Does anyone else get the impression that Microsoft has learnt something from the DoJ case? Namely, that driving their competitors out of business by using underhand tactics isn't such a good idea, and that it's easier (and probably cheaper, in the long run), to buy them.
STNC is a perfect example. This is a British company which is psrt of the Symbian Consortium which, of course, is supporting EPOC. STNC supplies browser technology to Symbian.
However, Microsoft has bought STNC, and it's not yet clear how long they'll continue supplying Symbian.
And it's not just software companies. Microsoft's investments in cable TV companies and the like are part of a strategy to force more widespread adoption of Microsoft software, thus extending their monopoly beyond the desktop.
I think that Microsoft should be broken up into a number of seperate companies, including some sort of investment fund, to cover it's investments in other companies. Otherwise, it's in danger of becoming unstoppable.
Oh, don't be such a naif. The only reason Red Hat, Corel, VA, LinuxCare and the rest exist, is because they want to make money!
Let's face it, Open Source has gone mainstream and it'll never be the same again... The community has passively stood by and allowed itself to be hijacked and taken advantage of by people who are only interested in making money.
Ultimately, companies like Red Hat are bad for the community, because they are taking the place that Linux experts would fill within companies who deploy Linux.
Instead of hiring a Linux hacker to set up and support their systems, these companies are going to be signing contracts with Red Hat and LinuxCare.
These companies are going to be steering the future development of Linux and other open source projects, unless the community gets it's collective ass in gear and comes together under a single representative organisation.
But that's not going to happen, because there is too much infighting in the Open Source community and the individuals who might have enough respect to gain the support of the community don't have the necessary skills.
Kernel hackers aren't strategists and vice versa, unfortunately (which is why I'm not a programmer and never intend to be). Instead, the strategists' place has been grabbed by businessmen whose only motivation is making money.
Face it - we had a chance to retain control of our software, and we let it slip through our fingers. I'm just glad I'm not one of the guys who actually developed Linux. I respect them greatly, but I know I'd be hating myself right now.
However, I still don't think that posting something in a comment yesterday makes this old news today.
Well, you're wrong.
I don't read every comment on every article on a slashdot...
Well, you should.
And I also hate it when people who whine about slashdot.
I'm not whining. I'm in FRM (full rant mode).
If you don't like it, don't come back.
I'm willing to bet that Rob would rather know about it when people are getting pissed off at something about Slashdot, rather than have his traffic slump for no apparent reason.
And never apologise. It's as good as admitting that you're wrong. Oh wait, you are. Forget it...
Dodger is just jealous cos Harl (a mutual friend) went to the lizard with VIP tickets.
I didn't know that! He didn't show up at this month's 2600...
Only reason I didn't go is because a bunch of my colleagues booked holiday time around now way back at the beginning of the year, before I got a chance, so we're down to a skeleton staff at the mo. I even had to answer a phone this morning!
I'm glad that I didn't go now, though... At least I actually got to see it!:-)
I'm not a million miles away from where you are and I, too, got a damned good view of the event...
I think it's highly amusing that so many people booked in advance, etc. to go down to Devon and Cornwall and didn't get to see it.
And all the greedy festival organisers look like they're going to lose their shirts, which serves them right in my opinion. They were simply trying to take advantage of all the hype. In the end, due to their greed, there were too many festivals, and they've all lost money.
untested and risky from the point of view of fund managers, and brokers
None of these "dot com" IPOs and, now stocks, are a good long-term investment. Fund managers wouldn't touch them with a 10-foot bargepole. Why? Because the vast majority of these companies are loss-making. Not only that, but, in many cases, only a very small percentage of the company's equity has actually been sold off to the general public. Does anyone know what percentage of Red Hat is being placed by this IPO?
The only reason that shares like this are popular is because "day traders" want to buy them, wait until the price rises, and then sell at a profit. They're not interested in the long-term investment.
Now, playing the market in this fashion is all very well. Many people have made millions from it, and not just on the stock market either - here in London, the London International financial Futures Exchange is a place where "locals" or "red coats" (people who trade with their own money, instead of on behalf of a company) have made millions buying and selling futures and contracts in open outcry.
However, it's ultimately self-defeating, because the only reason share in.com's are worth what they're traded at, is because individuals place that value upon them. There's nothing to actually back it up - no profits, little in the way of assets, etc.
Because of that false value, and because that value is created by individual investors (i.e. the "general public", rather than people who actually know the markets) the risk of a major crash is huge. It's basically a kind of a vicious circle, although a house of cards would be a better description. You plan to buy shares as soon as they come on the market, because you expect them to rise in value. But the reason they're going to rise in value is because there are thousands of other people out there who are thinking exactly the same thing.
The parallels between what's happening at the moment and what happened back in 1929 are huge. All it will take is a loss of confidence for you and all the other people like you to decide to get out of the market, and start dumping the stocks you hold, at which point the prices go through the floor.
Luckily, the recent correction has vastly reduced the risk of a 1929-style Crash, but the risk is still there.
To anyone who is thinking of getting into this whole thing of playing the market, I would give the following advice -
Only invest money that you can afford to lose.
Why? Because what you're doing isn't investing - it's gambling.
This would you prefer? That they laid off half their staff or carried on as they had been up until recently, and go under in a year or two, with everyone losing their jobs.
From what I've heard of the US jobs market in the computer industry (and personal experience of the number of Americans who've asked for a copy of my resume), 1,500 ex-employees of SGI would get snapped up pretty damned quick.
Lots of people seem to be slating SGI recently, both for their recent performance and for the radical steps they're taking to turn themselves around and get back to being profitable.
Nobody can deny that SGI's performance over the last few years hasn't been terrific. Their once-profitable principle strategy of selling high-performance graphics workstations became stale as PC technology moved forward, with 3D chipsets, etc. which could compete with SGI products like the O2.
Their servers are now regarded as being relatively over-priced and not worth the extra performance (e.g. memory bandwidth, etc.) that they feature.
SGI was originally a company which developed cool technology. They parlayed that into a range of products which, initially, found a receptive market. Since then, however, the market has moved forward, but SGI have failed to move fast enough to keep up with it.
The plan accelerates SGI's transition from a vertically integrated company to one committed to broadening its market reach by leveraging its technology through strategic partnerships with industry leaders.
What this says to me is that they're refocusing on technology - i.e. coming up with cool stuff, basically - and moving away from building their own products towards selling the technologies they develop to other companies, in the same way as companies like Creative developed technologies like Sound Blaster and marketed them in partnership with other companies.
They're taking radical moves, shedding divisions which aren't profitable enough or which don't form part of this strategy and embracing new developments, such as Linux. The Cray and Visual Workstation lines are being seperated as a precursor to possible sale to a third-party who will continue to work with SGI in developing the product lines. This implies that SGI will develop the technology, leaving someone else to worry about the actual box-shifting.
All of this is pretty much a textbook business strategy for conducting a turnaround of an unprofitable company which had begun to lose touch with the market.
MrEd just described this announcement as the "last gasp of a giant" and whilst I would agree that we are witnessing the end of the old Silicon Graphics, Inc., I'd say we're about to witness the rebirth of a new SGI.
I think that we're going to see a leaner, fitter, better company emerge from this reorganisation, slimmed down and better able to move quickly and take advantage of developments in an industry which is probably the fastest-moving in the world. I can see SGI becoming a significant developer of technology and a significant player in the future development of Linux, and I think that in a few years, we'll be recognising that this was, in fact, the right thing for SGI to do.
The gov't/justice system may have responded to these "acts of terrorism" by making an example of Mitnick.
There's no doubt he was made an example of, as a warning to other US hackers. Governments everywhere are shit-scared at the erosion of their control over technology. This is their warning to us - don't fuck with us or we'll intern you without trial. Don't stand out or we'll hammer you down.
This whole Mitnick thing has shown up the so-called "Land of the Free" as being a complete sham. I think it's fucking hilarious that, in a country where kids are killing one another in the streets with Uzi's, a guy who caused no discernible harm to anyone is locked up for four years and denied bail until he agrees to plead guilty.
One big one is simulations for financial calculations.
You're absolutely correct - my oversight, and quite a large one, considering I've done this sort of modelling in the past - multiple regression analysis is one of the things I picked up whilst studying operational research.
It actually comes in kinda useful for dealing with performance issues on large systems with lots of users, and I've spec'd systems and laid out upgrade paths based on the results of MRA...
I can only assume that you're referring to the fact that there are many nodes in a cluster, as opposed to one large server.
If this is the case, and you're saying that this increases the chances of the entire system crashing, then you're wrong and I would even go so far as to say that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Small wonder you're posting as an AC. I'd be embarassed too if I was that stupid.:-)
Investors look for experience in both technology and business. What is yours?
My background includes a couple of years at college spent studying management science, several years working with unix systems and TCP/IP networks, both LAN and WAN, and stints as a technical sales manager and, later, project manager, at a telco. I'm currently working as a systems engineer with mid-range unix servers (e.g. Sun e450 up to e4500's, SGI Origin 2k's, etc.) including relevant technologies such as FCAL and clustering.
BTW, there is plenty of direction talk to Paralogic or Alta Tech.
Both are cool companies, in my opinion, but they're not in quite the same market I want to be in. As regards the technology, obviously, I'm not privy to the R&D that's going on at these companies - it's very possible that they're working on ideas which are similar, or indeed identical to mine, in which case, I may well have to tear up by plan and wait for the next idea to pop into my head.
My main skill, you see, isn't a technical or administrative one - it's my creative ability to come up with new ideas, to look at things in a different way to others, to learn about things I don't know about, and to solve problems.
The problem might be in making sure that only one box "owns" a record at once.
Not a problem. Whilst I don't intend to tell you how I solved this one, I will give you a hint - don't think of it as a programming issue; think of it as an architectural issue.
"Cluster", "Linux" and "Beowulf" are popular buzzwords at the moment, and I can see a bandwagon developing. However, it's a bandwagon which isn't going anywhere yet, because it doesn't have direction.
Beowulf is an interesting technology, but I don't think it has all that many applications outside of scientific research. For Linux clustering to achieve credibility as a viable means of replacing mainframes and high-end servers, a more balanced architecture, providing for high availability and ease of administration needs to be developed.
Luckily, I have the answer, am currently preparing a business plan and intend to begin seeking out interested parties in a month or two. If there are any venture capitalists out there who are interested in investing in a venture with more than hype and PR behind it, let me know.:-)
By an amazing coincidence, I'd already booked those two weeks off to go home and catch up with the family. A trip down to Limerick is on the cards, methinks...
If they "give away the store" before going belly up, creditors might then take after Linux, one would think. One would think that anything that SGI GPLs will be credited to them, and creditors might justifiably claim it was a fire-sale move and get the technology transfer declared illegal.
Don't be stupid. If they GPL the source, then it's GPL'd and that's it. Unless they use a different licence which allows for them to revoke it whenever they want, source code which has been released under GPL can't be snatched back.
Anyway how can they brand the disposal a "fire-sale" if no money changed hands?
They make their dedicated volunteers use massive amount of electricity to run their machines at full throttle while this goes on - it is not unjustified to say that SETI@Home may make a measurable impact on the CO2 buildup in the atmosphere that way. Charming. What should you be thinking of this? Defrauded? No. You haven't been promised anything. But it should be hurting your idealism.
You sound like your idealism is hurt, mate.
What's the big deal? You want to get your team into the Top Ten of this competition thing or something?
Slashdot Mirror
It is fucking freezing outside...
Why?
D.
And you should get yourself an account, AC. First intelligent post I've seen in their thread.
D.