Mjeah. Problem is, that "business case" will largely make it more profitable to teach the inmates how not to get caught when they get out and continue their criminal careers.;-)
Apologies for the typos. The spellchecker and on-screen keyboard of my mobile OS lacks the rich features of my Desktop and the platform I am on wont let me tweak it to my needs...;-)
Besides trolling as AC you also put your lack of OS knowledge on display.
You came put every conceivable thing into an OS in a way which appeals to "everyone". For example some security guru might not want the "creative" OS described simply because previewing/thumbnailing PDF and RAW files (effectively rendering them) is a security risk.
Your mind seems to tell you that it's possible to construct the "perfect" OS'a'la'Deathstar so you dont have to tweak it but people's needs are too diverse to get such a beast running on current generation computers.
Tweaking to suit your needs is far better than to make the end-of-all-OS monster with a billion features from which you ever only use 2%.
Most of what he proposes could be done with a Blinds theme (a GUI tweaking utility for Windows made by StarDock).
It hacks the Windows GUI though the WPF and Win32 APIs and changes pretty much whatever you like.
Stuff like inserting an OS-wide search field in file dialogues or using an alternate image preview library is within the capabilities of a Blinds Theme.
StarDock even has a tweak called "Modern Mix" which forces single-screen Metro apps to work in a regular (and realizable) desktop window.
There are a lot of ugly things to say about Windows, but the architecture allows what the author is proposing. Virtually every OS component in Windows is available for tweaking or replacement.
He was snapping pics/videoclips with his smartphone in the middle of a high level management meeting at a vergy large corporation FFS. Have you EVER heard of anyone doing the same? Has anyone else? Please? Anyone? Hello? Anyone?
Ah, I didn't think so.
Perhaps we're not hearing about other high level managers doing this because they got fired...;-)
Seriously. Both acted stupidly. But you just don't behave like that when you are on that level of business.
It is rude. It removes attention from the speaker/subject (in this case the CEO himself). It shows you are not taking the meeting seriously. It shows your priorities are seriously wrong - in which case you SHOULD be fired anyway (in a more appropriate way perhaps). Perhaps the proper term is that he "conducted in ways unbecoming a top-level corporate manager". This was not the local YMCA having their Thursday get together. This was a crisis meeting for all senior directors at a multi-billion dollar corporation.
He had it coming. Absolutely. It just should have been done in more subtle and appropriate way.
Not at all ridiculous. Openly taking videoclips of a confidential manager meeting at a large corporation is more ridiculous. It is outright idiotic.
I would have fired the guy as well. Albeit probably by taking him outside and sending him home.
Both of them acted stupid. But there is a clear understanding in business that you don't run around taking videoclips of high level meetings. It is simply so self-understood that nobody (usually) needs to have it spelled out to them.
In priority, taking the videoclip like that was more moronic than firing a guy at a meeting. It is just so way out of line it screams "fire me please".
Alright so we have two idiots in the same corporate meeting room.
One acted like a d*ck and was taking video clips of a clearly confidential meeting - openly in front of the corporate CEO. The other fired an employee without warning or following a decent process.
Where is the "news" in this? I think the moron making the videoclip was the bigger idiot but none of them really showed their best side that day. As it often happens in corporate meetings.
It's easier to find a job in the UK for someone that only speaks American English than any other EU country, which is why I mentioned language in the first place.
In that respect Scandinavia is a pretty good bet too. Everybody learns English from the 2nd grade, business and higher education are often using English as their main language, and there are a lot of English-speaking employees already.
"Did you read what I said? I didn't advocate the UK as a better place, but as a convenient place to get EU citizenship to go to other countries in the EU that are better. "
You could've picked a whole fucking other better country. Like Germany, or Norway.
Except for the rather unfortunate fact that Norway is not a member of the EU?
Sorry, no "rant" was intended and nothing was targeted at you specifically. I had my eyes on the ball, not the man;-) and I believe my reply simply explains why the statement is false (in a F/LOSS context).
Still posting as AC... oh well, some people just won't stand by their opinions I guess.
No. I reject your so-called "cornerstone". You cannot "monetize" infinitely abundant information.
You are mistaken. Ask Redhat. Ask SuSE. Ask Google also, who is absolutely a master of monetizing "infinitely abundant information" and presenting in a way that can be monetized through their specific business model.
You may personally reject it all you want, but reality begs to differ. And while you can off course reject reality itself I really see nothing productive coming from that.
Only the organized crime (like the post-Bill-Gates software sector) that made up the lie about imaginary property to be able to create artificial scarcity and/steal money/ from people, acts like you can.
I don't know why I am even wasting my tie debating this with someone calling the established software industry "organized crime". Your approach to reality seems to be in total disarray. May I politely propose a visit to Sicilia in order for you to obtain a more appropriate and correct perception of "Organized Crime"? Your local Hells Angels club might also be of assistance...
In reality, it is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of FLOSS. Either you give out the source and thereby lose control over its distribution, or you can ask money.
I am not going to argue this further. Thousands of businesses do this very thing every single day and are very happy to do so. F/LOSS software is delivered in combination with various services and happy customers are paying. Your continued reluctance to accept the current reality is not something I wish to spend more time on.
As soon as it's abundant because freely distributable, it becomes worthless. That's a simple law of the marketplace.
No, absolutely not. This is true only for software products which do not innovate or which are so simple in nature that no further product development is taking place. All modern F/LOSS suppliers act as VARs and their customers are happy to pay for the value they add. Such as new releases, quick bugfixes, influence on the direction of the product, notifications on critical problems, premium support, community access, and more.
You "monetize" the SERVICE of writing code & co. Just like literally every other service-based industry out there. From the guy who fixes your sink and the delivery guy to prostitution and industry consultants.
This is perfectly combatible with selling or byuing F/LOSS through a VAR. For example my dads smart TV uses Linux as an OS, and the vendor distributes the source exactly as they should, but rather than downloading the sourcecode and compiling it himself he prefers to pay 5 bucks for a ready-to-use file he can install on the TV set. If I propose to him that he should somehow learn how to download the source, compile it himself, and then install it - just for saving 5 bucks - he would (rightly so) call me an idiot. So yes, ready-to-use and compiled F/LOSS software can absolutely have a price, even though the source is freely available.
I don't see how anything you said is relevant to anything being discussed. How does Redhat's trademark change the previous statement:
"Either you give out the source and thereby lose control over its distribution, or you can ask money."
It does not change it. But that doesn't really matter because the statement itself is flawed and untrue.
You are totally free to ask money for F/LOSS while giving away the source and that is exactly what many F/LOSS business do. Customers pay for the software and while they do have the right to rewrite and recompile it all for free they simply choose not to - because the value provided with the software is greater and the price is acceptable for them. Maintaining and compiling software (F/LOSS or not) is complex. Many end-users for example are perfectly capable of downloading a Live-CD and boot a Linux for desktop use, but are in no way capable of downloading, combining and compiling all the individual components needed to make a full working distribution.
The implied opposition presented in the above statement is simply false. As proven by thousands of business using and trading F/LOSS products and services every day.:-)
While you claim others "don't get the concept", you seem to have totally missed the cornerstone of how F/LOSS is monetized.
It makes perfect sense for someone knowledgeable and skilled to assemble exactly the right hardware components, and compile+install just the right F/LOSS software components, into an easy-to-use appliance, and sell these at whatever price point the market is willing to pay. People are not paying for the "licenses" they are paying for the labor that went into combining all the supplied pieces together - and perhaps also for getting future support and developmen. In other words people are paying for professional services in a nice and understandable package.
I have no idea why you feel the need to bash this concept with such contempt, but this approach is just about the most popular way to monetize F/LOSS on the planet. It is also shows the clear strengths of F/LOSS: that anyone can take the software, modify it, expand it, improve it, and share it with all other customers without negative impact to the original supplier.
If you want to take the software and install it on a PC, go right ahead. Feel free to install other drivers in the process. Make a laptop-version and share it as much as you like. Go right ahead. But while you may be perfectly willing to spend loads of time on this, others may not. Not all network experts want to mess with assembling their own hardware. Or spend endless nights compiling new versions of [insert-whatever-FLOSS-component-here] just to make a brief packet analysis in the field. It is not trivial to compile and combine all the right F/LOSS products included in the packaged mentioned here and some people are happy to pay someone else to get that job done.
The fact that people are willing to put money on the table for the service and labor this man has produced with F/LOSS software is by no means "retarded". It is a testament to the viability of F/LOSS economy, and clear proof that customer value can be added to F/LOSS without bogging customers down in complex licenses and EULAs.
Ah, damn, I noticed too late you posted as AC. Well, since you won't stand by your words, I guess producing a decent and intelligent answer was a waste of time...
Actually there is a much simpler way to go about this problem (with theft) which would leave both Apple and the NSA out of the loop.
Every cellphone is equipped with an EMEI number which works similar to a network MAC address. It is a unique hardware identifier for each phone - on a global scale.
The EMEI is visible in the settings/control-panel section of any modern phone, and often also printed on either the box the device is supplied in, or a piece of paper inside. And it is used by every carrier on the planet as a part of the calling infrastructure.
All the carriers would need to do, is to allow a "blacklist" of EMEI numbers, so when your device is stolen you simply report the EMEI to the carrier and they blacklist it. To prevent abuse each device could be supplied with an anti-theft key generated by the initial operator or by the manufacturer (so only the holder of both the EMEI and theft-key can have it blacklisted).
The technical capability to do this already exists. Some operators have even implemented it in trials. Their reasons for not using it today is the fact that not all operators actually want to bust customers with stolen phones, and this system would be kind of pointless if only half the carriers implement it.
Enter regulation. The political system could easily pass a law that forces all carriers to implement this kind of EMEI-based anti theft system. It would take little to design, it would work for every phone on the planet regardless of make/model, and it would include only known technology (just a few bits and pieces to extend the existing EMEI database plus a front-office system to operate it).
Not implementing this is pure laziness (from carriers).
When you control the hardware the way Apple does, there is no problem in separating the lock-feature from the main operating system, similar to what happens with a Trusted Platform Module in a Laptop. In fact, one may argue that relying on the operating system to handle this as part of its regular codebase is hopeless, as it means any jailbroken device can also be "unlocked" again.
If they actually wanted to make this secure they would have separated it from the main OS.
Having said that, one can hardly argue against a company working to close known vulnerabilities and security issues within their software, so Apple really should be working hard to close these exploits regardless of the lock-feature.
"Virtually all electric car advocates agree that when toting up the environmental pros and cons of electric cars, it's only fair to include powerplant emissions."
It's like they say... Only Nixon could go to China. Regardless of the merits of their arguments, these guys ain't Nixon. Wake me when the electric car skeptics agree.
Why on earth would electric car skeptics object to the inclusion of powerplant emissions in the calculation of the total footprint of electric cars???
Slashdot Mirror
Mjeah. Problem is, that "business case" will largely make it more profitable to teach the inmates how not to get caught when they get out and continue their criminal careers. ;-)
- Jesper
My comment was modded as "Troll"???
Really? Seriously??
Well, I guess that is what meta-moderation is for ... :-S
Apologies for the typos. The spellchecker and on-screen keyboard of my mobile OS lacks the rich features of my Desktop and the platform I am on wont let me tweak it to my needs ... ;-)
Besides trolling as AC you also put your lack of OS knowledge on display.
You came put every conceivable thing into an OS in a way which appeals to "everyone". For example some security guru might not want the "creative" OS described simply because previewing/thumbnailing PDF and RAW files (effectively rendering them) is a security risk.
Your mind seems to tell you that it's possible to construct the "perfect" OS'a'la'Deathstar so you dont have to tweak it but people's needs are too diverse to get such a beast running on current generation computers.
Tweaking to suit your needs is far better than to make the end-of-all-OS monster with a billion features from which you ever only use 2%.
- Jesper
Most of what he proposes could be done with a Blinds theme (a GUI tweaking utility for Windows made by StarDock).
It hacks the Windows GUI though the WPF and Win32 APIs and changes pretty much whatever you like.
Stuff like inserting an OS-wide search field in file dialogues or using an alternate image preview library is within the capabilities of a Blinds Theme.
StarDock even has a tweak called "Modern Mix" which forces single-screen Metro apps to work in a regular (and realizable) desktop window.
There are a lot of ugly things to say about Windows, but the architecture allows what the author is proposing. Virtually every OS component in Windows is available for tweaking or replacement.
- Jesper
I feel confident it is not the kind of behavior usually done in front of that particular CEO or his actions would have been different - no? ;-)
Actually I meant the getting fired part.
Which should have been done another way. Sure.
Hey - Thanks for trolling as AC man. You really make it clear what that designation is meant for ... ;-)
You may have a different opinion on this topic but until you actually have the balls to put your name on your posts it won't carry much weight :-)
- Jesper
No. Alas ;-) I am not psychopathic enough to achieve the level of management involved in this particular mess. I am just an IT grunt on the floor.
And frankly I don't see how believing that both managers are idiots makes me a "psychopath". But hey maybe that's just me :-)
- Jesper
He was snapping pics/videoclips with his smartphone in the middle of a high level management meeting at a vergy large corporation FFS. Have you EVER heard of anyone doing the same? Has anyone else? Please? Anyone? Hello? Anyone?
Ah, I didn't think so.
Perhaps we're not hearing about other high level managers doing this because they got fired ... ;-)
Seriously. Both acted stupidly. But you just don't behave like that when you are on that level of business.
It is rude. It removes attention from the speaker/subject (in this case the CEO himself). It shows you are not taking the meeting seriously. It shows your priorities are seriously wrong - in which case you SHOULD be fired anyway (in a more appropriate way perhaps). Perhaps the proper term is that he "conducted in ways unbecoming a top-level corporate manager". This was not the local YMCA having their Thursday get together. This was a crisis meeting for all senior directors at a multi-billion dollar corporation.
He had it coming. Absolutely. It just should have been done in more subtle and appropriate way.
- Jesper
Not at all ridiculous. Openly taking videoclips of a confidential manager meeting at a large corporation is more ridiculous. It is outright idiotic.
I would have fired the guy as well. Albeit probably by taking him outside and sending him home.
Both of them acted stupid. But there is a clear understanding in business that you don't run around taking videoclips of high level meetings. It is simply so self-understood that nobody (usually) needs to have it spelled out to them.
In priority, taking the videoclip like that was more moronic than firing a guy at a meeting. It is just so way out of line it screams "fire me please".
- Jesper
Alright so we have two idiots in the same corporate meeting room.
One acted like a d*ck and was taking video clips of a clearly confidential meeting - openly in front of the corporate CEO. The other fired an employee without warning or following a decent process.
Where is the "news" in this? I think the moron making the videoclip was the bigger idiot but none of them really showed their best side that day. As it often happens in corporate meetings.
Move along. Nothing to see here ..
- Jesper
It's easier to find a job in the UK for someone that only speaks American English than any other EU country, which is why I mentioned language in the first place.
In that respect Scandinavia is a pretty good bet too. Everybody learns English from the 2nd grade, business and higher education are often using English as their main language, and there are a lot of English-speaking employees already.
- Jesper
"Did you read what I said? I didn't advocate the UK as a better place, but as a convenient place to get EU citizenship to go to other countries in the EU that are better. "
You could've picked a whole fucking other better country. Like Germany, or Norway.
Except for the rather unfortunate fact that Norway is not a member of the EU?
- Jesper
Sorry, no "rant" was intended and nothing was targeted at you specifically. I had my eyes on the ball, not the man ;-) and I believe my reply simply explains why the statement is false (in a F/LOSS context).
Peace and tranquility to you. :-)
- Jesper
Still posting as AC ... oh well, some people just won't stand by their opinions I guess.
No. I reject your so-called "cornerstone". You cannot "monetize" infinitely abundant information.
You are mistaken. Ask Redhat. Ask SuSE. Ask Google also, who is absolutely a master of monetizing "infinitely abundant information" and presenting in a way that can be monetized through their specific business model.
You may personally reject it all you want, but reality begs to differ. And while you can off course reject reality itself I really see nothing productive coming from that.
Only the organized crime (like the post-Bill-Gates software sector) that made up the lie about imaginary property to be able to create artificial scarcity and /steal money/ from people, acts like you can.
I don't know why I am even wasting my tie debating this with someone calling the established software industry "organized crime". Your approach to reality seems to be in total disarray. May I politely propose a visit to Sicilia in order for you to obtain a more appropriate and correct perception of "Organized Crime"? Your local Hells Angels club might also be of assistance...
In reality, it is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of FLOSS. Either you give out the source and thereby lose control over its distribution, or you can ask money.
I am not going to argue this further. Thousands of businesses do this very thing every single day and are very happy to do so. F/LOSS software is delivered in combination with various services and happy customers are paying. Your continued reluctance to accept the current reality is not something I wish to spend more time on.
As soon as it's abundant because freely distributable, it becomes worthless. That's a simple law of the marketplace.
No, absolutely not. This is true only for software products which do not innovate or which are so simple in nature that no further product development is taking place. All modern F/LOSS suppliers act as VARs and their customers are happy to pay for the value they add. Such as new releases, quick bugfixes, influence on the direction of the product, notifications on critical problems, premium support, community access, and more.
You "monetize" the SERVICE of writing code & co. Just like literally every other service-based industry out there. From the guy who fixes your sink and the delivery guy to prostitution and industry consultants.
This is perfectly combatible with selling or byuing F/LOSS through a VAR. For example my dads smart TV uses Linux as an OS, and the vendor distributes the source exactly as they should, but rather than downloading the sourcecode and compiling it himself he prefers to pay 5 bucks for a ready-to-use file he can install on the TV set. If I propose to him that he should somehow learn how to download the source, compile it himself, and then install it - just for saving 5 bucks - he would (rightly so) call me an idiot. So yes, ready-to-use and compiled F/LOSS software can absolutely have a price, even though the source is freely available.
- Jesper
I don't see how anything you said is relevant to anything being discussed. How does Redhat's trademark change the previous statement:
"Either you give out the source and thereby lose control over its distribution, or you can ask money."
It does not change it. But that doesn't really matter because the statement itself is flawed and untrue.
You are totally free to ask money for F/LOSS while giving away the source and that is exactly what many F/LOSS business do. Customers pay for the software and while they do have the right to rewrite and recompile it all for free they simply choose not to - because the value provided with the software is greater and the price is acceptable for them. Maintaining and compiling software (F/LOSS or not) is complex. Many end-users for example are perfectly capable of downloading a Live-CD and boot a Linux for desktop use, but are in no way capable of downloading, combining and compiling all the individual components needed to make a full working distribution.
The implied opposition presented in the above statement is simply false. As proven by thousands of business using and trading F/LOSS products and services every day. :-)
- Jesper
While you claim others "don't get the concept", you seem to have totally missed the cornerstone of how F/LOSS is monetized.
It makes perfect sense for someone knowledgeable and skilled to assemble exactly the right hardware components, and compile+install just the right F/LOSS software components, into an easy-to-use appliance, and sell these at whatever price point the market is willing to pay. People are not paying for the "licenses" they are paying for the labor that went into combining all the supplied pieces together - and perhaps also for getting future support and developmen. In other words people are paying for professional services in a nice and understandable package.
I have no idea why you feel the need to bash this concept with such contempt, but this approach is just about the most popular way to monetize F/LOSS on the planet. It is also shows the clear strengths of F/LOSS: that anyone can take the software, modify it, expand it, improve it, and share it with all other customers without negative impact to the original supplier.
If you want to take the software and install it on a PC, go right ahead. Feel free to install other drivers in the process. Make a laptop-version and share it as much as you like. Go right ahead. But while you may be perfectly willing to spend loads of time on this, others may not. Not all network experts want to mess with assembling their own hardware. Or spend endless nights compiling new versions of [insert-whatever-FLOSS-component-here] just to make a brief packet analysis in the field. It is not trivial to compile and combine all the right F/LOSS products included in the packaged mentioned here and some people are happy to pay someone else to get that job done.
The fact that people are willing to put money on the table for the service and labor this man has produced with F/LOSS software is by no means "retarded". It is a testament to the viability of F/LOSS economy, and clear proof that customer value can be added to F/LOSS without bogging customers down in complex licenses and EULAs.
Ah, damn, I noticed too late you posted as AC. Well, since you won't stand by your words, I guess producing a decent and intelligent answer was a waste of time...
- Jesper
Yes it is. No it isn't.
Wow ... Mr. Clippy ... is that you? Congratulations on your serious career-move!
Making digital mistakes in computer-land apparently is no guarantee for not repeating them in the physical world ...
- Jesper
Actually there is a much simpler way to go about this problem (with theft) which would leave both Apple and the NSA out of the loop.
Every cellphone is equipped with an EMEI number which works similar to a network MAC address. It is a unique hardware identifier for each phone - on a global scale.
The EMEI is visible in the settings/control-panel section of any modern phone, and often also printed on either the box the device is supplied in, or a piece of paper inside. And it is used by every carrier on the planet as a part of the calling infrastructure.
All the carriers would need to do, is to allow a "blacklist" of EMEI numbers, so when your device is stolen you simply report the EMEI to the carrier and they blacklist it. To prevent abuse each device could be supplied with an anti-theft key generated by the initial operator or by the manufacturer (so only the holder of both the EMEI and theft-key can have it blacklisted).
The technical capability to do this already exists. Some operators have even implemented it in trials. Their reasons for not using it today is the fact that not all operators actually want to bust customers with stolen phones, and this system would be kind of pointless if only half the carriers implement it.
Enter regulation. The political system could easily pass a law that forces all carriers to implement this kind of EMEI-based anti theft system. It would take little to design, it would work for every phone on the planet regardless of make/model, and it would include only known technology (just a few bits and pieces to extend the existing EMEI database plus a front-office system to operate it).
Not implementing this is pure laziness (from carriers).
- Jesper
When you control the hardware the way Apple does, there is no problem in separating the lock-feature from the main operating system, similar to what happens with a Trusted Platform Module in a Laptop. In fact, one may argue that relying on the operating system to handle this as part of its regular codebase is hopeless, as it means any jailbroken device can also be "unlocked" again.
If they actually wanted to make this secure they would have separated it from the main OS.
Having said that, one can hardly argue against a company working to close known vulnerabilities and security issues within their software, so Apple really should be working hard to close these exploits regardless of the lock-feature.
- Jesper
In other news, CCP has announced that the new name of their MMO platform will be:
EVE Offline
Geek-girlfriends everywhere rejoice ...
- Jesper
It's like they say... Only Nixon could go to China. Regardless of the merits of their arguments, these guys ain't Nixon. Wake me when the electric car skeptics agree.
Why on earth would electric car skeptics object to the inclusion of powerplant emissions in the calculation of the total footprint of electric cars???
- Jesper
that's pr0n, you insensitive clod ...