FT on Europe's Open Source Option

Anonymous Coward writes "The Financial Times offers a very interesting read about Linux, its possibilities for business, and its threat to Microsoft. Also a second article about "Europe's open-source option"."

Comments

Problem with the article:

[Gentoo Fan]

Developed by Stallman, the so-called general public licence attached to Linux forces anyone who modifies the system to make the modification freely available to others.

Only if you REDISTRIBUTE the binaries as well! This makes it sound like any in-house change must be published.

Re:Problem with the article:

[frleong]

The general concern of large corporations is more or less like this: what if I am an employee of a large corporation and the IT staff used GPL libraries to develop in-house apps? Can I request the source code since I got the binaries? But wouldn't this cause havoc with the internal IT policies, as usually the source code can only be revealed on a need-to-know basis?

Re:Problem with the article:

[icantblvitsnotbutter]

Hey, at least they mentioned RMS (and got most of the salient points correct). Usually the business articles leave it at "Linus wrote Linux".

Re:Problem with the article:

[grey1]

hmm, but don't internal projects usually use libraries as part of a build, rather than modifying them - so wouldn't it be a closed app with GPL libraries?

sounds like a touch of FUD here, or have I got it wrong?

Re:Problem with the article:

[Greyfox]

Internal deployment is still deployment. It's copyrighted material and I'd consider any situation that would trigger licensing fees from other companies as distribution and expect changes from same. Of course, I am not a lawyer (But I have seen every episode of Ally MacBeal.)

Re:Problem with the article:

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't have a closed app with GPL libraries.

Re:Problem with the article:

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL isn't an option for internal software, it just isn't.

You always redistribute it to people _inside_ your organistation and there is nothing stopping them from redistributing.

And NO, no one pays millions for development of internal software and then accepts distribution of it. That isn't reality.

Re:Problem with the article:

[memfrob]

Can I request the source code since I got the binaries?

I wouldn't think so, since your company has not actually "distributed" the binary. If the company has made the modification, then as long as the company keeps the binary internal to the company, I wouldn't imagine it would be constrained by that portion of the GPL. Just as they didn't "give" you that monitor on your desk, or that chair you're sitting in, I don't think they would "give" you the binaries that you're using. Since the GPL seems to rely on variants of the term "distribute" however, it could legally be interpreted several ways. I would think, however, that you are being given access to the binaries as an agent of the company, not as an individual; in that case, no real distribution has occurred.

IANAL, but I'm sure your company has two or three; ask them.

Re:Problem with the article:

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple solution. Add a clause to the employment contract saying you will not use your GPL-given rights to view the source for things developed for in house use. Remember the totality of contract law is about "how to give away some rights" in trade for someting else (typically $$$).

Re:Problem with the article:

[Keck]

Big difference between distribution within a company and distributing to anyone who wants to download it. Since corporations are legally treated as an individual person, there is no difference between everyone in a corporation using the modified code (in binary form) and not distributing it at all.

Re:Problem with the article:

[grahamm]

If the closed app is written and only used in-house, why not? The GPL only covers distribution and while I personally think that dissemination within an organisation is distribution, few others seem to agree with me.

Re:Problem with the article:

[EnderWiggnz]

which is why libraries are under the LGPL.

Re:Problem with the article:

[frleong]

Big difference between distribution within a company and distributing to anyone who wants to download it. Since corporations are legally treated as an individual person, there is no difference between everyone in a corporation using the modified code (in binary form) and not distributing it at all.

What about consultants or other external contractors? What if they need to install certain in-house apps in their own computers for interoperability? If these apps use GPL libraries, the corporation would be forced to give out the source code to these consultants/contractors too.

Re:Problem with the article:

[Keck]

I doubt it, it comes down to the non-disclosure agreement between them. If the contractor is using the program only for work for that company (as they should) there is no reason the company has to give up their right not to 'distribute', as it's still that company [legally a person] using the program to their own ends. IANAL, of course, so this could be debated endlessly, but I think the real important part is that a corporation is legally an individual, and a contractor doing work for that 'individual' is part of that individual when serving in that capacity, and doesn't have the right to distribute their works if they don't say so. if the company says the contractor can distribute it, then they have to give them the source too, but otherwise I think the rights still lie with teh corporation.

Re:Problem with the article:

[frleong]

I doubt it, it comes down to the non-disclosure agreement between them. If the contractor is using the program only for work for that company (as they should) there is no reason the company has to give up their right not to 'distribute', as it's still that company [legally a person] using the program to their own ends. IANAL, of course, so this could be debated endlessly, but I think the real important part is that a corporation is legally an individual, and a contractor doing work for that 'individual' is part of that individual when serving in that capacity, and doesn't have the right to distribute their works if they don't say so. if the company says the contractor can distribute it, then they have to give them the source too, but otherwise I think the rights still lie with teh corporation.

The contractor may not be allowed to redistribute the binary again, but GPL may force the corporation to give out the source code to the contractor. As you said, this can be debated endlessly. Being in a rather gray area, large corporations may avoid GPL even when they have lawyers and attorneys dancing around all the day.This doesn't mean that GPL is the problem, but certainly is a concern. To avoid hassles, they simply turn to non-GPL software (including BSD).

Re:Problem with the article:

[Keck]

Good point. Hell, even Microsoft has used bsd code :) (/me coughs KERBEROS)

Re:Problem with the article:

[Hobbex]

This is a common misconception about the GPL, which shows a misunderstand about what the license says.

When you download software that somebody else has written, and use it as the basis of an inhouse piece of software, then you need the permission of the person who wrote the original software to distribute the derivative work (your inhouse software.) If the software comes with a notice that it is under the GPL, that is simply a communication from the author saying under what terms HE will allow you to distribute the software - namely that you keep it under the GPL and give the source code to anyone who wants it.

The people that you distribute the software to have no legal right to dictate the terms under which you do so - only the original author does, since you can only distribute his copyrighted work at all with his permission. Thus, the people who get the software may be more than happy to sign away the ability to get ahold of the source code - but that does not matter, because it is not with them you made an agreement to distribute the source code, it is with the original author of the software.

That said, regarding employees working in the office there is no issue what so ever - distribution of the software has to do with which computers it is installed on, not who uses it, so as long as the company owns the computer there has been no distribution. If it is software that employees or consolutants will take home and run on their own machines, then IANAL but it seems pretty clear to me that, yes, you do owe them the source.

On the whole though, MS campaign of trying to use this against Linux is 100% FUD (or rather an outright lie). There are GPLed programs and libraries on Windows as well, people who don't want to GPL there software don't have to make derivative works based on them, and nor do they on Linux (there are plenty of LGPLed, BSDed, and even proprietary libraries to go around). And if they do want to base their software on something that is GPLed, the worse case is that they have to exactly what you always have to do with proprietary software anyways: call up the author and try to negotiate to pay for permission to use it under other conditions.

Re:Problem with the article:

[f.money]

The contractor may not be allowed to redistribute the binary again, but GPL may force the corporation to give out the source code to the contractor.

The copyright holder (the corp) has exclusive rights to distribution of it's copyrighted material (by statute). The GPL may force them to let the contractor have access to the source. If that contractor then copied or otherwise broke copyright law after that access, the Corp could (and should) sue the crap out of him/her. But this isn't so different from giving a contractor access to a closed source in house app - the only difference is that he can now see your algorithms and methods.

Basically, a contractor would never ask to see the source as there's very little upside (s/he can't do anything with that knowledge, and if the reused any of the ideas, they could be sued), and hella downside.

jon

Re:Problem with the article:

[grey1]

my reading of the article was that they were talking about flavours of Unix. So applying that context to this statement made me think of changes to Linux, not to an app running over the top of it. So I reckon you're taking issue with the article is a little unfair, given that this is journalism, not technical writing...

Re:Problem with the article:

[Saint Fnordius]

Most of the fear about Open Source software is due to Microsoft fearmongering. In reality, there's no problem with selling/using closed source on top of Linux (see WordPerfect for Linux). In fact, the "disadvantage" becomes an advantage, as the programmers and legal are more aware of their boundries.

As for your example, the libraries can be put in a sandbox, and segregated from the more sensitive bits. But as long as you're not distributing out-of-house, you can keep your source code confidential. Just beware, should you decide that your app can be sold to clients...

Re:Problem with the article:

[rseuhs]

Alright, let's ignore the existence of the LGPL and pretend it didn't exist.

Asking "What happens to our software if we use GPL-software as base?" is like asking "What happens to my company when we don't pay licensing fees to MS?"

It's just part of the rules. And be assured, it's a lot easier to make sure not to use GPLed code in in-house apps than to make sure no employee has somewhere installed some unlicensed software. (Which can cost the company hundreds of thousands)

Also, all the GPL violations have been solved by either removing the code (rewriting it) or opening up the whole. So if you don't want to open up you just need to do what you should have done from the beginning: Write it yourself. The risks involved in breaking the GPL are minimal, especially because there won't be any damages claims. Also, when it is about an in-house app anyway, what's the big deal in opening it up?

Micorosft's license, on the other hand, is enforced, there are audits and huge fines.

Anybody asking "What happens to our software if we use GPL-software as base" is either:

• An idiot still not understanding the GPL, the difference between GPL and LGPL and in this case also not understanding licneses in general
• A MCSE, MSFT-stockholder or somebody else who will lose very much with the decline of Microsoft, happily willing to spread any FUD about any non-Microsoft product.
• A troll

Re:Problem with the article:

[frleong]

Anybody asking "What happens to our software if we use GPL-software as base" is either:

An idiot still not understanding the GPL, the difference between GPL and LGPL and in this case also not understanding licneses in general

First, not everything is licensed under LGPL. Period. Even with LGPL, people cannot statically link their applications to the libraries. Also, RMS is now advocating that everything be licensed ONLY via GPL and not even LGPL.

Second, by caling people with concerns with GPL as idiots, you're actually helping MS to spread FUD. It is this kind of elitist attitude that scares many people away. If not for IBM, the credibility of GPL would have gone down from the hills pretty quickly, because of people like you, and not because of GPL per se.

Re:Problem with the article:

[yourmom16]

RMS believes that libraies should be LGPLed if there are proprietary libraries with the same functions, but GPLed otherwise. For example the standard C library(glibc) is LGPLed, but readline(a library used in bash) is GPLed. He wrote about it here

Re:Problem with the article:

[yuri benjamin]

Only if you REDISTRIBUTE the binaries as well! This makes it sound like any in-house change must be published.


See the journal in my sig for discussion on this issue.

Free beer!

[e8johan]

I'd say that the article misses out on the freedom part of the word free. Not to sound evangilistic, but there is a bias towards free as in no money (but what can one expect from the _financial_ times?).

Re:Free beer!

[zorglubxx]

Actually it's better they left it out. I dont think the GPL gives you more freedom since it takes away the freedom to use the code in anyway way you may wish. The only license that gives you true freedom is the BSD one.

Re:Free beer!

[ctid]

It doesn't "take away" this freedom, as you don't have it anyway.

Re:Free beer!

[IamTheRealMike]

Yeah. So much for Stallmans vision of free software being wanted because you could control it and share it with friends. That sort of stuff is important only to a small fraction of the worlds people clearly.

These things are interesting to read, and overall I thought the article was pretty accurate, but it makes it feel very dry doesn't it? All the graphs, figures, and relentlessly the focus on cost, the bottom line. Other benefits like increased flexibility and lack of lockin weren't mentioned. Neither was the fact that the vast majority of people who work on Linux the OS as a whole are not employed by big tech companies.

It's also rather depressing how much the involvement of IBM means to people. IBM has done a hell of a lot of good work, but the "we didn't pay any attention 'till IBM did" line indicates supreme daftness to me - Linux hasn't changed that much. I guess it's just a case of sheeple following whoever is biggest.

Re:Free beer!

[e8johan]

It depends if you're interested in running a stable system or selling a patched version. I'd say most of the intended audience of the article aren't interested in selling Linux systems, but rather use it. Then the GPL is good, since it makes patches spread thoughout the community.

Re:Free beer!

[christophersaul]

IBM's involvement means a great deal. If you're an IT manager following IT trends, you'll have read about Linux in the trade press and shrugged your shoulders with vague interest. When the IBM sales guy turns up to tell you his AIX box can run Linux, or the Sun guy is talking about Linux boxes running your webservers, then you start to take more notice.

Before, the evangelists were totally irrelevant and totally without credibility - in terms of who an IT Manager would take advice from.

Re:Free beer!

[Wolfier]

The GPL guarantees the freedom of the software itself by prevent it from being locked up,

It does not guarantee YOUR freedom.

Re:Free beer!

[Toy G]

You must consider the context: it's the Financial Times speaking. They are not looking for the public good, they simply talk business to business-minded people.

Why businessmen choose Linux?
1 - Concern about IT spending (at least for SMEs this is the big factor).
2 - Concern about relying on a monopolist, high-price oriented company (Microsoft as much as the old proprietary Unix producers).
3 - Concern about relying on a monopolist, fixed-price oriented, *american* company...

If you read the article, you'll find these and not much more, because the FT reader doesn't want anything other (well, maybe some tits would be appreciated).

Re:Free beer!

[sheriff_p]

BZZZZT. The GPL takes away freedom? No, the GPL giveth, the GPL does not taketh away. You have precisely no rights to use unlicensed code written by other people.

The GPL gives you the right to use it (assuming it's been licensed that way) if you follow some rules. And if the BSD license offers 'true freedom', how come people don't release under Public Domain instead? Oh wait, time for you to go read the licenses again.

Re:Free beer!

[overunderunderdone]

Neither was the fact that the vast majority of people who work on Linux the OS as a whole are not employed by big tech companies.

Actually the article mentioned this in a (backhanded way) but they disagree with your estimate that it is a "vast majority". It said (and I have no idea if it's true or not) that about 50% of the 1,000 or so developers that are really actively developing Linux are employees of big tech companies. I'm sure that there are many, many more non big company developers that are contributing occasionaly but the efforts of 500 full time developers doing it day in and day out for their living is probably making a pretty big impact.

Re:Free beer!

[IamTheRealMike]

I think they meant Linux the kernel, and i meant Linux the OS

Re:Free beer!

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think the GPL gives you more freedom since it takes away the freedom to use the code in anyway way you may wish

Umm, who gave you that in the first place?

In order for the GPL to take away "the freedom to use the code anyway you wish", someone must have given it to you.

How is it that you believe the GPL takes away something you never had to begin with?

The only license that gives you true freedom is the BSD one.

Nope.. read it. It says you have to keep the copyright notice.. that's not "true" freedom.

Re:Free beer!

[ChaosDiscord]

I dont think the GPL gives you more freedom since it takes away the freedom to use the code in anyway way you may wish.

All things are relative, including freedom. The GPL certainly gives you more freedom than Microsoft's EULA. Everything Microsoft's EULA allows the GPL allows. So in this common common case the GPL is more free.

The only license that gives you true freedom is the BSD one.

But the BSD license takes away my freedom to strip off the original authors copyright statement and delete the disclaimer of warrante. If we're going to demand absolute freedom you need to look at truly public domain software, no copyright.

Re:Free beer!

[naasking]

Copyright says you have NO freedom to a work others have created. Zero. None. The GPL grants you freedom to use, view, modify and distribute the work given that you agree to certain conditions. That is indeed more freedom than "none". BSD certainly grants more freedom (almost to the point of placing in the public domain), but that in no way lessens the freedom granted by the GPL. If you're going to advocate a position, advocate it rationally, not with clearly untrue propaganda.

Re:Free beer!

[MrResistor]

Yeah. So much for Stallmans vision of free software being wanted because you could control it and share it with friends. That sort of stuff is important only to a small fraction of the worlds people clearly.

As the parent said, it's called Finacial Times for a reason. The people who read it basically care about one thing: money. If you want to communicate with them you need to speak their language: money.

There's a very good reason for not mentioning RMS-style Freedom to this audience; it gives them the willies. It's very difficult for a money-minded person to see how those ideals benefit them since all they are able to see is monetary worth.

It's also rather depressing how much the involvement of IBM means to people. IBM has done a hell of a lot of good work, but the "we didn't pay any attention 'till IBM did" line indicates supreme daftness to me - Linux hasn't changed that much. I guess it's just a case of sheeple following whoever is biggest.

When a very small company I was working at a while back needed to move all the important business files off of the bosses desktop and onto a dedicated fileserver I suggested adding a big harddrive to an old unused machine we had and throwing Linux on it. After explaining what Linux is and why we don't have to pay anyone for it if we don't want to, the question posed was "Who else is using it?" It seemed like a very strange question to me, but eventually I understood what it was about. Managers really don't like to take risks. What they were asking for is examples of where Linux has been successfully deployed. Data is the backbone of any company, and you don't trust your data to a platform that doesn't have an acceptable track record, and to have that you need some big names (like IBM) saying publicly "Yes, we use that, it works".

Unfortunately, this was when IBM was first talking about supporting Linux, so examples from companies anyone had heard of were scarce, to say the least. I managed to talk them into it anyway, and the winning arguement was money. Hardware and software costs to do it the way I suggested were $125 (new HDD and NIC), whereas software costs alone for an MS solution was around $1000, or $1500 for Novell, and both of those would have required more hardware expenses to create a viable platform, and would have had additional expenses for licenses ($50 and $70 respectively per seat, IIRC) whenever a new employee were hired (the company was growing roughly 30% per year at the time).

It so happened that the CEO had recently asked the CFO to marry him, so once these numbers were pointed out to her, the issue was decided in favor of Linux ;-)

Re:Free beer!

[Jon_E]

Why are you looking for freedom in the law?

Freedom is implicit - the law exists to define the boundary of that implicit freedom. It can only really enforce and remove implied freedoms which might limit the implicit freedom or rights of someone else .. i think that's what we mean by justice these days.

Very good to see

[Achmed Swaribabu]

I think that the EU has traditionally been more open minded to open the source technologies than the USian people have been, by my judgment.

We have been doing much work for lots of private industrial companies all over Europe by make the modfications to FreeBSD and Gnu/Linux kernel for years and just now starting to see jobs from the USA.

Oh too, to make a clarification, most of our work has been on FreeBSD (my specialty actually) because we recommend it for companies because of the more flexible license, but we like the work on Gnu/Linux too.

Re:Very good to see

[IamTheRealMike]

Oh too, to make a clarification, most of our work has been on FreeBSD (my specialty actually) because we recommend it for companies because of the more flexible license

That's an interesting perspective. Presumably if you make custom changes for companies then they wouldn't be redistributed so you wouldn't have to reveal the changes anyway. And what sort of things do you change or add that is so secret they can't be released back?

Re:Very good to see

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here, I run my own company, it is a great advantage to ude the BSDs, we now get loads of clients that flee the GPL; that is, they hired other contractors that worked on Linux and other GPLed software, which means they payed for something the competitors could use.

Re:Very good to see

[Dan Ost]

Part of that is that Microsoft is not a EU
company and so there is no political motivation
to protect MS's market in the EU.

Whether or not that plays a bigger role than the
national security angle (being dependent on a
foreign company for national IT), I have no idea.

Re:Very good to see

[peterpi]

I bet you refer to British people as English though ;)

Re:Very good to see

[LarsWestergren]

Well, as a European I'm flattered, but was it really necessary to post such an inflammatory post?

For instance, you set up America vs Europe, a classic hot subject on Slashdot whatever the subject discussed. Same with FreeBSD vs Linux. Also "USian" isn't a very respectful term, right?

Cheers,
Lars

Re:Very good to see

[Badger]

> Also "USian" isn't a very respectful term, right?

I don't think respect is "in" these days. :-) And no, it's not.

The whole EU vs US thing is silly, because it presumes two huge land masses are monolithic in their thinking. Microsoft's demise will mean more jobs for everyone, both EU and US.

Re:Very good to see

[Anonymous Coward]

Not surprising. The worlds largest monopoly is not contributing to taxes in Europe, and the billions flowing to the USA could also be spent locally.

Re:Very good to see

[FroMan]

That's okey, we (Americans) know that you EUians are for the most part idiots anyways.

Okey, today we get a rough count of American vs EUian moderators.

Re:Very good to see

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that it is interesting. The companies would not have to redistribute the changes to GPL'd code, so what is the advantage to the client company?

It is clearly an advantage to the contractor, though, because the changes can be re-sold to competitors of the original client as new "work".

Re:Very good to see

[Rogerborg]

"USian" is pretty respectful to the couple of hundred million people in the America's who aren't in the USA.

Re:Very good to see

[Fembot]

Why does everyone seem to think that the GPL means you have to give away your modificatoins. All it means is that if your gonna sell it you've gotta give the source to the people you sell it to.

I would have thought that wether the work was going to be resubmitted back would be an important question raised by clients during the inital contract negotiaions for the work.

Re:Very good to see

[Anonymous Coward]

Okey, today we get a rough count of American vs EUian moderators.

Yeah, perhaps we (Europeans) are willing to sacrifice a little of our free time to make Slashdot better, while you Americans just want to sit on your fat asses and complain.

This article was mentioned on BBC World's

[mijok]

World Business Report this morning. Very good indeed that Linux gets more and more publicity among businesspeople too.

Re:This article was mentioned on BBC World's

[Chillblaine]

The BBC website has an article on Linux aswell.

PS. WTF does "The Sopranos" have to do with HP and linux ?

Re:This article was mentioned on BBC World's

[nelsonal]

I think that HP is planning to use various members of the Sopranos cast in a new ad campaign for HP's linux offerings.

Re:This article was mentioned on BBC World's

[jazman_777]

I think that HP is planning to use various members of the Sopranos cast in a new ad campaign for HP's linux offerings.

Picture this: Tony Soprano working on his finances on a windows box. Crash. He flips his lid, and yells to one of his flunkies, "WhadoIgotta do to get any work done around here? I want somethin' stable, I want somethin' secure, got that?" And the flunky answers (trembling), "that would be Linux on HP". Then later he's talking to his shrink and he's telling her about how he just flipped out and destroyed several windows computers. "I hate Bill Gates, what's a man supposed to do? But I'm OK, I replaced the computers with HP boxes running Linux."

Re:This article was mentioned on BBC World's

[Handpaper]

The BBC has been (increasingly) a Linux shop for some years now.

I love reading these.

[poindextrose]

Written by businessman, for businessman.
I can undestand why slashdot puts stories like these on but I still laugh when I read them. The contradictions, the overstatements, not to mention the information they sometimes get wrong. I don't mind reading them though, if only for a laugh.

Not to say that this story has ALL of those listed above, but I did notice some lines that gave me a chuckle.

FT???

[TeknoHog]

Please don't say "FT" unless you really mean Fourier Transform.

Re:FT???

[msgmonkey]

Not everyone is a mathmatician, infact (here in the UK atleast) a large number non business people know FT is short for Financial Times.. In fact the main UK stock exchange the FTSE is short for Financial Times Stock Exchange..

Re:FT???

[nicknoxx]

if you google for FT the first three links are all for the Financial Times
Nick

Re:FT???

[ctid]

I don't think that's true, actually. You're thinking of the FTSE100 (used to be FTSE30), which is a measure of how well the stockmarket is doing on a given day. It's calculated from the prices of the stocks of 100 listed companies. The Stock Exchange itself isn't owned by the FT.

Re:FT???

[msgmonkey]

Yes you're right about that. The FTSE is a jointly owned by the FT and the LSE and is not that old (set up around 1995 I think) wherease the LSE is around 250 years old.

Re:FT???

[fiffilinus]

The FFT is *one* particular variety of Fourier Transform - the second most 'popular is the DFT (discrete Fourier Transform). Fourier Transform as such is never actually abbreviated in use, as discussions tend to deal with a particular variety. Sorry for this post, got carried away. Guess I work too much with this kind of stuff...

Re:FT???

[Anonymous Coward]

that's funny - i thought FT stood for "F*** This!" .. so i guess FTSE must be something more like F*** This S*** Eh?

So do I - for different reasons

[CharlieO]

I love them - yes they are funny, but they are of major use to our community.

Most of us on squishdot rage flamewars about code stability, scaleability, freedom of choice - but none of this matters to the execs - they don't read what we write.

But if someone like the FT mentions Linux and how good it is - this gets read in the board room, on the train, on the trading floor.

And then maybe, just maybe, someone will ask the head IT person just what its all about. Then we get a chance to explain it. Get a copy of these articles, save the link somewhere - and then next time you have to do a whitepaper or value proposal in your company where you know open source is the better choice you have some references that people will sit up and notice.

Treat these articles as sales leads to big buisness - marketing is what open source is not good at beacuse we don't press the right buttons - the FT does.

Still - good for a chukle wasn't it.

Re:So do I - for different reasons

[overunderunderdone]

I'd go beyond that and be a little less condescending about their technological ignorance. The businessmen and investors etc. shouldn't be interested in all the technological intracacies that are of interest to us. They *should* get the executive summary version and the *should* be interested in the bottom line & cost. All the technology issues we are interested in are ultimately reduced to cost - a system that doesn't scale will cost more in the long run, a system that is unreliable will cost more - at the level of decision making these guys are concerned with the technical details are less important than the outcome. They need good advice from technical experts & some knowledge on their own part of the technical issues that will effect costs is helpful but ultimately not really their concern.

That being said it doesn't excuse outright errors. The businessman reading the article can't be expected to know or care about the technological details. The technology writer on the other hand, while he may have to reduce things down to a simplistic level, should NOT be getting things just plain wrong.

Re:So do I - for different reasons

[CharlieO]

Agree whole heartedly.

Stage 1 is getting people to talk about it

Stage 2 is getting them to talk about it correctly.

To my mind an obvious but reasonably harmless error like some of those in the article is okay - we get a chance to correct them.

Deliberate FUD however is not and should be jumped on.

I guess I'd say don't shoot the messenger - so long as the messenger doesn't have an agenda!

Re:So do I - for different reasons

[jazman_777]

They need good advice from technical experts & some knowledge on their own part of the technical issues that will effect costs is helpful but ultimately not really their concern.

I think what they really need is to know that they won't come in to work in the morning to find Richard Stallman huddled sleeping under their desk, all because they chose Linux.

WTF?

[Omkar]

"You'll see a shift from Microsoft to preaching the benefits [of its software], not the theological arguments"

What the hell? Do we need analysts to tell us ideology has no value in business?

Re:WTF?

[jez_f]

What the hell? Do we need analysts to tell us ideology has no value in business?

I disaggee entirely.
Open source = sharing ideas not controled by endless need to make money

M$ = Powerd by the need to make as much money as possible and screw everyone over in the process

Which would you rather work with? One thing that gets overlooked a little is the BillG invented the idea of people paying for software.
A long time ago, probably before most of you were even born BillG wrote a letter (you can read it here it is very interesting) complaining that he was being expected to do work for free. the best quote of the whole thing is "What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?" well it turns out lots of hobbyist can and make some very good software into the bargin.

Re:WTF?

[jazman_777]

"You'll see a shift from Microsoft to preaching the benefits [of its software], not the theological arguments"

So, they stopped believing that Bill Gates is God!

An interesting point that gets overlooked

[icantblvitsnotbutter]

Keeping the big companies in line this time round - other than an increased mutual respect for Microsoft - is a licensing system that gives them little incentive to try to commandeer Linux for their own purposes. Developed by Stallman, the so-called general public licence attached to Linux forces anyone who modifies the system to make the modification freely available to others. "The licence doesn't guarantee there won't be fragmentation but it makes it very difficult to support a business model" if a company wants to develop a proprietary Linux, says Mr Frye at IBM.

That's a part of the model that I don't often see pointed out. It's pretty apparent, when you think about it, but not obvious. Sure, companies can add distinguishing (and proprietary) applications, but the core stays relatively stable.

Not only do others benefit from what is added, they benefit from what isn't added.

Re:An interesting point that gets overlooked

[Anonymous Coward]

>That's a part of the model that I don't often see
>pointed out. It's pretty apparent, when you think
>about it, but not obvious. Sure, companies can add
>distinguishing (and proprietary) applications, but
>the core stays relatively stable.

Another thing that is often overlooked is the portability of linux. This will keep the CPU builders inline. When linux is the dominant player (if ever), Intell, like today, will be the dominant player, but when it starts to use its power to become the monopoly, you can bet alternatives will rise very quickly (AMD?), keeping intell with its two feet on the ground.

Re:An interesting point that gets overlooked

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way, This is the reason why Intell never ever shall give linux its full support! I've a old PPC 604 Powermac, a Ultrasparc III and a Athlon-tbird, all of them running linux with gnome2 and the exact same applications.

Re:An interesting point that gets overlooked

[icantblvitsnotbutter]

I'm not so sure about that. Intel is already pretty much the dominant player. There's very little risk that Linux could actually cause people to change processor architectures. In fact, it benefits from Intel's ubiquity.

A handy case in point of Intel's safe position is in this very article: "Linux runs on machines powered by cheaper standard Intel microprocessors, unlike the proprietary chips that run the variations of Unix." Huh? The x86 architecture is only "standard" because more people use that than any other single architecture.

Sure, we Linux users could take their marbles and play somewhere else. But I'd say a major reason (if not the one) that Linux is so popular is because it didn't require a platform change. To switch, people could do a software install rather than buying a whole new hardware platform. I honestly don't think that Linux loyalty would ever lead to the migration of its user base en masse to another processor architecture, unless it were free as well.

Re:An interesting point that gets overlooked

[jaseuk]

If you re-read the article you'll see that people are already making a platform change, from HP/SUN and co. to Intel/Linux.

If HP/SUN/etc. surprised us all and released cheap high-performance hardware on a different architecture that runs Linux, there would be nothing to stop people again moving over to that.

Talk to some NetBSD users, you'll get the idea. The hardware doesn't matter.

Jason

Re:An interesting point that gets overlooked

[icantblvitsnotbutter]

I think you misunderstood me. I agree that platform independance is a nice feature, but my point was that it's not the one that made Linux so widespread. As a result, there isn't the critical mass that the AC said would keep processor makers "in line" -- much less keep Intel in check. In fact, it's quite the contrary.

Sure, there are some who will upgrade their servers -- and maybe switch platforms at that point. But I'd be willing to bet that the mass of people already on Intel-based platforms will continue to use Intel. This is why Microsoft is actually worried by an alternate OS, for once. Linux is the sole competetor that actually has momentum on Intel.

BTW, Linux wasn't originally designed for platform independance. The GNU core libs and apps, of course, are. But the kernel was Intel all the way, even having some hacks based specifically on x86 features/behaviors.

All this said, the AC post totally missed the intent of my original comment. The "interesting point" that I mentioned in my original post doesn't apply to the hardware side, because the game is totally different. Re-read my first post, and you'll see that it had nothing to say about hardware independance, good or bad.

Re:An interesting point that gets overlooked

[jaseuk]

Ok, I'm with you.

My point is that it is giving IBM hardware independance. They can support their software on cheap intel or on the zSeries. Migrating between the two platforms should be straight-forward.

Re:An interesting point that gets overlooked

[icantblvitsnotbutter]

My point is that it is giving IBM hardware independance.

Definitely! I love this aspect of a good OS, in that a vendor can offer a single solution across their product range. Talk about differentiators (e.g. when comparing to competitors' lines).

Of course, we should keep in mind that this could be done with any properly designed OS. It's just cool that it was done with a grassroots-created OS.

Just how big?

[nicknoxx]

The article states that the server market is $200bn and that Linux's share is only $8bn which looks like a very small percentage until you read the Linux machines "cut the cost of hardware purchases eightfold, says Geoff Penney"
So Linux share of the server market could be much larger than it would appear.
Nick

Re:Just how big?

[EvilBudMan]

Makes sense.

Someone please MOD parent up. This is a very interesting point. TCO of Linux is less than other operating systems with the possible exception of BSD in some instances. It wont take long for businesses to figure that out.

Re:Just how big?

[jb_02_98]

My business has already figured it out. It is just that some execs keep saying "MS worked before and it looks like its working now. We shouldn't try to fix something that isn't broke." However upsetting it is, it might take one or two ms release cycles before people really start to change.

Re:Just how big?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying Linux sales of $8B are equivalent to $64B of, say, Windows sales? Is that kinda like the RIAA CD burner equivalency?

Re:Just how big?

[MrResistor]

The article states that the server market is $200bn and that Linux's share is only $8bn which looks like a very small percentage until you read the Linux machines "cut the cost of hardware purchases eightfold, says Geoff Penney"

I'm not sure how to feel about that.

On the one hand, this is a weapon for MS. "Linux is only $8G in a $200G industry. That's only 4%! Even Apple has a bigger marketshare than that! You don't want to be a loner, you want to be able to interoperate with everyone else...", they might say.

On the other hand, what is a $8G marketshare at Linux prices would be a $64G marketshare at MS prices, which makes it more like a 25% marketshare.

I'm not entirely sure that my math or logic are entirely correct, but one thing is clear: money is a really stupid way to measure usage.

Europe and Microsoft et al...

[MosesJones]

The basic concern here is also reliance on technology that can be controlled by another goverment, the advantage of Open Source is not just financial but is also one of Intellectual Property. Most of Europe is politically much further to the left than the US and is pro-sharing. This is a major principle of the EU, as opposed to the US centric treaty that enables logging and exploitation on the other side of the pond.

So there is less of a clash of culture when considering open source, Europe understands why co-operation is good, that is how much of the European defence industry works already.

Now there is also the arrogant bit....

We think European Students can build better OSes than US corporations - Linus

We think that Europeans can build better enterprise systems - SAP

We think that the best things to come out of IBM were developed in Europe - MQSeries

So basically underpinning this is a belief that we don't have the cash to do better, but do have the talent. Most EU reports on Open Source software talk about leveraging this talent pool, and not having the marketing and release costs of a full scale company.

Its the difference between consent based and co-operative management and the approach taken over the pond.

Re:Europe and Microsoft et al...

[Anonymous Coward]

All of which were the USA interfering in the affairs of other states where it had no real business doing so.

Re:Europe and Microsoft et al...

[Anonymous Coward]

After being asked by UN and half a dozen European countries.

As a European I'm really getting sick of this level of anti-americanism that has absolutely no connection whatsoever to the reality and recent history.

How does it like to be a member of an unthinking mob? This is nothing but a populistic powerplay by the EU-federalists in France and Germany in particular:

1. Whip up the mob into an anti-american fury.
2. Boost your ego and political power by opposing anything the USA does or proposes.
3. Get huge approval ratings while the economy and diplomatic ties with the only western democratic superpower deteoriate.

Real smart...

Re:Europe and Microsoft et al...

[xmarine]

Well, you've planted a flag for europe here, and thats always an excellent thing to do when striving for excellence, but it's sort of like France taking credit for Van Gogh and DaVinci. I'm sure an impartial allocation of which culture/country has contributed more to Linux would be imppssoubly difficult, but consider this:
GNU: USA
BSD: USA
Many Hardware Device Drivers: USA
MINIX: USA
C: USA
C++: USA
Java: USA

I could go on....

Re:Europe and Microsoft et al...

[Anonymous Coward]

...The USA *itself*: Europe.

Sorry, just couldn't help myself here ;-)

Re:Europe and Microsoft et al...

[xmarine]

Quite true! I think it is helpful for both sides of the USA/Europe quarrel to realize that everything the USA was developed either in emulation of or in response to some aspect of the European cultural tradition. Due to the complexity of the relationship, simplistic analysis of these issues is likely to yield incorrect conclusions. Let the yahoos on both sides not reign supreme!

Re:Europe and Microsoft et al...

[Anonymous Coward]

"C++: USA"

Bjarne Stroustrup is a Dane last time I looked. The architect of C#, Anders Heljsberg, also comes from Denmark, and Denmark is in the EU.

Re:Europe and Microsoft et al...

[xmarine]

HELLO! That they are not French IS THE POINT!!! Haven't had your petit dejeuner yet I guess. (Americans are capable of irony and sarcasm too you know)

Re:Europe and Microsoft et al...

[xmarine]

I believe he is a US citizen, but I could be wrong! In any event, C++ was certainly done under the aegis of ATT/Bell Labs.

Re:Europe and Microsoft et al...

[MosesJones]

Being wrong is neither ironic, nor sarcastic.

Sarcasm would have been

"Yes in the same way that the French produce such great pop-music, they really show us up there"

Irony would have been

"and who made the money out of European ideas ?"

So you don't seem to have proven your point at this stage. But please keep trying, it shows you care.

Re:Europe and Microsoft et al...

[Beetjebrak]

Thereby forgetting that your much praised democracy also stemmed from Europe (not to mention your language, bulk of your culture and most of your country's inhabitants' ancestors).

As for the US having to clean up our mess, the US were too busy looking in the mirror to see Pearl Harbor coming. It's only then that you interfered in WWII.
Not to save Europe, but to retain a market for your exporting companies and to save your OWN asses from communism that was closing in on you quite rapidly. Don't go telling me that the US were so noble to "save" Europe because Eisenhower/Roosevelt felt sorry for us. It's all about the Benjamins, it is now, and it was then.

What business did you have interfering in Vietnam? Korea? etc..

Also I hear of quite a few neighborhoods in the bigger cities of the US where the police don't even dare to patrol anymore.

And how about slavery? Sure, there have always been regimes that made use of slave labor, but your fair and democratic USA made use of it on an enormous scale for centuries.

Also tell me which country in the EU still executes prisoners? None, I can tell you. I was happy to read the news of governor George Ryan changing 156 death sentences into imprisonment in Illinois. Be not quick in dealing out death to those who deserve it if you can't give life back to the dead who deserve it. Death sentences are just plain barbaric!

You're also right in your previous statements. But the rant above just goes to show that bot the US and EU have dirty hands in many ways. If it werent for The West as I'll call them collectively, there'd probably be a lot less war in this world than there is now.

Re:Europe and Microsoft et al...

[xmarine]

I was using DaVinci And Leonardo as supposedly humorous examples of taking credit for things that don't belong to you. Everyone knows that DaVinci is italian, yet the Mona Lisa hangs in the Louvre! OK, maybe it wasn't funny but it certainly was not meant literally! Other than the gent who pointed out that Bjorn was not a native of the USA (which is common knowledge) nobody has yet factually disputed my assertion that MUCH (not all, not most) of Linux was BJORN IN THE USA (humor again), as was Bruce Springsteen, although John Kay of Steppenwolf is Canadian (more humor) etc & so forth.

Re:Europe and Microsoft et al...

[meringuoid]

I was happy to read the news of governor George Ryan changing 156 death sentences into imprisonment in Illinois. Be not quick in dealing out death to those who deserve it if you can't give life back to the dead who deserve it.

The pity of George Ryan may rule the fate of many - yours not least.

Re:Europe and Microsoft et al...

[mesocyclone]

Thereby forgetting that your much praised democracy also stemmed from Europe (not to mention your language, bulk of your culture and most of your country's inhabitants' ancestors).

No, just not having mentioned it. Of course, we made a few adaptations that made it more successful. I also remember that the French tried it next, and ended up with the French Revolution, one of the most brutal episodes in the history of the west.

As for the US having to clean up our mess, the US were too busy looking in the mirror to see Pearl Harbor coming. It's only then that you interfered in WWII.
Not to save Europe, but to retain a market for your exporting companies and to save your OWN asses from communism that was closing in on you quite rapidly. Don't go telling me that the US were so noble to "save" Europe because Eisenhower/Roosevelt felt sorry for us. It's all about the Benjamins, it is now, and it was then.


What is a Benjamin?

Also, you seem a bit confused. WWII was a fight against the Nazis, not the communists. I suggest you check your history books.

And the US did a lot of noble things. Not *only* out of humanitarian reasons, of course, but noble none-the-less. We rebuilt a *competitor* (Europe) using our own money in the Marshall plan. We kept thousands of our young men in Europe for decades to protect Europe from the depradations of the Soviet empire. We brought Japan from a feudal state to a more modern, much freer democracy.

Would you have preferred to have been absorbed by the USSR? If so, I refer you to two books: "The Black Book of Communism "(written by French intellectuals) which highlights the crimes of communist governments throughout the world, and Alexander Yakovlev's "A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia." If those don't convince you of the evil of actual communist governments, you are hopeless!

What business did you have interfering in Vietnam? Korea? etc..

Stopping the global spread of imperial communist Russia. The Korean war was started *at the express order* of the KGB by Kim Il Sung, who spent World War II in Russia as a KGB asset. He invaded South Korea (in violation of treaties).

The Vietnam War was an (unfortunately successful) attempt by the Communist regime of Ho Chi Minh to conquer the South. A little history item for you: after the French colonialists (Europeans, btw) were thrown out of Vietnam, it was divided, and the people voted with their feet as to which regime they wanted. Huge numbers moved south to get away from the communists. The South Vietnamese government was hardly a shining example of democracy (or anything else), but it was preferred by its people to the alternative.

Also I hear of quite a few neighborhoods in the bigger cities of the US where the police don't even dare to patrol anymore.

Well, so much for the quality of European media! What you hear is total nonsense. Where did you hear it?

And how about slavery? Sure, there have always been regimes that made use of slave labor, but your fair and democratic USA made use of it on an enormous scale for centuries.

As did Europe, which initiated and profitted mightily from the African slave trade. And our country spent 500,000 lives to eliminate slavery in our country, and we did so!

If you are so exercised about slavery, how about condemning the Sudan, where slaves are still bought and sold? I have heard a lot of bloviations from Europeans about how bad the US is, but little about the real evil in the world! Selective morality seems to be a modern European attribute also.

Also tell me which country in the EU still executes prisoners? None, I can tell you.

Actually, Britain still has capital punishment for sabotage of naval facilities. However, I am not ashamed of our record of capital punishment. My state also executes those who have preyed upon their fellow human beings.

You're also right in your previous statements. But the rant above just goes to show that bot the US and EU have dirty hands in many ways.

Every nation in the world and every group has dirty hands... it just depends on what the situation is and when it happened.

If it werent for The West as I'll call them collectively, there'd probably be a lot less war in this world than there is now.

That is pretty pathetic. You might be right - of course. Some brutal dictator *might* just take over the whole world - that would end war all right. But to blame the wars in the world on the west is so silly that I am not going to bother refuting it.
--

Re:Europe and Microsoft et al...

[z_gringo]

What is a Benjamin?

Money?

Just a guess. Im not sure.

Re:Europe and Microsoft et al...

[johndv]

MINIX: USA
C: USA
C++: USA

Interesting point of view: so MINIX, designed by a US-born guy living in the Netherlands for the last 20 years, and C++, designed by a Danish-born guy living in the US for the last 20 years are both in your list.

Go check and draw a line

Re:Europe and Microsoft et al...

[Anonymous Coward]

What is most striking about your comment is your inability to distinguish the US governments throughout history from the american people. You yourself are talking propaganda language.

I hope you one day will be able to hear the difference between the voice of your government and the voice of your fellow citizens. The faith and lives of many millions may depend on it.

Re:Europe and Microsoft et al...

[mesocyclone]

Perhaps you could be more specific.

It is rather hard to comment on your totally vague assertions, other than to say that I am quite aware of what our government does and has done, and why it did it. If you disagree, be specific. Otherwise... why bother to post at all?

Re:Europe and Microsoft et al...

[jbolden]

And by that reasoning Europe is just Athens, Rome and Babylon.

Re:Europe and Microsoft et al...

[xmarine]

Good point! If you argue that what I said proves the ill-advisedness of trying assign cultural ownership to core Linux-enabling technologies then I agree! Bottom line: the notion that Linux is an "American" OS is no worse than the notion that it is a "European" OS. It's a GLOBAL OS, and last time I checked the USA is still part of the world :;

Re:Europe and Microsoft et al...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. Hmm. System V - ATT labs. NJ/USA BSD, Berkley, CA/USA. Yes, there were a lot of developers who were foriegn. But then why the fuck did they come to the US in the first place. I mean the EU is going to buy a f18-mockup from a coalition that has saab in it. Have you ever driven a saab? Sweedish peices of shit.
oh yeah, arpnet-- US. It was nice when it lasted, but when your backwards, and the sun does set on your empire, man thats a bitch.
I would not be an anonymous coward but i forgot my password, slashdot username : usewhatworks

Re:Europe and Microsoft et al...

[Pieroxy]

Hmm.... Europe certainly doesn't have much of a history of co-operation. World War I and II started in Europe (and the US had to come in and save you guys). Marxism and Nazism both came from Europe and between them resulted in over 100,000,000 deaths (mostly in USSR and China).

Ans so, USA didn't do any war nor kill any people. And I don't talk about Vietnam or Afghanistan. Hiroshima and Nagazaki were also pretty far from europe if my geography serves me well...

The European defence industry is a joke, which is one reason Europe has to call on the US to clean up its problems even today (anybody remember the Kosovo war?).

If the USA wouldn't have come in there I don't think anyone in the EU would have dropped a tear. You *imposed* yourself on this one. Good example of cooperation.

Europeans today seem to imagine that internationial protocols and agreements are all that are necessary to solve the problems of war and aggression. Of course, they had *the same opinion* right up until the start of World War I.

We're guilty of believing in peace. Once again it seems to be a most cooperative attitude.

As far as considering open source, I don't think that is much of a culture clash. There is lots of open source in use in the US. In fact, I would say that companies tend to use what (in their often flawed decision making process) will be best for them.

I don't think companies use what is best for them. I think executives use what is best for them. That's a hell of a difference.

I have worked in Europe and the US, and worked for European companies. The main difference I see is that the European *companies* were more stratified and stultified, and less aggressive.

This one is just true.

The violent crime rate in many countries in Europe is now significantly higher than that in the US. You are far safer walking the streets of New York City than those of London.

But it wasn't true 10 years ago. So what does it proves? It just proves that the crime waves are out of sync.

The European GDP/capita is 2/3 that of the US.
Europe is going to be unable to care for its elderly since its population is way below replacement rate.

True, but that's just a matter of time until USA has the same problem.

Let's face it... the reason Europeans are so happy to attack the US today (and these attacks are increasing in the press and here on slashdot) is because Europe used to be the center around which the whole world rotated - militarily, in matters of culture, and economically. Now it is the US, and Europeans have great trouble with that (until they need our help fending off military threats).

Almost true. Military and economically, I agree. Do you think culture is really something the US should be proud of? When the only thing thay are able to export is crappy hollywood movies, McDonalds, Coke and Britney Spears?

But enough Europe bashing.... I just do it because I hear so much America bashing (and ignorant Bush bashing) on here...

Lots of americans are stupid. Lots of european are stupid. I don't believe anyone of the rates to be lower in the US or EU.

Re:FFT

[TeknoHog]

FT is a general, mathematical idea. FFT is an algorithmic implementation.

Most popular article.

[Martin Spamer]

The Slashdot link seems to have caused this article to rise to number 1 in the FT list of most popular articles (from 3 in the 10mins or so it took me to read it).

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagenam e= FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=10424909759 62&p=1012571727085#
Looks like t

Re:Most popular article.

[nicknoxx]

Most popular article - TODAY

No real surprises there

Nick

Re:Most popular article.

[Corporate Troll]

So what? It's the exposure that counts. We pushed up the rating due to the slashdot effect, which means a PHB is more likely to read it now. Guess what: a PHB doesn't know about the slashdot effect, so he will not know it's been pushed up by us zealots.

I say: instant free publicity! For once that the slashdot effect does something positive....

Re:Most popular article.

[Gallo Nero]

Interesting how the BBC and now the FT puts publishes articles on Open Source and Linux's increasing popularity. Are they going for the Slashdot hits I wonder?

There's also this on the BBC today:
Life looks good for
Linux

Whereas the Guardian

(a Liberal paper?)

and the UK's Computer Weekly

continues to use the shall we say 'not the biggest open source fan in the world' Jack Schofield as a technology writer.

I believe someone posted something about him a few months ago. If you find and read his previous articles, you'll see what I mean.

Linux And Windows Working Together

[Anonymous Coward]

A key point is in this story is that the FT think that there is a move from proprietary hardware (and the associated proprietary Unices) towards Cots (read Intel) hardware and operating systems that run on that (ie Linux and Windows) which are penetrating that market together. However, in their opinion the cost of licensing is an irrelevance to Linux's success in corporate penetration.

More on Linux in the FT's Lex column...

[dipfan]

Apart from the big Linux piece highlighted, the paper's Lex column carred a note on Linux as well today (it was in the dead tree edition - the online bit is subscription only.)

To explain, the Lex column is a very influential daily piece of analysis, read by the financial world's movers and shakers (mainly in the UK). I'd quibble about a few points - MS's Office franchise is (financially) secure? Linux suffers from "real security issues"? Nonsense. Anyway, for review purposes, here the piece:

"Technology investors should be thinking long and hard about Linux. The free, open source operating system has moved beyond the beard and sandals stage and is no longer just an option for bleeding-edge early adopters and those theologically opposed to Microsoft. Linux, whose mascot is a cuddly penguin, has developed teeth. The technology has emerged as a credible alternative for corporate IT departments and is winning significant share in the $200bn server market.
"Sun, Hewlett-Packard and IBM - which have traditionally marketed high-margin Unix equipment and software - are among those that have suffered from Linux's growing popularity. All three have seen the writing on the wall and have begun supporting Linux, but the transition from Unix, with proprietary hardware and software, will be painful.
"For the moment, Microsoft has not been overly affected by Linux's rise. Open source software is unlikely to gain even a foothold in personal computer operating systems, so Microsoft's $10bn Windows monopoly remains impregnable. Its $8.8bn Office franchise is equally secure.
"Nonetheless, Microsoft cannot be complacent. The long-term threat to its $6.5bn server business is real. Microsoft's model has been low price, high volume, but for the first time it is being undercut on price. It can argue that Linux suffers from real security issues that are only now emerging and that the operating system has a tendency to fragment, making it difficult to ensure applications' reliability. But it has a real marketing battle on its hands."

Re:More on Linux in the FT's Lex column...

[MrResistor]

I'd quibble about a few points - MS's Office franchise is (financially) secure? Linux suffers from "real security issues"? Nonsense.

The way I read it, FT is saying that those are arguements MS could make, but will have a battle making them stick. "It can argue" v. "It can be argued".

I agree with you about MS Office, though. At the moment it might look secure at the moment, but then an undermined castle wall looks secure right up to the point where the besieger burn out the supports, and those Star/OpenOffice guys are working fast.

Open source Intel CPU

[steelerguy]

They really made it sound like the Intel processor was some sort of standard while Sparc, PowerPC, etc were all proprietary. Does this guy think Intel is just letting everyone know all their trade secrets and are not putting out a proprietary product?

It seemed to me like the author was more interested in bashing Unix and praising Intel than pointing out the benefits of Linux.

Re:Open source Intel CPU

[nelsonal]

The others are considered by the analysts to be proprietary, not the chips but the systems, it would be quite difficult for you to build a POWER, or SPARC system, but anyone can assemble an PC compatable. It is not really the Intel part that is open, but the old IBM part that is open and what makes x86 so much cheaper.
Linux and Windows are both benefiting from the fact that x86 is now very competitive on a performance basis, and extremly competitive with HP Sun SGI and IBM on a price performace basis. When you buy a $20,000 server the price difference between a Red Hat AS support contract and a Windows Server license is much smaller than the difference between buying an Dell 2 way P4 Xeon and an HP rp2470 (two way PA-8700). I realize that there are other considerations, especially the RAM addressing over 4 GB, but the Dell will save you a boatload of money even if you buy a Windows license.

Fall of the Corporate Empire?

[Modern Hamlet]

"Although Linux has been slower to catch on in Europe, the drive to end dependence on the US for technology is a common but seldom admitted justification in every country exploring the technology."

Perhaps I'm taking the comparison a little too far, but the similarities between the US and the Roman Empire at its height (before it imploded) have been jumping out at me even more lately. Bush's unilateralism, the RIAA's panic response to P2P, and yes, even Microsoft's attempts to hold off Linux strike me as desperate actions of a dominant power failing to keep up with the changing times and thus losing its grip on power.

If India, China, and the EU eventually embrace open source as the new paradigm, that will be just one more crack in the wall.

-mh

Re:Fall of the Corporate Empire?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Roman Empire was run by an emperor and that, more then anything else, led to the downfall of Rome. It citizens had no real stake in the government because they had no real voice. Consequently, Rome was forced to import more and more foreigners to bolster its army and this led to a dangerous dependence on its very enemies. This doesn't mean you should worry about the Chinese or Indian IT people you see around (a phenomena also in Europe), just worry if you start seeing them becoming Generals in the US Army. This constant whining about the influence that companies have on the US government is no different then the same complaints you heared around the 1880's in the US. If you don't believe me, go read some books. The US survived the Guilded Age and passed many laws that cleaned up somewhat the rampant corruption and I am willing to bet the same will happen in the next 20 years.

Re:Fall of the Corporate Empire?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much control do the people of modern democratic countries have? Granted the election process is democratic, but once elected it is party policies, not the will or interests of the electorate, which are applied.

Re: Fall of the Corporate Empire?

[Black Parrot]

> the similarities between the US and the Roman Empire at its height (before it imploded) have been jumping out at me even more lately.

The USA has been behaving like an empire at least since WWII.

In the western hemisphere, add about 100 years to that.

Re:Fall of the Corporate Empire?

[jtosburn]

I'd add a couple more symptoms:

* Americans are proud of being a democracy, but few bother to either participate in that democracy by actually voting, or to take responsibility for their non-participation as a root cause of the problems which they so loudly decry.

* Culturally, Americans have a hard time with empathy, particularly for other cultures. This may be related to the utter ignorance of other cultures, but even within the US, people have a a hard time relating to those outside their immediate peer group.

* And perhaps most appalling, is the obsession with so-called reality TV, which not only doesn't resemble any normal reality, but intentionally foments the worst in people, both the active participants, and viewers. This seems to be humanity at its most base, not unlike the Romans pitting slaves against each other and various deadly creatures for entertainment. Sound familiar?

Re:Fall of the Corporate Empire?

[jbolden]

There are two things people seem to forget when they make this analogy to the Roman empire:

1) It took centuries for the Roman empire to fall. Using a Roman timeline we somewhere in the age of Augustus Ceasar. That means for the next 150 years we get stronger not weaker. 300 years from now we are still the undisputed power. 500 years from now a major (but declining influence)

2) When Rome finally did fall it took the entire empire down with it. The fall happened from the outside in, now from the inside out. In other words: Europe falls first, falls harder and falls for longer

You sure you like the analogy?

Re: Fall of the Corporate Empire?

[jazman_777]

The USA has been behaving like an empire at least since WWII. In the western hemisphere, add about 100 years to that.

Yeah, at least since 1861. OK, includes the US-Mexican war of 1848, too. Or maybe the war of 1812 which was really a land-grab of Canada. Also, think "Manifest Destiny" and "Monroe Doctrine", very empire-like.

Re:Fall of the Corporate Empire?

[jazman_777]

Culturally, Americans have a hard time with empathy, particularly for other cultures. This may be related to the utter ignorance of other cultures, but even within the US, people have a a hard time relating to those outside their immediate peer group.

Most Americans don't have passports. Many Americans love their country conditionally: it's "the greatest!" That's nationalism, we're always comparing ourselves with others and saying how great it is here. Patriotism means you love your country, and you can understand an Iraqi loving Hussein and Iraq. _Of course_ we Americans don't--he's Iraqi. But we are amazed that Iraqis love their leader and their country. We think they should wish to be Americans.

Re:Fall of the Corporate Empire?

[Darby]

Perhaps I'm taking the comparison a little too far, but the similarities between the US and the Roman Empire at its height (before it imploded) have been jumping out at me even more lately.

I don't think you're taking the comparison too far at all.

I just read "The Rise of the Roman Empire" by Polybius which was written during the republic; about 100 years before Julius Caesar.
I'm currently halfway through "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Gibbon.

I have been amazed by the similarities between the US in its earlier years and Rome during the republic when it was on the rise.

The similarities between Rome in its decline and The US currently are even more striking.

It's truly frightening.

We show all of the signs of a society in its decline.

Re:Fall of the Corporate Empire?

[Darby]

It took centuries for the Roman empire to fall.

Things move much faster now.

Using a Roman timeline we somewhere in the age of Augustus Ceasar.

No, we're way past Augustus. Analogies are never perfect, so you can't really draw a direct correlation, but our culture is more like a split between Rome under Caligula and Rome under Constantine (post conversion).

The sickening decadence and depravity endemic to our society (think Springer, SUV's even after 9/11, a populace who watches news programs which are completely geared to manipulating them and maintaining their ignorance. Bread and circuses.)
is reminiscent of Roman society under the Claudian Emperors.
The religious zealots eager for martyrdom and the excommunication or torture and murder of anyone who has a different thought during the rise of Christianity is frighteningly similar to the zealots we have here today. Muslims have their similar wackos, but most of the rest of the civilized world is moving away from the sickening idea of fundamentalism.

That means for the next 150 years we get stronger not weaker. 300 years from now we are still the undisputed power. 500 years from now a major (but declining influence)

Again, things move faster.
Also Rome would have fallen much sooner if they hadn't still had the image of invulnerability. The barbarians could have moved earlier than they did.

When Rome finally did fall it took the entire empire down with it. The fall happened from the outside in, now from the inside out. In other words: Europe falls first, falls harder and falls for longer

Much of Europe was part of the Roman Empire. They are not part of the American Empire. The ties are deep economically, as they are throughout the world.
You make a large mistake in your analogy. The Europeans (and Asians) are not ignorant, and they are most certainly not barbarians.

Re:Fall of the Corporate Empire?

[jbolden]

>> It took centuries for the Roman empire to fall.

> Things move much faster now.

Any proof of that? Economic cycles that took about a lifetime then still take about a lifetime; which means things are evolving slower (since life expectency is higher). Political movements seem to also be moving slower; like the rise of Thatcherism... I don't see much evidence things are moving faster. This is one of those rumors of the modern age.

>> Using a Roman timeline we somewhere in the age of Augustus Ceasar.

> No, we're way past Augustus. Analogies are
> never perfect, so you can't really draw a
> direct correlation, but our culture is more
> like a split between Rome under Caligula and
> Rome under Constantine (post conversion).

Huh? What are just picking emperors at random?

1) We have a great deal of political and military influence over the empire but still lack direct control. Just like Rome in the early years. The rest of the world is not paying tribute but rather seems themselves as weaker partners.

2) There are still strong counter forces

3) A major increase in trade is occuring do to the safety of transportation (or in this case international trade and finance system) under Roman (American) control.

> The sickening decadence and depravity endemic
> to our society (think Springer, SUV's even
> after 9/11, a populace who watches news
> programs which are completely geared to
> manipulating them and maintaining their
> ignorance. Bread and circuses.)

Springer isn't that popular nor that depraved. The vast majority of Americans live in stable households, hold down steady jobs, are very law abiding, and frankly have monogomous sexual relations... That is not a society on the verge of collapse by any standards. As for bread and circuses I see no large government directed mass entertainment projects with minor exception like July 4th and the Olympics. It simply isn't happening.

> is reminiscent of Roman society under the
> Claudian Emperors. The religious zealots eager > for martyrdom and the excommunication or
> torture and murder of anyone who has a
> different thought during the rise of
> Christianity is frighteningly similar to the
> zealots we have here today.

Except the real wave of martyrs are mainly second century not first 80 years after the Claudian emperors.

> Muslims have their similar wackos, but most of
> the rest of the civilized world is moving away
> from the sickening idea of fundamentalism.

As it was during the days of Augustus. Augustus was a rise in rationalism. The mystery cults were a counter force but it wasn't for many years until they became a mass movement.

>> That means for the next 150 years we get
>> stronger not weaker. 300 years from now we are
>> still the undisputed power. 500 years from now
>> a major (but declining influence)

> Again, things move faster.
> Also Rome would have fallen much sooner if they > hadn't still had the image of invulnerability. > The barbarians could have moved earlier than
> they did.

Could they? All through the 2nd century the barbians were still being pushed back. In the 3rd Rome began to lose ground but slowly. Attilah was a genius but he was also the right man at the right time. Note he also didn't take out the eastern empire.

> > When Rome finally did fall it took the entire >> empire down with it. The fall happened from
>> the outside in, now from the inside out. In
>> other words: Europe falls first, falls harder
>> and falls for longer

> Much of Europe was part of the Roman Empire.
> They are not part of the American Empire. The
> ties are deep economically, as they are
> throughout the world.
> You make a large mistake in your analogy. The
> Europeans (and Asians) are not ignorant, and
> they are most certainly not barbarians.

First off it isn't my analogy I was commenting on this Roman analogy that gets brought up often. Second in the time of Augustus most of what would later be the empire had all sorts of mutual defense treaties and economic treaties with Rome. They didn't have any sort of formal vassel status and they didn't pay tribute. Mostly they just had bases on their territory and some limits placed on their foreign policy (which is a lot like today). Vassel status wouldn't come for a very long time.

Anyway if America is Rome then in the analogy Europe would be what will become a vassel state.

Re:Fall of the Corporate Empire?

[Darby]

Any proof of that? Economic cycles that took about a lifetime then still take about a lifetime; which means things are evolving slower (since life expectency is higher). Political movements seem to also be moving slower; like the rise of Thatcherism... I don't see much evidence things are moving faster. This is one of those rumors of the modern age.

Well, I can fly from San Diego to Chicago in 4 hours. How long would it take to ride a horse?
I can send a message from Rome to South America in seconds. How long did it take at the height of the Roman Empire? About 1500 years.
In fact at that time, the Romans didn't even know South Americans existed.
Information and knowledge travel very quickly indeed.
Technology moves much much faster than it did back then.

Huh? What are just picking emperors at random?

Not at all. Caligula was arguably the worst of the Claudian Emperors. Constantine was the (I believe) first Christian Emperor. I then went on to draw comparisons between those specific times and now. Not very random at all, huh.

1) We have a great deal of political and military influence over the empire but still lack direct control. Just like Rome in the early years. The rest of the world is not paying tribute but rather seems themselves as weaker partners

Fair enough.

2) There are still strong counter forces

Yes, but they are well informed, technologically advanced counter forces. Much more so than in the Roman days.
Our society has much more in common with Carthage at the time of the Punic wars than it does with Roman society at the same time. In Carthage, public officials were openly for sale just like America. Almost any action, no matter how disgusting or depraved, was ok as long as it made money. Exactly as in America. In Rome, a public official taking a bribe was practically unheard of. For one the person would be an outcast from society and also the penalty for this was death. It was ok to get rich, but there were some things that just were not done. Polybius draws comparisons where Carthage is at one extreme, Rome is in the middle, and Sparta is at the other extreme where no man could own more land than any other, and acquiring wealth was to be despised. He makes good points about how this prevented Sparta from becoming a major player on the world stage.

3) A major increase in trade is occuring do to the safety of transportation (or in this case international trade and finance system) under Roman (American) control.

Partially due to America, certainly.

Springer isn't that popular nor that depraved. The vast majority of Americans live in stable households, hold down steady jobs, are very law abiding, and frankly have monogomous sexual relations... That is not a society on the verge of collapse by any standards. As for bread and circuses I see no large government directed mass entertainment projects with minor exception like July 4th and the Olympics. It simply isn't happening

I believe Springer is still the most popular daytime TV show. The depravity isn't Springer's show as much as it is the fact that people watch it. There are Massive Corporate Media directed entertainment projects. Generally they tell the government what to do, so it works out to essentially the same thing. Again, analogies don't map exactly. Our economy is based on manipulating people into buying lots of worthless crap they don't need. This is not a healthy condition. It is one sign of a decadent society.

Except the real wave of martyrs are mainly second century not first 80 years after the Claudian emperors.

Right. Like, say, more toward the time of Constantine as I said?
There never really was a "wave" of martyrdom. There were a few cases here and there. The total number was around 2000 (according to Gibbon). A lot of it was just revisionist history by the Christians.

As it was during the days of Augustus. Augustus was a rise in rationalism. The mystery cults were a counter force but it wasn't for many years until they became a mass movement.

Well, Augustus was also the first Roman person to be declared a god. Not very "Rational" that.

First off it isn't my analogy I was commenting on this Roman analogy that gets brought up often.

Sure, but you modified the analogy which made it yours. I further modified it and pointed out flaws in the analogy.

Second in the time of Augustus most of what would later be the empire had all sorts of mutual defense treaties and economic treaties with Rome. They didn't have any sort of formal vassel status and they didn't pay tribute. Mostly they just had bases on their territory and some limits placed on their foreign policy (which is a lot like today). Vassel status wouldn't come for a very long time.

True enough.

Anyway if America is Rome then in the analogy Europe would be what will become a vassel state.

In a strict analogy, perhaps so. Again many things are different and Europe is aware of the history. Whether or not they can learn from it is another question.

Re:Fall of the Corporate Empire?

[jbolden]

In terms of moving faster I was talking about political trends. Obviously communication has improved, the question is whether faster political communication results in faster political change? That's the point I don't see much evidence for.

Not at all. Caligula was arguably the worst of the Claudian Emperors. Constantine was the (I believe) first Christian Emperor. I then went on to draw comparisons between those specific times and now. Not very random at all, huh.

Every emperor was the first something. I still don't see how these are connected in your main analogy. If you want someone midway between the Claudian emperors and Constantine who is sort of 1/2 Christian why not Marcus Aurilius? That way you get religiously observent, monotheistic, conservative... But that wasn't a time of nearly as much decadance.

>> Except the real wave of martyrs are mainly second century not first 80 years after the
>> Claudian emperors.

> Right. Like, say, more toward the time of Constantine as I said?

No your dates are off. Constantine comes in during the very early 4th century. The Martyrs are during the early 2nd century.

Re:FFT

[RichMan]

The next FT article will be noting that getting an article mentioned on /. can get page hits up and increase add revenues.
On the CC clone issue someone mentioned that CNN science articles tend to get /. mention as well. If I was an editor I would consider it a success if I got an article mentioned on /. as this brings in the hits. Do you think sites might start targeting or even feeding interesting articles to /. to up the hit rate?

Windows Getting Less Secure?

[Mackus Daddius]

Microsoft last week said it would let government customers examine the source code of its Windows operating system, a move intended to overcome perceptions of the systems's security weaknesses.

Now, I am not a Fortune 500 CTO (IANAF5CTO?), but I would be pretty worried if I had a global deployment of Windows systems and Microsoft just started handing out the source code to foreign governments (or my own for that matter). If people consistently find exploits without access to the internal code, imagine what a motivated foreign intelligence service can do with access to it.

Is Microsoft, in reacting to the emerging "open source in government" movement, inadvertently making Windows less desirable to everyone else?

::md

Re:Windows Getting Less Secure?

[dazed-n-confused]

I am not a Fortune 500 CTO (IANAF5CTO?)

Almost. Try: IANAFDCTO

D = 500, using Roman numerals.

Re:FFT

[The Grassy Knoll]

>FT is a general, mathematical idea. FFT is an algorithmic implementation
in the same way that FT (Financial Times) is a general financial idea and FFT (Frankfurt) is a specific implementation?

God I must be bored
.

Re:Linux DESTROYED

[CharlieO]

Apparently this is not worthy of mentioning this on /.

That would be because \. mission is to be a roughly US centric discussion site for technological news for people in the IT community.

I'm not discounting the seriousnes of what you report, but I can find that at CNN or BBC in my other browser window.

Maybe in the case of unique and major event, as happened on September 11th, then running as a secondary newsfeed because the main ones are swamped is a worthwhile thing to do. But this is an editors decision, not a reason to post an offtopic message.

High cost of Unix

[kahei]

I still think that the most striking feature of this market is not so much the spread of Linux now -- after all, it offers obvious benefits -- as the fact that people are finally *stopping* spending huge amounts of money on Unix (read Sun) hardware.

I've occasionally had to do with projects where costs were reduced to 1/8 or so (yes, about what the article says) by replacing Sun with NT hardware. With hardware savings like that, it doesn't matter if you have a whole entire backup system with it's own set of staff.

What the popularity of Linux really means in money terms is that sites that kept spending millions a year on Sun, because of internal opposition to Microsoft, now have a politically correct way to buy cheap Intel hardware.

This is good. It's just a pity so many sites upgraded to ma$$ive Sun-hardware j2ee systems during the boom... it'll take forever to get rid of 'em all!

Re:High cost of Unix

[nickos]

As someone who is not too impressed by the x86 architecture, I think one of the best aspects of Linux and Open Source in general is its lack of dependance on any one hardware platform. This means that if/when linux becomes the dominant platform, you will be able to run your stuff on whatever hardware you want as long as you can recompile the source.

Re:High cost of Unix

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are gonna get rid of them I'll have a few :)

just the beginning

[pmineiro]

"We see Linux going over the moon," says Larry Ellison, chairman and chief executive officer of Oracle. "We have never seen anything with this much of an uptake in 25 years in the industry."

Well, laugh now Larry, because Oracle is next.

Hopefully the state of California will be one of the first converts to an open source database.

-- p

Re:just the beginning

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, right.

Open Source databases are just as good for enterprise level applications as Gimp is for professional photo processing.

Re:just the beginning

[guacamolefoo]

Yeah, right.
Open Source databases are just as good for enterprise level applications as Gimp is for professional photo processing.

Shut up, Larry.

GF.

Re:just the beginning

[jbolden]

You heard the same thing about open source Unixes during the early - mid 90's. In some ways I still think its true. The WSJ made a good point though:

Old setup: $1m Oracle enterprise, $1m Sun / Solaris hardware / OS bundle

New setup: $1m Oracle enterprise, $150k Dell hardware, $10k RedHat advanced server

Solaris is still a little better. But not that much better. As Bill Gates has proven: good enough and much cheaper wins.

System Sales

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it great how these articles list sales of Linux systems? Consider how many of the Linux systems out there aren't purchased preinstalled. It must be a pretty high percentage of those 'sales' numbers, if not more.

Re:Linux DESTROYED

[skelley]

All I know is if I had a story about embedded Linux in my toliet it would get top slot. But something that personally affects a few million people in California alone doesn't.

Re:Arrogant Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at just 2 UK (ie European) sites - Manchester University and IBM Research labs Hursley - and how much innovation has come from them. Also consider Sinclair Research, ARM and Transputer, which are also European and are either major commercial or technological computing successes. Also consider that the architecture and operating systems for ICL mainframes (1900, 2900 and series 39) were technically far superior to the contemporary offerings from IBM.

Sucks....

[Anonymous Coward]

FT.com includes many tools and features which are best viewed using IE 4 and above or Netscape 4 and above.

You can upgrade your browser by clicking on one of the icons below.

[To Download Internet Explorer]

Internet Explorer
[To Download Netsca]

Netscape

For a further range of browsers click here.

Alternatively you may view a basic version of the site here.

If you are experiencing problems upgrading your browser please refer to the Netscape and/or Microsoft help pages. If you have any queries about FT.com please contact us.
--
Please let me upgrade my mozilla to M$IE4

Linux vs. hackers FUD

[rnturn]

Count me as one person who's getting a little tired of this argument that we keep hearing that ``Linux's security isn't up to snuff and hasn't been severely tested because all the `hackers' are too busy writing attacks on Windows. Oooh! It'll just be awful when these `hackers' turn their attention to Linux''. Well, to me, that's just pure FUD and BS. Linux is, as reported in the FT article (or was it another one I read this morning) being developed by 1000 developers. These are hackers -- hackers in the sense we understand to be the true meaning of the word and not what the news outlets redefined it to mean -- that are attacking the Linux kernel every day. To think that the security implications of the features that are working their way into the kernel aren't being looked at from a security aspect by (at least some of) these 1000 developers is just silly and wishful thinking by Linux detractors. Not to mention the untold number of people beta testing the development kernels.

Oh sure, there are userland applications that have security issues. But didn't Intuit's flagship product recently have a flaw exposed? And didn't Oracle (you know: the folks with the ``unbreakable'' database) have to issue patches to plug potential security holes?

The day when the army of ``hackers'' writing Windows exploits focus their aim on Linux is the day after Microsoft releases Office for Linux (though I'm not holding my breath until that hit the shelves). And the attacks that target Linux-based systems will be a tribute to the concept of code reuse as most of the current Windows exploits will probably work just fine against the Office running on Linux. (Anyone thinking about who Microsoft would blame for the problem?)

Re:Linux vs. hackers FUD

[rnturn]

Actually, I'm cutting back.

Re:Linux vs. hackers FUD

[bluGill]

I figgure that if crackers (not hackers) find a bunch of ways to break linux such that it is no longer trusted (that is the need to patch and update gets in the way of buisness) that everyone will just switch to OpenBSD and be done with it.

As evidence against my claim I present to you the fact that most companys [that went to outlook at one time] still use outLook on windows for their eMail.

To clarify:

[MonkeyMagic]

Quote: FTSE Group is an independent company whose sole business is the creation and management of indices and associated data services. FTSE has no capital markets involvement. The company originated as a joint venture between the Financial Times and the London Stock Exchange..........The best known indices are the FTSE UK Series which includes the FTSE 100.

UK and Microsoft

[Mr_Silver]

The UK, one of the slowest countries to adopt open-source - partly because of close ties with Microsoft - last year published a paper offering guidance to government departments considering switching to open-source software.

Whilst this sounds very nice, I feel that I should bring everyone back into the cold harsh reality by pointing about that the UK has a long long way to go before it becomes more open source savvy.

For example, the NHS, possibly the most underfunded thing we have, just coughed up £60 million for Microsoft Licencing.

Money well spent? You decide.

Linux can save in the long run, too

[Anonymous Coward]

The Financial Times seems to be missing out on something- Linux can save thousands of dollars in downtime due to its incredibly high security. Those switching from UNIX won't see much improvement, but the guys in the Windoze world certainly will.

Re:Linux can save in the long run, too

[Jon_E]

right, but i think that's more of a function of the fact that intelligent people tend to be smarter than dumb people .. and the audience that each O/S tends to typically have .. Linux doesn't always have "incredibly high security", and some of those in the Windoze world don't necessarily have a higher downtime.

Glossed over

[SgtChaireBourne]

The article also glossed over the introduction of Richard Stallman, skipping his contributions to computer science, culture and society. In addition to his contributions with Emacs and other software, his drafting the GNU General Public License (GPL), he is the recipient of the Takeda Award for Techno-Entrepreneurial Achievement for Social/Economic Well-Being and the recipient of a fellowship from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (aka a "genius grant.") Calling him just an "American programmer" would be like calling Steve Jobs an "American interested in computers".

Stallman doesn't wear a tie. Get over it already.

However, more importantly, The Financial Times and many others seem to intentionally obfuscate or misinform their readers regarding the Freedom part of the GPL. Peddling misinformation does a heavy disservice to any that might be trying to make an informed decision regarding their IT strategies.

Re:Glossed over

[Anonymous Coward]

A letter (or a few thousand letters) to the editor can help to fill in the blanks.

Re:Financial effect on M$?

[dlr02]

Mmm Troll... i guess my sense of humor is alien.

Led by machines?

[hobo2k]

and adopted more recently by giant computer companies led by International Business Machines

So.... Windows is controlled by a man whose name equals 666 and now Linux has been taken over by robots?

Feh.

[Talisman]

"We think European Students can build better OSes than US corporations" - Linus

Rrriigghhttt... And Linux copied UNIX, which was developed where? And by who?

"We think that the best things to come out of IBM were developed in Europe" - MQSeries

And IBM started where?

Not to mention the fact that Americans INVENTED THE COMPUTER, which started the entire industry for which Europeons are patting themselves on the back for excelling at.

Arrogant, indeed.

Now MOD me down for not being anti-American and telling the truth. Fucking Slashdot zombies.

Talisman

Re:Feh.

[mesocyclone]

Not to mention the fact that Americans INVENTED THE COMPUTER, which started the entire industry for which Europeons are patting themselves on the back for excelling at.


It *really pains me* to defend Europeans in this discussion, but I must point out that Alan Turing was English, and Colossus was one of the most significant developments in computers. And don't forget that Britain also made major contributions in the development of the atomic bomb and radar.

Of course, many of us don't consider Brits to be "true Europeans" since they speak a fractured form of English, which is the language of the most successful societies on earth.

Re:Feh.

[perky]

Not to mention the fact that Americans INVENTED THE COMPUTER, which started the entire industry for which Europeons are patting themselves on the back for excelling at.


Did they really? Which Americans do you think invented the computer?

now for the important bit: It doesn't matter whether IBM is a US company, but neither does it matter that MQSeries (and CICS etc) were all made in Hampshire by Brits. Saying that Europeans made some good stuff is not anti-american. It's just pointing out that Eurpoe has a lot to be proud of too.

Finally, to clear up a common misconception: Most Euopeans are not anti-American. They are anti-America, and specifically anti-the current US administration and its great big environmental and military fuck-you to the rest of the world.

Re:Feh.

[Talisman]

"Which Americans do you think invented the computer?"

Eckert and Mauchly.

And I realize this is an argument that can stretch back to Pascal and Leibniz, if the the debaters so chose, but at some point one must give credit for the *current* state of computing, and that credit belongs mostly to the Yanks.

And I further realize that Americans themselves, for the most part, descended from Europeans. But at some point you have to say, "An American did this." If a person was born here, they are American. Furthermore, if a person immigrates and is naturalized here, they are American. That is where I draw my lines.

And if you choose to fault us for Microsoft, don't forget to give us credit for UNIX at the same time.

Talisman

Re:Feh.

[Simon Brooke]

"Which Americans do you think invented the computer?"

Eckert and Mauchly.

ENIAC was not a stored program machine, and was inferior to COLOSSUS, which preceded it. EDVAC was Eckert and Mauchly's first stored program machine, but was not completed until significantly after Baby had first run. All these machines depended crucially on Turing's 'On Computable Numbers'.

So if you think ENIAC was a computer, COLOSSUS beat them to it. If you think that ENIAC wasn't a computer, Baby beat them to it. COLOSSUS, Baby and, of course, Turing, were all British.

Re:Feh.

[jazman_777]

It *really pains me* to defend Europeans in this discussion...

I just love these Nationalistic Pissing Contests.

Re:Feh.

[MrResistor]

Sorry, Konrad Zuse, a German, built the first working computer, the Z3. It was operational in 1941, the same year Turing proposed Colossus. By the time Eckert and Mauchly got around to doing anything of note, Zuse had already moved on to designing a programming language, writing a chess playing algorithm, and finished building the Z4... and Colossus was 3 years old.

Re:Feh.

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, let's just say Bill Gates invented the computer since he made the most money out of it. After all, that's how you measure success in America: it's not important that you have an idea, what counts is how much money you gonna make off of it. And it's not the creator, who gets the credit, it's the business man.

Stupid article quote

[josh crawley]

---The head-on conflict between Microsoft and the Linux companies is still some way off.

WHuh? When's Linux a company? The companies that tried to profit off of Linux are dying/dead. Even RH is a support company. It's also quite hard to stop people from freely coding...

---There is also a chance that Linux will stumble. The Linux operating system is renowned for its security. But some Microsoft executives point out that Linux has yet to face the army of hackers, bent on finding weaknesses, that has assailed its own software and exposed security flaws that have dented Microsoft's reputation for reliability.

Heh heh heh. The hackers that find bugs in MS crap are the same hackers that ARE WORKING ON *nix programs. Our programs are built with security in mind, not as an afterthought.

Re:Stupid article quote

[overunderunderdone]

WHuh? When's Linux a company? The companies that tried to profit off of Linux are dying/dead. Even RH is a support company. It's also quite hard to stop people from freely coding...

I think it's obvious from the article that FT is talking about IBM, HP and all the other companies that are adopting Linux as *part* of their strategy. What that sentence is saying is that Linux and it's adoption by these big technology companies isn't really affecting Microsoft yet but that it's coming. By conflict he isn't saying that Linux as the hacker created and supported OS is in any danger from Microsoft. But hobbyist OS's are not FT readers concern what is interesting to them is that Linux might/ or might not succeed in toppling M$ in the business arena.

Re:Financial effect on M$?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's non-existant, simply using $ instead of S doesn't make it funny.

France and DaVinci...

[MosesJones]

Errr I really hate to break it to you about the two people you mentioned, but neither are French.

Computer Science: Alan Turing, UK.

The only genius computing has ever had, forced into topping himself because the UK goverment was homophobic.

Re:France and DaVinci...

[xmarine]

Von Neumann?

Re:France and DaVinci...

[MrResistor]

Computer Science: Alan Turing, UK.

The only genius computing has ever had, forced into topping himself because the UK goverment was homophobic.

John Von Neuman?
Charles Babbage?
Ada Byron?
Blaise Pascal?
Konrad Zuse?

It seems your knowledge of the history of computing is rather limited.

Re:Internet down?

[caluml]

Well, even though I got butally "Offtopic'd", I thought I should share the answer with you.

A small bit of Etherealing later, showed I was sending a packet with the SYN, ECN, and CWR flags. The ft.com server immediately replies with a RST, ACK packet, which terminated the tcp connection.
I tried disabling ECN ( echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn ), and whaddaya know - I can now hit ft.com. Does this mean they don't understand the ECN flag? Surely, if they were congested, it wouldn't close the connection - it would just ask for smaller, less frequent packets?

Couple of errors...

[MosesJones]

Europe has 50+ years of co-operation, and a history of it. Not everyone together, but a history of country alliances.

WWII, France, UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark etc.

WWI, France, UK

The Brits and the Dutch used to have alliances against the French and the Spanish. The Germans and Austrians are pretty pally, lots of parts of Europe used to be owned by other countries, e.g. most of France by England, Alsace by Germany etc etc.

The Napoleonic wars were everyone v Napoleon. The Crimea was Brit and France v Russia.

In terms of the European defence industry being a joke, pretty harsh. Look at the contracts the US Goverment awards and look at the sub-contractors, Thales, Bae, Rolls-Royce are most often there.

Violent Crime in terms of rape and murder is MILES lower in Europe than the US. Muggings et al are higher, so we have unhappy people who live, and the US has unhappy relatives of people who died.

This isn't bloody American bashing, its laying out how Europe likes to co-operate to compete with the US Globalisation plan. Its a clash of cultures, each has their advantages and disadvantages.

Europe knows that the US is the biggest fish in the pond, but it also knows (to its cost) that being the biggest fish doesn't give you the right to dictate as you only get embarressed by what you did 100 years later.

WWI was started because the empire building powers thought that you could still fight a war from the 1800s with technology in the 1900s and that having plebs shot wasn't a very bad thing. Europe learnt alot from having tens of thousands of people die in a day.

Namely War does actually suck.

Americans INVENTED THE COMPUTER(!)

[Simon Brooke]

Not to mention the fact that Americans INVENTED THE COMPUTER

Oh? When was this?

Minor correction

[Anonymous Coward]

The Roman Empire didn't implode, it BSOD'd and then rebooted.

OT: hackers

[overunderunderdone]

These are hackers -- hackers in the sense we understand to be the true meaning of the word and not what the news outlets redefined it to mean

I know it's off-topic but let's get over this "hackers" "crackers" debate. Hacker has more than one perfectly legitimate meaning. As long as I can remember hearing it (which sadly is longer than most on /,) it has carried both the "skilled unconventional technician" (not restricted to computers which were somewhat rarer back in the day) and the related "clever, technologically adept prankster" which would include the popular definition of a computer hacker. Dictionaries disagree on the etymology but one has it as coming from "hack", practical joke, clever scheme (from dialectal hack, to embarrass, confuse, play a trick on) others have it from "hack" short for "hackney" as in a "hack writer" or a "political hack" or an "untalented hack" which is quite the opposite of your meaning. Sorry, but the guys the Jargon File has no more standing to declare one definition they dislike "depricated" than I do. Definitions follow usage and this fight was lost long before it even occured to anyone to bother fighting it.

Re:OT: hackers

[rnturn]

Hope you checked my spelling while you were at it.

Free beer, NOT, It's About Safe Sharing

[Gerry Gleason]

Ok, so the free speech aspects are more subtle and this article doesn't really cover that. There is another more important aspect of GPL software that is called out in the article, and you don't get this bennefit with BSD licensing.

They do point out that UNIX fragmented in the '80s and '90s because each UNIX vendor went off and created their own additions and variations, and that this is what created the opportunity for Windows to get into the server market. Without the introduction of Linux, we were quickly going to a situation where Sun was the defacto UNIX standard, and in the Sun/Solaris vs PC/Windows competition. This isn't that different from the competition with Apple, where the software development and support is really a drag on the hardware business (keeping costs up), and it is hard to compete with the commodity PC pricing (MS just cleans up, big time).

With Linux, system vendors can cooperate on software without worrying that the competition can just take their contribution and not return anything. IBM will not work on Darwin, but Linux is great precisly because of the limits imposed by the GPL.

Re:It's pretty funny

[Anonymous Coward]

And exactly where can one find these girls?
I'm European and I've got to really work to get laid on a Saturday evening. On the other hand, I've seen our girls just swoon around American and especially the Australian guys.

Hint:
Women like men who have jobs. Given the high rates of unemployment in the socialist paradises comprising the EU, it's no wonder that eurosluts go for americans.

FWIW, american chicks dig on european men. Just come here, grow a beard, wear sandals, and talk shit about being a painter in Rome, and the chicks will be all over you like fat girls in the White House.

Bill

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (-5, UNPATRIOTIC)

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh... objecting to an opinion on the grounds of nationalism shows that (1) you aren't intrested in objectively considering the opinion and (2) you don't have an objective counterargument for the premise of the opinion. If the parent post is wrong, hilight differences b/t the U.S. and the Roman Empire (like another poster did).

Really, patriotism is great for leading men to their deaths and everything, but if you really want to help your country, be an objective individual actively participating the dialogs that shape our culture.

The US *does* have problems, internal and external. Sharp critics of our behavior (like Noam Chomsky) are seldom appreciated: prehaps its troublesome to always have someone popping in, saying things like: "oh, BTW, your policies killed 10 thousands children here" and "you provided military support to 2 or 3 cruel regiemes over here". Truth be told, the US gets a lot of heat for some sincere (and very necessary) international policing of the world, but the prophets of today see our flaws, and they have a message. If we ignore it, blithely waving our fist while shouting "my country, right or wrong" underneath a blazing national anthem, we shall slip from our priveleged place. Maybe not as bad Rome, but prehaps as bad Great Britain: remember that England celerbrated her Diamond Jubilee just two or there years before it found itself emboiled in internal and external turmoil (including the death of Queen Victoria and the Boer War).

I, for one, don't think it would be so bad for us to take a lesson in humility... sigh, maybe I should move to Europe.

Re:europe, and especially the Frogs

[Anonymous Coward]

europe is gay.

No. They are just ungrateful fucks. We save them from the Germans (twice) and the Russians (once) in the same century, and they don't care.

I say, fuck them and fuck their whining about US foreign policy. I agree with them -- Iraq is not a threat. Let's go after the real prizes -- Europe and Canada, not some shithole in the desert.

They are such little pacifist pussies now that we could roll them in a couple of hours. The English probably still have enough balls to go along with us on it. Anyway, I bet they'd like to kick the Frogs and the Jerrys in the nuts one more time.

Finally, there would be an end to whining, because once we conquered the Frech, they would be sucking our cocks in no time. I mean, you know you can count on that good old Vichy collaboration mentality with the French.

First thing we'd need to do is to make all their bitches shave their shit, though. They're fucking nasty. All hairy and stuff.

Re:Problem with ally macbeal

[tomhudson]

You've seen every episode of Ally MacBeal? Ouch.

Seriously, internal deployment is not the same as distribution.

Qote from the GPL: These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.

So solution 1 is to distribute your program in binary form separate from the GPL'd code.

Quote from the GPL: You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

Solution 2 is to charge a high enough fee to dissuade others from requesting the source.

Quote from the GPL:In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.

So don't worry about your closed-source code being "polluted" by the GPL

Quote from the GPL: b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,... (etc)

So, who's to say what my cost of physically performing this is? It depends upon what my hourly rate for such a task is, and this can be set arbitrarily high.

I agree with most of the posters, that the writer slipped up here.

Good one

[RDPIII]

But some Microsoft executives point out that Linux has yet to face the army of hackers, bent on finding weaknesses, that has assailed its own software and exposed security flaws that have dented Microsoft's reputation for reliability.

What's next? The tobacco industry claiming that recent class action lawsuits have dented its reputation for promoting a healthy lifestyle?

At least those MS executives seem to implicitly acknowledge that open-source OSs do have a reputation for reliability.

That's not what we need

[RDPIII]

"You'll see a shift from Microsoft to preaching the benefits [of its software], not the theological arguments"

OK, so they finally realized that negative campaigning does not work. The only surprise here is how late that realization came. But if the next thing from MS is warm/fuzzy stories about its own products instead of FUD about Linux and Friends, we're not much better off, if perhaps slightly less annoyed.

Ideally, why would anyone want to make decisions based on MS's own opinion of its software? We need some sound, objective, independent studies of comparative costs and benefits, frequency of incompatible changes, mean time to lack of support, etc. And no, studies sponsored by MS won't give us that.

From the FSF

[jbolden]

Here is what the FSF says on this very issue:


Q- Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?

A - The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

Re:From the FSF

[Keck]

Good to know. So how would that work if the corporation would only contract with the individual if they accepted those terms? Wouldn't that amount to an NDA?

Re:From the FSF

[jbolden]

Its tricky. Lets say you have an inhouse app which has GPL code (and therefore is GPLed). You can't give it to the contrator under any license other than the GPL. If you want him to link to a library which includes outside GPL code, you can't give him the library under an NDA you are violating your license on the included code.

The contractor may agree not to distribute but you can't force him not to distribute. In other words an NDA would be unenforcable with respect to GPLed code. You can ask him to sign what ever you want but it would no more valid than a contract where he signed himself into slavery.

Re:From the FSF

[Keck]

Thanks for delivering me from my cloud of ignorance.. legal/licensing issues are always taking a backseat to actual coding so (and because) we don't always realize their importance.

From the FSF

[jbolden]

Again this is specifically addressed by the FSF:

Q- Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement?

A - No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy of your version from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of that version. It does not give you permission to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.

Q - Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement?

A - Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA.
You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but agree not to release them to anyone else until the client says ok. In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions.

The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version, but in this scenario the client will choose not to exercise that right.

Freedom to steal

[jbolden]

You've already gotten a bunch of replies, but here is an important one.

Freedom is not just the absense of restraints. Introducing a "freedom to steal" destroys "the freedoms to own property" possession not ownership becomes the best you can do. You simply cannot have some freedoms in combination with others.

As the history of X11 shows quite clearly:

a) The freedom for commercial companies to embrace and extend a technology is propietery ways

b) The freedom for users to form a community th share ideas which will allow them to be able to configure their software environment in a meaningful way

are contradictory freedoms. Which freedom do you care about more?

But definitely a step in the right direction

[CemeteryWall]

This was a full page article, with a picture of Stallman on the front page. It covered so much more than I have read in any UK broadsheet. But the article was written for readers of the FT not for /. nerds. (How many are both?).

The article was as much in favour of Linux and OSS as it could be without losing touch with its readers. Quoting an IBM spokesperson was just right the right touch: "[Linux] is no longer guys with tie-dyed T-shirts and mad scientists in their basements". Many of us nerds may feel slighted. But if it's in a good cause, I can cope.

Read "The Sovereign Individual"

[MarkWatson]

James Davidson's and Lord Rees-Mogg book (published in 1997) made the point strongly that Western Welfare Democracies (e.g., U.S., U.K.) are indeed similar to the Roman empire during its long slow fall.

They talk about just how bad the Roman tax collectors are and suggest that people leave large welfare democracies, emigrating to small stable democracies that do not support welfare states.

- Mark Watson

- Free Web Books at www.markwatson.com

working together . . . against someone else

[peachpuff]

That was funny. Your basic point was that Europeans are cooperative people who don't like war. You gave two reasons:

1. They learned their lesson after all those horrible wars they fought.
2. They have a history of cooperation. For example, during those horrible wars they fought.

The US is pretty bad, but Europe is the Hall of Fame for arrogant nationalism. The fact that they cooperate with people who they feel they have something in common with, against people who they see as different, doesn't make them broad-minded or enlightened.

The US probably has more friends on the other side of the world than the EU has outside of Europe. (More enemies too, but this is about being willing to cooperate, not being popular.)

As far as I can see, Europe has changed its tune but not its dance. Failing to completely dominate the world doesn't make you mister nice guy. How many nukes does France have again? (Yes, I know it's less than the US has. It's also more than enough to certify their "ethical opposition to US policy" as BS.)

Re:working together . . . against someone else

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe France has a lot of nukes, but their president is not called George W. Bush. That is pretty self-explanatory, lol.

You're point is really a subject for debate.

[orichter]

One could argue that the only truely free society is one in which I'm allowed to shoot anyone I want, and steal anything I want from anyone I want. It's true that both of those freedoms are abridged by the government so that more freedoms are retained by all. A BSD license is anarchy. You are free to do whatever you like with the code including modifying it and then selling it back to me. There is nothing wrong with modifying my code and selling it back to me, it's just that the GPL promotes a chain of freedom which is self reinforcing. BSD promotes no such chain, so while it may be true that BSD promotes more freedom in the short term, a simple analysis of the GPL code base shows empirically that GPL stimulates more free code shareing, and thus more freedom in the long run. In short BSD provides more freedom in an academic (how many angels can dance on the head of a pin) sense. GPL (as evidenced by simple observation) generates more free (as in freedom) code in the practical sense.

we need a paradigm shift in business models

[Jon_E]

I keep thinking about this - because the classic s/w business model is really a vertical industry in itself that tries to lay down horizontally and pretends to cover the different industry areas .. but in the end it all breaks down to exchanging proprietary IP for goods and services and at the end of the day the s/w industry (at least in common thought) is dominated by the companies who hold onto the greatest amount of proprietary IP they can hold over other industries like a carrot.

Now if you can picture what that would look like for the sciences or mathematics if we applied the same logic - i think you'd agree that we'd be only a little more advanced than stone knives and bearskins .. (ooh look what thog can do - he can create bronze weapons, but he won't tell you his technique - only sell you some of his product and either buy you out, shut you up, or kill you if you manage to figure out how it's done) .. we fail to practically realize that we all thrive and benefit from community knowledge and contribution ..

Personally i like to develop tools to make my life easier, and if others find them useful - i like to explain and share what i've done so they can build something better if they like (and so on and so forth) .. But herein lies the rub in our current business models .. We begin to think that the minute we effectively "share" our intellectual "property" (even the terms give me the creeps) is the minute we lose what we "deserve" in the form of financial or tangible "compensation"!

Now if we shift slightly and begin to look more at services as a form of compensation - business models can then be built on the mutual sharing of services, and business that is done becomes more about relational concern and less about personal concern. In other words - jobs become more focused on providing services and the quality of those services as we (hopefully) begin to simplify the actual producing of products. In the midst of this service providing lies the development of intellectual tools and processes which should really be the key motivating factor. If we'd only invest more of our resources in those who teach and contribute freely, than in those who hide what they're really doing we might gain more .. in other words - the more we have - the more we should give away and the richer we'll really become as we begin to see those who give more as the better investment than those who simply try to hoard and hide. From what i see, the prevailing attitude now is - "if you give to me .. i give to you, and if i'm giving to you - i better know what i'm going to get from you" .. rather than - "here, i give to you because i know how much you've done with this in the past - and i trust that as others have seen what i give, i too will be taken care of"

In this alternative universe of due respect companies are rewarded more for the respect that they garner and the contributions they provide to the community than for a temporal tangible widget they might produce at a given point in time. Research and Education become the more prestigous and profitable areas of industry, and we begin to value giving openly more than a suave exterior with hidden carcasses under the floorboards. In some ways, i think the movement is slowly underfoot in things like P2P networks, public s/w repositories and the like .. now if we can only get companies to see that there's much more to be made from giving things away and allowing people to productively develop for the greater good than from a short-lived gain by selling your widget onto everyone's desktop and having them hate you for it.

OT: You forgot one important piece of co-operation

[Walles]

The one between Communist USSR and National Socialist Germany.

Friends and power

[MosesJones]

Friends are not people who are scared of you.

The commonwealth is the third largest inter-goverment body on the planet after the UN and EU. The US has withdrawn from almost every international treaty there is. This is not how to win friends and influence people.

Genius...

[MosesJones]

Those are brilliant, Turing was IMO the only Einstein that computing has had. Hell that isn't too bad as Physics has only had Newton and Einstein from the very top draw. One in 200 years really isn't that bad.

Nice thread on cooperation.

[bubbha]

I have been seeing lots of European pride lately - not just here on Slashdot but also on some news sites that I hang out at. Personally, I think it's well earned. The examples described briefly here make the case nicely. And the way Bush is working out...geeze.

The notion of cooperation is critical - both in the free software movement and in politics. Europe seems to get it.

An important treatment on the nature and value of cooperation can be found in "The Origins of Virtue..Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation" by Matt Ridley.

So my spelling sux

[overunderunderdone]

Hope you checked my spelling while you were at it.

mie speling sux. Sow soo me.

Last Post!

[alpg]

To those accustomed to the precise, structured methods of conventional
system development, exploratory development techniques may seem messy,
inelegant, and unsatisfying. But it's a question of congruence:
precision and flexibility may be just as disfunctional in novel,
uncertain situations as sloppiness and vacillation are in familiar,
well-defined ones. Those who admire the massive, rigid bone structures
of dinosaurs should remember that jellyfish still enjoy their very
secure ecological niche.
-- Beau Sheil, "Power Tools for Programmers"

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...