To be fair, you also have a completely different social climate, with extremely different ideas of what is expected of someone, and with completely different reactions as to what to do when something 'wrong' happens to you.
Huh.. no, all I said was that I felt it was wrong that he did it, and should be put away. That a guy's right to produce something privately should be held until he publicly releases it and that everything should be a matter of public retrieval. This had nothing to do with Linux, Microsoft or money.
Stealing, to me, is not depriving someone of a good that they own, but depriving someone of the ideal of safety. In Intellectual Thought Property, this becomes really ephemeral, because there's no hard lines on what is and isn't a product.
As far as I stand, the movie isn't in totality until its release, and then it's a viable product of ownership that he (in using LucasArts as an entity) allows others the limited viewing privileges based on a monetary compensation form. Now, to steal it before it's completed is, imho, a bad thing not only because of possible poor quality, but because the artist/visionary/programmer/whatever you want to call him just isn't done doing it..
I agree, the 450k seems like a puffed up number, but he did steal more than just that movie. They were saying materials and other associated things within the project. Who knows, might've been computer equipment and digital editing software with high licensing value. He knowingly did it, and should at the least lose his job.
No, I don't. I make a valid distinction between public release and private development. Much like someone working on a program at work, I believe that they should have time to work on it to its fruition before it's torn to pieces. Same with a movie, or a book, or music. The person(s) doing it should be able to work up to the point they wish to release it, and then it can be done with whatever. I don't believe a work of art (as a movie is technically meant to be, not as a work of merchandise as it has become) should be held to the sacred trust of 'those who pay money'... after all, tons of people see it for free if they're with the press...
Who cares how much hype there is, illegal is illegal. He stole what would be a viable product being engineered (and not finished) by a company. Outside of breaking contract, and just poor ethical judgement, he also just plain stole material before it was released.
I have no beef with after its release. People are going to see a movie for the effect whether they get a pirated version or not, in almost every case I know of (as far as) movie piracy.
Know what really pisses me off? More than anything. Microsoft bought Bungie just so they could pull the XBoX launch off better. Do you know how many people wouldn't've bought the XboX had Halo been available for the PC? A whole crapload, that's right. So they find a game that the internet is clamoring for, drop a blank cheque (practically) at the Creators of Pimps-at-Sea's steps and say, "Ours. Only available on Our Platform."
I have to disagree with you. A lot of people are dismissing this as a 'PC vs Console' issue. You had to buy the TV, right? And people are speaking of huge speakers, and that requires a receiver. . And.. what? You can't play Super Mario 3 on the new Gamecube? Oh, right, they changed the software format.. My, I can still start up my game of Quake on CD..
You still have to shell out the cash, it doesn't matter which way the gaming society goes. You have to spend a lot of money to get what you want. And you will continually have to upgrade your system, whether you choose to see it or not is another question. The costs are relatively the same EXCEPT for people who are on the VERY high end of PC gaming / graphics design. These people are running with a couple of thousand dollars worth of video card in their PCs and a few hundred in monitor. Those extreme can be discarded, and we should see the bell curve. No one can bust out their Atari 2600 and play, say, Star Fox Adventures, can they? No, because they have to 'upgrade' their systems to the Gamecube to do so. Cost is irrelevant, because there's a million ways you spend just as much money on a console to get the same experience as a PC. The only difference? Microsoft/Sega/Sony/whoeveriswritingthegame decided that they wanted to make some more money by first releasing the game on a propetiary platform, vs making slightly less money by making a game for an architecture. Plain and simple.
In other words: don't buy this card if you run Linux, is that what you're saying?
Most of the gaming world will put these nice beautiful cards in their Windows machine, and play with it there. Very few games come out for the unices, anyway, so most gaming talk is about Windows compatibility.
Re:Do we really need a hat? (Score:2) by ebyrob on Monday September 23, @04:44PM (#4314352) (User #165903 Info | http://slashdot.org/) They could even hire him as sysadmin
Funny that you mention that. Most actual mis-uses of sensitive information and computer networks come from current or past employees of the company compromised.
Funny thing is, most companies don't have anything to offer in the way of financial 'secrets' or documents of any worth that are on a network.
This isn't nearly as true as it used to be, even for the government.
What I meant by that was that often times, employees will mistrust the network, and do things on a local machine rather than keeping backups updated regularly on the network. Having had experience working with a company within a larger company (a franchise that was umbilically connected, metaphorically speaking), Finance had to regularly update their files, but never kept any files on the network that they had to work with regularly, simply because of complaints of slow network and/or some downtime that caused a mistrust.
The thing about large companies, however, is momentum.. the bigger you are, the harder it is to stand on a dime with your policies and products.. mainly because you already have a production schema and 15 leagues of red tape to change one part of it.
At least, that's how I've seen it. Small businesses are MUCH more flexible.
And, yes, I would agree that almost all misuses of company resources are usually done by former employees. Heck, I still have an admin e-mail account at a company I haven't worked for for 3 years, simply because they have transitioned through three different kinds of databases and the original one used child accounts, and one of the merges cut off children accounts... so the account is on the mail server, spawned by a process long ago, but the account software has no idea it exists. And no new accounts can be added to that software.
It'd probably still let me log in to the old system, and allow me to do things on the old account database, but they wouldn't propogate those changes, as that system is no longer in use. . . It's a minor thing, but an example of how company mergers can impact security, too, I suppose.
I agree with you on a lot of your points. A lot of the legislation these days are defined by people who just don't understand the culture that is bound up within what is now the internet. It has changed a lot over a very few short years, but the same people still run our Media, Governments and Companies. I capitalise because they're usually the ruling bodies of just about everything. What? No 'Public'? That's simply because the general public doesn't run things. They are fed FUD about what people who really know their way around a computer can do. What if that bad man gets ahold of my Microsoft Money portfolio?! What if he takes down my business!?
Most of it, of course, is smoke and mirrors. Examples, like 'another Kevin,' to stop people from doing those 'badbad' things. People fear things they don't understand, and one of the things Companies will never understand is advice for Free. They have to pay consultants to do all that, consultants with Degrees and Certifications. Advice from someone off the street will just be shoved to the legal department to see if they can't shut him up, or put him away.
Funny thing is, most companies don't have anything to offer in the way of financial 'secrets' or documents of any worth that are on a network. Most of them are stored on local PCs, and that would take a whole new world of work. First you'd have to get in, and identify a local computer with the up-to-date information, and then crack it. There would be weeks, almost, working on just this.
And if someone hasn't noticed something by then, this Black Hat has found the honeypot of all honeypots. One he can visit freely, openly, and just walk in and out like he owns the place.
They could even hire him as sysadmin to monitor their own stuff. But not many places are flexible enough for that kind of thinking.
Gee, how are we going to police something that large? Are we only applying these rules to USA-borne servers and networks? What about networks that span international waters? I mean, there is only so much they can do. The government should worry about -its- network. If the government is that worried about there being instructions for mass terrorism or conversations between terrorists, then they should try and keep it at just an information level.. Secure the places where they can attack, and don't impinge on international, and almost other-worldly, rights.
I say other-worldly because the Internet is not bound by the traditional geographic laws. This nation may/seem/ omnipresent in the net, but there are quite a bit of Canadians, Europeans.. you name it, they're all coming online, and they're all going to be out of the jurisdiction of this here United States of 'Merka. (that's Texan for 'America'. Look! I speak George Bush!).
Trying to regulate the internet is like trying to catch a fish with a bubble wand.
Well, alright, so I stretched the truth a bit. More or less, they have been made as a piece of particle that is one of the more leading ideas on certain anomolies within experiments. After all, someone had to come up with a reason why things happened different in some places.
How often do they think someone is going to buy a high end processor? You buy it, and they come out with another one a month later.
There's no need for 400Mhz more when you've already got, uh, 1.6Ghz more than recommended.
And as far as the 'lazy programming' blame.. Programs are -doing- a lot more than they used to, as well. More processing, more threading, more UI nifties.
Oh? I classify anything that can be observed and reported, on more than one occasion, more than proven to exist.
Relativity is also about perceptions of speed. If you were nearing the speed of light, and a tachyon was to pass you in a measurable way, the tachyon would not be going at the speed of light, relative to you. Note that we always say speed, and not velocity. Speed is a scalar quality and is thusly bound by the rules of observation and direction. I discount Einstein's general rules of special relativity as a means to an end. For a long time, Newtonian physics was the only way to explain how things moved. Now, we have Newtonian and Einsteinian. My comment is simply meant to push the notion that we limit ourselves too much when it comes to Physics, and too many people have taken a theory (since we have never, and may not ever, truly proved it to be accurate). I'm much more of a quantum theorist when it comes to Physics, and relativity is an annoyance.
There is more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophies.
I'm almost certain that as we develop the technology to reach these speeds, we'll find anomolous activity that wavers away from Special Relativity. Just as the Newtonian physicists found with large vectors approaching the speed of light.
uhm. . . tachyons -- a proven subparticle -- break the speed of light all the time. And we have created things to make said tachyons, and to monitor them as they travel . . . Besides, it would have to be proven that it would help further humanity in some significant way to garnish a Nobel.
I'd have to disagree. Moore's law wasn't specific to transistors, but using transistors as a physical evidence was easier then.
Moore's Law/morz law/ prov. The observation that the logic density of silicon integrated circuits has closely followed the curve (bits per square inch) = 2^(t - 1962) where t is time in years; that is, the amount of information storable on a given amount of silicon has roughly doubled every year since the technology was invented. This relation, first uttered in 1964 by semiconductor engineer Gordon Moore (who co-founded Intel four years later) held until the late 1970s, at which point the doubling period slowed to 18 months. The doubling period remained at that value through time of writing (late 1999). Moore's Law is apparently self-fulfilling. The implication is that somebody, somewhere is going to be able to build a better chip than you if you rest on your laurels, so you'd better start pushing hard on the problem. See also Parkinson's Law of Data and Gates's Law.
From this, one can see it's the logic density that's important, the actual ability for information to be passed through. If we find a way to do it 16 ways through a single transistor, is that not 16 times more efficient (and therefore 16 times more data that can be 'stored' for use) on a die?
The more we come up with ways with cryptology, inevitably we will come up with better cryptanalysis. Quantum computers will just introduce a need for more complex algorithms.. and not only that, but just because there's a quantum computer, that doesn't mean that current encryption protocols are laid bare like a prom-night virgin. Some of them will still perservere, if they're complex enough, past the advent of these machines.
And nothing will ever beat the age-old crypto of arranged signals.
A thought just came to mind. Why not use something like Novell, with distributed databasing where there are burst synchs between the servers. If ever a server is detected to have somehow.. changed its settings without any approval from one of the distributed master servers, it could be easily overwritten. Granted, this would be quite a large network, and synchronicity traffic would take forever, but it was one of those sudden thoughts.
if the CD can somehow be read for information, what makes them think it won't somehow just have that readable information copied over?
Really, a good idea would be to have a compressionable algorithm storing all the data so that without the key on it, the data is compressed to the point where it's useless to try anything with it. And then it's also encrypted.
Or, hell, why not just give up the fight? People who want it will have it. It's just like BMWs, Porsches and Impala SSs. The people who really want to get ahold of things like that will be able to get ahold of them without any problem. No amount of car alarm will really deter them.
I'm just waiting for the day I'll be required to use biometrics to open my program. Iris scan, and then play Tribes 9.;)
...well, at least I'm glad I don't live in Canada. It would be a nightmare as a sysadmin to have to maintain the system that would log all that. A few SANs would be easily filled up in a week of browing in any major metropolitan area. Are they going to require the ISPs do blind logging, as in.. will ISPs that host ISPs have to log what that ISP goes through?
The man at the top will hate life.
Re:It Is About Your Tax Dollars
on
Mega-Geek March?
·
· Score: 1
Except that licensing for large business/government is very different than consumer-grade licenses. For instances, they can buy the entire visual studio sweet (.NET) for about $60 bucks.. which is only about.. uh . . what? 1000$ off the market price?
The problem with switching to something like open-source is that there is also a lack of support. either every place is going to have to restaff to support something like that, or there needs to be a centralized place they can call. If an institution like a school, for example, has a problem with a Mandrake Mail server, but they all run RedHat clients.. Linux is not as natively intelligent as far as GUI goes as Microsoft, in any stretch of the imagination. Yes, you can look at it and figure it out, but a lot of points still need to be ironed out so that conceptually anyone can sit down and figure out how to use the internet, or e-mail. that costs money, as well.
From what I read, it said exactly the opposite of what the synopsis of the article read as. The article points out that the companies that boomed off it have fallen back, but that Linux as an operating system in the server realm is readily gaining steam. The only place it has failed is in the desktop / home environment, and there's no surprise there. First off, Microsoft has a huge foothold anyways. Without a given reason to change, people won't mess with just what works. If there's no reason to fix anything.. why?
I would point out that this article seemed more a ploy to hype the 'table PC' as they are talking about at the very end. It seems more a job to go 'well, ya know, they haven't made it easy at all to have a home PC. We're gonna'. And maybe sow a bit more of the trepidation of switching to Linux for people who don't know the real differences.
There's no reason without good research to get the new thing. The only time the 'brand new thing' should be adopted is if you just finished compiling it.
Security is about making sure you have a firm footing, and how can you have a firm footing in a realm where you're unsure of what is exactly involved?
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, you also have a completely different social climate, with extremely different ideas of what is expected of someone, and with completely different reactions as to what to do when something 'wrong' happens to you.
er, yea, that's why he said in one of the many articles about this that he was just taking it home for his own personal collcetion .. riiight.
At any rate, unfounded? All I said was that he leaked the movie. He's admitted to that.
Huh.. no, all I said was that I felt it was wrong that he did it, and should be put away. That a guy's right to produce something privately should be held until he publicly releases it and that everything should be a matter of public retrieval. This had nothing to do with Linux, Microsoft or money.
Stealing, to me, is not depriving someone of a good that they own, but depriving someone of the ideal of safety. In Intellectual Thought Property, this becomes really ephemeral, because there's no hard lines on what is and isn't a product.
As far as I stand, the movie isn't in totality until its release, and then it's a viable product of ownership that he (in using LucasArts as an entity) allows others the limited viewing privileges based on a monetary compensation form. Now, to steal it before it's completed is, imho, a bad thing not only because of possible poor quality, but because the artist/visionary/programmer/whatever you want to call him just isn't done doing it..
I agree, the 450k seems like a puffed up number, but he did steal more than just that movie. They were saying materials and other associated things within the project. Who knows, might've been computer equipment and digital editing software with high licensing value. He knowingly did it, and should at the least lose his job.
No, I don't. I make a valid distinction between public release and private development. Much like someone working on a program at work, I believe that they should have time to work on it to its fruition before it's torn to pieces. Same with a movie, or a book, or music. The person(s) doing it should be able to work up to the point they wish to release it, and then it can be done with whatever. I don't believe a work of art (as a movie is technically meant to be, not as a work of merchandise as it has become) should be held to the sacred trust of 'those who pay money' ... after all, tons of people see it for free if they're with the press...
Who cares how much hype there is, illegal is illegal. He stole what would be a viable product being engineered (and not finished) by a company. Outside of breaking contract, and just poor ethical judgement, he also just plain stole material before it was released.
...
I have no beef with after its release. People are going to see a movie for the effect whether they get a pirated version or not, in almost every case I know of (as far as) movie piracy.
We don't need no water
Know what really pisses me off? More than anything. Microsoft bought Bungie just so they could pull the XBoX launch off better. Do you know how many people wouldn't've bought the XboX had Halo been available for the PC? A whole crapload, that's right. So they find a game that the internet is clamoring for, drop a blank cheque (practically) at the Creators of Pimps-at-Sea's steps and say, "Ours. Only available on Our Platform."
I have to disagree with you. A lot of people are dismissing this as a 'PC vs Console' issue. You had to buy the TV, right? And people are speaking of huge speakers, and that requires a receiver. . And .. what? You can't play Super Mario 3 on the new Gamecube? Oh, right, they changed the software format.. My, I can still start up my game of Quake on CD ..
You still have to shell out the cash, it doesn't matter which way the gaming society goes. You have to spend a lot of money to get what you want. And you will continually have to upgrade your system, whether you choose to see it or not is another question. The costs are relatively the same EXCEPT for people who are on the VERY high end of PC gaming / graphics design. These people are running with a couple of thousand dollars worth of video card in their PCs and a few hundred in monitor. Those extreme can be discarded, and we should see the bell curve. No one can bust out their Atari 2600 and play, say, Star Fox Adventures, can they? No, because they have to 'upgrade' their systems to the Gamecube to do so. Cost is irrelevant, because there's a million ways you spend just as much money on a console to get the same experience as a PC. The only difference? Microsoft/Sega/Sony/whoeveriswritingthegame decided that they wanted to make some more money by first releasing the game on a propetiary platform, vs making slightly less money by making a game for an architecture. Plain and simple.
In other words: don't buy this card if you run Linux, is that what you're saying?
Most of the gaming world will put these nice beautiful cards in their Windows machine, and play with it there. Very few games come out for the unices, anyway, so most gaming talk is about Windows compatibility.
Re:Do we really need a hat? (Score:2)
.. the bigger you are, the harder it is to stand on a dime with your policies and products.. mainly because you already have a production schema and 15 leagues of red tape to change one part of it.
by ebyrob on Monday September 23, @04:44PM (#4314352)
(User #165903 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
They could even hire him as sysadmin
Funny that you mention that. Most actual mis-uses of sensitive information and computer networks come from current or past employees of the company compromised.
Funny thing is, most companies don't have anything to offer in the way of financial 'secrets' or documents of any worth that are on a network.
This isn't nearly as true as it used to be, even for the government.
What I meant by that was that often times, employees will mistrust the network, and do things on a local machine rather than keeping backups updated regularly on the network. Having had experience working with a company within a larger company (a franchise that was umbilically connected, metaphorically speaking), Finance had to regularly update their files, but never kept any files on the network that they had to work with regularly, simply because of complaints of slow network and/or some downtime that caused a mistrust.
The thing about large companies, however, is momentum
At least, that's how I've seen it. Small businesses are MUCH more flexible.
And, yes, I would agree that almost all misuses of company resources are usually done by former employees. Heck, I still have an admin e-mail account at a company I haven't worked for for 3 years, simply because they have transitioned through three different kinds of databases and the original one used child accounts, and one of the merges cut off children accounts... so the account is on the mail server, spawned by a process long ago, but the account software has no idea it exists. And no new accounts can be added to that software.
It'd probably still let me log in to the old system, and allow me to do things on the old account database, but they wouldn't propogate those changes, as that system is no longer in use. . . It's a minor thing, but an example of how company mergers can impact security, too, I suppose.
I digressed a lot, there.
I agree with you on a lot of your points. A lot of the legislation these days are defined by people who just don't understand the culture that is bound up within what is now the internet. It has changed a lot over a very few short years, but the same people still run our Media, Governments and Companies. I capitalise because they're usually the ruling bodies of just about everything. What? No 'Public'? That's simply because the general public doesn't run things. They are fed FUD about what people who really know their way around a computer can do. What if that bad man gets ahold of my Microsoft Money portfolio?! What if he takes down my business!?
Most of it, of course, is smoke and mirrors. Examples, like 'another Kevin,' to stop people from doing those 'badbad' things. People fear things they don't understand, and one of the things Companies will never understand is advice for Free. They have to pay consultants to do all that, consultants with Degrees and Certifications.
Advice from someone off the street will just be shoved to the legal department to see if they can't shut him up, or put him away.
Funny thing is, most companies don't have anything to offer in the way of financial 'secrets' or documents of any worth that are on a network. Most of them are stored on local PCs, and that would take a whole new world of work. First you'd have to get in, and identify a local computer with the up-to-date information, and then crack it. There would be weeks, almost, working on just this.
And if someone hasn't noticed something by then, this Black Hat has found the honeypot of all honeypots. One he can visit freely, openly, and just walk in and out like he owns the place.
They could even hire him as sysadmin to monitor their own stuff. But not many places are flexible enough for that kind of thinking.
Gee, how are we going to police something that large? Are we only applying these rules to USA-borne servers and networks? What about networks that span international waters? I mean, there is only so much they can do. The government should worry about -its- network. If the government is that worried about there being instructions for mass terrorism or conversations between terrorists, then they should try and keep it at just an information level.. Secure the places where they can attack, and don't impinge on international, and almost other-worldly, rights.
/seem/ omnipresent in the net, but there are quite a bit of Canadians, Europeans.. you name it, they're all coming online, and they're all going to be out of the jurisdiction of this here United States of 'Merka. (that's Texan for 'America'. Look! I speak George Bush!).
I say other-worldly because the Internet is not bound by the traditional geographic laws. This nation may
Trying to regulate the internet is like trying to catch a fish with a bubble wand.
Yeah. It's not going to work.
Well, alright, so I stretched the truth a bit. More or less, they have been made as a piece of particle that is one of the more leading ideas on certain anomolies within experiments. After all, someone had to come up with a reason why things happened different in some places.
How often do they think someone is going to buy a high end processor? You buy it, and they come out with another one a month later.
There's no need for 400Mhz more when you've already got, uh, 1.6Ghz more than recommended.
And as far as the 'lazy programming' blame.. Programs are -doing- a lot more than they used to, as well. More processing, more threading, more UI nifties.
Oh? I classify anything that can be observed and reported, on more than one occasion, more than proven to exist.
Relativity is also about perceptions of speed. If you were nearing the speed of light, and a tachyon was to pass you in a measurable way, the tachyon would not be going at the speed of light, relative to you. Note that we always say speed, and not velocity. Speed is a scalar quality and is thusly bound by the rules of observation and direction. I discount Einstein's general rules of special relativity as a means to an end. For a long time, Newtonian physics was the only way to explain how things moved. Now, we have Newtonian and Einsteinian. My comment is simply meant to push the notion that we limit ourselves too much when it comes to Physics, and too many people have taken a theory (since we have never, and may not ever, truly proved it to be accurate). I'm much more of a quantum theorist when it comes to Physics, and relativity is an annoyance.
There is more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophies.
I'm almost certain that as we develop the technology to reach these speeds, we'll find anomolous activity that wavers away from Special Relativity. Just as the Newtonian physicists found with large vectors approaching the speed of light.
uhm. . . tachyons -- a proven subparticle -- break the speed of light all the time. And we have created things to make said tachyons, and to monitor them as they travel . . . Besides, it would have to be proven that it would help further humanity in some significant way to garnish a Nobel.
I'd have to disagree. Moore's law wasn't specific to transistors, but using transistors as a physical evidence was easier then.
/morz law/ prov. The observation that the logic density of silicon integrated circuits has closely followed the curve (bits per square inch) = 2^(t - 1962) where t is time in years; that is, the amount of information storable on a given amount of silicon has roughly doubled every year since the technology was invented. This relation, first uttered in 1964 by semiconductor engineer Gordon Moore (who co-founded Intel four years later) held until the late 1970s, at which point the doubling period slowed to 18 months. The doubling period remained at that value through time of writing (late 1999). Moore's Law is apparently self-fulfilling. The implication is that somebody, somewhere is going to be able to build a better chip than you if you rest on your laurels, so you'd better start pushing hard on the problem. See also Parkinson's Law of Data and Gates's Law.
Moore's Law
From this, one can see it's the logic density that's important, the actual ability for information to be passed through. If we find a way to do it 16 ways through a single transistor, is that not 16 times more efficient (and therefore 16 times more data that can be 'stored' for use) on a die?
The more we come up with ways with cryptology, inevitably we will come up with better cryptanalysis. Quantum computers will just introduce a need for more complex algorithms.. and not only that, but just because there's a quantum computer, that doesn't mean that current encryption protocols are laid bare like a prom-night virgin. Some of them will still perservere, if they're complex enough, past the advent of these machines.
And nothing will ever beat the age-old crypto of arranged signals.
A thought just came to mind. Why not use something like Novell, with distributed databasing where there are burst synchs between the servers. If ever a server is detected to have somehow .. changed its settings without any approval from one of the distributed master servers, it could be easily overwritten. Granted, this would be quite a large network, and synchronicity traffic would take forever, but it was one of those sudden thoughts.
if the CD can somehow be read for information, what makes them think it won't somehow just have that readable information copied over?
;)
Really, a good idea would be to have a compressionable algorithm storing all the data so that without the key on it, the data is compressed to the point where it's useless to try anything with it. And then it's also encrypted.
Or, hell, why not just give up the fight? People who want it will have it. It's just like BMWs, Porsches and Impala SSs. The people who really want to get ahold of things like that will be able to get ahold of them without any problem. No amount of car alarm will really deter them.
I'm just waiting for the day I'll be required to use biometrics to open my program. Iris scan, and then play Tribes 9.
...well, at least I'm glad I don't live in Canada. It would be a nightmare as a sysadmin to have to maintain the system that would log all that. A few SANs would be easily filled up in a week of browing in any major metropolitan area. Are they going to require the ISPs do blind logging, as in.. will ISPs that host ISPs have to log what that ISP goes through?
The man at the top will hate life.
Except that licensing for large business/government is very different than consumer-grade licenses. For instances, they can buy the entire visual studio sweet (.NET) for about $60 bucks.. which is only about .. uh . . what? 1000$ off the market price?
The problem with switching to something like open-source is that there is also a lack of support. either every place is going to have to restaff to support something like that, or there needs to be a centralized place they can call. If an institution like a school, for example, has a problem with a Mandrake Mail server, but they all run RedHat clients.. Linux is not as natively intelligent as far as GUI goes as Microsoft, in any stretch of the imagination. Yes, you can look at it and figure it out, but a lot of points still need to be ironed out so that conceptually anyone can sit down and figure out how to use the internet, or e-mail. that costs money, as well.
From what I read, it said exactly the opposite of what the synopsis of the article read as. The article points out that the companies that boomed off it have fallen back, but that Linux as an operating system in the server realm is readily gaining steam. The only place it has failed is in the desktop / home environment, and there's no surprise there. First off, Microsoft has a huge foothold anyways. Without a given reason to change, people won't mess with just what works. If there's no reason to fix anything .. why?
I would point out that this article seemed more a ploy to hype the 'table PC' as they are talking about at the very end. It seems more a job to go 'well, ya know, they haven't made it easy at all to have a home PC. We're gonna'. And maybe sow a bit more of the trepidation of switching to Linux for people who don't know the real differences.
Thanks. That's pretty much what I meant.
Duh.
There's no reason without good research to get the new thing. The only time the 'brand new thing' should be adopted is if you just finished compiling it.
Security is about making sure you have a firm footing, and how can you have a firm footing in a realm where you're unsure of what is exactly involved?