I must admit, you make some excellent points.
Standing up for your beliefs is not a flaw. The problem is the dictomy of the situation. Here we have a company doing what many people in this community say should be done. That is TEST your security in an open environment. The thing that they are testing is a way for RIAA to distribute music that is NOT readily copied, which many people hate. You have to give them a nod for part A, even though you vehemently disagree with part B
You can't say you stand for one thing, and then go back on it when somone you don't happen to agree with uses whatever you stand for. Many people are for freedom of speech, as long as the person speaking doesn't disagree with them. It seems some of the boycotters are in that boat.
I see your point, and in some respects agree, but the problem I see is that a company that has done nothing to earn the respect or trust of the open source community thinks they can bribe us into doing their dirty work.
I must admit that I like your analogy about free speech and am reminded of a case where a jewish attorney defended a neo-nazi group under that same right. However, that attorney should not be lambasted and criticized if he chooses not to represent that client. We have to make a choice as to what we feel is the greater harm/good, and be prepared to stand by that choice or recognize it for the mistake it may or may not prove to be.
Do you think that for ONE second, boycott or no boycott that SDMI is going to stop trying to develop this. Come on get real! SDMI is only going to change their tune when their product looses in the market place.
Using your logic and a quote from, (as soon as SDMI is cracked another, tougher to crack scheme will be invented and implemented,) it doesn't really matter if the code is cracked or not now does it. So what's the point, boycott or no boycott? As I said, I hate the idea of the "watermark", but I'm not calling for a boycott on testing the security. I AM calling for a boycott of the final product because that is the ONLY way "we" will win.
I think the real question is, "What will RIAA's response be if the watermark scheme is broken before or after it is released on the public?"
This is an answer that none of us can even begin to guess. However, I think the big unknown factor in obtaining this answer lies in the fate of the DeCSS trial. I'd hate to help create an unbreakable scheme now that it was legal to do so.
Imagine this headline "Hacker cracks SDMI watermark" followed closely by "Open Source Community provides super secure watermark" The open source water mark is used to encrypt voice communications. The licsence doesn't allow the encryption of music.
Now we have a VALID (IMHO) use for the technology! Now no one gets that voice message that starts "your mission should you choose to accept it" except for you.
I like your thinking here, and admit that the thought had never crossed my mind.
I'm thinking way past what SDMI is trying to do. The idea of a water mark isn't going to go away, no matter how much you whine. So lets find ways to put it to GOOD use, and also lets develop that in the open. If you break SDMI's code you set them back for a short while, but a short while may be all people need to develop an alternative thats acceptable to all.
Again, I like your thinking here, I'm just not certain if it is realistic or not. I suppose if the scheme was cracked and an open alternative was developed before RIAA could commision a better scheme, it could happen as you suggest. However, RIAA is not known for its logical and level headed thinking. If an open alternative was developed, would it be adopted by them? I doubt that they would adopt an open solution. For one, their paranoia about the code being readily available to pirates would prevent them from using it. What's worse is they would probably use that code to develop their own closed source alternative, but do so in a way to avoid patent and/or license restrictions.
These are just some ideas, they are not my vision of the future. People in general have to be able to look past their own ranting and see whats down the road. If you really want to change something you have to be realistic. Boycotting SDMI on your own is your business. I'd boycott the final product, I'd also stop buying books from amazon.com if they tried to sell music in that format.
I think I'd rather boycott SDMI, break it after its release, and boycott products that use it.
You mean you're not already boycotting Amazon:)
The whole idea of a watermark preventing copying is LAUGHABLE. How easy is it to simply use a program that grabs the audio from your sound card raw, you then write it to any format you see fit, (MP3, WAV, etc) Because something is silly and flawed doesn't mean that companies won't do it. (nee look at the ever popular beenie with a proppelor, still a hot seller!)
I agree completely, but you didn't have to insult my hat.:)
You bring up some good point, but in the end watermarks won't go away. The current rants are akin to standing in front of a train holding your hand out telling it to stop as it speeds down the track at 62 MPH (100kph). I prefer to dig up the tracks, and de-rail the sucker. The way to do that is to make sure that SDMI watermarked music fails in the marketplace. The only way to do that is for concerned consumers to band together and NOT buy in droves.
We're not standing on the tracks, we're just saying be careful where you derail this thing. You may end up causing more harm than good.
Unfortunately, most consumers are more concerned with keeping up with the Jones's and getting the latest, shiniest new toy than they are about their rights as a consumer until after they're locked in.
Many in the open source community and the hacking community in general b*tch and moan whenever a company releases something with weak/poor encryption. When a company takes the advice of those that scream loudest, they are suddenly boycotted because there product doesn't meet the "ethos" of the hacking community.
It's nice to see that standing up for your beliefs and convictions is now a flaw.
I may not agree with what the company is doing, and I may secretly hope that the watermark is cracked after it has been accepted BUT I have to respect the company for trying to test their security in the open. It is a step that more companies need to make.
This isn't about security. This is about an industry wanting to take away the last remains of our rights as consumers and they want to do this with our help. Don't believe the rhetoric, as soon as SDMI is cracked another, tougher to crack scheme will be invented and implemented. Why would we want to help them.
The "Boycott" makes the Open Source community look like a whining 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum. "Waaaaa, your not doing things my way, Waaaaa, I'm not going to help you now, Waaaaa, you don't really love me,Waaaaa, I'll show YOU!"
You have got to be kidding me! Heaven forbid we as individuals and as a community should stand up for what we believe in and refuse to aid those that champion a cause diametricly opposed to our own. To even think that this is a clear cut case of security is naive and foolish.
Please stop posting stuff like "They are just using our free programing services and ripping us off". If the open source movement is to be successful FOR PROFIT companies have to make it work. This means that people contribute to to a progect, be it testing as is the case here, or actually coding. They also don't usually get paid for those contributions.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE OPEN SOURCE MOVEMENT!!! This has nothing at all do to with open source software. In fact, in NO way does this contest benefit the Open Source Movement. This whole afair reminds me of a Coup. A powerful General influences his army to overthrow the cruel Dictator, just so he can take his place as the country's Dictator. In the end, the people have a Who lyric stuck in their head, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss". If the Open Source community hacks SDMI before it is released, then RIAA will commission a new scheme tha's even harder to crack, and then we're in worse shape then before. Now I ask, Why the hell do we want to help them?
If you make the water mark stronger, then it shows that our community is full of good coders. If you boycott the FINAL product, and stick to
using MP3's or whatever format YOU prefer then in the end market forces will drive the watermarked music people out of business. The idea is to stop the product from being a success because the idea of watermarked music is flawed. NOT that watermarked music can't be made secure.
OK, so by your logic, we should help to create a stronger watermark that infringes on our rights as consumers and aids a cause we believe is wrong just to show how good we are at cracking encryption schemes. That doesn't show the world that we're good coders, it shows them that we're good code-breakers, something many in the world associate with criminal behavior. Because, that's what I want the Open Source community to be known for. Yeah, I want to be a mercenary code breaker for Corporate America.
Furthermore, your assertion that if we boycott the final product we will prevail in the end is flawed. This is even more naive than your previous statements. If you don't believe me just take a look at how well informed the masses are about DeCSS and the MPAA's efforts to infringe basic rights such as "Fair Use" and the Freedom of Speech. No, I'm afraid a boycott of the final product will never work.
The idea of watermarked music is flawed, can't be made secure, and also infringes on our rights as consumers. Now why would I want to prove that to the Recording Industry so they can find a method that isn't flawed, is secure, and still infringes on my rights as a consumer.
"I'm completely amazed at the idiocy of the open-source movement in opposing ["Hack SDMI"]. If I were a hacker or an open-source person and I didn't like what SDMI is trying to do, I would think that I would want to break the technology --
to make sure that it doesn't work, and to make sure that it doesn't get implemented." After all, if watermarks fail, there is nothing else for SDMI to fall back on: "Not breaking it is the worst thing they can do. If they break SDMI, there will be nothing to implement."
What a way to get support, insults.
Are we supposed to buy this load of crap? If SDMI is cracked before the Recording Industry has implemented it, then they will just find a new method that will be even harder to crack. Yeah that sounds like a good idea. Let's stop working on legitimate OSS projects and help the Recording Industry come up with a better consumer trap.
I actually think its a good business decision. First of all, Cobalt was planning to dump MIPS in favor of x86, Sun is more than likely going to follow through with that plan. Once that change has been made it will be much more economical for Sun to use Solaris for Intel than Linux for a number of reasons.
1. Sun already has an army of people highly skilled in Solaris administration and application development.
2. Sun can provide low-cost appliances to smaller companies and as the customer's business needs grow, easily sell them on an upgrade to "beefier" hardware.
3. Sun can make all the modifications they want to the OS without having to disclose those modifications.
4. Sun will gain an even larger share in the web server market.
A great proposal except that the majority of society is made up of leeches who don't want to pay for anything. They'll download all the MP3's on the album and never buy a thing.
While I wish your model was indeed the case, it will never happen until there is a fundamental change in attitude of the average person. I just don't see that happening.
Well, I would start with this book. It is pretty well detailed and coupled with the HowTo's and various online resources like Linux.com and Linuxnewbie.org you should be able to do just that in no time.
Another tip I can offer on the firewall side is check out www.bastille-linux.org. Its an automated script that walks you through securing a Linux box. This can get you up and running pretty quickly and safely.
Oh, one more tip, check out www.securityfocus.com there are some great resources for beginners there too.
I recently put together a home network and this book certainly helped me a lot. It helped me set up a server running NIS, NFS, and Sendmail as well as guide me through a number of other minor networking issues. "Using Samba", "MySQL & mSQL", "Oracle Database Administration", and "Linux in a Nutshell" were my other closest allies in this little project.
I still haven't met an O'Reilly book I didn't like.
There is no doubt in my mind that the "Memory Stick" is a fantastic idea. Sony is pushing it in their digital cameras, walkmans, laptops, PC's, and now PDA's. It could easily become more uniquitous than the floppy disk and really push the envelope of personal removable data storage.
Now, If they would only open this up to other manufacturers on a grand scale, I would feel a lot better about it. Unfortunately, Sony isn't content with the prospect of licensing fees. They want to control the medium completely.
I would think that in this case it could mean a future pda that will interface with mp3 players and such.
I wouldn't count on this. At least not on them linking with an open MP3 player. Sony is pretty anti MP3 and have a competing format out there that is encrypted to reduce the pirating of music.
I know what you mean. I was going to buy a laptop soon, and really wanted to get a Sony Vaio ultra light, but can't bring myself to buy one of their products. As for the PDA's, I'm waiting for a Linux based one, so that decision is pretty easy.
I'm just glad I bought all my Sony home entertainment equipment before all this foolishness began.
Because, they're playing both sides of the fence. If Linux and the Open Source model ultimately fails, then they haven't given anything up, like their source code to their rivals. On the other hand, if they give Linux a nudge and it really takes off they are in a perfect position to "ride the wave". In that case, the time will come when Linux will far surpass their proprietary offerings, at which time they no longer have anything to lose by opening their code.
I know I'm being a little naive when I say it, but Linux could finally bring the other Unix vendors together. I just hope that IBM and HP are really serious about making Linux work.
This means potential fragmentation and several incompatible versions of linux, or possibly one or two "Linuxsoft" super-companies that get to decide the future direction of Linux in the same way that we hate M$ for doing with Windows.
This strikes me as an excellent point, adopted standards on such basic things as the directory structure, levels the playing field between distributions that much more. In fact, I believe it would greatly reduce the temptation for companies to standardize on one distribution. I would even argue that it gives us (SA's, DBA's, and other IT Professionals) more freedom.
As an Oracle DBA, and one who wholeheartedly endorses Oracle on Linux, I 've learned that Oracle doesn't install or administer the same on all distros. In fact, the introduction of more than one distribution makes things that much more complex than they really need to be. As a result, I've decided, in the future, I would standardize on one distro. If there was even a minimal standards, it would make it that much easier to administer multiple distributions. I now its a stretch for some, but I really think a base standard would be even more liberating.
I can't speak for the others, but Hotmail is running BSD on approx. 90% of its mail servers, the remainder is running Windows 2000 and Exchange. The web servers and the rest of the IT infrastructure has already been migrated to the Win2K platform. MS has already had one minor mishap when they tried to migrate all the mail servers at once. Now they are migrating in stages. As I said in an earlier post, I find it mildly amusing that MS has had problems with this migration, but all system migrations are difficult and I can't be too harsh.
BTW, Cringely has always written article's like this. They are based on rumours and rumblings. In my own observations, he's been right about 60% of the time. I personally find him entertaining most of the time and informative some of the time just like all the other trade columnists.
p.s. my information is based on completely informal sources (which I believe to be very reliable) that you can either believe or disbelieve, I don't care, I just thought I'd mention it.
I would say, "let's take our sweet time migrating this system to a new platform." While I find it mildly amusing that MS is using UNIX products, I can't blame them. A system migration from any platform to any platform can have a significant number of snags.
Does anyone remember when MS first tried to move Hotmail to Exchange and they ran into all kinds of problems. The BSD people had a field day. MS is going to be real careful about migrating other systems. There is nothing wrong with acquiring a company and keeping the existing system in place while you work out a migration strategy. Another botched migration however would hurt their credibility.
First of all its India.
And that means what, exactly? That it is somehow unworthy of consideration?
No it simply means that the person I was replying to used Indian as a noun. It was a petty correction that was ultimately not necessary and inexcusable.
Second, most films from India are in Hindi, with smaller film industries throughout India producing films in other major languages like Tamil, Bengali, Telegu, etc. While there are regional dialects of Hindi, there is an official Hindi as adopted by the government of India and taught in nearly all schools. Hindi films from Bombay tend to use Bombay slang and terminology, but are otherwise not in "hindi dialects" as you say.
That was the whole purpose of my post. To inform the person that not all Indian movies are made in Hindi. The poster was under the assumption, even couldn't believe that Hindi may not be the same to all Indians, simply because it was the 2nd largest film producing country in the world.
I never once purported my example to be anything but a small and insignificant sample. I am not foolish enough to think that my experience was the work of National Geographic. However, it illustrated a point, that not all Hindi speaking Indians can communicate effectively.
As many others have pointed out in this thread, there are a large number of major languages in India, and literally hundreds of local dialects. While Hindi has been pushed as an "official" national language, due to the vast linguistic, cultural, and even political differences of the subcontinent (keep in mind India as a country did not exist until 53 years ago) it's simply not possible for it to become a de facto standard in the same way as English in the United States.
There are many from south India who will not learn Hindi on general principle, or if they have to learn it, will not speak it. I won't get into the reasons for this here. There are also huge differences in accents and of course regional variations in the use of the language that might make one speaker less than intelligible to another.
This is pretty much all I was trying to say, granted I did a poor job.
Your point seems to be that Hindi is not as significant as English, for two reasons. The first seems to be: "first of all its India". I won't waste much more time by discussing the ethnocentric, xenophobic, uneducated, and possibly even racist innuendo of this statement.
That was not my point at all, and my first statement has already been explained. You can either accept that or not, but the choice is up to you.
The second reason appears to be that because Hindi is not usable between your sampling of eleven out of over 300 million speakers that it must not be tenable as a major world language. It is, in fact, a major world language, but I don't think anyone was discussing it as a possible replacement for English. If that was your argument, you could have chosen a more obvious reason for this (and a much safer one, given your lack of any knowledge of the subject), such as its more complicated and undersupported character set.
I never once said or even implied that. My sampling was merely to make a point that simply because India is the 2nd largest film producing country does not mean that Hindi is a pervasive language in India.
A torpedo that moves by wiggling?
My mind must be fried, because that statement struck me as absolutely hysterical. I guess the mental picture was too much for me.
Anyway, I found this article that was actualy linked to by Slashdot a while back.
www.newscientist.com/features/features_224813.html
pretty cool stuff!
While the original poster may be overly cynical he hits a very valid mark. Enlisting the "zealotry" of/.ers without full disclosure is _not_ very cool. I think it is very rude to ask someone to do something and not tell them why or who for.
In my opinion, it isn't about paranoia, but common courtesy.
Then again, maybe I just like to know who I'm about to screw/help.
Slashdot Mirror
I must admit, you make some excellent points. :)
:)
Standing up for your beliefs is not a flaw. The problem is the dictomy of the situation. Here we have a company doing what many people in this community say should be done. That is TEST your security in an open environment. The thing that they are testing is a way for RIAA to distribute music that is NOT readily copied, which many people hate. You have to give them a nod for part A, even though you vehemently disagree with part B You can't say you stand for one thing, and then go back on it when somone you don't happen to agree with uses whatever you stand for. Many people are for freedom of speech, as long as the person speaking doesn't disagree with them. It seems some of the boycotters are in that boat.
I see your point, and in some respects agree, but the problem I see is that a company that has done nothing to earn the respect or trust of the open source community thinks they can bribe us into doing their dirty work.
I must admit that I like your analogy about free speech and am reminded of a case where a jewish attorney defended a neo-nazi group under that same right. However, that attorney should not be lambasted and criticized if he chooses not to represent that client. We have to make a choice as to what we feel is the greater harm/good, and be prepared to stand by that choice or recognize it for the mistake it may or may not prove to be.
Do you think that for ONE second, boycott or no boycott that SDMI is going to stop trying to develop this. Come on get real! SDMI is only going to change their tune when their product looses in the market place.
Using your logic and a quote from, (as soon as SDMI is cracked another, tougher to crack scheme will be invented and implemented,) it doesn't really matter if the code is cracked or not now does it. So what's the point, boycott or no boycott? As I said, I hate the idea of the "watermark", but I'm not calling for a boycott on testing the security. I AM calling for a boycott of the final product because that is the ONLY way "we" will win.
I think the real question is, "What will RIAA's response be if the watermark scheme is broken before or after it is released on the public?"
This is an answer that none of us can even begin to guess. However, I think the big unknown factor in obtaining this answer lies in the fate of the DeCSS trial. I'd hate to help create an unbreakable scheme now that it was legal to do so.
Imagine this headline "Hacker cracks SDMI watermark" followed closely by "Open Source Community provides super secure watermark" The open source water mark is used to encrypt voice communications. The licsence doesn't allow the encryption of music.
Now we have a VALID (IMHO) use for the technology! Now no one gets that voice message that starts "your mission should you choose to accept it" except for you.
I like your thinking here, and admit that the thought had never crossed my mind.
I'm thinking way past what SDMI is trying to do. The idea of a water mark isn't going to go away, no matter how much you whine. So lets find ways to put it to GOOD use, and also lets develop that in the open. If you break SDMI's code you set them back for a short while, but a short while may be all people need to develop an alternative thats acceptable to all.
Again, I like your thinking here, I'm just not certain if it is realistic or not. I suppose if the scheme was cracked and an open alternative was developed before RIAA could commision a better scheme, it could happen as you suggest. However, RIAA is not known for its logical and level headed thinking. If an open alternative was developed, would it be adopted by them? I doubt that they would adopt an open solution. For one, their paranoia about the code being readily available to pirates would prevent them from using it. What's worse is they would probably use that code to develop their own closed source alternative, but do so in a way to avoid patent and/or license restrictions.
These are just some ideas, they are not my vision of the future. People in general have to be able to look past their own ranting and see whats down the road. If you really want to change something you have to be realistic. Boycotting SDMI on your own is your business. I'd boycott the final product, I'd also stop buying books from amazon.com if they tried to sell music in that format.
I think I'd rather boycott SDMI, break it after its release, and boycott products that use it.
You mean you're not already boycotting Amazon
The whole idea of a watermark preventing copying is LAUGHABLE. How easy is it to simply use a program that grabs the audio from your sound card raw, you then write it to any format you see fit, (MP3, WAV, etc) Because something is silly and flawed doesn't mean that companies won't do it. (nee look at the ever popular beenie with a proppelor, still a hot seller!)
I agree completely, but you didn't have to insult my hat.
You bring up some good point, but in the end watermarks won't go away. The current rants are akin to standing in front of a train holding your hand out telling it to stop as it speeds down the track at 62 MPH (100kph). I prefer to dig up the tracks, and de-rail the sucker. The way to do that is to make sure that SDMI watermarked music fails in the marketplace. The only way to do that is for concerned consumers to band together and NOT buy in droves.
We're not standing on the tracks, we're just saying be careful where you derail this thing. You may end up causing more harm than good.
Unfortunately, most consumers are more concerned with keeping up with the Jones's and getting the latest, shiniest new toy than they are about their rights as a consumer until after they're locked in.
Many in the open source community and the hacking community in general b*tch and moan whenever a company releases something with weak/poor encryption. When a company takes the advice of those that scream loudest, they are suddenly boycotted because there product doesn't meet the "ethos" of the hacking community.
It's nice to see that standing up for your beliefs and convictions is now a flaw.
I may not agree with what the company is doing, and I may secretly hope that the watermark is cracked after it has been accepted BUT I have to respect the company for trying to test their security in the open. It is a step that more companies need to make.
This isn't about security. This is about an industry wanting to take away the last remains of our rights as consumers and they want to do this with our help. Don't believe the rhetoric, as soon as SDMI is cracked another, tougher to crack scheme will be invented and implemented. Why would we want to help them.
The "Boycott" makes the Open Source community look like a whining 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum. "Waaaaa, your not doing things my way, Waaaaa, I'm not going to help you now, Waaaaa, you don't really love me,Waaaaa, I'll show YOU!"
You have got to be kidding me! Heaven forbid we as individuals and as a community should stand up for what we believe in and refuse to aid those that champion a cause diametricly opposed to our own. To even think that this is a clear cut case of security is naive and foolish.
Please stop posting stuff like "They are just using our free programing services and ripping us off". If the open source movement is to be successful FOR PROFIT companies have to make it work. This means that people contribute to to a progect, be it testing as is the case here, or actually coding. They also don't usually get paid for those contributions.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE OPEN SOURCE MOVEMENT!!! This has nothing at all do to with open source software. In fact, in NO way does this contest benefit the Open Source Movement. This whole afair reminds me of a Coup. A powerful General influences his army to overthrow the cruel Dictator, just so he can take his place as the country's Dictator. In the end, the people have a Who lyric stuck in their head, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss". If the Open Source community hacks SDMI before it is released, then RIAA will commission a new scheme tha's even harder to crack, and then we're in worse shape then before. Now I ask, Why the hell do we want to help them?
If you make the water mark stronger, then it shows that our community is full of good coders. If you boycott the FINAL product, and stick to using MP3's or whatever format YOU prefer then in the end market forces will drive the watermarked music people out of business. The idea is to stop the product from being a success because the idea of watermarked music is flawed. NOT that watermarked music can't be made secure.
OK, so by your logic, we should help to create a stronger watermark that infringes on our rights as consumers and aids a cause we believe is wrong just to show how good we are at cracking encryption schemes. That doesn't show the world that we're good coders, it shows them that we're good code-breakers, something many in the world associate with criminal behavior. Because, that's what I want the Open Source community to be known for. Yeah, I want to be a mercenary code breaker for Corporate America.
Furthermore, your assertion that if we boycott the final product we will prevail in the end is flawed. This is even more naive than your previous statements. If you don't believe me just take a look at how well informed the masses are about DeCSS and the MPAA's efforts to infringe basic rights such as "Fair Use" and the Freedom of Speech. No, I'm afraid a boycott of the final product will never work.
The idea of watermarked music is flawed, can't be made secure, and also infringes on our rights as consumers. Now why would I want to prove that to the Recording Industry so they can find a method that isn't flawed, is secure, and still infringes on my rights as a consumer.
"I'm completely amazed at the idiocy of the open-source movement in opposing ["Hack SDMI"]. If I were a hacker or an open-source person and I didn't like what SDMI is trying to do, I would think that I would want to break the technology -- to make sure that it doesn't work, and to make sure that it doesn't get implemented." After all, if watermarks fail, there is nothing else for SDMI to fall back on: "Not breaking it is the worst thing they can do. If they break SDMI, there will be nothing to implement."
What a way to get support, insults.
Are we supposed to buy this load of crap? If SDMI is cracked before the Recording Industry has implemented it, then they will just find a new method that will be even harder to crack. Yeah that sounds like a good idea. Let's stop working on legitimate OSS projects and help the Recording Industry come up with a better consumer trap.
I actually think its a good business decision. First of all, Cobalt was planning to dump MIPS in favor of x86, Sun is more than likely going to follow through with that plan. Once that change has been made it will be much more economical for Sun to use Solaris for Intel than Linux for a number of reasons.
1. Sun already has an army of people highly skilled in Solaris administration and application development.
2. Sun can provide low-cost appliances to smaller companies and as the customer's business needs grow, easily sell them on an upgrade to "beefier" hardware.
3. Sun can make all the modifications they want to the OS without having to disclose those modifications.
4. Sun will gain an even larger share in the web server market.
It sounds like a pretty good move to me.
And so much damn snow the poor Brit will freeze to death just getting to work.
A great proposal except that the majority of society is made up of leeches who don't want to pay for anything. They'll download all the MP3's on the album and never buy a thing. While I wish your model was indeed the case, it will never happen until there is a fundamental change in attitude of the average person. I just don't see that happening.
I didn't know that, and yet I still don't feel better. Man, I was wrong on both counts :(
Well, I would start with this book. It is pretty well detailed and coupled with the HowTo's and various online resources like Linux.com and Linuxnewbie.org you should be able to do just that in no time.
Another tip I can offer on the firewall side is check out www.bastille-linux.org. Its an automated script that walks you through securing a Linux box. This can get you up and running pretty quickly and safely.
Oh, one more tip, check out www.securityfocus.com there are some great resources for beginners there too.
I can't say enough good things about this book.
I recently put together a home network and this book certainly helped me a lot. It helped me set up a server running NIS, NFS, and Sendmail as well as guide me through a number of other minor networking issues. "Using Samba", "MySQL & mSQL", "Oracle Database Administration", and "Linux in a Nutshell" were my other closest allies in this little project.
I still haven't met an O'Reilly book I didn't like.
I have yet to be surprised at the seemingly bottomless pit of human stupidity.
Excellent Point!
There is no doubt in my mind that the "Memory Stick" is a fantastic idea. Sony is pushing it in their digital cameras, walkmans, laptops, PC's, and now PDA's. It could easily become more uniquitous than the floppy disk and really push the envelope of personal removable data storage.
Now, If they would only open this up to other manufacturers on a grand scale, I would feel a lot better about it. Unfortunately, Sony isn't content with the prospect of licensing fees. They want to control the medium completely.
I would think that in this case it could mean a future pda that will interface with mp3 players and such.
I wouldn't count on this. At least not on them linking with an open MP3 player. Sony is pretty anti MP3 and have a competing format out there that is encrypted to reduce the pirating of music.
I know what you mean. I was going to buy a laptop soon, and really wanted to get a Sony Vaio ultra light, but can't bring myself to buy one of their products. As for the PDA's, I'm waiting for a Linux based one, so that decision is pretty easy.
I'm just glad I bought all my Sony home entertainment equipment before all this foolishness began.
Because, they're playing both sides of the fence. If Linux and the Open Source model ultimately fails, then they haven't given anything up, like their source code to their rivals. On the other hand, if they give Linux a nudge and it really takes off they are in a perfect position to "ride the wave". In that case, the time will come when Linux will far surpass their proprietary offerings, at which time they no longer have anything to lose by opening their code.
I know I'm being a little naive when I say it, but Linux could finally bring the other Unix vendors together. I just hope that IBM and HP are really serious about making Linux work.
This means potential fragmentation and several incompatible versions of linux, or possibly one or two "Linuxsoft" super-companies that get to decide the future direction of Linux in the same way that we hate M$ for doing with Windows.
This strikes me as an excellent point, adopted standards on such basic things as the directory structure, levels the playing field between distributions that much more. In fact, I believe it would greatly reduce the temptation for companies to standardize on one distribution. I would even argue that it gives us (SA's, DBA's, and other IT Professionals) more freedom.
As an Oracle DBA, and one who wholeheartedly endorses Oracle on Linux, I 've learned that Oracle doesn't install or administer the same on all distros. In fact, the introduction of more than one distribution makes things that much more complex than they really need to be. As a result, I've decided, in the future, I would standardize on one distro. If there was even a minimal standards, it would make it that much easier to administer multiple distributions. I now its a stretch for some, but I really think a base standard would be even more liberating.
I'm not talking about Apache on the web servers, but the mail servers, they are on seperate machines.
At least this is how things were the last I heard, around June. This of course could have changed.
Don't forget stealing Steve Job's thunder really pisses him off.
p.s. I agree with you wholeheartedly, I just think suing the guy is a bit over the top, when they could simply fire him.
Maybe it will have a horn.
:)
"meep meep, high explosives coming through"
As for non-military purposes though, it could make spear fishing _real_ interesting
I can't speak for the others, but Hotmail is running BSD on approx. 90% of its mail servers, the remainder is running Windows 2000 and Exchange. The web servers and the rest of the IT infrastructure has already been migrated to the Win2K platform. MS has already had one minor mishap when they tried to migrate all the mail servers at once. Now they are migrating in stages. As I said in an earlier post, I find it mildly amusing that MS has had problems with this migration, but all system migrations are difficult and I can't be too harsh.
BTW, Cringely has always written article's like this. They are based on rumours and rumblings. In my own observations, he's been right about 60% of the time. I personally find him entertaining most of the time and informative some of the time just like all the other trade columnists.
p.s. my information is based on completely informal sources (which I believe to be very reliable) that you can either believe or disbelieve, I don't care, I just thought I'd mention it.
I wouldn't say "if it ain't broke don't fix it."
I would say, "let's take our sweet time migrating this system to a new platform." While I find it mildly amusing that MS is using UNIX products, I can't blame them. A system migration from any platform to any platform can have a significant number of snags.
Does anyone remember when MS first tried to move Hotmail to Exchange and they ran into all kinds of problems. The BSD people had a field day. MS is going to be real careful about migrating other systems. There is nothing wrong with acquiring a company and keeping the existing system in place while you work out a migration strategy. Another botched migration however would hurt their credibility.
First of all its India.
And that means what, exactly? That it is somehow unworthy of consideration?
No it simply means that the person I was replying to used Indian as a noun. It was a petty correction that was ultimately not necessary and inexcusable.
Second, most films from India are in Hindi, with smaller film industries throughout India producing films in other major languages like Tamil, Bengali, Telegu, etc. While there are regional dialects of Hindi, there is an official Hindi as adopted by the government of India and taught in nearly all schools. Hindi films from Bombay tend to use Bombay slang and terminology, but are otherwise not in "hindi dialects" as you say.
That was the whole purpose of my post. To inform the person that not all Indian movies are made in Hindi. The poster was under the assumption, even couldn't believe that Hindi may not be the same to all Indians, simply because it was the 2nd largest film producing country in the world.
I never once purported my example to be anything but a small and insignificant sample. I am not foolish enough to think that my experience was the work of National Geographic. However, it illustrated a point, that not all Hindi speaking Indians can communicate effectively.
As many others have pointed out in this thread, there are a large number of major languages in India, and literally hundreds of local dialects. While Hindi has been pushed as an "official" national language, due to the vast linguistic, cultural, and even political differences of the subcontinent (keep in mind India as a country did not exist until 53 years ago) it's simply not possible for it to become a de facto standard in the same way as English in the United States.
There are many from south India who will not learn Hindi on general principle, or if they have to learn it, will not speak it. I won't get into the reasons for this here. There are also huge differences in accents and of course regional variations in the use of the language that might make one speaker less than intelligible to another.
This is pretty much all I was trying to say, granted I did a poor job.
Your point seems to be that Hindi is not as significant as English, for two reasons. The first seems to be: "first of all its India". I won't waste much more time by discussing the ethnocentric, xenophobic, uneducated, and possibly even racist innuendo of this statement.
That was not my point at all, and my first statement has already been explained. You can either accept that or not, but the choice is up to you.
The second reason appears to be that because Hindi is not usable between your sampling of eleven out of over 300 million speakers that it must not be tenable as a major world language. It is, in fact, a major world language, but I don't think anyone was discussing it as a possible replacement for English. If that was your argument, you could have chosen a more obvious reason for this (and a much safer one, given your lack of any knowledge of the subject), such as its more complicated and undersupported character set.
I never once said or even implied that. My sampling was merely to make a point that simply because India is the 2nd largest film producing country does not mean that Hindi is a pervasive language in India.
I think I'd rather crew a Lego sub than a Russian submarine. They don't have the best track record. (400+) lost in various accidents.
Given the track record of western financial aid being siphoned off by the _wrong_ people, I'd be pretty hesitant to send money.
A torpedo that moves by wiggling?l
My mind must be fried, because that statement struck me as absolutely hysterical. I guess the mental picture was too much for me.
Anyway, I found this article that was actualy linked to by Slashdot a while back.
www.newscientist.com/features/features_224813.htm
pretty cool stuff!
While the original poster may be overly cynical he hits a very valid mark. Enlisting the "zealotry" of /.ers without full disclosure is _not_ very cool. I think it is very rude to ask someone to do something and not tell them why or who for.
In my opinion, it isn't about paranoia, but common courtesy.
Then again, maybe I just like to know who I'm about to screw/help.