(Hopefully this will not be a double entry; I attempted to submit it before and something kinda weird happened. If it is, moderators please push one of the two messages down)I've perused the website and introductory information and have copied the PDF's for perusal later. At first glimpse this appears to have some positive aspects, however, the vendors list was light on things like scanner manufacturers (other than HP), video card manufacturers, etc.
A potential positive from their site: "While Project UDI does not intend to "take a side" in the debate, we are taking steps to facilitate UDI deployment in the OpenSource Community... We will also be releasing reference implementations of the UDI environment for Linux and other operating systems, as well as sample drivers. These will all be open source distributions."
Side Notes:
they linked to the ESR OpenSource definition page, not FSF. See the comments about binary drivers, etc. as to a possible reason why.
They also have done a proof of concept with an Adaptec SCSI controller and an Interphase component which I did not immediately recognize.
One of the systems was a Linux system compiled by Intel [Intel Linux, anyone?:^) ]
Because they did not mention the Linux Kernel Driver Interface, and binary drivers (which break the GPL) are allowed, this is not 100% a good thing, as Jerodd has previously noted. However, if the UDI is or could be made compliant with the Linux Kernel Driver interface, then this could potentially offer the community a larger installable bases of new "power" peripherals, etc. without always requiring us to reverse engineer the WinDoze drivers.
There is some truth to your statement about database upgrades, but not 100%. A person can buy a given version of Oracle, for example, and without paying a single dime, continue to patch their current version of the database as bug fixes are made. That said, Oracle 7.3 is not just a bug fix to 7.2, 7.2 not just a fix to 7.1, 7.1 not just bug fixes to 7.0. Each of these releases added significant new functionality to the database.
Secondarily, most corporations have SLA's (service level agreements) with Oracle covering upgrades, etc. The TCO for an Oracle database is usually spread across many, many users, vs. M$ which has a high TCO on every machine. [think: vulnerability due to Word Macro Virii, downtime on NT servers, etc.]
So if a corporation with 1,000 deskktops connected to the database paid $89 for every machine upgraded to Win98-Second Edition, plus the time to perform the upgrade, we're talking potentially many hundreds of thousands of dollars additional cost here, without (IMHO) a fully spec'd out list of improvements and bug fixes.
Hmmm.... In order to remain operational about a year ago, I had to fork out $89 for the Win95 OSR-2 upgrade. Which turned out to be uninstallable over Win95 (without backing up, repartitioning the hard drive, etc.) It actually took longer because of poor M$ support, but figure 4 hours extra work for a "simple" OS upgrade, $85/hr. (My billing rate to top clients.)
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) --not counting down time in the mean time due to OS bugs-- estimated at $1287* for one year. Who says Windows is not abusing their near monopoly? DOJ, are you listening?
Cost of Linux, including latest bug fixes: $60. Time to Install, including Backup: 4 hrs $340 TCO = $400.00. For those purists, yes, I will have to spend additional time once the 2.2X kernels are fully incorporated into an RH release.
Symantec is quite a bit bigger than just tools; look at the left-side panel list of products.
However, a better question is -- how good are the tools? Very good, as a matter of fact:
The Symantec Visual Cafe Pro for Java was Info World's product of the year. I'd love to have VCP for Java in Linux.
(If it is still available) I have got journeyman work out of their 7.2 C++ compiler for several years now.
Symantec is one of the two major C++ compiler manufacturers for the Apple OS [the other being Metrowerks' CodeWarrior].
A look at the board of directors reads like a who's who of top-notch technical programming talent. Whose tools and utilities have bailed thousands of us out of M$-induced hell.
If Symantec, Metrowerks (who has already announced), and Inprise (Borland) all move to the Linux bandwagon, then a lot of top notch talent and money will be on the side of all of us professional (i.e. making a paycheck by writing code) programmers who want Linux to be the OS of choice for everyone.
Although most/. readers are technically literate enough to understand, I want to offer an example that goes to the essence of the M$ monopoly. BTW, I speak as someone who has a great deal of experience working with M$ competitors in the past.
Microsoft waited to release Windows 95 and some of the associated API's until all of their major applications (Excel, Word, PowerPoint, and Access) were complete and to a large extent, debugged. This means that anyone --Netscape, Lotus, WP, Novell, etc-- writing a competitive product was automatically several months behind in the ability to do compatibility testing and debugging of their own products. So (magazine advertising collusion aside) that M$ products would automatically get good reviews, sell more product, etc. until the other companies caught up, by which time a large percentage of the consumer and most of the corporate market has already bought and standardized on the so-called but only temporarily "superior" product.
Contrast this with Linux, where a given release is thoroughly pretested, and all of the applicable code is available from the get-go. This means that we're talking not only a superior operating system, but an equal opportunity business market from the get go. No using the operating system monopoly to sell application software anymore.
So I am 100% sure that M$is are NOT taking things very well. However, this time the Feds are finally watching the beast from Redmond with a magnifying glass. So M$ can't use their FUD and other monopolistic practices to keep Dell, Gateway, or any other major supplier "in line" without the DOJ slapping them silly (translation: levying heavy fines) for trying.
Software aside, for the major PC hardware vendors, Linux makes better business sense in either the server OR consumer market.
They no longer have to pay an increasingly high OS royalty to Microsoft, nor deal with or be associated with M$ software or tactics.
Over a period of time, the corporate cost of tech support SHOULD decline as Linux gains ascendancy, because 99.99%of all of the problems and solutions in Linux are solved and documented by the technical user base, and quickly incorporated into the code base.
If Dell, etc. installers are doing their jobs correctly (this requires PHB* support), a machine sold next month should have more stable code than the machine bought today. Which translates into higher user satisfaction.
End users and corporations no longer have to pay for what is essentially an OS tax - "service packs" to correct problems which should have been fixedin the basic OS. Instead, they are expected to become literate enough to apply true upgrades via a free source -- the Internet. Within a corporation, the cost of support will similarly decline.
All of these things will translate into higher repeat sales in the future -- good for business, wouldn't you say? My only question is, how long will it be before major players such as Lotus and Symantec wake up and shift gears into the Linux world?
* PHB = Dilbert: Pointy Haired Boss
'Melissa' Virus not the point of Jon's article.
on
The Melissa Syndrome
·
· Score: 5
Folks, consider the source here... Jon Katz is not writing about Microsoft (which I acknowledge has not done a very good job securing VBA -- why should a VBA macro be able to access my e-mail address book without permissions, etc.?), he's writing about the societal response to bad news and the Internet.
Then he makes (IMHO) a valuable connection of the similarity in psychological distancing involved n the use of high tech killing weapons. The 'Internet Creeps' (the so-called dark side of the Internet: porno junkies, perverts, crackers, flamers, etc.) have the advantage of anonymity from their intended victims that allows them to launch whatever type of attack they wish, without responsibility for the results of their actions.
Freedom without responsibility invariably leads to anarchy. Let me offer several examples.
I am (not being an ex-convict, or otherwise restricted) 100% free to buy a gun. I am not 100% free in how I use it. Use it wrong, and I am subject to arrest for breaking the law.
I am free to buy the ingredients which mixed together, could make an explosive or illegal drug. But if I make the explosive or drug, again, I am breaking the law, and deserve the consequence of my actions.
Similarly, I am free to write an unbelievably malicious computer virus. I am not free to distribute it without consequence. But even these thoughts are not 100% what the article is (IMHO) trying to focus our attention on.
Either we work together to make the 'Net a more livable, enjoyable, and safe place to co-exist, or we do in fact deserve the heavy-handed law enforcement and media responses which would undoubtably otherwise follow.
Yes, and if you notice my other posts, you'll note that I've known a number of them.
Most of which at various times (some longer, some shorter) felt like they were better off dead. However, that's a normal part of the recovery process, not a place where a person has to emotionally stay for the rest of their lives. Even the author of the book you quoted doesn't suggest that a victim will remain forever "broken".
There's a cliche which I would like to modify and suggest here:"time (plus a healer's gentle influence) can heal (almost) all wounds.
I am not arguing about your idea "hell can happin in life even easier than in death" What I am arguing is that the hell doesn't ALWAYS have to last the rest of a victim's life.
No one recovers without alot of soul-wrenching hard work, and alot of good folks involved in support along the way.
The problem isn't that people don't recover, it's more that we as a society don't know how to NOT DAMAGE THE RECOVERY PROCESS. It is so-o-o-o easy to feel sorry for the victim. So-o-o-o hard to learn how to be with them without reinforcing the trauma. Finally, and often the most difficult part because it is overlooked -- there's more than one victim. [The rape victim's family and friends, mainly] Rape recovery also involves helping these others to heal so that they can assist in the process rather than hindering it.
To those out there still suffering, I hope I can help.
Yes. Depending on your definition -- it's not like the rape never happened. But I know by my own that people can make a recovery to where they are no longer traumatized or suffering from the experience. I have walked the road from despair to recovery with enough victims to promise any/. readers out in that statement is true.
What I can also tell you is that recovery doesn't happen by some accidental process -- it requires extremely good help (especially from family members and close friends), and counselors well acquinted with the recovery process.
I could write about this for pages, but instead will offer that I am willing to e-mail information upon request.
Secondarily, I am following this thread and will offer my side of the debate with any individual who says that "full recovery is not possible", because that point of view is destrucive of the hope a victim needs to be able to overcome the effects of the rape.
Good luck to Kira, and any others who have so similarly suffered.
I'll answer this so Rob doesn't have to. HTML by default underlines any anchors in a page, which means that even though the underline tag is allowed, it really isn't good 'Net form to use it.
Otherwise you have people trying to click on things that aren't really links and getting confused and pissed off in the process. Bad karma from users, you get my drift?
I agree with you when you say that you "think the release of Windows 2000 will be a cusp. We also agree where you said that "If on the other hand Windows 2000 is a big flop, and gets drowned by its own complexity, then Microsoft has nowhere to go." With NT Server floundering vs. Linux, with Oracle pushing solutions both on Netware and Linux (hence, attacking the SQL server market), this leaves only the so-called consumer arena -- which has been burned several times now by the later releases of Win95 and Win98, and (yes, Mr. Gates, even NT), that consumer goodwill may not drive new sales.
Secondarily, so long as Microsoft has to support the Win95 legacy, I do not believe that they can deliver robustness and stability. I've used the C++ libraries in MFC off and on (preferably off) for about five years now, and while they have improved, in my book, the whole construct is bad. In contrast, both Gnome and KDE are improving rapidly, to the extent that I expect BOTH to pass the Windows API in terms of stability and usability within the year.
My guess is that the catch-fire point for Linux as an operating system for "the rest of the world" would/will be if Inprise (Borland) and Symantec choose to release their compiler and IDE environments in Linux, with effective porting tools for legacy apps developed under their previous tools for Win32. I would also predict a "catch fire" response if Lotus were to release it's top products for Linux platforms prior to Win2000's sliding release.
This brings me to my main thought which is that it doesn't matter "if Microsoft can actually deliver on its promises..." All that has to happen for Linux to move up to #1 is for RH, Caldera, Suse, etc. to be ready with a better quality array of basic consumer software MS operating systems will start the slide into irrelevancy which they deserve, as at that point I would expect virtually all the meaningful hardware and software companies to abandon Redmond because of their blatant monopolistic ugliness.
I (and at least 8,000,000 others) do not believe that MS will EVER be able to "push Linux back out the door."
I don't think this idea would work very well. Here's why:
"when they moderate downwards, they lose points...."
This would punish a moderator doing part of his job, i.e. nailing the low value first posts, flame baits, etc.
"If they moderate a story upwards, the pool gains points..."
This seems like a positive feedback loop, i.e., all a moderator has to do to gain points (and therefore the ability to do more and more) is mark something up, whether or not the article deserved it. I think the limit of ten or so per day is good enough.
"Moderators with empty pools can't moderate (for a given story)."
This is already true, isn't it? (Or at least until 100 more comments are posted?)
How about limiting the ability of any given moderator to score down a comment to one per story? If my math is right, since most comment lists seem to top out at 200-300 comments, with around (400 moderators x 10 points), there's more than enough coverage, and no one moderator can unduly influence the commentary on a given thread. Could be a bitch for Rob to code though.
A possible benefit: a poster who might not feel that his/her posts had anything of value to the community (and there are several, I'm sure) might discover that they actually do have something relevant to say.
Personal experience here, but I think you might be right. I was stunned, humbled, and highly complimented when a previous post got moderated up to a '4'. That said, I'm not sure if I will try to be a more prolific in posting comments (no reason to up the noise level if I don't have anything to say), but when I do I hope I can at least maintain a quality worth those plus signs, 'cause that 4 felt darn good.
First items have been suggested elsewhere -- a clearly stated, fair policy which needs to be distributed to anyone and everyone on the system. Especially the problem boxes. Secondarily, a firewall as has otherwise been explained.
I'd like to propose an idea to guide your philosphy of how to succeed in this project, which is that the University network in this case is acting like an ISP (or at least a gateway)Alot of the same customer service issues apply.
Don't piss off the user community by becoming a Network Gestapo. You'll end up very unpopular and possibly unemployed. Some of the offending users might be tenured professors, etc. who might take a dim view if you're not nice about solving the problem.
Create/work with the local Linux Users group. Provide incentives for the user group leaders and members to take charge of the issue.
Write a sniffer program to ferret out the appropriate information from the compromised machines. Using the output of the sniffer, send a friendly e-mail with
"here's the problem....
here's how to solve it....
here's the consequence if you don't take care of it yourself....
and finally this last item should have a "pull the trigger" deadline after which the sniffer's output (systems not in compliance) will have their access privileges terminated.
After the cutoff date, use the local Linux users group as a resource to help the procrastinators and newbies meet the minimum compliance standards which will allow access to the network.
The argument can be made that an Internet domain name is sort of like a radio station license, and therefore property, however, there are numerous laws and regulations about who may obtain a radio station license and how they may go about it, and laws governing the transfer of a license from one party to the other. At least until recently, a domain name has been a fairly simple matter of registration with one entity assigned by the government to do so, with no required linkages to trademark ownership (which probably should have been designed into the original Internet laws, etc.)
After the fact, companies realized that a valuable commodity could be taken too simply, and in many cases have sought to legally strong arm smaller entities into giving up their own domains -- even though those domains were registered 100% in accordance with the law existing at the time. (I wonder how many times a reasonable offer was extended prior to the strong arm tactics, by the way)
However, this judges decision becomes in effect an "ex post facto" law, that is, a law passed after the fact (which is constitutionally prohibited in the U.S.). Now I can be successfully sued for obeying the law.
A final point -- do any of us really think that attorneys as a whole are in favor of fairness here? Heck, instead of chasing ambulances, why not chase domain name registrants instead!!
That's why I think this decision needs to be reversed.
My thoughts are that the judge overseeing this case must have been out of his mind. This is an absolutely wrong-headed legal precedant. Look at the basic facts here:
We have a Canadian company which in my mind seems to have legally registered a domain name with the quasi - governmental company responsible for the registration. Umbro files suit, the Canadian company doesn't show up, which gives Umbro a 'default judgement', basically a legal "forfeit." But instead of just turning over the domain, the judge extends trademark laws to include domain names.
Following this, the (greedy b------) lawyers representing Umbro sue Network Solutions to force the sale of all domain names held by the Canadian company, in order to pay for the legal costs. Read this:
"The registrant had no tangible US assets that we could levy on, but they did have a number of other domains that they had registered through NSI, so we asked the court to garnish those so we could seize them and sell them to the highest bidder."
Here's the kicker: how many of us who have registered ordinary domains did a trademark search before they registered? Or have since acquired a trademark to match their domain name? (spendy stuff, this trademark requirement) My point is that it isn't legally required. So if some company out there chooses to sue me because I didn't know they had a trademark, if I can't afford the cost of legally fighting it out in court, but I own several other domain names -- [perhaps with assets or even their own trademarks.] -- this decision gives lawyers a way to go after my other domain assets, whether or not the alleged infringement was intentional.
But here's what really blew me away: "The law firm said the ruling gives trademark lawyers a new sword to combat domain name piracy." Not in my book: it just gives attorneys legal standing to act as domain name pirates on behalf of their clients.
The article mentioned that another trademark attorney said that this ruling is actually a good thing for domain name owners: "Typically we thought registrants had a two-year license to a domain name, but the court is suggesting they have a property interest. As a result, if the registry takes a name away from you without a legal basis, than you can sue them for civil damages.
True. Unless another company had the trademark first, right?
As another/.'r pointed out, Novell and Linux are a good match in some areas, not in others, but unlike the FUD-mongering hordes from Redmond, instead of bad-mouthing what is frankly "competition" to their core product, they are choosing to work with Linux in a big way.
And why shouldn't they? Ray Noorda (who was the CEO for Novell for a number of years is one of the prime movers behind Caldera, a prime supporter of an LSB (Linux Standards Base). I mention both because I don't think Novell (or Noorda) is content to be either just it's own beast OR attached to just one distribution.
I would also like to point out that Novell, like Linux, has survived and is even beginning to thrive, despite the best efforts of MS both Netware and Linux to the sidelines permanently. As another poster has surmised, the possible transition from Netware as an NLM to a fully Linux compatible system topology would be extremely powerful and probably add immense value to Novell's bottom line. But partnering to OpenSource is tricky -- a company can't easily give up the "company secrets" without risking a legal backlash from stockholders. I expect that we will see further clarifications and announcements in the near future regarding this story. Let's just hope that whatever licensing Novell chooses to use doesn't shoot their ability to work with and support the growth of Linux in the foot.
Isn't this what the Sprint ION initiative is supposed to ultimately be all about?
I've read alot of the materials about how ION (which is Sprint's way of using ATM to offer multiple services via one line),is planned initially for larger corporate users but as demand grows to include homes (the proverbial "last mile" copper loop) so that with one line we can do phone, fax, internet, etc. all at the same time.
Although I don't know the details, Sprint even had some kind of beta user/tester program in the works (sign me up, Scotty!!)
If you know much about this, feel free to comment!!
Okay, if you want, send flames -- I like reading Katz.
If you've never been in a room with traditional media types, some of this message won't be as funny, but for me his description of the slack jawed or angry response was right on the numbers. I recently heard about a media campaign (targeted at college students) where the "do it by the numbers" media group spent about $100K in advertising and got just seven "form submit" responses. The same company placed about $10K with a smaller Internet marketing firm and got a huge hit count and about 100X as many responses. Really pissed off a few non-'Net guys in suits, let me tell you.
Anyway, some complain that Jon gets kind of long winded sometimes. I say let him -- he's out there telling the rest of the world that this revolution is not only coming, it is here and it is fun.
I think I understand your point. What you're saying is that because a large segment of the/. readership uses a default of 0, if single moderator or more downs a comment, most folks won't see it, which is seen as a sort of censorship.
I disagree [but not by much], for a small technical reason and another philosophical one. The technical reason is that with both positives and negative scales, a new comment with a rating of 0 or 1 doesn't require moderation to stand out from the flame wars, etc. which got downed. The philosophical reason is that I think we would all agree that the more value a NEW reader sees in Slashdot, the likelier they are to stick around.
The important thing is that Rob and crew let us have it our own way once we've been here long enough to decide to log in and set our own preferences.
I am not of the Jewish faith, but your linking another persons belief system to a lifestyle that Judaism expressly prohibits and a political system that more often has not has been guilty of genocide(s) is highly offensive and not funny.
All of these pro and counter Christian arguments, anti-American spouting off etc. miss so many huge points that I don't have time to list them all.
While I can agree that the United States gov't has done and continues to do many things which I find ethically wrong, the greatness of America is much more about the principles we believe in and how 'we the people' have used them. The corruption of those principles by politicians both now and in our past are an acknowledged stain on our national psyche that we all want to overcome. BTW, your use of the word "buster" (an American colloquiallism) probably names you as an American citizen as well.
Let me point out how important this value is to the rest of the world:
In an interview regarding the Kosovo conflict, the side which represents most of the population (the KLA) was asked how many American soldiers he wanted in the peacekeeping force. His response was (and this is from a radio talking head source, so don't frag me if I'm not quoting exactly),"at least one, because then we know that the people of the United States will stand for us."
Don't spit on America because of it's imperfections.
Read my lips. at this point MOZILLA is not intended to even be Netscape Navigator 1.X, let alone 5.X
This pre-release is for the rendering engine, [code named Gecko], not the bells and whistles version many of us are working toward or hoping for. So of course IE5 (and even NN 4.51) are presently 'better' in terms of functionality.
However, I would suggest that before you say that it sucks, try running IE 5 for Linux. Or IE 5 for any SA-110 platform. Or IE-5 for -- get the point?
Mozilla is about the Internet programming community developing a top-notch browser, etc. for B>any platform. Including Win32s.
Slashdot Mirror
A potential positive from their site: "While Project UDI does not intend to "take a side" in the debate, we are taking steps to facilitate UDI deployment in the OpenSource Community... We will also be releasing reference implementations of the UDI environment for Linux and other operating systems, as well as sample drivers. These will all be open source distributions."
Side Notes:
- they linked to the ESR OpenSource definition page, not FSF. See the comments about binary drivers, etc. as to a possible reason why.
- They also have done a proof of concept with an Adaptec SCSI controller and an Interphase component which I did not immediately recognize.
- One of the systems was a Linux system compiled by Intel [Intel Linux, anyone?
:^) ]
Because they did not mention the Linux Kernel Driver Interface, and binary drivers (which break the GPL) are allowed, this is not 100% a good thing, as Jerodd has previously noted. However, if the UDI is or could be made compliant with the Linux Kernel Driver interface, then this could potentially offer the community a larger installable bases of new "power" peripherals, etc. without always requiring us to reverse engineer the WinDoze drivers.Secondarily, most corporations have SLA's (service level agreements) with Oracle covering upgrades, etc. The TCO for an Oracle database is usually spread across many, many users, vs. M$ which has a high TCO on every machine. [think: vulnerability due to Word Macro Virii, downtime on NT servers, etc.]
So if a corporation with 1,000 deskktops connected to the database paid $89 for every machine upgraded to Win98-Second Edition, plus the time to perform the upgrade, we're talking potentially many hundreds of thousands of dollars additional cost here, without (IMHO) a fully spec'd out list of improvements and bug fixes.
Thanks but no thanks. Up with Linux!
Win95 OSR2: $89 Install: $340.
Win98 $89 + $340? (refused to install it)
Win98 $89 + $340? (will not install it)
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) --not counting down time in the mean time due to OS bugs-- estimated at $1287* for one year. Who says Windows is not abusing their near monopoly? DOJ, are you listening?
Cost of Linux, including latest bug fixes: $60.
Time to Install, including Backup: 4 hrs $340
TCO = $400.00. For those purists, yes, I will have to spend additional time once the 2.2X kernels are fully incorporated into an RH release.
My point?? Linux Wins!!!
However, a better question is -- how good are the tools? Very good, as a matter of fact:
- The Symantec Visual Cafe Pro for Java was Info World's product of the year. I'd love to have VCP for Java in Linux.
- (If it is still available) I have got journeyman work out of their 7.2 C++ compiler for several years now.
- Symantec is one of the two major C++ compiler manufacturers for the Apple OS [the other being Metrowerks' CodeWarrior].
- A look at the board of directors reads like a who's who of top-notch technical programming talent. Whose tools and utilities have bailed thousands of us out of M$-induced hell.
If Symantec, Metrowerks (who has already announced), and Inprise (Borland) all move to the Linux bandwagon, then a lot of top notch talent and money will be on the side of all of us professional (i.e. making a paycheck by writing code) programmers who want Linux to be the OS of choice for everyone.Microsoft waited to release Windows 95 and some of the associated API's until all of their major applications (Excel, Word, PowerPoint, and Access) were complete and to a large extent, debugged. This means that anyone --Netscape, Lotus, WP, Novell, etc-- writing a competitive product was automatically several months behind in the ability to do compatibility testing and debugging of their own products. So (magazine advertising collusion aside) that M$ products would automatically get good reviews, sell more product, etc. until the other companies caught up, by which time a large percentage of the consumer and most of the corporate market has already bought and standardized on the so-called but only temporarily "superior" product.
Contrast this with Linux, where a given release is thoroughly pretested, and all of the applicable code is available from the get-go. This means that we're talking not only a superior operating system, but an equal opportunity business market from the get go. No using the operating system monopoly to sell application software anymore.
So I am 100% sure that M$is are NOT taking things very well. However, this time the Feds are finally watching the beast from Redmond with a magnifying glass. So M$ can't use their FUD and other monopolistic practices to keep Dell, Gateway, or any other major supplier "in line" without the DOJ slapping them silly (translation: levying heavy fines) for trying.
Software aside, for the major PC hardware vendors, Linux makes better business sense in either the server OR consumer market.
- They no longer have to pay an increasingly high OS royalty to Microsoft, nor deal with or be associated with M$ software or tactics.
- Over a period of time, the corporate cost of tech support SHOULD decline as Linux gains ascendancy, because 99.99%of all of the problems and solutions in Linux are solved and documented by the technical user base, and quickly incorporated into the code base.
- If Dell, etc. installers are doing their jobs correctly (this requires PHB* support), a machine sold next month should have more stable code than the machine bought today. Which translates into higher user satisfaction.
- End users and corporations no longer have to pay for what is essentially an OS tax - "service packs" to correct problems which should have been fixedin the basic OS. Instead, they are expected to become literate enough to apply true upgrades via a free source -- the Internet. Within a corporation, the cost of support will similarly decline.
All of these things will translate into higher repeat sales in the future -- good for business, wouldn't you say? My only question is, how long will it be before major players such as Lotus and Symantec wake up and shift gears into the Linux world?* PHB = Dilbert: Pointy Haired Boss
Then he makes (IMHO) a valuable connection of the similarity in psychological distancing involved n the use of high tech killing weapons. The 'Internet Creeps' (the so-called dark side of the Internet: porno junkies, perverts, crackers, flamers, etc.) have the advantage of anonymity from their intended victims that allows them to launch whatever type of attack they wish, without responsibility for the results of their actions.
Freedom without responsibility invariably leads to anarchy. Let me offer several examples.
- I am (not being an ex-convict, or otherwise restricted) 100% free to buy a gun. I am not 100% free in how I use it.
- I am free to buy the ingredients which mixed together, could make an explosive or illegal drug.
Similarly, I am free to write an unbelievably malicious computer virus. I am not free to distribute it without consequence. But even these thoughts are not 100% what the article is (IMHO) trying to focus our attention on.Use it wrong, and I am subject to arrest for breaking the law.
But if I make the explosive or drug, again, I am breaking the law, and deserve the consequence of my actions.
Either we work together to make the 'Net a more livable, enjoyable, and safe place to co-exist, or we do in fact deserve the heavy-handed law enforcement and media responses which would undoubtably otherwise follow.
Now I just wish that I could order some of their racing stripes for my mouse.... wouldn't that be cool.
Most of which at various times (some longer, some shorter) felt like they were better off dead. However, that's a normal part of the recovery process, not a place where a person has to emotionally stay for the rest of their lives. Even the author of the book you quoted doesn't suggest that a victim will remain forever "broken".
There's a cliche which I would like to modify and suggest here:"time (plus a healer's gentle influence) can heal (almost) all wounds.
Here are some mirrors, plus a request for anyone else who can mirror:
Advancenet
Jason Holtslander
Star Wars HUB
ToodlePip! FTP
Ciateq (Mexico City)
starwars.nu (Sweden)
SKYNET (Austria)
James Wj Rose
Benjamin Everson
James Connatser
BlackJedi.eu.org (UK)
El Ombligo (Argentina)
Theed.net
josh.rlc.net
Thanks to the mirrors so far; many of these mirrors were already at their limit so if you can mirror this file, please send them a note.
No one recovers without alot of soul-wrenching hard work, and alot of good folks involved in support along the way.
The problem isn't that people don't recover, it's more that we as a society don't know how to NOT DAMAGE THE RECOVERY PROCESS. It is so-o-o-o easy to feel sorry for the victim. So-o-o-o hard to learn how to be with them without reinforcing the trauma. Finally, and often the most difficult part because it is overlooked -- there's more than one victim. [The rape victim's family and friends, mainly] Rape recovery also involves helping these others to heal so that they can assist in the process rather than hindering it.
To those out there still suffering, I hope I can help.
What I can also tell you is that recovery doesn't happen by some accidental process -- it requires
extremely good help (especially from family members and close friends), and counselors well acquinted with the recovery process.
I could write about this for pages, but instead will offer that I am willing to e-mail information upon request.
Secondarily, I am following this thread and will offer my side of the debate with any individual who says that "full recovery is not possible", because that point of view is destrucive of the hope a victim needs to be able to overcome the effects of the rape.
Good luck to Kira, and any others who have so similarly suffered.
Otherwise you have people trying to click on things that aren't really links and getting confused and pissed off in the process. Bad karma from users, you get my drift?
Secondarily, so long as Microsoft has to support the Win95 legacy, I do not believe that they can deliver robustness and stability. I've used the C++ libraries in MFC off and on (preferably off) for about five years now, and while they have improved, in my book, the whole construct is bad. In contrast, both Gnome and KDE are improving rapidly, to the extent that I expect BOTH to pass the Windows API in terms of stability and usability within the year.
My guess is that the catch-fire point for Linux as an operating system for "the rest of the world" would/will be if Inprise (Borland) and Symantec choose to release their compiler and IDE environments in Linux, with effective porting tools for legacy apps developed under their previous tools for Win32. I would also predict a "catch fire" response if Lotus were to release it's top products for Linux platforms prior to Win2000's sliding release.
This brings me to my main thought which is that it doesn't matter "if Microsoft can actually deliver on its promises..." All that has to happen for Linux to move up to #1 is for RH, Caldera, Suse, etc. to be ready with a better quality array of basic consumer software MS operating systems will start the slide into irrelevancy which they deserve, as at that point I would expect virtually all the meaningful hardware and software companies to abandon Redmond because of their blatant monopolistic ugliness.
I (and at least 8,000,000 others) do not believe that MS will EVER be able to "push Linux back out the door."
- "when they moderate downwards, they lose points...."
- "If they moderate a story upwards, the pool gains points..."
- "Moderators with empty pools can't moderate (for a given story)."
How about limiting the ability of any given moderator to score down a comment to one per story? If my math is right, since most comment lists seem to top out at 200-300 comments, with around (400 moderators x 10 points), there's more than enough coverage, and no one moderator can unduly influence the commentary on a given thread. Could be a bitch for Rob to code though.This would punish a moderator doing part of his job, i.e. nailing the low value first posts, flame baits, etc.
This seems like a positive feedback loop, i.e., all a moderator has to do to gain points (and therefore the ability to do more and more) is mark something up, whether or not the article deserved it. I think the limit of ten or so per day is good enough.
This is already true, isn't it? (Or at least until 100 more comments are posted?)
Personal experience here, but I think you might be right. I was stunned, humbled, and highly complimented when a previous post got moderated up to a '4'. That said, I'm not sure if I will try to be a more prolific in posting comments (no reason to up the noise level if I don't have anything to say), but when I do I hope I can at least maintain a quality worth those plus signs, 'cause that 4 felt darn good.
I'd like to propose an idea to guide your philosphy of how to succeed in this project, which is that the University network in this case is acting like an ISP (or at least a gateway)Alot of the same customer service issues apply.
- Don't piss off the user community by becoming a Network Gestapo. You'll end up very unpopular and possibly unemployed. Some of the offending users might be tenured professors, etc. who might take a dim view if you're not nice about solving the problem.
- Create/work with the local Linux Users group. Provide incentives for the user group leaders and members to take charge of the issue.
- Write a sniffer program to ferret out the appropriate information from the compromised machines. Using the output of the sniffer, send a friendly e-mail with
- "here's the problem....
- here's how to solve it....
- here's the consequence if you don't take care of it yourself....
- and finally this last item should have a "pull the trigger" deadline after which the sniffer's output (systems not in compliance) will have their access privileges terminated.
- After the cutoff date, use the local Linux users group as a resource to help the procrastinators and newbies meet the minimum compliance standards which will allow access to the network.
Good luck in cleaning up the mess.After the fact, companies realized that a valuable commodity could be taken too simply, and in many cases have sought to legally strong arm smaller entities into giving up their own domains -- even though those domains were registered 100% in accordance with the law existing at the time. (I wonder how many times a reasonable offer was extended prior to the strong arm tactics, by the way)
However, this judges decision becomes in effect an "ex post facto" law, that is, a law passed after the fact (which is constitutionally prohibited in the U.S.). Now I can be successfully sued for obeying the law.
A final point -- do any of us really think that attorneys as a whole are in favor of fairness here? Heck, instead of chasing ambulances, why not chase domain name registrants instead!!
That's why I think this decision needs to be reversed.
My thoughts are that the judge overseeing this case must have been out of his mind. This is an absolutely wrong-headed legal precedant. Look at the basic facts here:
We have a Canadian company which in my mind seems to have legally registered a domain name with the quasi - governmental company responsible for the registration. Umbro files suit, the Canadian company doesn't show up, which gives Umbro a 'default judgement', basically a legal "forfeit." But instead of just turning over the domain, the judge extends trademark laws to include domain names.
Following this, the (greedy b------) lawyers representing Umbro sue Network Solutions to force the sale of all domain names held by the Canadian company, in order to pay for the legal costs. Read this:
"The registrant had no tangible US assets that we could levy on, but they did have a number of other domains that they had registered through NSI, so we asked the court to garnish those so we could seize them and sell them to the highest bidder."
Here's the kicker: how many of us who have registered ordinary domains did a trademark search before they registered? Or have since acquired a trademark to match their domain name? (spendy stuff, this trademark requirement) My point is that it isn't legally required. So if some company out there chooses to sue me because I didn't know they had a trademark, if I can't afford the cost of legally fighting it out in court, but I own several other domain names -- [perhaps with assets or even their own trademarks.] -- this decision gives lawyers a way to go after my other domain assets, whether or not the alleged infringement was intentional.
But here's what really blew me away: "The law firm said the ruling gives trademark lawyers a new sword to combat domain name piracy." Not in my book: it just gives attorneys legal standing to act as domain name pirates on behalf of their clients.
The article mentioned that another trademark attorney said that this ruling is actually a good thing for domain name owners: "Typically we thought registrants had a two-year license to a domain name, but the court is suggesting they have a property interest. As a result, if the registry takes a name away from you without a legal basis, than you can sue them for civil damages.
True. Unless another company had the trademark first, right?
And why shouldn't they? Ray Noorda (who was the CEO for Novell for a number of years is one of the prime movers behind Caldera, a prime supporter of an LSB (Linux Standards Base). I mention both because I don't think Novell (or Noorda) is content to be either just it's own beast OR attached to just one distribution.
I would also like to point out that Novell, like Linux, has survived and is even beginning to thrive, despite the best efforts of MS both Netware and Linux to the sidelines permanently. As another poster has surmised, the possible transition from Netware as an NLM to a fully Linux compatible system topology would be extremely powerful and probably add immense value to Novell's bottom line. But partnering to OpenSource is tricky -- a company can't easily give up the "company secrets" without risking a legal backlash from stockholders. I expect that we will see further clarifications and announcements in the near future regarding this story. Let's just hope that whatever licensing Novell chooses to use doesn't shoot their ability to work with and support the growth of Linux in the foot.
I've read alot of the materials about how ION (which is Sprint's way of using ATM to offer multiple services via one line),is planned initially for larger corporate users but as demand grows to include homes (the proverbial "last mile" copper loop) so that with one line we can do phone, fax, internet, etc. all at the same time.
Although I don't know the details, Sprint even had some kind of beta user/tester program in the works (sign me up, Scotty!!)
If you know much about this, feel free to comment!!
If you've never been in a room with traditional media types, some of this message won't be as funny, but for me his description of the slack jawed or angry response was right on the numbers. I recently heard about a media campaign (targeted at college students) where the "do it by the numbers" media group spent about $100K in advertising and got just seven "form submit" responses. The same company placed about $10K with a smaller Internet marketing firm and got a huge hit count and about 100X as many responses. Really pissed off a few non-'Net guys in suits, let me tell you.
Anyway, some complain that Jon gets kind of long winded sometimes. I say let him -- he's out there telling the rest of the world that this revolution is not only coming, it is here and it is fun.
I disagree [but not by much], for a small technical reason and another philosophical one. The technical reason is that with both positives and negative scales, a new comment with a rating of 0 or 1 doesn't require moderation to stand out from the flame wars, etc. which got downed. The philosophical reason is that I think we would all agree that the more value a NEW reader sees in Slashdot, the likelier they are to stick around.
The important thing is that Rob and crew let us have it our own way once we've been here long enough to decide to log in and set our own preferences.
I am not of the Jewish faith, but your linking another persons belief system to a lifestyle that Judaism expressly prohibits and a political system that more often has not has been guilty of genocide(s) is highly offensive and not funny.
I hope they moderate this comment down to 7734.
While I can agree that the United States gov't has done and continues to do many things which I find ethically wrong, the greatness of America is much more about the principles we believe in and how 'we the people' have used them. The corruption of those principles by politicians both now and in our past are an acknowledged stain on our national psyche that we all want to overcome. BTW, your use of the word "buster" (an American colloquiallism) probably names you as an American citizen as well.
Let me point out how important this value is to the rest of the world:
In an interview regarding the Kosovo conflict, the side which represents most of the population (the KLA) was asked how many American soldiers he wanted in the peacekeeping force. His response was (and this is from a radio talking head source, so don't frag me if I'm not quoting exactly),"at least one, because then we know that the people of the United States will stand for us."
Don't spit on America because of it's imperfections.
This pre-release is for the rendering engine, [code named Gecko], not the bells and whistles version many of us are working toward or hoping for. So of course IE5 (and even NN 4.51) are presently 'better' in terms of functionality.
However, I would suggest that before you say that it sucks, try running IE 5 for Linux. Or IE 5 for any SA-110 platform. Or IE-5 for -- get the point?
Mozilla is about the Internet programming community developing a top-notch browser, etc. for B>any platform. Including Win32s.