Last month, intel released (not just demoed) thier new low-power P3's... They use 1-2 watts on average, which is a HUGE improvement over their previous mobile chips. I've submitted it to Slashdot but lo and behold, I was rejected...
2000-06-20 14:23:36 Intel releasing low power chips! (articles,intel) (rejected)
Oh come on... you're giving the cracker the benefit of the doubt without extending that same thing to the molester...
He probably molested the kid, just for fun... as you so put it. yet, molesting kids is breaking the law. If the hacker didn't want to break the law, he or she could have set themselves up a system to break into, or else contract their skills out to a company that wanted to have their security tested...
Maybe I should carry a brick with me and call myself a "security consultant". If people don't try to hire me, i'll smash their windows and snoop around their house. Maybe I'll even leave a few micro-cams laying around so i can spy on them...
But then maybe someone will see that brick I'm carrying me and ask if i do security consults. I'll say "yes". We'll arrange a meeting. After shaking hands, he walks away, I bonk him on the head with the brick, take his wallet, and announce 'you're not secure', here's how i did it:
does that person deserve a job? He just took a brcik and smashed a window. Or else he took the brick and bonked someone over the head with it. Anyone can do that. Guido can do that. That's not skill. That's not anything but showmanship.
On a side note, I'm sure you've read, but in case you haven't... the ACLU? You like them? You like how they defend "our rights"? Well, they've decided to step in and defend "our rights" to molest children, by providing legal counsel for NAMBLA. Fucked up, isn't it?
What will a crusoe do that a Palm IIIe can't? Faster searches through my rolodex? yay. that saves a few seconds per day... and how much more power does it use compared to a dragonball or strongarm? What's that? 4 times more? Ermmmm, keep that away from my palmtop!
Let's compare it to the notebook market? Intels got chips out there now that use a fraction more power than the Crusoe yet sustain much better performance. If we need to wait another 4 months to see systems based on what Transemeta announced 6 months ago, they're going to WAY BEHIND the curve.
As we can all tell by your web address (which by the way, doesn"t seem to work, go figure), you're not a Linux fanatic, you're a Linus fanatic. Notice the difference? If Linux announced tomorrow that he thought that OS X was the shit and demanded that everone stop developing Linux and buy a Mac with OS X when it arrived, would you be one of them?
How can you try to convince someone to buy something that doesn't exist as of yet? Do you complain when microsoft releases their vaporware? Yes or no? No? Okay... Yes? Crusoes just as much vaporware as the Win2010.
Compete with the Palm? Dragonball processors use AT MOST 1/4 the power of Crusoes. Crusoe isn't in that market. And what advantage would you gain out of running Linux or Win 2000 on your palmtop? None...
No... i think originally it was either based on copyrights and they withdrew it and refiled on patent grounds, or else it was vice versa. Yes, they did with draw it, but they must have seen a hole and stopped their action before it set "the wrong" precendent...
But compare that 128 kb/s file to a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it and see if you can hear a difference.
My bad! Blue box was the Mac OS classic enviroment, which is far from Carbon.
so far as Rhapsody/Carbon goes... I thought that originally Apple wanted developers to use either Java or Objective C to code for Rhapsody/OS X, but when they balked, they (Apple) focused on cleaning on the Mac OS API, which ended up creating "Carbon". Correct?
$99 million really isn't really all that impressive. Let's look at Redhat as an example. I Didn't read their entire report, just the summary of their financials as found here:
For their fiscal year that ended in Feb-2000, they had:
revenues of $42.5 million
cost of sales of $45.5 million
other expenses of $41 million
Resulting in a loss of $40 million (all figures rounded).
That's not a very good business model. Especially since they don't actually develop the entire OS, as apple does. They just integrate it, and develop a few add on packages.
So, if Redhat could double their sales without any increase in expense (unlikely) or cost of sales (impossible), they'll still lose money on $85 million in sales.
We can call $86 million the break even point. The extra $13 million that Apple might recieve from selling 1 million $99 software licenses a year will be completely eaten up, and then some, by the fact that they're interally developing every part of their OS that resides above the kernel.
So, they take a loss on their software, and at the same time discourage people from buying their hardware, since they'ed be able to get the equivalent functionality elsewhere, and they're right back where they were before Steve Jobs cleaned up the mess they were in.
No... IBM still makes them. When Motorolla decided that they'ed like to increase the complexity by adding the AltiVec engine, IBM parted ways and focused on boosting G3 clockspeeds, and developed the G4 sans Altivec unit, as far as I've heard.
Skimming through their product lines:
Most of the RS/6000 series uses the POWER3 series, but the RS/6000 43P Model 150 uses a PowePC 604e. And the Power series is really just the PowerPC's bigger brother.
Compare that to Motorolla, who dumped all the computers based on their own chips out of the building so they could make way for Intel based systems...
That's why Apple should go with IBM (for non-alitvec ppc's) or Compaq (if they did happen t owant to go alpha) for their chips...
They should buy chips only from companies that use those chips themselves, and therefore have incentive to make progress with them. I don't know how Motorolla got into the PowerPC alliance in the first place, except they probably were used to selling apple's chips, so they wanted to continue doing so, no matter what.
Motorolla's very intent on capturing the embedded markets, while IBM is thrusting the Power architecture into workstations, servers, and I believe mainframes. Which company is shoing more commitment to going down the roads that apple wants to travel down?
Well, shit happens. They almost went out of business. They had to revamp plans. If you promise something that will unknowingly cause your demise and you later discover that it will, it's generally okay to reneg on the deal.
But we're talking apples and oranges here, when you drag apps into the equation. Except you show that the cost of the OS really just a small portion of a systems overall cost.
Witness the iPlanet application server, which runs (I believe) $35,000 a processor. So if you've got two quad xeon machine, one running linux and one running W2K, the software costs for one will be $140,000 and the other will be $142,500, or so.
But for the same equivalent license on 1 GHz Athlon/Linux machine to run Oracle, the final price would be $26,250.00 (same as for Win2K) - risc licensing is 1.5 times as much...
So i don't see what your'e griping about in this conversation about OS's. The end result is that in the server world, all OSes are cheap compared to the hardware they run on and the applications they run...
yeah... I've been wondering about two in particular: Redhat's "Oracle optimized" linux distro and their "High availability" distro, both of which are $2500, and there's not even a whisper of either of those on their FTP site. Just for the sake of it, i'd kick in $1 if 2499 other people would too, so we could post the sucker Tucows, LinuxISO.org, and whereever else it wanted to go...
$2500 for linux... yeah... free as in beer it's not.
The $173 version is for Win2000 professional, a more or less desktop oriented OS, not Win2000 Server. Joe user isn't administering servers, he's just using his computer.
I've got an "ancient" Power Mac 7100 running Mac OS 8.5 without a hitch. I've also got a 180 MHz 603e Umax clone running OS 9, again, no problems. And Apple's been very public in stating that OS-X will definetly run on all Apple branded Mac's that ever shipped with a G3 or G4 chip. And since the intitial developer builds required an 8500, 8600, 9500, or 9600 and ran on 7500 and 7600's as well, there's been a lot of speculation that once Apple had OS X complete feature wise, they could probably just flip a couple switches and deliver it for all the 604 based PCI macs as well.
Which OSes of theirs haven't run on the machines they currently shipped at the time of their launch? Besides maybe one instance of an overlap between the last 68K mac and Mac OS 8.5?
Apple's always been great about preserving hardware investments. With System 7.5, you could build a hard drive that would boot anything from a Mac Plus through a Power Mac 9500. The complete OS, not just DOS prompt, as Microsoft can do with 8088's through P3's.
Darwin's (AFAIK) not at all based on BSD. It's based on Mach running a BSD personality on top. Which only goes to show that OS X could potentially be even more portable than ever.
It's often reported that Apple's continuing to compile the whole thing on Intel hardware internally, not just PPC, and in fact, (I hope it wasn't Mac OS Rumors that I read this at, but i have a sneaky suspicion it might have been), it's been said that Apple's compiling OS X on Alpha's and is even in contingency talks with Compaq about moving over to the Alpha if Motorolla and IBM can't get their acts together on making faster G4's.
Imagine that! We'd be without fanless Mac's, but if Apple could promise to ship 1 million machines/quarter, that'd probably be enough volume to push the price of Alpha's down to the point of being competitive with the rest of the lot...
Either way, unless I saw it documented on Apple's site, I'd be amazed to believe that Apple would be using any assembly language with their new OS. Chips are fast enough these days to not need to do that, and they've learned quite a bit about tying themselves to one architecture with the 68K to PPC transition, that they'ed probably want to keep it as easy as possible.
Except Mac's trully do have a much longer lifespan than PC's. Is yours 3 years old? Time to get rid of it, else run Linux on it... Is your Mac 6 years old? Still running without missing a beat, most likely. 68040 Macs' could be upgraded to PPC 601's. Nubus powermacs can become G3's and G4's. 1st gen PCI macs (except the 7200) can be upgraded to G3/G4 status.
The OS is just much less "bloated" then Microsofts OSes... Or maybe not, as in the memory requirements continue to spiral, but once you've got the necessary memory, your machine ceases grinding to a halt. Compare that to a P200 running Win 98/IE 5.5 or heavan forbid WinNT... It's just not a pleasant experience...
Personally, I think Apple is wrong to believe that hardware sales would be incredibly hurt w/ a port of the OS to intel. Certainly they may shrink a little, and almost certainly wouldn't grow, but there are a lot of users like myself that would continue to buy it because we need that power and that stability.
Did you sleept through the clone years when Apple almost disappeared from the planet? Which one was it, Amelio or Spindler, that thought that the clones would actually try to grow the market, rather than take the last of least resistance and target Apple's own customers? That's what happened last time, and there's no reason to believe it wouldn't happen again.
During that period as well, Apple showed that it trully needs the revenues from it's hardware to fund OS development. They were taking massive hits since they were only receiving $150 to $300 per clone sold in licensing fees as opposed to double that if they shipped the computers themselves.
Apple sells a complete package that's worth a lot more than the sum of it's parts. That's not bashing Apple, that's just saying that they couldn't continue to sell upgrades to their OS at $99 a pop if that's the only revenue the OS "division" recieved. And there'd be no point to them shipping Intel machines, because the margins in the intel world just aren't suitable for them to continue the path thy've been following/creating.
Seems about right. But watch this thing climb upto $100,000 by the time it's through, just because of the prestige factor some ISP could have... (yeah, we're serving your pages off of a Cray)
I don't think anyone's going to buy this to do any serious gruntwork, these days... I'm betting that an RS/6000 would end up being a better deal... considering you don't get any service or support when you buy this thing...
Ohhh... but it is cool. I give it points for that.
WHAT? A corporation would be irresponsible to not hire someone who's also irresponsible? You can look at their background check and know for a fact that you can't trust them... Computer criminals have name recongition, yes, but is that good? Maybe for some one like Kevin Mitnick, but for the most part the people getting caught these days are little wannabe's that got caught. Remember, if you're a criminal, you don't want name recognition, because that means they're on to you...
Point 2: yeah, they might have valuable knowledge about computer security, but who's to say you can't find a "white hat" hacker that has the same knowledge? Or maybe you're really lucky and you hire someone who often finds exploits to troubleshoot your products. He's got a past of posting apps to exploit them prior to even letting the companies that created the products know so that they can ready a patch. Is this who you want auditing your source code? I think a corp would be irresponsible to put someone like that in that position. It's like hiring a career alcoholic to tend the bar. Sure you could do it, but would that really be the wisest thing you can do?
Your line about loyalty springs just a little to mind. Yes, most/.'ers will jump ship to a better job, but in most cases that's all they'll do. With a convict, though, you know they don't respect the laws, so there's a much greater likelyhood that when they jump ship, they'll take something with them, if for nothing else, then as a souveneir.
Well, you pay your debt to society by doing time in jail or paying a fine. Once you're done with that, you can rejoin society, but with stipluations.... sexual offenders often have to notify their future neighbors of their conviction, felons of any sort can never again own firearms, and, yes, you'll get in trouble for perjury if you write "no" next to the question that says "have you ever been convicted of a felony?"
Seems fair. It's not like you're off scott-free once you do whatever it is the judge tells you to do. And the country is just too large to be able to conduct things like interviewing convicts in order to determine which ones really are "rehabilitated" and which ones aren't... So everyone suffers the same.
CDC claims that BO2000 does everything that SMS does, and then some. Plus it's not detectable by any users, so they won't even know of a reason to complain. Just send on an 'all points bulletin' email to them with a word.doc attatched that runs a macro and installs BO from the company server, and you've got complete set of remotely controllable clients....
Slashdot Mirror
Last month, intel released (not just demoed) thier new low-power P3's... They use 1-2 watts on average, which is a HUGE improvement over their previous mobile chips. I've submitted it to Slashdot but lo and behold, I was rejected...
2000-06-20 14:23:36 Intel releasing low power chips! (articles,intel) (rejected)
Oh come on ... you're giving the cracker the benefit of the doubt without extending that same thing to the molester...
He probably molested the kid, just for fun... as you so put it. yet, molesting kids is breaking the law. If the hacker didn't want to break the law, he or she could have set themselves up a system to break into, or else contract their skills out to a company that wanted to have their security tested...
Maybe I should carry a brick with me and call myself a "security consultant". If people don't try to hire me, i'll smash their windows and snoop around their house. Maybe I'll even leave a few micro-cams laying around so i can spy on them...
But then maybe someone will see that brick I'm carrying me and ask if i do security consults. I'll say "yes". We'll arrange a meeting. After shaking hands, he walks away, I bonk him on the head with the brick, take his wallet, and announce 'you're not secure', here's how i did it:
does that person deserve a job? He just took a brcik and smashed a window. Or else he took the brick and bonked someone over the head with it. Anyone can do that. Guido can do that. That's not skill. That's not anything but showmanship.
On a side note, I'm sure you've read, but in case you haven't... the ACLU? You like them? You like how they defend "our rights"? Well, they've decided to step in and defend "our rights" to molest children, by providing legal counsel for NAMBLA. Fucked up, isn't it?
What will a crusoe do that a Palm IIIe can't? Faster searches through my rolodex? yay. that saves a few seconds per day... and how much more power does it use compared to a dragonball or strongarm? What's that? 4 times more? Ermmmm, keep that away from my palmtop!
Let's compare it to the notebook market? Intels got chips out there now that use a fraction more power than the Crusoe yet sustain much better performance. If we need to wait another 4 months to see systems based on what Transemeta announced 6 months ago, they're going to WAY BEHIND the curve.
As we can all tell by your web address (which by the way, doesn"t seem to work, go figure), you're not a Linux fanatic, you're a Linus fanatic. Notice the difference? If Linux announced tomorrow that he thought that OS X was the shit and demanded that everone stop developing Linux and buy a Mac with OS X when it arrived, would you be one of them?
How can you try to convince someone to buy something that doesn't exist as of yet? Do you complain when microsoft releases their vaporware? Yes or no? No? Okay... Yes? Crusoes just as much vaporware as the Win2010.
Compete with the Palm? Dragonball processors use AT MOST 1/4 the power of Crusoes. Crusoe isn't in that market. And what advantage would you gain out of running Linux or Win 2000 on your palmtop? None...
No... i think originally it was either based on copyrights and they withdrew it and refiled on patent grounds, or else it was vice versa. Yes, they did with draw it, but they must have seen a hole and stopped their action before it set "the wrong" precendent...
But compare that 128 kb/s file to a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it made from a copy of it and see if you can hear a difference.
Unless something new has happened, the last I knew was that Sony filed a suit against connectix.
Sony got preliminary injunction.
Injuntion was overturned.
Sony withdrew suit.
Sony filed new suit the next day.
That new suit hasn't been resolved yet, unless I missed it...
My bad! Blue box was the Mac OS classic enviroment, which is far from Carbon.
so far as Rhapsody/Carbon goes... I thought that originally Apple wanted developers to use either Java or Objective C to code for Rhapsody/OS X, but when they balked, they (Apple) focused on cleaning on the Mac OS API, which ended up creating "Carbon". Correct?
$99 million really isn't really all that impressive. Let's look at Redhat as an example. I Didn't read their entire report, just the summary of their financials as found here:
r =RHAT&Mod=1&S1=N
http://excite.elogic.com/sec_financials.asp?ticke
For their fiscal year that ended in Feb-2000, they had:
revenues of $42.5 million
cost of sales of $45.5 million
other expenses of $41 million
Resulting in a loss of $40 million (all figures rounded).
That's not a very good business model. Especially since they don't actually develop the entire OS, as apple does. They just integrate it, and develop a few add on packages.
So, if Redhat could double their sales without any increase in expense (unlikely) or cost of sales (impossible), they'll still lose money on $85 million in sales.
We can call $86 million the break even point. The extra $13 million that Apple might recieve from selling 1 million $99 software licenses a year will be completely eaten up, and then some, by the fact that they're interally developing every part of their OS that resides above the kernel.
So, they take a loss on their software, and at the same time discourage people from buying their hardware, since they'ed be able to get the equivalent functionality elsewhere, and they're right back where they were before Steve Jobs cleaned up the mess they were in.
No... IBM still makes them. When Motorolla decided that they'ed like to increase the complexity by adding the AltiVec engine, IBM parted ways and focused on boosting G3 clockspeeds, and developed the G4 sans Altivec unit, as far as I've heard.
Skimming through their product lines:
Most of the RS/6000 series uses the POWER3 series, but the RS/6000 43P Model 150 uses a PowePC 604e. And the Power series is really just the PowerPC's bigger brother.
Compare that to Motorolla, who dumped all the computers based on their own chips out of the building so they could make way for Intel based systems...
That's why Apple should go with IBM (for non-alitvec ppc's) or Compaq (if they did happen t owant to go alpha) for their chips...
They should buy chips only from companies that use those chips themselves, and therefore have incentive to make progress with them. I don't know how Motorolla got into the PowerPC alliance in the first place, except they probably were used to selling apple's chips, so they wanted to continue doing so, no matter what.
Motorolla's very intent on capturing the embedded markets, while IBM is thrusting the Power architecture into workstations, servers, and I believe mainframes. Which company is shoing more commitment to going down the roads that apple wants to travel down?
Well, shit happens. They almost went out of business. They had to revamp plans. If you promise something that will unknowingly cause your demise and you later discover that it will, it's generally okay to reneg on the deal.
Further down the page - it's $20,000.
But we're talking apples and oranges here, when you drag apps into the equation. Except you show that the cost of the OS really just a small portion of a systems overall cost.
Witness the iPlanet application server, which runs (I believe) $35,000 a processor. So if you've got two quad xeon machine, one running linux and one running W2K, the software costs for one will be $140,000 and the other will be $142,500, or so.
But for the same equivalent license on 1 GHz Athlon/Linux machine to run Oracle, the final price would be $26,250.00 (same as for Win2K) - risc licensing is 1.5 times as much...
So i don't see what your'e griping about in this conversation about OS's. The end result is that in the server world, all OSes are cheap compared to the hardware they run on and the applications they run...
yeah... I've been wondering about two in particular: Redhat's "Oracle optimized" linux distro and their "High availability" distro, both of which are $2500, and there's not even a whisper of either of those on their FTP site. Just for the sake of it, i'd kick in $1 if 2499 other people would too, so we could post the sucker Tucows, LinuxISO.org, and whereever else it wanted to go...
$2500 for linux... yeah... free as in beer it's not.
The $173 version is for Win2000 professional, a more or less desktop oriented OS, not Win2000 Server. Joe user isn't administering servers, he's just using his computer.
I've got an "ancient" Power Mac 7100 running Mac OS 8.5 without a hitch. I've also got a 180 MHz 603e Umax clone running OS 9, again, no problems. And Apple's been very public in stating that OS-X will definetly run on all Apple branded Mac's that ever shipped with a G3 or G4 chip. And since the intitial developer builds required an 8500, 8600, 9500, or 9600 and ran on 7500 and 7600's as well, there's been a lot of speculation that once Apple had OS X complete feature wise, they could probably just flip a couple switches and deliver it for all the 604 based PCI macs as well.
Which OSes of theirs haven't run on the machines they currently shipped at the time of their launch? Besides maybe one instance of an overlap between the last 68K mac and Mac OS 8.5?
Apple's always been great about preserving hardware investments. With System 7.5, you could build a hard drive that would boot anything from a Mac Plus through a Power Mac 9500. The complete OS, not just DOS prompt, as Microsoft can do with 8088's through P3's.
Blue box equalled MacOS apps on Rhapsody PPC(now carbon)
Yellow box equalled NextStep/OpenStep apps on Rhapsody
Red box was only fabled to exist which would run Windows apps on Rhapsody x86
Darwin's (AFAIK) not at all based on BSD. It's based on Mach running a BSD personality on top. Which only goes to show that OS X could potentially be even more portable than ever.
It's often reported that Apple's continuing to compile the whole thing on Intel hardware internally, not just PPC, and in fact, (I hope it wasn't Mac OS Rumors that I read this at, but i have a sneaky suspicion it might have been), it's been said that Apple's compiling OS X on Alpha's and is even in contingency talks with Compaq about moving over to the Alpha if Motorolla and IBM can't get their acts together on making faster G4's.
Imagine that! We'd be without fanless Mac's, but if Apple could promise to ship 1 million machines/quarter, that'd probably be enough volume to push the price of Alpha's down to the point of being competitive with the rest of the lot...
Either way, unless I saw it documented on Apple's site, I'd be amazed to believe that Apple would be using any assembly language with their new OS. Chips are fast enough these days to not need to do that, and they've learned quite a bit about tying themselves to one architecture with the 68K to PPC transition, that they'ed probably want to keep it as easy as possible.
Except Mac's trully do have a much longer lifespan than PC's. Is yours 3 years old? Time to get rid of it, else run Linux on it... Is your Mac 6 years old? Still running without missing a beat, most likely. 68040 Macs' could be upgraded to PPC 601's. Nubus powermacs can become G3's and G4's. 1st gen PCI macs (except the 7200) can be upgraded to G3/G4 status.
The OS is just much less "bloated" then Microsofts OSes... Or maybe not, as in the memory requirements continue to spiral, but once you've got the necessary memory, your machine ceases grinding to a halt. Compare that to a P200 running Win 98/IE 5.5 or heavan forbid WinNT... It's just not a pleasant experience...
Personally, I think Apple is wrong to believe that hardware sales would be incredibly hurt w/ a port of the OS to intel. Certainly they may shrink a little, and almost certainly wouldn't grow, but there are a lot of users like myself that would continue to buy it because we need that power and that stability.
Did you sleept through the clone years when Apple almost disappeared from the planet? Which one was it, Amelio or Spindler, that thought that the clones would actually try to grow the market, rather than take the last of least resistance and target Apple's own customers? That's what happened last time, and there's no reason to believe it wouldn't happen again.
During that period as well, Apple showed that it trully needs the revenues from it's hardware to fund OS development. They were taking massive hits since they were only receiving $150 to $300 per clone sold in licensing fees as opposed to double that if they shipped the computers themselves.
Apple sells a complete package that's worth a lot more than the sum of it's parts. That's not bashing Apple, that's just saying that they couldn't continue to sell upgrades to their OS at $99 a pop if that's the only revenue the OS "division" recieved. And there'd be no point to them shipping Intel machines, because the margins in the intel world just aren't suitable for them to continue the path thy've been following/creating.
$35K for 16 GigaFlops.
That's $35K for 16 PowerMac G4's.
Seems about right. But watch this thing climb upto $100,000 by the time it's through, just because of the prestige factor some ISP could have... (yeah, we're serving your pages off of a Cray)
I don't think anyone's going to buy this to do any serious gruntwork, these days... I'm betting that an RS/6000 would end up being a better deal... considering you don't get any service or support when you buy this thing...
Ohhh... but it is cool. I give it points for that.
I don't think i've ever seen anything that asked about arrests, just convictions...
Once he's done his time, will you trust a child molester to babysit your daughter?
It's a more drastic example, I know, but it goes a long way in this discussion of "well once he's done his time, he's paid his debt to society".
WHAT? A corporation would be irresponsible to not hire someone who's also irresponsible? You can look at their background check and know for a fact that you can't trust them... Computer criminals have name recongition, yes, but is that good? Maybe for some one like Kevin Mitnick, but for the most part the people getting caught these days are little wannabe's that got caught. Remember, if you're a criminal, you don't want name recognition, because that means they're on to you...
/.'ers will jump ship to a better job, but in most cases that's all they'll do. With a convict, though, you know they don't respect the laws, so there's a much greater likelyhood that when they jump ship, they'll take something with them, if for nothing else, then as a souveneir.
Point 2: yeah, they might have valuable knowledge about computer security, but who's to say you can't find a "white hat" hacker that has the same knowledge? Or maybe you're really lucky and you hire someone who often finds exploits to troubleshoot your products. He's got a past of posting apps to exploit them prior to even letting the companies that created the products know so that they can ready a patch. Is this who you want auditing your source code? I think a corp would be irresponsible to put someone like that in that position. It's like hiring a career alcoholic to tend the bar. Sure you could do it, but would that really be the wisest thing you can do?
Your line about loyalty springs just a little to mind. Yes, most
Well, you pay your debt to society by doing time in jail or paying a fine. Once you're done with that, you can rejoin society, but with stipluations.... sexual offenders often have to notify their future neighbors of their conviction, felons of any sort can never again own firearms, and, yes, you'll get in trouble for perjury if you write "no" next to the question that says "have you ever been convicted of a felony?"
Seems fair. It's not like you're off scott-free once you do whatever it is the judge tells you to do. And the country is just too large to be able to conduct things like interviewing convicts in order to determine which ones really are "rehabilitated" and which ones aren't... So everyone suffers the same.
CDC claims that BO2000 does everything that SMS does, and then some. Plus it's not detectable by any users, so they won't even know of a reason to complain. Just send on an 'all points bulletin' email to them with a word .doc attatched that runs a macro and installs BO from the company server, and you've got complete set of remotely controllable clients....
:)