In Japan, the side mirrors on not mounted by the doors, but by the headlights. This change of angle gets rid of the blindspot. Is it ugly? A little, but it works well.
Your problem is that you did not follow Microsoft's best practices. If you had, you would have done as Ballmer has been preaching, and Secured the Perimeter! Which really is just PHB speak for never putting a windows box on the internet without a Linux firewall to protect it. Why do you think microsoft has started using Linux as a proxy service for their website???
No, both he and his wife are from very, very wealthy families. They just happen to live in Austin, which is the UT conection. It's no accident the Dell Jewish Center is in Austin.
It never ceases to amaze me that people somehow assume that Bill Gates started life in squalor someplace and pulled himself up by his bootstraps. It is simply not true. His daddy gave him millions to start his little software company. Dell is the same way. Yes he started in a dorm room and his parents garage, but how many college students get enough of an allowance from daddy that they can buy chips from Intel directly, by the semi-load. Most people starting a small business do not get to do so with millions of dollars in gifts sitting in the checking account. I am not saying they did nothing, but it was not rocket science... these kind of gifts makes it a lot easier to get started.
Not only that, but if you notice, MS licenses nothing from anybody. They stole this technology, they stole the SQL technology. They may sometimes buy out a company, but they would much rather go to court than license anything, which make the SCO licensing stink even more.
If you are going to remove sections of a comment, you could at least mark it as such with [SNIP].
dissy wrote:
>Well thank you
> they should be happy with that:P
> Gigabit ethernet, soon 10gbit ethernet..
multiple firewire buses, or even one firewire 800 bus..
Multiple high speed graphics cards..
Multiple SCSI or fiberchannel buses..
If you had read the article, you would have seen that this is only for consumer pcs, that high end machines are getting a different bus system, and firewire and many other things are already on a seperate bus.
What PCI device are you using that is bandwidth limited & will benefit from a faster PCI bus? I don't have anything. My video card is in an AGP bus, and I would like that to be faster, but for the items in PCI slots, I really have nothing that will gain any benefit. I would much rather have faster memory, closer or in the processor.
And there's actually nothing wrong with that. They're in business to protect shareholder value, after all.
This statement presupposes that it is OK to cheat, and that cheating is in the best interests of shareholders. But then, personally, I would not invest in a company that I know has a culture of cheating, or that lacks ethics. Also, I find it sad that a company's lack of ethics is defended as helping shareholders, when the same company seems to care very little for it's shareholders. If it did care for it's shareholders, I believe it would pay dividends.
Clearly, that doesn't add any value at all, in and of itself. If all I did was prevent interoperability, everyone would use the free and interoperable alternative. They will only use my version if they perceive that it offers them some improvement.
No, clearly the best way for your scheme to make money is to lock in users with broken or one way interoperability. That is the best feature of proprietary code.
Sorry, but I just can't agree with that. The whole software industry -- proprietary business apps, contract work, the hobbyist/open source community, and all the rest -- is based on this concept to some degree.
How can you back up this claim? What APIs or file formats do you have difficulty with in opensource software? What interoperability roadblocks have you found in GNU software? My claim is that Open software's value add is Freedom. Freedom for users. The freedom to build software to interoperate. The freedom to avoid false barriers to creation and innovation. The freedom to switch vendors.
The one freedom that is removed is the ability to take these freedoms from others. To lock others into a situation I would not like to be in is something I will gladly give up.
It's how software development gets done. The problem isn't the embrace-and-extend, it's the following monopolisation through dubious business practices, and the subsequent abuse of that monopolisation, as exemplified by everyone's favourite dartboard company. Please don't confuse the two ideas.
The problem is with embrace and extend. It's the main problem. As soon as you obsificate code, lock it away, and build hidden extentions, you have built a monopoly. You are now the only source of interoptability, support, and innovation. It does not matter how small or large your firm is.
You are fooling yourself. If you take publicly available software, and add to it, the one true value add that will allow you fat margins is to purposely make it not function with the publicly available code. Embrace and extend is the killer app. It's not a new or unique problem to software. See the secret society that formed around the pythagorean theorem and the penalties for sharing "code".
Your wrong about what I want. I do not want your labour, I simply do not want your obsificated code. I do not want you destoying public goods in the pursuit of a paycheck. I'm perfectly happy to share, but not with entities that will destroy my work. I am not saying that the GPL is the solution for all public software, but it is the only good solution I know of that prevents embrace and extend. I suppose I would even be happy if only the API's and file formats had GPL protection, but I do not believe companies would then honor it.
Kerberos was much better before MS "value added" to it.
Not at all. How can I be stealing it when everyone already has it? What do I have that everyone else has not? Of what have I deprived others?
By taking a public work, and introducing proprietary extenstions, you destroy the public work. The public work no longer functions with your version. You now have control of the only functioning version, and the public is left with nothing that functions. With the DCMA, the other programmers may not even be able to reverse engineer your work to make funtioning extenesions to the now non-fuctioning public work.
So, you have then deprived all others of the public work for your own selfish greed. The GPL says if you wish to be greedy, do it on your own labor, not someone elses. Why do you feel you should be able take public works and claim them as your own labor? What percentage of the code gives you that right?
What, the fact that they put something in a field explicitly marked "This field may also contain information needed by certain extensions to the Kerberos protocol." in RFC1510???
No, it bothers me that they added a proprietary extention to the correct field in an effort to embrace and extend a common, open protocol. See the diference? (Do you see it now?? Ok, how about when I use 3 question marks??? Proprietary???)
And then, only when talking to another Microsoft server?
So why did this cause problems with *NIX systems?
Oh, but because it's Microsoft, they're not allowed to. Grow up.
No, don't put words in my mouth. Here it is in my words: NOBODY should be allowed to put proprietary extenstions in open protocols. The GPL enforces that.
The only thing they did wrong was to put a license agreement in the way of reading their document describing the changes. That was a bit of a PR blunder, sure. But you didn't need to know the information to interoperate, it was just an optimisation between cooperating Windows hosts.
The only reason it did not work out better for them is because of the stink researchers at MIT made while MS was in anti-trust litigation, so they decided to publish the changes on a website that is only accessible IE, under their license, not the creators of Kerberos.
Actually, though, it's nice to see that Linux and opensource in general has come so far that it's now the Microsoft camp that are zealots and the voice of hysteria. I think this only changed in the last two years or so.
And opensource projects are tradionally patched faster, so there!;-) I think the troll actually made my day.
Don't forget the most important difference
- Sun's gift is not proprietary, so the schools can access their documents without Sun software, and hire 3rd parties for support, updates, and improvements
Re:Between a valid point and paranoia
on
Analyzing Palladium
·
· Score: 4, Informative
But considering Microsoft, this could be an attack on many things, it's just a great bonus that they can use it as an attack on the GPL.
Check out this Yahoo! story for another angle. I imagine Bill is think "check and mate"....
Almost like when MicroSoft got hacked... except of course in the instance of closed sourced software, only your vendor can audit the code for trojans and backdoors. Kind of similiar???
Or maybe it is more like the time Microsoft placed a virus on their corporate update website???
Guess you don't have a point... is Bill paying you for this?
For those with firewalls, be sure to block port 70, if you do not already. Port number
Not sure if a user could redirect gopher to port 80, but at least this will lock out the script kiddies. Be on the lookout for html emails with this stuff. Count your blessings that MicroSoft has not been able to put all traffic on port 80 (yet), and you can still filter some things....
Slashdot Mirror
In Japan, the side mirrors on not mounted by the doors, but by the headlights. This change of angle gets rid of the blindspot. Is it ugly? A little, but it works well.
Google, being a private company, would they have received one of the original 1500 letters? Not that any of SCOX threats make sense or anything....
Your problem is that you did not follow Microsoft's best practices. If you had, you would have done as Ballmer has been preaching, and Secured the Perimeter! Which really is just PHB speak for never putting a windows box on the internet without a Linux firewall to protect it. Why do you think microsoft has started using Linux as a proxy service for their website???
No, both he and his wife are from very, very wealthy families. They just happen to live in Austin, which is the UT conection. It's no accident the Dell Jewish Center is in Austin.
It never ceases to amaze me that people somehow assume that Bill Gates started life in squalor someplace and pulled himself up by his bootstraps. It is simply not true. His daddy gave him millions to start his little software company. Dell is the same way. Yes he started in a dorm room and his parents garage, but how many college students get enough of an allowance from daddy that they can buy chips from Intel directly, by the semi-load. Most people starting a small business do not get to do so with millions of dollars in gifts sitting in the checking account. I am not saying they did nothing, but it was not rocket science... these kind of gifts makes it a lot easier to get started.
Here's my green car. I love it.
Not only that, but if you notice, MS licenses nothing from anybody. They stole this technology, they stole the SQL technology. They may sometimes buy out a company, but they would much rather go to court than license anything, which make the SCO licensing stink even more.
What are the hardware system requirements? I can not seem to find them.
If you are going to remove sections of a comment, you could at least mark it as such with [SNIP].
dissy wrote:>Well thank you
> they should be happy with that
> Gigabit ethernet, soon 10gbit ethernet.. multiple firewire buses, or even one firewire 800 bus.. Multiple high speed graphics cards.. Multiple SCSI or fiberchannel buses..
If you had read the article, you would have seen that this is only for consumer pcs, that high end machines are getting a different bus system, and firewire and many other things are already on a seperate bus.
What PCI device are you using that is bandwidth limited & will benefit from a faster PCI bus? I don't have anything. My video card is in an AGP bus, and I would like that to be faster, but for the items in PCI slots, I really have nothing that will gain any benefit. I would much rather have faster memory, closer or in the processor.
System Admins should follow a formal code of ethics, just like any other profession. (i.e. accountants) Obviously, they do not always do so.
One good start might be to look at existing codes of ethics from professional bodies, like SAGE. Here is theirs
The one freedom that is removed is the ability to take these freedoms from others. To lock others into a situation I would not like to be in is something I will gladly give up. The problem is with embrace and extend. It's the main problem. As soon as you obsificate code, lock it away, and build hidden extentions, you have built a monopoly. You are now the only source of interoptability, support, and innovation. It does not matter how small or large your firm is.
You are fooling yourself. If you take publicly available software, and add to it, the one true value add that will allow you fat margins is to purposely make it not function with the publicly available code. Embrace and extend is the killer app. It's not a new or unique problem to software. See the secret society that formed around the pythagorean theorem and the penalties for sharing "code".
Your wrong about what I want. I do not want your labour, I simply do not want your obsificated code. I do not want you destoying public goods in the pursuit of a paycheck. I'm perfectly happy to share, but not with entities that will destroy my work. I am not saying that the GPL is the solution for all public software, but it is the only good solution I know of that prevents embrace and extend. I suppose I would even be happy if only the API's and file formats had GPL protection, but I do not believe companies would then honor it.
Kerberos was much better before MS "value added" to it.
So, you have then deprived all others of the public work for your own selfish greed. The GPL says if you wish to be greedy, do it on your own labor, not someone elses. Why do you feel you should be able take public works and claim them as your own labor? What percentage of the code gives you that right?
So, you want the freedom to steal software, and are pissed because the GPL prevents it. What other freedoms does the GPL remove? That's right, none.
Sure, aruguably javascript and html.
The best example is Microsoft breaking Kerberos.
No, it bothers me that they added a proprietary extention to the correct field in an effort to embrace and extend a common, open protocol. See the diference? (Do you see it now?? Ok, how about when I use 3 question marks??? Proprietary???)
So why did this cause problems with *NIX systems?
No, don't put words in my mouth. Here it is in my words: NOBODY should be allowed to put proprietary extenstions in open protocols. The GPL enforces that.
The only reason it did not work out better for them is because of the stink researchers at MIT made while MS was in anti-trust litigation, so they decided to publish the changes on a website that is only accessible IE, under their license, not the creators of Kerberos.
Ask the people at MIT what they think of what MS did to Kerberos.
Ted T'so's answer is interesting.
Find a MS centered news site....
;-) I think the troll actually made my day.
Actually, though, it's nice to see that Linux and opensource in general has come so far that it's now the Microsoft camp that are zealots and the voice of hysteria. I think this only changed in the last two years or so.
And opensource projects are tradionally patched faster, so there!
Don't forget the most important difference - Sun's gift is not proprietary, so the schools can access their documents without Sun software, and hire 3rd parties for support, updates, and improvements
But considering Microsoft, this could be an attack on many things, it's just a great bonus that they can use it as an attack on the GPL.
Check out this Yahoo! story for another angle. I imagine Bill is think "check and mate"....
Quit trolling anonymously Ransom!
Almost like when MicroSoft got hacked... except of course in the instance of closed sourced software, only your vendor can audit the code for trojans and backdoors. Kind of similiar???
Or maybe it is more like the time Microsoft placed a virus on their corporate update website???
Guess you don't have a point... is Bill paying you for this?
For those with firewalls, be sure to block port 70, if you do not already.
Port number
Not sure if a user could redirect gopher to port 80, but at least this will lock out the script kiddies. Be on the lookout for html emails with this stuff. Count your blessings that MicroSoft has not been able to put all traffic on port 80 (yet), and you can still filter some things....