Knoppix is a great marketing tool and bloody good at working out hardware and network configurations. It is surprising how often you stumble across it.
My main problem with Knoppix is the OpenOffice install not being able to get out of English US (changing the language for spell checking in OO is a major pain even in 1.1). This is an issue when doing a quick demo of how great the GNU/Linux office tools are.
I can't imagine it, sorry. I can pick up and hold a fork. I can't pick up and hold a method of managing people, delivering goods and so on.
Business patents are a tax on doing business, pure and simple. The downside is that the money raised from the tax is not invested in roads, schools, health or even Iraq.
They are scary in that they often take a well understoof process and one that has often been computerised in the past. Then they write a bad "functional specification" and whack the words "internet" or online in there. Suddenly half your clients are receiving threatening letters from Canada for going about their daily business and the IP lawyers are making hay. It is all very fucking annoying and a huge increase in the cost of doing business. I's rather have the small loss of an occassopnal "functional similarity" dust up than this.
Anyway, to answer the question - yes. We get paid to support OSS servers, VPNs websites and applications. Sometimes we have developed these applications which themselves are "open sourced" (Axyl) and are used as a solution to propose to our clients.
Sometimes we use a specific tool (like Lucene) which we want an enhancement made to. We get our developers to enhance it and pass the code back to the project. Everyone benefits, including our customer.
So, your model works for you - great, but just because your imagination is limited don't assume otherss can't be successful with a different model.
D'ya think? Given a 20 year track record of malice we could now be forgiven for assuming malice until proven otherwise. Or should we still be giving them the benefit of doubt?
Not when you see the specifications which IP laywers seem to be kindly insisting on "bringing to our attention".
These are complete specifications for systems to carry out an entire business operation (an equivalent example would be an online CRM system). These are very much bigger systmes than "1 click" shopping.
And why not at the very least make have a demonstrateble version of software a condition of the patent. What we are seeing a lot these days are vague poorly written specifications for " my using the internet.". SOmetimes the applications were made several years ago and yet still not a line of code has appeared.
This is a far cry from the image of an inventor sweeting for years over a thousand prototypes before the hit on a working model.
Bottom line though, is that software patents are going to tax us to death.
Re:What's worse, idiot tech. boss or non-tech. idi
on
Is Your Boss An Idiot?
·
· Score: 1
Ah, well. I've registered a domain for us. I intend to use it to help geeks bridge the gap between their worlds and the rest human life form.
pointyhairedboss.geek.nz will be coming to you soon. Because...we *do* understand.
Oh but there is. And he gets options to it at $0.66 a share. Each share dump is about 5,000 or 6,000 shares a time so presumably this fits into some scheme that avoids SEC type investigations.
Yes, nice story that. And look how much you can make in just two months as a senior VP by taking stock options and dumping at 5000 shares a pop. Looks like over US$1 million to me.
This does not seem to have been the case over the last week or two since where Red Hat, OSS guys and IBM have gone more on the front foot. Remember that for a while there was some silence from these guys.
Also remember those bogus "analysts" from Gartners et al who rushed sign NDAs to add credibility to SCO, they were reported uncritically but again, without much in the way of rebutal from the major protaganist in this case - IBM.
The reply by arkanes covers most of what I would say.
Your arguements actually support a lot of what I was saying. I.e., all things being equal, the organisation will seek to maximise profit. In the absence of competition the profit will be determined by what the client is able to pay, rather than by the availability of alternatives. Hence the super normal profits.
All your points about cost of bringing a product to market a superfluous, these costs are faced by many industries and businesses who don't use patents for one reason or another.
And, of course governments can waste more, they are bigger than most other entities, certainly bigger than me, hence their ability to waste more in absolute terms. Potentially they also have an ability to add more "value" to our lives than most other entities.
What *is* a good thing is that a long overdue debate is taking place on patent law and hopefully we will see some redress and balance taking place. All the comments in this sub thread seem to agree on that.
Again the "drugs need patents" theory might be ok, but the practice is abused (actually I don't think the theory stands up, but that is a much longer, more convoluted debate!)
By creating false monopolies in certain markets we allow monopolistic practices and huge economic waste.
Let's say you are Monsanto, you have a patent on drug Z for 14 years. You have no competition and so you get to set the price. Now, your instinct will not be to recoup the research plus 12% profit over 14 years, it will be to set the proce as high as possible, recoup the research as fast as possible and make super-normal profits for 13 years. That is the logical behaviour of a monopolist.
Now connect your Windows PC to the internet and wait for someone in Khatmandu to type "format c:".
The real issue however is that Windows * is still using a lot of code from DOS and Win3.1 for all sorts of shit. Those were the days, remember, when personal computers were just that, personal.
*nix has a pedigree in networked computers. So whilst mistakes are made in code of each system, always, one paradigm is always going to be more secure than the other. Until MS really, really and truely re-writes its OS. Shame the article misses this point by such a wide mile.
What I would be keen to know is how many government "experts" spotted these problems under their suppa duppa shared source programs? It's not like the code is new, hell, looks like most of it comes from Win3.1 or before, so please post (anonymously if you wish) if you personnaly protected your government from these virus'.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody is debating that IIS is feature bloated hacker friendly piece of garbage. But that has nothing to do with Windows.
Except that you are probably getting much of that bloat and hacker friendliness as an integral part of Windows...or will be very soon.
You and your moderators obviously have not read the report. That is not the tone at all. Please read it and then comment.
Dpn't let the brooha detract from report itself. It is a very well written and tightly argued document.
My favourite phrase...
The prevalence of security flaw (sic) in Microsoft's product is an effect of monopoly power; it must not become a reinforcer.
There are plenty others. Read it, I'm not surprised MS are upset enough to get this guy removed, it makes such compelling points.
Christ mate, you're going to have to change your sig with your current track record. Last 4 comments, all +5 rated.
Want to sign up to my OS project?
Knoppix is a great marketing tool and bloody good at working out hardware and network configurations. It is surprising how often you stumble across it.
My main problem with Knoppix is the OpenOffice install not being able to get out of English US (changing the language for spell checking in OO is a major pain even in 1.1). This is an issue when doing a quick demo of how great the GNU/Linux office tools are.
I can't imagine it, sorry. I can pick up and hold a fork. I can't pick up and hold a method of managing people, delivering goods and so on.
Business patents are a tax on doing business, pure and simple. The downside is that the money raised from the tax is not invested in roads, schools, health or even Iraq.
Find a software patent and read it.
They are scary in that they often take a well understoof process and one that has often been computerised in the past. Then they write a bad "functional specification" and whack the words "internet" or online in there. Suddenly half your clients are receiving threatening letters from Canada for going about their daily business and the IP lawyers are making hay. It is all very fucking annoying and a huge increase in the cost of doing business. I's rather have the small loss of an occassopnal "functional similarity" dust up than this.
I get so confused by propaganda - is that the same religion that spreads the virgin birth and cannibalism nonsense...or are there others?
seems to me to be a human, not a computer or OS, flaw
Actually it seems to be the MS mantra at the moment. "Darn those pesky humans, without them our OS would be perfect."
Let me see now
Clinton Impeachment
Florida 2000
Texas Boundary re-drawing
California recall 2003
Diebold voting systems
Ever get the feeling you're being taken for a ride?
Christ mate, someone likes you!
Anyway, to answer the question - yes. We get paid to support OSS servers, VPNs websites and applications. Sometimes we have developed these applications which themselves are "open sourced" (Axyl) and are used as a solution to propose to our clients.
Sometimes we use a specific tool (like Lucene) which we want an enhancement made to. We get our developers to enhance it and pass the code back to the project. Everyone benefits, including our customer.
So, your model works for you - great, but just because your imagination is limited don't assume otherss can't be successful with a different model.
it's doubtfully due simply to malice
D'ya think? Given a 20 year track record of malice we could now be forgiven for assuming malice until proven otherwise. Or should we still be giving them the benefit of doubt?
Not when you see the specifications which IP laywers seem to be kindly insisting on "bringing to our attention".
These are complete specifications for systems to carry out an entire business operation (an equivalent example would be an online CRM system). These are very much bigger systmes than "1 click" shopping.
And why not at the very least make have a demonstrateble version of software a condition of the patent. What we are seeing a lot these days are vague poorly written specifications for " my using the internet.". SOmetimes the applications were made several years ago and yet still not a line of code has appeared.
This is a far cry from the image of an inventor sweeting for years over a thousand prototypes before the hit on a working model.
Bottom line though, is that software patents are going to tax us to death.
Ah, well. I've registered a domain for us. I intend to use it to help geeks bridge the gap between their worlds and the rest human life form.
pointyhairedboss.geek.nz will be coming to you soon. Because...we *do* understand.
Or maybe there's a grandfather, father, and son working there?
That would be "godfather, father and Sonny"...
Oh but there is. And he gets options to it at $0.66 a share. Each share dump is about 5,000 or 6,000 shares a time so presumably this fits into some scheme that avoids SEC type investigations.
Another US$100k to the senior VP on Tuesday last week.
Makes it One Million Dollarsin two months.
Reginald C. Broughton...come on down!
(so it's OT, but keep watching these bastards).
Yes, nice story that. And look how much you can make in just two months as a senior VP by taking stock options and dumping at 5000 shares a pop. Looks like over US$1 million to me.
Sure beats working for a living.
This does not seem to have been the case over the last week or two since where Red Hat, OSS guys and IBM have gone more on the front foot. Remember that for a while there was some silence from these guys.
Also remember those bogus "analysts" from Gartners et al who rushed sign NDAs to add credibility to SCO, they were reported uncritically but again, without much in the way of rebutal from the major protaganist in this case - IBM.
The reply by arkanes covers most of what I would say.
Your arguements actually support a lot of what I was saying. I.e., all things being equal, the organisation will seek to maximise profit. In the absence of competition the profit will be determined by what the client is able to pay, rather than by the availability of alternatives. Hence the super normal profits.
All your points about cost of bringing a product to market a superfluous, these costs are faced by many industries and businesses who don't use patents for one reason or another.
And, of course governments can waste more, they are bigger than most other entities, certainly bigger than me, hence their ability to waste more in absolute terms. Potentially they also have an ability to add more "value" to our lives than most other entities.
What *is* a good thing is that a long overdue debate is taking place on patent law and hopefully we will see some redress and balance taking place. All the comments in this sub thread seem to agree on that.
Again the "drugs need patents" theory might be ok, but the practice is abused (actually I don't think the theory stands up, but that is a much longer, more convoluted debate!)
By creating false monopolies in certain markets we allow monopolistic practices and huge economic waste.
Let's say you are Monsanto, you have a patent on drug Z for 14 years. You have no competition and so you get to set the price. Now, your instinct will not be to recoup the research plus 12% profit over 14 years, it will be to set the proce as high as possible, recoup the research as fast as possible and make super-normal profits for 13 years. That is the logical behaviour of a monopolist.
You can mod me down...
I must start using that in my comments. Worth at least +2 every time.
Oh, ha, yes, funny.
Now connect your Windows PC to the internet and wait for someone in Khatmandu to type "format c:".
The real issue however is that Windows * is still using a lot of code from DOS and Win3.1 for all sorts of shit. Those were the days, remember, when personal computers were just that, personal.
*nix has a pedigree in networked computers. So whilst mistakes are made in code of each system, always, one paradigm is always going to be more secure than the other. Until MS really, really and truely re-writes its OS. Shame the article misses this point by such a wide mile.
What I would be keen to know is how many government "experts" spotted these problems under their suppa duppa shared source programs? It's not like the code is new, hell, looks like most of it comes from Win3.1 or before, so please post (anonymously if you wish) if you personnaly protected your government from these virus'.