I read your piece. It isn't change for the sake of change. Gnome 3 does things that Gnome 2 does not do and that end users like, for example unified notification management.
I think you need to address the actual situation, from Gnome's perspective:
a) End users demand features that the current (Gnome 2) architecture did not support and could not support. b) Faced with a need to completely overhaul the architecture it made sense to overhaul the UI in line with these new features. c) Gnome 2 would remain the stable product while Gnome 3 would be the new innovative product offering these features.
This sort of situation is not unusual. Let me just add one more thing
d) The "desktop distributions" have always been more cutting edge, while the server distributions have emphasized stability.
There will be Gnome 2 distributions. But ultimately we are still at a place in the technology curve where as an industry when confronted with a demand for more features that will be disruptive there is a tendency to be accommodating.
You are missing the point. You have an obligation to preserve evidence a court is likely to be interested in. You can't have a reasonable security system that destroys evidence. That is an illegal act. You are basically explaining your motive for committing spoliation, not defending against the charge.
No they don't. They have to prove you didn't active steps to make it available to the court once you discovered the court was likely to be interested. You are going to be asked many questions about when you lost it, when you last used it, how frequently you lost it....
And the prosecution is only minimally involved. This is a brand new crime.
If the court asks you for a key to a locked door and you possess the key you are obligated to turn it over. So I agree with your physical key analogy it is just that you still running into the same problem.
The idea that the evidence is incriminating is grounds to argue with the court that they shouldn't force you to turn it over. It may make it impossible for you to be tried. So you can plead the 5th in trying to contest the order to produce the key. But ultimately if they order it anyway you are obligated to cooperate.
Except if not even you can access that evidence it essentially is lost to randomness or destroyed.
Absolutely. The problem is that the act of destroying the evidence was another crime. It is like saying "I couldn't possible have done the shoplifting, I was across town stealing a car at the time" and then presenting evidence of your car theft. That might get you off from the shoplifting but the prosecutor can amend the complaint and the court can nail you for the car theft.
Does the right to remain silent, as reminded to you by the first representatives of the courts (law enforcement) apply here?
Nope. The right you are told about, is he right not to be interviewed by the police. It is not the right to not answer a subpoena from a judge.
Spoliation covers more then just destruction. Pretty much anything you do to be unable to comply with a court's production order. "intentional or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding".
The law here isn't new. People have been hiding documents from courts for millennia.
Yep you would be good for the USB key. You could plead the 5th all day long. Of course using that same logic the prosecutor could give you immunity for the murder and they would still be free to demand the key:)
That's unfortunately also illegal. You have a positive obligation to preserve information that you believe is likely to be needed by a court. Once you believe it is likely if you fail to preserve it you are guilty.
The court looks refusal to answer a subpoena for information as obstruction. You have the right not to provide incriminating information. You do not have a right not to provide innocuous information which might lead to incriminating information.
Market share was so/so during that period of time and shrinking only slowly. The crash in market share happened after Steve's return, though everyone knew it was coming.
I find it interesting that a number of people responding to my post simply don't understand why marketing is so important. I ask one question: How did Apple survive when it was in the doldrums and the products were pretty crap? Users were made to believe that there was a plan, and made to feel that in some way they had bought into a company that was going places. That was marketing, pure and simple.
When was that? I was an OSX user as market share went from around 7% to 2%. The products weren't crap, they were excellent and most people, even those switching away felt a sense of loss.
Apple has never really had crap. What they have done is been outrageously expensive.
I'm an iPhone users now, but four years ago I loved Blackberry and I still like them quite a bit. Texting/IM is an amazing experience on the blackberry. Responding to email is arguably better. And as a phone it works well. My favorite blackberry app (youmail) just got ported over to iphone. So I've switched, but Blackberry is a great phone, just very long in the tooth.
Actually no it can't be cutup however the ISP wants. IPv4 allows for all sorts of complex subnet sizes to preserve address space. v6 doesn't allow for that, it allows for only simple network architectures to make routing as fast as possible. For example if you address is 1122:3344:5566:7788:9900:AABB:CCDD:EEFF then your broadcast address is always 1122:3344:5566:7788::
Don't think address utilization, that's a v4 concept based on the idea that public addresses are worth being careful about. The focus for v6 is no routing tables. You could give every man, woman and child that every lived and every computer ever created a billion/64 subnets and you still wouldn't exhaust the space.
People even recommend using a/64 for point to point connection though allow for a/127.
why does Google get a pass for product dumping when they spend a billion a year on Android only to give it away and MSFT gets nailed for IE?
Because Microsoft was not charged with dumping with regard to IE. The argument was that they made the browser integrated and mandatory thus extending their operating system monopoly into a browser monopoly. The court's issue was not that they gave IE away for free.
Even if we switch entirely to IPv6, I can assure you: that will NEVER happen in our facilities. Never, ever. We will ALWAYS isolate our internal networks from the rest of the world.
No one is saying firewalling isn't going to be important.
The only place where such tunneling will take place is OUTSIDE of my premises.
Nope, that's one problem with the ignore it approach. Suzie in accounting wants to get on Facebook, which you block the v4 address for. So her computer tunnels out to the v6 connection using a gateway. Or Dave in facilities jumps on your wireless with his cell phone and starts hitting v6 resources, his phone is setup when using wireless to use a carrier provided v4to6 gateway. You already have lots of devices that tunnel, what is missing right now is resources that internal systems want on the v6 networks. In a world with lots of v6 there is no such thing as a pure v4 network.
As more gateways appear and more v6 traffic appears you will get tunnels. You don't have them yet. You probably won't have them all throughout 2012. But if you do nothing by 2014 your v4 network will look inside out from any hacker looking from a v6 perspective.
You don't want to expose your internal network you need to have v6 aware security devices.
So they link the desktop monopoly to the tablet space, and leverage it to extend their reach into another.
Extending a monopoly is precisely what is illegal for a monopolist. Now if Apple starts doing better on the desktop, and Microsoft can argue they no longer have a desktop monopoly..
1) A lot of OSes will create tunnels to v6 content. v4 security software doesn't understand v6 traffic. Your network will look like swiss cheese from a security standpoint.
2) As end users begin to be in pools for v4 traffic things like geo location will fail. Also maintaining sessions may be more complex as their IP keeps getting recycled.
3) v6 makes routing much less complex and thus brings down latency. You will start to see internet applications dependent on lower latencies that won't work on v4.
The people running the internet want to move you to dual stack. They are not interested in letting you run non dual stack for a decade.
Slashdot Mirror
I read your piece. It isn't change for the sake of change. Gnome 3 does things that Gnome 2 does not do and that end users like, for example unified notification management.
I think you need to address the actual situation, from Gnome's perspective:
a) End users demand features that the current (Gnome 2) architecture did not support and could not support.
b) Faced with a need to completely overhaul the architecture it made sense to overhaul the UI in line with these new features.
c) Gnome 2 would remain the stable product while Gnome 3 would be the new innovative product offering these features.
This sort of situation is not unusual. Let me just add one more thing
d) The "desktop distributions" have always been more cutting edge, while the server distributions have emphasized stability.
There will be Gnome 2 distributions. But ultimately we are still at a place in the technology curve where as an industry when confronted with a demand for more features that will be disruptive there is a tendency to be accommodating.
You are missing the point. You have an obligation to preserve evidence a court is likely to be interested in. You can't have a reasonable security system that destroys evidence. That is an illegal act. You are basically explaining your motive for committing spoliation, not defending against the charge.
No they don't. They have to prove you didn't active steps to make it available to the court once you discovered the court was likely to be interested. You are going to be asked many questions about when you lost it, when you last used it, how frequently you lost it....
And the prosecution is only minimally involved. This is a brand new crime.
Sure. Absolutely.
If the court asks you for a key to a locked door and you possess the key you are obligated to turn it over. So I agree with your physical key analogy it is just that you still running into the same problem.
The idea that the evidence is incriminating is grounds to argue with the court that they shouldn't force you to turn it over. It may make it impossible for you to be tried. So you can plead the 5th in trying to contest the order to produce the key. But ultimately if they order it anyway you are obligated to cooperate.
Absolutely. The problem is that the act of destroying the evidence was another crime. It is like saying "I couldn't possible have done the shoplifting, I was across town stealing a car at the time" and then presenting evidence of your car theft. That might get you off from the shoplifting but the prosecutor can amend the complaint and the court can nail you for the car theft.
Nope. The right you are told about, is he right not to be interviewed by the police. It is not the right to not answer a subpoena from a judge.
Spoliation covers more then just destruction. Pretty much anything you do to be unable to comply with a court's production order. "intentional or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding".
The law here isn't new. People have been hiding documents from courts for millennia.
Yep you would be good for the USB key. You could plead the 5th all day long. Of course using that same logic the prosecutor could give you immunity for the murder and they would still be free to demand the key :)
They might. If for example I had a registered firearm, knew I was a murder suspect and threw it away I could be charged with spoliation.
The police can't assume I know where the hidden gun from the murder is, but proving I did in fact hide a gun they were likely to be interested in....
That's unfortunately also illegal. You have a positive obligation to preserve information that you believe is likely to be needed by a court. Once you believe it is likely if you fail to preserve it you are guilty.
Which is called spoliation is and a crime.
The court looks refusal to answer a subpoena for information as obstruction. You have the right not to provide incriminating information. You do not have a right not to provide innocuous information which might lead to incriminating information.
That's called spoliation and is a crime already. You can't do anything to destroy evidence that a court is likely to be interested in.
Market share was so/so during that period of time and shrinking only slowly. The crash in market share happened after Steve's return, though everyone knew it was coming.
When was that? I was an OSX user as market share went from around 7% to 2%. The products weren't crap, they were excellent and most people, even those switching away felt a sense of loss.
Apple has never really had crap. What they have done is been outrageously expensive.
I'm an iPhone users now, but four years ago I loved Blackberry and I still like them quite a bit. Texting/IM is an amazing experience on the blackberry. Responding to email is arguably better. And as a phone it works well. My favorite blackberry app (youmail) just got ported over to iphone. So I've switched, but Blackberry is a great phone, just very long in the tooth.
Actually no it can't be cutup however the ISP wants. IPv4 allows for all sorts of complex subnet sizes to preserve address space. v6 doesn't allow for that, it allows for only simple network architectures to make routing as fast as possible. For example if you address is 1122:3344:5566:7788:9900:AABB:CCDD:EEFF then your broadcast address is always 1122:3344:5566:7788::
Don't think address utilization, that's a v4 concept based on the idea that public addresses are worth being careful about. The focus for v6 is no routing tables. You could give every man, woman and child that every lived and every computer ever created a billion /64 subnets and you still wouldn't exhaust the space.
People even recommend using a /64 for point to point connection though allow for a /127.
I'm not sure you know what racketeering is. Otherwise I'm at a loss to see how this is even possibly racketeering much less an "obvious case" of it.
Because Microsoft was not charged with dumping with regard to IE. The argument was that they made the browser integrated and mandatory thus extending their operating system monopoly into a browser monopoly. The court's issue was not that they gave IE away for free.
Yep, ouch that was dumb on my part. Thank you for the correction. I did mean /128, /127 and /64 (on up) were the only options.
No one is saying firewalling isn't going to be important.
Nope, that's one problem with the ignore it approach. Suzie in accounting wants to get on Facebook, which you block the v4 address for. So her computer tunnels out to the v6 connection using a gateway. Or Dave in facilities jumps on your wireless with his cell phone and starts hitting v6 resources, his phone is setup when using wireless to use a carrier provided v4to6 gateway. You already have lots of devices that tunnel, what is missing right now is resources that internal systems want on the v6 networks. In a world with lots of v6 there is no such thing as a pure v4 network.
As more gateways appear and more v6 traffic appears you will get tunnels. You don't have them yet. You probably won't have them all throughout 2012. But if you do nothing by 2014 your v4 network will look inside out from any hacker looking from a v6 perspective.
You don't want to expose your internal network you need to have v6 aware security devices.
Extending a monopoly is precisely what is illegal for a monopolist. Now if Apple starts doing better on the desktop, and Microsoft can argue they no longer have a desktop monopoly..
I think you are wrong there. poduck small cable operator is going to be able to sell their ip allocation. That's an incentive for them to do the work.
If it is bottom dollar trash, how much of a fortune do you really think it is to waste them in a few years?
Here are some downsides of not upgrading.
1) A lot of OSes will create tunnels to v6 content. v4 security software doesn't understand v6 traffic. Your network will look like swiss cheese from a security standpoint.
2) As end users begin to be in pools for v4 traffic things like geo location will fail. Also maintaining sessions may be more complex as their IP keeps getting recycled.
3) v6 makes routing much less complex and thus brings down latency. You will start to see internet applications dependent on lower latencies that won't work on v4.
The people running the internet want to move you to dual stack. They are not interested in letting you run non dual stack for a decade.