I know that 2007 uses its own format by default, but it isn't their fault you haven't tried "Save As". I guarantee you can save a file in 2007 as an older format.
I can tell you from direct, personal experience that moving a non-technical but regular user from WinXP with OfficeXP to Vista with Office2007 is actually a noticeably steeper learning curve than migrating them to Mac OS X...in fact even Ubuntu is no more of a challenge, given that OpenOffice is more similar to "classic" office than Office 2007 is.
The fact that a radically altered interface and an incompatible set of file formats are the defaults just pushed that curve up steeper. For existing documents it can be dealt with; Office 2007 saves them in the original format. However as more non-technical users are introduced to Office 2007 and more new documents are created, there will be this lingering pain of incompatible file formats floating around unless you go through with a mass migration. Furthermore, Office 2007 (I find Excel mostly in my personal experience) complains bitterly that "some features may not be saved", scaring users into saving in the new formats.
Since just letting Office 2007 and Vista float in with new machines is an administrative nightmare, the only practical options for admins is to carefully plan an expensive, large-scale roll-out, or make sure the new MS stuff stays off all machines. The latter isn't an option forever as software goes obsolete, and in the former option, well, you might as well use it as an opportunity to switch to Linux or MacOS because it's all equally disruptive for a surprising amount of businesses out there.
If you use non-OSS, you have someone to blame.
To what end? Blame someone all you want, that won't fix what's broken. If you use best-of-breed Free software, you have someone that can HELP. Free software projects like Linux and Apache and Mozilla and OpenOffice.org all have visible, active and helpful communities made up of both users and developers. The quality of COST-FREE support is unparalleled to anything closed software can offer. Microsoft comes closest because they're massive and have a huge user community, but support quality degrades very badly once you get away from a few core products (Windows, Office and Visual Studio have good community support, the rest of MS is crap as is the support from other closed vendors, relatively speaking).
Ubuntu not installing, blame uhmm... who do you blame? You might as well blame me or the guy sitting next to you.
Or, you could blame Canonical, the company that was founded by Ubuntu's creator and the chief sponsor of the product. They have a pretty good, freely-accessible support forum. Or if you feel better giving your money at someone so you can heap your frustrations upon them, you can buy support from Canonical. FYI, this is pretty much the same as with Microsoft--if you don't pay and pay and pay, you might as well blame your cube-mate there too. Just because it's Free, doesn't mean there aren't sponsoring corporations out there that offer support.
We might have messed with the code in a subtle way. That's the point of Open Source, right? The community works on it.
Well, at least you can mess with the code, and if that's what it takes to solve a critical problem it's an option. Not so with Microsoft and other closed systems, because the community are merely eternal beta testers. In any case, if you really feel secure in having a corporate punching-bag in MS when things go wrong you're seriously deluded. If you mess with the registry in a subtle way, or find you have to use "non-certified" drivers, or a myriad of other things...if MS tech support can find any excuse like that, they'll finger that as the problem to make you go away. They might not help you until you reformat and reinstall. Is that really helpful?
Strictly speaking you are factually incorrect. An upgrade contains some sort of mechanism to verify you have an existing copy either already installed on the target volume, or else have some other proof of existing ownership of a previous version (the old install CD, etc).
Mac OS X contains NO such installation restrictions whatsoever, unlike typical Microsoft upgrade packages that, though they do include all the data required for a complete install, are modified to include proof of previous ownership. Furthermore, to my knowledge there are far fewer legal encumbrances on Apple's OS either (such as an EULA that prohibits you from using the new OS without being a licensee of a previous version, or restricting transferability to new hardware).
You can only run MacOS on a Mac. You can't buy a Mac without buying a MacOS license as well.
Technically you do NOT need a Mac to run Mac OS X. Most would find the Mac OS X CD about as useful as a coaster, but technically savvy people have been known to have gotten Mac OSX running on commodity Intel Core Duo hardware.
As far as not being able to buy a Mac without a Mac OS license--how is that different from the majority of PCs sold in retail today? You cannot walk into a Best Buy and pick up any machine there and ask them to give you one with a blank hard drive, and give you a discount for not using the Windows license. Yes, the situation with Macs is even worse, but it is a problem on the PC side too--there has been an uphill battle to get manufacturers to sell "naked PCs" to users so they can install the OS of their choice, even while Microsoft has in the past launched campaigns portraying VARs that sell "naked PCs" as being evil, or at least shady enablers of piracy. Finally, even if you have managed to avert the obvious Microsoft Tax, you still pay indirectly on "Windows certified" hardware, because you have to pay to cover the costs of Windows driver development, certification and signing even if you never use the product with Windows. Basically you cannot buy a PC without giving Microsoft at least some of your money
Apple uses a hardware dongle, Microsoft needs you to demonstrate you already have a copy.
There is no dongle with Apple--you are using such terms to convey a bias. It does look at the TPM integrated within the machine. Those are two different things that work in somewhat different ways, even if the end purpose id the same (to limit functionality to a specific device).
I am no fan of either MSFT or Apple--both are digital-rights control-freaks entirely too preoccupies with lock-in. However, I'd have to say that Apple's strategy with Mac OS X is much more considerate of consumers (it is definitely the lesser of the two evils).
With Apple, you get Mac OS X . That's it. There isn't a convoluted product line combined with licesning schemes that make your brain hurt. You get all the features of OS X and all is good. Buy one copy or buy it for the family. easy to figure it out.
Contrast that with Microsoft: Vista Basic or Premium or Business or Ultimate? Wait...I don't get the jazzy "wow" stuff with Basic? What a gyp! Now...do I get the upgrade, or full retail, or OEM or enterprise licensing? Am I even legally entitled to buy the OEM version (ie. did I buy it with the right kind of/amount of hardware)? Hold on---I can technically put the "system builder" OEM on another machine, but I might not be able to activate it because OEM licenses restrict transferability? Am I qualified for an upgrade? (don't assume yes always--unlike Mac OS X ther are restrictions on what versions, editions, licenses that are upgradeable). And don't even go into the Virtual Machine issues...plus ALL of this changes from one release to the next. MS licensing is a complete mess and has been for years.
On that basis, comparing the price of Mac OS X to the full retail price of Vista Ulimate (the edition which most closely competed with it) could be co
...the MSX computer platform was gaining in popularity too. So said the last article I saw about MSX computers.
You cite an article that is 2.5 years old on the popularity of UMDs? 2.5 years might as well be 25 years when you're talking about consumer electronics, and besides that, there is soooo much stuff that's "big in Japan" that is 100% unknown everywhere else in the world.
I'm still trying to figure out the appeal of a technology that has only has 1% of the range of range and no significant throughput advantage over the prevailing standard. From the TFA I see little to nothing in the advantage of the Sony invention that cannot be handled at the application layer. Oh well...lots of stuff that comes out of Japan seems puzzling to observers outside of Japan.
Are you sure that they don't already produce this excess power so it is there on demand as needed.
There isn't a dial on the operator's board to dial up a specific wattage. Generating stations have basically no control of EXACTLY how much power they produce--much of that has to do with the load it sees on the interconnected grid. Power output is basically determined by how much force the turbines can "push" against the generators. The more demand on the grid, the harder the generators are to turn.
A generating station can technically produce zero power, or even negative net power (in that case the generators are behaving like electric motors plugged into the grid, but this isn't something that would happen often), but they keep on turning at 3600 RPM. All generators that are on-line on an interconnected grid basically turn perfectly in sync.
I'm pretty sure that they don't wait for the voltage to drop before adding steam, fuel or whatever to keep the generator at the same speed. Think about that, My power comes in from 150 miles away, do you think I would notice not having enough power to turn on a few lights at night? And how many other people would do the same thing at the same time when being fed off the same grid?
If people left lights on like office workers left PCs on, then you'd notice soon enough--but not right at that moment. You'd notice when you saw your next bill. First of all, the laws of supply and demand apply--more demand means higher spot price for electricity. Second of all, generators do in fact burn more fuel when there is more power demand and dial back when demand does away (it is all computer controlled and they can respond to demand in seconds). That means more emissions, and more fuel costs to be passed onto you.
You can access our data for $x/user/year, but we'll waive the fee if you submit to an audit to prove that you'll be handling the data in a secure manner.
How is this acceptable? It's like paying an indulgence to the Pope for your sins every year so you can keep committing sins. If I'm entrusting my data to someone else then adequate security should be MANDATORY.
During their audit, they might just happen to find that Oracle, DB2, PostgreSQL and MySQL aren't as 'secure' as MSSQL, and 'suggest' that companies use MSSQL in the mix as well for user data
So "Pope William III" directs us not to eat "oracle fish" on Fridays? Aside from the claim MSSQL is somehow superior is terms of security being ludicrous, I don't think PR people could spin this away from the blatant attempt that it is to use their leverage in the database market.
We need a Martin Luther of the digital age it seems.
Anyways, we are still in the dark ages, with silos of replicated, dated information all over the place. Our personal data is replicated, transmitted, sold and resold as if it was THEIR data. It's OURS and WE should have full control. We're approaching the age where we could technically have meaningful control our personal information--we could all keep all our own data and easily see who we've given it to and what it's used for. It would be a monumental task to achieve a standard, interoperable yet secure infrastructure to do this, but it is quite possible to do. But being the dark ages, we still have "data lords" and a feudal system of digital serf identities, and those "lords" are using that very technology that could lead to a "renaissance" to try to maintain and expand their kingdoms. Instead of "open IDs" and standard protocols and sane encryption and authentication policies we have hidden protocols, "25 cents per user anuually", draconian DRM so the "MafIAA" can control data created by artists and used by honest paying customers.
I still hold out hope--if things get REALLY bad people will revolt.
Though sugar- and caffeine-laden drinks can perhaps wind a person up, most of a typical fast-food menu would probably leave you feeling lethargic and feeling a bit calmer, due to the high-fat content and other chemicals such as the enzymes in the cheese on your burger. That's what's a bit perverse about a lot of restaurant meals--not only will they make you feel fat, they'll put you in a lazy mood so you are less motivated to be active. When those effects wear off you'll feel tired and grumpy, then you'll want to eat more bad food to get that mild euphoria again.
Anyways, this McDonalds bigwig is actually talking out of hid butt. Video games don't make people fat--the lack of physical activity is what partly contributes to weight gain. Some video games are GOOD for your health...how many morbidly obese people have YOU seen playing the advanced levels on DDR for example? And many Nintendo Wii titles certainly encourage people to get up and move. In any case, sedentary video-game playing is only partly the cause of weight gain. The other much bigger contributer to weight gain is excessive caloric intake. Kids who don't snack and skip meals because they are compulsively playing video games are SKINNY kids (still unhealthy, but skinny). Kids who snack on junk food and eat Big Macs between levels are FAT kids.
Research has now widely shown that thoguh exercise is essential to good health, by far the largest single contributer to obesity is DIET. It only takes moments longer to eat a supersized value meal than it does to eat a regular value meal, but it takes a half-hour of moderate activity to burn off the extra calories...worse yet, you can eat a fast food meal faster than you can eat a home-cooked meal, but it would take an extra hour of moderate activity to burn off the calories. As far as fixing obesity goes, priority one should be fixing people's over-processed, carb-loaded, calorie-dense diet.
That said, though, McDonald's is not the most evil of offenders in providing us with easy access to a nasty diet and it really does get far more flak than it deserves (perhaps because it is a big corporation that markets toward children which amplifies the focus on McDo). The baddest, most evil food-mongers are most of the "casual dining" restaurant franchises, primarily because of their insanely huge portions (especially in the United States). Appetiser platters at these eateries are actually large enough for 2 to 4 complete meals. "Meal sized" salads can approach 1500 Calories. Surveys have been done that show that "healthy choice" or "lighter fare" meals even have excessive portions...too much of even a good thing will make you fat.
The reasons you give for the inertia in corporate environments are actually indicators of the stagnation in Microsoft's OS line (XP being around for so long, with no major updates except for the browser). If there is one good thing about Vista it is that it moves things forward for the MSFT platform as well as for interoperability. IE7 is proving to be as different a browser from IE6 as FF is in terms of compatibility. Since an effort has to be made to make it IE7 compatible might as well make it standards-compatible with pretty much the same effort.
*no activeX
Many of my employer's web-based products followed a late-1990s design philosophy--they are absolutely infested with ActiveX garbage--mostly because they were quickly "webified" versions of early products that were not web-based but employed ActiveX components extensively. In the early days, MSFT did a good job of enticing software developers into IE lock-in by allowing Activex to be embedded into web pages, because if you were big into ActiveX/(D)COM/OLE in your client-server apps you could throw together some pseudo-HTML ActiveX wrapper around that crap and marketing could sell it as "web-enabled" right around the time the.com bubble was near fully-inflated.
However, IT departments weren't enamoured with ActiveX to the same degree as (lazy|pressured) developers, and whatever fondness they might have had wore off quickly. Even 3 or 4 years ago IT departments were cringing at the mess of ActiveX in those products. There's been heavy pressure to remove it and in the latest releases it's now completely gone. Internally, the web interfaces to our business systems are completely free of ActiveX--though they rely far too much on Java applets. In any case at present (and moving forward) not supporting ActiveX is a GOOD thing in IT department's eyes, because it actually is less work for IT (they don't have to worry about restricting ActiveX in FF the way they have to on IE).
*not backed by a huge company so perceived lack of support
This is really a non-issue for all but the most clueless PHBs. IE6 was a dead product--MSFT figured discrete web browsers were obsolete and that they could hijack the WWW and make it the vehicle to deploy distributed apps based on their own XML formats. There was no innovation and the most minimal support for IE6. Honestly, I've not heard once about a company that has had to make an urgent supoprt call about their web browser, not have I heard once about MSFT stepping up and making a critical fix to IE due to a request from a specific customer. IT people KNOW that there is probably more "community support" for Mozilla browsers than there is corporate support from MSFT for IE, and FF code is under more close scrutiny than IE by far.
*legacy web applications produced in ASP and older ASP.net that break horribly in firefox (and even latest IE7! yes ive seen it happen)
Not only do many ASP(X) apps break in IE7, they actually break WORSE in IE7 than they do in FF...quite embarrassing for MSFT actually. However that is the key point to note: There isn't a dependency on IE in general--it is on IE6 SPECIFICALLY, and the days are numbered for IE6, being Vista is equipped only with IE7. MSFT is sure to extend the 7-year promised lifespan of XP, but it won't do so indefinitely. I figure this year MSFT will draw a line in the sand and insist new computers NOT be available with XP pre-installed (probably this fall--end users will have to perform the downgrade--err, "upgrade to a more familiar experience", themselves).
As I said, with FF having a significant minority presence in the market and efforts required to make apps work in IE7 anyways, this provides a promising opportunity to make apps STANDARDS-compatible.
*it depertments are slow to change and adapt and are very conservative
Those sort of outfits are basically the ones that abdicate their strategic planning to their vendors--they're the same ones managed by the clue
BUT, the ADAM had natorious quality problems with its fast tape system. They never did fully overcome them, and folded.
This is actually not true...not in a technical sense. Absolutely all the hardware issues and the main software issues were in fact solved in the final "R80" revision of the ADAM (which I had). The tapes wore out a bit quickly but the issue was way overblown because of the early unreliable drive design that tended to eat tapes. Also, by the time the R80 ADAMs were in stock you could asl get a proper floppy drive.
I seem to remember that Commodore tape drives were not tremendously reliable at reading tapes, and were waaaay slower, and that didn't stop C64 from being a hit. Commodore had its own struggle with the reliability of the 1541 drive too. Commodore, however, wasn't distracted by other product lines and resolved the problems quickly, plus the C64 console itself didn't have as many serious problems (units arriving DOA, etc) in initial release...most notably, Commodore made sure reviewers didn't get faulty machines, and when Commodore announced a product would be out at a specific date it came out pretty close to that date, whereas the ADAM was months late.
First impressions are lasting impressions, and a corporation has to have the presence of Microsoft to overcome bad first impressions. Coleco really didn't have what it took to sell the ADAM.
Could you offload processing to the Atari's floppy drive?
Exactly what do you mean by "offload processing"? Could you actually make the 1541 drive execute code or perform calculations? Or by "offload processing" do you mean you could tell it to read or write a file and it would do it without consuming C64 processor time?
The Atari 1050 was "smart" device connected through a proprietary serial interface--a similar design philosophy to the Commodore 1541, however the 1050 was at least twice as fast, though it had a smaller capacity than the 1541. I'm not sure if it was by design, but I do remember "hot plugging" Atari 8-bit peripherals and my 800XL didn't seem to mind.
The Coleco ADAM's floppy drive was even better than either--faster than either of them and about the same capacity as the C1541. Coleco hardware is what I learned the most as it was the 8-bit computer I owned the longest. Peripherals that disn't plug into card-edge connectors communicated on a serial bus called ADAMNet that ran at 64 kbps. Coleco ADAMNet-connected peripherals (printer, keyboard, tape and disc) were each controlled by dedicated 6801 microcontrollers (the same chip that was the actual main CPU in the Tandy MC-10 computer). Reading a whole floppy's worth of blocks took about 25 seconds. ADAMNet I/O functions were capable of being background operations--for example, I could continue to type stuff on the ADAM when a (very slow, noisy) print job was in progress, and when playing "super games" the data for the next level would load in the background while you were playing so you never had to wait between levels (something of a rarity on 8-bit computers).
Some other things we could do on the ADAM: make a simple word processor that could work with files too big to fit in physical RAM by swapping blocks in and out of memory to and from floppy in the background (completely without interrupting the user's typing) and being able to download in the background (at a whopping 300 baud over poor quality country phone lines). Basically, rudimentary multi-tasking on a cheap home computer, years before the Amiga was released.
There were computers out there that were more compelling and advanced than the C64 in different ways, but the C64 was king because it was "good enough" overall, was very well priced and marketed and had a couple features that lent itself well to home use (graphics were merely average, but it had good sprites and a bright colour palette, and the sound was amazing).
...because aside from its sound it was a rather mediocre machine.
I dunno, given that the real competitors to the C=64 was the Atari 400 and the T.I. 99/4, I think it wasn't so bad.
The Atari 400 and the TI 99/4 were released almost 3 years before (1979) the C64 (1982). They were the VIC-20's competition, not the C64's competition.
Atari's competition to the C64 was intended to be the 1200XL (similar capability and also released in 1982). It's too bad you never owned one of those, because it's keyboard was VASTLY superior to the C64's. Also, the 1050 disk and the 1010 tape drives were both better then the commodore equivalents and it had better graphics than the C64.
Sadly, the 1200XL had compatibility problems with the 400 and 800, and Atari couldn't make money with the price pressure put upon it by the C64, so the 800XL was brought out that ironed out some bugs integrated BASIC into built-in ROM, etc, but in its cost cutting effort the keyboard was of lower quality (yet still better than the C64).
Also, at what point does price enter into this? C=64 was around $199 at the time the PC came out at, oh 7 or 8 times the price...
The IBM PC came out a few months BEFORE the C64 you know, and the C64 didn't start out at such a low price, it just got there quite quickly.
Also, to make the C64 usable you had to add a tape or floppy, and most likely a printer. The floppy cost more than the C64 itself for a time when supply was much smaller than demand. Also, the C64 and the 800XL were quite closely priced, and the 800XL was faster and had better graphics and a better keyboard even though it was a "cheapened 1200XL" design.
I also owned a Coleco ADAM which was sold as a package with built in tape drive and printer included. in 1984 it was about $100 cheaper than a comparable C64 system. The Coleco TAPE drive literally loaded faster than the C54 FLOPPY drive, and a Coleco tape held 75% more data than a C64 floppy. The Coleco CPU ran at 4 times the clock speed of the C64 and could do raw computations ad a bit more than twice the speed of the C64, and it had dedicated video RAM so nearly all the 64K of main ram could be available for applications. Above all, the ADAM keyboard was of very high quality--it had about 75 keys and 4 properly-arranged actual arrow keys (not 2 arrow keys side-by-side that needed the shift key to move up and down). Made it really good for typing out papers.
Looking back, the C64 was really a lesson in marketing--there was technically superior competition out there on all fronts except sound--it had a bad keyboard, bad BASIC with barely more than 50% of ram usable, very slow floppy, middle-of-the-road graphics and was a bit flimsy. It was, however, very well marketed, priced very aggressively and had the best software library out there (pretty much all the hit games of the Atari and better application software in addition). All that momentum led to third-party enhancements to overcome many C64 weaknesses. Still had a bad keyboard for years though.
...which is at least as likely as the other two theories you postulated:
c) This was a pimple-faced little script-monkey who came across a stale old "toolkit" and was just clever enough to automate the deployment of the SQL injection attack.
It's really easy to patch the RDS activeX control, and not so easy to manually correct old custom-written web apps. Just a sad commentary on how shipshod web development standards has been in the past, and the lasting legacy it has created. Sanitising user input is (or should be) "programming 101" stuff.
Even today U.S. Steel owns and operates electrical production plants and is working to increase the ouput, not decrease it.
You've hit the nail on the head there. The "big central energy generation" model is going the way of the dinosaur in this day and age. There isn't as much economy in scale anymore, and when you get to a certain scale the trend actually reverses. There are inefficiencies/losses in excessive transmission and distribution so it is actually more cost effective to localise generation. "Economy of scale" or "efficiency" was not the only reason public electrical generation supplanted a lot of smaller private generation...in fact it was probably not even the main reason. Government interference/regulation was a huge factor. Governments set up mandated monopolies and provided economic incentives for utility companies to be able to supply energy at a lower cost than local/private generation (mostly by giving favourable terms to utilities for the large capital expenditures required to build the plants that weren't given to the industry at large).
With IT, capital expenditures requires to set up the initial infrastructure are relatively low and falling wheres it costs a great deal of time and money to build a large power plant. Second, Electricity and IT services are not the same thing--everyone uses the same kind of electrons moving on the same kind of copper cable--it's all the same volts and amps and Hertz. IT services are more different than the same from customer to customer--different its and bytes, different business rules, different security and confidentiality needs. Finally, governments are not making policy decisions to deliberately steer the industry towards a "utility model" the electrical systems ended up.
In fact, I believe Mr. Carr is exactly 180 degrees off in his direction. Utilities, especially electricity generation, are in fact MOVING AWAY from very large central generating stations. Nobody wants giant dirty coal plants or huge ominous nuclear plants in their back yard--they are very expensive to build, complicated to operate and maintain and have a large impact on local ecosystems. Governments are deregulating, and big refineries and factories are being encouraged to build power plants again (co-generation is the newest old thing really). It is easier to get cash-flush commodities producers to build little natural gas generators that also happen to use excess thermal waste energy as well than it is to prop up nearly-bankrupt utilities to build gigawatt plants. Technology is even evolving to the point where utilities could become "super-distributed". Things like fuel cells could be implemented in office towers, apartment buildings and even community halls and large private residences, to meet the energy needs of the local area (even truck-sized nuclear reactors for efficient "campus-wide" power have been looked at). A distributed model is mre robust, more efficient and more flexible at meeting varied needs (and ultimately better for the environment).
The same goes for IT. Carr looks at evidence that large private data centres are going away and makes the logical leap towards the conclusion that they must be outsourcing to EVEN BIGGER, google-sized complexes that do everything for everyone in some "cloud". Well, he's got quite the wrong idea of the "cloud" if you ask me. The reasons the big private data centre and big IT teams are going away are more like the following:
* Virtualisation technology: the IT dept is providing everything it used to, but the physical machine count has gone down with the use of virtual machines. The number of "virtual" systems remains close to the same, and thought the head-count in the IT dept might get a bit lower, the reduction in people will not go down as fast as the reduction in machines.
* Distributed computing models. The "competitive advantage" (at the moment--Carr is right when he says competitors pretty quickly catch up) is responsivene
That is just the tip of the Microsoft corporate licensing nightmare. At my government agency employer, we only use Linux for all our web servers. Why? Because we are developers and we want to drop a web/database/file/email/proxy/printer/whatever server wherever it is needed without being bogged down in a sea of Microsoft red tape.
This is exactly why, after an initial promising uptake, MSFT Web Server 2003 ultimately was a dismal failure in meeting its objectives. It's really no trouble at all to manage Windows Web Server licensing in a basic setup--you put in $400, load it up and go. No CALs and other crap. However, when your end users start demanding REAL web hosting, with proper content management, database storage, e-commerce, etc...then MSFT adds zeros to the price. MSFT either thought we were fools and would fall for the lure, or they really lacked an understanding of the market.
Actually, yes it was both when it started. Slashdot started as "Chips and Dips", Malda's personal website in 1997. Soon after he and a few buddies started writing a bit of Perl code to allow for discussion and moderation around the articles they posted. It was, in that brief early time exactly that: a small-time hobbyist outfit.
Of course now it is the mother of all sites and corporately owned. And in fact, Sourceforge Incorporated probably does indeed consider $400 to be chump change. The savings in licensing costs very long ago ceased to be relevant in the choice to use Linux and Apache for Slashdot. Consider these observations:
1) Slashdot STARTED as a "small time hobby outfit" which made the initial choice of Linux, Apache and Perl the only real choice when cost WAS a factor. Linux or FreeBSD were the only vialble and affordable OS options as well, at a time when expensive Solaris was closed-server-OS king.
2) Slashdot started in 1997. Back then MS Windows NT Server and IIS sucked worse than a $2 hooker. Apache was king and all the rest were expensive, or sucked or both. Linux and Apache could take a daily slashdotting on a couple of boxes whereas Windows NT would have to reboot daily and would require a full height rack packed with server gear to do the same.
3) if it aint broke don't fix it--there is a lot of time and effort put into the perl code and MySQL database that is used in slashcode. When they needed to handle the load they deployed it over mod_perl. To move to Windows would require a lot of work to completely rewrite the app, or else tons of frustration dealing with putting Apache and nod_perl onto Windows.
4) Politics. Slashdot is news for NERDS. Windows is pointy-haired-boss/MCSE-dweeb stuff. Linux and BSD and Apache and other Free software is "elite". Slashdot is also all about Free software as The Right Thing to Do. WHy would an advocate of open source put any effort into deploying its premiere site using closed tools, even if it were cheaper or had technical advantages? It'd be like Microsoft migrating servers to Linux.
The base cost of Windows Web Server is in the area of $400. This is as good as zero for the people that host 90% or more of the active hosts out there. Only hobbyists and small-time outfits that run their own hosts would mind a measly $400. However, the bulk of small-time outfits with an on-line presence (most of the the 90%) use a hosting service. They buy some frontpage-template-cookie-cutter "e-commerce kit" and run with it. They do not control or administer the server and most probably don't even care that they might be hosting their site on a Microsoft system, or Linux or BSD for that matter.
There was notable uptake in MSFT market share with the original release of Web Edition--just after the last time MSFT flirted with 1/3 market share they started losing it rapidly again, and its release temporarily kept them in the 30% range before it dropped back down to the low 20s for a long time. Win2k3 Web Server was found to be well suited to "parking pages" and "basic hosting services" for big-time web hosting companies--for those sites that are static and have little to no e-commerce and content-management requirements.
MSFT ran into a wall however because Web Edition has a lot of sometimes-severe limitations. Notably there are restrictions on number of database users and other back-end and connectivity issues that required CALs or other VERY EXPENSIVE ($5000 and up) licensing. For example, you are limited to workgroup security only, with only 10 SMB connections (something like XP Home Edition's capabilities in terms of Windows networking) so if Windows Networking is used to maintain the files on a host of a large number of little sites you can hit a snag there. Web Edition also is not permitted to work with SharePoint services, or use Rights Management services either. So, it looks attractive to start with, but when you want to do anything more useful than host a bunch of "electronic brochures" or domain parking then MSFT wants to rape your wallet.
As for your query, despite the common codebase with Vista, the Server product line is not likely to bear any resemblance to the Vista product line. the Server OSes maintain the "model year" designation they've had since 2000. There will be no "basic/premium/business/ultimate"; it will merely evolve from the product line since 2000: standard/enterprise/datacentre/SBS/Web, with "File server" and "Medium business" targeted editions thrown in as new choices. The "File Server" edition will be a purpose-built, reduced-cost version targeted at Linux/BSD with Samba installs no doubt. Just as always, I expect the web server will be available on the same editions as in 2003, but will only be "unlimited" if you buy the cheap web edition or spend thousands on "external connector licenses" or CALs.
They're hurt and desperately striking out at anything, in hopes of somehow surviving.
That day has even passed. RIAA is like a starving rat with its leg caught in a trap. It isn't trying to strike out at anything anymore; it is trying to gnaw off its own limb (ie. the paying customers it once appreciated long ago) to escape.
They've relied on the creation and maintenance of an artificial business model and marketplace for a long time now, and it has required more and more draconian laws to keep it workable as technology advances (starting with the "Mickey Mouse laws" extending terms of copyright beyond the human lifespan, trying to make the record button on VCRs illegal, and culminating with the successful passing of the DMCA). They're running out of options now, because going much further would either violate constitutional rights or cause undue harm to consumers and other industries.
It's interesting that people are still surprised that RIAA believes it is stealing even to rip legally purchased music onto a computer purely for your own enjoyment. RIAA and its counterparts around the world have never been fans of fair-dealing provisions in copyright law and have done their best to contain such rights at the WIPO level. The RIAA objections go even further than copying paid-for music to PCs or making MP3 CD Mixes to play in your car stereo (I find keeping 6 CDs full of MP3s in my car stereo extremely handy). A few years ago I heard what CRIA (the Canadian counterpart to RIAA) thought not only about what constitutes fair-dealing in terms of making personal copies, but what should count as "public exhibition". According to the CRIA representatinve on this radio interview:
* Public exhibition doesn't mean you've charged admission for the purpose of consuming the content (listening to music, watching movies, etc). Basically it means (to CRIA) ANY BROADCAST outside the personal domicile of the purchaser, or to consumers who to not reside at the point of broadcast. For example, if you invite your neighbours over for the Grey Cup final, or play the radio through your truck's speakers at a tailgate party at the stadium it is a "public exhibition". If you are working out in the yard and enjoy having music to listen to better but on earphones because if you use speakers that others can hear you are engaging in public exhibition.
* This CRIA representative advocated extra fees for any sort of "public exhibition", including non-commercial cases as stated above. For consumers in Canada that would generally mean new levees on any device capable of playing media to more than one person (presently levees are paid on recordable media and devices capable of duplicating content only--iPods are taxed, but read-only CD players are not taxed the same way).
* The CRIA representative counted COMMERCIAL public exhibition as ANY BUSINESS THAT EXHIBITS CONTENT THAT CAN BE VIEWED OR HEARD BY ITS CUSTOMERS, and figured that it justified paying more for the right to use the content (ie. the same higher amounts movie rental stores might pay for a license allowing them to rent out DVDs, or what sports pubs pay to show pay-per-view sporting events, or what DJs are SUPPOSED to pay for their music). This includes the delis and Chinese buffets and such that show television broadcasts viewable by diners, dentists offices that play radio stations in their waiting rooms and taxi drivers who leave their radio on when they have a fare. These are specific examples the CRIA representative gave in the interview where they'd like to see more enforcement of "public exhibition" rights restriction.
* The CRIA representative also accused schools and libraries of "being poor role models" by allowing copyright violations to go un-checked. The CRIA wanted to crack down on "excessive duplicating" for example, and believed that an extensive "education campaign" should be rolled out at these institutions to make our children aware that "violating copyright law is like stealing". He gave the suggestion that
All trolling and MS-hating aside, Silverlight is not meant for the World Wide Web.
Perhaps you should tell BillG that before they waste another dollar on their silverlight-based re-design of their microsoft.com site on the world wide web.
The corporate IT department can simply force the software onto everybody's computer
Microsoft and others (Altiris' main business is this) already have extensive tools to do this without the need for silverlight. Making a web application dependent on vendor- or platform-specific tolls and technology misses one of the main points of even having the WWW.
developers can easily develop a *real* UI without having to fumble around with trying to make HTML behave like Windows Forms
I again fail to see the point of silverlight if this is a reason to use it. If an app must behave like a windows-forms app then develop a windows forms app. If an app is "document/resource centric", must be very widely deployed, accessible from multiple platforms and centrally administered with relative ease then you've really got to evaluate why it is so important to have "windows forms behaviour", when in fact such a design is sub-optimal for every situation except on full-sized, Windows-based desktops.
...because he graduated with honours from the Theo de Raadt School of Diplomacy.
Some predictions for 2008:
* Zed will fork and re-factor the framework, quietly releasing the far technically superior and more stable "OpenRails". * Google will use OpenRails to successfully deploy the Beta release of its Next Big Thing. It handles thousands of requests per nanosecond and Google's share price spikes, though it doesn't account for any of Google's revenue. * The PHP community declares "OpenRails is dead!"
Has this ever happened by accident during a flight?
If these new rules are strictly due to safety and not some silly anti-terrorist measure that assures travelers we're doing SOMETHING to protect them against some crazy jihad-monger, then yes, this probably happened during a flight in the recent past and is why the regulation was put in place.
This might be like the fatal Air Canada 797 fire and crash landing which led to multiple changes in regulations (including complete smoking bans on all airlines operating in Canada, restrictions on materials used for interiors, changes to electrical codes and safety training procedures). Two suspected causes, a cigarette disposed of in the lavatory and/or a seized motor overheating wiring splices before breakers tripped, led directly to rule changes.
INcidentally, that fire took hold and started smouldering OUTSIDE of the passenger seating area, in the lavatory itself and under and behind the seating area. Alarms went off but the precise location of the fire wasn't known until it was established, and the toxic smoke was what was the most dangerous, not the flames or even heat.
If you HAVE to deal with a fire on-board an aircraft, or in ANY location for that matter, it is MUCH better for it to happen right where people can see it. There is NO automated fire suppression system in existence that is more effective than trained people (there is no way to guarantee a fire is completely contained, etc). The cargo hold is not readily accessible to the crew or anyone else on board and a fire can spread in seconds.
So personally, I'd rather have my dell start shooting flames right in front of me and get a little burnt in a very brief incident than to have the battery set several suitcases on fire and start causing structural damage before some automated system *might* contain it long enough to descend from 37,000 ft.
Spare batteries are more dangerous than installed batteries?
Such spare batteries left in junk drawers have been known to burn houses right to the ground. The exposed metal contacts short against other metal objects such as paper clips, and many batteries will combust when shorted for too long. It's next to impossible to make sure that these batteries are always properly stowed when put in checked luggage (whereas taking inventory of these batteries is much easier done in carry-on baggage which is scrutinised much more closely than checked baggage). The exposed contacts on a battery could easily short against a metal clip or zipper commonly found on luggage.
Incidentally, this isn't just limited to lithium batteries--even some higher-output alkaline and NiMH batteries can supply enough power to generate dangerous temperatures when shorted--enough to start fires when placed next to combustible materials. Shorting a fresh 9V alkaline battery like you'd put in your alarm clock against an SOS pad under the right conditions will create a nice little pyrotechinics show.
And how do you e.G. deploy Windows updates (WSUS), provide Office document versioning (Sharepoint), Groupware that is fully integrated with Microsoft Office (Exchange) or a fully integrated IM & VoIP Solution (Office Communication Server)?
Dude, if you've drank THAT much MSFT kool-aid then you're very VERY far off from considering Linux seriously for anything! In any case, with the specs provided to the Samba team, they could produce file and printer sharing servers and AD domain controllers that fully participate in that infrastructure. BTW, Typically you wouldn't put WSUS, sharepoint, Exhange and Communication Server on a Windows Server configured as a domain controller (in fact I don't think MSFT will even take your support call in that kind of setup). you COULD however, eventually use modestly-specced Linux machines with Samba 4 as your AD servers and have ALL of the above as member servers on the Samba domain. Furthermore, third parties can now develop their own competing or complementary systems and be "full citizens" of the Network Neighbourhood.
As far as everything you mentioned here, there are non-MSFT (and sometime Free/open source) alternates to ABSOLUTELY ALL of the services you mention with the exception of WSUS. For example there is a brand-new add-on for the GPLed Citadel groupware system that makes it a full replacement for MS Exchange. Subversion can be used for document revision control. There are solutions based upon Asterisk that do what Office communication server can do. Citadel can be set up in a fraction of the time it takes to set up Exchange, and you can buy asterisk "appliances" that plug-and-play for much cheaper than the MSFT solution.
No, it isn't. Microsoft's Small Business Server offering is dirt cheap - nothing compared to the manhours required to setup a Windows OR Linux solution.
"Dirt cheap" is a relative term. Free is definitely cheaper than $600, and if you have more than 5 user you have to spend $500 more, and the mandatory licensing costs go up incrementally from there, whereas Samba remains free. For a non-profit org office or struggling small business with 6 to 20 users the difference is enough to be of concern. Furthermore you can set up a domain controller in a few hours using either solution, so unless you value your time in the multiple-hundreds of dollars hourly then licensing costs are indeed significant.
Reusing old desktops isn't what i'd want in a corporate IT environment.
Nor what I'd like, but it can and does happen...it is in fact common practice to use old hardware in many corporate environments (sadly, far beyond what makes economic sense in too many cases).
But you can run a WS2003 DC on pretty much anything with a hard disk and 256MB memory.
It's pretty sad nowadays that people brag about needing "only" 256MB as somehow being efficient. Samba would perform equally well with 128MB of RAM. Conversely more current hardware could handle more users under a properly-tuned Samba server than using Windows Server 2003.
Most of the vulnerabilities that exist for Windows do not affect Windows servers
A significant portion of vulnerabilities do nonetheless. Unfortunately, some of the most aggressive of the malware out there are the opposite--they are most destructive on servers and have little to no effect on a workstation or home machine. Code Red and Slammer come to mind (they affected server products like IIS and SQL Server that are not widely deployed or included with client machines). Windows Server is probable the most hazardous of all the Windows flavours in this regard: users on clients do stupid things and infect files which they save onto servers, where the most damaging delivery vectors are launched when the server is in turn infected.
I disagree. The more complexity a system has, the higher is the chance that a security vulnerability is introduced. Remember, security is not only dependent upon Software, but also upon Configurati
Driving in Calgary can be an adventure during peak traffic times. Compared to most big cities traffic flows relatively well (There are about 4 hours of "rush hour" traffic per working day typically). However, literally the majority of major thoroughfares still exceed 100% of their design capacity for sever hours a day and it is very obvious that very small distruptions can trigger one of those traffic waves for several km in those cases.
Traffic jams are caused by idiots.
It gets worse when you put all different sorts of idiots together in one place. That is a distinctive characteristic of motorists in Calgary--the majority of them were not born in the city it seems, and in fact a great many of them moved here after learning to drive elsewhere...so you get all sorts of *different* idiots, who react differently to the same events. Here are some prominent examples:
* The British Columbian: Officially the laws regarding your indicators are consistent throughout Canada--you use them a few seconds prior to making a turn or changing lanes so as to let other drivers know your intention and to leave the area clear for you to manoeuvre. The ACTUAL convention on the "left coast" (mostly in urban areas), from what I can tell through observation, is to alert the driver behind you that the area to that side of your automobile is clear but might not be for long, so you should immediately speed up and pull into the unoccupied space. Given this unique BC convention regarding indicators it is thus standadrd practice to avoid using your indicators at all costs prior to turning or changing lanes, as doing so would risk luring drivers into the unoccupied space, thus impeding you from making your intended turn.
* The Torontonian: Posted speed limits back in their native Toronto are generally considered MINIMUM acceptable speeds, not maximums. It is quite important to be the first in queue at red lights. The road 5 car lengths fore and aft, along with the space immediately adjacent on either side, for the moment the Toronto driver is at that point, is OWNED by said driver (along with the airspace and mineral rights within). Other drivers are allowed within that space only out of the kindness of the "owner's" heart, thus if you are in this driver's way you'll be subject to their discontent, be it an evil look, an upraised finger or a sustained, purposeful sounding of the horn.
* The Montrealer: Observes the speed limit in a manner similar to that of a Torontonian, but without the "personal space" issues. In fact, personal space is seen as an inefficiency that can be eliminated when the mood suits (I'm not following too close...the bumpers aren't touching yet). Traffic lights have different meanings. Amber is equivalent to green--it just means that the end of green is near so speed up more to get through. Red in Montreal is like amber everywhere else, at least for a few seconds (ie. proceed with caution, or what passes for caution on Montreal roads). You don't cross the street in Montreal until you count to 5 after the lights change unless you are a risk taker. The exception is the red light at turns--a Montrealer can't seem to ditch the habit of waiting for a green to turn right. Also, in much of Quebec, the roads have two more lanes than elsewhere--in other places they're called "stall lanes" or "service lanes" and are where you park when you have car problems, or where you walk when you hitchhike, or where you ride your bicycle. In Montreal, they are "overflow lanes"--if traffic is not moving to your satisfaction, you pull into these lanes and sprint up to your destination.
* The Prairie Dog: Until moving to Calgary "the Big City" meant Regina or Saskatoon--each have about 200k or 250k in population and wide streets downtown that permit angle parking. Thankfully they often make them selves known with green "Rider Pride" bumper stickers or other visual indicators of their undying devotion to their native province's football team so you have early warning. Another indicati
I've never really understood why i'd want to use a Linux server with Windows clients - it just doesn't work all that good, causes way more headaches than you save in terms of money.
I use a Linux server with Windows clients and haven't found it to be all that burdensome--it certainly works just as well as NT or 2000 did as a non-AD PDC...and for a small outfit Windows Server licensing is a significant investment. Wherever Samba doesn't work well as a server you can almost exclusively blame it on the fact that MSFT kept the specs secret and Samba had to do its best to reverse-engineer them. With the specs now available to Samba developers their project should work much better as a server in the near future.
As for why you'd want to use Samba as an AD member server or domain controller, there is far more than licensing and maintenance costs to consider. Linux with Samba has much smaller resource requirements--you need not load in a GUI or extra cruft that MS has welded to Windows Server (you will not be able to do that with Windows Server until a future release). There are also more security, remote admin, etc. choices available for Linux that are free (and Free). Last but not least, there are more viruses, worms and trojans that compromise Windows appearing in the wild in a day than have existed for Linux in its entire history. Invulnerability to malware is a pretty valuable characteristic for a system that is as critical as a domain controller or major server.
That last reason has to be the most important reason to run a non-Microsoft AD server--a "diverse ecosystem" is important overall, but it is probably most important to have a diverse array of architectures in the server space, because that is where a malware outbreak can cause the worst disruption.
I haven't had any problem working with windows domains in about a year.
Samba has been able to participate fully iin *NT style* domains for a very long time now--I have a Linux box acting as a PDC that runs a domain that authenticates against linux LDAP and takes care of roaming profiles (so my desktop settings, preferences, etc follow users between machines).
Samba also, for quite some time, has allowed Linux (and MacOS X and other UNIX-style systems) to PARTICIPATE in Active Directory domains as clients or "member servers"--that is, it can connect to and authenticate against a Windows 2003 Server domain controller. This development would've made such a feat possible much quicker than it actually took to happen, but the Samba team did manage this very notable feat.
What remains elusive today is the ability for Samba to act as the AD domain controller itself. Developers have been struggling to make this functional and reliable enough in the alpha releases of Samba v4.0 and have had some modest success, but it seems that progress has been quite slow to this point. You can set up Samba 4.0 today and get AD clients to participate in that domain, but major issues remain. I'm thrilled that MS has finally been goaded into disclosing vitally needed information for providing interoperability, and that although there is still a one-time licensing fee and a bullsh!t NDA required to get the specs the source code that results can remain GPL and free from stupid IP encumbrances. This means that not only should Samba 4 progress much faster now, but that if it's written well other parties can learn MSFT's bastardised standards through studying Samba's source without involving their own NDA crap.
Merry Christmas Samba team, love your new present!
...when those smart scientists come up with a wind farm, solar panel array or hydroelectric dam-and-turbine system that has a footprint of only 120 ft^2, is silent and outputs enough power to amply meet the needs of an entire apartment building or suburban city block.
FYI, hydro and wind power generation have a significantly higher day-to-day impact on the environment than nuclear facilities--when considering equal amounts of power output by each energy source, hydro and wind involve the destruction of many times more natural habitat than a nuclear facility does. You'd also have to cover the rooftops of most buildings in a city to meet power demand using solar panels, and just as the case with the batteries in a Prius, nobody talks about the energy expended or the environmental impact of the manufacture, recycling and disposal of solar panel materials either. Nuclear waste is notoriously hazardous to be sure, however the quantities involved happen to be relatively small considering the energy output of the process.
There is one thing I think a lot of people don't realise (assuming Al Gore isn't overstating the magnitude of what is happening as much as his detractors say he is), and that's the fact that in order to have a meaningful impact in the effort to reverse trends in climate change it absolutely must involve profound changes in the way we live, in one way or another. If people do not want to give up a serious amount of "modern convenience" or accept a contraction of the industrial activity not seen since the 1930s, then they have to accept technologies like nuclear power, biomass and so on that are much closer to carbon-neutral even though they may have other objectionable characteristics.
Slashdot Mirror
I know that 2007 uses its own format by default, but it isn't their fault you haven't tried "Save As". I guarantee you can save a file in 2007 as an older format.
I can tell you from direct, personal experience that moving a non-technical but regular user from WinXP with OfficeXP to Vista with Office2007 is actually a noticeably steeper learning curve than migrating them to Mac OS X...in fact even Ubuntu is no more of a challenge, given that OpenOffice is more similar to "classic" office than Office 2007 is.
The fact that a radically altered interface and an incompatible set of file formats are the defaults just pushed that curve up steeper. For existing documents it can be dealt with; Office 2007 saves them in the original format. However as more non-technical users are introduced to Office 2007 and more new documents are created, there will be this lingering pain of incompatible file formats floating around unless you go through with a mass migration. Furthermore, Office 2007 (I find Excel mostly in my personal experience) complains bitterly that "some features may not be saved", scaring users into saving in the new formats.
Since just letting Office 2007 and Vista float in with new machines is an administrative nightmare, the only practical options for admins is to carefully plan an expensive, large-scale roll-out, or make sure the new MS stuff stays off all machines. The latter isn't an option forever as software goes obsolete, and in the former option, well, you might as well use it as an opportunity to switch to Linux or MacOS because it's all equally disruptive for a surprising amount of businesses out there.
If you use non-OSS, you have someone to blame.
To what end? Blame someone all you want, that won't fix what's broken. If you use best-of-breed Free software, you have someone that can HELP. Free software projects like Linux and Apache and Mozilla and OpenOffice.org all have visible, active and helpful communities made up of both users and developers. The quality of COST-FREE support is unparalleled to anything closed software can offer. Microsoft comes closest because they're massive and have a huge user community, but support quality degrades very badly once you get away from a few core products (Windows, Office and Visual Studio have good community support, the rest of MS is crap as is the support from other closed vendors, relatively speaking).
Ubuntu not installing, blame uhmm... who do you blame? You might as well blame me or the guy sitting next to you.
Or, you could blame Canonical, the company that was founded by Ubuntu's creator and the chief sponsor of the product. They have a pretty good, freely-accessible support forum. Or if you feel better giving your money at someone so you can heap your frustrations upon them, you can buy support from Canonical. FYI, this is pretty much the same as with Microsoft--if you don't pay and pay and pay, you might as well blame your cube-mate there too. Just because it's Free, doesn't mean there aren't sponsoring corporations out there that offer support.
We might have messed with the code in a subtle way. That's the point of Open Source, right? The community works on it.
Well, at least you can mess with the code, and if that's what it takes to solve a critical problem it's an option. Not so with Microsoft and other closed systems, because the community are merely eternal beta testers. In any case, if you really feel secure in having a corporate punching-bag in MS when things go wrong you're seriously deluded. If you mess with the registry in a subtle way, or find you have to use "non-certified" drivers, or a myriad of other things...if MS tech support can find any excuse like that, they'll finger that as the problem to make you go away. They might not help you until you reformat and reinstall. Is that really helpful?
Apple only sell upgrades.
Strictly speaking you are factually incorrect. An upgrade contains some sort of mechanism to verify you have an existing copy either already installed on the target volume, or else have some other proof of existing ownership of a previous version (the old install CD, etc).
Mac OS X contains NO such installation restrictions whatsoever, unlike typical Microsoft upgrade packages that, though they do include all the data required for a complete install, are modified to include proof of previous ownership. Furthermore, to my knowledge there are far fewer legal encumbrances on Apple's OS either (such as an EULA that prohibits you from using the new OS without being a licensee of a previous version, or restricting transferability to new hardware).
You can only run MacOS on a Mac. You can't buy a Mac without buying a MacOS license as well.
Technically you do NOT need a Mac to run Mac OS X. Most would find the Mac OS X CD about as useful as a coaster, but technically savvy people have been known to have gotten Mac OSX running on commodity Intel Core Duo hardware.
As far as not being able to buy a Mac without a Mac OS license--how is that different from the majority of PCs sold in retail today? You cannot walk into a Best Buy and pick up any machine there and ask them to give you one with a blank hard drive, and give you a discount for not using the Windows license. Yes, the situation with Macs is even worse, but it is a problem on the PC side too--there has been an uphill battle to get manufacturers to sell "naked PCs" to users so they can install the OS of their choice, even while Microsoft has in the past launched campaigns portraying VARs that sell "naked PCs" as being evil, or at least shady enablers of piracy. Finally, even if you have managed to avert the obvious Microsoft Tax, you still pay indirectly on "Windows certified" hardware, because you have to pay to cover the costs of Windows driver development, certification and signing even if you never use the product with Windows. Basically you cannot buy a PC without giving Microsoft at least some of your money
Apple uses a hardware dongle, Microsoft needs you to demonstrate you already have a copy.
There is no dongle with Apple--you are using such terms to convey a bias. It does look at the TPM integrated within the machine. Those are two different things that work in somewhat different ways, even if the end purpose id the same (to limit functionality to a specific device).
I am no fan of either MSFT or Apple--both are digital-rights control-freaks entirely too preoccupies with lock-in. However, I'd have to say that Apple's strategy with Mac OS X is much more considerate of consumers (it is definitely the lesser of the two evils).
With Apple, you get Mac OS X . That's it. There isn't a convoluted product line combined with licesning schemes that make your brain hurt. You get all the features of OS X and all is good. Buy one copy or buy it for the family. easy to figure it out.
Contrast that with Microsoft: Vista Basic or Premium or Business or Ultimate? Wait...I don't get the jazzy "wow" stuff with Basic? What a gyp! Now...do I get the upgrade, or full retail, or OEM or enterprise licensing? Am I even legally entitled to buy the OEM version (ie. did I buy it with the right kind of/amount of hardware)? Hold on---I can technically put the "system builder" OEM on another machine, but I might not be able to activate it because OEM licenses restrict transferability? Am I qualified for an upgrade? (don't assume yes always--unlike Mac OS X ther are restrictions on what versions, editions, licenses that are upgradeable). And don't even go into the Virtual Machine issues...plus ALL of this changes from one release to the next. MS licensing is a complete mess and has been for years.
On that basis, comparing the price of Mac OS X to the full retail price of Vista Ulimate (the edition which most closely competed with it) could be co
...the MSX computer platform was gaining in popularity too. So said the last article I saw about MSX computers.
You cite an article that is 2.5 years old on the popularity of UMDs? 2.5 years might as well be 25 years when you're talking about consumer electronics, and besides that, there is soooo much stuff that's "big in Japan" that is 100% unknown everywhere else in the world.
I'm still trying to figure out the appeal of a technology that has only has 1% of the range of range and no significant throughput advantage over the prevailing standard. From the TFA I see little to nothing in the advantage of the Sony invention that cannot be handled at the application layer. Oh well...lots of stuff that comes out of Japan seems puzzling to observers outside of Japan.
Are you sure that they don't already produce this excess power so it is there on demand as needed.
There isn't a dial on the operator's board to dial up a specific wattage. Generating stations have basically no control of EXACTLY how much power they produce--much of that has to do with the load it sees on the interconnected grid. Power output is basically determined by how much force the turbines can "push" against the generators. The more demand on the grid, the harder the generators are to turn.
A generating station can technically produce zero power, or even negative net power (in that case the generators are behaving like electric motors plugged into the grid, but this isn't something that would happen often), but they keep on turning at 3600 RPM. All generators that are on-line on an interconnected grid basically turn perfectly in sync.
I'm pretty sure that they don't wait for the voltage to drop before adding steam, fuel or whatever to keep the generator at the same speed. Think about that, My power comes in from 150 miles away, do you think I would notice not having enough power to turn on a few lights at night? And how many other people would do the same thing at the same time when being fed off the same grid?
If people left lights on like office workers left PCs on, then you'd notice soon enough--but not right at that moment. You'd notice when you saw your next bill. First of all, the laws of supply and demand apply--more demand means higher spot price for electricity. Second of all, generators do in fact burn more fuel when there is more power demand and dial back when demand does away (it is all computer controlled and they can respond to demand in seconds). That means more emissions, and more fuel costs to be passed onto you.
You can access our data for $x/user/year, but we'll waive the fee if you submit to an audit to prove that you'll be handling the data in a secure manner.
How is this acceptable? It's like paying an indulgence to the Pope for your sins every year so you can keep committing sins. If I'm entrusting my data to someone else then adequate security should be MANDATORY.
During their audit, they might just happen to find that Oracle, DB2, PostgreSQL and MySQL aren't as 'secure' as MSSQL, and 'suggest' that companies use MSSQL in the mix as well for user data
So "Pope William III" directs us not to eat "oracle fish" on Fridays? Aside from the claim MSSQL is somehow superior is terms of security being ludicrous, I don't think PR people could spin this away from the blatant attempt that it is to use their leverage in the database market.
We need a Martin Luther of the digital age it seems.
Anyways, we are still in the dark ages, with silos of replicated, dated information all over the place. Our personal data is replicated, transmitted, sold and resold as if it was THEIR data. It's OURS and WE should have full control. We're approaching the age where we could technically have meaningful control our personal information--we could all keep all our own data and easily see who we've given it to and what it's used for. It would be a monumental task to achieve a standard, interoperable yet secure infrastructure to do this, but it is quite possible to do. But being the dark ages, we still have "data lords" and a feudal system of digital serf identities, and those "lords" are using that very technology that could lead to a "renaissance" to try to maintain and expand their kingdoms. Instead of "open IDs" and standard protocols and sane encryption and authentication policies we have hidden protocols, "25 cents per user anuually", draconian DRM so the "MafIAA" can control data created by artists and used by honest paying customers.
I still hold out hope--if things get REALLY bad people will revolt.
does fast food cause violence?
Though sugar- and caffeine-laden drinks can perhaps wind a person up, most of a typical fast-food menu would probably leave you feeling lethargic and feeling a bit calmer, due to the high-fat content and other chemicals such as the enzymes in the cheese on your burger. That's what's a bit perverse about a lot of restaurant meals--not only will they make you feel fat, they'll put you in a lazy mood so you are less motivated to be active. When those effects wear off you'll feel tired and grumpy, then you'll want to eat more bad food to get that mild euphoria again.
Anyways, this McDonalds bigwig is actually talking out of hid butt. Video games don't make people fat--the lack of physical activity is what partly contributes to weight gain. Some video games are GOOD for your health...how many morbidly obese people have YOU seen playing the advanced levels on DDR for example? And many Nintendo Wii titles certainly encourage people to get up and move. In any case, sedentary video-game playing is only partly the cause of weight gain. The other much bigger contributer to weight gain is excessive caloric intake. Kids who don't snack and skip meals because they are compulsively playing video games are SKINNY kids (still unhealthy, but skinny). Kids who snack on junk food and eat Big Macs between levels are FAT kids.
Research has now widely shown that thoguh exercise is essential to good health, by far the largest single contributer to obesity is DIET. It only takes moments longer to eat a supersized value meal than it does to eat a regular value meal, but it takes a half-hour of moderate activity to burn off the extra calories...worse yet, you can eat a fast food meal faster than you can eat a home-cooked meal, but it would take an extra hour of moderate activity to burn off the calories. As far as fixing obesity goes, priority one should be fixing people's over-processed, carb-loaded, calorie-dense diet.
That said, though, McDonald's is not the most evil of offenders in providing us with easy access to a nasty diet and it really does get far more flak than it deserves (perhaps because it is a big corporation that markets toward children which amplifies the focus on McDo). The baddest, most evil food-mongers are most of the "casual dining" restaurant franchises, primarily because of their insanely huge portions (especially in the United States). Appetiser platters at these eateries are actually large enough for 2 to 4 complete meals. "Meal sized" salads can approach 1500 Calories. Surveys have been done that show that "healthy choice" or "lighter fare" meals even have excessive portions...too much of even a good thing will make you fat.
The reasons you give for the inertia in corporate environments are actually indicators of the stagnation in Microsoft's OS line (XP being around for so long, with no major updates except for the browser). If there is one good thing about Vista it is that it moves things forward for the MSFT platform as well as for interoperability. IE7 is proving to be as different a browser from IE6 as FF is in terms of compatibility. Since an effort has to be made to make it IE7 compatible might as well make it standards-compatible with pretty much the same effort.
.com bubble was near fully-inflated.
*no activeX
Many of my employer's web-based products followed a late-1990s design philosophy--they are absolutely infested with ActiveX garbage--mostly because they were quickly "webified" versions of early products that were not web-based but employed ActiveX components extensively. In the early days, MSFT did a good job of enticing software developers into IE lock-in by allowing Activex to be embedded into web pages, because if you were big into ActiveX/(D)COM/OLE in your client-server apps you could throw together some pseudo-HTML ActiveX wrapper around that crap and marketing could sell it as "web-enabled" right around the time the
However, IT departments weren't enamoured with ActiveX to the same degree as (lazy|pressured) developers, and whatever fondness they might have had wore off quickly. Even 3 or 4 years ago IT departments were cringing at the mess of ActiveX in those products. There's been heavy pressure to remove it and in the latest releases it's now completely gone. Internally, the web interfaces to our business systems are completely free of ActiveX--though they rely far too much on Java applets. In any case at present (and moving forward) not supporting ActiveX is a GOOD thing in IT department's eyes, because it actually is less work for IT (they don't have to worry about restricting ActiveX in FF the way they have to on IE).
*not backed by a huge company so perceived lack of support
This is really a non-issue for all but the most clueless PHBs. IE6 was a dead product--MSFT figured discrete web browsers were obsolete and that they could hijack the WWW and make it the vehicle to deploy distributed apps based on their own XML formats. There was no innovation and the most minimal support for IE6. Honestly, I've not heard once about a company that has had to make an urgent supoprt call about their web browser, not have I heard once about MSFT stepping up and making a critical fix to IE due to a request from a specific customer. IT people KNOW that there is probably more "community support" for Mozilla browsers than there is corporate support from MSFT for IE, and FF code is under more close scrutiny than IE by far.
*legacy web applications produced in ASP and older ASP.net that break horribly in firefox (and even latest IE7! yes ive seen it happen)
Not only do many ASP(X) apps break in IE7, they actually break WORSE in IE7 than they do in FF...quite embarrassing for MSFT actually. However that is the key point to note: There isn't a dependency on IE in general--it is on IE6 SPECIFICALLY, and the days are numbered for IE6, being Vista is equipped only with IE7. MSFT is sure to extend the 7-year promised lifespan of XP, but it won't do so indefinitely. I figure this year MSFT will draw a line in the sand and insist new computers NOT be available with XP pre-installed (probably this fall--end users will have to perform the downgrade--err, "upgrade to a more familiar experience", themselves).
As I said, with FF having a significant minority presence in the market and efforts required to make apps work in IE7 anyways, this provides a promising opportunity to make apps STANDARDS-compatible.
*it depertments are slow to change and adapt and are very conservative
Those sort of outfits are basically the ones that abdicate their strategic planning to their vendors--they're the same ones managed by the clue
BUT, the ADAM had natorious quality problems with its fast tape system. They never did fully overcome them, and folded.
This is actually not true...not in a technical sense. Absolutely all the hardware issues and the main software issues were in fact solved in the final "R80" revision of the ADAM (which I had). The tapes wore out a bit quickly but the issue was way overblown because of the early unreliable drive design that tended to eat tapes. Also, by the time the R80 ADAMs were in stock you could asl get a proper floppy drive.
I seem to remember that Commodore tape drives were not tremendously reliable at reading tapes, and were waaaay slower, and that didn't stop C64 from being a hit. Commodore had its own struggle with the reliability of the 1541 drive too. Commodore, however, wasn't distracted by other product lines and resolved the problems quickly, plus the C64 console itself didn't have as many serious problems (units arriving DOA, etc) in initial release...most notably, Commodore made sure reviewers didn't get faulty machines, and when Commodore announced a product would be out at a specific date it came out pretty close to that date, whereas the ADAM was months late.
First impressions are lasting impressions, and a corporation has to have the presence of Microsoft to overcome bad first impressions. Coleco really didn't have what it took to sell the ADAM.
Could you offload processing to the Atari's floppy drive?
Exactly what do you mean by "offload processing"? Could you actually make the 1541 drive execute code or perform calculations? Or by "offload processing" do you mean you could tell it to read or write a file and it would do it without consuming C64 processor time?
The Atari 1050 was "smart" device connected through a proprietary serial interface--a similar design philosophy to the Commodore 1541, however the 1050 was at least twice as fast, though it had a smaller capacity than the 1541. I'm not sure if it was by design, but I do remember "hot plugging" Atari 8-bit peripherals and my 800XL didn't seem to mind.
The Coleco ADAM's floppy drive was even better than either--faster than either of them and about the same capacity as the C1541. Coleco hardware is what I learned the most as it was the 8-bit computer I owned the longest. Peripherals that disn't plug into card-edge connectors communicated on a serial bus called ADAMNet that ran at 64 kbps. Coleco ADAMNet-connected peripherals (printer, keyboard, tape and disc) were each controlled by dedicated 6801 microcontrollers (the same chip that was the actual main CPU in the Tandy MC-10 computer). Reading a whole floppy's worth of blocks took about 25 seconds. ADAMNet I/O functions were capable of being background operations--for example, I could continue to type stuff on the ADAM when a (very slow, noisy) print job was in progress, and when playing "super games" the data for the next level would load in the background while you were playing so you never had to wait between levels (something of a rarity on 8-bit computers).
Some other things we could do on the ADAM: make a simple word processor that could work with files too big to fit in physical RAM by swapping blocks in and out of memory to and from floppy in the background (completely without interrupting the user's typing) and being able to download in the background (at a whopping 300 baud over poor quality country phone lines). Basically, rudimentary multi-tasking on a cheap home computer, years before the Amiga was released.
There were computers out there that were more compelling and advanced than the C64 in different ways, but the C64 was king because it was "good enough" overall, was very well priced and marketed and had a couple features that lent itself well to home use (graphics were merely average, but it had good sprites and a bright colour palette, and the sound was amazing).
...because aside from its sound it was a rather mediocre machine.
I dunno, given that the real competitors to the C=64 was the Atari 400 and the T.I. 99/4, I think it wasn't so bad.
The Atari 400 and the TI 99/4 were released almost 3 years before (1979) the C64 (1982). They were the VIC-20's competition, not the C64's competition.
Atari's competition to the C64 was intended to be the 1200XL (similar capability and also released in 1982). It's too bad you never owned one of those, because it's keyboard was VASTLY superior to the C64's. Also, the 1050 disk and the 1010 tape drives were both better then the commodore equivalents and it had better graphics than the C64.
Sadly, the 1200XL had compatibility problems with the 400 and 800, and Atari couldn't make money with the price pressure put upon it by the C64, so the 800XL was brought out that ironed out some bugs integrated BASIC into built-in ROM, etc, but in its cost cutting effort the keyboard was of lower quality (yet still better than the C64).
Also, at what point does price enter into this? C=64 was around $199 at the time the PC came out at, oh 7 or 8 times the price...
The IBM PC came out a few months BEFORE the C64 you know, and the C64 didn't start out at such a low price, it just got there quite quickly.
Also, to make the C64 usable you had to add a tape or floppy, and most likely a printer. The floppy cost more than the C64 itself for a time when supply was much smaller than demand. Also, the C64 and the 800XL were quite closely priced, and the 800XL was faster and had better graphics and a better keyboard even though it was a "cheapened 1200XL" design.
I also owned a Coleco ADAM which was sold as a package with built in tape drive and printer included. in 1984 it was about $100 cheaper than a comparable C64 system. The Coleco TAPE drive literally loaded faster than the C54 FLOPPY drive, and a Coleco tape held 75% more data than a C64 floppy. The Coleco CPU ran at 4 times the clock speed of the C64 and could do raw computations ad a bit more than twice the speed of the C64, and it had dedicated video RAM so nearly all the 64K of main ram could be available for applications. Above all, the ADAM keyboard was of very high quality--it had about 75 keys and 4 properly-arranged actual arrow keys (not 2 arrow keys side-by-side that needed the shift key to move up and down). Made it really good for typing out papers.
Looking back, the C64 was really a lesson in marketing--there was technically superior competition out there on all fronts except sound--it had a bad keyboard, bad BASIC with barely more than 50% of ram usable, very slow floppy, middle-of-the-road graphics and was a bit flimsy. It was, however, very well marketed, priced very aggressively and had the best software library out there (pretty much all the hit games of the Atari and better application software in addition). All that momentum led to third-party enhancements to overcome many C64 weaknesses. Still had a bad keyboard for years though.
...which is at least as likely as the other two theories you postulated:
c) This was a pimple-faced little script-monkey who came across a stale old "toolkit" and was just clever enough to automate the deployment of the SQL injection attack.
It's really easy to patch the RDS activeX control, and not so easy to manually correct old custom-written web apps. Just a sad commentary on how shipshod web development standards has been in the past, and the lasting legacy it has created. Sanitising user input is (or should be) "programming 101" stuff.
...it is completely ant totally wrong!
Even today U.S. Steel owns and operates electrical production plants and is working to increase the ouput, not decrease it.
You've hit the nail on the head there. The "big central energy generation" model is going the way of the dinosaur in this day and age. There isn't as much economy in scale anymore, and when you get to a certain scale the trend actually reverses. There are inefficiencies/losses in excessive transmission and distribution so it is actually more cost effective to localise generation. "Economy of scale" or "efficiency" was not the only reason public electrical generation supplanted a lot of smaller private generation...in fact it was probably not even the main reason. Government interference/regulation was a huge factor. Governments set up mandated monopolies and provided economic incentives for utility companies to be able to supply energy at a lower cost than local/private generation (mostly by giving favourable terms to utilities for the large capital expenditures required to build the plants that weren't given to the industry at large).
With IT, capital expenditures requires to set up the initial infrastructure are relatively low and falling wheres it costs a great deal of time and money to build a large power plant. Second, Electricity and IT services are not the same thing--everyone uses the same kind of electrons moving on the same kind of copper cable--it's all the same volts and amps and Hertz. IT services are more different than the same from customer to customer--different its and bytes, different business rules, different security and confidentiality needs. Finally, governments are not making policy decisions to deliberately steer the industry towards a "utility model" the electrical systems ended up.
In fact, I believe Mr. Carr is exactly 180 degrees off in his direction. Utilities, especially electricity generation, are in fact MOVING AWAY from very large central generating stations. Nobody wants giant dirty coal plants or huge ominous nuclear plants in their back yard--they are very expensive to build, complicated to operate and maintain and have a large impact on local ecosystems. Governments are deregulating, and big refineries and factories are being encouraged to build power plants again (co-generation is the newest old thing really). It is easier to get cash-flush commodities producers to build little natural gas generators that also happen to use excess thermal waste energy as well than it is to prop up nearly-bankrupt utilities to build gigawatt plants. Technology is even evolving to the point where utilities could become "super-distributed". Things like fuel cells could be implemented in office towers, apartment buildings and even community halls and large private residences, to meet the energy needs of the local area (even truck-sized nuclear reactors for efficient "campus-wide" power have been looked at). A distributed model is mre robust, more efficient and more flexible at meeting varied needs (and ultimately better for the environment).
The same goes for IT. Carr looks at evidence that large private data centres are going away and makes the logical leap towards the conclusion that they must be outsourcing to EVEN BIGGER, google-sized complexes that do everything for everyone in some "cloud". Well, he's got quite the wrong idea of the "cloud" if you ask me. The reasons the big private data centre and big IT teams are going away are more like the following:
* Virtualisation technology: the IT dept is providing everything it used to, but the physical machine count has gone down with the use of virtual machines. The number of "virtual" systems remains close to the same, and thought the head-count in the IT dept might get a bit lower, the reduction in people will not go down as fast as the reduction in machines.
* Distributed computing models. The "competitive advantage" (at the moment--Carr is right when he says competitors pretty quickly catch up) is responsivene
That is just the tip of the Microsoft corporate licensing nightmare. At my government agency employer, we only use Linux for all our web servers. Why? Because we are developers and we want to drop a web/database/file/email/proxy/printer/whatever server wherever it is needed without being bogged down in a sea of Microsoft red tape.
This is exactly why, after an initial promising uptake, MSFT Web Server 2003 ultimately was a dismal failure in meeting its objectives. It's really no trouble at all to manage Windows Web Server licensing in a basic setup--you put in $400, load it up and go. No CALs and other crap. However, when your end users start demanding REAL web hosting, with proper content management, database storage, e-commerce, etc...then MSFT adds zeros to the price. MSFT either thought we were fools and would fall for the lure, or they really lacked an understanding of the market.
So... Is it a hobby? Or a small-time outfit? :-D
---->point
(you)
----------
Actually, yes it was both when it started. Slashdot started as "Chips and Dips", Malda's personal website in 1997. Soon after he and a few buddies started writing a bit of Perl code to allow for discussion and moderation around the articles they posted. It was, in that brief early time exactly that: a small-time hobbyist outfit.
Of course now it is the mother of all sites and corporately owned. And in fact, Sourceforge Incorporated probably does indeed consider $400 to be chump change. The savings in licensing costs very long ago ceased to be relevant in the choice to use Linux and Apache for Slashdot. Consider these observations:
1) Slashdot STARTED as a "small time hobby outfit" which made the initial choice of Linux, Apache and Perl the only real choice when cost WAS a factor. Linux or FreeBSD were the only vialble and affordable OS options as well, at a time when expensive Solaris was closed-server-OS king.
2) Slashdot started in 1997. Back then MS Windows NT Server and IIS sucked worse than a $2 hooker. Apache was king and all the rest were expensive, or sucked or both. Linux and Apache could take a daily slashdotting on a couple of boxes whereas Windows NT would have to reboot daily and would require a full height rack packed with server gear to do the same.
3) if it aint broke don't fix it--there is a lot of time and effort put into the perl code and MySQL database that is used in slashcode. When they needed to handle the load they deployed it over mod_perl. To move to Windows would require a lot of work to completely rewrite the app, or else tons of frustration dealing with putting Apache and nod_perl onto Windows.
4) Politics. Slashdot is news for NERDS. Windows is pointy-haired-boss/MCSE-dweeb stuff. Linux and BSD and Apache and other Free software is "elite". Slashdot is also all about Free software as The Right Thing to Do. WHy would an advocate of open source put any effort into deploying its premiere site using closed tools, even if it were cheaper or had technical advantages? It'd be like Microsoft migrating servers to Linux.
The base cost of Windows Web Server is in the area of $400. This is as good as zero for the people that host 90% or more of the active hosts out there. Only hobbyists and small-time outfits that run their own hosts would mind a measly $400. However, the bulk of small-time outfits with an on-line presence (most of the the 90%) use a hosting service. They buy some frontpage-template-cookie-cutter "e-commerce kit" and run with it. They do not control or administer the server and most probably don't even care that they might be hosting their site on a Microsoft system, or Linux or BSD for that matter.
There was notable uptake in MSFT market share with the original release of Web Edition--just after the last time MSFT flirted with 1/3 market share they started losing it rapidly again, and its release temporarily kept them in the 30% range before it dropped back down to the low 20s for a long time. Win2k3 Web Server was found to be well suited to "parking pages" and "basic hosting services" for big-time web hosting companies--for those sites that are static and have little to no e-commerce and content-management requirements.
MSFT ran into a wall however because Web Edition has a lot of sometimes-severe limitations. Notably there are restrictions on number of database users and other back-end and connectivity issues that required CALs or other VERY EXPENSIVE ($5000 and up) licensing. For example, you are limited to workgroup security only, with only 10 SMB connections (something like XP Home Edition's capabilities in terms of Windows networking) so if Windows Networking is used to maintain the files on a host of a large number of little sites you can hit a snag there. Web Edition also is not permitted to work with SharePoint services, or use Rights Management services either. So, it looks attractive to start with, but when you want to do anything more useful than host a bunch of "electronic brochures" or domain parking then MSFT wants to rape your wallet.
As for your query, despite the common codebase with Vista, the Server product line is not likely to bear any resemblance to the Vista product line. the Server OSes maintain the "model year" designation they've had since 2000. There will be no "basic/premium/business/ultimate"; it will merely evolve from the product line since 2000: standard/enterprise/datacentre/SBS/Web, with "File server" and "Medium business" targeted editions thrown in as new choices. The "File Server" edition will be a purpose-built, reduced-cost version targeted at Linux/BSD with Samba installs no doubt. Just as always, I expect the web server will be available on the same editions as in 2003, but will only be "unlimited" if you buy the cheap web edition or spend thousands on "external connector licenses" or CALs.
They're hurt and desperately striking out at anything, in hopes of somehow surviving.
That day has even passed. RIAA is like a starving rat with its leg caught in a trap. It isn't trying to strike out at anything anymore; it is trying to gnaw off its own limb (ie. the paying customers it once appreciated long ago) to escape.
They've relied on the creation and maintenance of an artificial business model and marketplace for a long time now, and it has required more and more draconian laws to keep it workable as technology advances (starting with the "Mickey Mouse laws" extending terms of copyright beyond the human lifespan, trying to make the record button on VCRs illegal, and culminating with the successful passing of the DMCA). They're running out of options now, because going much further would either violate constitutional rights or cause undue harm to consumers and other industries.
It's interesting that people are still surprised that RIAA believes it is stealing even to rip legally purchased music onto a computer purely for your own enjoyment. RIAA and its counterparts around the world have never been fans of fair-dealing provisions in copyright law and have done their best to contain such rights at the WIPO level. The RIAA objections go even further than copying paid-for music to PCs or making MP3 CD Mixes to play in your car stereo (I find keeping 6 CDs full of MP3s in my car stereo extremely handy). A few years ago I heard what CRIA (the Canadian counterpart to RIAA) thought not only about what constitutes fair-dealing in terms of making personal copies, but what should count as "public exhibition". According to the CRIA representatinve on this radio interview:
* Public exhibition doesn't mean you've charged admission for the purpose of consuming the content (listening to music, watching movies, etc). Basically it means (to CRIA) ANY BROADCAST outside the personal domicile of the purchaser, or to consumers who to not reside at the point of broadcast. For example, if you invite your neighbours over for the Grey Cup final, or play the radio through your truck's speakers at a tailgate party at the stadium it is a "public exhibition". If you are working out in the yard and enjoy having music to listen to better but on earphones because if you use speakers that others can hear you are engaging in public exhibition.
* This CRIA representative advocated extra fees for any sort of "public exhibition", including non-commercial cases as stated above. For consumers in Canada that would generally mean new levees on any device capable of playing media to more than one person (presently levees are paid on recordable media and devices capable of duplicating content only--iPods are taxed, but read-only CD players are not taxed the same way).
* The CRIA representative counted COMMERCIAL public exhibition as ANY BUSINESS THAT EXHIBITS CONTENT THAT CAN BE VIEWED OR HEARD BY ITS CUSTOMERS, and figured that it justified paying more for the right to use the content (ie. the same higher amounts movie rental stores might pay for a license allowing them to rent out DVDs, or what sports pubs pay to show pay-per-view sporting events, or what DJs are SUPPOSED to pay for their music). This includes the delis and Chinese buffets and such that show television broadcasts viewable by diners, dentists offices that play radio stations in their waiting rooms and taxi drivers who leave their radio on when they have a fare. These are specific examples the CRIA representative gave in the interview where they'd like to see more enforcement of "public exhibition" rights restriction.
* The CRIA representative also accused schools and libraries of "being poor role models" by allowing copyright violations to go un-checked. The CRIA wanted to crack down on "excessive duplicating" for example, and believed that an extensive "education campaign" should be rolled out at these institutions to make our children aware that "violating copyright law is like stealing". He gave the suggestion that
All trolling and MS-hating aside, Silverlight is not meant for the World Wide Web.
Perhaps you should tell BillG that before they waste another dollar on their silverlight-based re-design of their microsoft.com site on the world wide web.
The corporate IT department can simply force the software onto everybody's computer
Microsoft and others (Altiris' main business is this) already have extensive tools to do this without the need for silverlight. Making a web application dependent on vendor- or platform-specific tolls and technology misses one of the main points of even having the WWW.
developers can easily develop a *real* UI without having to fumble around with trying to make HTML behave like Windows Forms
I again fail to see the point of silverlight if this is a reason to use it. If an app must behave like a windows-forms app then develop a windows forms app. If an app is "document/resource centric", must be very widely deployed, accessible from multiple platforms and centrally administered with relative ease then you've really got to evaluate why it is so important to have "windows forms behaviour", when in fact such a design is sub-optimal for every situation except on full-sized, Windows-based desktops.
...because he graduated with honours from the Theo de Raadt School of Diplomacy.
Some predictions for 2008:
* Zed will fork and re-factor the framework, quietly releasing the far technically superior and more stable "OpenRails".
* Google will use OpenRails to successfully deploy the Beta release of its Next Big Thing. It handles thousands of requests per nanosecond and Google's share price spikes, though it doesn't account for any of Google's revenue.
* The PHP community declares "OpenRails is dead!"
Has this ever happened by accident during a flight?
If these new rules are strictly due to safety and not some silly anti-terrorist measure that assures travelers we're doing SOMETHING to protect them against some crazy jihad-monger, then yes, this probably happened during a flight in the recent past and is why the regulation was put in place.
This might be like the fatal Air Canada 797 fire and crash landing which led to multiple changes in regulations (including complete smoking bans on all airlines operating in Canada, restrictions on materials used for interiors, changes to electrical codes and safety training procedures). Two suspected causes, a cigarette disposed of in the lavatory and/or a seized motor overheating wiring splices before breakers tripped, led directly to rule changes.
INcidentally, that fire took hold and started smouldering OUTSIDE of the passenger seating area, in the lavatory itself and under and behind the seating area. Alarms went off but the precise location of the fire wasn't known until it was established, and the toxic smoke was what was the most dangerous, not the flames or even heat.
If you HAVE to deal with a fire on-board an aircraft, or in ANY location for that matter, it is MUCH better for it to happen right where people can see it. There is NO automated fire suppression system in existence that is more effective than trained people (there is no way to guarantee a fire is completely contained, etc). The cargo hold is not readily accessible to the crew or anyone else on board and a fire can spread in seconds.
So personally, I'd rather have my dell start shooting flames right in front of me and get a little burnt in a very brief incident than to have the battery set several suitcases on fire and start causing structural damage before some automated system *might* contain it long enough to descend from 37,000 ft.
Spare batteries are more dangerous than installed batteries?
Such spare batteries left in junk drawers have been known to burn houses right to the ground. The exposed metal contacts short against other metal objects such as paper clips, and many batteries will combust when shorted for too long. It's next to impossible to make sure that these batteries are always properly stowed when put in checked luggage (whereas taking inventory of these batteries is much easier done in carry-on baggage which is scrutinised much more closely than checked baggage). The exposed contacts on a battery could easily short against a metal clip or zipper commonly found on luggage.
Incidentally, this isn't just limited to lithium batteries--even some higher-output alkaline and NiMH batteries can supply enough power to generate dangerous temperatures when shorted--enough to start fires when placed next to combustible materials. Shorting a fresh 9V alkaline battery like you'd put in your alarm clock against an SOS pad under the right conditions will create a nice little pyrotechinics show.
And how do you e.G. deploy Windows updates (WSUS), provide Office document versioning (Sharepoint), Groupware that is fully integrated with Microsoft Office (Exchange) or a fully integrated IM & VoIP Solution (Office Communication Server)?
Dude, if you've drank THAT much MSFT kool-aid then you're very VERY far off from considering Linux seriously for anything! In any case, with the specs provided to the Samba team, they could produce file and printer sharing servers and AD domain controllers that fully participate in that infrastructure. BTW, Typically you wouldn't put WSUS, sharepoint, Exhange and Communication Server on a Windows Server configured as a domain controller (in fact I don't think MSFT will even take your support call in that kind of setup). you COULD however, eventually use modestly-specced Linux machines with Samba 4 as your AD servers and have ALL of the above as member servers on the Samba domain. Furthermore, third parties can now develop their own competing or complementary systems and be "full citizens" of the Network Neighbourhood.
As far as everything you mentioned here, there are non-MSFT (and sometime Free/open source) alternates to ABSOLUTELY ALL of the services you mention with the exception of WSUS. For example there is a brand-new add-on for the GPLed Citadel groupware system that makes it a full replacement for MS Exchange. Subversion can be used for document revision control. There are solutions based upon Asterisk that do what Office communication server can do. Citadel can be set up in a fraction of the time it takes to set up Exchange, and you can buy asterisk "appliances" that plug-and-play for much cheaper than the MSFT solution.
No, it isn't. Microsoft's Small Business Server offering is dirt cheap - nothing compared to the manhours required to setup a Windows OR Linux solution.
"Dirt cheap" is a relative term. Free is definitely cheaper than $600, and if you have more than 5 user you have to spend $500 more, and the mandatory licensing costs go up incrementally from there, whereas Samba remains free. For a non-profit org office or struggling small business with 6 to 20 users the difference is enough to be of concern. Furthermore you can set up a domain controller in a few hours using either solution, so unless you value your time in the multiple-hundreds of dollars hourly then licensing costs are indeed significant.
Reusing old desktops isn't what i'd want in a corporate IT environment.
Nor what I'd like, but it can and does happen...it is in fact common practice to use old hardware in many corporate environments (sadly, far beyond what makes economic sense in too many cases).
But you can run a WS2003 DC on pretty much anything with a hard disk and 256MB memory.
It's pretty sad nowadays that people brag about needing "only" 256MB as somehow being efficient. Samba would perform equally well with 128MB of RAM. Conversely more current hardware could handle more users under a properly-tuned Samba server than using Windows Server 2003.
Most of the vulnerabilities that exist for Windows do not affect Windows servers
A significant portion of vulnerabilities do nonetheless. Unfortunately, some of the most aggressive of the malware out there are the opposite--they are most destructive on servers and have little to no effect on a workstation or home machine. Code Red and Slammer come to mind (they affected server products like IIS and SQL Server that are not widely deployed or included with client machines). Windows Server is probable the most hazardous of all the Windows flavours in this regard: users on clients do stupid things and infect files which they save onto servers, where the most damaging delivery vectors are launched when the server is in turn infected.
I disagree. The more complexity a system has, the higher is the chance that a security vulnerability is introduced. Remember, security is not only dependent upon Software, but also upon Configurati
Driving in Calgary can be an adventure during peak traffic times. Compared to most big cities traffic flows relatively well (There are about 4 hours of "rush hour" traffic per working day typically). However, literally the majority of major thoroughfares still exceed 100% of their design capacity for sever hours a day and it is very obvious that very small distruptions can trigger one of those traffic waves for several km in those cases.
Traffic jams are caused by idiots.
It gets worse when you put all different sorts of idiots together in one place. That is a distinctive characteristic of motorists in Calgary--the majority of them were not born in the city it seems, and in fact a great many of them moved here after learning to drive elsewhere...so you get all sorts of *different* idiots, who react differently to the same events. Here are some prominent examples:
* The British Columbian: Officially the laws regarding your indicators are consistent throughout Canada--you use them a few seconds prior to making a turn or changing lanes so as to let other drivers know your intention and to leave the area clear for you to manoeuvre. The ACTUAL convention on the "left coast" (mostly in urban areas), from what I can tell through observation, is to alert the driver behind you that the area to that side of your automobile is clear but might not be for long, so you should immediately speed up and pull into the unoccupied space. Given this unique BC convention regarding indicators it is thus standadrd practice to avoid using your indicators at all costs prior to turning or changing lanes, as doing so would risk luring drivers into the unoccupied space, thus impeding you from making your intended turn.
* The Torontonian: Posted speed limits back in their native Toronto are generally considered MINIMUM acceptable speeds, not maximums. It is quite important to be the first in queue at red lights. The road 5 car lengths fore and aft, along with the space immediately adjacent on either side, for the moment the Toronto driver is at that point, is OWNED by said driver (along with the airspace and mineral rights within). Other drivers are allowed within that space only out of the kindness of the "owner's" heart, thus if you are in this driver's way you'll be subject to their discontent, be it an evil look, an upraised finger or a sustained, purposeful sounding of the horn.
* The Montrealer: Observes the speed limit in a manner similar to that of a Torontonian, but without the "personal space" issues. In fact, personal space is seen as an inefficiency that can be eliminated when the mood suits (I'm not following too close...the bumpers aren't touching yet). Traffic lights have different meanings. Amber is equivalent to green--it just means that the end of green is near so speed up more to get through. Red in Montreal is like amber everywhere else, at least for a few seconds (ie. proceed with caution, or what passes for caution on Montreal roads). You don't cross the street in Montreal until you count to 5 after the lights change unless you are a risk taker. The exception is the red light at turns--a Montrealer can't seem to ditch the habit of waiting for a green to turn right. Also, in much of Quebec, the roads have two more lanes than elsewhere--in other places they're called "stall lanes" or "service lanes" and are where you park when you have car problems, or where you walk when you hitchhike, or where you ride your bicycle. In Montreal, they are "overflow lanes"--if traffic is not moving to your satisfaction, you pull into these lanes and sprint up to your destination.
* The Prairie Dog: Until moving to Calgary "the Big City" meant Regina or Saskatoon--each have about 200k or 250k in population and wide streets downtown that permit angle parking. Thankfully they often make them selves known with green "Rider Pride" bumper stickers or other visual indicators of their undying devotion to their native province's football team so you have early warning. Another indicati
I've never really understood why i'd want to use a Linux server with Windows clients - it just doesn't work all that good, causes way more headaches than you save in terms of money.
I use a Linux server with Windows clients and haven't found it to be all that burdensome--it certainly works just as well as NT or 2000 did as a non-AD PDC...and for a small outfit Windows Server licensing is a significant investment. Wherever Samba doesn't work well as a server you can almost exclusively blame it on the fact that MSFT kept the specs secret and Samba had to do its best to reverse-engineer them. With the specs now available to Samba developers their project should work much better as a server in the near future.
As for why you'd want to use Samba as an AD member server or domain controller, there is far more than licensing and maintenance costs to consider. Linux with Samba has much smaller resource requirements--you need not load in a GUI or extra cruft that MS has welded to Windows Server (you will not be able to do that with Windows Server until a future release). There are also more security, remote admin, etc. choices available for Linux that are free (and Free). Last but not least, there are more viruses, worms and trojans that compromise Windows appearing in the wild in a day than have existed for Linux in its entire history. Invulnerability to malware is a pretty valuable characteristic for a system that is as critical as a domain controller or major server.
That last reason has to be the most important reason to run a non-Microsoft AD server--a "diverse ecosystem" is important overall, but it is probably most important to have a diverse array of architectures in the server space, because that is where a malware outbreak can cause the worst disruption.
I haven't had any problem working with windows domains in about a year.
Samba has been able to participate fully iin *NT style* domains for a very long time now--I have a Linux box acting as a PDC that runs a domain that authenticates against linux LDAP and takes care of roaming profiles (so my desktop settings, preferences, etc follow users between machines).
Samba also, for quite some time, has allowed Linux (and MacOS X and other UNIX-style systems) to PARTICIPATE in Active Directory domains as clients or "member servers"--that is, it can connect to and authenticate against a Windows 2003 Server domain controller. This development would've made such a feat possible much quicker than it actually took to happen, but the Samba team did manage this very notable feat.
What remains elusive today is the ability for Samba to act as the AD domain controller itself. Developers have been struggling to make this functional and reliable enough in the alpha releases of Samba v4.0 and have had some modest success, but it seems that progress has been quite slow to this point. You can set up Samba 4.0 today and get AD clients to participate in that domain, but major issues remain. I'm thrilled that MS has finally been goaded into disclosing vitally needed information for providing interoperability, and that although there is still a one-time licensing fee and a bullsh!t NDA required to get the specs the source code that results can remain GPL and free from stupid IP encumbrances. This means that not only should Samba 4 progress much faster now, but that if it's written well other parties can learn MSFT's bastardised standards through studying Samba's source without involving their own NDA crap.
Merry Christmas Samba team, love your new present!
...when those smart scientists come up with a wind farm, solar panel array or hydroelectric dam-and-turbine system that has a footprint of only 120 ft^2, is silent and outputs enough power to amply meet the needs of an entire apartment building or suburban city block.
FYI, hydro and wind power generation have a significantly higher day-to-day impact on the environment than nuclear facilities--when considering equal amounts of power output by each energy source, hydro and wind involve the destruction of many times more natural habitat than a nuclear facility does. You'd also have to cover the rooftops of most buildings in a city to meet power demand using solar panels, and just as the case with the batteries in a Prius, nobody talks about the energy expended or the environmental impact of the manufacture, recycling and disposal of solar panel materials either. Nuclear waste is notoriously hazardous to be sure, however the quantities involved happen to be relatively small considering the energy output of the process.
There is one thing I think a lot of people don't realise (assuming Al Gore isn't overstating the magnitude of what is happening as much as his detractors say he is), and that's the fact that in order to have a meaningful impact in the effort to reverse trends in climate change it absolutely must involve profound changes in the way we live, in one way or another. If people do not want to give up a serious amount of "modern convenience" or accept a contraction of the industrial activity not seen since the 1930s, then they have to accept technologies like nuclear power, biomass and so on that are much closer to carbon-neutral even though they may have other objectionable characteristics.