Here is a compelling agrumement for diversity of systems. The impact of these virus' would be much less by the simple fact of people using different operating systems. Never mind issues of which has better security just the fact that their are a variety of systems in use.
I see the situation as rather similar to a population relying on one type of potatoe to feed the whole population. Get a bug in the tattie and the whole of Ireland starves...
How about mandating that critical systems (such as Nuclear Power alarm systens) have back-ups on completely seperate platforms?
To add to the parent. Given that something like 80% of developers are writing bespoke software I would argue very strongly that Free software is adding value. So, at least 80% of us are in the services industry (same as toilet cleaners, architects or lawyers - well maybe not lawyers). We rely on our skills and our tools to do our job well.
The less we pay for our tools (hardware, software, roofs) the more value we can add - to our bottom line and to what our customer can afford.
The TCO arguement would have us believe that licencing costs are 10% of the total IT spend, so we can ad at least 10% value - all else being equal.
I would argue that the value added is far greater than 10%. Many IT projects begin with a "suck-it and see" approach. However, when using commercial software the licence fee has to be paid up front. So the *initial* impact of not using commercial licences can often be to free up far more than 10% for actually developing something useful.
This, in any case, is our experience. I would be interested in canvassing others opinions and experiences - although I am rather late on this discussion.
The insider trading issue is actually bigger than suspected.
This article demonstrates how SCOs owners have cashed in on the inflated share prices without having to show up on the insider trading lists.
All that talk about buying SCO/Linux licences as an "insurance" sounds more and more like the Godfather. When did racketeering become legal in the USA?
You must be kidding. There I was congratulating modertors on their appreciation of my finer comments only (days) later to find some dweeb(s) modding me down. Oh for a short attention spand.
That's nice and alright then. Trouble is it's rather like computer geeks talking techno babble to non-geeks. Meaningless and misleading and in this case very conveniently misleading.
If they mean "hey, we accidently hit all this shit, killed a few folks by mistake and maimed a couple of others" then that's what they should say.
Does "collateral damage" still mean maiming and killing people these days? If so, why is US media so afraid of saying so? Or is that just something the evil doers do?
It would be funny, except 2 days ago I sat through a day of Open Source presentations to government IS managers (80 of them) in New Zealand. MS were given a slot by the organisers and what you describe was *exactly* their approach. Not only that, depsite the presence of some pretty senior Linux execs from IBM, Sun (yes) the journalists reporting on the event chose mainly to report on that one presentation.
Oh yes, the MS guy was only trying to find a "middle ground" and make some suggestions.
After a challenging start, the system generally performed so well that it was easy to forget the underlying technology being used.
Let's see, after 20 years rolling out IT solutions I can apply that statement to how many successful projects...oh, that's right 100%.
Haveing RTFA I can't see how they arrive at this conclusion...
However, the problems we did come across (particularly the apparent limitations of Samba), and the amount of tinkering required to solve them, raised serious doubts about recommending Linux for widespread office use just yet.
Well, the main evidence for the complaint in that post seems to be an article on an Australian news site. Hardly right up the SECs street, I'd have thought. They would probably feel this was just wasting their time.
What would be more interesting is direct evidence of insiser trading, evidence that they executives are carrying out this action to inflate stock prices when they know it to be a non-starter.
A few jucy emails, transcripts and evidence of unusual share trading would be better.
Well fine, why this comment isn't -1 flamebait I do not know.
Anyway, if I were blind (or visually impaired) and my advocacy group was using this method as a way of raising awareness of accessability issues, I think I'd be pretty happy. Yahoo & Hotmail can afford to change & provide innovative solutions in this area.
On the whole web designers don't have to do that much to improve access to their sites for people with disabilities, particularly visual ones.
In short, you can be a selfish pig, or, when made aware of an issue try and help out.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks to the adoption of Linux on the desktop has been the nerdish nature of the whole installation, configuration and user experience
Ok, I'll bite. I've never installed Windows or Linux. It's always, like, just there (or not). Anyway, as a joint owner of a mainly Open Source based company I thought it was time I tried installing Linux on my home PC (my sysadm's already taken care of my work PC for me, I never touch the config stuff).
So I take three Mandrake 9.1 disks home. Whack them in my CDRom. I had to worry about how much disk space to leave poor old Windows and ignore the "warning, warning, make sure you have backups" prompts. Phew. Spin spin spin everything is installed, even sorted out that it was my external modem that is really used to connect to the internet. When the PC powers on I can chose Windows or Linux - sorry I still need to test our software for Windows users.
Who am I? A user of desktop tools, email, office the internet. A typical office worker who gets techies to help out whenever anything goes wrong. If any one can suggest a replacement for MSProject (clients like the pictures) I'll be off MS completely.
So, its official, as of last week I can confirm that Linux *is* ready for the desktop - go Mandrake and all those Gnome, KDE, OpenOffice, Gimp, Evolution etc etc developers.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. GNU went on for years without that little thing called a Kernel. I think everyone accepts the RS legacy cannot be overstated, but he has to realise that when he let the cat out of the bag he gave others the freedom to use his project and not his project's name. Surely that is what freedom is all about. Why should we call an OS Linux/GNU?
Reading the article my initial reactions were: 1. the headline is wrong, RMS has not cut through any fud here.
2. The GNU project has taken an awful long time to produce something RMS seems to consider trivial, namely a Kernel.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks to the adoption of Linux on the desktop has been the nerdish nature of the whole installation, configuration and user experience
Ok, I'll bite. I've never installed Windows or Linux. It's always, like, just there (or not). Anyway, as a joint owner of a mainly Open Source based company I thought it was time I tried installing Linux on my home PC (my sysadm's already taken care of my work PC for me, I never touch the config stuff).
So I take three Mandrake 9.1 disks home. Whack them in my CDRom. I had to worry about how much disk space to leave poor old Windows and ignore the "warning, warning, make sure you have backups" prompts. Phew. Spin spin spin everything is installed, even sorted out that it was my external modem that is really used to connect to the internet. When the PC powers on I can chose Windows or Linux - sorry I still need to test our software for Windows users.
Who am I? A user of desktop tools, email, office the internet. A typical office worker who gets techies to help out whenever anything goes wrong. If any one can suggest a replacement for MSProject (clients like the pictures) I'll be off MS completely.
So, its official, as of last week I can confirm that Linux *is* ready for the desktop.
Now you will explain to the class why Microsoft was found guilty of abusing its "monopoly" depsite the fact that other people make OS's and produce internet browsers. There is a definition, it is looser than you seem to know about most of the big pharmaceuticals fit the generally accepted definition.
Ok, well seeing as my karma is slipping away due to a "flamebait" mod I'll carry on with my thinking:-)
I see the drug companies as similar to the bread making companies. Both have a recepie, both make money out of baking and selling the outcome. One does this without the need for patents. In fact, asprin tablet makers still manage to make lots money and stay in business despite there no longer (or even ever) being patents on asprin. So, in the end I think that the "drugs companies" issue is a bogus arguement. I also notice that the drug manufacturers are amongst the biggest an most monopolistic of companies. We end up paying huge premiums as a result of this either to health insurance companies or in taxes to our health services.
If the FDA wanted to level the playing field they could do this by ensuring that any new *brand* of drug has to go through trials and test, just like the original.
Sorry to bore you all, come on give me another flamebait (idiot moderator!).
Yeah, that's nice theory but I don't think practice has born it out. It is very expensive for the little guy to raise and the defend patents world wide. Dyson spend millions doing so on their "bagless vacuum cleaner", but really it is a distraction from the faact that they come up with nice designs that people want to by. I believe it is a distraction to their company and ultimately holds back innovation.
Just look at what gene patenting is threatening to do to innnovation in that field. Look at how it is placing food production in the hands of a very few massive corporates.
So theory, nice but the reallity is that most of the time patenting is not an available option but things still get made and progress progresses.
My big fear is that organisation like the WTO start enforcing patents world wide will be yet another rod for the 1st World to beat the rest with.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is a compelling agrumement for diversity of systems. The impact of these virus' would be much less by the simple fact of people using different operating systems. Never mind issues of which has better security just the fact that their are a variety of systems in use.
I see the situation as rather similar to a population relying on one type of potatoe to feed the whole population. Get a bug in the tattie and the whole of Ireland starves...
How about mandating that critical systems (such as Nuclear Power alarm systens) have back-ups on completely seperate platforms?
To add to the parent. Given that something like 80% of developers are writing bespoke software I would argue very strongly that Free software is adding value. So, at least 80% of us are in the services industry (same as toilet cleaners, architects or lawyers - well maybe not lawyers). We rely on our skills and our tools to do our job well.
The less we pay for our tools (hardware, software, roofs) the more value we can add - to our bottom line and to what our customer can afford.
The TCO arguement would have us believe that licencing costs are 10% of the total IT spend, so we can ad at least 10% value - all else being equal.
I would argue that the value added is far greater than 10%. Many IT projects begin with a "suck-it and see" approach. However, when using commercial software the licence fee has to be paid up front. So the *initial* impact of not using commercial licences can often be to free up far more than 10% for actually developing something useful.
This, in any case, is our experience. I would be interested in canvassing others opinions and experiences - although I am rather late on this discussion.
The insider trading issue is actually bigger than suspected.
This article demonstrates how SCOs owners have cashed in on the inflated share prices without having to show up on the insider trading lists.
All that talk about buying SCO/Linux licences as an "insurance" sounds more and more like the Godfather. When did racketeering become legal in the USA?
You are correct, in all ways. If I could have removed the comment after my brain clicked back into gear that would have been good.
/. Mod me down.
Just so happened some crashes were fresher in my mind than others.
Holy cow, an apology on
the Human Genome Project
Hey, shouldn't someone have a patent on that? How the hell will innnovation occur with out a patent?
Umm, way to late to have an affect in this overrrated clap trap.
I spent last night on the phone to my father inlaw helping remove the virus. It had two impacts:
1. The OS kept crashing. To be more explicit, that OS was Windows XP, on a PC less than 1 month old.
2. It stopped him connecting to the internet and this from finding out how to remove the virus and how to patch his system.
Is that clear enough for you?
You must be kidding. There I was congratulating modertors on their appreciation of my finer comments only (days) later to find some dweeb(s) modding me down. Oh for a short attention spand.
That's nice and alright then. Trouble is it's rather like computer geeks talking techno babble to non-geeks. Meaningless and misleading and in this case very conveniently misleading.
/., BTW, would have been the use of the internet by frontline troops.
If they mean "hey, we accidently hit all this shit, killed a few folks by mistake and maimed a couple of others" then that's what they should say.
A much more interesting story for
Does "collateral damage" still mean maiming and killing people these days? If so, why is US media so afraid of saying so? Or is that just something the evil doers do?
Two words "open systems". Anyone can bundle their software with Linux (or Solaris for that matter). Everything is "open".
Not the case with Windows, hence the abuse charges. Understand that and all will fall into place for you.
It would be funny, except 2 days ago I sat through a day of Open Source presentations to government IS managers (80 of them) in New Zealand. MS were given a slot by the organisers and what you describe was *exactly* their approach. Not only that, depsite the presence of some pretty senior Linux execs from IBM, Sun (yes) the journalists reporting on the event chose mainly to report on that one presentation.
Oh yes, the MS guy was only trying to find a "middle ground" and make some suggestions.
After a challenging start, the system generally performed so well that it was easy to forget the underlying technology being used.
Let's see, after 20 years rolling out IT solutions I can apply that statement to how many successful projects...oh, that's right 100%.
Haveing RTFA I can't see how they arrive at this conclusion...
However, the problems we did come across (particularly the apparent limitations of Samba), and the amount of tinkering required to solve them, raised serious doubts about recommending Linux for widespread office use just yet.
Quite bizarre.
God almighty, I was with you up to that NRA comment. Now, I want as much government protection as possible to keep me safe from the NRA goons...
Cheap, beautiful, ubiquitous and nearly always empty. Probably the most underrated institution in the States. Here's a useful link.
Ok, so Sir Edmond Hilary made that discovery before me, but I thought I'd pass it on.
Well, even geeks have to chill out somewhere.
Well, the main evidence for the complaint in that post seems to be an article on an Australian news site. Hardly right up the SECs street, I'd have thought. They would probably feel this was just wasting their time.
What would be more interesting is direct evidence of insiser trading, evidence that they executives are carrying out this action to inflate stock prices when they know it to be a non-starter.
A few jucy emails, transcripts and evidence of unusual share trading would be better.
We commented on MandrakeSoft's status update yesterday.
Hey me too. Check it out, a 5 rating.
Now we're all working smarter not harder.
Well fine, why this comment isn't -1 flamebait I do not know.
Anyway, if I were blind (or visually impaired) and my advocacy group was using this method as a way of raising awareness of accessability issues, I think I'd be pretty happy. Yahoo & Hotmail can afford to change & provide innovative solutions in this area.
On the whole web designers don't have to do that much to improve access to their sites for people with disabilities, particularly visual ones.
In short, you can be a selfish pig, or, when made aware of an issue try and help out.
+1 helpful, thanks. I Don't think MS Project is prime time either :-) Just quite nice for presenting a schedule at the start of a project.
Great to see that humour has survived the trauma of recent years. Keep up the good work.
At the risk of repeating myself...
One of the biggest stumbling blocks to the adoption of Linux on the desktop has been the nerdish nature of the whole installation, configuration and user experience
Ok, I'll bite. I've never installed Windows or Linux. It's always, like, just there (or not). Anyway, as a joint owner of a mainly Open Source based company I thought it was time I tried installing Linux on my home PC (my sysadm's already taken care of my work PC for me, I never touch the config stuff).
So I take three Mandrake 9.1 disks home. Whack them in my CDRom. I had to worry about how much disk space to leave poor old Windows and ignore the "warning, warning, make sure you have backups" prompts. Phew. Spin spin spin everything is installed, even sorted out that it was my external modem that is really used to connect to the internet. When the PC powers on I can chose Windows or Linux - sorry I still need to test our software for Windows users.
Who am I? A user of desktop tools, email, office the internet. A typical office worker who gets techies to help out whenever anything goes wrong. If any one can suggest a replacement for MSProject (clients like the pictures) I'll be off MS completely.
So, its official, as of last week I can confirm that Linux *is* ready for the desktop - go Mandrake and all those Gnome, KDE, OpenOffice, Gimp, Evolution etc etc developers.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. GNU went on for years without that little thing called a Kernel. I think everyone accepts the RS legacy cannot be overstated, but he has to realise that when he let the cat out of the bag he gave others the freedom to use his project and not his project's name. Surely that is what freedom is all about. Why should we call an OS Linux/GNU?
Reading the article my initial reactions were:
1. the headline is wrong, RMS has not cut through any fud here.
2. The GNU project has taken an awful long time to produce something RMS seems to consider trivial, namely a Kernel.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks to the adoption of Linux on the desktop has been the nerdish nature of the whole installation, configuration and user experience
Ok, I'll bite. I've never installed Windows or Linux. It's always, like, just there (or not). Anyway, as a joint owner of a mainly Open Source based company I thought it was time I tried installing Linux on my home PC (my sysadm's already taken care of my work PC for me, I never touch the config stuff).
So I take three Mandrake 9.1 disks home. Whack them in my CDRom. I had to worry about how much disk space to leave poor old Windows and ignore the "warning, warning, make sure you have backups" prompts. Phew. Spin spin spin everything is installed, even sorted out that it was my external modem that is really used to connect to the internet. When the PC powers on I can chose Windows or Linux - sorry I still need to test our software for Windows users.
Who am I? A user of desktop tools, email, office the internet. A typical office worker who gets techies to help out whenever anything goes wrong. If any one can suggest a replacement for MSProject (clients like the pictures) I'll be off MS completely.
So, its official, as of last week I can confirm that Linux *is* ready for the desktop.
Now you will explain to the class why Microsoft was found guilty of abusing its "monopoly" depsite the fact that other people make OS's and produce internet browsers. There is a definition, it is looser than you seem to know about most of the big pharmaceuticals fit the generally accepted definition.
Ok, well seeing as my karma is slipping away due to a "flamebait" mod I'll carry on with my thinking :-)
I see the drug companies as similar to the bread making companies. Both have a recepie, both make money out of baking and selling the outcome. One does this without the need for patents. In fact, asprin tablet makers still manage to make lots money and stay in business despite there no longer (or even ever) being patents on asprin. So, in the end I think that the "drugs companies" issue is a bogus arguement. I also notice that the drug manufacturers are amongst the biggest an most monopolistic of companies. We end up paying huge premiums as a result of this either to health insurance companies or in taxes to our health services.
If the FDA wanted to level the playing field they could do this by ensuring that any new *brand* of drug has to go through trials and test, just like the original.
Sorry to bore you all, come on give me another flamebait (idiot moderator!).
Yeah, that's nice theory but I don't think practice has born it out. It is very expensive for the little guy to raise and the defend patents world wide. Dyson spend millions doing so on their "bagless vacuum cleaner", but really it is a distraction from the faact that they come up with nice designs that people want to by. I believe it is a distraction to their company and ultimately holds back innovation.
Just look at what gene patenting is threatening to do to innnovation in that field. Look at how it is placing food production in the hands of a very few massive corporates.
So theory, nice but the reallity is that most of the time patenting is not an available option but things still get made and progress progresses.
My big fear is that organisation like the WTO start enforcing patents world wide will be yet another rod for the 1st World to beat the rest with.