Surprise, fear, and ruthless perseverance... Our three main weapons are fear, surprise and ruthless efficiency.... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope. Our four...
Sorry 'bout that. No one expects the Spanish inquisition.
or for those
persons attempting to establish a VPN connection with their workplace
Ah, so I'm fine reading mail on my workplace from home using SSL, but only if I don't use a VPN?
These guys are nuts. If they want to protect themselves from lawsuits, let them say so. If they want to get rid of all the users that know the hot end of a power plug from the cold one, let them say so.
They are asking you to change your subscription to their alternative offering, which comes with no guarantees whatsoever on top of the guaranteed amount of money you're out of just by subscribing to the "non-business" service. Basically, they're missing out on what constitutes the Internet I used to know and love.
Hmmm. If you're so sure of your facts, then don't friggin' post as Anonymous Coward.
I'm an acknowledged BSD bigot. But that said, even though I dislike the GPL for the same reason I dislike forced outings of gays, I have yet to see anything come out of it that stifles innovation. There is a tremendous amount of positive innovation that came from GPL based projects. Why would one want to deny such an obvious fact?
List the contributions to this world made by project Bob. List same by the BSD users. List same by Linux. Rank them. Any questions?
anyways, we have postgreSQL, its advanced, its cool, it has a better interface than mysql!
Sigh. The label says "new and improved". Does that mean I've been eating "old and inferior" for all these years?
I used Postgres (back before the SQL was bolted on to it), and it worked but sorta sucked. Having a working database was all I asked for so I was happy.
I then tried one of the earlier releases of PostgreSql, and gave up on it. Then came this dark horse, MySQL. It worked well enough, was fast, and survived the "pull the power plug" test that Postgres failed. Back then, MySQL and PostgreSql both sucked from an SQL compliance viewpoint.
The reason (and I mean the single reason) I'm still running MySQL is its speed and operational ease. It never crashes. If someone messes something up (using explicit commands or code to do so:-), I rebuild the database in record time from the last valid dump, with the changes rolled forward from the change log (a manual process, but it beats *racles automatic roll forward hands down).
Bottom line, use the tool that's best for you. PostgreSql is far more correct than MySQL, and according to this independent press release by the company that intends to make money off it, supported by independent research paid for by same, it is even faster. More power to you, but unless PostgreSql gets the upper hand in the operational arena, you'll have to pry MySQL from my cold dead fingers.
Indeed. The fact that humans and chimps share 99% of their genetic structure is just a bit of misdirection on His part.
I don't see what the whole broohaha is about. Obviously, the theory that we all descended from a bunch of yeasts fits the facts better than the theory that Adam and Eve had all the different pinkish, yellowish and brownish people on earth now for offspring. And equally obvious, God created the universe, for suitable definitions of God. Unless someone explains me where that elusive Big Bang came from.
My world view requires the existance of God. I just don't happen to believe he's the friendly bearded white caucasian male some people visualize.
According to his employer, the guy skipped eight levels of command... How many chiefs does that work out to per indian?
Sigh. He was responsible for radiation safety. He would be fired as well if he had reported it through the chain of command, and they had sat on it. In those roles, you're supposed to go to the person that has the biggest chance of effecting a change (and by the way, that person will be the first to tell the safety officer to go do something useful if there's no good reason to bother the top brass).
In most companies, the folks responsible for doing computer security auditing report directly to the board for this precise reason. I know that I would be both eligible for and deserving dismissal if I kept my mouth shut about a security risk that is so big I honestly believe it shouldn't be done -- even if my entire chain of command doesn't like the idea.
Re:What about the 1-800 number SPAM?
on
Gnutella Vs. SPAM
·
· Score: 1
800 numbers are easy... Just call them, explain that you don't want to hear from them again. At length. Leave a message if you get voicemail. Tell them you're very interested in the offer, and would they call you back at 237-414-433mumble, that's 237-414-433mumble.
It ain't AT&T picking up the phone bill for 800 service!
Even though international calls to US 800 numbers aren't toll free, I still call them. 3.5 dollarcents per minute is not going to keep me from calling back. Sometimes, venting helps.
It's easy to upgrade your MTA, right? Well...
on
MAPS vs. ORBS
·
· Score: 2
Some folks aren't as lucky as most of us. If I decide to upgrade or change my companies mail gateway, I just do it. I tell my boss, and if I'm in a good mood I tell my users. Because of my track record, I get to do that.
Now, most mail admins for larger companies aren't as lucky. Of course, one can argue the wisdom of running with software we all know to be substandard, but a fact of life is that there are a lot of folks out there who do not have the luxury to upgrade something the PHB thinks is doing an okay job.
Heck, part of my perceived good track record is the fact that I kept a piece of junk called cc:Mail alive well beyond its design limits for the better part of four years. I did this by employing tactics like rebooting the SMTP gateway every half hour, duplicating the thing and setting up equal weight MX records to distribute the load, etcetera.
The problem is, everyone knew cc:Mail was a piece of sh^H^Hpowerful fertilizer that grows your business. But as long as the PHB sees his salesman on the golf course and gets the confirmation that if his staff can't keep the server alive, it's the staff that's incompetent, because, here, look: FooBar corporation uses the same software and it works just well and that's a really nice shot, shall I retrieve your golf ball from the bunker?
The bottom line is that forcing people to upgrade their system is not particularly going to be good for the poor sod who actually runs that system.
I'm always grateful when really damning bugs appear in software I don't particularly happen to like. But I frown on the practice of ramming upgrades down peoples throats.
cc:Mail was replaced by lookOut. I refused to go implement that, so people were hired to do that. I just do the firewall now. Not everyone is so lucky, or willing to speak up against powerful PHB's, or... you name it. Welcome to corporate reality.
The entire comparison makes sense if you've got something to compare. I understand PostgreSQL has improved a lot over the last two years, but it was plain unusable when I last looked at it. And to this date, I hear from people that they ran into design limitations (i.e., the 8K field limitation), or operational issues (indexes being corrupted).
I've said it before, I'll say it again and unless I get assimilated by the Borg I will keep saying it: use the most appropriate tool for the job. If MySQL's limitations don't cut it for you, don't use MySQL. But the good things the ACID test promises mean diddly squat if your database server runs out of oomph or if your operators spend an entire day restoring a database because the system is too complicated.
It all boils down to a compromise between a lot of factors, ano no one can give anyone else advice on how to run a database without knowing the intimate details of the job to be done.
Don't get me wrong: both Oracle and PostgreSQL can do things that MySQL can't do. I also think it is important that users be aware that MySQL has limitations that make it a bad introduction into database programming. But I'd appreciate it if things were kept into perspective. Uptime and cost effectiveness are very important to me, and for my applications that ruled out PostgreSQL and Oracle when I made my choice.
I've wondered about why it is so common in the US to lump everything into one big basket and then try to sell it as a package deal. The Microsoft anti-trust case is rife with Good Stuff (basically it just upholds the intent of the law -- though shalt not smite thy opponents through illegal means), but there is a huge amount of hogwash mixed in. I'd have very mixed feelings if it came to stand (even though I'd hate to see MS get off the hook scott free).
But it seems to be the American way: Congress, the Senate and the White House seem to be constantly tacking provisions to bills that just should not be there. What do abortion, Medicare and nuclear weapons have in common? To a European, it seems very odd: in parliament, you discuss an issue, propose a law, discuss it again, then vote on it. I do not think there is less horse trading going on in Europe, but it sure makes a cleaner impression.
Maybe an American citizen can comment. I just don't understand where it is coming from.
I've found myself stuck in the PostgreSQL/MySQL discussion more often than I want. I personally don't care that MySQL has a more limited SQL implementation than PostgreSQL -- I'll happily write my code around its limitations. However, back when I settled on MySQL (some two years ago), PostgreSQL just wasn't stable enough, and to this date, I have yet to see MySQL corrupt a table. The only index corruption I ever saw was when someone managed to rip out a SCSI cable in mid update.
This review also mentions the admin tools in passing. MySQL's backup strategy is very easy to explain to non-database guru's. Try explaining how to restore an Oracle backup to a non-DBA... You can even get a poor mans roll-forward working on MySQL and be able to explain how it works.
Operational ease is always my first concern. As long as you keep in mind MySQL is a poor mans solution, it is a very nice poor mans solution.
Errr.... does FBI wiretapping stop at the border? Heck, even Internet providers don't know the path the traffic takes, and it can be compromised anywhere along the route.
The data haven is more for stuff you want people to see!
Yeah, and I especially liked the bit about insisting US citizens perform the wiretapping...
No US citizen has ever hurt his own country in espionage or other national security matters. And besides, those damn foreigners just can't be trusted. The pigs are watered and ready for take-off.
MICROS~1 will have an absolute bitch of a time revving Win32 to break Wine without cutting their own throat.
I agree with the first half of the sentence, but not with the second. After all, in previous slashdot articles, a rough consensus seems to exist. It says that the main reason Office workalikes have troubles being compatible with Office files, is that the file formats rely heavily on undocumented arcana, as evidenced by Office's incompatibilities with slightly older version of itself.
Contrary to popular belief, most of these arcana are just that, rather than actual bugs. Trying to be compatible with them is a lost cause.
Besides, I'm not sure I even want to emulate that stoopid paperclip, but that's a seperate issue.
I always hear about NT's POSIX capabilities from people trying to defend and/or sell the NT operating system, never from people that actually use it. The alleged POSIX subsystem is just that -- a subsystem. Details such as actually exchanging files between the WIN32 and POSIX subsystems are left out of the picture.
Yes, NT passes the POSIX criteria. No, these criteria are not useful, and rumor has it the POSIX subsystem was added for checkmark compatibility with federal procurement guidelines.
It may be worthwhile to check the criteria for the "designed for Window NT" logo, and slap one on every Linux distro in sight.:-)
Hah, time for me to go into irrelevant diatribe mode:-)
My personal experience with US West was at an airport -- I think it was Phoenix, AZ, but I'm not sure. I asked the airline staff how to get directory assistance. They immediately went on to explain to me how the f****** airport authority was driving them mad, because the f******* telco that operated the phones didn't get phonebooks from US West, so the f****** airport authority really should get off their butts and switch back to US West for the payphones. Somehow, this story struck a note with me:-)
Anyway, for the promised diatribe: Probably too far if you have something along the line of 42 AWG cable Actually, the best leased line I ever had was an even heavier gauge than that. It's the cable the railroad company runs along the tracks to actuate the railroad points. Their tech support was fabulous: "Oh, you're running PTT approved modems? Just massacre them and set them to -14 dB. Our lines will handle it with grace" -- and they did. Oh well, this was in the days 19200 bps was fast.
Oh, but I could (and did) get an unloaded "alarm" circuit from them between the same two locations and pound 384kbps of SDSL through it. Snicker. This was a service our PTT offered as well, but only if you spoke the magic words. The magic words were "termination revenue". Ahhh, those were the days.
[...]it seems almost like the whole point of the thing was to get famous from it
Well, maybe. Maybe not. He does seem to enjoy the attention. But he also points out repeatedly that he is not the ultimate hacker, merely a competent mathematician with coding skills. He even goes to lengths to detail what he doesn't want credit for or has mishandled.
And he has the distiction of being slapped with a frivolous lawsuit. A distinction you and me could do without.
If you think Windows is bad, try the SP cluster on for size. I've used one. The hardware is great. AIX takes some getting used to, but it's okay. But an SP cluster used for what it is marketed for (a cluster of redundant machines, offering uptimes beating, say, a Sun Enterprise 10000) is a very fragile environment. For one thing, if the RS/6000 that controls the beast crashes (for example, you fat-finger a command and need to reboot it), for all intents and purposes you'll have to reboot the cluster.
Maybe the SP software came a long way since I last saw it, but what I saw tells me that using the box for anything other than one application that will benefit from massively parallel computing is a waste of money. IBM hypes the massive parallel potential for a good reason, but the sales droids will sell it for applications that just don't work out.
I'm not sure. In the Netherlands we've had multiple operators for years, and with the recent entrants we now have five operators sharing two frequency ranges (900MHz and 1800MHz). Of course, roaming requires multiband handsets.
However, we still have the situation that every farmhouse along the highway has five sets of three antennas (for a total of six 900MHz and nine 1800MHz antennas). This is totally insane, and it still doesn't dawn on the incumbents that sharing the base stations makes economic sense. We are starting to see shared base stations, for example in the Amsterdam subway tunnels, but those came about only because the subway system said "work it out among yourselves or go climb a tree".
The whole mobile telephony issue is just shouting out for intervention by some governing body (preferably not government:-) that forces the operators to work something out. The Dutch regulator even says upfront that their sole aim is to foster competition, and that they will bear higher consumer prices as a result. This has lead, among other weirdnesses, to a phone call from my home town of Leiden to Amsterdam (30 miles) being more expensive than a phone call from Leiden to Paris, TX (cross-atlantic).
Lastly, if you are buying a Mac, you are either: 1.Need a Mac. or 2. Want the power that comes with PowerPC.
Exactly! That's what's getting me down for the last ten years. Ten years ago, people would ask me: "what should I buy? A Mac or a PC?", and I'd say, "what do you need?". They would listen to me explaining why an operating system that was designed rather than lumped together would be a good idea, why raw clock cycles don't count if your machines crashes twice daily, etcetera.
They'd come back a week later telling me they'd bought a PC and would I come over and fix it.
PC's became a serious option when 386BSD came out, and that finally gave me the excuse to say to the people that'd come for advice: "Well, pick whatever, just don't call me for support unless you run UNIX". Sigh.
The sort of R&D expenditure a patent infringer doesn't have to pay by stealing someone else's technology.
This reasoning assumes, of course, that the patent has merit, i.e. it is not for an obvious implementation. I'm not a chip designer, so I can only offer my amateur insight, but it seems to me the patent on a synchronous memory interface is frivolous.
One case in memory design where I know the patent to be frivolous is Digital's design for memory for their 8000 series of VAXen. For all intents and purposes, it was the card edge that Digital had patented. Competitors would buy used Digital 8MB boards, saw most of the board off and discard it, glue a new board to the old connector and reconnect the traces. If you can sell at better prices despite this "production" method, the whole patent thing really starts to reek of racketeering.
Applying 'Open source' to a project does not make it magically bug-free.
This is so true... It's going to be very interesting to see where Open Source ends up from the end user perspective.
There is a lot to be said for the Red Hat model: have users pay a small sum for the software, offer limited support, and make the software available for free to the relatively small amount of people who can provide fixes on their own.
I'm personally sick and tired of folks using Open Software because it's cheap, and offloading support to the mailing lists without bothering to read up on the FAQ's. But to me it's a small price to pay for direct access to the developers, who I can address in their own language (C:-)
Anyway, while I agree with all your points, I'd like to add one: the alternative to Open Source and its attitude to support. Ever reported a bug in Office to Microsoft?
When end-users report a bug to Microsoft, it gets ignored. When a small company (500 licenses) reports a bug, it gets ignored. When the CEO of a company the size of the Ford Motor Company reports his feelings to Microsoft, they listen. Unfortunately, the number one wish (fix the more egrecious bugs) tend to get a lower priority than the new feature requests.
Oh well, this is not to bash Microsoft. Most software companies work this way. It's just that Microsoft is a really bad and really visible example. Microsoft does have the moral equivalent of "STABLE" releases of Office. They just don't tell anyone. I work for a big corporation, we get all the good stuff from Microsoft, but finding out what's a bugfix release on the gigabytes of stuff on CD's and what it fixes is like pulling teeth.
I've been sending bug reports and (when feasable) bug fixes to all software makers I do business with (either free or commercial). Some companies will just disregard feedback (hey, our developers don't make mistakes -- the Digital Equipment stance). Others take the feedback with grace. It usually takes time to establish a relationship with an author, even in the Open Source community. About 50% of the bug fixes with info on how to reproduce the problem result in an immediate fix to the CVS tree and a thank you note. About 10% goes completely unnoticed -- no feedback, no fix applied to the official tree. The remaining 40%, I find I start getting feedback after I send something like three or four unrelated bug fixes. Apparently, overworked authors instinctively filter their input based on the frequency and quality of previous feedback.
Anyway, I use software from a number of companies where I or my company actually paid for the source code. One of them sent me a letter one day: they were horrified that I actually paid for my personal license when I sent in usable bug fixes at a regular basis.
I don't care that I'm helping a company for free. I just want the bug fixed, and having the source allows me to do that much quicker than to depend on their engineers to fix them. But it's mighty nice to get a reaction like this!
Slashdot Mirror
Surprise, fear, and ruthless perseverance... Our three main weapons are fear, surprise and ruthless efficiency .... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope. Our four...
Sorry 'bout that. No one expects the Spanish inquisition.
Ah, so I'm fine reading mail on my workplace from home using SSL, but only if I don't use a VPN?
These guys are nuts. If they want to protect themselves from lawsuits, let them say so. If they want to get rid of all the users that know the hot end of a power plug from the cold one, let them say so.
They are asking you to change your subscription to their alternative offering, which comes with no guarantees whatsoever on top of the guaranteed amount of money you're out of just by subscribing to the "non-business" service. Basically, they're missing out on what constitutes the Internet I used to know and love.
Hmmm. If you're so sure of your facts, then don't friggin' post as Anonymous Coward.
I'm an acknowledged BSD bigot. But that said, even though I dislike the GPL for the same reason I dislike forced outings of gays, I have yet to see anything come out of it that stifles innovation. There is a tremendous amount of positive innovation that came from GPL based projects. Why would one want to deny such an obvious fact?
List the contributions to this world made by project Bob. List same by the BSD users. List same by Linux. Rank them. Any questions?
Sigh. The label says "new and improved". Does that mean I've been eating "old and inferior" for all these years?
I used Postgres (back before the SQL was bolted on to it), and it worked but sorta sucked. Having a working database was all I asked for so I was happy.
I then tried one of the earlier releases of PostgreSql, and gave up on it. Then came this dark horse, MySQL. It worked well enough, was fast, and survived the "pull the power plug" test that Postgres failed. Back then, MySQL and PostgreSql both sucked from an SQL compliance viewpoint.
The reason (and I mean the single reason) I'm still running MySQL is its speed and operational ease. It never crashes. If someone messes something up (using explicit commands or code to do so :-), I rebuild the database in record time from the last valid dump, with the changes rolled forward from the change log (a manual process, but it beats *racles automatic roll forward hands down).
Bottom line, use the tool that's best for you. PostgreSql is far more correct than MySQL, and according to this independent press release by the company that intends to make money off it, supported by independent research paid for by same, it is even faster. More power to you, but unless PostgreSql gets the upper hand in the operational arena, you'll have to pry MySQL from my cold dead fingers.
I don't see what the whole broohaha is about. Obviously, the theory that we all descended from a bunch of yeasts fits the facts better than the theory that Adam and Eve had all the different pinkish, yellowish and brownish people on earth now for offspring. And equally obvious, God created the universe, for suitable definitions of God. Unless someone explains me where that elusive Big Bang came from.
My world view requires the existance of God. I just don't happen to believe he's the friendly bearded white caucasian male some people visualize.
Sigh. He was responsible for radiation safety. He would be fired as well if he had reported it through the chain of command, and they had sat on it. In those roles, you're supposed to go to the person that has the biggest chance of effecting a change (and by the way, that person will be the first to tell the safety officer to go do something useful if there's no good reason to bother the top brass).
In most companies, the folks responsible for doing computer security auditing report directly to the board for this precise reason. I know that I would be both eligible for and deserving dismissal if I kept my mouth shut about a security risk that is so big I honestly believe it shouldn't be done -- even if my entire chain of command doesn't like the idea.
It ain't AT&T picking up the phone bill for 800 service!
Even though international calls to US 800 numbers aren't toll free, I still call them. 3.5 dollarcents per minute is not going to keep me from calling back. Sometimes, venting helps.
Now, most mail admins for larger companies aren't as lucky. Of course, one can argue the wisdom of running with software we all know to be substandard, but a fact of life is that there are a lot of folks out there who do not have the luxury to upgrade something the PHB thinks is doing an okay job.
Heck, part of my perceived good track record is the fact that I kept a piece of junk called cc:Mail alive well beyond its design limits for the better part of four years. I did this by employing tactics like rebooting the SMTP gateway every half hour, duplicating the thing and setting up equal weight MX records to distribute the load, etcetera.
The problem is, everyone knew cc:Mail was a piece of sh^H^Hpowerful fertilizer that grows your business. But as long as the PHB sees his salesman on the golf course and gets the confirmation that if his staff can't keep the server alive, it's the staff that's incompetent, because, here, look: FooBar corporation uses the same software and it works just well and that's a really nice shot, shall I retrieve your golf ball from the bunker?
The bottom line is that forcing people to upgrade their system is not particularly going to be good for the poor sod who actually runs that system.
I'm always grateful when really damning bugs appear in software I don't particularly happen to like. But I frown on the practice of ramming upgrades down peoples throats.
cc:Mail was replaced by lookOut. I refused to go implement that, so people were hired to do that. I just do the firewall now. Not everyone is so lucky, or willing to speak up against powerful PHB's, or... you name it. Welcome to corporate reality.
Have you read this article on www.mysql.com? MySQL no longer comes under the restrictive license it used to be.
I've said it before, I'll say it again and unless I get assimilated by the Borg I will keep saying it: use the most appropriate tool for the job. If MySQL's limitations don't cut it for you, don't use MySQL. But the good things the ACID test promises mean diddly squat if your database server runs out of oomph or if your operators spend an entire day restoring a database because the system is too complicated.
It all boils down to a compromise between a lot of factors, ano no one can give anyone else advice on how to run a database without knowing the intimate details of the job to be done.
Don't get me wrong: both Oracle and PostgreSQL can do things that MySQL can't do. I also think it is important that users be aware that MySQL has limitations that make it a bad introduction into database programming. But I'd appreciate it if things were kept into perspective. Uptime and cost effectiveness are very important to me, and for my applications that ruled out PostgreSQL and Oracle when I made my choice.
I've wondered about why it is so common in the US to lump everything into one big basket and then try to sell it as a package deal. The Microsoft anti-trust case is rife with Good Stuff (basically it just upholds the intent of the law -- though shalt not smite thy opponents through illegal means), but there is a huge amount of hogwash mixed in. I'd have very mixed feelings if it came to stand (even though I'd hate to see MS get off the hook scott free).
But it seems to be the American way: Congress, the Senate and the White House seem to be constantly tacking provisions to bills that just should not be there. What do abortion, Medicare and nuclear weapons have in common? To a European, it seems very odd: in parliament, you discuss an issue, propose a law, discuss it again, then vote on it. I do not think there is less horse trading going on in Europe, but it sure makes a cleaner impression.
Maybe an American citizen can comment. I just don't understand where it is coming from.
This review also mentions the admin tools in passing. MySQL's backup strategy is very easy to explain to non-database guru's. Try explaining how to restore an Oracle backup to a non-DBA... You can even get a poor mans roll-forward working on MySQL and be able to explain how it works.
Operational ease is always my first concern. As long as you keep in mind MySQL is a poor mans solution, it is a very nice poor mans solution.
Sigh... Let the flamefest begin!
The data haven is more for stuff you want people to see!
No US citizen has ever hurt his own country in espionage or other national security matters. And besides, those damn foreigners just can't be trusted. The pigs are watered and ready for take-off.
Sigh.
I agree with the first half of the sentence, but not with the second. After all, in previous slashdot articles, a rough consensus seems to exist. It says that the main reason Office workalikes have troubles being compatible with Office files, is that the file formats rely heavily on undocumented arcana, as evidenced by Office's incompatibilities with slightly older version of itself.
Contrary to popular belief, most of these arcana are just that, rather than actual bugs. Trying to be compatible with them is a lost cause.
Besides, I'm not sure I even want to emulate that stoopid paperclip, but that's a seperate issue.
Yes, NT passes the POSIX criteria. No, these criteria are not useful, and rumor has it the POSIX subsystem was added for checkmark compatibility with federal procurement guidelines.
It may be worthwhile to check the criteria for the "designed for Window NT" logo, and slap one on every Linux distro in sight. :-)
My personal experience with US West was at an airport -- I think it was Phoenix, AZ, but I'm not sure. I asked the airline staff how to get directory assistance. They immediately went on to explain to me how the f****** airport authority was driving them mad, because the f******* telco that operated the phones didn't get phonebooks from US West, so the f****** airport authority really should get off their butts and switch back to US West for the payphones. Somehow, this story struck a note with me :-)
Anyway, for the promised diatribe: Probably too far if you have something along the line of 42 AWG cable Actually, the best leased line I ever had was an even heavier gauge than that. It's the cable the railroad company runs along the tracks to actuate the railroad points. Their tech support was fabulous: "Oh, you're running PTT approved modems? Just massacre them and set them to -14 dB. Our lines will handle it with grace" -- and they did. Oh well, this was in the days 19200 bps was fast.
Oh, but I could (and did) get an unloaded "alarm" circuit from them between the same two locations and pound 384kbps of SDSL through it. Snicker. This was a service our PTT offered as well, but only if you spoke the magic words. The magic words were "termination revenue". Ahhh, those were the days.
Well, maybe. Maybe not. He does seem to enjoy the attention. But he also points out repeatedly that he is not the ultimate hacker, merely a competent mathematician with coding skills. He even goes to lengths to detail what he doesn't want credit for or has mishandled.
And he has the distiction of being slapped with a frivolous lawsuit. A distinction you and me could do without.
Maybe the SP software came a long way since I last saw it, but what I saw tells me that using the box for anything other than one application that will benefit from massively parallel computing is a waste of money. IBM hypes the massive parallel potential for a good reason, but the sales droids will sell it for applications that just don't work out.
Which is a pity. The hardware is nice.
I'm not sure. In the Netherlands we've had multiple operators for years, and with the recent entrants we now have five operators sharing two frequency ranges (900MHz and 1800MHz). Of course, roaming requires multiband handsets.
However, we still have the situation that every farmhouse along the highway has five sets of three antennas (for a total of six 900MHz and nine 1800MHz antennas). This is totally insane, and it still doesn't dawn on the incumbents that sharing the base stations makes economic sense. We are starting to see shared base stations, for example in the Amsterdam subway tunnels, but those came about only because the subway system said "work it out among yourselves or go climb a tree".
The whole mobile telephony issue is just shouting out for intervention by some governing body (preferably not government :-) that forces the operators to work something out. The Dutch regulator even says upfront that their sole aim is to foster competition, and that they will bear higher consumer prices as a result. This has lead, among other weirdnesses, to a phone call from my home town of Leiden to Amsterdam (30 miles) being more expensive than a phone call from Leiden to Paris, TX (cross-atlantic).
Exactly! That's what's getting me down for the last ten years. Ten years ago, people would ask me: "what should I buy? A Mac or a PC?", and I'd say, "what do you need?". They would listen to me explaining why an operating system that was designed rather than lumped together would be a good idea, why raw clock cycles don't count if your machines crashes twice daily, etcetera.
They'd come back a week later telling me they'd bought a PC and would I come over and fix it.
PC's became a serious option when 386BSD came out, and that finally gave me the excuse to say to the people that'd come for advice: "Well, pick whatever, just don't call me for support unless you run UNIX". Sigh.
The argument of going out to make your own memory, well, sounds like a good idea. Will you design the motherboard while I design the memory?
This reasoning assumes, of course, that the patent has merit, i.e. it is not for an obvious implementation. I'm not a chip designer, so I can only offer my amateur insight, but it seems to me the patent on a synchronous memory interface is frivolous.
One case in memory design where I know the patent to be frivolous is Digital's design for memory for their 8000 series of VAXen. For all intents and purposes, it was the card edge that Digital had patented. Competitors would buy used Digital 8MB boards, saw most of the board off and discard it, glue a new board to the old connector and reconnect the traces. If you can sell at better prices despite this "production" method, the whole patent thing really starts to reek of racketeering.
Ima gonna make you an offer you can't refuse!
This is so true... It's going to be very interesting to see where Open Source ends up from the end user perspective.
There is a lot to be said for the Red Hat model: have users pay a small sum for the software, offer limited support, and make the software available for free to the relatively small amount of people who can provide fixes on their own.
I'm personally sick and tired of folks using Open Software because it's cheap, and offloading support to the mailing lists without bothering to read up on the FAQ's. But to me it's a small price to pay for direct access to the developers, who I can address in their own language (C :-)
Anyway, while I agree with all your points, I'd like to add one: the alternative to Open Source and its attitude to support. Ever reported a bug in Office to Microsoft?
When end-users report a bug to Microsoft, it gets ignored. When a small company (500 licenses) reports a bug, it gets ignored. When the CEO of a company the size of the Ford Motor Company reports his feelings to Microsoft, they listen. Unfortunately, the number one wish (fix the more egrecious bugs) tend to get a lower priority than the new feature requests.
Oh well, this is not to bash Microsoft. Most software companies work this way. It's just that Microsoft is a really bad and really visible example. Microsoft does have the moral equivalent of "STABLE" releases of Office. They just don't tell anyone. I work for a big corporation, we get all the good stuff from Microsoft, but finding out what's a bugfix release on the gigabytes of stuff on CD's and what it fixes is like pulling teeth.
Anyway, I use software from a number of companies where I or my company actually paid for the source code. One of them sent me a letter one day: they were horrified that I actually paid for my personal license when I sent in usable bug fixes at a regular basis.
I don't care that I'm helping a company for free. I just want the bug fixed, and having the source allows me to do that much quicker than to depend on their engineers to fix them. But it's mighty nice to get a reaction like this!