"I'm already questioning whether the extremely autocratic "all data in the cloud" model that Google is pursuing will alienate users. I question whether people trust the cloud to that extent, and I know I love many of my local software applications and utilities"
'I have a critical meeting with Intel a week from Wednesday. I want to convince them that they need to stay away from Oracle NCs and work more closely with Microsoft', Oct 1997
'They did 2 things that amaze me: a) They kept the NC specification around despite saying they would not. b) They snuck in a server specification. There is some failure in communication', Nov 1997
"It's the morning after the big Chrome OS event.. now that the news is out, has Chrome OS lost its shine?"
Chromium OS has been out one whole day and already you can tell it's reception is lukewarm. Maybe you should be doing magic future prediction acts on television, like Derren Brown predicting what the lottery results are going to be.
"What's with the bullshit redirect disguised as a Google page? If you're going to push a badly written, badly designed and blatantly agenda-pushing website on us at least have the balls to link directly to it"
I did a Google search and that's what came up. Down at the bottom it does refer to shootouts with Israeli contractors, so I guess its one of those black propaganda type of articles designed to dilute the veracity of facts by burying them under a tonn of bullshit. At first sight a well laid out piece. Make you wonder who would spend their time in constructing such a piece ????
But the veracity of my post still stands. Bush cut funds to the levee project - to pay for the Iraq war.
"by 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent.
Additional cuts at the beginning of this year (for a total reduction in funding of 44.2 percent since 2001) forced the New Orleans district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze. The Senate had debated adding funds for fixing New Orleans' levees, but it was too late"
There is little hard evidence in the 'report' as to what caused these outages in Brazil. And given that since at least 2003, the US administration has been well aware of the dangers of putting control equipment on the Internet, why are they still doing it? This whole cyberscare story is yet another pretext for getting more funding.
A power cut.. was caused by a combination of technical and human error.. when two of the four lines running from the Cachoeira Paulista substation - between Sao Paulo and Minas Gerais states - to Rio de Janeiro failed. A third line was switched off because of the low consumption on what was a public holiday, and the system operator accidentally disconnected the fourth line
"Every week we uplink new virus definitions. We uplink and deploy them straight away, so we're running pretty much as up-to-date as we can get. If there ever was a virus, we can pop that computer off the network, isolate it and figure out what the problem is. Even if it needs a complete re-wipe, it's pretty easy to quarantine. But the way our IT is set up, there's a network on board, there's a network on the ground, and they're very isolated from viruses on the Internet."'
So if it is isolated from viruses on the Internet, why do you need Anti Virus software on the network ?
The document defines openness as companies/organizations collaborating, sharing and debating. No mention of who owns the knowledge. The simple fact is - that if the source ain't open then the 'standards' can't be open.
'Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: Free Redistribution, Source Code, Derived Works, Integrity of The Author's Source Code, No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups, No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor, Distribution of License, License Must Not Be Specific to a Product, License Must Not Restrict Other Software, License Must Be Technology-Neutral..'
--
Minion: We can't compete against open source
Boss: lets promote a paradigm shift and say it's not about 'open source' but about 'open standards' and then get 'open standards' to mean using our software.
Minion: That's so evil boss !
Boss: I know..
"This post is simply wrong. The poster has completely distorted the message in the original text by using unfair citing methods. If you actually read the article.."
I read both the article and the original and my reading is that the EIF went from supporting an open standard maintained by a not-for-profit organisation to a redefinition of 'openness' as meaning organizations willing to debate. And the only 'OPen Source Software' allowed is under a new EUPL license. Which I presume specifically excludes all other Open Source licenses.
The strategy is clear; It's not about 'open source' but about 'open standards'. Then get 'open standards' to mean proprietary closed source companies get control of the process and get real Open Source Software shoved off into a backwater.
"To attain interoperability in the context of pan-European eGovernment services, guidance needs to focus on open standards. The following are the minimal characteristics that a specification and its attendant documents must have in order to be considered an open standard:
The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties (consensus or majority decision etc.)"
--
"Within the context of the EIF, openness is the willingness of persons, organisations or other members
of a community of interest to share knowledge and to stimulate debate within that community..
Specifications, software and software development methods that promote collaboration and the results
of which can freely be accessed, reused and shared are considered open..
For the specific case of Open Source Software, the European Commission has set up the Open Source Observatory and Repository (OSOR) 14 and developed the European Union Public Licence (EUPL)"
"Shuttleworth.. is running a business and the ideals which created Debian from which most of the codebase of Ubuntu was sourced, are being eroded as his success enables him to sideline those who supported them"
On the day Canonical releases the totally free-of-charge Ubuntu 9.10, all you can do is piss on the ocasion. Shame on you for a Linux Advocate;)
"Are my eyes deceiving me or has that Ubuntu promise just got a bit smaller on the Ubuntu main page... and, don't the words mean something different now from what they once did..."
Where, how, what are you waffling on about. Do you have any links or citations to this smaller promise? What I see when I go there is:
* Ubuntu will always be free of charge, along with its regular enterprise releases and security updates ..
* Ubuntu core applications are all free and open source. We want you to use free and open source software, improve it and pass it on
"The GPL has a place in some shared infrastructure, but the newest rev (gplv3) was a complete failure. It tried to dictate what developers could do with their own creations"
Where does it say that. The main difference is that it prevents other developers suing you are the end users for patent violations and prevents the 'tivoization' of the code when used in embedded devices. Similarly to GPL 2, those that modify the code but don't redistribute it are under no obligation to distribute their own code.
'No surprise that the GPLv3 was rejected by the marketplace'
According to BlackDuckSoftware up to 12059 projects were released under GPL 3. How do you spin this into 'rejected by the market place'.
Neo libertarian would be a more apt description, as they aren't really in favor of individual liberty, but in diluting the powers of governments in order to maximize the power and profits of the multi nationals. A task at which they have largely achieved.
As in usual in these cases when they talk about 'Net Neutrality' they mean the exact opposite. Mainly to do with installing toal roads on the InterTUBES. Once it gets to Washington the 'Net Neutrality' bill won't actually keep the net neutral, similar to how the 'Can-spam' act didn't, can spam that it. It actually made it legal, and illegal to try and stop it.
'Advocates of "network neutrality" have the federal government's ear and seem closer than at times past to achieving their goal of greater government control over the Internet'
Instead of where it rightly belongs, in the hands of a few unaccountable mega-corporations. I wonder just who is really financing Heartland..:)
some more quotes:
'Neutralists.. advocate a combination of collective activist user behavior and government mandates to break "Big Media's" grip on information and culture by creating an information commons to unleash citizens' bottom-up creative and innovative potential. And they oppose "Big Software," such as Microsoft, believing there should be no proprietary ownership of software and that users should instead be free to use, copy, change, or redistribute any software code as they see fit.'
This is merely a pretext to discredit the 'Neutralists' by associating them with open source 'activists' using a total distortion of what Open Source is really about.
'Neutralists view the economics of information technology through their unique prism, which
results in a set of beliefs that Cleland calls "neutralnomics.".. An underlying premise of neutralnomics is the Marxist notion that capitalism'
Ahh, the ole Open Source is communist fud.
'The conventional view of broadband is that ISPs should be free to divert from the flat-rate billing structure most customers experience, and experiment instead with variable pricing, usage-based pricing, or even caps on broadband use in order to tailor services and products to the wants of potential consumers. The drive to make greater profits propels the search for new and better products, and the presence of competition gives consumers choices at reasonable prices. This is the fee structure employed even by public utilities such as electricity and water, where it is generally seen as being efficient as well as fair.'
No that's not accurate. What the telecoms want to do is restrict customers from using third party services and then bump up the price for their own offerings. In other words create a monopoly. Not only will this stifle competition but make it almost impossible for any new player to enter the market. Certainly things like Apachie would never take off as the incumbents would disconnect them for violating intellectual property laws. Would the net be safe in the hands of a few mega-corporations.
'Stallman has little use for the Founding Fathers' idea that intellectual property rights are one of the keystones of individual liberty'
Does anyone have a link to the original text where the 'Founding Fathers' refer to 'intellectual property rights'
'Municipal WiFi mesh networks have consistently proven to be more technically and operationally difficult to operate than government officials have thought'
This is bullshit, most anywhere a city council tried to implement wireless, the telecoms have tried to use the courts to get it shut down. Purely in the interests of 'competition'
'The author thanks Scott Cleland.. [who] is also chairman of Netcompetition.org, an e-forum on Net Neutrality funded by broadband telecom, cable, and wireless companies'
"Linux has been at it for 15 years and.. sound is still broken out of the box on Ubuntu.. Not exactly ready for prime time"
I'm watching streaming media right now and the sound plays no problem. I've never had problems getting sound working 'out of the box'. If Ubuntu is 'Not exactly ready for prime time', then why is IBM involving itself in a project with Canonical? IBM not exactly known for neglecting the purpose of making money.
'IBM and Canonical are now announcing the launch of Linux and cloud-based desktop software in the U.S'
"Coworker of mine wanted to use Ubuntu as the main OS on his work machine. Installed it, got it up and running at home. Then when he brought it in and popped it into the docking station, it wouldn't work (X didn't seem to work, I didn't troubleshoot and neither did he) and so he just got a copy of Windows 7 and installed it instead"
"Not just business, students for instance better make sure that what they wrote is going to be seen by their teachers in exactly the same way as they composed it"
The only way that would happen if viewed in the exact same version of msOffice using the exact same printer installed. Using a different printer and the displayed layout gets mangled.
"Someone paid $1 BILLION for a software company that made maybe a few million in revenue a year, and who already distribute most of the source code for their main product? Why?"
To slowly dilute its market share and ultimately mop up MySQLs customer base..
Slashdot Mirror
"I'm already questioning whether the extremely autocratic "all data in the cloud" model that Google is pursuing will alienate users. I question whether people trust the cloud to that extent, and I know I love many of my local software applications and utilities"
Why not run your apps and your data from a portable USB device.
'I have a critical meeting with Intel a week from Wednesday. I want to convince them that they need to stay away from Oracle NCs and work more closely with Microsoft', Oct 1997
'They did 2 things that amaze me: a) They kept the NC specification around despite saying they would not. b) They snuck in a server specification. There is some failure in communication', Nov 1997
"It's the morning after the big Chrome OS event .. now that the news is out, has Chrome OS lost its shine?"
Chromium OS has been out one whole day and already you can tell it's reception is lukewarm. Maybe you should be doing magic future prediction acts on television, like Derren Brown predicting what the lottery results are going to be.
What, if anything in that linked to article isn't true ?
"What's with the bullshit redirect disguised as a Google page? If you're going to push a badly written, badly designed and blatantly agenda-pushing website on us at least have the balls to link directly to it"
I did a Google search and that's what came up. Down at the bottom it does refer to shootouts with Israeli contractors, so I guess its one of those black propaganda type of articles designed to dilute the veracity of facts by burying them under a tonn of bullshit. At first sight a well laid out piece. Make you wonder who would spend their time in constructing such a piece ????
But the veracity of my post still stands. Bush cut funds to the levee project - to pay for the Iraq war.
"by 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent.
Additional cuts at the beginning of this year (for a total reduction in funding of 44.2 percent since 2001) forced the New Orleans district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze. The Senate had debated adding funds for fixing New Orleans' levees, but it was too late"
"Federal Judge Says Corps of Engineers Liable For Katrina Damage"
...
Patently untrue, the levees collapsed because they were built cheaply, in such a way that they couldn't withstand a catagory three Hurricane
When ever Firefox is mentioned on slashdot, always mention the memory leak problem .. :)
US blackout was computer related
"The W32.Blaster worm may have contributed to the cascading effect of the Aug. 14 blackout, government and industry experts revealed this week"
Rare SCADA vulnerability discovered - May 2008
SCADA Systems Vulnerable to Hackers Feb 2004
There is little hard evidence in the 'report' as to what caused these outages in Brazil. And given that since at least 2003, the US administration has been well aware of the dangers of putting control equipment on the Internet, why are they still doing it? This whole cyberscare story is yet another pretext for getting more funding.
.. was caused by a combination of technical and human error .. when two of the four lines running from the Cachoeira Paulista substation - between Sao Paulo and Minas Gerais states - to Rio de Janeiro failed. A third line was switched off because of the low consumption on what was a public holiday, and the system operator accidentally disconnected the fourth line
Authorities blame human error for Jan.1 blackout - Brazil
A power cut
MythTV installation
There have been several instances when viruses have found their way on to the ISS. How do you try to prevent this?
"Every week we uplink new virus definitions. We uplink and deploy them straight away, so we're running pretty much as up-to-date as we can get. If there ever was a virus, we can pop that computer off the network, isolate it and figure out what the problem is. Even if it needs a complete re-wipe, it's pretty easy to quarantine. But the way our IT is set up, there's a network on board, there's a network on the ground, and they're very isolated from viruses on the Internet."'
So if it is isolated from viruses on the Internet, why do you need Anti Virus software on the network ?
The document defines openness as companies/organizations collaborating, sharing and debating. No mention of who owns the knowledge. The simple fact is - that if the source ain't open then the 'standards' can't be open.
..'
..
'Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: Free Redistribution, Source Code, Derived Works, Integrity of The Author's Source Code, No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups, No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor, Distribution of License, License Must Not Be Specific to a Product, License Must Not Restrict Other Software, License Must Be Technology-Neutral
--
Minion: We can't compete against open source
Boss: lets promote a paradigm shift and say it's not about 'open source' but about 'open standards' and then get 'open standards' to mean using our software.
Minion: That's so evil boss !
Boss: I know
Ubersoft
There are no ideals ..
...
Did you ever read something and just know it's true, well this is one of those times
Just who exactly was involved in drafting the 'European Interoperability Framework' ?
"This post is simply wrong. The poster has completely distorted the message in the original text by using unfair citing methods. If you actually read the article .."
..
..
I read both the article and the original and my reading is that the EIF went from supporting an open standard maintained by a not-for-profit organisation to a redefinition of 'openness' as meaning organizations willing to debate. And the only 'OPen Source Software' allowed is under a new EUPL license. Which I presume specifically excludes all other Open Source licenses.
The strategy is clear; It's not about 'open source' but about 'open standards'. Then get 'open standards' to mean proprietary closed source companies get control of the process and get real Open Source Software shoved off into a backwater.
"To attain interoperability in the context of pan-European eGovernment services, guidance needs to focus on open standards. The following are the minimal characteristics that a specification and its attendant documents must have in order to be considered an open standard:
The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties (consensus or majority decision etc.)"
--
"Within the context of the EIF, openness is the willingness of persons, organisations or other members of a community of interest to share knowledge and to stimulate debate within that community
Specifications, software and software development methods that promote collaboration and the results of which can freely be accessed, reused and shared are considered open
For the specific case of Open Source Software, the European Commission has set up the Open Source Observatory and Repository (OSOR) 14 and developed the European Union Public Licence (EUPL)"
"The business doesn't want to support a Linux client so they open the code they have and abandon it"
..
How do you deduce this from a single blog post
"the Linux Skype version will become open source in the nearest future"
"Shuttleworth .. is running a business and the ideals which created Debian from which most of the codebase of Ubuntu was sourced, are being eroded as his success enables him to sideline those who supported them"
;)
..
On the day Canonical releases the totally free-of-charge Ubuntu 9.10, all you can do is piss on the ocasion. Shame on you for a Linux Advocate
"Are my eyes deceiving me or has that Ubuntu promise just got a bit smaller on the Ubuntu main page... and, don't the words mean something different now from what they once did..."
Where, how, what are you waffling on about. Do you have any links or citations to this smaller promise? What I see when I go there is:
* Ubuntu will always be free of charge, along with its regular enterprise releases and security updates
* Ubuntu core applications are all free and open source. We want you to use free and open source software, improve it and pass it on
Of course there is only the one true Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster ..
"The GPL has a place in some shared infrastructure, but the newest rev (gplv3) was a complete failure. It tried to dictate what developers could do with their own creations"
Where does it say that. The main difference is that it prevents other developers suing you are the end users for patent violations and prevents the 'tivoization' of the code when used in embedded devices. Similarly to GPL 2, those that modify the code but don't redistribute it are under no obligation to distribute their own code.
'No surprise that the GPLv3 was rejected by the marketplace'
According to BlackDuckSoftware up to 12059 projects were released under GPL 3. How do you spin this into 'rejected by the market place'.
Neo libertarian would be a more apt description, as they aren't really in favor of individual liberty, but in diluting the powers of governments in order to maximize the power and profits of the multi nationals. A task at which they have largely achieved.
.. :)
.. advocate a combination of collective activist user behavior and government mandates to break "Big Media's" grip on information and culture by creating an information commons to unleash citizens' bottom-up creative and innovative potential. And they oppose "Big Software," such as Microsoft, believing there should be no proprietary ownership of software and that users should instead be free to use, copy, change, or redistribute any software code as they see fit.'
.. An underlying premise of neutralnomics is the Marxist notion that capitalism'
.. [who] is also chairman of Netcompetition.org, an e-forum on Net Neutrality funded by broadband telecom, cable, and wireless companies'
As in usual in these cases when they talk about 'Net Neutrality' they mean the exact opposite. Mainly to do with installing toal roads on the InterTUBES. Once it gets to Washington the 'Net Neutrality' bill won't actually keep the net neutral, similar to how the 'Can-spam' act didn't, can spam that it. It actually made it legal, and illegal to try and stop it.
'Advocates of "network neutrality" have the federal government's ear and seem closer than at times past to achieving their goal of greater government control over the Internet '
Instead of where it rightly belongs, in the hands of a few unaccountable mega-corporations. I wonder just who is really financing Heartland
some more quotes:
'Neutralists
This is merely a pretext to discredit the 'Neutralists' by associating them with open source 'activists' using a total distortion of what Open Source is really about.
'Neutralists view the economics of information technology through their unique prism, which results in a set of beliefs that Cleland calls "neutralnomics."
Ahh, the ole Open Source is communist fud.
'The conventional view of broadband is that ISPs should be free to divert from the flat-rate billing structure most customers experience, and experiment instead with variable pricing, usage-based pricing, or even caps on broadband use in order to tailor services and products to the wants of potential consumers. The drive to make greater profits propels the search for new and better products, and the presence of competition gives consumers choices at reasonable prices. This is the fee structure employed even by public utilities such as electricity and water, where it is generally seen as being efficient as well as fair.'
No that's not accurate. What the telecoms want to do is restrict customers from using third party services and then bump up the price for their own offerings. In other words create a monopoly. Not only will this stifle competition but make it almost impossible for any new player to enter the market. Certainly things like Apachie would never take off as the incumbents would disconnect them for violating intellectual property laws. Would the net be safe in the hands of a few mega-corporations.
'Stallman has little use for the Founding Fathers' idea that intellectual property rights are one of the keystones of individual liberty'
Does anyone have a link to the original text where the 'Founding Fathers' refer to 'intellectual property rights'
'Municipal WiFi mesh networks have consistently proven to be more technically and operationally difficult to operate than government officials have thought'
This is bullshit, most anywhere a city council tried to implement wireless, the telecoms have tried to use the courts to get it shut down. Purely in the interests of 'competition'
'The author thanks Scott Cleland
"Linux has been at it for 15 years and .. sound is still broken out of the box on Ubuntu .. Not exactly ready for prime time"
I'm watching streaming media right now and the sound plays no problem. I've never had problems getting sound working 'out of the box'. If Ubuntu is 'Not exactly ready for prime time', then why is IBM involving itself in a project with Canonical? IBM not exactly known for neglecting the purpose of making money.
' IBM and Canonical are now announcing the launch of Linux and cloud-based desktop software in the U.S'
"Coworker of mine wanted to use Ubuntu as the main OS on his work machine. Installed it, got it up and running at home. Then when he brought it in and popped it into the docking station, it wouldn't work (X didn't seem to work, I didn't troubleshoot and neither did he) and so he just got a copy of Windows 7 and installed it instead"
Curiously enough there are references to this on the Ubuntu mailing list
"Not just business, students for instance better make sure that what they wrote is going to be seen by their teachers in exactly the same way as they composed it"
The only way that would happen if viewed in the exact same version of msOffice using the exact same printer installed. Using a different printer and the displayed layout gets mangled.
"Someone paid $1 BILLION for a software company that made maybe a few million in revenue a year, and who already distribute most of the source code for their main product? Why?"
..
To slowly dilute its market share and ultimately mop up MySQLs customer base