consider a disaster of a software), and did not seem to have this facist urge of dominating the world and imposing their philosophy on everybody, then nobody would be making a fuzz about this.

rmstar

You want lower cost-per-seat and easier maintenence overall? Spend half that money on a powerful server, and convert the desktop machines for use as thin clients. No more tweaking settings on each system! No more cleaning up after settings screwed up by users on each system!

I'm surprised not to see more references to the stories about other organizations doing this, such as:

Binson's Hospital Supplies

Newspaper Association of America

(vendor) Integrity Networking Systems

City of Largo

Home Depot

. . .

And if you'd like to really cut down on MS licenses, don't forget about Crossover Office.