Well, you need the secure channel to be sure that the intended recipient was indeed the person that recieved the transmission on the insecure channel. In this instance, the secure channel isn't a secure channel in the sense of sending communications, but secure in the sense that you are able to dicern who recieved the transmission. A phone call will do, so long as these aren't bank transfers or nuclear launch codes, and you can feel sure about the voice on the other end of the line.
Or the secure channel can be simply the string of dedicated fiber optic cabling running from one building to the next, and therefore you assume that you trust who ever is on the other end of that line.
I'm just saying you need a trust mechanism. PGP helps to provide that infrastructure. This does not, so far as I saw.
If it's the one i just errr.... "recieved"... It's the Powerbook 1400. I even have the clear cover for it, but had no idea you could fit CD's under it.
If you have two channels of communication, one secure, and one insecure, you can transmit the key using the secure channel. If it's been intercepted, then the reciever would know and could tell the sender over the insecure channel to resend the key over the secure channel. If there's only one channel, then someone can sit in the middle subsituting messages to there hearts content and no one would evere know.
While this may be a great thing for satelite communications and for closed networks, I don't see how it will ever evolve it's way down to the desktop. How will an electron maintain its' position as it travels through a switch or router? What about sending down a fibre optic line (cable modem) and then having the message relayed through a satelite, then back down to a fibre-optic cahnnel on the other side of the globe?
No... Public key is here to stay. If it's compromised (via improved factoring attacks, TWINKLE, etc...) then we're back to square one... This isn't a subsitute that John Q. Public can use.
They're NOT biased, they just don't know any better. You buy a machine from Dell or Compaq or something, turn it on, and it says "Setting up windows" asks for your serial number, and POOF! you're done. That's all a consumer needs or wants to do.
Linux is not that easy, because it's so hard to get it pre-installed on a machine. I know, market development agreements, microsoft, monopoly, etc... but that doesn't affect the end user.
Because most machines ship with windows, we need to see more windows-based installers. Stick in the CD, an autorun screen pops up, asks where you want to install, reads your registry to get all your ISP and hardware settings, installs Netscape to closely reflect whatever browser is on the Windows side, and restarts you to linux...
Microsoft beat the Oracle time, but only by running a completely different query on the same dataset. Microsoft explained this as "well, we got the same answer...", so technically they lost the challenge because they didn't obey the rules...
How could one resonably expect that SQL Server could stack up against oracle? Microsoft used an HP 4-way Xeon machine vs. I believe a 16 CPU Sun Enterprize server. They said they got 1/2 the performance for 1/10th the price, but this wasn't a price/performance test. It was strictly can you do this?
No, they couldn't. How could they? SQL Server only runs on NT, and NT can't scale anywhere near where AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, Digital Unix, or IRIX can...
Jeez... If $70 for 2 years is too much for you, I'd think that you've got more important things to be spending money on than domains... Much more important than lower domain prices, I'd like to see more top-level domains added, otherwise, no matter how much you're willing to spend, the names you want to register won't be available. This will only get worse if domains get cheaper, because it will be much more justifiable for companies and individuals to speculatively register domains in hopes that someone else will want them.
I thought I read somewhere (no, I can't remember where) that this chip was just a random number generator in hardware. Which would theoretically be much more secure than one in software, because it could incorporate environmental variables that software can't access... If that's the case, then it's a good thing, so long as it's free for others to implement.
If the chip is a new ID, it's a huge waste of effort now that every intel CPU has an ID, every ethernet adapter has a MAC address, and every PC sold (through "legal" means) has a unique windows serial number (i know i know i know, use linux... just as soon as (fill in the blank) is ported!:) IBM predominatly uses Intel chips, so what justification could they give for making a new ID?
Responding to a comment above, I know I don't know where my link is, but do you have a link to where it says this chip implements 256-bit RSA??? I find it very hard to believe that IBM would be shortsighted enough to use that.
Rather than wonder, why not trot over to their website and look?:)
They've all sorts of interesting positions, and even better, I'm fairly sure I can pass most of the background checks involved. Unfortunately, not all, im afraid:(
The president definetly should NOT ever have top secret clearance, unless in the case of war, where (s)he should be allowed to know everything relevant to the situation at hand. The presidential post is pretty much a revolving door. New presidnt every four or eight years. That's a security issue. Generals, etc... can and do recieve higher security clearances than the president, because it's their job, and #2, barring unforeseen circumstances, a high ranking military official last much longer than the president (in terms of staying in a role where they would need to have the clearances they do.)
That's hodgepodge. Redhat charges $50 for a product they spend NOTHING to develop. MSFT charges $50 to top-tier OEM's, and they've spent much more than the zero figure of redhat, even if it all goes to purchasing companies and licensing technologies they didn't develop.
Apple charges $100 for an OS upgrade. NT is $250. Unixware, Solaris, and OpenServer are even more. BeOS, i think hovers in the $60 range.... The OS is priced low solely to give MSFT an advantage in the applicataion space.
It's time we abandoned the SSN number as a means of "securely" providing identities. Prior to computers, it kinda made sense, because of the effort required in amassing SSN's.
NOW, for a few bucks, you can do a SSN lookup. You can also gather just about every other piece of identifying info from public sources. It's called "identity theft" and it happens because it's too easy.
Not that I have any ideas for a workable alternative. I just can't wait til their a "bio-something-or-other" verification alternative. I don't care if i remember the number or not. For certian things (Insurance, Banking, etc...) I'd like to a thumb-print, face-scan, thumb print combo be my indenfier. Hard to spoof, if admined correctly.
Plus... aren't we either out of SSN's or have we been recycling them?
But the reason that MSFT has all the office revenue is because they own the platform on which it runs. So long as they hold on to their OS monopoly, they can introduce OS updates that kill off competitors products (Remember:"DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run"?).
They don't guage the public by charging "monopoly prices" on the OS... they treat the OS as a "loss-leader" in order to sell their overpriced Office-Suites and Development Tools, not to mention NT Client Access licenses.
Office, which is a business necessity, suffers from no reasonable competition, so it floats on HUGE profit margins. In areas where MS has competition, their products are priced substantially below the competition (SQL Server vs. Oracle 8i)///
I KNOW! Linux is free and blah blah blah, but really. I work in a huge company, and the only plans that I've heard for possible Linux use are in Server applications (DNS, EMAIL, possibly intranet) and is most definetly not headed for desktops anytime soon.
Why is rambus memory such a big deal? It seems to me (I may be wrong) that the advantage of Rambus is that it's serial and thus transfers really really fast.
Aren't current DIMMS 64 bits wide and running at 100MHz? Wouldn't that mean that Rambus memory would need to run at 6400 MHz to match the throughput we have right now? Or are they mounting many banks of RDRAM on a single module and running those in parallel at the speed of the CPU? But then we get back to running the memory in parallel, but faster, creating more errors presumably?
Can someone who knows more please shed some light?
Well, I guess some crackers should go out and make virii for linux, then?
Seriously. Windows in all its forms is not going to go from 90%+ marketshare to even 50% share in the foreseeable future. MAYBE 10 years from now windows will be 40%, Linux will be 40% and others will be the other 20% (if you believe everyhting you read posted on/.).
Even then, that's a huge market. And they'll have money to sped to develop new products outside that niche in case no one decides to start targeting Linux with nasty virii/trojan's etc
IPO's have been around forever. Many tech companies have traded publicly for many years. It's just these days they all see the valuations of say, Yahoo, Amazon, Ebay, and Redhat and go hmmm... I want some too! Okay, Redhat was recent, but they'll be another poster child for the IPO phenom.
The companies that had been around prior to the internet's popularity kind of suffer in a way because investors are used to trading their stocks at more "realistic" levels based on their earnings. Then comes an Ebay with a 1.2 million dollar profit being worth 20 billion.
Anyways, I'm very excited about McCaffee... With all these.com's, and soon to be Linux company's, it's refreshing to see a company with a product, advantage, and history going public.
Yes, Amazon does. Every interview I've read in Business Week & Forbes, Jeff Bezos says "We could either stop growing, stop spending our revenues on purchasing other company's, and report a profit now, or we can do what we're doing, buying our way into many markets, so we can report a bigger profit tomorrow".
Why can't IBM or Dell just roll their own distro based on Redhats, and then not have to pay any $$$ to Redhat? It's only a matter of time, when Redhat (or maybe Debian) is used by other companies merely as a reference platform, who then use their own distro's... It's going to happen. As more companies start compteting on the Linux front, they're going to start needing to lower prices more and more (according to redhat's site, last time i looked, it was $50/PC to distribute their software & manual as an OEM)... Once one company starts rolling their own to skirt the costs, others will follow, leaving Redhat with what?
Nothing...
Perhaps they should just ship their CD's for free, manuals for $10 or $20, and support for $25/call. That way, no one will try to do that to them... They'ed technically be a support company, giving out the product as a lead-in.
Because they flat out say they're not going to make money in the forseeable future. Instead, they (amazon) are expanding and diversifying in their hopes of being the Wal-mart of the web.
IF investors were expecting profits from Amazon, then they'd be out of business by now. Instead, they're just waiting for them to stop buying up other companies and instead report it as profit.
Then just write them and tell them to remove your name from their mailing list. Write the Direct Marketing Association and have them put you on their (i forgot the name) list, that most buyers bump their lists against in order to drop out people who have requested not to be included. Done.
If you've gone through these steps, you should be fine, because direct marketers don't want to spend the $$$ to reach you if they know for a fact you're going to throw it in the trash prior to reading it.
But then you've got to be careful and check all those boxes on websites, subscription forms, registration forms that says don't make my name avaialibe. Forget one, and you've got to start all over again
The article didn't seem to have any issue with people refering to databases and using them for research puproses. I'd suspect anything about a few records form the database (spitting cobra, rattlesnake, etc... i don't knw many other snakes) would be fine by the proposed regs... You just couldn't copy and paste the whole database for others to access without it generating money for the people who compiled it.
I'm thinking that you're mixing up terms... 1024 bit assymetric encryption just involves big numbers, but it's no where near as hard to break as 128 bit symetric encryption... As factoring methods advance in combination with Moore's law, assymetic requirements will likely skyrocket However, symetric encrytion schemems (128-bit) will likely stand the test of time (so far as i understand it, barring and fundamental breakthroughs in computing)... 3000 bit assymetric keyts (like you find in PGP) are completely secure according to public knowledge today, and will be for the forseable future... even 768 bits is "good enough" for the next few years
Repeat after me: THIS IS NOT FLAMEBAIT OR TROLL MATERIAL!:)
Thanks, now I'll continue.
As much as I can see how beneficial this will be to Rob, the rest of the slashdot crew, and even slashdot's availability as a site (I hope for the day that slashdot is no longer slashdotted:), I wonder if it will benefit Slashdot on a deeper level. Truthfully, I can't see how it possibly can.
Aside from bigger servers, fatter pipes, and maybe more people reading submissions in search of articles to post, what will it bring to Slashdot? As far as I figure it will only serve to bring more accountability to the/. culture.
What happens when a comment is posted that speaks negatvely of Andover? Going further, what happens when (if) rumors start flying about Andover's future. Naturally,/.'ers would want to discuss it, but will we run the risk of not having the stories posted in the first place?
I've already noticed a lack of critical articles and comments about Redhat, especially since the IPO. Prior to that, there were fears that they were attempting to dominate the Linux market and/or fragment it to their advantage (remember the fuss about Codewarrior for Redhat Linux?). Nowadays? Everything's good and well in Redhat land. Fewer and fewer articles and posts question them. Is this at all because Slashdot and more than a few readers are lovestruck by the company they now own a piece of? Maybe. Maybe not.
And what happens when shareholders expect to see revenue from/.? Will there be a change in privacy policies? I guess that's another wait and see. By the way, you can not tell shareholders you won't change your policies simply because that's how you want to do it, as many people think Redhat can and will do once shareholders start asking for more substantial profits.
It also struck me as kind of funny that/. was mentioned as being an "unbiased" news site for the Linux community in Andovers press-release. Did/does this strike anyone else as being not ocmpletely true? When has there been a positive MSFT story posted? When has someone said something nice about MSFT without being shot down in flames?
So what now? Will we be bombarded with banners at the top of every page as well as after ever xxx comments, just to be sure to maximize exposures? Will/. accept payment to post articles about xyz companies new product or strategy? Will we face geocities like pop-up ads? How about open-source related spam? Will our comments be analzyed in order to figure out exactly what offers we'd like to recieve?
One plus: maybe/. will finally get an extra server that they can dedicate to email for registered users... dibs on "lucas@slashdot.org" !:)
(It's a shame... I moderated two posts on this story, and now my points are gone!:(... I hope someone else highlights them...)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you need the secure channel to be sure that the intended recipient was indeed the person that recieved the transmission on the insecure channel. In this instance, the secure channel isn't a secure channel in the sense of sending communications, but secure in the sense that you are able to dicern who recieved the transmission. A phone call will do, so long as these aren't bank transfers or nuclear launch codes, and you can feel sure about the voice on the other end of the line.
Or the secure channel can be simply the string of dedicated fiber optic cabling running from one building to the next, and therefore you assume that you trust who ever is on the other end of that line.
I'm just saying you need a trust mechanism. PGP helps to provide that infrastructure. This does not, so far as I saw.
If it's the one i just errr.... "recieved"... It's the Powerbook 1400. I even have the clear cover for it, but had no idea you could fit CD's under it.
I want an ultra violet colored computer... Poor me! :(
If you have two channels of communication, one secure, and one insecure, you can transmit the key using the secure channel. If it's been intercepted, then the reciever would know and could tell the sender over the insecure channel to resend the key over the secure channel. If there's only one channel, then someone can sit in the middle subsituting messages to there hearts content and no one would evere know.
While this may be a great thing for satelite communications and for closed networks, I don't see how it will ever evolve it's way down to the desktop. How will an electron maintain its' position as it travels through a switch or router? What about sending down a fibre optic line (cable modem) and then having the message relayed through a satelite, then back down to a fibre-optic cahnnel on the other side of the globe?
No... Public key is here to stay. If it's compromised (via improved factoring attacks, TWINKLE, etc...) then we're back to square one... This isn't a subsitute that John Q. Public can use.
They're NOT biased, they just don't know any better. You buy a machine from Dell or Compaq or something, turn it on, and it says "Setting up windows" asks for your serial number, and POOF! you're done. That's all a consumer needs or wants to do.
Linux is not that easy, because it's so hard to get it pre-installed on a machine. I know, market development agreements, microsoft, monopoly, etc... but that doesn't affect the end user.
Because most machines ship with windows, we need to see more windows-based installers. Stick in the CD, an autorun screen pops up, asks where you want to install, reads your registry to get all your ISP and hardware settings, installs Netscape to closely reflect whatever browser is on the Windows side, and restarts you to linux...
That'd be easy. It's coming, but not here yet.
Microsoft beat the Oracle time, but only by running a completely different query on the same dataset. Microsoft explained this as "well, we got the same answer...", so technically they lost the challenge because they didn't obey the rules...
How could one resonably expect that SQL Server could stack up against oracle? Microsoft used an HP 4-way Xeon machine vs. I believe a 16 CPU Sun Enterprize server. They said they got 1/2 the performance for 1/10th the price, but this wasn't a price/performance test. It was strictly can you do this?
No, they couldn't. How could they? SQL Server only runs on NT, and NT can't scale anywhere near where AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, Digital Unix, or IRIX can...
Jeez... If $70 for 2 years is too much for you, I'd think that you've got more important things to be spending money on than domains... Much more important than lower domain prices, I'd like to see more top-level domains added, otherwise, no matter how much you're willing to spend, the names you want to register won't be available. This will only get worse if domains get cheaper, because it will be much more justifiable for companies and individuals to speculatively register domains in hopes that someone else will want them.
I thought I read somewhere (no, I can't remember where) that this chip was just a random number generator in hardware. Which would theoretically be much more secure than one in software, because it could incorporate environmental variables that software can't access... If that's the case, then it's a good thing, so long as it's free for others to implement.
:) IBM predominatly uses Intel chips, so what justification could they give for making a new ID?
If the chip is a new ID, it's a huge waste of effort now that every intel CPU has an ID, every ethernet adapter has a MAC address, and every PC sold (through "legal" means) has a unique windows serial number (i know i know i know, use linux... just as soon as (fill in the blank) is ported!
Responding to a comment above, I know I don't know where my link is, but do you have a link to where it says this chip implements 256-bit RSA??? I find it very hard to believe that IBM would be shortsighted enough to use that.
Rather than wonder, why not trot over to their website and look? :)
:(
They've all sorts of interesting positions, and even better, I'm fairly sure I can pass most of the background checks involved. Unfortunately, not all, im afraid
The president definetly should NOT ever have top secret clearance, unless in the case of war, where (s)he should be allowed to know everything relevant to the situation at hand. The presidential post is pretty much a revolving door. New presidnt every four or eight years. That's a security issue. Generals, etc... can and do recieve higher security clearances than the president, because it's their job, and #2, barring unforeseen circumstances, a high ranking military official last much longer than the president (in terms of staying in a role where they would need to have the clearances they do.)
That's hodgepodge. Redhat charges $50 for a product they spend NOTHING to develop. MSFT charges $50 to top-tier OEM's, and they've spent much more than the zero figure of redhat, even if it all goes to purchasing companies and licensing technologies they didn't develop.
Apple charges $100 for an OS upgrade. NT is $250. Unixware, Solaris, and OpenServer are even more. BeOS, i think hovers in the $60 range.... The OS is priced low solely to give MSFT an advantage in the applicataion space.
It's time we abandoned the SSN number as a means of "securely" providing identities. Prior to computers, it kinda made sense, because of the effort required in amassing SSN's.
NOW, for a few bucks, you can do a SSN lookup. You can also gather just about every other piece of identifying info from public sources. It's called "identity theft" and it happens because it's too easy.
Not that I have any ideas for a workable alternative. I just can't wait til their a "bio-something-or-other" verification alternative. I don't care if i remember the number or not. For certian things (Insurance, Banking, etc...) I'd like to a thumb-print, face-scan, thumb print combo be my indenfier. Hard to spoof, if admined correctly.
Plus... aren't we either out of SSN's or have we been recycling them?
If I could, I'd moderate you up a few notches for that one!
;)
(hint, hint, hint
But the reason that MSFT has all the office revenue is because they own the platform on which it runs. So long as they hold on to their OS monopoly, they can introduce OS updates that kill off competitors products (Remember:"DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run"?).
They don't guage the public by charging "monopoly prices" on the OS... they treat the OS as a "loss-leader" in order to sell their overpriced Office-Suites and Development Tools, not to mention NT Client Access licenses.
Office, which is a business necessity, suffers from no reasonable competition, so it floats on HUGE profit margins. In areas where MS has competition, their products are priced substantially below the competition (SQL Server vs. Oracle 8i)///
I KNOW! Linux is free and blah blah blah, but really. I work in a huge company, and the only plans that I've heard for possible Linux use are in Server applications (DNS, EMAIL, possibly intranet) and is most definetly not headed for desktops anytime soon.
Why is rambus memory such a big deal? It seems to me (I may be wrong) that the advantage of Rambus is that it's serial and thus transfers really really fast.
Aren't current DIMMS 64 bits wide and running at 100MHz? Wouldn't that mean that Rambus memory would need to run at 6400 MHz to match the throughput we have right now? Or are they mounting many banks of RDRAM on a single module and running those in parallel at the speed of the CPU? But then we get back to running the memory in parallel, but faster, creating more errors presumably?
Can someone who knows more please shed some light?
Thanks
Well, I guess some crackers should go out and make virii for linux, then?
Seriously. Windows in all its forms is not going to go from 90%+ marketshare to even 50% share in the foreseeable future. MAYBE 10 years from now windows will be 40%, Linux will be 40% and others will be the other 20% (if you believe everyhting you read posted on/.).
Even then, that's a huge market. And they'll have money to sped to develop new products outside that niche in case no one decides to start targeting Linux with nasty virii/trojan's etc
Finally, a company with an actual product! :)
.com's, and soon to be Linux company's, it's refreshing to see a company with a product, advantage, and history going public.
IPO's have been around forever. Many tech companies have traded publicly for many years. It's just these days they all see the valuations of say, Yahoo, Amazon, Ebay, and Redhat and go hmmm... I want some too! Okay, Redhat was recent, but they'll be another poster child for the IPO phenom.
The companies that had been around prior to the internet's popularity kind of suffer in a way because investors are used to trading their stocks at more "realistic" levels based on their earnings. Then comes an Ebay with a 1.2 million dollar profit being worth 20 billion.
Anyways, I'm very excited about McCaffee... With all these
Yes, Amazon does. Every interview I've read in Business Week & Forbes, Jeff Bezos says "We could either stop growing, stop spending our revenues on purchasing other company's, and report a profit now, or we can do what we're doing, buying our way into many markets, so we can report a bigger profit tomorrow".
Or along the lines of that.
Why can't IBM or Dell just roll their own distro based on Redhats, and then not have to pay any $$$ to Redhat? It's only a matter of time, when Redhat (or maybe Debian) is used by other companies merely as a reference platform, who then use their own distro's... It's going to happen. As more companies start compteting on the Linux front, they're going to start needing to lower prices more and more (according to redhat's site, last time i looked, it was $50/PC to distribute their software & manual as an OEM)... Once one company starts rolling their own to skirt the costs, others will follow, leaving Redhat with what?
Nothing...
Perhaps they should just ship their CD's for free, manuals for $10 or $20, and support for $25/call. That way, no one will try to do that to them... They'ed technically be a support company, giving out the product as a lead-in.
Because they flat out say they're not going to make money in the forseeable future. Instead, they (amazon) are expanding and diversifying in their hopes of being the Wal-mart of the web.
IF investors were expecting profits from Amazon, then they'd be out of business by now. Instead, they're just waiting for them to stop buying up other companies and instead report it as profit.
Then just write them and tell them to remove your name from their mailing list. Write the Direct Marketing Association and have them put you on their (i forgot the name) list, that most buyers bump their lists against in order to drop out people who have requested not to be included. Done.
If you've gone through these steps, you should be fine, because direct marketers don't want to spend the $$$ to reach you if they know for a fact you're going to throw it in the trash prior to reading it.
But then you've got to be careful and check all those boxes on websites, subscription forms, registration forms that says don't make my name avaialibe. Forget one, and you've got to start all over again
They can just refuse to furnish you service and be done with it.
The article didn't seem to have any issue with people refering to databases and using them for research puproses. I'd suspect anything about a few records form the database (spitting cobra, rattlesnake, etc... i don't knw many other snakes) would be fine by the proposed regs... You just couldn't copy and paste the whole database for others to access without it generating money for the people who compiled it.
The devils in the details, I guess.
I'm thinking that you're mixing up terms... 1024 bit assymetric encryption just involves big numbers, but it's no where near as hard to break as 128 bit symetric encryption... As factoring methods advance in combination with Moore's law, assymetic requirements will likely skyrocket However, symetric encrytion schemems (128-bit) will likely stand the test of time (so far as i understand it, barring and fundamental breakthroughs in computing)... 3000 bit assymetric keyts (like you find in PGP) are completely secure according to public knowledge today, and will be for the forseable future... even 768 bits is "good enough" for the next few years
Repeat after me: THIS IS NOT FLAMEBAIT OR TROLL MATERIAL! :)
:), I wonder if it will benefit Slashdot on a deeper level. Truthfully, I can't see how it possibly can.
/. culture.
/.'ers would want to discuss it, but will we run the risk of not having the stories posted in the first place?
/.? Will there be a change in privacy policies? I guess that's another wait and see. By the way, you can not tell shareholders you won't change your policies simply because that's how you want to do it, as many people think Redhat can and will do once shareholders start asking for more substantial profits.
/. was mentioned as being an "unbiased" news site for the Linux community in Andovers press-release. Did/does this strike anyone else as being not ocmpletely true? When has there been a positive MSFT story posted? When has someone said something nice about MSFT without being shot down in flames?
/. accept payment to post articles about xyz companies new product or strategy? Will we face geocities like pop-up ads? How about open-source related spam? Will our comments be analzyed in order to figure out exactly what offers we'd like to recieve?
/. will finally get an extra server that they can dedicate to email for registered users... dibs on "lucas@slashdot.org" ! :)
:( ... I hope someone else highlights them...)
Thanks, now I'll continue.
As much as I can see how beneficial this will be to Rob, the rest of the slashdot crew, and even slashdot's availability as a site (I hope for the day that slashdot is no longer slashdotted
Aside from bigger servers, fatter pipes, and maybe more people reading submissions in search of articles to post, what will it bring to Slashdot? As far as I figure it will only serve to bring more accountability to the
What happens when a comment is posted that speaks negatvely of Andover?
Going further, what happens when (if) rumors start flying about Andover's future. Naturally,
I've already noticed a lack of critical articles and comments about Redhat, especially since the IPO. Prior to that, there were fears that they were attempting to dominate the Linux market and/or fragment it to their advantage (remember the fuss about Codewarrior for Redhat Linux?). Nowadays? Everything's good and well in Redhat land. Fewer and fewer articles and posts question them. Is this at all because Slashdot and more than a few readers are lovestruck by the company they now own a piece of? Maybe. Maybe not.
And what happens when shareholders expect to see revenue from
It also struck me as kind of funny that
So what now? Will we be bombarded with banners at the top of every page as well as after ever xxx comments, just to be sure to maximize exposures? Will
One plus: maybe
(It's a shame... I moderated two posts on this story, and now my points are gone!