Absolutely, I agree - their stock price would drop if their profit margin dropped from 40%. Can we say for sure whether or not the company would fold if their profits dropped? No.
Of course you are correct that it would have a severe effect on their stock price if their 40% profict margin approached the more common 11-15% range. If any company could weather that type of storm, however, it would be Microsoft. They have proven time and time again that they can be a very flexible entity. I have confidence that they would adapt to fit the needs of the market.
We can all envision a future that does not have Microsoft in its current dominant position in the market, but my point is that it is not realistic to assume that this will happen in the near future (when ESR's magical $350 PC cost is reached) solely as the result of a change in pricing. It's going to take a lot more to dethrone Microsoft. Even if Microsoft were pricing and profiting more in line with their competitors, they still have the advantage because everybody uses their products. And that's not going to go away. For many companies, the thought of a migration away from Microsoft products is unthinkable. Regardless of pricing practices and competitive goods, companies aren't going to do this overnight. Rome may have fallen in a day, but Microsoft will not.
And, yes, you are right - I should have qualified that last statement a little more so that what I wrote was more precisely in line with what I was thinking.;) Of course it's not the only thing that could result in MS losing their monopoly power. I do not believe that. However, everybody is not going to stop buying their product. You don't believe that, either.
What I should have said was: all other things held constant,licensing changes would have a stronger negative effect on their monopoly power than pricing changes would.
I think there is a conflict, though. We can't equate the usefulness of Windows 1 year, 2 years down the road with the current usefulness of buggy-whips. The assumption I'm making - and I think it's a safe one - is that (given current market saturation) MS Windows will continue to have the same (or greater) usefulness in the very near future - as the price of PC's approach ESR's magical $350 figure. Since ESR's argument in the article seems to be based entirely upon pricing (and therefore cost, although he doesn't directly suggest it), I *do* see a conflict there. He is suggesting that MS's OS operations could not continue if they were forced to lower their price. If that were true, then MS would not have a monopoly on their OS at this moment in time (or in the near future). The reality is that they can lower their price on their OS licensing and maintain their (monopoly) position in the market as the cost of PC's drops.
I agree with you completely, however, that Windows will always be threatened by replacement goods, and I agree with you that the most likely successors will make minimal inroads on the sides and not head-on. MS seems to realize this and has embraced it with their.NET strategy. My largest concern, however, is that they'll always be pulling the strings...regardless of their pricing scheme. It's their licensing scheme that is the real issue.
...ah yes - the issue that has plagued Neo-classical economists for years...in the "Perfect Competition" model (which we are NOT an example of, but we often strive to be as close to that as possible), we should observe a "zero-profit-equilibria" (related to the concept of "Natural Price"). There are some implicit costs included in the cost of production (opportunity cost, overhead, etc) that the company also applies to their product's pricing scheme that result a positive cash flow.BR>
Now, you and I both know that real world markets are far more complicated than neo-classical economic theory. So, my (regretfully abbreviated) explanation above probably doesn't completely jibe with you. That's fine. Market fluctuations, short-run vs. long-run industry adaptions to the business cycle, geographic differences in demand, etc etc etc all have an impact on pricing and profit...it's far more complicated than what I describe. Far more complicated than I have the time to get into right now. But - when anti-trust theory is concerned - we always revert back to that basic question of "Are they pricing above marginal cost?" One of the real tricky parts in answering that question is coming up with an accurate way of assigning cost.
I agree that MS is a perfect example of a monopoly. I was simply stating that if what ESR describes were true, then MS couldn't be a monopoly because, according to traditional anti-trust theory, monopoly status has everything to do with price and marginal cost. Sorry I wasn't clear.
My logic has nothing to do whatsoever with the passage of time. AT&T certainly was a monopoly - as was US Steel. The primary test of a monopoly is whether or not you can price above the actual cost of your product.
I think you lack an understanidng of anti-trust theory. You state that MS needs 40% profit margins to survive...to cover their costs? If so, then that 40% is not really profit, is it?
Furthermore, MS is not going to lose the ability to price above cost just because prices are dropping. Their licenses and market saturation absolutely ensure that. What they will lose is some of that margin between actual cost and the cost the consumer bears. The only thing that would result in MS losing monopoly power would be a drastic change in their licensing practices.
No - he's not a monopoly whiner...but he has said that MS is a monoply and that they have used that power to maintain and extend their position in the industry.
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/libgates.html
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=5007
I DEFINITELY agree that he's not as strong a monopoly whiner as some others, but he does appear to rely on the monopoly power argument in some of his writings.
The way I read it, ESR's so-called "Microsoft Tax" is monopoly power...he can call it whatever he wants, but it is specifically in that "tax" that they price above marginal cost...and that "tax" can (and probably will) be lowered.
And yes, you are correct - they have market saturation. In my opinion, that's the result of them producing strongly competitive complementary goods (Office suite, IE) for their OS. Some of that is the result of predatory market practices, probably...but some of that is also the result of good marketing and good business sense...both of which have resulted in their capability to price above cost.
Exactly. In fact, by making the claim that Microsoft can not lower their prices and survive, ESR is making the argument that Microsoft is not a monopoly.
The classic definition of monopoly power is that a company has the power to price above marginal cost - or the cost of producing an additional unit. While we know that real life is a little more complex than this classic definiton, by making the argument that M$ will crumble if forced to lower their prices, ESR is actually saying that Microsoft is not a monopoly...that the current pricing scheme used by M$ is driven by the market.
In one statement, ESR just poked a hole in his own argument without even realizing it. Nice job!
...ok, ok so this is a hoax...BUT, a 3D GUI would be nice for on-the fly prioritizing of processes...would add new meaning to the words "background" and "foreground"...simply raise or lower the window above your desktop and that process has its priority rasied or lowered.
I agree with your comments about Wahlberg's growth as an actor. "What this movie needs is George Clooney"???? Come on! That's like saying "What this internet needs is more Al Gore's!". Clooney would detract from the movie. I'm sure Katz thought "Titanic" was a good movie, too. As far as plots go, POTA beats Titanic, in my book. For someone so critical of pop culture, Katz seems too easily swayed by the pop appeal of Clooney, you know??
Anyhow, I was happy with the $$ I spent on the movie. My wife liked it and the limited social commentary it offered...it was worth it for me.
Right - people do want Word and Excel...when I was thinking about the article, I was trying to put myself in the place of a parent. When my kid is working on a chemistry experiment and is recording data in a spreadsheet for use in creating graphs, etc, do I want him doing it in Gnumeric or Excel?
Well, let me think about that...if my child is very technically inclined, I can see him/her getting many hours of enjoyment and a rich educational experience working with Gnumeric. But what if they're not? What if I want my child to be thinking about chemistry, rather than wrestling with a package that, in some areas, pales in comparison to Excel. I can see a child being turned off to the whole learning process entirely if they're frustrated with their spreadsheet/graphing tool.
I don't think that open source tools have a place in mainstream highschools yet in classes that are NOT computer science-related. We are doing children a disservice if we support second-rate tools simply because of cuts in funding. I'm not saying that all open-source tools are second rate by any means. Simply that we need to provide the best tools to our children for the job they're doing. Instead of rallying around open source tools as the ultimate band-aid for the problem (which, one day, they may be...but not today), we need to be addressing the problem of inadequate state and federal support for our schools.
Yeah...even funnier tho is the fact that they've got all the bandwidth in the world and not enough power to keep their computers running long enough to enjoy it!
I don't know. It seems like the Open Source Community's lack of a clear leader in the browser struggle is actually a good thing. (Disclaimer: Mozilla is a leader, but it's a tad big and slow...that's why I say it's not a clear leader)
With IE and NN fighting over standards, which one do you develop for? Both? I wouldn't want to do it. Heck...let's let someone win the battle, set some REAL standards, and THEN come out with a real kick ass browser. As difficult as it is to develop cross-browser apps/pages (as I sit here with one I'm working on behind my/. window), it must be many times MORE difficult to develop a browser to support today's "standards."
Seems to me like the darwinian nature of open source development is just shining through on this one...an open source app is only going to be developed IF 1) there is a need (which there is) and 2) there are developers willing to work on the project.
Personally, I wouldn't want to work on a browser right now...it would frustrate me more than it would reward me. And that's why I'm not doing it.
I still reject the idea that a truthful statement...or a provocative statement...is worthless. Maybe her science wasn't MIT-level, but her conclusion is anything but worthless.
Useful information does happen to come from non-scientific inquiries. I know that's hard for many of us (including myself) to accept sometimes, but the scientific method is not the be all end all of making observations...
Excuse me? She shouldn't be having a race dialogue at the age of eight??? Do you suggest she wait until she and her peers are 18 and have solidified their prejudices and stereotypes? Really - the time we should be addressing sensitivity (race-based, sexual orientation-based, etc) is when they are young.
And, there was no dialogue taking place. It was a project that could have generated some much-needed dialogue in that community...but instead the project was removed from display to prevent such dialogue from happening. So, instead of talking about the topic of her display like we might have been, we're bitching about whether or not it should have been censored. Schoolhouse censors win.
The fact of the matter is, the school didn't want to deal with the issues that surround an examination of racial bias in their community.
Exactly - it's like the FED saying they expect inflation to rise 1.5% over the next 3 quarters. It happens...not because they're great prognosticators, but because businesses adjust their own prices to soften the blow that the expected inflation will bring to their costs of operating business.
Adjusted to the microsoft-linux argument, we've got IT management out there, after reading that article, saying "Why invest in something now that's going to go belly up in a year or two?" Sorry, but linux isn't going anywhere. Linux businesses may come and go, but linux will not.
I do have to admit - I run a RH 6.2 box at home, a solaris box, and Windows 2000 professional on my newest computer. I'm a unix programmer by trade working on browser-based apps mostly. MS has done an incredible job w/Win2k. If you haven't run it - admittedly, it should be on a fairly beefy machine - don't criticize it. If you have run it and it doesn't work for you, criticize away...that's cool. I use the tool that makes the most sense, and that's why I have gone w/Win2K on my desktop RIGHT NOW.
...but that's also the reason that linux will not go anywhere, because there are people out there who will be picking linux as the best tool for the job!
(to be read with dripping sarcasm): We all know that the One True God speaks only through Catholic priests, right? The rest of us "Christians" are a bunch of pagans.
Exactly right. And you know - it's not the internet that's causing the spread of English influence in language...it's globalization. With the commodification of the Internet that has happened in the past 3 years, the Internet simply becomes the global economy's latest vehicle for hybridization of culture (language being a subset of culture).
Is this a good thing? I don't know - in some cases. Is this a bad thing? Sure, in some cases. The standardization of language is inevitable as globalism makes the world smaller and smaller and more accessible. That's "good", IMHO, sometimes. But if it results in the loss of the cultural richness of some minority, then I feel it can be a "bad" thing. The beautiful thing about culture is that it is a renewable, evolving resource. As quickly as we lose "culture", new culture pops up. The problem exists when that new culture is entirely western-centric.
And yes, while I am about as white as white can get, that is a problem. I value culture - new and old - and applaud efforts to maintain traditions. It's not a purity of language argument at all, as far as I am concerned. The spoken word should change as much as it needs to to keep up with changing times...but, when the additions to the local language include "McDonalds", "Coca Cola", "Pepsi", and "The Gap"...and traditional culture begins to disappear as the result of this influx of American culture...I question the positivity of the effects (and sources) of the changes.
I agree...I work for a market research firm...not the CIA...and I most certainly have full privs on all of our servers - unix and NT - and could most likely set up my own IP and chatroom without too many people taking notice...but if I did that, I would a) consider it wrong, and b) expect to be punished if caught...
who are these twits? how many of us would do this without permission at our places of employment?...not too many, I suspect, unless we're in the position of the person who needs to give the permission.
I don't find this incredibly newsworthy, other than the fact that operating something like a chat room just provides yet another hole that some unscrupulous person could use to gain access to information. At my place of employment, that would most likely be data about something ridiculous like cat food or toilet paper. At the CIA, the information that they could gain access to is MUCH more sensitive. I applaud any disciplinary action against these two "hackers".
PS...and if you're a real "hacker", you'll set up the chatroom on SOMEONE ELSE'S server without them knowing;) Doing it on your own servers is no challenge...
From your post... It sounds to me like Apple has re-invented the wheel, and in fine tradtion, decided to make it different for the sake of being different.
I guess so, literally:
From the article... I noticed something that, again, I did not expect. The wheel group listed in/etc/group did not contain any users...You typically expect to find root along with at least one administrative user account in/etc/group. In this case, wheel was empty, leaving me to wonder why they even kept the concept, since this functionality had apparently been folded into an alternate privilege manager.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, he did. But hey, we're all a little illogical sometimes. He just called me on it... ;)
Absolutely, I agree - their stock price would drop if their profit margin dropped from 40%. Can we say for sure whether or not the company would fold if their profits dropped? No.
;) Of course it's not the only thing that could result in MS losing their monopoly power. I do not believe that. However, everybody is not going to stop buying their product. You don't believe that, either.
Of course you are correct that it would have a severe effect on their stock price if their 40% profict margin approached the more common 11-15% range. If any company could weather that type of storm, however, it would be Microsoft. They have proven time and time again that they can be a very flexible entity. I have confidence that they would adapt to fit the needs of the market.
We can all envision a future that does not have Microsoft in its current dominant position in the market, but my point is that it is not realistic to assume that this will happen in the near future (when ESR's magical $350 PC cost is reached) solely as the result of a change in pricing. It's going to take a lot more to dethrone Microsoft. Even if Microsoft were pricing and profiting more in line with their competitors, they still have the advantage because everybody uses their products. And that's not going to go away. For many companies, the thought of a migration away from Microsoft products is unthinkable. Regardless of pricing practices and competitive goods, companies aren't going to do this overnight. Rome may have fallen in a day, but Microsoft will not.
And, yes, you are right - I should have qualified that last statement a little more so that what I wrote was more precisely in line with what I was thinking.
What I should have said was: all other things held constant,licensing changes would have a stronger negative effect on their monopoly power than pricing changes would.
I think there is a conflict, though. We can't equate the usefulness of Windows 1 year, 2 years down the road with the current usefulness of buggy-whips. The assumption I'm making - and I think it's a safe one - is that (given current market saturation) MS Windows will continue to have the same (or greater) usefulness in the very near future - as the price of PC's approach ESR's magical $350 figure. Since ESR's argument in the article seems to be based entirely upon pricing (and therefore cost, although he doesn't directly suggest it), I *do* see a conflict there. He is suggesting that MS's OS operations could not continue if they were forced to lower their price. If that were true, then MS would not have a monopoly on their OS at this moment in time (or in the near future). The reality is that they can lower their price on their OS licensing and maintain their (monopoly) position in the market as the cost of PC's drops.
.NET strategy. My largest concern, however, is that they'll always be pulling the strings...regardless of their pricing scheme. It's their licensing scheme that is the real issue.
I agree with you completely, however, that Windows will always be threatened by replacement goods, and I agree with you that the most likely successors will make minimal inroads on the sides and not head-on. MS seems to realize this and has embraced it with their
...ah yes - the issue that has plagued Neo-classical economists for years...in the "Perfect Competition" model (which we are NOT an example of, but we often strive to be as close to that as possible), we should observe a "zero-profit-equilibria" (related to the concept of "Natural Price"). There are some implicit costs included in the cost of production (opportunity cost, overhead, etc) that the company also applies to their product's pricing scheme that result a positive cash flow.BR>
Now, you and I both know that real world markets are far more complicated than neo-classical economic theory. So, my (regretfully abbreviated) explanation above probably doesn't completely jibe with you. That's fine. Market fluctuations, short-run vs. long-run industry adaptions to the business cycle, geographic differences in demand, etc etc etc all have an impact on pricing and profit...it's far more complicated than what I describe. Far more complicated than I have the time to get into right now. But - when anti-trust theory is concerned - we always revert back to that basic question of "Are they pricing above marginal cost?" One of the real tricky parts in answering that question is coming up with an accurate way of assigning cost.
Right..."Microsoft Tax" == Monopoly power. It doesn't matter what you call it...
I agree that MS is a perfect example of a monopoly. I was simply stating that if what ESR describes were true, then MS couldn't be a monopoly because, according to traditional anti-trust theory, monopoly status has everything to do with price and marginal cost. Sorry I wasn't clear.
My logic has nothing to do whatsoever with the passage of time. AT&T certainly was a monopoly - as was US Steel. The primary test of a monopoly is whether or not you can price above the actual cost of your product.
I think you lack an understanidng of anti-trust theory. You state that MS needs 40% profit margins to survive...to cover their costs? If so, then that 40% is not really profit, is it?
Furthermore, MS is not going to lose the ability to price above cost just because prices are dropping. Their licenses and market saturation absolutely ensure that. What they will lose is some of that margin between actual cost and the cost the consumer bears. The only thing that would result in MS losing monopoly power would be a drastic change in their licensing practices.
No - he's not a monopoly whiner...but he has said that MS is a monoply and that they have used that power to maintain and extend their position in the industry.
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/libgates.html
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=5007
I DEFINITELY agree that he's not as strong a monopoly whiner as some others, but he does appear to rely on the monopoly power argument in some of his writings.
The way I read it, ESR's so-called "Microsoft Tax" is monopoly power...he can call it whatever he wants, but it is specifically in that "tax" that they price above marginal cost...and that "tax" can (and probably will) be lowered.
And yes, you are correct - they have market saturation. In my opinion, that's the result of them producing strongly competitive complementary goods (Office suite, IE) for their OS. Some of that is the result of predatory market practices, probably...but some of that is also the result of good marketing and good business sense...both of which have resulted in their capability to price above cost.
Exactly. In fact, by making the claim that Microsoft can not lower their prices and survive, ESR is making the argument that Microsoft is not a monopoly.
The classic definition of monopoly power is that a company has the power to price above marginal cost - or the cost of producing an additional unit. While we know that real life is a little more complex than this classic definiton, by making the argument that M$ will crumble if forced to lower their prices, ESR is actually saying that Microsoft is not a monopoly...that the current pricing scheme used by M$ is driven by the market.
In one statement, ESR just poked a hole in his own argument without even realizing it. Nice job!
...ok, ok so this is a hoax...BUT, a 3D GUI would be nice for on-the fly prioritizing of processes...would add new meaning to the words "background" and "foreground"...simply raise or lower the window above your desktop and that process has its priority rasied or lowered.
I agree with your comments about Wahlberg's growth as an actor. "What this movie needs is George Clooney"???? Come on! That's like saying "What this internet needs is more Al Gore's!". Clooney would detract from the movie. I'm sure Katz thought "Titanic" was a good movie, too. As far as plots go, POTA beats Titanic, in my book. For someone so critical of pop culture, Katz seems too easily swayed by the pop appeal of Clooney, you know??
Anyhow, I was happy with the $$ I spent on the movie. My wife liked it and the limited social commentary it offered...it was worth it for me.
Right - people do want Word and Excel...when I was thinking about the article, I was trying to put myself in the place of a parent. When my kid is working on a chemistry experiment and is recording data in a spreadsheet for use in creating graphs, etc, do I want him doing it in Gnumeric or Excel?
Well, let me think about that...if my child is very technically inclined, I can see him/her getting many hours of enjoyment and a rich educational experience working with Gnumeric. But what if they're not? What if I want my child to be thinking about chemistry, rather than wrestling with a package that, in some areas, pales in comparison to Excel. I can see a child being turned off to the whole learning process entirely if they're frustrated with their spreadsheet/graphing tool.
I don't think that open source tools have a place in mainstream highschools yet in classes that are NOT computer science-related. We are doing children a disservice if we support second-rate tools simply because of cuts in funding. I'm not saying that all open-source tools are second rate by any means. Simply that we need to provide the best tools to our children for the job they're doing. Instead of rallying around open source tools as the ultimate band-aid for the problem (which, one day, they may be...but not today), we need to be addressing the problem of inadequate state and federal support for our schools.
Yeah...even funnier tho is the fact that they've got all the bandwidth in the world and not enough power to keep their computers running long enough to enjoy it!
...yeah, but I'd get GREAT cell reception at home (where I have none now) I'm all for it...
I don't know. It seems like the Open Source Community's lack of a clear leader in the browser struggle is actually a good thing. (Disclaimer: Mozilla is a leader, but it's a tad big and slow...that's why I say it's not a clear leader)
/. window), it must be many times MORE difficult to develop a browser to support today's "standards."
With IE and NN fighting over standards, which one do you develop for? Both? I wouldn't want to do it. Heck...let's let someone win the battle, set some REAL standards, and THEN come out with a real kick ass browser. As difficult as it is to develop cross-browser apps/pages (as I sit here with one I'm working on behind my
Seems to me like the darwinian nature of open source development is just shining through on this one...an open source app is only going to be developed IF 1) there is a need (which there is) and 2) there are developers willing to work on the project.
Personally, I wouldn't want to work on a browser right now...it would frustrate me more than it would reward me. And that's why I'm not doing it.
...so THAT's the reason I'm still running RH 5.1...
I still reject the idea that a truthful statement...or a provocative statement...is worthless. Maybe her science wasn't MIT-level, but her conclusion is anything but worthless.
Useful information does happen to come from non-scientific inquiries. I know that's hard for many of us (including myself) to accept sometimes, but the scientific method is not the be all end all of making observations...
...but are her conclusions flawed because her methodology was??? I don't know if I would say her conclusions are flawed at all.
If I base my conclusion that 2+2=4 on astrology, is my conclusion wrong? Nope.
Excuse me? She shouldn't be having a race dialogue at the age of eight??? Do you suggest she wait until she and her peers are 18 and have solidified their prejudices and stereotypes? Really - the time we should be addressing sensitivity (race-based, sexual orientation-based, etc) is when they are young.
And, there was no dialogue taking place. It was a project that could have generated some much-needed dialogue in that community...but instead the project was removed from display to prevent such dialogue from happening. So, instead of talking about the topic of her display like we might have been, we're bitching about whether or not it should have been censored. Schoolhouse censors win.
The fact of the matter is, the school didn't want to deal with the issues that surround an examination of racial bias in their community.
Exactly - it's like the FED saying they expect inflation to rise 1.5% over the next 3 quarters. It happens...not because they're great prognosticators, but because businesses adjust their own prices to soften the blow that the expected inflation will bring to their costs of operating business.
Adjusted to the microsoft-linux argument, we've got IT management out there, after reading that article, saying "Why invest in something now that's going to go belly up in a year or two?" Sorry, but linux isn't going anywhere. Linux businesses may come and go, but linux will not.
I do have to admit - I run a RH 6.2 box at home, a solaris box, and Windows 2000 professional on my newest computer. I'm a unix programmer by trade working on browser-based apps mostly. MS has done an incredible job w/Win2k. If you haven't run it - admittedly, it should be on a fairly beefy machine - don't criticize it. If you have run it and it doesn't work for you, criticize away...that's cool. I use the tool that makes the most sense, and that's why I have gone w/Win2K on my desktop RIGHT NOW.
...but that's also the reason that linux will not go anywhere, because there are people out there who will be picking linux as the best tool for the job!
God.
(to be read with dripping sarcasm): We all know that the One True God speaks only through Catholic priests, right? The rest of us "Christians" are a bunch of pagans.
according to /., you should consider your local Catholic Church if you want to do anything with the internet...frightening.
Exactly right. And you know - it's not the internet that's causing the spread of English influence in language...it's globalization. With the commodification of the Internet that has happened in the past 3 years, the Internet simply becomes the global economy's latest vehicle for hybridization of culture (language being a subset of culture).
Is this a good thing? I don't know - in some cases. Is this a bad thing? Sure, in some cases. The standardization of language is inevitable as globalism makes the world smaller and smaller and more accessible. That's "good", IMHO, sometimes. But if it results in the loss of the cultural richness of some minority, then I feel it can be a "bad" thing. The beautiful thing about culture is that it is a renewable, evolving resource. As quickly as we lose "culture", new culture pops up. The problem exists when that new culture is entirely western-centric.
And yes, while I am about as white as white can get, that is a problem. I value culture - new and old - and applaud efforts to maintain traditions. It's not a purity of language argument at all, as far as I am concerned. The spoken word should change as much as it needs to to keep up with changing times...but, when the additions to the local language include "McDonalds", "Coca Cola", "Pepsi", and "The Gap"...and traditional culture begins to disappear as the result of this influx of American culture...I question the positivity of the effects (and sources) of the changes.
I agree...I work for a market research firm...not the CIA...and I most certainly have full privs on all of our servers - unix and NT - and could most likely set up my own IP and chatroom without too many people taking notice...but if I did that, I would a) consider it wrong, and b) expect to be punished if caught...
...not too many, I suspect, unless we're in the position of the person who needs to give the permission.
...and if you're a real "hacker", you'll set up the chatroom on SOMEONE ELSE'S server without them knowing ;) Doing it on your own servers is no challenge...
who are these twits? how many of us would do this without permission at our places of employment?
I don't find this incredibly newsworthy, other than the fact that operating something like a chat room just provides yet another hole that some unscrupulous person could use to gain access to information. At my place of employment, that would most likely be data about something ridiculous like cat food or toilet paper. At the CIA, the information that they could gain access to is MUCH more sensitive. I applaud any disciplinary action against these two "hackers".
PS
From your post...
/etc/group did not contain any users...You typically expect to find root along with at least one administrative user account in /etc/group. In this case, wheel was empty, leaving me to wonder why they even kept the concept, since this functionality had apparently been folded into an alternate privilege manager.
It sounds to me like Apple has re-invented the wheel, and in fine tradtion, decided to make it different for the sake of being different.
I guess so, literally:
From the article...
I noticed something that, again, I did not expect. The wheel group listed in