He just wanted to make an OS For himself and other poeple liked it too and expanded on it.
He changed the license from the original. He specifically chose the GPL. It was a conscious decision on his part.
The GPL is about Freedom (as in speech...Kinda sorta...Just as long as you don't talk about DRM...Working with Non GPL...etc...).
Looks like you just mentioned DRM and the GPL in a conversation about Linux.
So it seems to appear that you can talk about them. You just did.
Don't confuse the product and the movement.
I'm not the one trying to confuse the issue. Linux is NOT "free-as-in-beer Microsoft Windows" nor was it designed to be.
Linux made the GPL sucessful and showed the model can work for complex applications, but Linus goal wasn't to change the world just to make a free OS that is better then DOS that could run on his 386.
Did I say that his goal was "to change the world"? No? I didn't think I did.
But the problem is that the BIOS's cannot be trusted today.
So the more advanced operating systems probe the devices themselves to see what capabilities are available.
We've arrived at the point where we need to choose between updating the BIOS's on the motherboards every time a new capability is added (and all previous motherboards)... or just simplifying the BIOS to the point where it can boot the OS and allow the OS to probe everything.
I just don't get it, this need for compatibility with propriety standards. Why use Linux and then bitch that you can't use Windows-centric (or non-open) codecs/programs?
There are some people out there who do not WANT Linux.
They want free (as in beer) Microsoft Windows. But that takes too many words so they simply (and incorrectly) say "Linux". But what they really mean is "free (as in beer) Microsoft Windows".
Linux is not Microsoft Windows.
Linux is about Freedom (as in speech). But many people (and they are very vocal) do not want Freedom. They want "free" (as in beer) versions of proprietary apps to play proprietary content for "free" (again, as in beer) in proprietary formats.
But Microsoft is willing to work with friendly Linux Distribution Makers too.
Microsoft is willing to work with ANY Linux distribution that will sign an agreement to the effect that they are including Microsoft "property" in their release.
You might want to look at Ballmer's latest words about suing Red Hat users.
I think there are some fundamental things you don't know about the "new" Novell.
That's quite possible. I only run 6 of their servers (and GroupWise 7.02 and ZENworks). But let's see what you have...
Novell has made Linux and a lot of open source software its platform - everything from the Desktop to the Server, is on top of Linux.
Again, no. It is "on top of" SuSE. Not Linux. I've already pointed that out.
You asked if it was Novell's "job" to port it. I asked if it wasn't Novell's job, what REALLY was Novell's job. Remember?
eDirectory, GroupWise, ZENworks, iFolder, Novell Storage Services all run on top of SLES. Other platforms are supported (RedHat and Windows Server 2003), but the "de facto" solution from Novell is SLES.
I noticed that you said "SLES" that time. Good.
You are wrong on the Windows Server 2003. They're supported all the way back to Win2K server.
Yet, strangely, not Debian.
So, to sum it up: MS Exchange = GroupWise Group Policy = (roughly) ZENworks Active Directory = eDirectory Microsoft Office = Novell OpenOffice Windows XP = SLED Server 2003 = SLES
And your point is... ? Every single one of those apps will run on Microsoft Windows. Yet not a single one of them will run on Debian.
Again, you asked:
It's not their job to support the applications they've created on every distribution of Linux.
GroupWise could be THE corporate email server for Linux. And if it is not Novell's "job" to make it such...
Whoa whoa whoa. So Novell has a duty to port and support their authentication and application platform to every distro?
Did I say they did? No, I did not.
Novell has ported eDirectory to SUSE Linux. They're working on a Linux GroupWise client. ZENworks integration is also being worked on.
And Novell has ported eDirectory to Microsoft Windows. And who is Novell's biggest competitor?
No, Novell is not working on a "Linux GroupWise client". They're working on a Java-based one that pretty much sucks right now. And has sucked for as long as they've been working on it.
No, ZENworks is available on SuSE (and maybe Red Hat). But it is definitely available on Microsoft's Windows platform. Again, who is Novell's biggest competitor? Novell is not porting ZENworks to "Linux".
It's not their job to support the applications they've created on every distribution of Linux.
That would depend upon how you define "their job".
If they're trying to leverage GroupWise to sell more SuSE, then you are correct.
If they're trying to increase the marketshare of GroupWise, then you are wrong.
People using Microsoft Windows will, 99.9% of the time, NOT be looking to deploy GroupWise on it. They would go with Microsoft Exchange. It makes it easier for them because they have ONE company to deal with. Rather than dealing with Novell claiming that it is a Microsoft problem and Microsoft claiming that no one running Exchange sees that problem.
GroupWise could be THE corporate email server for Linux. And if it is not Novell's "job" to make it such...
That said, is swapping out your NetWare servers with "Nu-NetWare" running on top of a Linux kernel really less risky than just switching to Linux -- or to Windows with Active Directory, for that matter?
Nope. If anything, it is MORE risky because now you have Linux added to the bottom of the stack. That is where Novell went wrong with this. Instead of putting everything on top of Linux (including DOS which boots NetWare), they should have replaced DOS with Linux. Yes, DOS is still needed to boot NetWare.
If it's taken you this long to even consider replacing those servers, couldn't you have spent some of that time constructively -- by coming up with a longterm migration strategy that would enable you to minimize risk?
Considering that, up to this point, the OFFICIAL "migration strategy" from Novell was (and I am NOT joking), replacing Novell's NetWare with Microsoft's Windows.
Yeah, so I can run GroupWise on NetWare... or go with Windows.
Seriously, I have heard some arguments why NetWare is so much "better" or "more elegant" (or whatever) than a Windows network, but these arguments usually seem to hinge on some specific minor capability.
The problem is that Novell has (at best) remained a static target. Microsoft has been improving Windows. Linux has been improved. So now, there's really not much of a reason to run Novell's products IN A NEW DEPLOYMENT. If you have them right now and they work right now, then extending them to a new office is easy.
It seems to me that you can get pretty much everything NetWare gives you on a Windows network with some third-party management products, with the upshot that your platform is not obsolete.
Pretty much. Again, Novell has chosen to remain a fairly static target. Eventually, your competition will meet your feature set.
But remember, Novell makes more money from Microsoft (court cases, licensing deal) than it makes from sales of its products.
ERP implementations are meant to mirror existing business processes. If your business processes are ass to begin with, and there is no change before an ERP roll-out, your business will still experience the same issues.
But it is VERY difficult to "mirror existing business processes" because of TWO things:
#1. Duplicating a human decision process is difficult in software - the human may have 50+ years of experience that s/he cannot articulate to the analyst. Which leads to...
#2. The process and business logic that is actually implemented is what the ANALYST believes should be implemented and how it should be implemented. (and then how it is written by the coder and whether it passes the test cases (and whether any test cases were written and tested)).
It's all about the edge cases. Depending upon your market, your "edge cases" could be almost all of your business (and profits).
To buy enough capacity for IMPACT to operate perfectly on peak usage days would mean most of that same capacity would be "sitting idle for 90-plus percent of the year," he said.
Ummmmmm, yes. And........ ?
Where is the graceful failure? We are talking MILLIONS OF DOLLARS spent on this project. And they couldn't come up with any way to overbuild it by 10% or so?
Who really gives a fuck if 10% of your system is "sitting idle for 90-plus percent of the year," if it works perfectly EVERY SINGLE DAY?
We are talking MILLIONS OF DOLLARS and they STILL cannot accomplish that.
Even if you were correct, it should not be that difficult for a company with Microsoft's money and personnel to solve.
Just license some tech from VMWare or such.
Build the NEW system to that it CORRECTLY conforms to security "best practices" and then incorporate "virtual machines" that can run those "legacy" apps under the OS they were designed for.
Microsoft has already sort of tried this with "compatibility mode" and things like that. The problem is NOT the apps (as people claim). The problem is Microsoft's continued focus on "user friendly" as opposed to security.
There are SO MANY problems with Microsoft's approach to their systems that just looking at making a bit of code "secure" is laughable. We've gone through this with Java and Firefox and so forth. If the SYSTEM is not secure, then your apps CANNOT be secured.
Face it, no matter how secure your little bit of code is, if the SYSTEM is vulnerable, your little bit of code is vulnerable.
Which is where Larry goes wrong in TFA.
You can put all the locks you want on your front door. But if you don't fix the huge hole in the wall next to it, you aren't improving your security at all. No matter what you claim.
Don't concern yourself with Larry's thoughts on the subject.
Look at how YOU would design a system from the ground up.
Larry has some good points, but having good points is meaningless when your company is focused on maintaining its monopoly. Remember the Netscape trial and how EVERYONE with a clue about security said that it was IDIOTIC to "integrate" the browser into the OS?
This is exactly why greylisting is effective. It pushes the cost of spamming back on the spammers. Now they have to have a semi-legitimate mail relay, vs. fire and forget. If everyone greylisted, then the spammer's mail queues would be huge.
So? They don't care. They have, effectively, limitless bandwidth and limitless processor power.
Greylisting WAS effective... before so many people adopted it. Now it only catches the dumbest spammers.
The only place this fails is if the spammers as part of their owning of zombie hosts begin to check for the proper SMTP server to relay through and configure accordingly. Admittedly, this is not too difficult to do, but they aren't doing it yet.
No. It fails when they implement (as they have) a process to resend any temp rejections after X minutes.
Greylisting had THREE features: #1. It could temp reject spam and if the spammer never tried again... success.
#2. It could temp reject spam and if the spammer randomized the "From:" username/domain... success.
#3. It could temp reject spam and if the IP addresses was listed in a blacklist within the temp reject time frame... success.
Now all that is left is #3. It costs the spammers NOTHING to upgrade the zombies. And if they get the spam through, the spammer wins.
Now, the zombie can appear MORE legit than a lot of the real mail servers out there.
I believe he means denying at SMTP time, so the sender will try again after X minutes.
Which is kind of like greylisting. The FIRST problem is that the spammers have adapted to this and retry.
The SECOND problem with this is he's saying:
Unique sub-addresses are dispatched in the 'From' field with routine outgoing email. RIAuser@domain.com may send RIAuser^85nxsm@domain.com to one individual and RIAuser^n4sw5z@domain.com to another individual.
Huh? So this is also about SENDING email?
Now if you could bounce the message, it would just go back to the original IP, so I don't see why that would help either though.
And it doesn't address the issue of "fast flux" where the domains are "legit" in that they exist and point to the IP address of the sending machine... for a few minutes.
So he's talking about "bouncing" messages... installing new software... and altering the "From:" addresses on stuff YOU send...
He's talking about "bouncing" messages... but I cannot tell if he means resending an accepted message or denying it at SMTP time.
Then he talks about having people install software:
Auto-Resend software will ensure that almost no one will see or be required to manually respond to the email seen in Figure 2. Auto-Resend software is a simple onetime update for webmail systems, email clients, and local mail servers.
Yeah, installing new software is a great solution.
My email server (Linux + Exim4 + SpamAssassin + ClamAV + chroot'ed BIND9) has over 600 days of contiguous uptime. And it's being hit every day by crackers from all over the world.
Any competent admin can keep IIS running. Any competent admin can keep Apache running.
And NONE of the users would even KNOW what webserver was running. My users don't know that I'm running Exim4. They don't know that ClamAV blocks the viruses. They only care about the SERVICE. And they're very happy with the service.
If you have to reboot IIS to get "kudos", then you're incompetent. That is all.
Competent admins get "kudos" for helping the end users perform their jobs faster and/or easier and for fixing the "I accidentally deleted an important document" problems.
MSOffice 2007 costs: #1. MSOffice 2007 for each person. #2. MSOffice 2007 training for each person. #3. MSOffice 2007 deployment to each person.
OpenOffice.org costs: #1. OOo deployment to each person.
With MSOffice 2007, due to the default file format issue, EVERYONE has to get it AT THE SAME TIME. Or they won't be able to open the documents that other people are creating. And they all have to be trained to use it. And it has to be rolled out to all of them.
And all that within the same short time frame.
With OpenOffice.org, it will look practically identical to MSOffice 2000/XP/2003 so there isn't any training needed. As long as you roll it out slowly.
And there's not cost to license it so it comes out significantly less expensive from the beginning.
As long as you don't have macros or such or your major client isn't switching to MSOffice 2007.
Or..... Access databases. Those are the biggest problems in such a migration.
Slashdot Mirror
If it comes with an install CD with all of the necessary drivers included ... awesome!
Even with imaging WinXP, you'll need the drivers. You'll have to find the drivers. Somewhere. And build your image with them.
He changed the license from the original. He specifically chose the GPL. It was a conscious decision on his part.
Looks like you just mentioned DRM and the GPL in a conversation about Linux.
So it seems to appear that you can talk about them. You just did.
I'm not the one trying to confuse the issue. Linux is NOT "free-as-in-beer Microsoft Windows" nor was it designed to be.
Did I say that his goal was "to change the world"? No? I didn't think I did.
Looks like I've offended the proprietary fans here. :)
:)
Or did I speak ill of Linspire and it offended you?
But the problem is that the BIOS's cannot be trusted today.
... or just simplifying the BIOS to the point where it can boot the OS and allow the OS to probe everything.
So the more advanced operating systems probe the devices themselves to see what capabilities are available.
We've arrived at the point where we need to choose between updating the BIOS's on the motherboards every time a new capability is added (and all previous motherboards)
It's easier to update the OS than the BIOS.
There are some people out there who do not WANT Linux.
They want free (as in beer) Microsoft Windows. But that takes too many words so they simply (and incorrectly) say "Linux". But what they really mean is "free (as in beer) Microsoft Windows".
Linux is not Microsoft Windows.
Linux is about Freedom (as in speech). But many people (and they are very vocal) do not want Freedom. They want "free" (as in beer) versions of proprietary apps to play proprietary content for "free" (again, as in beer) in proprietary formats.
Microsoft is willing to work with ANY Linux distribution that will sign an agreement to the effect that they are including Microsoft "property" in their release.
You might want to look at Ballmer's latest words about suing Red Hat users.
That's quite possible. I only run 6 of their servers (and GroupWise 7.02 and ZENworks). But let's see what you have
Again, no. It is "on top of" SuSE. Not Linux. I've already pointed that out.
You asked if it was Novell's "job" to port it. I asked if it wasn't Novell's job, what REALLY was Novell's job. Remember?
I noticed that you said "SLES" that time. Good.
You are wrong on the Windows Server 2003. They're supported all the way back to Win2K server.
Yet, strangely, not Debian.
And your point is
Again, you asked:
GroupWise could be THE corporate email server for Linux. And if it is not Novell's "job" to make it such
Who's job is it?
What REALLY is Novell's job?
Did I say they did? No, I did not.
And Novell has ported eDirectory to Microsoft Windows. And who is Novell's biggest competitor?
No, Novell is not working on a "Linux GroupWise client". They're working on a Java-based one that pretty much sucks right now. And has sucked for as long as they've been working on it.
No, ZENworks is available on SuSE (and maybe Red Hat). But it is definitely available on Microsoft's Windows platform. Again, who is Novell's biggest competitor? Novell is not porting ZENworks to "Linux".
That would depend upon how you define "their job".
If they're trying to leverage GroupWise to sell more SuSE, then you are correct.
If they're trying to increase the marketshare of GroupWise, then you are wrong.
People using Microsoft Windows will, 99.9% of the time, NOT be looking to deploy GroupWise on it. They would go with Microsoft Exchange. It makes it easier for them because they have ONE company to deal with. Rather than dealing with Novell claiming that it is a Microsoft problem and Microsoft claiming that no one running Exchange sees that problem.
GroupWise could be THE corporate email server for Linux. And if it is not Novell's "job" to make it such
Who's job is it?
What REALLY is Novell's job?
eDirectory
... but not to Ubuntu. So you can have all the Novell apps on your Microsoft network.
GroupWise
ZENworks
On the other hand, Novell has ported all of them to Windows
Anyone care to comment on how nice it is to depend upon the good will of your biggest competitor for the stability of your apps?
Nope. If anything, it is MORE risky because now you have Linux added to the bottom of the stack. That is where Novell went wrong with this. Instead of putting everything on top of Linux (including DOS which boots NetWare), they should have replaced DOS with Linux. Yes, DOS is still needed to boot NetWare.
Considering that, up to this point, the OFFICIAL "migration strategy" from Novell was (and I am NOT joking), replacing Novell's NetWare with Microsoft's Windows.
Yeah, so I can run GroupWise on NetWare
The problem is that Novell has (at best) remained a static target. Microsoft has been improving Windows. Linux has been improved. So now, there's really not much of a reason to run Novell's products IN A NEW DEPLOYMENT. If you have them right now and they work right now, then extending them to a new office is easy.
Pretty much. Again, Novell has chosen to remain a fairly static target. Eventually, your competition will meet your feature set.
But remember, Novell makes more money from Microsoft (court cases, licensing deal) than it makes from sales of its products.
I was a service pack to only fix the bugs.
If there are new features, release them as a separate "upgrade".
Having both mixed together makes testing a real pain.
But it is VERY difficult to "mirror existing business processes" because of TWO things:
#1. Duplicating a human decision process is difficult in software - the human may have 50+ years of experience that s/he cannot articulate to the analyst. Which leads to
#2. The process and business logic that is actually implemented is what the ANALYST believes should be implemented and how it should be implemented. (and then how it is written by the coder and whether it passes the test cases (and whether any test cases were written and tested)).
It's all about the edge cases. Depending upon your market, your "edge cases" could be almost all of your business (and profits).
Ummmmmm, yes. And
Where is the graceful failure? We are talking MILLIONS OF DOLLARS spent on this project. And they couldn't come up with any way to overbuild it by 10% or so?
Who really gives a fuck if 10% of your system is "sitting idle for 90-plus percent of the year," if it works perfectly EVERY SINGLE DAY?
We are talking MILLIONS OF DOLLARS and they STILL cannot accomplish that.
Oppose the censorship that is inflicted upon us NOW so we will not have to face a situation similar to their's TOMORROW.
Bitch loudly and fight for even the smallest of your Freedoms because there ARE people who want to take them away from you.
I have servers running Linux without Konqueror.
I have workstations running Linux without KDE.
Your point will be valid when (and only when) Linus puts a browser into Linux. Until then, I can (and do) run Linux WITHOUT a browser.
And that is only ONE of the reasons that Linux more secure than Windows.
When Linus puts a web browser in Linux, then you'll have a point.
Even if you were correct, it should not be that difficult for a company with Microsoft's money and personnel to solve.
Just license some tech from VMWare or such.
Build the NEW system to that it CORRECTLY conforms to security "best practices" and then incorporate "virtual machines" that can run those "legacy" apps under the OS they were designed for.
Microsoft has already sort of tried this with "compatibility mode" and things like that. The problem is NOT the apps (as people claim). The problem is Microsoft's continued focus on "user friendly" as opposed to security.
There are SO MANY problems with Microsoft's approach to their systems that just looking at making a bit of code "secure" is laughable. We've gone through this with Java and Firefox and so forth. If the SYSTEM is not secure, then your apps CANNOT be secured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_tree
By Bruce Schneier.
Face it, no matter how secure your little bit of code is, if the SYSTEM is vulnerable, your little bit of code is vulnerable.
Which is where Larry goes wrong in TFA.
You can put all the locks you want on your front door. But if you don't fix the huge hole in the wall next to it, you aren't improving your security at all. No matter what you claim.
Don't concern yourself with Larry's thoughts on the subject.
Look at how YOU would design a system from the ground up.
Larry has some good points, but having good points is meaningless when your company is focused on maintaining its monopoly. Remember the Netscape trial and how EVERYONE with a clue about security said that it was IDIOTIC to "integrate" the browser into the OS?
So? They don't care. They have, effectively, limitless bandwidth and limitless processor power.
Greylisting WAS effective
No. It fails when they implement (as they have) a process to resend any temp rejections after X minutes.
Greylisting had THREE features:
#1. It could temp reject spam and if the spammer never tried again
#2. It could temp reject spam and if the spammer randomized the "From:" username/domain
#3. It could temp reject spam and if the IP addresses was listed in a blacklist within the temp reject time frame
Now all that is left is #3. It costs the spammers NOTHING to upgrade the zombies. And if they get the spam through, the spammer wins.
Now, the zombie can appear MORE legit than a lot of the real mail servers out there.
Which is kind of like greylisting. The FIRST problem is that the spammers have adapted to this and retry.
The SECOND problem with this is he's saying:
Huh? So this is also about SENDING email?
And it doesn't address the issue of "fast flux" where the domains are "legit" in that they exist and point to the IP address of the sending machine
So he's talking about "bouncing" messages
No fucking way is this going to work.
Then he talks about having people install software:
Yeah, installing new software is a great solution.
It seems to work for me. But I might have misunderstood you. I'm on Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon with OpenOffice.org 2.3.
My email server (Linux + Exim4 + SpamAssassin + ClamAV + chroot'ed BIND9) has over 600 days of contiguous uptime. And it's being hit every day by crackers from all over the world.
Any competent admin can keep IIS running. Any competent admin can keep Apache running.
And NONE of the users would even KNOW what webserver was running. My users don't know that I'm running Exim4. They don't know that ClamAV blocks the viruses. They only care about the SERVICE. And they're very happy with the service.
If you have to reboot IIS to get "kudos", then you're incompetent. That is all.
Competent admins get "kudos" for helping the end users perform their jobs faster and/or easier and for fixing the "I accidentally deleted an important document" problems.
MSOffice 2007 costs:
..... Access databases. Those are the biggest problems in such a migration.
#1. MSOffice 2007 for each person.
#2. MSOffice 2007 training for each person.
#3. MSOffice 2007 deployment to each person.
OpenOffice.org costs:
#1. OOo deployment to each person.
With MSOffice 2007, due to the default file format issue, EVERYONE has to get it AT THE SAME TIME. Or they won't be able to open the documents that other people are creating. And they all have to be trained to use it. And it has to be rolled out to all of them.
And all that within the same short time frame.
With OpenOffice.org, it will look practically identical to MSOffice 2000/XP/2003 so there isn't any training needed. As long as you roll it out slowly.
And there's not cost to license it so it comes out significantly less expensive from the beginning.
As long as you don't have macros or such or your major client isn't switching to MSOffice 2007.
Or