Not much more to say than that...he's offering FUD at discount prices. All you can eat. Two for the price of one.
But seriously, there's nothing here. He's jumped on the same old anti-GPL train that has been going around for a while. Let's not give this guy anymore airtime...there's no value in his suppositions.
Ah, well, that certainly explains your perspective.
You can now say that you've run across at least one (maybe two, counting the other replier) who do/have done just that.:-)
Still, even with precompiled kernel packages, I've run into issues with specific drivers, with certain facilities (e.g., nfs service), etc. A lot more frequently than I used to it seems, which is my point.
I remember when the Linux kernel was rock solid, stable and reliable. I remember when there were no huge code changes in the "stable" even-numbered kernel series. Remember those days? I'm talking late 2.2.x before the whole VM debacle in the first part of 2.4.x.
In the last few years, it seems the push to carve out marketshare on the desktop has been fuelling kernel development more so than server-oriented work. I've been frustrated to the point of recommending Linux-kernel-based systems only with caution and caveats, preferring instead Solaris for serious enterprise-level server-side work.
If this works out, it'd be a boon for enterprise adoption of the Linux kernel. Hats off to Linus et al. for this change in their practices.
In addition to biochemical warfare, we have been pretty effective at plain old murderous genocide when it came to the folks who inhabited these lands before us.
Why would anyone want to run *only* Debian? RedHat/Fedora? Slackware? SuSE? Solaris? HP-UX? AIX?
I don't really understand ideas like this. They make no sense from the standpoint of systems evolution and the bazaar mentality. I can see where such tools could be used if one was migrating a bunch of servers, but again: why would you ever want to run only a single distro/OS? Show me a tool that converts Debian -> Slackware, Solaris -> Debian, Gentoo -> Fedora, etc. and THEN you've really got my attention.
But the use of hysteria and scaremongering to sell a political agenda is wrong IMO. Let's be honest about what we really want and debate these issues through the normal political process, not as another moral crusade.
Of course, this is totally acceptable if your first name is Dubya.
Good insight. So, is Microsoft simply trying to force the hand of companies who sell things like handheld units that are used in inventory work?
I was just helping a neighbor out with hooking his field unit up to his Win2K PC so he could dump data and work on it (he is a forester and does inventory of all sorts of aspects of forests: stand density, etc.). I noticed that the unit's OS is a crude itemized menu interface, but does in fact refer to a local C:\apps directory for storing/retrieving data. I presume this thing, given it's apparent age, is running some type of DOS (he thought it did too).
In light of that, I wonder if a number of manufacturers out there will have to license the FAT file system for these units. Presumably, this could be a way of forcing their hand to move to CE-based software (and the newer FAT32 filesystems).
Anyone work on these embedded system type devices who might know?
And therein lies the problem.... I saw this happen a lot too in corporate America, but it's totally bogus. You end up wasting resources to cover bad planning. I know it happens all the time, but until this sort of behavior is no longer considered acceptable by businesses, they will be doomed to repeat it.:-) Just think of all the layoffs that happen ultimately because some incompetent managers botch resource planning? It may not be the majority of the lost jobs, but if something like this saves a few jobs (1 consultant == 1+ FTEs typically, in terms of capital outlay) and there's a lot of this resource wasting going on, doesn't it make sense to prevent the waste in the first place?
The best manager I ever worked for bucked the system, did the planning up front including confirming his moves with his staff and BAM! Win, win, win. He rarely had things blow up in his face unexpectedly - "measure twice, cut once" was his work ethic, which spread infectiously to those who worked with him. He was so successful that the company considered him nothing short of a "fixer" like the guy in Pulp Fiction. Whenever some dept. needing saving or near resurrecting, he would get the call. He was assigned to lead Development, QA, IT and Production/Operations all in the span of 3 years and he turned each and every unit around into a new, well-functioning entity. The company survived likely because of him.
So, yeah I understand why it happens. I just think it's time that American business grew up and learned how to manage itself a lot better than it typically does. Otherwise, it ultimately might be its undoing...
This argument ("gotta have a throat to choke") is wearing thin anymore. Microsoft doesn't give a rat's ass if you have "problems" running your desktop productivity suite. They really don't. Read the EULA for Office2000 if you don't believe me. They are not responsible for jack crap if anything goes wrong.
The manager in charge of a deployment of an office suite would be better served by:
planning a phased rollout with IT/help desk staff holding peoples' hands, as well as
holding training sessions for users as the software is rolled out
Of course, this presumes that management will support the time and money needed to PLAN and TRAIN, which in today's economy doesn't happen as often as it should. Kinda hard to hold someone's hand when you are working your help desk shift 13 timezones away in India.:-]
Did you see me specifically finger Blaster or SoBig? No.
The fact that Microsoft doesn't control RPC tightly and securely has nothing to do with ring/mode of execution (duh). What it does have to do with is the point of my post: Microsoft has a history of bad OS design decisions made in deference to marketing a product in such a way as to promote rapid market "uptake" (i.e., making something user-friendly vs. secure).
Microsoft made a decision after NT 3.5ish to pull the bulk of device access and system controls INSIDE the privileged execution scope/ring where the kernel lives, to make it easier for developers to write device drivers and control applications. Period.
In doing so, Microsoft *chose* to trade OS stability (remember NT 4.0 out of the box?) and security for ease of use. But hey, it led to swift penetration (no pun intended) of their product into the booming PC desktop market. Oh yeah, and non-NT Windows systems never had these boundaries because they are just hacked versions of a single-tasking single-user OS.
Why do people gloss over this fact? It is the sole reason why Windows users today suffer so much with security issues. GNU/Linux and other Unixy systems will NOT suffer from this sort of insecure OS architecture because they are designed OUT OF THE BOX to be secure (privileged mode operation, with clear system control boundaries).
Windows users have one hope - Longhorn. But, come on, why should we expect Microsoft to change their ways now?
Still, I think there is a place for something like this. Our community is under attack. By SCO, by Microsoft, by Sun even, by the proprietary technology industry. Eric's idea is great in that it seeks to unify us in a time of war, he is challenging us to adopt "battle colors" in effect, and I think that might be a good thing.
Folks, all that we've worked for and on these last couple of decades is being fiercely threatened. The rights and freedoms that RMS and the FSF have sought to protect are the targets. The SCO thing may seem outlandish, but this is the U.S. legal system we're talking about, anything can/does happen. The heavies are loaded for bear - the MSFT meat puppets like Darl McBride know they have a shot at destroying our community, to guarantee the survival of the proprietary "way" as the dominant mode of business in IT.
Think I'm just ranting? Perhaps. But have you noticed how much good press the monolithic vaporware Longhorn is soaking up? Have you read stories by people in power (who don't get "it") talking about how the whole Unix/Linux process is too complicated to succeed long-term?
Still, I hate the logo itself. I look at it and I don't feel anything. I haven't played Life since I had a DOS-only computer and downloaded a version from my local BBS.:-)
Certainly, there needs to be a more democratic process for this, but there is room for such a thing. We (the Open Source'ers, the Free Software'ers, the BSD'ers, the Perl'ers, etc.) are all comrades-in-arms these days.
Um, while I'd like to believe you, it doesn't look that way to me.
dig mx att.com
then telnet to port 25 for each MX host
I get no response from any of them.
It's a crying shame we've gotten to this point, I've been waiting for it for at least a year or so. All because of a bunch of greedy lowlife spam-spewing bastards who decided to capitalize on a resource to which NONE of them likely ever contributed anything of any value.
The IETF really needs to re-engineer SMTP, a la djb's model or something akin to it. Make these spam bastards pay for their putrid abusive ways!
Who controls BayStar?
I doubt microsoft. While, according to this they are in the top ten money movers at about 500 million, that pales in comparison to Vulcan Ventures ~1.7 billion.
Hah...Vulcan Ventures...that's Paul Allen's VC company, based in Seattle I believe (I have a friend who works for them). Remember Paul Allen? That's right, he's one of the original Microsoft founders.
I like your idea about active IDS and I think it will appear sooner rather than later. The only problem with it are false positives, but...perhaps attack signatures can be isolated within network segments or chains of segments such that false positivies are reduced in other parts of the network? e.g., between switches or routers, where the traffic profile is relatively generic.
Firewalls are great at slowing down intrusions. However, without proper application security architecture and host-level security hardening, you cannot really protect a network-accessible resource. Often times, the only resource (network, application, host) that we can control 100% of the time so that it can be trusted is the host.
Besides, the bulk of compromise situations occur INTERNALLY. Is that PIX on your WAN router really going to stop disgruntled Gary down in QA from trying out across 5 subnets the latest script kiddie tool that his roommate hooked him up with. If you spend quality time hardening your hosts, chances are you may really not lose more than a few hosts at a time during a significant compromise at the application-layer (e.g., a remote root sendmail hole, a bug in BIND). I think we need to revive the popularity of security "tuning" on the host side - a lot of people forgo it for strong network security but I think that the latter is a much more difficult perimeter to maintain.
I've seen others post about the dangers of VPNs. I totally agree, they are conduits for information loss, but are likely to be mostly self-generated (internal). Example: Disgruntled Gary in QA sucks down the product roadmap details off the Intranet before giving his 2 weeks notice and starting to work for a competitor.
Caveat: I believe that Sun set the standard for years for having the most flexible Unix environment going. I loved working with their OS and their hardware.
Yet...
Sun, like other proprietary software and hardware vendors, are a dying breed of technology company. The end user freedom in ownership within one's computing infrastructure that free and open source software engender is too compelling and too powerful for the likes of Sun, SCO, Apple and even Microsoft to compete against. It's all a matter of time before they fall by the wayside (unless they transition into a services business like IBM has done, quite successfully I have to say). The strength of the Bazaar is cracking the time-honored foundation of the Cathedral. Period.
I'll bet you dollars to donuts that Bill Joy left Sun because he sees the end in sight too. He's no fool and I'm no Bill Joy but it seems too much like a foregone conclusion. Yes, there is a place for these vendors still (e.g., super high I/O requirements), but it's rapidly transmogrifying from a "market" to a "niche". I'm wistful for Sun in particular because for a long time they simply rocked. Now, I don't think they compete across the board - they are special teams players, not utility, day-to-day players.
I took a job with a great company at the tail end of the dot.com gold rush. Then, as the economy slid, this great company became an ultra-corporate shitpit teeming with questionable ethics and morals and back-stabbing MBA wannabes. The quality of the work environment shifted like night into day. I would have never believed it had I not experienced it. By the time of the transition, there were so few jobs that leaving became about a 12-18 month search. Finally, I got out (earlier this year) and took a huge paycut (40%). But, I'm happier and healthier than I've been in the last couple of years. I still have friends there (howdy y'all;-) and I hear it's gotten even worse which is hard to imagine (e.g., forced unpaid days off for the folks here while continuing to hire offshore code monkies for a product that aspires to mediocrity by design, go figure). Who needs that in their life?
You did this stuff before many of us could type, before some of us could even walk. You believed in the power of hacking (not the media machine's definition...) and took time to share your passion and knowledge. You helped make a (once-great) company, a la the American Dream. Too bad for all of us that Sun's current management doesn't "get it" like their predecessors did. Good luck in your future ventures!
Yes, that's right. Money != Morality. Might makes right. Welcome to the adult world. Don't get me wrong, I think the SCO executive team should be put in the stockade for being a public nuisance. But the only way to stop them is going to be through fiscal, legislative, regulatory or legal means.
You know what, I am tired of people/firms/governments assuming that you can unhitch business and moral/social responsibility without repercussions. It's not possible, it's a zero sum game ultimately. It seems like American business people (flame off, I'm American) are willing to be socially irresponsible if not downright morally reprehensible if it means good news for the "bottom line". I left corporate America for this very reason, despite taking a substantial hit financially as a consequence.
Fill out the SEC form, talk to peers about the issue, do what you can to focus on the socially irresponsible aspects of SCO's misbehavior. Ok, so they didn't create capitalism as it's practiced in America, but they are reinforcing the very worst parts of it.
Oh wait, I'm wasting my breath. This is America, land where 40% of our Senators are millionaires.
Slashdot Mirror
Not much more to say than that...he's offering FUD at discount prices. All you can eat. Two for the price of one.
But seriously, there's nothing here. He's jumped on the same old anti-GPL train that has been going around for a while. Let's not give this guy anymore airtime...there's no value in his suppositions.
Ah, well, that certainly explains your perspective.
:-)
You can now say that you've run across at least one (maybe two, counting the other replier) who do/have done just that.
Still, even with precompiled kernel packages, I've run into issues with specific drivers, with certain facilities (e.g., nfs service), etc. A lot more frequently than I used to it seems, which is my point.
Cheers,
I remember when the Linux kernel was rock solid, stable and reliable. I remember when there were no huge code changes in the "stable" even-numbered kernel series. Remember those days? I'm talking late 2.2.x before the whole VM debacle in the first part of 2.4.x.
In the last few years, it seems the push to carve out marketshare on the desktop has been fuelling kernel development more so than server-oriented work. I've been frustrated to the point of recommending Linux-kernel-based systems only with caution and caveats, preferring instead Solaris for serious enterprise-level server-side work.
If this works out, it'd be a boon for enterprise adoption of the Linux kernel. Hats off to Linus et al. for this change in their practices.
Not sure where you are getting your facts from but...
Before we were officially the glorious US of A, the person in charge of military forces for British-controlled America, Jeffrey Amherst, did indeed use smallpox-infested blankets to decimate Native American tribal populations in what is now the Northeastern U.S.
In addition to biochemical warfare, we have been pretty effective at plain old murderous genocide when it came to the folks who inhabited these lands before us.
Ain't America grand?!?
...or treat this as impetus to finally make the switch to Apple-based computing.
Vote with your dollars, folks.Based on his columns and viewpoints, I've always thought of Enderle as a poser, at best. This just cements that impression.
Sounds like an immensely clever tool.
One I'll probably never use.
Why would anyone want to run *only* Debian? RedHat/Fedora? Slackware? SuSE? Solaris? HP-UX? AIX?
I don't really understand ideas like this. They make no sense from the standpoint of systems evolution and the bazaar mentality. I can see where such tools could be used if one was migrating a bunch of servers, but again: why would you ever want to run only a single distro/OS? Show me a tool that converts Debian -> Slackware, Solaris -> Debian, Gentoo -> Fedora, etc. and THEN you've really got my attention.
Yeah, but this is America. We usually don't jail criminals that run businesses because that would mean less money for everyone, right?
Ever heard of Enron?
I was just helping a neighbor out with hooking his field unit up to his Win2K PC so he could dump data and work on it (he is a forester and does inventory of all sorts of aspects of forests: stand density, etc.). I noticed that the unit's OS is a crude itemized menu interface, but does in fact refer to a local C:\apps directory for storing/retrieving data. I presume this thing, given it's apparent age, is running some type of DOS (he thought it did too).
In light of that, I wonder if a number of manufacturers out there will have to license the FAT file system for these units. Presumably, this could be a way of forcing their hand to move to CE-based software (and the newer FAT32 filesystems).
Anyone work on these embedded system type devices who might know?
The best manager I ever worked for bucked the system, did the planning up front including confirming his moves with his staff and BAM! Win, win, win. He rarely had things blow up in his face unexpectedly - "measure twice, cut once" was his work ethic, which spread infectiously to those who worked with him. He was so successful that the company considered him nothing short of a "fixer" like the guy in Pulp Fiction. Whenever some dept. needing saving or near resurrecting, he would get the call. He was assigned to lead Development, QA, IT and Production/Operations all in the span of 3 years and he turned each and every unit around into a new, well-functioning entity. The company survived likely because of him.
So, yeah I understand why it happens. I just think it's time that American business grew up and learned how to manage itself a lot better than it typically does. Otherwise, it ultimately might be its undoing...
The manager in charge of a deployment of an office suite would be better served by:
Of course, this presumes that management will support the time and money needed to PLAN and TRAIN, which in today's economy doesn't happen as often as it should. Kinda hard to hold someone's hand when you are working your help desk shift 13 timezones away in India.
YMMV.
The fact that Microsoft doesn't control RPC tightly and securely has nothing to do with ring/mode of execution (duh). What it does have to do with is the point of my post: Microsoft has a history of bad OS design decisions made in deference to marketing a product in such a way as to promote rapid market "uptake" (i.e., making something user-friendly vs. secure).
Microsoft made a decision after NT 3.5ish to pull the bulk of device access and system controls INSIDE the privileged execution scope/ring where the kernel lives, to make it easier for developers to write device drivers and control applications. Period.
In doing so, Microsoft *chose* to trade OS stability (remember NT 4.0 out of the box?) and security for ease of use. But hey, it led to swift penetration (no pun intended) of their product into the booming PC desktop market. Oh yeah, and non-NT Windows systems never had these boundaries because they are just hacked versions of a single-tasking single-user OS.
Why do people gloss over this fact? It is the sole reason why Windows users today suffer so much with security issues. GNU/Linux and other Unixy systems will NOT suffer from this sort of insecure OS architecture because they are designed OUT OF THE BOX to be secure (privileged mode operation, with clear system control boundaries).
Windows users have one hope - Longhorn. But, come on, why should we expect Microsoft to change their ways now?
Still, I think there is a place for something like this. Our community is under attack. By SCO, by Microsoft, by Sun even, by the proprietary technology industry. Eric's idea is great in that it seeks to unify us in a time of war, he is challenging us to adopt "battle colors" in effect, and I think that might be a good thing.
Folks, all that we've worked for and on these last couple of decades is being fiercely threatened. The rights and freedoms that RMS and the FSF have sought to protect are the targets. The SCO thing may seem outlandish, but this is the U.S. legal system we're talking about, anything can/does happen. The heavies are loaded for bear - the MSFT meat puppets like Darl McBride know they have a shot at destroying our community, to guarantee the survival of the proprietary "way" as the dominant mode of business in IT.
Think I'm just ranting? Perhaps. But have you noticed how much good press the monolithic vaporware Longhorn is soaking up? Have you read stories by people in power (who don't get "it") talking about how the whole Unix/Linux process is too complicated to succeed long-term?
Still, I hate the logo itself. I look at it and I don't feel anything. I haven't played Life since I had a DOS-only computer and downloaded a version from my local BBS. :-)
Certainly, there needs to be a more democratic process for this, but there is room for such a thing. We (the Open Source'ers, the Free Software'ers, the BSD'ers, the Perl'ers, etc.) are all comrades-in-arms these days.
Um, while I'd like to believe you, it doesn't look that way to me.
dig mx att.com
then telnet to port 25 for each MX host
I get no response from any of them.
It's a crying shame we've gotten to this point, I've been waiting for it for at least a year or so. All because of a bunch of greedy lowlife spam-spewing bastards who decided to capitalize on a resource to which NONE of them likely ever contributed anything of any value.
The IETF really needs to re-engineer SMTP, a la djb's model or something akin to it. Make these spam bastards pay for their putrid abusive ways!
I doubt microsoft. While, according to this they are in the top ten money movers at about 500 million, that pales in comparison to Vulcan Ventures ~1.7 billion.
Hah...Vulcan Ventures...that's Paul Allen's VC company, based in Seattle I believe (I have a friend who works for them). Remember Paul Allen? That's right, he's one of the original Microsoft founders.
Zee plot, she thickens... :-)
Firewalls are great at slowing down intrusions. However, without proper application security architecture and host-level security hardening, you cannot really protect a network-accessible resource. Often times, the only resource (network, application, host) that we can control 100% of the time so that it can be trusted is the host.
Besides, the bulk of compromise situations occur INTERNALLY. Is that PIX on your WAN router really going to stop disgruntled Gary down in QA from trying out across 5 subnets the latest script kiddie tool that his roommate hooked him up with. If you spend quality time hardening your hosts, chances are you may really not lose more than a few hosts at a time during a significant compromise at the application-layer (e.g., a remote root sendmail hole, a bug in BIND). I think we need to revive the popularity of security "tuning" on the host side - a lot of people forgo it for strong network security but I think that the latter is a much more difficult perimeter to maintain.
I've seen others post about the dangers of VPNs. I totally agree, they are conduits for information loss, but are likely to be mostly self-generated (internal). Example: Disgruntled Gary in QA sucks down the product roadmap details off the Intranet before giving his 2 weeks notice and starting to work for a competitor.
Apologies to Gary's everywhere. ;-)
Caveat: I believe that Sun set the standard for years for having the most flexible Unix environment going. I loved working with their OS and their hardware.
Yet...
Sun, like other proprietary software and hardware vendors, are a dying breed of technology company. The end user freedom in ownership within one's computing infrastructure that free and open source software engender is too compelling and too powerful for the likes of Sun, SCO, Apple and even Microsoft to compete against. It's all a matter of time before they fall by the wayside (unless they transition into a services business like IBM has done, quite successfully I have to say). The strength of the Bazaar is cracking the time-honored foundation of the Cathedral. Period.
I'll bet you dollars to donuts that Bill Joy left Sun because he sees the end in sight too. He's no fool and I'm no Bill Joy but it seems too much like a foregone conclusion. Yes, there is a place for these vendors still (e.g., super high I/O requirements), but it's rapidly transmogrifying from a "market" to a "niche". I'm wistful for Sun in particular because for a long time they simply rocked. Now, I don't think they compete across the board - they are special teams players, not utility, day-to-day players.
I'm out of metaphors so I'll stop now. :-)
I think their "discrimination policy" can be effective immediately. It's their policy afterall. They can do what they like. :-)
You are right on the money.
;-) and I hear it's gotten even worse which is hard to imagine (e.g., forced unpaid days off for the folks here while continuing to hire offshore code monkies for a product that aspires to mediocrity by design, go figure). Who needs that in their life?
I took a job with a great company at the tail end of the dot.com gold rush. Then, as the economy slid, this great company became an ultra-corporate shitpit teeming with questionable ethics and morals and back-stabbing MBA wannabes. The quality of the work environment shifted like night into day. I would have never believed it had I not experienced it. By the time of the transition, there were so few jobs that leaving became about a 12-18 month search. Finally, I got out (earlier this year) and took a huge paycut (40%). But, I'm happier and healthier than I've been in the last couple of years. I still have friends there (howdy y'all
You did this stuff before many of us could type, before some of us could even walk. You believed in the power of hacking (not the media machine's definition...) and took time to share your passion and knowledge. You helped make a (once-great) company, a la the American Dream. Too bad for all of us that Sun's current management doesn't "get it" like their predecessors did. Good luck in your future ventures!
It works for the U.S. tobacco companies, so why not?
Fill out the SEC form, talk to peers about the issue, do what you can to focus on the socially irresponsible aspects of SCO's misbehavior. Ok, so they didn't create capitalism as it's practiced in America, but they are reinforcing the very worst parts of it.
Oh wait, I'm wasting my breath. This is America, land where 40% of our Senators are millionaires.