We're not here to supplant anybody else's operating systems or tools in the university
Then why are you giving away source code? Isn't it that you want students to learn, and become hooked on, MS products? Isn't this just another attempt to extend the MS monopoly on operating systems? Do you really expect that college students will believe that Microsoft, the company that has exploited the American consumer and been found guilty of felonies, has suddenly become altruistic?
What strikes me about Microsoft is that they really have no clue! Giving away source code is not going to curry favor with college students who are given to idealism. They can see through the hype. They would rather contribute to society at large than become pawns of Corporate America.
Wake up Microsoft! No one with a conscience wants to help you extend your monopoly - we in IT are tired of seeing our ideas and talents used to bully ordinary people into spending inordinate amounts of money for inferior products. We want to work for positive change in society, and you aren't it...
If I found that someone had installed unauthorized spyware on my machine and broke my anti-spyware, I would be suing not just the individual who installed it on my machine in the first place, but also the company that makes the spyware.
I don't see how these companies expect not to get sued. By technical definition, spyware is a virus. Not only is "unauthorized alteration of a computer system" illegal, but if I had copyrighted material on my machine, the spyware could be considered an unlawful circumvention device under the DMCA.
The folks who write spyware are no better than hackers and virus writers - for that is what they are, and they should be treated accordingly. How long will it be until these tools are used for corporate espionage, and the companies that make them be raided by the FBI?
Kind of makes you want to install spyware on the computers at the MPAA... or Adobe, for that matter.
I must say that they are the sleaziest company I have ever dealt with. I don't think I'd have any problem finding a used car salesman with higher ethical standards than Verisign.
This is little different from those students in my CS classes who would copy code from each other and use a global search and replace to change the variable names...
When it comes down to it, this is a really sticky question. There are certain algorithms which can only be done efficiently in one way. If I code a linked list in C++, and the optimizing compiler boils it down into the same object code as Microsoft's linked list class, do I owe Microsoft royalties? The source code is different, but it is very possible that the object code would be identical. If object code can be copyrighted, then this would place many open source projects in jeopardy, as they frequently borrow algorithms from the proprietary UNIXes.
I think a better approach for your company would be to have an analyst read through and analyze the GPL code, and then create something new based on the knowledge gained. Copy the algorithms, but not the code. This "black box" approach would take only marginally longer, and there would be no possibility that all of your code could be forced into open source status. Since the design is already proven with this approach, the only thing you would have left to do is the coding and testing (which should be about 8% of the total project cost.)
Is your software Complete? If it doesn't come with the source code, it's Incomplete Software.
Next time they call, ask them about Complete Software. If it doesn't come with the source code, it's incomplete, and your company has no intention of paying full price for only part of the software.
We really should take MS to task over not providing the source code to their products - after all, when IBM first started shipping software for their mainframes, the source code came with it so that the user could customize it to their needs. Where does MS get off thinking it should be any different?
maybe people will associate GPL and free software with distributing warez, mp3s, videos, etc... all these illegal things that Morpheus (and gnutella) let you do.
I think the problem is that too many people associate the free software movement with slackers and "hackers" - those who want to leech off the rest of society. Though I distribute software for free (see my website), I don't call it "Free Software" because I don't want to be associated with that side of the free software movement writing slaveware.
Slaveware is software which takes away another's right to a safe and enjoyable computing experience. Slaveware denies another man of his rights. Tools specifically built to crack systems and software are slaveware - regardless of whether or not they are released under the GPL. It seems that what the free software movement fails to emphasize is that free software is about empowerment and liberty - not stealing someone else's copyrighted material. The free software movement is literally being tarred and feathered by the likes of Morpheus and Napster (though it really wasn't free software) because they are giving away for free software that denies other people their rights. It is simply inexcusable for the authors of this software to claim that it was not designed for copyright infringement when they make no design effort to ensure that copyright is enforced. Something as simple as emailing the content creator when a file is shared would be sufficient. (I know, I know, but please resist the urge to flame about privacy and network load... But at least it would hold people accountable for what they do.)
Free software needs another moniker - like, say, Complete Software. Complete Software comes with source code. If it doesn't come with source code, it's not complete. You wouldn't want to buy something incomplete, would you?
You see, a simple name change, and the implications change. "Free" tends to imply that something has no value, or is only used by slackers/hackers (the public makes little distinction between the two). "Complete" tends to imply that there's something missing from other kinds of software - which is the truth that we want to convey to the general public. We want the general public to expect - no, demand more from software vendors.
Rather than arguing for the adoption of free software, we should be questioning why we aren't getting Complete Software. Why doesn't the vendor provide the source code? Are they ashamed of it? Are they afraid that we, the user, will find bugs in it? Incidentally, the original software manufacturing company, IBM, started out by distributing the source code with its software - a point you might want to bring up when you're on the hot seat defending Linux....
I agree with you. However, even hardware copy-control cannot defeat an emulator. For example, I am in the process of writing a mainframe emulator. The PC hardware on which it runs has no idea what kind of instructions the emulator is executing, or what it is doing. I could write an MPEG decoder in S/390(mainframe) assembler, run it on this emulator, and watch movies on a copy-controlled PC without the hardware even knowing what is going on.
At this point, it's a bit of a stretch, because it requires quite a bit of processing power to decode movies. But if Moore's law holds, it won't be long before an MPEG decoder can be written in java - thus defeating any hardware level copy protection.
Remember the Commodore 64? What about the NES? Yes, you can still play your old pirated games on PC's with the emulators available now. While I don't like the prospect of copy-controlled hardware (because I'm an OS programmer), I realize that even these measures won't prevent pirates from writing an emulator and watching illegal movies anyway.
Remember the Matrix? The time may come when the best software is passed hand-to-hand through a layer of underground and black market sources...
Is that Internet distribution of movies could substantially increase their profit margins.
A good DRM format is not very difficult to implement. Rather than data, make movies into executable files, ones which require communication with a central server to play. For added security, the executable could delete itself upon the end of the movie, or after a certain time period.
Now granted, someone's going to crack this. But the beauty of this approach will be revealed when this happens - once the file format is cracked, the authors need do little more than rearrange the format, and the crackers are back to square one. Because the movie format is executable, the programmers don't have to worry about "breaking" compatibility with existing players - they are free to implement a wide range of encryption schemes, further thwarting pirates.
Granted, this won't stop those who walk into a movie with a camcorder, but then again, that kind of piracy would still exist with or without PC's and the Internet.
A better idea would be to have two stacks - one for parameter data, and another for executable data. This way, an overflow in a variable couldn't overwrite executable code.
However, if that person who downloads music for free would have bought the CD had it not been available for download, then yes, the artist has lost something.
I don't like the infringement of fair use rights that the media companies are trying to force on us. However, I realize that unless people look at this as a moral issue and stop giving away someone else's work, the media corporations will do whatever it takes to prevent theft.
Theft is not copying music that you already own. If you ripped it from a CD, chances are good that the artist was compensated. You may not like the terms that the artist gets, but then again, you're not the artist, and you didn't sign the contract. The "moral" highground of not paying for CD's because you don't like the way companies rip off artists is not moral at all; in fact, you're contributing to the devaluation of the artists' career by refusing to pay for the music at all.
Theft is taking something that's not yours. Now the analogy about ideas does not apply here - an idea is something ethereal, spontaneous, and without significant form. Transforming that idea into music, movies, source code, or a book is work, and herein lies the crucial difference. Sure, I cannot own an idea - as soon as I divulge it to another, we both share the idea. However, you can reproduce that idea with no more effort than it takes to think. Reproducing music, or a book, is a little more difficult. I can't possibly remember all of the ideas represented in a book, so thus, I need a copy of the book as a reference when I forget. Same thing with music - I may learn a song, but I will never be able to sing as well as the original artist. This is what we pay for, folks. It is the effort that another went through to produce the music, the movie, the source code, or the book. It is not the idea.
Granted, in electronic form, the work can be reproduced for almost zero cost. However, this fact doesn't put food on the table for the artist or author. If you believe that you should be able to enjoy someone else's work without justly compensating them for it, then you are a thief. It is the right of the producer, not the consumer, to set price. If the artist or author wants to give away his work, that's their right. It is also their right to charge for their work. As a user of the Internet, you have a responsibility not to abuse the system; treat the work of others with the same respect you would expect yourself.
Given the fact that most companies don't want the possibility of anyone outside the company viewing their information, I don't think this will take off. I don't think that many businesses will be able to offload their processing, even if from a purely legal standpoint. What happens if Jim's payroll data is accidentally disclosed to Mary by a core dump? The legal implications of this alone would keep most businesses from using it. Consider also the following things:
Yes, it could render the special effects for the next LOTR movie in record time, but the MPAA would never endorse this, for fear of 'piracy concerns'
Biotech could make revolutionary advances, except that they run the risk of divulging a proprietary secret gene before it can be patented. A distributed network like this is practically begging for industrial espionage.
It's not likely that banks will use it, as an accidental disclosure, or worse, alteration of the data could result in the corruption of account information and costly litigation.
Yes, scientists could very well use a general-purpose, distributed network. But with all the concern about privacy and IP rights, I doubt that any largely profitable business would be able to utilize such a system.
The more I think about it, the more it seems that the United States is the only industrialized country which actively takes rights away from its own citizens.
It would seem that the U.S. is no longer the defender of the free world - for a country which values freedom so much, we are doing less than others to protect it. Why is it that Australia, the EU, and Russia (yes, our former enemy) are going to bat to defend the liberties of individual citizens while our government is actively taking them away?
receiving such a letter can cause both stress and monetary losses as the company attempts to chase down software-purchase information.
Which is a reason enough for most companies to switch vendors. Once this starts happening on a widespread basis, open source software will be a much easier sell to business.
Trust me, if the BSA contacted my company on behalf of a software vendor, that vendor would lose his account with my company. Though I do as much as I can to ensure license compliance, I will not do business with a company that has an adversarial attitude toward me. If a vendor believes that I am running unlicensed or underlicensed copies of software, it would be better for them to ask if they can perform an audit at their own expense rather than sending the BSA after me.
On a lighter note, it is the mere existence of the BSA which encourages me to use and recommend open source software as much as possible. I believe the BSA is hurting vendors more than helping them.
Gates could literally turn out to be the most significant philanthropist in the history of the world. They're giving so much money that you can almost see a chunk of what you spend on MS going to a good cause.
Who said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything - all she had to live on."?
What people fail to realize is that Bill Gates' money was obtained through immoral and oppressive means. One might as well count the drug lords in South America as philanthropists as well.
The fact that Bill Gates is giving away money doesn't make him generous. Were he a benevolent individual, he wouldn't have drummed Microsoft's competitors out of business, or artificially raised the price of Microsoft software. Do you really believe that the man who claimed that church was a waste of time is giving money for purely altruistic reasons? Isn't it more likely that he's doing these things to make he and Microsoft look good?
In case you didn't know, the second quote is from Jesus Christ (Mark 12:43).
In allowing a program to be either "safe" or "unsafe", C# is little different from any other programming language - the best and highest performing code will be written in "unsafe" mode.
Which leaves the users in the same position as they were before with signed/unsigned ActiveX controls; do they dare download and run an unsigned/unsafe program? Or do they give up web page features for the sake of running "safe" code?
Java was a step in the right direction. C# may be promoted by Microsoft heavily, but the prospect of "unsafe" code is only going to send up red flags with the average users. The average desktop user doesn't want to have to worry about safe/unsafe code - they just want to be able to browse the web safely - which is what Java already provides. Sorry, Microsoft, but Java already does better what C# was intended to do.
Sounds great, but what happens when someone writes a virus for these things and you repeatedly get infected when you pass through a croweded public area?
Even UNIX servers aren't immune to worms....
Chances are good that Your Favorite Software Company (MS) would write an OS for these, and virii would be spreading even worse than they do now...
The big issue is an increasing antipathy to Microsoft's licensing and upgrade practices
Finally, someone in the press admitted that Microsoft's licensing practices make a difference. It seems that as Microsoft has gotten increasingly draconian with their licensing schemes, corporations have began to look beyond Microsoft to open source software. Once corporate America has a taste of open source, they'll never go back to proprietary software. If this trend continues, there will come a time when a VP suggesting that the company buy an OS will get laughed out of the boardroom. Which, of course, can only be good for all of us.
IBM has successfully run over 40,000 Linux images on a mainframe (under VM). Try that on your 1.5Ghz desktop. Ever heard of Transactions Per Second (TPS) in four and five figures, I/O rates in GB/sec, multi-terabyte databases, 99.999% uptime for years?
But they haven't done it in a production
environment.
That's mainframe territory, and I sincerely doubt that you've ever seen it, or ever will.
I, for one, would like to see this territory. Five nines of uptime? I've never seen that on any of the mainframes I've worked on. Just because there's power to the system doesn't mean its available - try doing development work where every keystroke has a two minute response time. TPS in four or five figures? We'd be lucky to get double digits.
Honestly, I would like to believe that mainframes are this fast, but practical experience says just the opposite. I would be greatly obliged if you could point me to the IBM specs that bear out your MIPS figures - I haven't been able to find them, and the consensus among the professors at NIU (one of the last mainframe-based universities) seems to be that all 16 of the processors combined add up to 120 MIPS.
Which is why I like mainframe architecture better than PC architecture. Generally speaking, mainframe architecture is more efficient than PC architecture, but there comes a point at which the processor becomes the bottleneck to the whole system. We are having major response time issues in our shop because our current mainframe can't handle the load of 180 terminals. I know that most PC servers would have little trouble handling loads like this. Where's the problem?
It's not memory - we've got half a gig.
It's not IO - a mainframe has 16 channels, as opposed to one (ethernet) on the PC.
It's not the size of data transfer(no graphics, just text).
Which leaves us with a CPU bottleneck.
The problem is that the CPU's simply can't handle the processing load. There comes a point in time in which an efficient architecture can only do so much, and our shop has reached that point. Currently, we have jobs that we can't run because of the load they place on the system. Our operations are greatly constrained by the speed our 60 MIPS, 500,000 dollar machine. For half a million dollars, we could have a rack full of servers, almost no latency, and the freedom to run jobs on demand, rather than off peak hours.
To be honest, it's a shame that IBM hasn't kept pace with current technology. Mainframes are very well organized internally, and a good example of how a machine architecture should be designed. But I feel kind of betrayed by IBM in that the cost of a mainframe is not commeasurate with its computing power - and corporate America is starting to notice...
I work on an OS/390 (now the z series) mainframe, and I can say Linux would be a welcome replacement for the ESA/VSE architectures that we are using now.
But IBM still hasn't addressed the central problem with mainframes: In spite of the fact that they can run 16 processors, mainframes are still abysmally slow machines. The average 16 processor mainframe is a 120 MIPS machine, whereas the average 1.5 GHz desktop system is a 3000 MIPS machine. I like the mainframe architecture, but if IBM doesn't do something about the processor speed shortfall soon, mainframes will go the way of the dinosaur. It is becoming increasingly difficult for businesses to justify spending $500,000 for machines that are slower than PC's costing 1/100th of the price.
Granted, the mainframe has a good architecture. But why should my company spend $400,000 for a Linux mainframe, when we could run Linux faster on a $2,000 PC server?
has been the removal of responsibility from the mindset of its users. Because the web so easily offers "anonymity" (even though it's not real anonymity - anyone can find your IP @), people are more willing to do things that they would otherwise never think of doing - lie, cheat, steal, etc...
The problem is that this mindset remains when people log off. Remember McDonalds getting sued for serving hot coffee? This kind of thing will only get worse in the future when the children who were raised by the web (the 'Net generation, anyone?) enter adulthood with the expectation that they will never be personally responsible for their actions.
Copyrighted my name, address, and other personal data, and sued everyone who maintained my personal data without my permission for copyright infringement?
Just a thought...
But seriously, though, if information is property, how long will it be before everyday citizens claim their personal information as IP? How long will it be before we get a right to privacy? How much of Big Brother and Big Corp invading our lives does it take?
Granted, its not MS problem if I don't patch - someone should know better than to run IIS, but they don't. But the fact is that I could use something like this:
to get an unsuspecting visitor of my site to launch an attack against a remote server. Granted, the average user wouldn't know what to do if it worked, but someone monitoring for hackers would be able to pick up their IP.
Although most website defacements and root exploits occur on the "outside" servers, some, if not the largest percentage of actual defacements occur because of the "unicode exploits" in Microsoft IIS 4.0/5.0 Servers. These exploits DO NOT undertake a sophisticated process in order to deface a website. A simple URL entered into the address line of the web browser of an unsuspecting netizen could in fact deface a website without the knowledge of the person doing the clicking.
This is perhaps one of the most insidious qualities of the 'net - a person can commit an illegal act (Unauthorized alteration of a computer system) without even knowing it, or intending to. Yes, I believe that most website defacements are intentional. But this only makes it worse for the person who accidentally mistypes a URL and ends up getting their computer seized, or worse, dragged into court.
Granted, you may not like Microsoft. You don't have to use their insecure products. But this is not enough - you could go to jail because of their negligent ignorance in security issues.
When cars became widespread, there was a legal push to make them safer. Soon, people started holding the car maker, rather than the driver, responsible for safety. Hopefully, the same thing will happen to Microsoft - people will hold them accountable for their (almost) criminal negligence when it comes to security.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why are you giving away source code? Isn't it that you want students to learn, and become hooked on, MS products? Isn't this just another attempt to extend the MS monopoly on operating systems? Do you really expect that college students will believe that Microsoft, the company that has exploited the American consumer and been found guilty of felonies, has suddenly become altruistic?
What strikes me about Microsoft is that they really have no clue! Giving away source code is not going to curry favor with college students who are given to idealism. They can see through the hype. They would rather contribute to society at large than become pawns of Corporate America.
Wake up Microsoft! No one with a conscience wants to help you extend your monopoly - we in IT are tired of seeing our ideas and talents used to bully ordinary people into spending inordinate amounts of money for inferior products. We want to work for positive change in society, and you aren't it...
I don't see how these companies expect not to get sued. By technical definition, spyware is a virus. Not only is "unauthorized alteration of a computer system" illegal, but if I had copyrighted material on my machine, the spyware could be considered an unlawful circumvention device under the DMCA.
The folks who write spyware are no better than hackers and virus writers - for that is what they are, and they should be treated accordingly. How long will it be until these tools are used for corporate espionage, and the companies that make them be raided by the FBI?
Kind of makes you want to install spyware on the computers at the MPAA... or Adobe, for that matter.
I must say that they are the sleaziest company I have ever dealt with. I don't think I'd have any problem finding a used car salesman with higher ethical standards than Verisign.
When it comes down to it, this is a really sticky question. There are certain algorithms which can only be done efficiently in one way. If I code a linked list in C++, and the optimizing compiler boils it down into the same object code as Microsoft's linked list class, do I owe Microsoft royalties? The source code is different, but it is very possible that the object code would be identical. If object code can be copyrighted, then this would place many open source projects in jeopardy, as they frequently borrow algorithms from the proprietary UNIXes.
I think a better approach for your company would be to have an analyst read through and analyze the GPL code, and then create something new based on the knowledge gained. Copy the algorithms, but not the code. This "black box" approach would take only marginally longer, and there would be no possibility that all of your code could be forced into open source status. Since the design is already proven with this approach, the only thing you would have left to do is the coding and testing (which should be about 8% of the total project cost.)
Is your software Complete? If it doesn't come with the source code, it's Incomplete Software .
We really should take MS to task over not providing the source code to their products - after all, when IBM first started shipping software for their mainframes, the source code came with it so that the user could customize it to their needs. Where does MS get off thinking it should be any different?
I think the problem is that too many people associate the free software movement with slackers and "hackers" - those who want to leech off the rest of society. Though I distribute software for free (see my website), I don't call it "Free Software" because I don't want to be associated with that side of the free software movement writing slaveware.
Slaveware is software which takes away another's right to a safe and enjoyable computing experience. Slaveware denies another man of his rights. Tools specifically built to crack systems and software are slaveware - regardless of whether or not they are released under the GPL. It seems that what the free software movement fails to emphasize is that free software is about empowerment and liberty - not stealing someone else's copyrighted material . The free software movement is literally being tarred and feathered by the likes of Morpheus and Napster (though it really wasn't free software) because they are giving away for free software that denies other people their rights. It is simply inexcusable for the authors of this software to claim that it was not designed for copyright infringement when they make no design effort to ensure that copyright is enforced. Something as simple as emailing the content creator when a file is shared would be sufficient. (I know, I know, but please resist the urge to flame about privacy and network load... But at least it would hold people accountable for what they do.)
Free software needs another moniker - like, say, Complete Software. Complete Software comes with source code. If it doesn't come with source code, it's not complete. You wouldn't want to buy something incomplete, would you?
You see, a simple name change, and the implications change. "Free" tends to imply that something has no value, or is only used by slackers/hackers (the public makes little distinction between the two). "Complete" tends to imply that there's something missing from other kinds of software - which is the truth that we want to convey to the general public. We want the general public to expect - no, demand more from software vendors.
Rather than arguing for the adoption of free software, we should be questioning why we aren't getting Complete Software. Why doesn't the vendor provide the source code? Are they ashamed of it? Are they afraid that we, the user, will find bugs in it? Incidentally, the original software manufacturing company, IBM, started out by distributing the source code with its software - a point you might want to bring up when you're on the hot seat defending Linux....
At this point, it's a bit of a stretch, because it requires quite a bit of processing power to decode movies. But if Moore's law holds, it won't be long before an MPEG decoder can be written in java - thus defeating any hardware level copy protection.
Remember the Commodore 64? What about the NES? Yes, you can still play your old pirated games on PC's with the emulators available now. While I don't like the prospect of copy-controlled hardware (because I'm an OS programmer), I realize that even these measures won't prevent pirates from writing an emulator and watching illegal movies anyway.
Remember the Matrix? The time may come when the best software is passed hand-to-hand through a layer of underground and black market sources...
A good DRM format is not very difficult to implement. Rather than data, make movies into executable files, ones which require communication with a central server to play. For added security, the executable could delete itself upon the end of the movie, or after a certain time period.
Now granted, someone's going to crack this. But the beauty of this approach will be revealed when this happens - once the file format is cracked, the authors need do little more than rearrange the format, and the crackers are back to square one. Because the movie format is executable, the programmers don't have to worry about "breaking" compatibility with existing players - they are free to implement a wide range of encryption schemes, further thwarting pirates.
Granted, this won't stop those who walk into a movie with a camcorder, but then again, that kind of piracy would still exist with or without PC's and the Internet.
A better idea would be to have two stacks - one for parameter data, and another for executable data. This way, an overflow in a variable couldn't overwrite executable code.
I don't like the infringement of fair use rights that the media companies are trying to force on us. However, I realize that unless people look at this as a moral issue and stop giving away someone else's work, the media corporations will do whatever it takes to prevent theft.
Theft is not copying music that you already own. If you ripped it from a CD, chances are good that the artist was compensated. You may not like the terms that the artist gets, but then again, you're not the artist, and you didn't sign the contract. The "moral" highground of not paying for CD's because you don't like the way companies rip off artists is not moral at all; in fact, you're contributing to the devaluation of the artists' career by refusing to pay for the music at all.
Theft is taking something that's not yours. Now the analogy about ideas does not apply here - an idea is something ethereal, spontaneous, and without significant form. Transforming that idea into music, movies, source code, or a book is work, and herein lies the crucial difference. Sure, I cannot own an idea - as soon as I divulge it to another, we both share the idea. However, you can reproduce that idea with no more effort than it takes to think. Reproducing music, or a book, is a little more difficult. I can't possibly remember all of the ideas represented in a book, so thus, I need a copy of the book as a reference when I forget. Same thing with music - I may learn a song, but I will never be able to sing as well as the original artist. This is what we pay for, folks. It is the effort that another went through to produce the music, the movie, the source code, or the book. It is not the idea .
Granted, in electronic form, the work can be reproduced for almost zero cost. However, this fact doesn't put food on the table for the artist or author. If you believe that you should be able to enjoy someone else's work without justly compensating them for it, then you are a thief. It is the right of the producer, not the consumer, to set price. If the artist or author wants to give away his work, that's their right. It is also their right to charge for their work. As a user of the Internet, you have a responsibility not to abuse the system; treat the work of others with the same respect you would expect yourself.
- Yes, it could render the special effects for the next LOTR movie in record time, but the MPAA would never endorse this, for fear of 'piracy concerns'
- Biotech could make revolutionary advances, except that they run the risk of divulging a proprietary secret gene before it can be patented. A distributed network like this is practically begging for industrial espionage.
- It's not likely that banks will use it, as an accidental disclosure, or worse, alteration of the data could result in the corruption of account information and costly litigation.
Yes, scientists could very well use a general-purpose, distributed network. But with all the concern about privacy and IP rights, I doubt that any largely profitable business would be able to utilize such a system.It would seem that the U.S. is no longer the defender of the free world - for a country which values freedom so much, we are doing less than others to protect it. Why is it that Australia, the EU, and Russia (yes, our former enemy) are going to bat to defend the liberties of individual citizens while our government is actively taking them away?
I used to be proud to be an American.
Which is a reason enough for most companies to switch vendors. Once this starts happening on a widespread basis, open source software will be a much easier sell to business.
Trust me, if the BSA contacted my company on behalf of a software vendor, that vendor would lose his account with my company. Though I do as much as I can to ensure license compliance, I will not do business with a company that has an adversarial attitude toward me. If a vendor believes that I am running unlicensed or underlicensed copies of software, it would be better for them to ask if they can perform an audit at their own expense rather than sending the BSA after me.
On a lighter note, it is the mere existence of the BSA which encourages me to use and recommend open source software as much as possible. I believe the BSA is hurting vendors more than helping them.
Who said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything - all she had to live on."?
What people fail to realize is that Bill Gates' money was obtained through immoral and oppressive means. One might as well count the drug lords in South America as philanthropists as well.
The fact that Bill Gates is giving away money doesn't make him generous. Were he a benevolent individual, he wouldn't have drummed Microsoft's competitors out of business, or artificially raised the price of Microsoft software. Do you really believe that the man who claimed that church was a waste of time is giving money for purely altruistic reasons? Isn't it more likely that he's doing these things to make he and Microsoft look good?
In case you didn't know, the second quote is from Jesus Christ (Mark 12:43).
Java was a step in the right direction. C# may be promoted by Microsoft heavily, but the prospect of "unsafe" code is only going to send up red flags with the average users. The average desktop user doesn't want to have to worry about safe/unsafe code - they just want to be able to browse the web safely - which is what Java already provides. Sorry, Microsoft, but Java already does better what C# was intended to do.
Even UNIX servers aren't immune to worms.... Chances are good that Your Favorite Software Company (MS) would write an OS for these, and virii would be spreading even worse than they do now...
It's a one terabyte disk array for under $5k. This should get you started.
The big issue is an increasing antipathy to Microsoft's licensing and upgrade practices
Finally, someone in the press admitted that Microsoft's licensing practices make a difference. It seems that as Microsoft has gotten increasingly draconian with their licensing schemes, corporations have began to look beyond Microsoft to open source software. Once corporate America has a taste of open source, they'll never go back to proprietary software. If this trend continues, there will come a time when a VP suggesting that the company buy an OS will get laughed out of the boardroom. Which, of course, can only be good for all of us.
IBM has successfully run over 40,000 Linux images on a mainframe (under VM). Try that on your 1.5Ghz desktop. Ever heard of Transactions Per Second (TPS) in four and five figures, I/O rates in GB/sec, multi-terabyte databases, 99.999% uptime for years?
But they haven't done it in a production environment.
That's mainframe territory, and I sincerely doubt that you've ever seen it, or ever will.
I, for one, would like to see this territory. Five nines of uptime? I've never seen that on any of the mainframes I've worked on. Just because there's power to the system doesn't mean its available - try doing development work where every keystroke has a two minute response time. TPS in four or five figures? We'd be lucky to get double digits.
Honestly, I would like to believe that mainframes are this fast, but practical experience says just the opposite. I would be greatly obliged if you could point me to the IBM specs that bear out your MIPS figures - I haven't been able to find them, and the consensus among the professors at NIU (one of the last mainframe-based universities) seems to be that all 16 of the processors combined add up to 120 MIPS.
- It's not memory - we've got half a gig.
- It's not IO - a mainframe has 16 channels, as opposed to one (ethernet) on the PC.
- It's not the size of data transfer(no graphics, just text).
Which leaves us with a CPU bottleneck. The problem is that the CPU's simply can't handle the processing load. There comes a point in time in which an efficient architecture can only do so much, and our shop has reached that point. Currently, we have jobs that we can't run because of the load they place on the system. Our operations are greatly constrained by the speed our 60 MIPS, 500,000 dollar machine. For half a million dollars, we could have a rack full of servers, almost no latency, and the freedom to run jobs on demand, rather than off peak hours.To be honest, it's a shame that IBM hasn't kept pace with current technology. Mainframes are very well organized internally, and a good example of how a machine architecture should be designed. But I feel kind of betrayed by IBM in that the cost of a mainframe is not commeasurate with its computing power - and corporate America is starting to notice...
But IBM still hasn't addressed the central problem with mainframes: In spite of the fact that they can run 16 processors, mainframes are still abysmally slow machines. The average 16 processor mainframe is a 120 MIPS machine, whereas the average 1.5 GHz desktop system is a 3000 MIPS machine. I like the mainframe architecture, but if IBM doesn't do something about the processor speed shortfall soon, mainframes will go the way of the dinosaur. It is becoming increasingly difficult for businesses to justify spending $500,000 for machines that are slower than PC's costing 1/100th of the price.
Granted, the mainframe has a good architecture. But why should my company spend $400,000 for a Linux mainframe, when we could run Linux faster on a $2,000 PC server?The problem is that this mindset remains when people log off. Remember McDonalds getting sued for serving hot coffee? This kind of thing will only get worse in the future when the children who were raised by the web (the 'Net generation, anyone?) enter adulthood with the expectation that they will never be personally responsible for their actions.
Just a thought...
But seriously, though, if information is property, how long will it be before everyday citizens claim their personal information as IP? How long will it be before we get a right to privacy? How much of Big Brother and Big Corp invading our lives does it take?Click here
to get an unsuspecting visitor of my site to launch an attack against a remote server. Granted, the average user wouldn't know what to do if it worked, but someone monitoring for hackers would be able to pick up their IP.This is perhaps one of the most insidious qualities of the 'net - a person can commit an illegal act (Unauthorized alteration of a computer system) without even knowing it, or intending to. Yes, I believe that most website defacements are intentional. But this only makes it worse for the person who accidentally mistypes a URL and ends up getting their computer seized, or worse, dragged into court.
Granted, you may not like Microsoft. You don't have to use their insecure products. But this is not enough - you could go to jail because of their negligent ignorance in security issues.
When cars became widespread, there was a legal push to make them safer. Soon, people started holding the car maker, rather than the driver, responsible for safety. Hopefully, the same thing will happen to Microsoft - people will hold them accountable for their (almost) criminal negligence when it comes to security.