I'll grant that the default settings in almost any OS are more secure than a given Windows product. But after all the proper tweaks are made is there really a profound difference for the lowly end user?
Specific topic aside the big message is that the market isn't hashing it out. There is no "market" when it comes to communications. Even if all the phone/cable/internet providers were selling services at the lowest levels possible for them to stay in business and make a profit ( the ever-elusive "fair price" ), and it just worked out that all the players prices are the same, the way an open market is supposed to work, what the consumer sees is a bunch of money grubbing dickheads trying to fleece them of all they have.
Two problems here; 1)do some PR work and make me believe you are offering a fair price. Don't tell me the price is fair, prove it.
And 2)Its NOT and open market! It is a monopoly or at least an oligopoly. There is no way in to this market. The time when it was beneficial for utilities and communication services to be legal monopolies has passed. They have become so powerful in some cases they have usurped the rule of government.
The horse is riding the plow and the farmer is pulling.
I know how you feel. I am about 10 years beyond college age and now work at a university. This has put me in a position to have some great insight to myself at least. My advice is to spend your energy studying anthing that you are interested in. BUT do WHATEVER IT TAKES to get that flippin' piece of paper that says you have a degree in something, anything. That paper won't mean much regarding your education but it will help you in ways that you can't imagine. Stupid ways sometimes, but you'll have one less hurdle in life.
So in review:
1) Study what interests you.
2) Get a degree, ANY degree.
3) Profit.
I should have added that we are a Microsoft shop out of convenience. We get pressure from UW systems to use MS, but in reality because it is what most student are familiar with it is just easiest to support. Also many of the third party softwares that faculty want to use in the classroom are MS based. To be fair about 10% - 15% of our system is Macintosh and roughly 5% Linux/Unix based.
It seems to me from reading not only this thread but many similar articles about performance that the related costs have little to do with the software platform and everything to do with hardware expense and the technical expertise to manage the software. Perhaps the end client could benefit from an open source solution and save enough to afford a second or third production class server but this question is not coming from the end client it is coming from a solution provider for the end client. Judging from the question the solution provider's technical expertise is with Microsoft software. I don't have the answer he is looking for but I will offer this suggestion: Maybe you should look in to expanding your services by acquiring some new skills or adding to you team with alternatives to Microsoft. I work on a university campus where we are "officially" a Microsoft shop but we are making huge strides in integrating Mac and Linux solutions into our MS infrastructure. By making these additions an integration to our infrastructure and not alternatives to it we are creating an extremely robust and useful computing environment for our end users, the staff faculty and students.
Yes. But only if you make sure that both networks are connected as mirrors to each other with a single non-redundant router so one network can bring the other one down.
The regulations that apply to automobiles is a result of the need and desire by the CONSUMERS for safe non-polluting transportation. It did not come about due to heavy lobbying by large corporations trying to crutch and rescue their outmoded business model. If the auto industry were the driving force behind automobile and transportation laws we would still be driving cars with eight cylinder engines and carburators, there would be no seatbelt laws and the speed limit would still be "safe and sane."
I believe in the rights of the copyright holders, but I also believe that the general public is not the group that is raping the copyright holder, it is the industry itself. I want to ask the media industry why the feel the need to tell the public what the public wants? Why can't they make the content available and let the public tell them what WE WANT by purchasing it in an easy, accessible, and fairly priced manner?
No. I work in a Help Desk in a smaller University where we support both staff and students with basic needs. (Connectivity and basic operation of a computer.) It has crossed my mind MANY times that 'I don't need to know how to build or repair my car in order to operate it, why does it seem that I do with a computer?' Now I realize that I am exagerating but only a little bit. And I know there was a time in the history of the automobile where this was the case too. But as time passed technology improved, and user AND designer experience increased and the automobile became more reliable and easier to operate. In some ways they are still getting better. The "computer" as we know it must also get better and easier, even if only as a result of user frustration. It is inevitable. Have patience.
One more thing. To hell with the original meaning of anything. Meanings change. Accept it. Gay didn't used to mean homosexual. Cock doesn't always mean rooster. V-8 isn't necesarily a vegetable drink.
This kind of shit really pisses me off. If we allow this to continue we won't have a country anymore. In my eyes this is FAR MORE DESTRUCTIVE to our liberties and freedom than any terrorist attack OR direct aggression from another country. We need to stand up for what we BELIEVE IN and be a *little bit* less worried about hurting somone's feelings. The men and women who founded and built this country all believed in *something*. It happens to be worded "...one nation under God..." It DOESN'T say "... if you don't believe in God then shove-off!"
Take a stand, believe in something, accept the fact that *small minded* people will *think* their feeling are hurt by your beliefs.
"it's time to put a stop to all this P.C. CRAP and start acting like Americans."
While implementing some liability for bad software *could* put open source developers at risk to liabilities that should possibly lie elswhere I believe there should be some basic liability to vendors supplying a commecial product. Just as auto makers are required to follow regulations regarding pollution and occupant safety. one poster even compares coding to free speech. Bad code is more like a journalist printing a false or inaccurate (in some cases grossly inaccurate) story than it is and editorial on gun laws or abortion. If a vendor produces a product and make claims about that product that if false would cause harm or injury to the consumer of said products then would you expect the vendor to be held liable? It seems to me that the vast majority of open source software is not being offered as a commercial product by the actual developer but by some other entity that has taken it branded it and sold service around it. In most cases it will be the "other entity" who will look like a better target in a lawsuit anyway.
While I agree with you, what makes it a crime? Is it not ok for Slashdotters to discuss the headline rather than the story itself. Perhaps we're in a giddy mood today and feel more like poking fun at something that sounds silly regardless of its credibility. Or are we supposed to hold ourselves to a higher bar and only have intelectual discussions about serious topics.
To all of you who are on a bent that so many "didn't read the assignment." This isn't CS-222 at the local night school. Relax a little, enjoy the humor, and don't penalize us for being too lazy to read the hole story.
Avoid cynicism, feel better, ... work?
on
Do You Like Your Job?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I have found that the solution to the problem you describe, and it is pervasive in ALL fields not just programming or engineering, is to do what you love to do. That way you have the opportunity to refine (or complete) projects to your liking long after they were 'done' at work. As a bonus you don't feel like your employer is stealing your free time if you do take some work home because 'hey, its not work, this is what I do.' That said, I know many of us are not lucky enough to find that special niche in life, but keep looking, it IS the solution you seek.
What would be the reaction by the open source community if MS released a closed source but free version of Word for Linux? I am not saying that I am for or against such an idea, nor do I think it will happen before the apocalypse, I just want to know what people would think of it.
As for RMS's article, It is a noble cause but I am afraid it is doomed. There are too many govt. and business organizations that rely on Word out of directive or ignorance. Those that do know and care don't have the time to retrain users, because even though it is a simple idea most users won't care enough to remember.
And PDF? come on, that is just as inconvenient as Word, it requires a special reader. I am all for text or RTF, HTML is even 'OK', maybe XML if there is a real standard and not a MS spec. standard.
I'm sure that most Slashdotters don't fault marketing companies for collecting data to tailor advertising to suit us.
It's when they do it without asking for permission to collect the data and use system resources ( whatever little it may be ) on our computers that we get offended.
No matter how it would mess up market targeting plans the world should operate on an "opt in" basis rather than "opt out", Im sure the marketeers can develop new and better ways to target ads.
"isn't it a shame that we'll spend more time talking about Microsoft?"
We do it because we need somebody wielding a sharp stick to keep us vigilant. Whatever your cause you face an antagonist. I think they tried to teach me that in English literature. Everyone needs a "bad-guy." The world just wouldn't be any fun if there were no threat. How entertaining would Star Trek be without the Borg or the Klingons? Or Star Wars without the Dark side?
If the "people" favor crypto laws and backdoors to encryption software then lets ask this question: "Should the gov't have backdoor access to all of your checking, savings, and credit accounts, in case some trys to commit fraud with you identity?" Then the IRS could just take the tax at the end of the year. Are people really that dumb, or just poorly educated?
Whenever I am looking for something "techy" to read I goto The Screensavers"Geek Library." Its geared more toward "less-than-Slashdot-hardcore" geeks, but hey we're talking about a library.
We all seem to agree on about 10 reasons we don't want to pay, but agreeing among ourselves won' really solve anything. The marketeers and 'bean-conters' in the world would look at our complaints and say - "Thats nice, will you be using Master' or VISA?"
Personally I am not against paying for content. Not all content though. I think specialized database sites with specific datasets on specific topics could and should expect to collect a subscription fee. Yes I think a blanket fee vs. micro payments if more favorable to the end users. Especially when the subscriptions would more likely be paid by and employer or educational institution than an individual user. The idea that I would pay micro payments to Yahoo! or Google each time I click the SEARCH button is absurd, but is probably the "bright idea" in someones head.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll grant that the default settings in almost any OS are more secure than a given Windows product. But after all the proper tweaks are made is there really a profound difference for the lowly end user?
Specific topic aside the big message is that the market isn't hashing it out. There is no "market" when it comes to communications. Even if all the phone/cable/internet providers were selling services at the lowest levels possible for them to stay in business and make a profit ( the ever-elusive "fair price" ), and it just worked out that all the players prices are the same, the way an open market is supposed to work, what the consumer sees is a bunch of money grubbing dickheads trying to fleece them of all they have.
Two problems here; 1)do some PR work and make me believe you are offering a fair price. Don't tell me the price is fair, prove it.
And 2)Its NOT and open market! It is a monopoly or at least an oligopoly. There is no way in to this market. The time when it was beneficial for utilities and communication services to be legal monopolies has passed. They have become so powerful in some cases they have usurped the rule of government.
The horse is riding the plow and the farmer is pulling.
--Coreigh
anon@<insert name of butt-munch that wants my email address here>.com
So if I have to register to see content at cnn.com it would be anon@cnn.com
I also do this for software activation and product registrations.
My friends are always amazed at how little spam I get. I wonder why?
I know how you feel. I am about 10 years beyond college age and now work at a university. This has put me in a position to have some great insight to myself at least. My advice is to spend your energy studying anthing that you are interested in. BUT do WHATEVER IT TAKES to get that flippin' piece of paper that says you have a degree in something, anything. That paper won't mean much regarding your education but it will help you in ways that you can't imagine. Stupid ways sometimes, but you'll have one less hurdle in life.
So in review:
1) Study what interests you.
2) Get a degree, ANY degree.
3) Profit.
- Coreigh
That argument is akin to saying "It was the highway barricades that impaired the integrity of the highway, not the collapsed bridge!"
Admittedly the guy who found and posted the exploit was overzealous and even foolish about his proof of concept.
But COME ON! The flaw in the software is the integrity problem not the guy trying alert potential victims.
I should have added that we are a Microsoft shop out of convenience. We get pressure from UW systems to use MS, but in reality because it is what most student are familiar with it is just easiest to support. Also many of the third party softwares that faculty want to use in the classroom are MS based. To be fair about 10% - 15% of our system is Macintosh and roughly 5% Linux/Unix based.
Each platform has its use.
It seems to me from reading not only this thread but many similar articles about performance that the related costs have little to do with the software platform and everything to do with hardware expense and the technical expertise to manage the software. Perhaps the end client could benefit from an open source solution and save enough to afford a second or third production class server but this question is not coming from the end client it is coming from a solution provider for the end client. Judging from the question the solution provider's technical expertise is with Microsoft software. I don't have the answer he is looking for but I will offer this suggestion: Maybe you should look in to expanding your services by acquiring some new skills or adding to you team with alternatives to Microsoft.
I work on a university campus where we are "officially" a Microsoft shop but we are making huge strides in integrating Mac and Linux solutions into our MS infrastructure. By making these additions an integration to our infrastructure and not alternatives to it we are creating an extremely robust and useful computing environment for our end users, the staff faculty and students.
The barriers are financial. (READ AS: greed $$)
But only if you make sure that both networks are connected as mirrors to each other with a single non-redundant router so one network can bring the other one down.
date; gunzip; strip -v; touch -c; finger; mount -s; fsck -V; more; yes
No it is NOT the same scenario.
The regulations that apply to automobiles is a result of the need and desire by the CONSUMERS for safe non-polluting transportation. It did not come about due to heavy lobbying by large corporations trying to crutch and rescue their outmoded business model. If the auto industry were the driving force behind automobile and transportation laws we would still be driving cars with eight cylinder engines and carburators, there would be no seatbelt laws and the speed limit would still be "safe and sane."
I believe in the rights of the copyright holders, but I also believe that the general public is not the group that is raping the copyright holder, it is the industry itself.
I want to ask the media industry why the feel the need to tell the public what the public wants? Why can't they make the content available and let the public tell them what WE WANT by purchasing it in an easy, accessible, and fairly priced manner?
I work in a Help Desk in a smaller University where we support both staff and students with basic needs. (Connectivity and basic operation of a computer.) It has crossed my mind MANY times that 'I don't need to know how to build or repair my car in order to operate it, why does it seem that I do with a computer?' Now I realize that I am exagerating but only a little bit. And I know there was a time in the history of the automobile where this was the case too. But as time passed technology improved, and user AND designer experience increased and the automobile became more reliable and easier to operate. In some ways they are still getting better. The "computer" as we know it must also get better and easier, even if only as a result of user frustration. It is inevitable. Have patience.
One more thing.
To hell with the original meaning of anything.
Meanings change. Accept it. Gay didn't used to mean homosexual. Cock doesn't always mean rooster. V-8 isn't necesarily a vegetable drink.
This kind of shit really pisses me off. If we allow this to continue we won't have a country anymore. In my eyes this is FAR MORE DESTRUCTIVE to our liberties and freedom than any terrorist attack OR direct aggression from another country. We need to stand up for what we BELIEVE IN and be a *little bit* less worried about hurting somone's feelings. The men and women who founded and built this country all believed in *something*. It happens to be worded "...one nation under God..." It DOESN'T say "... if you don't believe in God then shove-off!"
Take a stand, believe in something, accept the fact that *small minded* people will *think* their feeling are hurt by your beliefs.
"it's time to put a stop to all this P.C. CRAP and start acting like Americans."
While implementing some liability for bad software *could* put open source developers at risk to liabilities that should possibly lie elswhere I believe there should be some basic liability to vendors supplying a commecial product. Just as auto makers are required to follow regulations regarding pollution and occupant safety.
one poster even compares coding to free speech. Bad code is more like a journalist printing a false or inaccurate (in some cases grossly inaccurate) story than it is and editorial on gun laws or abortion.
If a vendor produces a product and make claims about that product that if false would cause harm or injury to the consumer of said products then would you expect the vendor to be held liable?
It seems to me that the vast majority of open source software is not being offered as a commercial product by the actual developer but by some other entity that has taken it branded it and sold service around it. In most cases it will be the "other entity" who will look like a better target in a lawsuit anyway.
While I agree with you, what makes it a crime? Is it not ok for Slashdotters to discuss the headline rather than the story itself. Perhaps we're in a giddy mood today and feel more like poking fun at something that sounds silly regardless of its credibility. Or are we supposed to hold ourselves to a higher bar and only have intelectual discussions about serious topics.
To all of you who are on a bent that so many "didn't read the assignment." This isn't CS-222 at the local night school. Relax a little, enjoy the humor, and don't penalize us for being too lazy to read the hole story.
I have found that the solution to the problem you describe, and it is pervasive in ALL fields not just programming or engineering, is to do what you love to do. That way you have the opportunity to refine (or complete) projects to your liking long after they were 'done' at work. As a bonus you don't feel like your employer is stealing your free time if you do take some work home because 'hey, its not work, this is what I do.' That said, I know many of us are not lucky enough to find that special niche in life, but keep looking, it IS the solution you seek.
What would be the reaction by the open source community if MS released a closed source but free version of Word for Linux? I am not saying that I am for or against such an idea, nor do I think it will happen before the apocalypse, I just want to know what people would think of it.
As for RMS's article, It is a noble cause but I am afraid it is doomed. There are too many govt. and business organizations that rely on Word out of directive or ignorance. Those that do know and care don't have the time to retrain users, because even though it is a simple idea most users won't care enough to remember.
And PDF? come on, that is just as inconvenient as Word, it requires a special reader. I am all for text or RTF, HTML is even 'OK', maybe XML if there is a real standard and not a MS spec. standard.
PS I hate Front Page too.
I'm sure that most Slashdotters don't fault marketing companies for collecting data to tailor advertising to suit us.
It's when they do it without asking for permission to collect the data and use system resources ( whatever little it may be ) on our computers that we get offended.
No matter how it would mess up market targeting plans the world should operate on an "opt in" basis rather than "opt out", Im sure the marketeers can develop new and better ways to target ads.
-----
"isn't it a shame that we'll spend more time talking about Microsoft?"
We do it because we need somebody wielding a sharp stick to keep us vigilant. Whatever your cause you face an antagonist. I think they tried to teach me that in English literature. Everyone needs a "bad-guy." The world just wouldn't be any fun if there were no threat. How entertaining would Star Trek be without the Borg or the Klingons? Or Star Wars without the Dark side?
If the "people" favor crypto laws and backdoors to encryption software then lets ask this question: "Should the gov't have backdoor access to all of your checking, savings, and credit accounts, in case some trys to commit fraud with you identity?" Then the IRS could just take the tax at the end of the year. Are people really that dumb, or just poorly educated?
Whenever I am looking for something "techy" to read I goto The Screensavers "Geek Library." Its geared more toward "less-than-Slashdot-hardcore" geeks, but hey we're talking about a library.
We all seem to agree on about 10 reasons we don't want to pay, but agreeing among ourselves won' really solve anything. The marketeers and 'bean-conters' in the world would look at our complaints and say - "Thats nice, will you be using Master' or VISA?" Personally I am not against paying for content. Not all content though. I think specialized database sites with specific datasets on specific topics could and should expect to collect a subscription fee. Yes I think a blanket fee vs. micro payments if more favorable to the end users. Especially when the subscriptions would more likely be paid by and employer or educational institution than an individual user. The idea that I would pay micro payments to Yahoo! or Google each time I click the SEARCH button is absurd, but is probably the "bright idea" in someones head.