Oh cool. So Linux/Unix users are going to blindly run make all; make install for any software?
And people look down at Windows users for blindly installing/running anything.
On a related note: just wait till perl/ruby/python malware starts getting popular. No need to compile, even easier than make all; make install.
Let's see how the AV vendors cope with scripts that look innocuous at first sight, but once in a while do websearches and download malicious code (or grep your email for spam containing malicious code) and then run eval on it.
And it should be fairly easy to make these cross platform.
What's up with them? erm, they're different that's all. Like you and me:).
Some people can be smokers for 70 years and _thrive_. And some just drop dead way earlier.
There are some crazy doctors who tell 70-80+ year olds to stop smoking. If they've had little problems with it, I figure the withdrawal might actually be more dangerous.
I'm not a doctor but/so I'd suggest they try out some of the better stuff if they haven't already:p.
But if some people start having heart or whatever problems in their 30s or 40s, then it's obvious that they're doing something that their body can't take for long.
Drinking coffee tastes a bit like drinking unknowned charcoaled stuff (similar to that Korean tea made from roasted barley IMO)... I don't mind once in a while, and sometimes it tastes good (sugar FTW), but I usually prefer drinking other stuff.
Still millions of people drink coffee, and scientific studies seem to indicate that they tend to live longer (and better) than those who just drink water (no wine, no tea). Maybe coz the latter aren't having as much fun:).
I suspect your body breaks down aspartame to stuff that gives you hangovers (and possibly other problems).
Might be OK for some people, but I don't feel an urge to drink that sort of stuff myself - if I'm going to drink something sweet (which is not often), I prefer it sweetened with real sugar. Not too fussed about white vs brown sugar, the spike in the blood sugar is probably less healthy than the trace chemicals from processing esp since I don't consume it that often.
If you're that afraid of pure water, just take it with a pinch of salt;).
I'd take my chances with pure water over most of the other stuff people are drinking.
The other drinks proven to be ok/good for health are: green tea (without milk!), and black coffee (without milk as well!). Just reduce the sugar by a lot.
As for fruit juices, most usually have too much sugar, so they should be reserved as a treat.
Stuff fit for a real online CIO mag should be: 1) License may be incompatible - list the various licensing issues with MySQL 2) Strategic: Oracle owns Innodb and Sleepycat - technologies that "serious" MySQL sites depend on. 3) Strategic: management of MySQL Inc seemed to not have anticipated 2). 4) The MySQL Inc people (developers etc) were not concerned about data integrity for a long time and came up with _excuses_ rather than saying "OK we screwed up, we'll fix it". (this shows you what sort of people are behind the long term product direction). 5) Better options out there - Oracle, Postgresql, DB2, MSSQL etc: see our article "Which databases for your company?" for details (and read more ads there;) ). 6) Lots of technical problems with it (see our article: "MySQL the gory details" which explores these in depth).
If you are a real CxO your internal additional negative reason list could go something like this: 7) Your Legal Dept recommends against it for legal reasons. 8) Your top techs recommend against it giving technical (and sometimes other) reasons. 9) Your company is already using Oracle/MSSQL/Postgresql/etc and the IT/IS dept has other more important things to do for you and the company at the moment. 10) You checked with a few of your trusted competent contacts and they recommend against it. If you are a real CIO/CEO you should know a few people who know stuff, otherwise you're just one of the fakers.
"once everyone is dual stacked you simply drop IPv4."
Just because everyone is dual stacked doesn't mean you can drop IPv4, they need to be dual stacked AND publicly reachable AND have the relevant DNS entries updated.
Getting a new stack can be a behind the scenes "OS update" thing, but the routeability and DNS requirements need a lot more work from people who won't even know they need it.
" My desktop connects to www.kame.net via IPv6 and www.google.com via IPv4 and I don't do anything differently. How could you possibly simplify this?"
They should have designed OR/AND implemented IPv6 so that an IPv4 address is a VALID IPv6 address. If that was done, two IPv6 capable systems would be able to connect to each other even if one end only had IPv4 addresses.
I'm not saying IPv4 stacks should be able to talk to IPv6 stacks. I'm saying IPv6 stacks should seamlessly be able to talk to IPv6 stacks using IPv4 addresses, whether it's IPv6-IPv4 or IPv4-IPv4 or IPv6-IPv6.
Then you could connect using your IPv6 machine to www.google.com if www.google.com upgraded their stack even if they still stuck to only a public IPv4 address and had IPv4 in their DNS entries.
Same for any of the top 10 sites that do not announce IPv6 addresses over DNS. Their O/S stacks could be upgraded and suddenly stuff just works.
Whereas the current scheme requires you to do more work than a software upgrade - you need to do configuration changes in so many places, the DNS servers need to be configured, same for routing.
Lastly, I don't like Option #2 anymore than you do.
But I don't like that IPv6 has been designed in such a way that Option #2 will be seen as the easy or even _desirable_ option. The fact that "VOIP and other services" doesn't work can be considered a _feature_ by those countries or companies.
Take network design cues from 3rd world country? I'm in a 3rd world country you insensitive clod;).
Where did the IPv6 designers take protocol design cues from? Sheesh. IPv6 might as well be OSI.
FYI: if your browser supports http 1.1 (most do) you can use http://toaster.myhouse.example.com/ and http://fridge.myhouse.example.com/ on the same IP and get different webpages.
Lots of websites share one single IP and port. Thanks to the HTTP Host: header.
Not many ppl will want to configure their fridge or toaster via SSH, and those that do won't find having only a single public IPv4 address to be a problem. As long as they have a one it's fine.
So how would it work if your company doesn't even have a single valid public IPv4 address at all?
Would you be able to get to www.google.com? Which of the top 10 internet sites would you still be able to access without having a single valid public IPv4 address?
If you can access all of the top 10 internet sites, then IPv6 has arrived.
Otherwise, IPv6 has not arrived. In practical terms it's not really part of the Internet at all. Tunnelling Banyan Vines networks over IPv4 does not make them part of the Internet.
I hope you have good news - I'll be glad to know if IPv6 or something better has finally arrived.
"The masses (certainly in this country) also like playing games - which won't work if their entire pseudo-ISP just provided them with 10.x.x.x space"
Oh games will still work.
Just as long as the games are being run on servers owned by companies/organizations that are rich/powerful enough to have scarce IPv4 IP addresses.
You want to run your own game server for your friends in >=2010? You may need a fair bit of money.
And that's the Internet the way the Big Corps like it.
So any ISP who knows what they are doing isn't worried about running out of IPv4 addresses (Joe Public should be worried). ISPs can keep reusing RFC1918 addresses for a very very long time.
And actually that will still work better than trying to get IPv6-only hosts to work with IPv4-only hosts. The difficulty of doing that is why IPv6 is a broken design. No backward compatibility, no easy transition plan.
Nope, what's holding back IPv6 is the fact that it is NOT backward compatible with IPv4, and there is no proper transition plan other than "everyone pretty please get IPv6 addresses". The IPv6 designers created a design that was bad for the public. Either they were stupid or they were evil.
What you are doing is not switching to IPv6, you're running IPv6 in parallel. That's _trivial_ when you still have IPv4 addresses available to use. Heck you can add Novell IPX to your networks, as long as your users still have a public IPv4 address to use everything is fine. Tunnel IPX to ipxbone.org or whatever, nobody cares.
BUT tell me, assuming you only have IPv6 addresses (and do NOT have any public IPv4 addresses on ALL your machines AND devices) how would you go about accessing IPv4 only sites? There are lots of IPv4 only sites, and they won't care about YOUR problem (that's how they will see it).
Option #1: someone will need to provide special NAT-like devices which allow tons of poor IPv6-only users behind them to share a very few IPv4 addresses on the devices in order to access IPv4 only sites. These special NAT-like devices or something else will also have to mangle DNS replies to convert DNS answers with IPv4-only addresses to DNS answers with special IPv6 addresses, this is BECAUSE the people who "designed" IPv6 decided to not make it easy for IPv6 and IPv4 to interoperate, there is NO IPv6 stack that will attempt to connect to an IPv4 address. There WILL be problems doing such NATing and dns mangling. So, ISPs will have to either give discounts for such IPv6-only services, or start increasing the costs for IPv4 services.
Option #2: give IPv6 users chunks of RFC1918 IPv4 addresses, to use to access the IPv4 world.
BUT doh, Option #2 is what's already happening now (seems one entire mideast country is practically behind a single IPv4 address or at least just a few). Gradually lots of users will have RFC1918 IPv4 addresses that come out via NAT at the ISP. And why should the ISP care about IPv6 at this point? They can have hundreds of millions of subscribers - just reuse RFC1918 addresses behind a few hundred real IPv4 addresses.
By this time the users would have been used to not being able to run servers (most don't anyway), they start to expect to have to pay BIG money to ISPs to be able to run servers - and that's how the ISPs will like it.
Anyway, if you are an IPv6-only _site_, you will NOT be able to serve all those customers/users who haven't got around to getting IPv6. So the reality is most sites WILL have to get IPv4 addresses, and pay to do so.
And the ISPs will be happy to charge big bucks for the increasingly scarce commodity called "public IPv4 addresses".
So why should ISPs and big companies even bother about moving to IPv6? It's all going their way - more control over their users. Users can only do P2P with each other, and they won't be able to do that over the "precious" links to networks owned by other ISPs. They only get to talk if the ISP "says so".
Wow. They took the extra effort to annoy their customers?
Kinda surprised - that's crazy.
Only excuse I see was if somehow your image didn't work on their hardware- but the idea is the hardware you used to make the image from is identical to the other 400.
Then if it's windows you run that NewSID stuff on all of them. Of course you also need the corporate version of windows:).
"RPG gamers are quite used to dealing with the interactions of HUNDREDS of pages of rules."
Yeah but then you might have the problem of ending up with a subset of "kids who like chemistry" and "Classic RPG gamer type kids". Both of which aren't very large sets;).
Anyway, I guess its worth a shot if they take the time and effort to do it well.
Age matters because all that legal stuff applies differently to minors;).
Wonder about tax as well... Hmmm. Can kids have their own incomes and do they have to pay taxes on their income? ok maybe they are not legally allowed to earn a salary... But hey some CEOs get paid 1 USD / year, and still get rich:). So I'm sure there are ways around it.
Heck, he even has better spelling and grammar skills than lots of Slashdotters, or he knows how to use someone/a program to do it for him.
What I'm wondering: how is game balance achieved in his game.
I was doing machine code programming when I was 8, so I don't agree with "forcing kids to have a childhood" nor do I think forcing kids to not have a childhood is good either. Just don't underestimate what children can do - if you take the time to _help_ they can learn to do quite a lot AND find it fun. And that sort of learning stays for a very very long time.
A lot of times when I see "dumb children", I see "dumb parents". I've noticed good teachers often have children who at least approach some limits of their capabilities. Whereas the usual parents too often have children glued to TV or doing other stuff without stretching/exploring/expanding their limits.
And even better for the parents - they look like they may have a chance to have fun using OTHER people's money instead of the parents;).
As for childhood, IMO the early years are critical, by the time you're about 11+ you're usually not getting much smarter as a kid (in terms of brain wiring) you're just becoming less ignorant. Decades later you'll be "smarter" based on experience and accumulated knowledge - it's a lot more effort to rewire your brain at this point, so usually you make do with whatever you have "already installed".
Should find a fun way to train kids to have photographic memory (not uncontrollable memory), that'll make much of life easier - especially in the very visual world nowadays.
Actually not all do. It's like Sportsmen. You see the Top, and they earn millions.
You can start your own company and make yourself CEO. Doesn't automatically make you rich (or evil;) ).
The CEOs I dislike are those "Slash and Burn" CEOs - these are usually those who come from outside. They come in, sack and burn stuff every quarter for short term gain, pay themselves bonuses with approvals from the stupid board. Then they leave with a "Golden handshake/parachute" and the company in worse shape then when they joined.
Whereas, say what you like but it's hard to deny that Michael Dell has created some value. Same for a few other CEOs.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh cool. So Linux/Unix users are going to blindly run make all; make install for any software?
And people look down at Windows users for blindly installing/running anything.
On a related note: just wait till perl/ruby/python malware starts getting popular. No need to compile, even easier than make all; make install.
Let's see how the AV vendors cope with scripts that look innocuous at first sight, but once in a while do websearches and download malicious code (or grep your email for spam containing malicious code) and then run eval on it.
And it should be fairly easy to make these cross platform.
What's up with them? erm, they're different that's all. Like you and me :).
:p.
Some people can be smokers for 70 years and _thrive_. And some just drop dead way earlier.
There are some crazy doctors who tell 70-80+ year olds to stop smoking. If they've had little problems with it, I figure the withdrawal might actually be more dangerous.
I'm not a doctor but/so I'd suggest they try out some of the better stuff if they haven't already
But if some people start having heart or whatever problems in their 30s or 40s, then it's obvious that they're doing something that their body can't take for long.
Nah, I'm pretty sure mud would taste different.
:).
Drinking coffee tastes a bit like drinking unknowned charcoaled stuff (similar to that Korean tea made from roasted barley IMO)... I don't mind once in a while, and sometimes it tastes good (sugar FTW), but I usually prefer drinking other stuff.
Still millions of people drink coffee, and scientific studies seem to indicate that they tend to live longer (and better) than those who just drink water (no wine, no tea). Maybe coz the latter aren't having as much fun
So far I respect the BBC more than the other TV stations I've seen. And this is based on their track record.
However, track record = past, if they keep doing crap like this they may start losing that respect.
BTW, you can legally watch a lot of BBC stuff without paying TV license.
Get free tickets: http://www.bbc.co.uk/whatson/tickets/help.shtml
Well drink enough of it at an early age and you might leave a youthful corpse that takes a long time to decay.
How's that for consumer preservation?
I suspect your body breaks down aspartame to stuff that gives you hangovers (and possibly other problems).
Might be OK for some people, but I don't feel an urge to drink that sort of stuff myself - if I'm going to drink something sweet (which is not often), I prefer it sweetened with real sugar. Not too fussed about white vs brown sugar, the spike in the blood sugar is probably less healthy than the trace chemicals from processing esp since I don't consume it that often.
If you're that afraid of pure water, just take it with a pinch of salt ;).
I'd take my chances with pure water over most of the other stuff people are drinking.
The other drinks proven to be ok/good for health are: green tea (without milk!), and black coffee (without milk as well!). Just reduce the sugar by a lot.
As for fruit juices, most usually have too much sugar, so they should be reserved as a treat.
Faster?
- mysql-benchmark.html
http://tweakers.net/reviews/657/6
OK maybe it's 2 x faster for TPC style stuff, but it had timeout errors in this benchmark:
http://wskills.blogspot.com/2007/01/postgresql-vs
The list is still crap. What big picture?
;) ).
Stuff fit for a real online CIO mag should be:
1) License may be incompatible - list the various licensing issues with MySQL
2) Strategic: Oracle owns Innodb and Sleepycat - technologies that "serious" MySQL sites depend on.
3) Strategic: management of MySQL Inc seemed to not have anticipated 2).
4) The MySQL Inc people (developers etc) were not concerned about data integrity for a long time and came up with _excuses_ rather than saying "OK we screwed up, we'll fix it". (this shows you what sort of people are behind the long term product direction).
5) Better options out there - Oracle, Postgresql, DB2, MSSQL etc: see our article "Which databases for your company?" for details (and read more ads there
6) Lots of technical problems with it (see our article: "MySQL the gory details" which explores these in depth).
If you are a real CxO your internal additional negative reason list could go something like this:
7) Your Legal Dept recommends against it for legal reasons.
8) Your top techs recommend against it giving technical (and sometimes other) reasons.
9) Your company is already using Oracle/MSSQL/Postgresql/etc and the IT/IS dept has other more important things to do for you and the company at the moment.
10) You checked with a few of your trusted competent contacts and they recommend against it. If you are a real CIO/CEO you should know a few people who know stuff, otherwise you're just one of the fakers.
"once everyone is dual stacked you simply drop IPv4."
;).
Just because everyone is dual stacked doesn't mean you can drop IPv4, they need to be dual stacked AND publicly reachable AND have the relevant DNS entries updated.
Getting a new stack can be a behind the scenes "OS update" thing, but the routeability and DNS requirements need a lot more work from people who won't even know they need it.
" My desktop connects to www.kame.net via IPv6 and www.google.com via IPv4 and I don't do anything differently. How could you possibly simplify this?"
They should have designed OR/AND implemented IPv6 so that an IPv4 address is a VALID IPv6 address. If that was done, two IPv6 capable systems would be able to connect to each other even if one end only had IPv4 addresses.
I'm not saying IPv4 stacks should be able to talk to IPv6 stacks. I'm saying IPv6 stacks should seamlessly be able to talk to IPv6 stacks using IPv4 addresses, whether it's IPv6-IPv4 or IPv4-IPv4 or IPv6-IPv6.
Then you could connect using your IPv6 machine to www.google.com if www.google.com upgraded their stack even if they still stuck to only a public IPv4 address and had IPv4 in their DNS entries.
Same for any of the top 10 sites that do not announce IPv6 addresses over DNS. Their O/S stacks could be upgraded and suddenly stuff just works.
Whereas the current scheme requires you to do more work than a software upgrade - you need to do configuration changes in so many places, the DNS servers need to be configured, same for routing.
Lastly, I don't like Option #2 anymore than you do.
But I don't like that IPv6 has been designed in such a way that Option #2 will be seen as the easy or even _desirable_ option. The fact that "VOIP and other services" doesn't work can be considered a _feature_ by those countries or companies.
Take network design cues from 3rd world country? I'm in a 3rd world country you insensitive clod
Where did the IPv6 designers take protocol design cues from? Sheesh. IPv6 might as well be OSI.
So what happens if you don't have an IPv4 address?
:)
Just say you ran out of IPv4 addresses?
After all there's supposed to be this IPv4 address shortage problem, and apparently IPv6 is supposed to solve it.
If the solution is for you to ALSO have an IPv4 address, then that's kinda funny right?
This IPv6 solution stuff is funny
FYI: if your browser supports http 1.1 (most do) you can use http://toaster.myhouse.example.com/ and http://fridge.myhouse.example.com/ on the same IP and get different webpages.
Lots of websites share one single IP and port. Thanks to the HTTP Host: header.
Not many ppl will want to configure their fridge or toaster via SSH, and those that do won't find having only a single public IPv4 address to be a problem. As long as they have a one it's fine.
So how would it work if your company doesn't even have a single valid public IPv4 address at all?
Would you be able to get to www.google.com? Which of the top 10 internet sites would you still be able to access without having a single valid public IPv4 address?
If you can access all of the top 10 internet sites, then IPv6 has arrived.
Otherwise, IPv6 has not arrived. In practical terms it's not really part of the Internet at all. Tunnelling Banyan Vines networks over IPv4 does not make them part of the Internet.
I hope you have good news - I'll be glad to know if IPv6 or something better has finally arrived.
"The masses (certainly in this country) also like playing games - which won't work if their entire pseudo-ISP just provided them with 10.x.x.x space"
Oh games will still work.
Just as long as the games are being run on servers owned by companies/organizations that are rich/powerful enough to have scarce IPv4 IP addresses.
You want to run your own game server for your friends in >=2010? You may need a fair bit of money.
And that's the Internet the way the Big Corps like it.
So any ISP who knows what they are doing isn't worried about running out of IPv4 addresses (Joe Public should be worried). ISPs can keep reusing RFC1918 addresses for a very very long time.
And actually that will still work better than trying to get IPv6-only hosts to work with IPv4-only hosts. The difficulty of doing that is why IPv6 is a broken design. No backward compatibility, no easy transition plan.
Useful link pls.
So far I don't see any useful info on IPv8.
Nope, what's holding back IPv6 is the fact that it is NOT backward compatible with IPv4, and there is no proper transition plan other than "everyone pretty please get IPv6 addresses". The IPv6 designers created a design that was bad for the public. Either they were stupid or they were evil.
What you are doing is not switching to IPv6, you're running IPv6 in parallel. That's _trivial_ when you still have IPv4 addresses available to use. Heck you can add Novell IPX to your networks, as long as your users still have a public IPv4 address to use everything is fine. Tunnel IPX to ipxbone.org or whatever, nobody cares.
BUT tell me, assuming you only have IPv6 addresses (and do NOT have any public IPv4 addresses on ALL your machines AND devices) how would you go about accessing IPv4 only sites? There are lots of IPv4 only sites, and they won't care about YOUR problem (that's how they will see it).
Option #1: someone will need to provide special NAT-like devices which allow tons of poor IPv6-only users behind them to share a very few IPv4 addresses on the devices in order to access IPv4 only sites. These special NAT-like devices or something else will also have to mangle DNS replies to convert DNS answers with IPv4-only addresses to DNS answers with special IPv6 addresses, this is BECAUSE the people who "designed" IPv6 decided to not make it easy for IPv6 and IPv4 to interoperate, there is NO IPv6 stack that will attempt to connect to an IPv4 address. There WILL be problems doing such NATing and dns mangling. So, ISPs will have to either give discounts for such IPv6-only services, or start increasing the costs for IPv4 services.
Option #2: give IPv6 users chunks of RFC1918 IPv4 addresses, to use to access the IPv4 world.
BUT doh, Option #2 is what's already happening now (seems one entire mideast country is practically behind a single IPv4 address or at least just a few). Gradually lots of users will have RFC1918 IPv4 addresses that come out via NAT at the ISP. And why should the ISP care about IPv6 at this point? They can have hundreds of millions of subscribers - just reuse RFC1918 addresses behind a few hundred real IPv4 addresses.
By this time the users would have been used to not being able to run servers (most don't anyway), they start to expect to have to pay BIG money to ISPs to be able to run servers - and that's how the ISPs will like it.
Anyway, if you are an IPv6-only _site_, you will NOT be able to serve all those customers/users who haven't got around to getting IPv6. So the reality is most sites WILL have to get IPv4 addresses, and pay to do so.
And the ISPs will be happy to charge big bucks for the increasingly scarce commodity called "public IPv4 addresses".
So why should ISPs and big companies even bother about moving to IPv6? It's all going their way - more control over their users. Users can only do P2P with each other, and they won't be able to do that over the "precious" links to networks owned by other ISPs. They only get to talk if the ISP "says so".
Wow. They took the extra effort to annoy their customers?
:).
Kinda surprised - that's crazy.
Only excuse I see was if somehow your image didn't work on their hardware- but the idea is the hardware you used to make the image from is identical to the other 400.
Then if it's windows you run that NewSID stuff on all of them. Of course you also need the corporate version of windows
"Now I work for a fortune 500 company and guess what we do with every box we get from Dell? Re-image it. "
If you are buying a bunch of boxes I heard you can send Dell your preferred image, and they'll image all of them for you.
Given it's the USA, if they allow guns and alcohol, they should allow drugs.
And then tax and regulate them.
"RPG gamers are quite used to dealing with the interactions of HUNDREDS of pages of rules."
;).
Yeah but then you might have the problem of ending up with a subset of "kids who like chemistry" and "Classic RPG gamer type kids". Both of which aren't very large sets
Anyway, I guess its worth a shot if they take the time and effort to do it well.
Age matters because all that legal stuff applies differently to minors ;).
:). So I'm sure there are ways around it.
Wonder about tax as well... Hmmm. Can kids have their own incomes and do they have to pay taxes on their income? ok maybe they are not legally allowed to earn a salary... But hey some CEOs get paid 1 USD / year, and still get rich
Seriously though, an issue I'd consider is legal contracts may not be binding on minors.
;).
:p.
A smart evil minor might legally take advantage of stupid adults in so many ways and get away with it
But I guess this whole thing is genuine?
Heck, he even has better spelling and grammar skills than lots of Slashdotters, or he knows how to use someone/a program to do it for him.
What I'm wondering: how is game balance achieved in his game.
I was doing machine code programming when I was 8, so I don't agree with "forcing kids to have a childhood" nor do I think forcing kids to not have a childhood is good either. Just don't underestimate what children can do - if you take the time to _help_ they can learn to do quite a lot AND find it fun. And that sort of learning stays for a very very long time.
A lot of times when I see "dumb children", I see "dumb parents". I've noticed good teachers often have children who at least approach some limits of their capabilities. Whereas the usual parents too often have children glued to TV or doing other stuff without stretching/exploring/expanding their limits.
Well the kids look like they're having fun.
;).
And even better for the parents - they look like they may have a chance to have fun using OTHER people's money instead of the parents
As for childhood, IMO the early years are critical, by the time you're about 11+ you're usually not getting much smarter as a kid (in terms of brain wiring) you're just becoming less ignorant. Decades later you'll be "smarter" based on experience and accumulated knowledge - it's a lot more effort to rewire your brain at this point, so usually you make do with whatever you have "already installed".
Should find a fun way to train kids to have photographic memory (not uncontrollable memory), that'll make much of life easier - especially in the very visual world nowadays.
Actually not all do. It's like Sportsmen. You see the Top, and they earn millions.
;) ).
You can start your own company and make yourself CEO. Doesn't automatically make you rich (or evil
The CEOs I dislike are those "Slash and Burn" CEOs - these are usually those who come from outside. They come in, sack and burn stuff every quarter for short term gain, pay themselves bonuses with approvals from the stupid board. Then they leave with a "Golden handshake/parachute" and the company in worse shape then when they joined.
Whereas, say what you like but it's hard to deny that Michael Dell has created some value. Same for a few other CEOs.