Slashdot Mirror

No Evidence?

Really?

No evidence at all?

What would you consider evidence?

That’s why the news from Bitdefender researchers is so alarming. They discovered sophisticated CAPTCHA-bypassing Android malware in Google Play apps.

from http://www.itbusinessedge.com/...

I think this guy has a point about the app neutrality: http://www.itbusinessedge.com/...

It is a bromide perpetrated by ITAA and business groups that we can't find enough programmers to replace the ones who are retiring.

The simple truth is that no one wants to PAY what people are worth, and there is rampant age discrimination:

http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/tennant/yes-age-discrimination-is-worse-in-it-than-in-other-fields/?cs=38549

Be willing to hire, retrain, or do whatever it takes to employ people over 35 and this so-called problem will be
shown to be the chimera that it really is.

How about the bazillion addresses being used as parking pages? How about the bazillion addresses being sat on by companies like HP that by buying out other old guard companies that were around when the net first went up are sitting on more class A addresses than they could possibly ever use?

And again you can't find a single page testing the popular free and pay security suites and firewalls with IPV6 and then of course there is the elephant in the room which is the corps paying IT like shit for a decade so that there are severe shortages of manpower and people actually trained to deal with IPV6 problems in the wild. And not having an IPV4 at this point would just be retarded as too many sites still don't support V6. You can blame the retarded engineers who refused to make V6 backwards compatible with V4 for that.

Finally nobody is talking about the environmental costs which are gonna be staggering. look at newegg and Tiger and you'll see the majority of the routers sold to this very day are NOT IPV6 compatible and most likely aren't able to be upgraded. you are talking about tens of millions of dollars in hardware that is gonna be sent to the dump in huge amounts, hell I don't even think my cable modem which was handed me by my ISP is IPV6 capable, that's over 30,000 units just in my area that will have to go to the dump, while nobody I know has an IPV6 router as the only one I know of being sold retail is the Airport which is overpriced.

like it or not we just aren't ready and its gonna be a clusterfuck for years to come, we are gonna have a shortage of people who can fix problems, shortage of affordable hardware that can use it, and while Linux may support it that only helps 2% of the consumer population at best and the rest are using software that we frankly don't know if it has holes you can drive a truck through when it comes to IPV6. I know there are articles showing malware already using this weakness to get past security to infect systems.

Our basic problem is that, by design of the FSF, GPL v2 and GPL v3 are incompatible licenses. This means that the kernel cannot be licensed part GPL v2 and part GPL v3. It must be either one or the other, necessitating the above described "big bang" approach to relicensing. If GPL v3 had been compatible with GPL v2, it would have been a simple matter of simply deciding only to accept patches under GPL v3 from some point in time on (and eventually the whole kernel would become GPL v3 licensed). At the present time, most of the kernel maintainers don't believe GPL v3 is sufficiently compelling to produce the unanimity required to undertake the process.

The specific issue highlighted in the post is not a general GPLv3/v2 incompatibility. Code which is licensed under the GPLv2 but no later version is incompatible with the GPLv3. There are a few significant examples of GPLv2-only code, including KDE as mentioned and also the Linux kernel, which cannot be linked to GPLv3 code.

So it's not going to happen. Not when you'd need the approval of between 3,500 and 10,000 contributors, and there's simply no need.

[citation needed]

The U.S.: Where Europe comes to slum

U.S. to Become New Center of Low-cost Manufacturing?

This is part of the US's PUBLICLY REVEALED campaign to discredit WikiLeaks. The way to do so? Ad Hominem. Make the story about the messenger - over and over, again.

It wouldn't matter if WikiLeaks were fronted by Charles Manson - that's not the point of the disclosures.

But once more, you fall for the legerdemain.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39729526
http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/9948-news-a-comment-pentagon-campaign-to-discredit-wikileaks-downshifts.html
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/community/news/gt/blog/us-plan-to-discredit-wikileaks-leaked/?cs=40078
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/oct2010/time-o25.shtml

Back then I didn't have much trouble imagining things the PC couldn't do. I remember when it was an achievement for a PC to be able to play an MP3. Today my PC manages to play back full HD movies, where exactly could it go from there? The most space consuming thing I produce - unlike anything I can download off a torrent - is the videos I make, like when me and a friend went mountain hiking earlier this summer. Even that in 1080p60 (28 Mbit H.264) is only about 32GB per 2.5 hours. And since I try not to bore people to death, some 5-10 minute clips are plenty. A single 2TB drive could contain more than 150 hours of raw video. Music is already hiding in a corner of the disc, and unless you're just collecting them then 10-20GB per game you play for 50+ hours each is also nothing.

The truth is that technology has outpaced production. There's about 3000 BluRay titles to date, which would at most be 3000*50 GB = 150 TB. In practice not everything is filled to capacity so it's actually less. Even if you take all 3.6 million Spotify tracks and give them 5 MB each that only works out to 18 TB. Sure, there's much else you could add but I estimate it'd be no more than 3-500 TB total in all mainstream media combined. Meanwhile IBM has released a 14 PB storage array. Hell, throw up 50 "home servers" with 5x2TB each and you got 500 TB. We got plenty storage and as bandwidth goes up there'll be a turning point where we'd rather just stream and not bother much about local copies at all.

The US Gov is undermining CREDIBILITY of Wikileaks, to discourage leakers.

You ARE familiar with the 2008 Army Counterintelligence Agency report, which specifically calls to discredit Wikileaks through disinformation and propaganda, are you not?

The HIGHLY suspect connection of Manning with Greenwald STINKS of a PsyOp, then, hot on the heels comes this tidbit. Where from? Oh! DangerRoom on Wired.com.

I think we can now see wired.com as another polluted information channel, co-opted by the spooks. Leak meaningless true tidbits on intelligence and surveillance to establish/maintain credibility - then use this established route for the insertion of disinformation messages.

The next stage is to plant doubts about Wikileaks among its advocates, who will begin to speculate if the project is not a honeypot, designed to attract and expose leakers.

"To live outside the law, you must be honest."
-- Bob Dylan

"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell

Here's a URL with a link to a December article about a few companies "dipping their toes in":
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/community/features/articles/blog/employee-owned-computer-programs-diving-into-murky-waters/?cs=38238

I don't want to comment on companies that I have personal knowledge of, NDA's and all that. There are two that I currently know of personally that are in process. (Sorry, I have to leave it there)

It is really just another evolutionary step from companies that have started going to thin-clients (Sun Ray, WYSE, etc.) just going the next step to a software only client.

I will say that I haven't seen all the kinks worked out yet.

FREE-PC.COM was created by Idealab that used to exist in the late 1990s, when they started a bunch of Dot-COMs. It offered free PCs to individuals who agreed in exchange to use the PC at least 10 hours per month.

Free PCs were sponsored by advertisers, and ads were visible at all times. They shipped 30k+ units in 1999, their last year of operation.

They were merged with eMachines.

And about 5 years ago, eMachines got absorbed by Gateway.

There were some other companies to do similar things. And AOL has been infamous for "free computer" with long locked-in AOL subscription deals.

There are even a few references to Free PC/Free-PC on slashdot...

But I don't see any articles about it anymore. Perhaps the archives didn't go back farther than the year 2000??

TomTom should be able to license FAT without violating the GPL. And if that is the case ... TomTom needs some serious explaining to do as to why they aren't licensing FAT. That said, Microsoft still needs to explain why it just cannot say that folks won't violate the GPL if they license FAT under its terms."

Ohh yes they will violate the GPL. I have lifted the comment below (in bold), from this informed user who I trust on these issues. He also drives home the motivation behind Microsoft's actions. Take a read.

Samba maintainer Jeremy Allison pointed out in a recent blog posting by writer Glyn Moody that companies who sign up to Microsoft's licensing cannot continue to distribute their code under GPLv2.

Section seven of GPLv2 - called the "Liberty or Death" clause - states that you cannot distribute code if outside restrictions have been imposed.

"What people are missing about this is the either/or choice that Microsoft is giving TomTom," Alison posted.

"It isn't a case of cross-license and everything is ok. If TomTom or any other company cross licenses patents then by section 7 of GPLv2 (for the Linux kernel). they lose the rights to redistribute the kernel at all."

In other words, Microsoft is eroding Linux and open source and slowing their development. A deal with Microsoft prevents GPL'd code from returning to the ecosystem whence it came, with any improvements or updates, as companies that do patent licensing deals with Microsoft must keep it in-house.

The best part? The company Fabric7, which was pimping this new paradigm is apparently defunct.
http://search.sys-con.com/read/368244.htm
WTG Gartner! At least Fabric7 paid for this little bit of advertisement before kicking the bucket.

"The Apache license allows manufacturers and mobile operators to innovate . . . without the requirement to contribute these innovations back to the open source community. . . . [they] are protected from the 'viral infection' problem often associated with other licenses."

This leads to a sort of "suspicions confirmed" moment about Google's view of its relationship to the FOSS community: it is a one-way street, in which Google gets benefits, but does not make serious contributions in return. During the run-up to the roll-out of v3 of the GPL, there was argument over the activities of ASPs such as Google, which use open source code as a mainspring of their activities but avoid making public their significant improvements because they do not distribute code. Under GPLv2, only distribution triggers a disclosure obligation.

Many FOSS members regard this as a serious loophole, and wanted it closed in GPLv3, but Google and other ASPs resisted, and v3 was unchanged on this point. See IT Business Edge.

At the Open Source Business Conference last May, Free Software Foundation guru Even Moglen acknowledged the problem, and said he would be working with Google to improve its contributions to the FOSS community.

Judging by Android, his efforts do not seem to be working. Android is based on Linux. The code Google adds to create Android will be open as per the Apache license, but that code can then be taken and turned back into locked programs by phone makers or wireless providers.

This is explained in an ArsTechnica post (characterized by Google as "one of the best explanations for the reasoning behind releasing code under Apache2"):

[A] copyleft license could potentially limit the evolution of the mobile software ecosystem by discouraging commercial development on top of the platform. Proprietary mobile software development companies that integrate Android into their technologies would have to dramatically change their business models if they aren't given the ability to keep their enhancements proprietary.

So the business plan seems to be that Google will persuade FOSS developers to write for Android, but under a system in which their code can be lifted by phone makers and service providers for the profit of others in the system without any reciprocity. (Of course, developers may also be hired by the commercial players to write proprietary programs, but this is not exactly the spirit of FOSS.)

As one Internet comment said: "[The licensing] does not inspire much confidence that this is really some sort of open phone for the users, rather than a potentially interesting, PR-savvy way of saving money for a bunch of manufacturers." Good call.

But Google will sell the advertising, riding on top of everyone else's work.

For those of us who have nothing against commercial software, all of this is just fine, especially the Ars Technica explanations of the advantages of going the commercial route, but if one is a dedicated member of the FOSS community, one might be feeling a little used.

Just my opinion, but I'd say code that's executable from the stack and internal code addresses that aren't randomized at boot time qualify, especially since those can't be fixed through patches. That's what lead to the first hack and could spell more problems.

Oh come on! It's mainstream to admit Vista is a dog.

Even hacks like Rob Enderle are saying it like it is.

Why, oh, why can't we have a comment from the quintessential blurbmeister here? Rob, where are you in this historic moment to weigh the subtle issues and deliver some clarity in fifteen words or less?

Will you all please give him some hits on his blog at ITBE and let him know we need his insight at this trying time?

This "OpenXML" stunt is just a smokescreen covering Microsofts controlled retreat in the office format battle. It only needs to keep parties distracted until Microsoft has reclaimed the control over business content by means of vendor lockin v2.0 aka Microsoft Office Sharepoint Server.

http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/ 2007/04/while_you_were.html
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/mia/?p=198

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile/display/200608 28031933.html

old data...Motorola is a close second. However, I now consider Motorola a global company.

Thus, more recently:

http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=29705

You missed the point, same as the last clown. America has historical significance in the computing world, and is still considered the biggest player in the internet from several fronts. In fact, many people still bitch b/c American retains control over key core Internet routers. China and India have sheer numbers to compensate, but on a per capita basis, U.S. expenditures on computers is significanly higher than most other countries. We were here first and we've shared with the world. World, using eqully impressive brains (if not equally impressive capital) now contribute significantly. My point was, exclude the U.S. from mail routing and you'll be cutting your legs out from underneath you. Sure, you can still pull yourself around on your arms or use a wheel chair, but it wouldn't be the same.

Mobile phones have been weak in the U.S. ever since inception. This is partly b/c we have such a strong land-line infrastructure. I've heard that there is more fibre in the U.S. than in the rest of the world, but lack citation to point it out as fact. Many other countries have used mobile phones b/c that's all they have. If they tried to get copper/DSL/Cable to all the residencies, their local telcos would go bankrupt. (Ours are now offering entry level DSL for $15/month. FIOS and other fibre offerings are now bringing 15MB+ to the home for less than $100/month) Now matter how cool a cell phone gets, it won't replace the beauty of raw data througput pulling down movies/ISOs/VLF (Very Large Files) in minutes instead of hours/days that most of the rest of the world currently enjoys. Plus, why can't they figure out how to simply billing in the rest of the world. Most mobile operators I've experienced South/Central America, Caribbean, UK, and Europe all have confusing rates which are constantly changing, all varying depending on if you're calling another mobile phone, a land line, and one of 3 time options. Nevermind that the U.S. enjoys free long distance to all of its massive continent while Europeans are paying different rates to 20+ countries all in near proximity. I think I just threw up a bit in my mouth thinking about it...

But, if we must, lets look at the heart of cell phones.

Qualcomm is 90% of CDMA phones. Qualcomm is US company.
Quite a few video components rely on TI components. (Texas Instruments...wonder where that was founded?)

I'd ask you to take a look at a vendor market share report, http://www.marketresearch.com/map/prod/1334374.htm l, but that would cost money...something I know linux lovers are loathe to hand out. Here's a free one for you though:
http://focus.ti.com/general/docs/wtbu/wtbugenconte nt.tsp?contentId=4605&navigationId=12046&templateI d=6123
TI has largest market share followed by Qualcomm in 2nd place. So, Nokia's first place hold on the cell phone market is dependent on the chipsets from 2 American companies, and wireless technologies, while collaborative, require significant technical innovations.

Suck it. If it makes you feel any better, you should realize that many of the "Americans" working for our companies here are 1st generation foreign nationals who came here for the superior education and stayed on for the superior pay and lifestyle. We import your best and brightest all the time. Its the American way.

Just because our politicians blow doesn't mean the rest of our hard work goes unnoticed or unrewarded.

Often we accuse large vendors of losing track of their customers. MSFT has been historically blessed by competitors who, by focusing on MSFT lost track of who really pays the bills. Two earlier Slashdot posts: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/02/ 2219230 http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/04/002021 3 got me thinking about just how much Microsoft will benefit from GPL 3.0 and I posted the following as a result: Why Microsoft Loves GPL 3.0 http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/rob/?p=119&pag e=2

Here

What the researcher is saying is the with 235 potential patent violations
Linux scores lower then most proprietary software he has looked at.

Incidently nowhere does he say who owns the 235 patents so given the amount of
Operating System related patents filed they are more likly to belong to IBM or HP
(DEC VAX, Tandem Non Stop etc. etc. ) than microsoft.

Pure FUD!

Back in November 2004, Dan Ravicher complained to Steven Vaughan-Nichols that Ballmer had misread his patent study, so I'm not sure that this is 'new' news.

That Register link is dead (although even Google News indexed the article. wtf?) But many articles are repeating Ravicher's old remarks: Ravicher says his report proves the opposite of Microsoft's claims, The author of that report disowned Ballmer's remarks, etc.

The employees are protected via whistleblower etc. So why all the vieled secrecy...?

David Welch was fired in 2002. Twice the legal system ruled that he was protected by whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley laws, and should be given his job back. He was still unemployed in October 2006, I'm betting he still hasn't got his job back. Only a fucking idiot trusts in the legal system to protect his free speech rights in a timely fashion.

::Vista has NOT been made available to the public Ah yes. So - what are you getting when you buy vista now, there: http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/11/13/HNmscomp usa_1.html More info: http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=21919 It is not in wide distribution, but it is out. You an walk intoa CompUsa NOW and get a copy. ::It was made available on MSDN / Windows Connect for EARLY ADOPTERS Bullshit. It was made available. That simple. SOME are early in adopting, but it is the real RTM version. Sure, driver support through third party is crap, but that is not going to change inthe next 30 days. It is the RTM version. The versionsin the shop will be identical to the released images- it just now takes time to get them manufactured and into the distribution. ::If your company runs full fledged SQL Server on desktops, they're morons for multiple reasons. So, I am a moron? Let me get this straight - how else am I supposed to make SQL Server development woork wih reporting services and/or SSIS on my laptop without internet connection? Not all uses of a server product are - for prouduction use. ::And your response to my post showed your idiocy, not mine Let me guess -yyou are american and thus do not value the reality.