When you think about it. The usual behaviour of supposed "right wing" politicians--particularly in the US--is what seems weird to me.
In the US, Republicans have done a lot to bring about new ways to expand government intrusion into our personal lives and expand protectionism and corporate welfare. I was under the impression that right-wing politicians--should they advocate any change at all--were supposed to be about LIMITING government power, socialist/nanny-state policies and such (whether they be to artificially prop up business or individuals).
The Finnish politicians you mention are actually behaving consistently for a change. Socialism by and large isn't supposed to be about "the little guy" any more than it is supposed to be about "pro-business". Socialism is about "society"--everyone is to be taken care of the same way so nobody gets left behind, but at the same time it is difficult to impossible for anyone to get ahead.
Patents can be a very socialist idea in that sense. The socialist MEPs are probably thinkging along the line of "we have to protect 'inventors' of software from copycat products". Lobbyists from big business have told them if there are no patents to protect their software that it could end up causing the layoff of hundreds or thousands of programmers. The very idea of that happening would make a socialist cringe--we have to "protect programmers jobs", and the thought process never goes past that to the impact on innovation.
OTOH, the "pro-business right-wingers" are cooperative with the little guys in the battle against patents for the very reason that they are "pro-business":
* Software patents are protectionist--as they exist in the US they are used as a government-backed way to shut out competion. Neo-conservatives tend to dislike such excessive regulation
* The "little guy" happens to BE what most businesses are, so backing them is being "pro-business". Protecting big business would be the domain of socialists (the ideal would be government-owned industry, however a privately-owned but heavily regulated monopoly would work for socialists as well--a socialist would view this as "guaranteed jobs for society").
While I do expect right-wing politicians to resist legislation mandating or favouring the use of open source, I do think their opposition to software patents is consistent with their ideology.
That's average power only, and IIRC it's about a 2W average.
Umm...perhaps this is the case for your cellphone, but most of us have upgraded from the briefcase-sized phones of the 80s. You couldn't get nearly that from a modern cellphone (optimistically 0.5 watts). The signal power from an in-car signal booster antenna is only 2-4 watts average power--AFTER the signal is amplified.
the recal pulses from a mobile 'phone can peak at 200W
You have been misinformed. Yes, the pulsating nature of cellular signals makes for a kind of wild signal, but even so the peak-to-average power ratio of that signal could only be in the 15 dB range. Again, based on a very optimistic 1/2 watt average signal you'd be looking at a peak of 15 or 16 watts--for a VERY short duration of time. Realistically, average power os closer to 1/3 watt average and 5 watts peak.
The 200 watt figure might be for a TOWER--I'm less familiar with how those work. In any case you'd need to get a lot of those very short 200 watt pulses of EMR to the head to bake your brain.
I thought the article was about how legacy OS/2 ATMs were being switched out with (shudder) Windows XP/web based equipment--from a company notorious for the shoddy quality of its voting machines. Where does Linux come into the picture.
Quite frankly, it isn't the fact that WinXP is the OS that primarily scares me. What scares me more is
* These machines will be web based, possibly connected to a public network. Even if they utilise a VPN, the fact that a machine that gives me money and updates my account balances could be on the same network as some dense 2nd-assistant bank manager that opens all attachments marked "joke". It also bothers me that overworked IT staff of questionable competency are responsible for making sure the VPNs/firewalls/etc are correctly configured.
* Banks that harbour this herd mentality and all implement the same platform, from the same small handful of companies. It's true that no platform is completely secure, but if there is only a single platform then one hack can take out everything. You make this point yourself--if Linux had 90% marketshare then it would be a primary target too. Fact is, however, that even within the Linux platform there is healthy diversity--there are a multitude of choices in distros, window managers, applications, etc. In a Microsoft-only shop, there is one OS, one dominant browser, one dominant office suite.
* Diebold has been notoriously opaque about its development practices. It had to be cajoled into letting 3rd parties examine its election equipment, and to my knowledge no agency (banks, government or otherwise) has driven them to have their code vetted by a 3rd party. Open source by definition allows any interested party to examine the inner workings of a system, however closed systems can be opened to a limited amount of 3rd party examination too (Microsoft even has "shared source). It'd be nice if Diebold was known to be as open and forthcoming as even Microsoft.
If the general public were fully aware of the direction banks were going with their ATMs they would be very uncomfortable. Windows, IE and the web already have a reputation for being dangerous enough to make people cautious about online shopping. If the same nasties that foul up Joe Uesr's PCs start making ATMs die with increasing frequency it'll be a disaster. In Canada at least, major nationwide disruptions in banking service due to "upgrades" have already angered the public. The last thing we need is for the special "embedded IE" to crash and leave inoperative ATMs at the "start" button and such things.
And no, this isn't the "linux fanboy" in me talking. This is me looking at the situation with a critical eye. This "modern" Windows-and-IE based solution has a shoddy track record to this day. At the airport, for example, the screens showing arrivals and departures or what flight was unloading onto what baggage carousel, NEVER, EVER used to crash. They were plain-looking, colour-but-text-only displays driven by who-knows-what platform (UNIX, OS/2, maybe even DOS?), but they did the job without issue. Now, we have very fancy flat screens with beautifully rendered displays, but if you fly frequently it is quite a bit more common to see one of these systems betray their Windows roots with "access violations" and start menus, login screens and the rare BSOD.
The result atht he airport is amusing at best and slightly annoying at worst (gotta find another screen to see how long your flight is delayed maybe). On an ATM however, it makes one worry--what if it crashes after I hit "OK" but before I get my money? What if it doesnt give me a receipt before it crashes? Is my balance still OK? With web-based banking at home, I can reboot and log-in again to see where it left off. At an ATM, I don't have the login or even a real keyboard to do that. If these are indeed WEB ATMs, what kind of mechanism is there to ensure data integrity/atomicity and give feedback to the user should there be a problem with the browser?
There is a time and a place for this platform...ATMs are not one of them.
Can you point us at a cancer rate by nation breakdown? Just curious, I spent a few minutes googling for one without success.
I managed to find this after a few minutes of googling myself. I guess your success can depend on your googling skillz. It seems that overall cancer rates show no noticeable correlation with cell phone usage--Japan and Korea are in the middle to lower end of the scale in fact, at least in comparison to natinos not known for such widespread cellphone usage.
In any case, the data is for overall cancer rates, not brain cancer specifically. In fact, brain cancer is quite uncommon in comparison to lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, lymphoma, etc. It seems quite silly to me to worry about the cancer risk of cellphones when things like tobacco smoke and industrial toxins are much more obvious problems to worry about.
Well, let's be fair: the microwave oven is designed to keep its emissions inside.
What is unfair about a comparison to microwave ovens? Or household cordless phones or wi-fi access points for that matter? They all emit high-frequency radiation. And yes, microwaves are shielded and meant to CONTAIN radiation, but they are not perfect. If they were, then setting your wireless access point too close to a running microwave oven wouldn't mess up your network access (it does--my cordless phone didn't play nice with the oven either). Keep in mind that a typical cellphone emits less than a watt of power and a microwave oven is over a thousand times more powerful. The shielding may be 99.9% effective, but even at that rate the oven will emit radiation at rates on the same scale as that of a cellphone (this is not just a wild guess--microwave ovens may emit up to 5 mW per cm^2 from its outside surface, as measured from 5cm from that surface).
It's certainly difficult to isolate from the risk factors we bathe ourselves in daily, yes.
I think that researchers could conduct a study that proved ANYTHING caused cancer, and that a lot of these studies are influenced by pre-conceived prejudices--it is a goal to establish some link to cancer then muck with the study until there is evidence to back that link. There isn't a substance in the world that could not harm us if misused, and any data could be interpreted to sound urgent. Ever seen the parody site about "dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO)"? There are no lies in that site at all, but it makes DHMO (better known as pure water) sound like a dangerous toxin.
Truth is, it is quite EASY to isolate some obvious risk factors. When people live and work around synthetically produced chemicals that'll make your eyes water and give you a headache, or you notice a town that has 5 times the cancer rate of the rest of the nation, then it's pretty easy to figure out there is a problem there. But this cellphone thing? We've had 20 years to look at this, and there've been no big cancer clusters, no obvious cause-and-effect relationship, etc, and studies that have been made indicate no solid consensus. I think there are much more important things to worry about right now.
What you are looking for is an Open GroupSEXWare application. There's probably one on SourceForge but like many projects there I'd bet it's been stuck at the "Planning" stage for years.
The taxes you pay on items you buy on eBay or other online stores vary depending on both the seller's AND buyer's juristictions in addition to what is being sold. Often used goods are tax-exempt. It is common that if you are not in the same state/province/country you are not charged taxes. If you bought an item on eBay from a California-based seller and you live in California, the seller probably has to collect taxes, but if you live in Washington then the seller probably doesn't.
Apparently many states have these "use taxes", where the buyer is responsible for paying the tax. I guess this is because an out-of-state seller can't be compelled to collect taxes for a government outside its juristiction. I suppose if a state trooper can't cross state lines in pursuit of a speeder then a bureaucrat can't reach into your pockets across state lines either.
What I don't understand about this cigarette use tax thing is why the gov't let it go to to the point where they had to snoop into people's purchasing history and send assessment notices for hundreds to thousands of dollars in back taxes. When I buy items on the 'net/by mail order and taxes and/or duty are due then they are held at the post office until I sign a gov't form and pay what is due. If UPS/FedEx/Purolator are delivering right to me the same thing applies--I gotta pay to get my stuff. What happened in Michigan? Was the seller delivering themselves, or were the packages labelled deceptively? In either case I'd go after the seller for fraud, before (or in addition to) chasing down the customers. Perhaps I'm missing something--has the online retailer (esmokes?) been reprimanded in some way?
Anyways, it seems the schemes behind sales/use/value-added taxes are getting antiquated. It's bad enough for some border towns to contend with, and with 'net sales everyone has to deal with tax confusion now. Perhaps it's time for gov'ts to come up with newer/fairer/more creative ways to collect revenue. Better yet, they should start looking for ways to spend more efficiently.
Not sure why this is flamebait...the article is NOT a study, nor is it all that scientific, except for the fact that two computer scientists were involved. I think it's time to bring out the red meta-moderation marker pen.
This was A CONTEST--they billed it as a "showdown". It involved one server of one variant of each platform, in basic (non-typical) configurations. It was meant to settle a bet, or prove a point--the point is proven too: Just because a server is Linux-based doesn't make it more secure than a Windows-based server. Configuration and maintenance makes a difference too. Too many Linux fanboys overlook the fact that OS quality/design notwithstanding, there ARE production Linux webservers out there that are not as secure as production Windows servers. I still maintain that Linux is a superior alternative in terms of efficiency and security, but admins still have to be viligant.
Yes, Win2K3 is not used on the desktop (not that it matters--the contest wasn't aimed at the desktop user). However, using a simple/default Win2K3 setup makes for a very incomplete study. MS has admittedly made great strides in locking down the default installation in Win2K3, but there are still a great deal of Win2K-based IIS servers out there. Putting Win2K/IIS on the public internet without external firewalls/protections/etc is reckless. Furthermore, a lot of Win2K3 servers were upgrades to older versions, and IIS has been configured in a "backwards-compatible" mode which could result in potential security issues. To top it all off, you have to look at how well-written IIS/ASP apps are and the overall security model. I'd argure that MS has done good with the default config but there is more potential for serious remote exploits than with Apache (I am not aware of any hardening options in IIS such as running chroot, etc). The number of desktop PCs running 2k or XP pro with an inappropriately-enabled "personal web server" is a major security factor as well.
The Linux situation is not very typical either. Firstly, the article shouldn't be "Microsoft beats Linux" but rather "Win2K3 beats RHEL3". RHEL3 is a linux distro but Linux is NOT just RHEL3. How about trying out Novell/SuSE or Mandrake or Slakware or others? What about Apache 1.3.x vs 2.0.x vs IIS? How about seeing if there is any improvement in RHEL4? After all, that IS the current version.
Also, the config was very simple in both cases. What happens if you put a mod_perl or PHP app up against ASP.NET for example? What about including database backends? I find it an interesting contest that could spark further study but on its own it is of no use in evaluating alternative platforms for security. The whole thing is just too superficial.
...at least as a method of revenue generation for road maintenance. They are ultimately not a stable way to generate revenue because they put downward pressure on fuel consumption--good for the environment but we'll still need our roads maintained when we're all driving fuel-celled vehicles.
Furthermore they directly hurt the transportation/logistics industry directly and thus the whole economy indirectly. High fuel costs (including taxes) make operating costs for owner/operators and transport companies, and the cost of distribution gets passed down to the consumer. Big tractor-trailer units will be fossil-fuel powered for much longer than small-passenger vehicles so raising fuel taxes would really hurt--you could end up with commercial drivers paying huge taxes so everyone can enjoy the roads--not exactly fair is it? And don't use that "harder on the roads" argument--there are many many times more 4X4 SUVs on the roads (which incidentally are hard on roads too) than tractor-trailers on the road.
Taxation on simple mileage might not be the best either, as some people do not live in the state where they work, meaning people living in Nevada or Oregon could get a free ride and Californians who work in those states would be taxed for using roads that will not be maintained using that revenue. GPS is obviously too invasive on privacy. I'd say the best method of taxation would be during vehicle registration, adjusting the fee based on vehicle size.
Better yet, they should phase out consumption taxes altogether--they are "regressive" and hold back the economy. I haven't heard any notable economists defend very regressive tax regimes (lots of sales taxes and user fees) and most advocate flat or progressive taxes (based on income/revenue generation instead of consumption). Regressive taxes are only liked by politicians and ultimately it is hard to make them fair. In any case, maybe CA should stop spending money foolishly and passing idiotic laws that stand in the way of sound budgeting (is CA not the state that passes well-intended but loony laws like mandating that at least one-third of general revenue must be spent on education?).
Interesting debate..CA is a place I love to visit and provides endless entertainment but most definitely a place I would not like to live.
The official name of the 2600 was the "Video Computer System" (VCS) and that was indeed the official name until the Atari 5200 came out. However, the catalogue/part number for the VCS was CX2600 right from the start, and that is where the name came from. When the Supersystem was announced/introduced (part #CX5200) the part numbers became official model names probably to emphasise the difference between the two.
Atari was known to employ some engineers with a twisted sense of humour and perhaps a history of cracking/phreaking activities (Steve Wozniak for example). Given that they allegedly code-named their products after well-endowed female coworkers it wouldn't surprise me that the original product number was inspired by the frequency in Hz that opened up the telephone system to phreakers.
In any case, I believe there was no real marketing angle to the choice of model numbers apart from simply using multiples of the number 2600 to indicate successive generations--1st gen = 1*2600, 2nd gen = 2*2600, 3rd gen = 3*2600. No compatibilty was impled, as a base 5200 couldn't play 2600 games and a base 7800 couldn't play 5200 games.
ummm...yes it is. You very obviously do not have an appreciation of how cars work. You are right to say that you'd be wasting cycles arguing the point.
Modern automobiles are in fact on the same level of complexity as computers. They do not have the same number of transistors perhaps, but todays cars do in fact contain one or more microcontrollers and microprocessors, in addition to thousands of parts all working together. Electronics control engine management (ignition/timing, fuel supply, emissions control), safety systems (antilock braking, airbags), radio/cd, navigation systems (onstar, etc). Each system on its own is simple but they often have to interact with each other and mechanical systems.
Besides that point, there are specialised computer systems and non-windows platforms that basically ARE electonically equivalent to PCs with Windows in terms of complexity that are much more reliable. Besides Mac PCs, there are set-top boxes like TiVO and industrial control computers such as those used for DCS systems and other "computers in disguise" in public kiosks, ATMs, etc. How often do ou see all of those machines crash? FAR less often than a typical WinXP computer (oh yeah..except for the ATMs and kiosks where Windows has started to infiltrate where OS/2 and other legacy proprietary systems once reigned. As that happens it seems seeing crashed ATMs and public displays is increasing).
Some of these in fact are the very same hardware technology, which indcates to me that perhaps software (ie MS WINDOWS) is to blame. Sharing that blame would be OEMs who irresponsibly ship flawed software on new PCs (it is pretty typical that such machines only ship with what is included in a service pack and no more--so that the post-SP1 patch to prevent the spread of blaster-like worms was commonly absent from brand new machines until months later when SP2 emerged). Why the hell should the DSL or cable provider be held responsible for taching their subscribers how to use these flawed products? ISPs didn't design, make or sell them, they provide connectivity. they have enough problems of their own. No, the responsibility to provide information to customers resides squarely on the shoulders of the Microsoft's, Dells and HPs of the world, not the Bells, Comcasts and Rogers of the world.
This is precisely what baffles the author of the parent article my friend--or did you neglect to RTFA? How is it people have come to accept and expect that their computers or software would come from the manufacturer--BRAND NEW FROM THE FACTORY--in a condition that renders them basically useless?
This time last year, if you bought a brand new PC with WinXP factory-installed, pluged in the RJ45 and power cables and powered it up, you could almost 100% guarantee that within minutes it would need serious servicing. There is literally no other product or industry on the planet where such a shoddy product would be tolerated. I do not expect my brand new car to need the services of a mechanic before it is fit to drive on public roads. I do not need to configure a "radiation firewall" or install patches in my microwave to prevent it from turning my food into a smouldering powder. I can also be reasonably comfortable that my washing machine will clean my clothes without flooding the house or electrocuting me on a regular basis.
And don't give me any claptrap about how computers and software are complex. Cars are at least as complex as a PC these days and they are much more reliable. Microwaves, VCRs, etc. all have a lot of electronics. Industry uses PLCs (Programmable Logic Controllers) that today are rivalling the power of low-end PCs, and these complex devices can run continuously for years (some have run for a decade or more).
Not only does the fact that peoples expectations have stayed low and gotten lower baffle me--so does the response from knowledgable people along the lines of "well of course it broke--you didn't install a firewall, antivirus, disable this, enable that...." as if we are stupid to expect something to actually WORK in its factory configuration.
All in all, my opinion of Gates and Microsoft is mixed to negative--for all the contributions they made to computing, the man and his company have done a great deal to create a vulnerable IT monoculture and foster an attitude of low expectations.
Amazing, why does this continue to be a response to anything government funded? Here are services I have never used:
- The fire department
- The police department
- Roads beyond the 1/2 mile to the interstate and around friends and family
Why is it that so many people think that governments at any levle are immune to the same failings as corporations? They are both run by fallable, often self-interested people. What I find ironic is that the very same people who advocate an activist government at any level are the ones who probably hold GW Bush and his cronies in the same regard as Enron executives.
Since when did Wi-Fi broadband equate to ESSENTIAL services like those you mentioned? Governments at all levels should make essentials such as those the priority and leave such extras to private enterprise--period. Your contention that you never used ANY of those services? That is bullshit. Maybe you've never had a house fire, but I'm positive that the fire department played a role in ensuring your home was safe (all construction has to pass fire codes after all). You've most definitely benefitted from the service provided by the police department as well--law enforcement is what makes it somewhat safer to live wher you do compared to, say, Beiruit. In regards to roads you answered your own question--you DO use some of the roads (including the Interstate highway system I gather, if you care about the 1/2 mile of road that leads to it). If you don't drive, you benefit even more because not only are you making use of the road, but public transit vehicles driving on those rads too.
There are things government should take resopnsibility for in the public interest--it must ensure the safety and freedom of its citizens and their environment. Wi-Fi, at this point in time, is far from an essential service. If a municipality wants to be an activist gov't then there are far more nobler causes. Safe, clean low-income housing comes to mind, or how about improving public schools for children of low-income parents? If some city officials have a boner for Wi-fi then have them provide it to public schools and let the suburban soccer-moms and hockey-dads make their own arrangements?
Oh yeah--you might be trying to sound outrageous by suggesting the firefighters charge for responses, but it isn't that for off from what already happens. Even up here in "utopian Canada" with socialised medicine you can get a nice big bill for an ambulance ride. If the government can't cover something like THAT then I want them to stay out of Wi-Fi and other crap.
I can already see hoe that would turn out too. It sounds great to think that you could flick on your PC or any wireless device anywhere in the city and just browse at 10mbit or higher at and ditch the crappy cable and DSL. Trust me though it won't be free. There will be a tax hike associated "infrastrucure improvements" and no-one will know exactly how much of that went into putting in the access points. The job of putting in the equipment will be contracted to the "highest bidder"--that being the outfit who donated the most to the mayor's election campaign "bid". The city will take twice as long to put everything in as a private company would, and the system will be overcapacity from the start (it being free, every Centrino notebook in the city will be firing packets at it). Don't expect the city to take responsibility for network security and troubleshooting either--if your neighbourhood node goes out it'll be 4 to 48 hours before they fix it.
In other words, "free" city wireless will be no better than what private cable and telcos offer, except unlike the latter it'll never improve past mediocre, and nobody will ever have a really solid idea of how much it costs or where the money could've been better spent.
This was a couple years ago so could be completely wrong now.
No completely wrong, but mostly:
* The current release of PgSQL runs natively on NT/2K/XP/2K3 Server as a service. The Cygwin emulation and related kludges are not an issue with either database now.
* PgSQL has been quite optimised in recent years, while at the same time MySQL has become rather less lightweight than it used to be. The only way to get any measurable performance benefit from MySQL over PgSQL now is to forego the use of InnoDB tables in MySQL (and the transactional ACID-compliancy/rollback capability that comes with them). Even then, it is only fast at SELECTs--speed of INSERTs, UPDATEs and DELETEs was never MySQLs real strom point in any case.
* As far as volume of hits and concurrent users go, PostgreSQL is far superior because it has a mature, stable MVCC (multi-version concurrency control) solution that almost completely eliminates table and record locking. If you have a site that does frequent and random insertion, deletion and modification transactions PgSQL wins.
* MySQL was perhaps simpler in the past, but that was because it's capabilities were much more limited. It isn't hard to use today, but it isn't exeptionally easy anymore. Furthermore, PgSQL has a lot more tools to ease administration tasks than it used to. I am puzzled by comments that PgSQL us hard to use--I actually find it is easier to use than MS SQL Server 2000 now. The documentation has come a very long way and you can point-and-click your way around PgSQL with PgAdmin, WebMin, and various PHP web-based tools.
* There are a lot of large-scale PgSQL implementations that rival or exceed Slashdot in scale. The entire.org domain relies on the PgSQL platform for example.
Anyways, I hope I haven't offended MySQL fans--it is a fine product and has enjoyed a great deal of success and advancement with its association with SAP for example. For a typical blogger/slashdot-style site MySQL fits the bill nicely as it has the largest installed base, doesn't handle mission-critical data, and the vast majority of activity is read-only.
If the data in the application is *important* and is write-heavy then you'll find that the case is different than above. For mission-critical web-based systems PostgreSQL tends to be be chosen over MySQL. For example, the SQL-Ledger accounting system uses PgSQL and NOT MySQL. However, MySQL has grown up some and has become a viable option here too--it's just that PgSQL has a more established image as being not the fastest but themost reliable with your data.
Just remember that if you decide to pass on InnoDB to max out performance of your MySQL database you better make damn sure you have a reliable UPS and don't trip on the power cord or bump the emergency power disconnect switch or you'll have a crisis on your hands...
Hmmm..."optional standards"...kind of like "advanced BASIC" and "*Micro*soft Office Professional" (a product that a friend remarked some time ago was so big it should've been sold on its own hard drive instead of floppies or CD-ROMs).
Having "optional" standards makes sense. I think a few posters here haven't been able to catch the clue--this doesn't mean "parallel" options like an option for debian or red-hat style package formats. The options are just an extension of what the FSG has done with LSB 2--it has already been broken into modules and with LSB 3 more modules will be added that do not have to be included to be an LSB certified OS or app. The BASE modules are required for all compliant software. For the "server" options there will be libraries and daemons that must be available that are not appropriate for desktop use. Similarly having X and a desktop environment and sound libraries on a server just to meet a standard is stupid, so they are part of an optional "desktop" standard.
I think that is what has been one of the barriers to widespread adoption of the LSB--in order to be able to say you are LSB compliant in the past you couldn't depend on C++, GNOME/KDE or some other fundamental components of modern distros--you either had to not use such components or bundle them with your install (making your package very large). Soon a GUI/Desktop app can say "LSB/Desktop compliant" and a web server application can say "LSB/Server compliant" and OS makers can market an LSB desktop OS without including irrelevant server components.
Without optional components in the standard you could end up with something like what you have with MS Windows--a desktop OS that (until quite recently anyways) had open ports and services that do nothing for users but consume resources and introduce security risks, and a server OS that requires megabytes more RAM and drive space so that it can provide pretty graphics, media player, paint program, etc in its default installation.
I think it's a great move. Multiple/optional standards are only a problem when they cover the same thing (VHS/Beta, RPM/DEB, DVD+RW/DVD-RW, etc etc etc...) and this is just providing some needed granularity to the standard. As long as it doesn't get too fragmented it'll be great for software distributors (LSB/Desktop, LSB/Server would all that would be needed in the software requirements list instead of a list of arcane dependencies).
Actually, as an ISV, if you want to put the shiny "Designed for Windows XP" sticker on your application, you have to pass a few Microsoft-administered tests.
Some criteria: [...]
I've admittedly not looked very hard for the "designed for XP" logo, but that might explain why getting 3rd party software which truly meets that designation is still nearly like finding hen's teeth.
1) Isn't as large a problem as it used to be, but a good amount of software (especially "free as in beer" stuff you get on the 'net that is crappily written) still peppers C:/WINDOWS/SYSTEM32 with DLLs
2) I don't know a single, solitary person who has never had to run with elevated privliges for at least one application that is still currently distributed and advertised to work with XP (although the official logo probably isn't displayed). One of the worst offenders besides games is DVDs.
3) Half the stuff out there that runs as a service/resides in the system tray falls apart with fast-user switching.
4) That one makes me laugh...uninstalls are cleaner but registry residue is still a problem. The whole concept of a monolithic, binary file is absolutely stupid. Honestly, what was wrong with.ini text files? If MS wanted maintainability then why didn't they specify a standard way of handling them in WinNT and Win95 (file locations, syntax, etc) as a condition of meeting the "logo requirements"?
Mr. Gates can talk all he wants about the wonderful plans he has for software, but it seems not even he can overcome the incredible resistive inertial forces that have built up around the Microsoft platform. XP has been out for YEARS and all the above-mentioned problems are STILL common. Longhorn could be completely rewritten from the ground up with a completely solid architecture (which would be great!) but the problems won't go away--not for a long time. I figure that even if the foundation for Longhorn were as solid as it is for BSD, Linux and OS X the world could be contending with legacy flaws and quirks until about 2010 (just a wild guess---not gonna eat my words 5 years from now).
There are some incredible talent among the self-taught to be sure, but I would not say that it is always the case that the self taught person is the best person at a given skill. It takes a certain kind of intelligence to be a good at something you've taught yourself. You have to have a natural ability in the subject and a mind open to possibilities. Not all people think the right way--some people need a direction to get started before they thrive. Furthermore, those who are good self-teachers are not always good at everything they do.
For example, I can teach myself to program in a new computer language or how to fix my car with relative ease, but when it comes to cooking I am competent enough but if I haven't cooked something before I need the help of a recipe book and advice/assistance from someone who is acutally good at cooking.
When you stop and think about it, however, the best of the self-taught aren't really self-taught at all--they are merely informally educated. If you merely learn the basics and guess at the rest, finding the optimal solution can only be done out of luck. I'd venture to say that what it takes 4 years to learn in university might take 8 or more to learn yourself were you to be short of mentors and lacked that thirst for information.
I'll use an example I've used numerous times before: Two of the most famous achievenents by self-taught electronics engineers are the Apple II and the original Apple Mac. Steve Wozniak was not formally educated in microprocessor systems design--indeed the field was in its infancy and few people really were. However, he had a passion for electronics and surrounded himself with experts and other passionate people, so it is difficult to say he was "self" taught in that case. He lived in the hotbed of activity, soaked up information from books, magazines and friends, attended homebrew meetings and so on. This passion and a competitive spirit amongst homebrewers in addition to Woz's natural abilities resulted in the very efficient, elegant and inexpensive design of the Apple I and II computers. In subsequent years, Burell Smith exhibited the same passion and thirst for knowledge--he started by repairing Apple II circuit boards and while doing that and soaking up everything he could from his mentor Woz, got to know the Apple II better than anyone else (I believe it was Smith who wrote the devinitive bible on Apple II hardware). Eventually, he ended heading up the degign of the Mac hardware. Again, Smith was also more "informally" taught than "Self" taught.
Overall, I'd say that quite often the best RESULTS are from self-taught people, but you get things done MORE EFFICIENTLY and quickly from a formally educated person.
I wholeheartedly agree, but it probably depends on your mindset. I'd say processing/transforming XML with Perl is just as powerful as using XSLT and quite a bit more flexible, as Perl is quite forgiving. XSLT looks rigid and inflexible. Perl strives to make the easy tasks simple to accomplish and difficult tasks possible. I suppose XSLT makes all things possible, but no task completely simple. It looks to me to be about as fun to code in XSLT as it is to code in FORTRAN77.
But XSLT code as "horrible"? Nothing's more horrible than badly hacked Perl. On the other hand, I've seen Perl that almost looks like plain english with weird punctuation--written right you can almost read it aloud and it would explain the process. I don't know of any other programming language that has been used in poetry writing contests (I suppose you can write C poetry as well, but you have to cheat and use defines). That is Perl's downside--very powerful and flexible, but it gives you a lot of rope, and Larry even tied it in a noose at the end to make it convenient should you decide you wish to hang yourself.
XSLT has an upside to counter its rigid and sometimes awkward structure. I suppose that being formatted in XML makes it a whole lot easier to parse than most other programming languages. XSLT keeps things structured as well. This limits the potential for the code to become obsfucated/convoluted. Looking at the two languages, I'd have to say that it looks like Perl was written to allow programmers to get the job done, and XSLT was written to allow machines to interpret it easier and would be better suited as a language used by an application that has a drag-and-drop user interface and auto-generates the code.
You're right, I don't think MS would be that careless with a prototype product. Furthermore, other posters have noticed upon further examination that these are NOT pics from a 1983 "Teen Beat" magazine--the article posted to/. is false (although the pictures are hilarious).
The pictures appear to be taken in 1985, most likely as part of an article in some computer magazine covering the release of Windows 1.0 on the unsuspecting public. Given the "I'm too sexy for my C-prompt" atmosphere, perhaps they weren't even formally published and were merely candid shots among many to chose from (like the photographer trying an experiment that failed miserably).
Well, from the start Microsoft was a primary developer for applications software on the Mac platform. When the Mac was introduced, MS was not the behemoth it is today, but it WAS the king of systems software and languages already, so it was natural to turn to MS to develop a BASIC for the Mac (Applesoft BASIC on the II+ was a derivative/extension of the same MS-BASIC used on the Commodore PET). Furthermore, MS was trying to break through in the applications arena and it's flagship application was MS Multiplan (precursor to Excel and initially a distant also-ran to Lotus 123 and VisiCALC). Apple also needed some software ready for when the Mac came out and was too busy on the system to develop a lot of useful applications so it needed 3rd party assistance from MS and others.
Given MS and Apple wanted to at least try to have BASIC and Mutiplan ready for the MACs release, MS had to have prototype specimens before it was released--and in fact it did receive its first Apple Mac in late 1982. So, yes Bill could did get Macs by 1983.
BTW, the first MS products for the Mac weren't unlike any other MS product--they sucked but were somewhat useable nonetheless (Jobs complained that MS "didn't get it" in regards to GUI design, and "had no taste" and on both points it could be said that Multiplan supports his observations). MS became by far the larget 3rd party software vendor of Macintosh progams largely the way it came to dominate in BASIC on early micros--first mover advantage.
...because it's making you see extra zeroes. Depending on how severe the problem is, $300 is not really that far out.
Anyways, Our AC friend typifies the sort of arrogant, antisocial IT people who are mocked on/. for relationship status, personal hygene, etc. It's fun to watch "the comic book guy" on the Simpsons, but it's not fun to actually deal with such people. In fact, "the world is better off" if these jerks could learn some social skills.
I remember a skit on SNL that hit the nail on the head--it featured "the IT guy" (played by Chris Kattan I think) that everyone in the office despised but relied on to fix their computers. He'd invariably spout a bit of technical jargon, followed by some kind of insult--along the lines of "Oh that's easy, just clear the printer queue and reinitialise, but I guess you're too STUPID to figure that out...I'm amazed you figured out how to BREATHE..."
Look, if someone carts in a home PC and has gigabytes of pictures, music and other files they want to keep, and it is so clogged with viruses and spyware that it is better just to re-install, then backing up all that stuff, re-installing the OS and configuring the system can take anywhere from a couple hours to a whole workday. If it was toward the latter end then $300 is a deal.
Calling people fools and morons and implying that they are not worthy enough to be online is not a solution. It is not acceptable to expect an average user to know all by themselves how to implement a firewall and install and maintain antivirus and antispyware--either they have to learn from somewhere or rely on experts for assistance, and both are going to take time and usually money.
The fact that we have to worry about all these precautionary measures to make our computers usable is an indication of where the industry is--basically personal computing is at the "model T" stage: now affordable and widespread but very unrefined and with unrealised potential.
Can you still find all the programs and utilities that make your system useable back to an equivalent level of the 2.0.x kernel?
As a matter of fact you can. Since the GNU part of the GNU/Linux operating system is also open source it can generally be compiled against any 2.x.x kernel. Same goes for Apache, Sendmail, PostgreSQL, etc etc. You cannot exactly do that with the NT kernel or the other parts of the OS. If MS patches MS SQL Server 2K and it breaks on NT, from now on you are SOL--you either upgrade, live with the unpatched version or pay very dearly for custom support.
...do you? Get out of your little bubble man! As if Linux systems are all PCs!
Msec?? Really??. When is the last time your linux system booted within 10 seconds?
My email, web and firewall servers? Never. The handheld, wireless Linux terminals that had Linux in flash rom? They always booted up way faster than 10 seconds.
These are not your basic beige Intel boxesI was talking about, these are $250K z-series workhorses. And a "partition" isn't just a little piece of an ATA hard drive--it is a completely self-contained virtual system within the hardware. You can reboot any partitions you want to your hearts content so long as you leave the production systems up. When you are done staging an upgrade (install, configure, regression testing etc etc) you just boot it up (however long that takes) then "throw the switch" when it is up and ready to go. Until that time, the prodution system hums away undisturbed on another partition.
Result? Service disruption that is LITERALLY milliseconds. That's my point--if a solution is SO critical that it MUST stay on 24/7 for THAT long, you don't just throw any old commodity hardware at it running Windows. If you didn't have to pay six-figures for the hardware and software that is acutally scalable then upgrading once or twice a decade to maintain reliable support isn't a problem for you--it is something you are just whining about. Windows serves the small and midrange market fine but it is not and never will be a contender in the very-large-enterprise market where such extended support is required--period.
There have been options for classic system owners for awhile now. Our family owned a Coleco ADAM that we used for more than just games (no really!). Still have it in fact (just don't use it). In the late 80s ADAM enthusiasts were starting to connect their ADAMS to IBMs with something called "ADAMServer"---basically a null-modem connection that let the PCs fixed and floppy disk drives appear as local devices do you could make disk and tape images of your software. Furthermore, although the directory structure was different, the Coleco floppy was a fairly common format used on many CP/M systems and the original IBM PC (160K single sided) so for awhile you could use one of those machines to read the disks at a block level on one of those systems. Most data files were ASCII-readable, and by the mid 90s there was Windows/Linux/Mac emulator so you could run aplications and still use your SmartFiler database or ADAMCalc spreadsheets if they were that important to you.
That is for a short-lived, relatively uncommon system. Apple IIs, Commodores, TRS80s and Atari 8-bits were much longer lived and more numerous, so when the writing was on the wall there were likely far more options. Heck, if you have old Apple II, Comodore and TRS80 cassette tapes you can back them up by putting them in any old cassette recorder, connecting it to the line-in on your computer and recording the sqeals. the programs out there to convert these audio streams to binary images are probably more reliable than the circuitry in the original systems anyways.
Yes, the business world is all about "if it aint broke why fix it", but running PCs for over 10 years with no upgrades at all seems to take that to the extreme. I'd think that when the local computer shop said it was going to stop stocking 8-inch floppies soon that it would be a clue-in that you'd better start migrating. Besides that, there is something called *innovation*. Yes, for too long MS has upgraded windows and office in a pretty blatant move to prop up its revenue stream, but some innovations are pretty fundamental...like colour graphics, sound, high-density disks, laser printers.
Surely your dad's friend had to see that it was hurting his bottom line long before the mid 90s. What kind of impression does it make on your clients when you send correspondence printed on dot matrix and daisywheel printers or you spend all night futzing over a Visicalc spreadsheet or an ancient Peachtree system to balance the books? Most businesses upgrade or replace SOME equipment (even non-IT related equipment) more often than that. I find it baffling that a business could be successful otherwise, but I guess it happens--I remember a Dell contest about old PCs still being used where a lawyer who was an early PC enthusiast bought an Altair in th 70s with an eye on using it to run his firm--and did so continuously until he won the Dell contest 23 years later. Astonishing, but even that guy had continually upgraded the Altair and has ways to get his data out of that system.
It is a bit unfortunate that MS offered more support for NT than RH would for RH 5.0 and try getting suppor for Mandrake distros before 9.x--prety thin on thr ground I'd guess. To be fair MS is huge and sitting on a few billion so I thing they can foot the bill for the support. I do tend to cut Mandrake some slack being they had to pull themselves out of bancruptcy protection and all.
Ultimately, we don't need to expect a Linux vendor to have as long a support cycle. One thing that is different is that the Linux distro companies is that they do not control the source code, and that code is publicly available to anyone forever (the Linux kernel right back to the first 0.whatever release is available). Not only that, the Linux kernel support team DOES support old kernels--a lot of relevant patches are still backported to the 2.0.x kernels (which are as old as NT4). That is one of closed sources disadvantages-the vendor has to either open the source or offer indefinite support or the project is 100% guaranteed to become extinct.
Honestly, if your system is SO critical that you cannot change the core of your OS once every eight years then you either have the skills to deal with the lack of vendor-specific support for the old distro, or you more likely you made the wrong platform choice. If you needed a system that could be locked away and continuously run ontouched--with no mainteneance and upgrading--for THAT LONG, then you wouldn't use a PC-based server, you'd have gotten an IBM 390/Z-series/AS400 or a DEC/Compaq/HP VMS system and paid the boatloads of money to the vendor for support (REAL support, which MS has never been known to provide).
Interestingly enough, even today MS Windows platform is not an option on REAL "big iron" (well, anyways your choices are severely limited), while today linux is a valid choice. And downtime due to upgrades is not a concern on these big Linux systems, because you can stage the upgrade on another partition on the same hardware and just switch over when everything is set up. totoal downtime would be measured in milliseconds.
Slashdot Mirror
When you think about it. The usual behaviour of supposed "right wing" politicians--particularly in the US--is what seems weird to me.
In the US, Republicans have done a lot to bring about new ways to expand government intrusion into our personal lives and expand protectionism and corporate welfare. I was under the impression that right-wing politicians--should they advocate any change at all--were supposed to be about LIMITING government power, socialist/nanny-state policies and such (whether they be to artificially prop up business or individuals).
The Finnish politicians you mention are actually behaving consistently for a change. Socialism by and large isn't supposed to be about "the little guy" any more than it is supposed to be about "pro-business". Socialism is about "society"--everyone is to be taken care of the same way so nobody gets left behind, but at the same time it is difficult to impossible for anyone to get ahead.
Patents can be a very socialist idea in that sense. The socialist MEPs are probably thinkging along the line of "we have to protect 'inventors' of software from copycat products". Lobbyists from big business have told them if there are no patents to protect their software that it could end up causing the layoff of hundreds or thousands of programmers. The very idea of that happening would make a socialist cringe--we have to "protect programmers jobs", and the thought process never goes past that to the impact on innovation.
OTOH, the "pro-business right-wingers" are cooperative with the little guys in the battle against patents for the very reason that they are "pro-business":
* Software patents are protectionist--as they exist in the US they are used as a government-backed way to shut out competion. Neo-conservatives tend to dislike such excessive regulation
* The "little guy" happens to BE what most businesses are, so backing them is being "pro-business". Protecting big business would be the domain of socialists (the ideal would be government-owned industry, however a privately-owned but heavily regulated monopoly would work for socialists as well--a socialist would view this as "guaranteed jobs for society").
While I do expect right-wing politicians to resist legislation mandating or favouring the use of open source, I do think their opposition to software patents is consistent with their ideology.
That's average power only, and IIRC it's about a 2W average.
Umm...perhaps this is the case for your cellphone, but most of us have upgraded from the briefcase-sized phones of the 80s. You couldn't get nearly that from a modern cellphone (optimistically 0.5 watts). The signal power from an in-car signal booster antenna is only 2-4 watts average power--AFTER the signal is amplified.
the recal pulses from a mobile 'phone can peak at 200W
You have been misinformed. Yes, the pulsating nature of cellular signals makes for a kind of wild signal, but even so the peak-to-average power ratio of that signal could only be in the 15 dB range. Again, based on a very optimistic 1/2 watt average signal you'd be looking at a peak of 15 or 16 watts--for a VERY short duration of time. Realistically, average power os closer to 1/3 watt average and 5 watts peak.
The 200 watt figure might be for a TOWER--I'm less familiar with how those work. In any case you'd need to get a lot of those very short 200 watt pulses of EMR to the head to bake your brain.
I thought the article was about how legacy OS/2 ATMs were being switched out with (shudder) Windows XP/web based equipment--from a company notorious for the shoddy quality of its voting machines. Where does Linux come into the picture.
Quite frankly, it isn't the fact that WinXP is the OS that primarily scares me. What scares me more is
* These machines will be web based, possibly connected to a public network. Even if they utilise a VPN, the fact that a machine that gives me money and updates my account balances could be on the same network as some dense 2nd-assistant bank manager that opens all attachments marked "joke". It also bothers me that overworked IT staff of questionable competency are responsible for making sure the VPNs/firewalls/etc are correctly configured.
* Banks that harbour this herd mentality and all implement the same platform, from the same small handful of companies. It's true that no platform is completely secure, but if there is only a single platform then one hack can take out everything. You make this point yourself--if Linux had 90% marketshare then it would be a primary target too. Fact is, however, that even within the Linux platform there is healthy diversity--there are a multitude of choices in distros, window managers, applications, etc. In a Microsoft-only shop, there is one OS, one dominant browser, one dominant office suite.
* Diebold has been notoriously opaque about its development practices. It had to be cajoled into letting 3rd parties examine its election equipment, and to my knowledge no agency (banks, government or otherwise) has driven them to have their code vetted by a 3rd party. Open source by definition allows any interested party to examine the inner workings of a system, however closed systems can be opened to a limited amount of 3rd party examination too (Microsoft even has "shared source). It'd be nice if Diebold was known to be as open and forthcoming as even Microsoft.
If the general public were fully aware of the direction banks were going with their ATMs they would be very uncomfortable. Windows, IE and the web already have a reputation for being dangerous enough to make people cautious about online shopping. If the same nasties that foul up Joe Uesr's PCs start making ATMs die with increasing frequency it'll be a disaster. In Canada at least, major nationwide disruptions in banking service due to "upgrades" have already angered the public. The last thing we need is for the special "embedded IE" to crash and leave inoperative ATMs at the "start" button and such things.
And no, this isn't the "linux fanboy" in me talking. This is me looking at the situation with a critical eye. This "modern" Windows-and-IE based solution has a shoddy track record to this day. At the airport, for example, the screens showing arrivals and departures or what flight was unloading onto what baggage carousel, NEVER, EVER used to crash. They were plain-looking, colour-but-text-only displays driven by who-knows-what platform (UNIX, OS/2, maybe even DOS?), but they did the job without issue. Now, we have very fancy flat screens with beautifully rendered displays, but if you fly frequently it is quite a bit more common to see one of these systems betray their Windows roots with "access violations" and start menus, login screens and the rare BSOD.
The result atht he airport is amusing at best and slightly annoying at worst (gotta find another screen to see how long your flight is delayed maybe). On an ATM however, it makes one worry--what if it crashes after I hit "OK" but before I get my money? What if it doesnt give me a receipt before it crashes? Is my balance still OK? With web-based banking at home, I can reboot and log-in again to see where it left off. At an ATM, I don't have the login or even a real keyboard to do that. If these are indeed WEB ATMs, what kind of mechanism is there to ensure data integrity/atomicity and give feedback to the user should there be a problem with the browser?
There is a time and a place for this platform...ATMs are not one of them.
Can you point us at a cancer rate by nation breakdown? Just curious, I spent a few minutes googling for one without success.
I managed to find this after a few minutes of googling myself. I guess your success can depend on your googling skillz. It seems that overall cancer rates show no noticeable correlation with cell phone usage--Japan and Korea are in the middle to lower end of the scale in fact, at least in comparison to natinos not known for such widespread cellphone usage.
In any case, the data is for overall cancer rates, not brain cancer specifically. In fact, brain cancer is quite uncommon in comparison to lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, lymphoma, etc. It seems quite silly to me to worry about the cancer risk of cellphones when things like tobacco smoke and industrial toxins are much more obvious problems to worry about.
Well, let's be fair: the microwave oven is designed to keep its emissions inside.
What is unfair about a comparison to microwave ovens? Or household cordless phones or wi-fi access points for that matter? They all emit high-frequency radiation. And yes, microwaves are shielded and meant to CONTAIN radiation, but they are not perfect. If they were, then setting your wireless access point too close to a running microwave oven wouldn't mess up your network access (it does--my cordless phone didn't play nice with the oven either). Keep in mind that a typical cellphone emits less than a watt of power and a microwave oven is over a thousand times more powerful. The shielding may be 99.9% effective, but even at that rate the oven will emit radiation at rates on the same scale as that of a cellphone (this is not just a wild guess--microwave ovens may emit up to 5 mW per cm^2 from its outside surface, as measured from 5cm from that surface).
It's certainly difficult to isolate from the risk factors we bathe ourselves in daily, yes.
I think that researchers could conduct a study that proved ANYTHING caused cancer, and that a lot of these studies are influenced by pre-conceived prejudices--it is a goal to establish some link to cancer then muck with the study until there is evidence to back that link. There isn't a substance in the world that could not harm us if misused, and any data could be interpreted to sound urgent. Ever seen the parody site about "dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO)"? There are no lies in that site at all, but it makes DHMO (better known as pure water) sound like a dangerous toxin.
Truth is, it is quite EASY to isolate some obvious risk factors. When people live and work around synthetically produced chemicals that'll make your eyes water and give you a headache, or you notice a town that has 5 times the cancer rate of the rest of the nation, then it's pretty easy to figure out there is a problem there. But this cellphone thing? We've had 20 years to look at this, and there've been no big cancer clusters, no obvious cause-and-effect relationship, etc, and studies that have been made indicate no solid consensus. I think there are much more important things to worry about right now.
...well, unless you dig Pointy-Haired-Bosses.
What you are looking for is an Open GroupSEXWare application. There's probably one on SourceForge but like many projects there I'd bet it's been stuck at the "Planning" stage for years.
The taxes you pay on items you buy on eBay or other online stores vary depending on both the seller's AND buyer's juristictions in addition to what is being sold. Often used goods are tax-exempt. It is common that if you are not in the same state/province/country you are not charged taxes. If you bought an item on eBay from a California-based seller and you live in California, the seller probably has to collect taxes, but if you live in Washington then the seller probably doesn't.
Apparently many states have these "use taxes", where the buyer is responsible for paying the tax. I guess this is because an out-of-state seller can't be compelled to collect taxes for a government outside its juristiction. I suppose if a state trooper can't cross state lines in pursuit of a speeder then a bureaucrat can't reach into your pockets across state lines either.
What I don't understand about this cigarette use tax thing is why the gov't let it go to to the point where they had to snoop into people's purchasing history and send assessment notices for hundreds to thousands of dollars in back taxes. When I buy items on the 'net/by mail order and taxes and/or duty are due then they are held at the post office until I sign a gov't form and pay what is due. If UPS/FedEx/Purolator are delivering right to me the same thing applies--I gotta pay to get my stuff. What happened in Michigan? Was the seller delivering themselves, or were the packages labelled deceptively? In either case I'd go after the seller for fraud, before (or in addition to) chasing down the customers. Perhaps I'm missing something--has the online retailer (esmokes?) been reprimanded in some way?
Anyways, it seems the schemes behind sales/use/value-added taxes are getting antiquated. It's bad enough for some border towns to contend with, and with 'net sales everyone has to deal with tax confusion now. Perhaps it's time for gov'ts to come up with newer/fairer/more creative ways to collect revenue. Better yet, they should start looking for ways to spend more efficiently.
Not sure why this is flamebait...the article is NOT a study, nor is it all that scientific, except for the fact that two computer scientists were involved. I think it's time to bring out the red meta-moderation marker pen.
This was A CONTEST--they billed it as a "showdown". It involved one server of one variant of each platform, in basic (non-typical) configurations. It was meant to settle a bet, or prove a point--the point is proven too: Just because a server is Linux-based doesn't make it more secure than a Windows-based server. Configuration and maintenance makes a difference too. Too many Linux fanboys overlook the fact that OS quality/design notwithstanding, there ARE production Linux webservers out there that are not as secure as production Windows servers. I still maintain that Linux is a superior alternative in terms of efficiency and security, but admins still have to be viligant.
Yes, Win2K3 is not used on the desktop (not that it matters--the contest wasn't aimed at the desktop user). However, using a simple/default Win2K3 setup makes for a very incomplete study. MS has admittedly made great strides in locking down the default installation in Win2K3, but there are still a great deal of Win2K-based IIS servers out there. Putting Win2K/IIS on the public internet without external firewalls/protections/etc is reckless. Furthermore, a lot of Win2K3 servers were upgrades to older versions, and IIS has been configured in a "backwards-compatible" mode which could result in potential security issues. To top it all off, you have to look at how well-written IIS/ASP apps are and the overall security model. I'd argure that MS has done good with the default config but there is more potential for serious remote exploits than with Apache (I am not aware of any hardening options in IIS such as running chroot, etc). The number of desktop PCs running 2k or XP pro with an inappropriately-enabled "personal web server" is a major security factor as well.
The Linux situation is not very typical either. Firstly, the article shouldn't be "Microsoft beats Linux" but rather "Win2K3 beats RHEL3". RHEL3 is a linux distro but Linux is NOT just RHEL3. How about trying out Novell/SuSE or Mandrake or Slakware or others? What about Apache 1.3.x vs 2.0.x vs IIS? How about seeing if there is any improvement in RHEL4? After all, that IS the current version.
Also, the config was very simple in both cases. What happens if you put a mod_perl or PHP app up against ASP.NET for example? What about including database backends? I find it an interesting contest that could spark further study but on its own it is of no use in evaluating alternative platforms for security. The whole thing is just too superficial.
...at least as a method of revenue generation for road maintenance. They are ultimately not a stable way to generate revenue because they put downward pressure on fuel consumption--good for the environment but we'll still need our roads maintained when we're all driving fuel-celled vehicles.
Furthermore they directly hurt the transportation/logistics industry directly and thus the whole economy indirectly. High fuel costs (including taxes) make operating costs for owner/operators and transport companies, and the cost of distribution gets passed down to the consumer. Big tractor-trailer units will be fossil-fuel powered for much longer than small-passenger vehicles so raising fuel taxes would really hurt--you could end up with commercial drivers paying huge taxes so everyone can enjoy the roads--not exactly fair is it? And don't use that "harder on the roads" argument--there are many many times more 4X4 SUVs on the roads (which incidentally are hard on roads too) than tractor-trailers on the road.
Taxation on simple mileage might not be the best either, as some people do not live in the state where they work, meaning people living in Nevada or Oregon could get a free ride and Californians who work in those states would be taxed for using roads that will not be maintained using that revenue. GPS is obviously too invasive on privacy. I'd say the best method of taxation would be during vehicle registration, adjusting the fee based on vehicle size.
Better yet, they should phase out consumption taxes altogether--they are "regressive" and hold back the economy. I haven't heard any notable economists defend very regressive tax regimes (lots of sales taxes and user fees) and most advocate flat or progressive taxes (based on income/revenue generation instead of consumption). Regressive taxes are only liked by politicians and ultimately it is hard to make them fair. In any case, maybe CA should stop spending money foolishly and passing idiotic laws that stand in the way of sound budgeting (is CA not the state that passes well-intended but loony laws like mandating that at least one-third of general revenue must be spent on education?).
Interesting debate..CA is a place I love to visit and provides endless entertainment but most definitely a place I would not like to live.
The official name of the 2600 was the "Video Computer System" (VCS) and that was indeed the official name until the Atari 5200 came out. However, the catalogue/part number for the VCS was CX2600 right from the start, and that is where the name came from. When the Supersystem was announced/introduced (part #CX5200) the part numbers became official model names probably to emphasise the difference between the two.
Atari was known to employ some engineers with a twisted sense of humour and perhaps a history of cracking/phreaking activities (Steve Wozniak for example). Given that they allegedly code-named their products after well-endowed female coworkers it wouldn't surprise me that the original product number was inspired by the frequency in Hz that opened up the telephone system to phreakers.
In any case, I believe there was no real marketing angle to the choice of model numbers apart from simply using multiples of the number 2600 to indicate successive generations--1st gen = 1*2600, 2nd gen = 2*2600, 3rd gen = 3*2600. No compatibilty was impled, as a base 5200 couldn't play 2600 games and a base 7800 couldn't play 5200 games.
Computers being more complex is not claptrap.
ummm...yes it is. You very obviously do not have an appreciation of how cars work. You are right to say that you'd be wasting cycles arguing the point.
Modern automobiles are in fact on the same level of complexity as computers. They do not have the same number of transistors perhaps, but todays cars do in fact contain one or more microcontrollers and microprocessors, in addition to thousands of parts all working together. Electronics control engine management (ignition/timing, fuel supply, emissions control), safety systems (antilock braking, airbags), radio/cd, navigation systems (onstar, etc). Each system on its own is simple but they often have to interact with each other and mechanical systems.
Besides that point, there are specialised computer systems and non-windows platforms that basically ARE electonically equivalent to PCs with Windows in terms of complexity that are much more reliable. Besides Mac PCs, there are set-top boxes like TiVO and industrial control computers such as those used for DCS systems and other "computers in disguise" in public kiosks, ATMs, etc. How often do ou see all of those machines crash? FAR less often than a typical WinXP computer (oh yeah..except for the ATMs and kiosks where Windows has started to infiltrate where OS/2 and other legacy proprietary systems once reigned. As that happens it seems seeing crashed ATMs and public displays is increasing).
Some of these in fact are the very same hardware technology, which indcates to me that perhaps software (ie MS WINDOWS) is to blame. Sharing that blame would be OEMs who irresponsibly ship flawed software on new PCs (it is pretty typical that such machines only ship with what is included in a service pack and no more--so that the post-SP1 patch to prevent the spread of blaster-like worms was commonly absent from brand new machines until months later when SP2 emerged). Why the hell should the DSL or cable provider be held responsible for taching their subscribers how to use these flawed products? ISPs didn't design, make or sell them, they provide connectivity. they have enough problems of their own. No, the responsibility to provide information to customers resides squarely on the shoulders of the Microsoft's, Dells and HPs of the world, not the Bells, Comcasts and Rogers of the world.
Since you left it so obviously vulnerable...
This is precisely what baffles the author of the parent article my friend--or did you neglect to RTFA? How is it people have come to accept and expect that their computers or software would come from the manufacturer--BRAND NEW FROM THE FACTORY--in a condition that renders them basically useless?
This time last year, if you bought a brand new PC with WinXP factory-installed, pluged in the RJ45 and power cables and powered it up, you could almost 100% guarantee that within minutes it would need serious servicing. There is literally no other product or industry on the planet where such a shoddy product would be tolerated. I do not expect my brand new car to need the services of a mechanic before it is fit to drive on public roads. I do not need to configure a "radiation firewall" or install patches in my microwave to prevent it from turning my food into a smouldering powder. I can also be reasonably comfortable that my washing machine will clean my clothes without flooding the house or electrocuting me on a regular basis.
And don't give me any claptrap about how computers and software are complex. Cars are at least as complex as a PC these days and they are much more reliable. Microwaves, VCRs, etc. all have a lot of electronics. Industry uses PLCs (Programmable Logic Controllers) that today are rivalling the power of low-end PCs, and these complex devices can run continuously for years (some have run for a decade or more).
Not only does the fact that peoples expectations have stayed low and gotten lower baffle me--so does the response from knowledgable people along the lines of "well of course it broke--you didn't install a firewall, antivirus, disable this, enable that...." as if we are stupid to expect something to actually WORK in its factory configuration.
All in all, my opinion of Gates and Microsoft is mixed to negative--for all the contributions they made to computing, the man and his company have done a great deal to create a vulnerable IT monoculture and foster an attitude of low expectations.
Amazing, why does this continue to be a response to anything government funded? Here are services I have never used:
- The fire department
- The police department
- Roads beyond the 1/2 mile to the interstate and around friends and family
Why is it that so many people think that governments at any levle are immune to the same failings as corporations? They are both run by fallable, often self-interested people. What I find ironic is that the very same people who advocate an activist government at any level are the ones who probably hold GW Bush and his cronies in the same regard as Enron executives.
Since when did Wi-Fi broadband equate to ESSENTIAL services like those you mentioned? Governments at all levels should make essentials such as those the priority and leave such extras to private enterprise--period. Your contention that you never used ANY of those services? That is bullshit. Maybe you've never had a house fire, but I'm positive that the fire department played a role in ensuring your home was safe (all construction has to pass fire codes after all). You've most definitely benefitted from the service provided by the police department as well--law enforcement is what makes it somewhat safer to live wher you do compared to, say, Beiruit. In regards to roads you answered your own question--you DO use some of the roads (including the Interstate highway system I gather, if you care about the 1/2 mile of road that leads to it). If you don't drive, you benefit even more because not only are you making use of the road, but public transit vehicles driving on those rads too.
There are things government should take resopnsibility for in the public interest--it must ensure the safety and freedom of its citizens and their environment. Wi-Fi, at this point in time, is far from an essential service. If a municipality wants to be an activist gov't then there are far more nobler causes. Safe, clean low-income housing comes to mind, or how about improving public schools for children of low-income parents? If some city officials have a boner for Wi-fi then have them provide it to public schools and let the suburban soccer-moms and hockey-dads make their own arrangements?
Oh yeah--you might be trying to sound outrageous by suggesting the firefighters charge for responses, but it isn't that for off from what already happens. Even up here in "utopian Canada" with socialised medicine you can get a nice big bill for an ambulance ride. If the government can't cover something like THAT then I want them to stay out of Wi-Fi and other crap.
I can already see hoe that would turn out too. It sounds great to think that you could flick on your PC or any wireless device anywhere in the city and just browse at 10mbit or higher at and ditch the crappy cable and DSL. Trust me though it won't be free. There will be a tax hike associated "infrastrucure improvements" and no-one will know exactly how much of that went into putting in the access points. The job of putting in the equipment will be contracted to the "highest bidder"--that being the outfit who donated the most to the mayor's election campaign "bid". The city will take twice as long to put everything in as a private company would, and the system will be overcapacity from the start (it being free, every Centrino notebook in the city will be firing packets at it). Don't expect the city to take responsibility for network security and troubleshooting either--if your neighbourhood node goes out it'll be 4 to 48 hours before they fix it.
In other words, "free" city wireless will be no better than what private cable and telcos offer, except unlike the latter it'll never improve past mediocre, and nobody will ever have a really solid idea of how much it costs or where the money could've been better spent.
This was a couple years ago so could be completely wrong now.
.org domain relies on the PgSQL platform for example.
No completely wrong, but mostly:
* The current release of PgSQL runs natively on NT/2K/XP/2K3 Server as a service. The Cygwin emulation and related kludges are not an issue with either database now.
* PgSQL has been quite optimised in recent years, while at the same time MySQL has become rather less lightweight than it used to be. The only way to get any measurable performance benefit from MySQL over PgSQL now is to forego the use of InnoDB tables in MySQL (and the transactional ACID-compliancy/rollback capability that comes with them). Even then, it is only fast at SELECTs--speed of INSERTs, UPDATEs and DELETEs was never MySQLs real strom point in any case.
* As far as volume of hits and concurrent users go, PostgreSQL is far superior because it has a mature, stable MVCC (multi-version concurrency control) solution that almost completely eliminates table and record locking. If you have a site that does frequent and random insertion, deletion and modification transactions PgSQL wins.
* MySQL was perhaps simpler in the past, but that was because it's capabilities were much more limited. It isn't hard to use today, but it isn't exeptionally easy anymore. Furthermore, PgSQL has a lot more tools to ease administration tasks than it used to. I am puzzled by comments that PgSQL us hard to use--I actually find it is easier to use than MS SQL Server 2000 now. The documentation has come a very long way and you can point-and-click your way around PgSQL with PgAdmin, WebMin, and various PHP web-based tools.
* There are a lot of large-scale PgSQL implementations that rival or exceed Slashdot in scale. The entire
Anyways, I hope I haven't offended MySQL fans--it is a fine product and has enjoyed a great deal of success and advancement with its association with SAP for example. For a typical blogger/slashdot-style site MySQL fits the bill nicely as it has the largest installed base, doesn't handle mission-critical data, and the vast majority of activity is read-only.
If the data in the application is *important* and is write-heavy then you'll find that the case is different than above. For mission-critical web-based systems PostgreSQL tends to be be chosen over MySQL. For example, the SQL-Ledger accounting system uses PgSQL and NOT MySQL. However, MySQL has grown up some and has become a viable option here too--it's just that PgSQL has a more established image as being not the fastest but themost reliable with your data.
Just remember that if you decide to pass on InnoDB to max out performance of your MySQL database you better make damn sure you have a reliable UPS and don't trip on the power cord or bump the emergency power disconnect switch or you'll have a crisis on your hands...
Hmmm..."optional standards"...kind of like "advanced BASIC" and "*Micro*soft Office Professional" (a product that a friend remarked some time ago was so big it should've been sold on its own hard drive instead of floppies or CD-ROMs).
Having "optional" standards makes sense. I think a few posters here haven't been able to catch the clue--this doesn't mean "parallel" options like an option for debian or red-hat style package formats. The options are just an extension of what the FSG has done with LSB 2--it has already been broken into modules and with LSB 3 more modules will be added that do not have to be included to be an LSB certified OS or app. The BASE modules are required for all compliant software. For the "server" options there will be libraries and daemons that must be available that are not appropriate for desktop use. Similarly having X and a desktop environment and sound libraries on a server just to meet a standard is stupid, so they are part of an optional "desktop" standard.
I think that is what has been one of the barriers to widespread adoption of the LSB--in order to be able to say you are LSB compliant in the past you couldn't depend on C++, GNOME/KDE or some other fundamental components of modern distros--you either had to not use such components or bundle them with your install (making your package very large). Soon a GUI/Desktop app can say "LSB/Desktop compliant" and a web server application can say "LSB/Server compliant" and OS makers can market an LSB desktop OS without including irrelevant server components.
Without optional components in the standard you could end up with something like what you have with MS Windows--a desktop OS that (until quite recently anyways) had open ports and services that do nothing for users but consume resources and introduce security risks, and a server OS that requires megabytes more RAM and drive space so that it can provide pretty graphics, media player, paint program, etc in its default installation.
I think it's a great move. Multiple/optional standards are only a problem when they cover the same thing (VHS/Beta, RPM/DEB, DVD+RW/DVD-RW, etc etc etc...) and this is just providing some needed granularity to the standard. As long as it doesn't get too fragmented it'll be great for software distributors (LSB/Desktop, LSB/Server would all that would be needed in the software requirements list instead of a list of arcane dependencies).
Actually, as an ISV, if you want to put the shiny "Designed for Windows XP" sticker on your application, you have to pass a few Microsoft-administered tests.
.ini text files? If MS wanted maintainability then why didn't they specify a standard way of handling them in WinNT and Win95 (file locations, syntax, etc) as a condition of meeting the "logo requirements"?
Some criteria: [...]
I've admittedly not looked very hard for the "designed for XP" logo, but that might explain why getting 3rd party software which truly meets that designation is still nearly like finding hen's teeth.
1) Isn't as large a problem as it used to be, but a good amount of software (especially "free as in beer" stuff you get on the 'net that is crappily written) still peppers C:/WINDOWS/SYSTEM32 with DLLs
2) I don't know a single, solitary person who has never had to run with elevated privliges for at least one application that is still currently distributed and advertised to work with XP (although the official logo probably isn't displayed). One of the worst offenders besides games is DVDs.
3) Half the stuff out there that runs as a service/resides in the system tray falls apart with fast-user switching.
4) That one makes me laugh...uninstalls are cleaner but registry residue is still a problem. The whole concept of a monolithic, binary file is absolutely stupid. Honestly, what was wrong with
Mr. Gates can talk all he wants about the wonderful plans he has for software, but it seems not even he can overcome the incredible resistive inertial forces that have built up around the Microsoft platform. XP has been out for YEARS and all the above-mentioned problems are STILL common. Longhorn could be completely rewritten from the ground up with a completely solid architecture (which would be great!) but the problems won't go away--not for a long time. I figure that even if the foundation for Longhorn were as solid as it is for BSD, Linux and OS X the world could be contending with legacy flaws and quirks until about 2010 (just a wild guess---not gonna eat my words 5 years from now).
There are some incredible talent among the self-taught to be sure, but I would not say that it is always the case that the self taught person is the best person at a given skill. It takes a certain kind of intelligence to be a good at something you've taught yourself. You have to have a natural ability in the subject and a mind open to possibilities. Not all people think the right way--some people need a direction to get started before they thrive. Furthermore, those who are good self-teachers are not always good at everything they do.
For example, I can teach myself to program in a new computer language or how to fix my car with relative ease, but when it comes to cooking I am competent enough but if I haven't cooked something before I need the help of a recipe book and advice/assistance from someone who is acutally good at cooking.
When you stop and think about it, however, the best of the self-taught aren't really self-taught at all--they are merely informally educated. If you merely learn the basics and guess at the rest, finding the optimal solution can only be done out of luck. I'd venture to say that what it takes 4 years to learn in university might take 8 or more to learn yourself were you to be short of mentors and lacked that thirst for information.
I'll use an example I've used numerous times before: Two of the most famous achievenents by self-taught electronics engineers are the Apple II and the original Apple Mac. Steve Wozniak was not formally educated in microprocessor systems design--indeed the field was in its infancy and few people really were. However, he had a passion for electronics and surrounded himself with experts and other passionate people, so it is difficult to say he was "self" taught in that case. He lived in the hotbed of activity, soaked up information from books, magazines and friends, attended homebrew meetings and so on. This passion and a competitive spirit amongst homebrewers in addition to Woz's natural abilities resulted in the very efficient, elegant and inexpensive design of the Apple I and II computers. In subsequent years, Burell Smith exhibited the same passion and thirst for knowledge--he started by repairing Apple II circuit boards and while doing that and soaking up everything he could from his mentor Woz, got to know the Apple II better than anyone else (I believe it was Smith who wrote the devinitive bible on Apple II hardware). Eventually, he ended heading up the degign of the Mac hardware. Again, Smith was also more "informally" taught than "Self" taught.
Overall, I'd say that quite often the best RESULTS are from self-taught people, but you get things done MORE EFFICIENTLY and quickly from a formally educated person.
Its much easier to write a Perl script
I wholeheartedly agree, but it probably depends on your mindset. I'd say processing/transforming XML with Perl is just as powerful as using XSLT and quite a bit more flexible, as Perl is quite forgiving. XSLT looks rigid and inflexible. Perl strives to make the easy tasks simple to accomplish and difficult tasks possible. I suppose XSLT makes all things possible, but no task completely simple. It looks to me to be about as fun to code in XSLT as it is to code in FORTRAN77.
But XSLT code as "horrible"? Nothing's more horrible than badly hacked Perl. On the other hand, I've seen Perl that almost looks like plain english with weird punctuation--written right you can almost read it aloud and it would explain the process. I don't know of any other programming language that has been used in poetry writing contests (I suppose you can write C poetry as well, but you have to cheat and use defines). That is Perl's downside--very powerful and flexible, but it gives you a lot of rope, and Larry even tied it in a noose at the end to make it convenient should you decide you wish to hang yourself.
XSLT has an upside to counter its rigid and sometimes awkward structure. I suppose that being formatted in XML makes it a whole lot easier to parse than most other programming languages. XSLT keeps things structured as well. This limits the potential for the code to become obsfucated/convoluted. Looking at the two languages, I'd have to say that it looks like Perl was written to allow programmers to get the job done, and XSLT was written to allow machines to interpret it easier and would be better suited as a language used by an application that has a drag-and-drop user interface and auto-generates the code.
You're right, I don't think MS would be that careless with a prototype product. Furthermore, other posters have noticed upon further examination that these are NOT pics from a 1983 "Teen Beat" magazine--the article posted to /. is false (although the pictures are hilarious).
The pictures appear to be taken in 1985, most likely as part of an article in some computer magazine covering the release of Windows 1.0 on the unsuspecting public. Given the "I'm too sexy for my C-prompt" atmosphere, perhaps they weren't even formally published and were merely candid shots among many to chose from (like the photographer trying an experiment that failed miserably).
Ask yourself how Bill could get a Mac in 1983
Well, from the start Microsoft was a primary developer for applications software on the Mac platform. When the Mac was introduced, MS was not the behemoth it is today, but it WAS the king of systems software and languages already, so it was natural to turn to MS to develop a BASIC for the Mac (Applesoft BASIC on the II+ was a derivative/extension of the same MS-BASIC used on the Commodore PET). Furthermore, MS was trying to break through in the applications arena and it's flagship application was MS Multiplan (precursor to Excel and initially a distant also-ran to Lotus 123 and VisiCALC). Apple also needed some software ready for when the Mac came out and was too busy on the system to develop a lot of useful applications so it needed 3rd party assistance from MS and others.
Given MS and Apple wanted to at least try to have BASIC and Mutiplan ready for the MACs release, MS had to have prototype specimens before it was released--and in fact it did receive its first Apple Mac in late 1982. So, yes Bill could did get Macs by 1983.
BTW, the first MS products for the Mac weren't unlike any other MS product--they sucked but were somewhat useable nonetheless (Jobs complained that MS "didn't get it" in regards to GUI design, and "had no taste" and on both points it could be said that Multiplan supports his observations). MS became by far the larget 3rd party software vendor of Macintosh progams largely the way it came to dominate in BASIC on early micros--first mover advantage.
...because it's making you see extra zeroes. Depending on how severe the problem is, $300 is not really that far out.
/. for relationship status, personal hygene, etc. It's fun to watch "the comic book guy" on the Simpsons, but it's not fun to actually deal with such people. In fact, "the world is better off" if these jerks could learn some social skills.
Anyways, Our AC friend typifies the sort of arrogant, antisocial IT people who are mocked on
I remember a skit on SNL that hit the nail on the head--it featured "the IT guy" (played by Chris Kattan I think) that everyone in the office despised but relied on to fix their computers. He'd invariably spout a bit of technical jargon, followed by some kind of insult--along the lines of "Oh that's easy, just clear the printer queue and reinitialise, but I guess you're too STUPID to figure that out...I'm amazed you figured out how to BREATHE..."
Look, if someone carts in a home PC and has gigabytes of pictures, music and other files they want to keep, and it is so clogged with viruses and spyware that it is better just to re-install, then backing up all that stuff, re-installing the OS and configuring the system can take anywhere from a couple hours to a whole workday. If it was toward the latter end then $300 is a deal.
Calling people fools and morons and implying that they are not worthy enough to be online is not a solution. It is not acceptable to expect an average user to know all by themselves how to implement a firewall and install and maintain antivirus and antispyware--either they have to learn from somewhere or rely on experts for assistance, and both are going to take time and usually money.
The fact that we have to worry about all these precautionary measures to make our computers usable is an indication of where the industry is--basically personal computing is at the "model T" stage: now affordable and widespread but very unrefined and with unrealised potential.
Can you still find all the programs and utilities that make your system useable back to an equivalent level of the 2.0.x kernel?
As a matter of fact you can. Since the GNU part of the GNU/Linux operating system is also open source it can generally be compiled against any 2.x.x kernel. Same goes for Apache, Sendmail, PostgreSQL, etc etc. You cannot exactly do that with the NT kernel or the other parts of the OS. If MS patches MS SQL Server 2K and it breaks on NT, from now on you are SOL--you either upgrade, live with the unpatched version or pay very dearly for custom support.
...do you? Get out of your little bubble man! As if Linux systems are all PCs!
Msec?? Really??. When is the last time your linux system booted within 10 seconds?
My email, web and firewall servers? Never. The handheld, wireless Linux terminals that had Linux in flash rom? They always booted up way faster than 10 seconds.
These are not your basic beige Intel boxesI was talking about, these are $250K z-series workhorses. And a "partition" isn't just a little piece of an ATA hard drive--it is a completely self-contained virtual system within the hardware. You can reboot any partitions you want to your hearts content so long as you leave the production systems up. When you are done staging an upgrade (install, configure, regression testing etc etc) you just boot it up (however long that takes) then "throw the switch" when it is up and ready to go. Until that time, the prodution system hums away undisturbed on another partition.
Result? Service disruption that is LITERALLY milliseconds. That's my point--if a solution is SO critical that it MUST stay on 24/7 for THAT long, you don't just throw any old commodity hardware at it running Windows. If you didn't have to pay six-figures for the hardware and software that is acutally scalable then upgrading once or twice a decade to maintain reliable support isn't a problem for you--it is something you are just whining about. Windows serves the small and midrange market fine but it is not and never will be a contender in the very-large-enterprise market where such extended support is required--period.
...my good man: EMULATION SCENE
There have been options for classic system owners for awhile now. Our family owned a Coleco ADAM that we used for more than just games (no really!). Still have it in fact (just don't use it). In the late 80s ADAM enthusiasts were starting to connect their ADAMS to IBMs with something called "ADAMServer"---basically a null-modem connection that let the PCs fixed and floppy disk drives appear as local devices do you could make disk and tape images of your software. Furthermore, although the directory structure was different, the Coleco floppy was a fairly common format used on many CP/M systems and the original IBM PC (160K single sided) so for awhile you could use one of those machines to read the disks at a block level on one of those systems. Most data files were ASCII-readable, and by the mid 90s there was Windows/Linux/Mac emulator so you could run aplications and still use your SmartFiler database or ADAMCalc spreadsheets if they were that important to you.
That is for a short-lived, relatively uncommon system. Apple IIs, Commodores, TRS80s and Atari 8-bits were much longer lived and more numerous, so when the writing was on the wall there were likely far more options. Heck, if you have old Apple II, Comodore and TRS80 cassette tapes you can back them up by putting them in any old cassette recorder, connecting it to the line-in on your computer and recording the sqeals. the programs out there to convert these audio streams to binary images are probably more reliable than the circuitry in the original systems anyways.
Yes, the business world is all about "if it aint broke why fix it", but running PCs for over 10 years with no upgrades at all seems to take that to the extreme. I'd think that when the local computer shop said it was going to stop stocking 8-inch floppies soon that it would be a clue-in that you'd better start migrating. Besides that, there is something called *innovation*. Yes, for too long MS has upgraded windows and office in a pretty blatant move to prop up its revenue stream, but some innovations are pretty fundamental...like colour graphics, sound, high-density disks, laser printers.
Surely your dad's friend had to see that it was hurting his bottom line long before the mid 90s. What kind of impression does it make on your clients when you send correspondence printed on dot matrix and daisywheel printers or you spend all night futzing over a Visicalc spreadsheet or an ancient Peachtree system to balance the books? Most businesses upgrade or replace SOME equipment (even non-IT related equipment) more often than that. I find it baffling that a business could be successful otherwise, but I guess it happens--I remember a Dell contest about old PCs still being used where a lawyer who was an early PC enthusiast bought an Altair in th 70s with an eye on using it to run his firm--and did so continuously until he won the Dell contest 23 years later. Astonishing, but even that guy had continually upgraded the Altair and has ways to get his data out of that system.
It is a bit unfortunate that MS offered more support for NT than RH would for RH 5.0 and try getting suppor for Mandrake distros before 9.x--prety thin on thr ground I'd guess. To be fair MS is huge and sitting on a few billion so I thing they can foot the bill for the support. I do tend to cut Mandrake some slack being they had to pull themselves out of bancruptcy protection and all.
Ultimately, we don't need to expect a Linux vendor to have as long a support cycle. One thing that is different is that the Linux distro companies is that they do not control the source code, and that code is publicly available to anyone forever (the Linux kernel right back to the first 0.whatever release is available). Not only that, the Linux kernel support team DOES support old kernels--a lot of relevant patches are still backported to the 2.0.x kernels (which are as old as NT4). That is one of closed sources disadvantages-the vendor has to either open the source or offer indefinite support or the project is 100% guaranteed to become extinct.
Honestly, if your system is SO critical that you cannot change the core of your OS once every eight years then you either have the skills to deal with the lack of vendor-specific support for the old distro, or you more likely you made the wrong platform choice. If you needed a system that could be locked away and continuously run ontouched--with no mainteneance and upgrading--for THAT LONG, then you wouldn't use a PC-based server, you'd have gotten an IBM 390/Z-series/AS400 or a DEC/Compaq/HP VMS system and paid the boatloads of money to the vendor for support (REAL support, which MS has never been known to provide).
Interestingly enough, even today MS Windows platform is not an option on REAL "big iron" (well, anyways your choices are severely limited), while today linux is a valid choice. And downtime due to upgrades is not a concern on these big Linux systems, because you can stage the upgrade on another partition on the same hardware and just switch over when everything is set up. totoal downtime would be measured in milliseconds.
That means I'll be able to render .0000784 fewer frames of Quake 3 each day!
The world mourns your tragic daily loss of eight dozen pixels, but we mock your loss of a social life due to Quake 3 addiction.