"TV is censored, despite our charter of rights and freedoms. American satellite dishes and C/KU band dishes are illegal, you can be thrown in jail for owning one."
Hmm, most of the Canadian population lives close enough to the border to recieve signals from the US. At least in Vancouver and Victoria the cable system carries all of the major Seattle stations.
As for satellite dishes that may be technically true, but I've seen C/KU dishes at bars and I know people in BC with American DirectTV accounts. I don't think those regulations are all that much enforced, at least in BC.
"Canada: 10 provinces and 2 territories in search of a country"
The competition to cable modems in the US is ADSL. There are a number of companies other than the local telco offering DSL service at various prices with various terms. If you go with a provider using Covad, WorldCom or one of the other CLECs the local telco monopoly's network only gets used for the loop between the DSLAM and you.
In many places various forms of wireless access can be an alternative to cable or DSL broadband.
For MTV, HBO and the like DirectTV and DISH are becoming major competition to the cable companies.
I have no idea what part of the US you are in but DSL is wildly popular in the Seattle, WA area.
Around here it seems most people I've met have DSL and not cable. Of course the fiasco AT&T broadband had when @Home tanked drove many away from cable for good.
If you are in the US and getting sick of the crap your DSL or cable ISP is forcing down your throat you may want to contact Speakeasy and see if they offer DSL in your area.
They don't block any ports. They allow servers. Static IPs are cheap. No restrictions on the number of devices you have connected. Public wireless is encouraged rather than banned. No bandwidth restrictions. Forward and reverse DNS availible. Routed service availible. No "type of use" restrictions. You can be a residential user or a business and you will be charged the same for the same services.
They may not be as cheap as the monopoly telco or cable company but not having to deal with someone who would rather you not use the service you pay for is worth it.
Actually I think Microsoft had somewhere between 10 and 20 people when IBM came calling.
They had been doing applications for CP/M and the Apple ][ for a few years by then. They were selling or licensing versions of BASIC for most micros and had a few applications as well, multiplan and a very early version of Flight Simulator.
Category 1: MAJOR overhaul from either old mainframe or DOS-based application from proprietary vendors who have long-since gone out of business, and that won't run on any computer less than 10 years old. This is VERY common, and often gets the most complaints (as it should) from disgruntled employees who are used to the old systems. These types of upgrades cause the most grief, unfortunately they're necessary because you can no longer obtain hardware that will allow you to print, run the programs, or basically be productive.
Many times I've seen perfectly functional mainframe applications replaced for no other reason than they are percevied as "old and outdated". Oftentimes these upgrades still are screen-scraping or otherwise interfacing to the same back-end software running on a mainframe. In many cases the new client-server or web based interface is slower, harder to use, and is missing important functionality from the old application.
In my expierience people generally can get things done quite quickly with screen based mainframe applications. While they do generally require some training before use most users are more productive with a screen interface in the long run.
Category 2: Cross-grades. Changing from one vendor to another because the vendor has a.) gone out of business, b.) started charging astronomical fees for upgrades or support or c.) some major flaw has been discovered with the software that allows Bob from maintenance to log in as the CEO and give himself a 6 figure pay raise. This involves "transferral of concepts", ie: the brain power to realize "Hey, this is more or less the same damned software, just the buttons are in different places and the 'About' dialog says copyright 2001 Company A and not Copyright 2000 Company B.."
Oftentimes these cross-upgrades are again a product of change for the sake of change and management ego. I'm talking about replacing UNIX database servers with Windows 2000 and SQL server because management has it in their head that this is somehow the "wave of the future".
However, on the other side of the relationship, we also have eager beaver managers rolling out new version after new version with (I would guess) little benefit analysis being done. MS Office hasn't changed fundamentally since version 95 (with some exceptions), and yet almost every client site I'm on has Office 2000 or XP (although my current site is still 97).
Would you ever buy a toaster that didn't behave almost exactly like your last one? Can you say the same thing for software?
Microsoft greatly encourages this practice. Their site licensing makes you upgrade every couple of years to get the best pricing. Another thing they do is it either impossible or very expensive to get copies of their older software.
The users also encourage the upgrading. I've seen executive VPs ask why the IT department is still installing Office '97 and Windows 2000 on the desktop PCs. The implication is our company is behind the times and needs to "get with it". Mind you this is the same sort of person who will call the helpdesk at least 2 times every day with some sort of trivial question and complains to no end whenever anything on his desktop or the network changes.
Basicly you can't win. The vendors try to force upgrades for the sake of upgrades. If you manage to pressure from your vendors you get it from your users. The users compain if forced to use "outdated" software and they complian if anything ever changes. Management wants the company to be buzzword compliant but doesn't want to pay for training or any of the other costs of constant upgrades.
I do agree the various methods of structuring, and administrating an open source project and the relative plusses and minuses of the various approaches would make a facinating disscussion. However the likelyhood of that disscussion happening on Slashdot are slim to none.
since the HP-Compaq merger, service and support has gone straight to hell.
You've noticed that too? I thought it was just the former Compaq customers who were getting screwed.
At my last employer we had 50+ Compaq Proliant servers on Gold service. Service and support started going noticably downhill from just before the merger announcement. The rate of decline did nothing but increase after the merger closed. It was so bad just before I left that they opted not to renew any support contracts and began searching for a 3rd party support provider.
Carly and Capellas have managed to destroy 4 good companies (HP, Compaq, DEC, and Tandem)
I buy Intel because their chips and chipsets are rock solid stable, at least compared to other PC chips and chipsets.
Funny, Compaq Proliant servers use the Serverworks chipsets. HP dropped their own IA-32 server line in favor of the Proliant. Last I checked they were still the best selling IA-32 servers. BTW the Proliants are the most rock solid stable x86 kit I've had the privlidge to work with.
Even so there is a huge quality and stablity leap from even the best IA-32 based gear to the truely high-end servers from IBM, Sun, or HP. Even the best PC server gear isn't going to give you 5 or 6 Sigma reliablity especially if it is running Windows.
HP is in deep do-do in large servers if customers don't go for the Itanium.
HP is the #2 vendor of UNIX servers. There are a lot of PA-RISC boxes running Oracle out there. HP is going to end-of-life the PA-RISC and Alpha processors. They plan on moving exsisting HP-UX, True64, VMS, and NonStop customers to the Itanium.
Note the plans include porting HP-UX, VMS, and NonStop to Itanium.
If customers stay away from the Itanium, HP is in the uncomforatble position of trying to sell commodity Windows servers against Dell. This is not compatable with Carly's vision of HP becoming IBM.
Well, in this case it would be a pink slip for 5 years of mouthing off to everyone in sight and back-stabbing your co-workers any time they don't agree with you.
In the private sector such behavior usually leads to a promotion into management.
Fair enough. However, with Debian's patent intollerant behaviour,
From my understanding of the Debian policy on patents this is to protect the Debian project from legal liablity. It has nothing to do with excluding anyone.
Alan Cox's famous "Thank you for joining this discussion on (whatever change to the kernel was being advocated) I've now put you all on my kill list," I don't think you have much hole GNU/ground to stand on to make a claim that they haven't shown people the door on occasion.
This was simply a case of Alan not choosing to deal with certain people anymore. This was not the key Linux kernel developers deciding that none of them would deal with these people anymore. If anyone Alan was ignoring wanted to contribute there are other channels and other people who are as key to the Linux kernel as Alan is.
Frankly this whole mess really isn't an example of GNU vs. BSD licenses but different approaches to structuring an open source development project. Some projects have a rather insular team of developers who communicate mostly out of public view and only occasional take community patches or throw a release over the wall. Some projects get contributions from all over the place and communicate almost entirely in the open. Each approach has advantages and disadvatages.
Slashdot Mirror
It is against Federal law to make telemarketing calls to a celluar phone.
Next time you get one of these calls get the company name, let them know your number is a celluar number and request they do not call you again.
I'm pretty careless about where I've given out my celluar number but have only gotten 1 telemarketing call.
For things like long distance I believe telemarketers use randomly generated phone numbers rather than an actual list.
"We had to destroy our Freedom in order to save it from the Evildoers"
--President George W. Bush
"TV is censored, despite our charter of rights and freedoms. American satellite dishes and C/KU band dishes are illegal, you can be thrown in jail for owning one."
Hmm, most of the Canadian population lives close enough to the border to recieve signals from the US. At least in Vancouver and Victoria the cable system carries all of the major Seattle stations.
As for satellite dishes that may be technically true, but I've seen C/KU dishes at bars and I know people in BC with American DirectTV accounts. I don't think those regulations are all that much enforced, at least in BC.
"Canada: 10 provinces and 2 territories in search of a country"
Old mainframes don't run UNIX they run things like MVS, NOS or other propritary OSes. Most of the applications in question are written in COBOL.
IBM and Tandem and to a lesser extent DEC VMS, and Unisys shops are able to buy new hardware to support their applications if they choose to.
Unfortuantely when these applications are migrated or replaced with ERP systems or Oracle Windows seems to be a depressingly popular choice.
Of the migrations to UNIX servers I don't think many are using Linux at all.
The competition to cable modems in the US is ADSL. There are a number of companies other than the local telco offering DSL service at various prices with various terms. If you go with a provider using Covad, WorldCom or one of the other CLECs the local telco monopoly's network only gets used for the loop between the DSLAM and you.
In many places various forms of wireless access can be an alternative to cable or DSL broadband.
For MTV, HBO and the like DirectTV and DISH are becoming major competition to the cable companies.
no DSL is rarely viable here
I have no idea what part of the US you are in but DSL is wildly popular in the Seattle, WA area.
Around here it seems most people I've met have DSL and not cable. Of course the fiasco AT&T broadband had when @Home tanked drove many away from cable for good.
I would check with Speakeasy first to see if they could do DSL at my address. If not you may want to check with your local telco, both Verizon and Qwest have been fairly agressive about rolling out DSL.
If you are in the US and getting sick of the crap your DSL or cable ISP is forcing down your throat you may want to contact Speakeasy and see if they offer DSL in your area.
They don't block any ports.
They allow servers.
Static IPs are cheap.
No restrictions on the number of devices you have connected.
Public wireless is encouraged rather than banned.
No bandwidth restrictions.
Forward and reverse DNS availible.
Routed service availible.
No "type of use" restrictions. You can be a residential user or a business and you will be charged the same for the same services.
They may not be as cheap as the monopoly telco or cable company but not having to deal with someone who would rather you not use the service you pay for is worth it.
Um sorry, outside of Microsoft land people use VPN with real encryption.
IPSEC is what most firewall and VPN vendors use (and reccomend their customers use). It can either be IP protocol 50 and 51 or encapsulated over TCP.
Actually I think Microsoft had somewhere between 10 and 20 people when IBM came calling.
They had been doing applications for CP/M and the Apple ][ for a few years by then. They were selling or licensing versions of BASIC for most micros and had a few applications as well, multiplan and a very early version of Flight Simulator.
Category 1: MAJOR overhaul from either old mainframe or DOS-based application from proprietary vendors who have long-since gone out of business, and that won't run on any computer less than 10 years old. This is VERY common, and often gets the most complaints (as it should) from disgruntled employees who are used to the old systems. These types of upgrades cause the most grief, unfortunately they're necessary because you can no longer obtain hardware that will allow you to print, run the programs, or basically be productive.
Many times I've seen perfectly functional mainframe applications replaced for no other reason than they are percevied as "old and outdated". Oftentimes these upgrades still are screen-scraping or otherwise interfacing to the same back-end software running on a mainframe. In many cases the new client-server or web based interface is slower, harder to use, and is missing important functionality from the old application.
In my expierience people generally can get things done quite quickly with screen based mainframe applications. While they do generally require some training before use most users are more productive with a screen interface in the long run.
Category 2: Cross-grades. Changing from one vendor to another because the vendor has a.) gone out of business, b.) started charging astronomical fees for upgrades or support or c.) some major flaw has been discovered with the software that allows Bob from maintenance to log in as the CEO and give himself a 6 figure pay raise. This involves "transferral of concepts", ie: the brain power to realize "Hey, this is more or less the same damned software, just the buttons are in different places and the 'About' dialog says copyright 2001 Company A and not Copyright 2000 Company B.."
Oftentimes these cross-upgrades are again a product of change for the sake of change and management ego. I'm talking about replacing UNIX database servers with Windows 2000 and SQL server because management has it in their head that this is somehow the "wave of the future".
However, on the other side of the relationship, we also have eager beaver managers rolling out new version after new version with (I would guess) little benefit analysis being done. MS Office hasn't changed fundamentally since version 95 (with some exceptions), and yet almost every client site I'm on has Office 2000 or XP (although my current site is still 97).
Would you ever buy a toaster that didn't behave almost exactly like your last one? Can you say the same thing for software?
Microsoft greatly encourages this practice. Their site licensing makes you upgrade every couple of years to get the best pricing. Another thing they do is it either impossible or very expensive to get copies of their older software.
The users also encourage the upgrading. I've seen executive VPs ask why the IT department is still installing Office '97 and Windows 2000 on the desktop PCs. The implication is our company is behind the times and needs to "get with it". Mind you this is the same sort of person who will call the helpdesk at least 2 times every day with some sort of trivial question and complains to no end whenever anything on his desktop or the network changes.
Basicly you can't win. The vendors try to force upgrades for the sake of upgrades. If you manage to pressure from your vendors you get it from your users. The users compain if forced to use "outdated" software and they complian if anything ever changes. Management wants the company to be buzzword compliant but doesn't want to pay for training or any of the other costs of constant upgrades.
Coffee | nose > keyboard.
I do agree the various methods of structuring, and administrating an open source project and the relative plusses and minuses of the various approaches would make a facinating disscussion. However the likelyhood of that disscussion happening on Slashdot are slim to none.
Both of those were over 30 years ago. The Soyuz has had many launches since then with no fatalities.
Given the number of man-hours the Russians have in space their record is very good.
Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers
Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets
since the HP-Compaq merger, service and support has gone straight to hell.
You've noticed that too? I thought it was just the former Compaq customers who were getting screwed.
At my last employer we had 50+ Compaq Proliant servers on Gold service. Service and support started going noticably downhill from just before the merger announcement. The rate of decline did nothing but increase after the merger closed. It was so bad just before I left that they opted not to renew any support contracts and began searching for a 3rd party support provider.
Carly and Capellas have managed to destroy 4 good companies (HP, Compaq, DEC, and Tandem)
I find it very unlikely there will any sort of manditory DRM in a million dollar database server.
Even if there is I doubt the OS or applications will use it at all or the decision makers purchasing the gear will care.
The Itanium is not about $1000 desktop machines or even $2500 laptops. It is about $20,000 to $2,000,000 servers.
I buy Intel because their chips and chipsets are rock solid stable, at least compared to other PC chips and chipsets.
Funny, Compaq Proliant servers use the Serverworks chipsets. HP dropped their own IA-32 server line in favor of the Proliant. Last I checked they were still the best selling IA-32 servers. BTW the Proliants are the most rock solid stable x86 kit I've had the privlidge to work with.
Even so there is a huge quality and stablity leap from even the best IA-32 based gear to the truely high-end servers from IBM, Sun, or HP. Even the best PC server gear isn't going to give you 5 or 6 Sigma reliablity especially if it is running Windows.
HP is in deep do-do in large servers if customers don't go for the Itanium.
HP is the #2 vendor of UNIX servers. There are a lot of PA-RISC boxes running Oracle out there. HP is going to end-of-life the PA-RISC and Alpha processors. They plan on moving exsisting HP-UX, True64, VMS, and NonStop customers to the Itanium.
Note the plans include porting HP-UX, VMS, and NonStop to Itanium.
If customers stay away from the Itanium, HP is in the uncomforatble position of trying to sell commodity Windows servers against Dell. This is not compatable with Carly's vision of HP becoming IBM.
Depends on what you call a fork.
There are many Linux distributions and only 3 opensource BSD distributions.
On the other hand there is one main Linux kernel and 3 open source BSD kernels.
alt.religion.emacs ....
Interesting reading.
It just proves Theo was "Theo" 8 years ago when the fork happened.
I do think he's grown up a tad but he still throws the occasional caustic tantrum.
Given the quality of what comes out of the OpenBSD project I mostly just ignore him on his bad days.
Damn that .NET crap is everywhere now.
I guess I should just ask Bill and Steve what I need to do and where I want to go.
Oh, damn the parent is funny.
I believe being awarded the "Order of Theo" actually lowers ones status amongst all *BSD factions except for the OpenBSD faction.
Well, in this case it would be a pink slip for 5 years of mouthing off to everyone in sight and back-stabbing your co-workers any time they don't agree with you.
In the private sector such behavior usually leads to a promotion into management.
Fair enough. However, with Debian's patent intollerant behaviour,
From my understanding of the Debian policy on patents this is to protect the Debian project from legal liablity. It has nothing to do with excluding anyone.
Alan Cox's famous "Thank you for joining this discussion on (whatever change to the kernel was being advocated) I've now put you all on my kill list," I don't think you have much hole GNU/ground to stand on to make a claim that they haven't shown people the door on occasion.
This was simply a case of Alan not choosing to deal with certain people anymore. This was not the key Linux kernel developers deciding that none of them would deal with these people anymore. If anyone Alan was ignoring wanted to contribute there are other channels and other people who are as key to the Linux kernel as Alan is.
Frankly this whole mess really isn't an example of GNU vs. BSD licenses but different approaches to structuring an open source development project. Some projects have a rather insular team of developers who communicate mostly out of public view and only occasional take community patches or throw a release over the wall. Some projects get contributions from all over the place and communicate almost entirely in the open. Each approach has advantages and disadvatages.