I loved Pinball Construction Kit. Something about it, however, struck me as disturbing some years later...in the early '90's, I ran a small computer lab at a non-profit kid's organization. The kids (around 5-12 years of age) would come in for their computer time, race for a copy of Pinball Construction Kit, and then proceed to build a simple machine--just a pinball surrounded by bumpers. So, in effect, there was no way for this ball to escape the surrounding bumpers, and it would just continually bounce around and rack up points. No hole, no flippers, nothing else. Then they would activate the pinball machine and watch the score crank up for the next 30 mintues or so, until their turn at the computer was over. When I'd ask the kids if maybe they might like to build a machine with a real challenge (you know, one that actually had flippers and perhaps a hole so you might actually lose the occaisional ball), they would almost universally respond by looking at me as if I was crazy, and say, "No way. Look at all the points I'm getting this way. I'm winning."
"This book argues that the present mess, in which most systems expenditures produce frustration and unmet expectations rather then the quietly effective solutions promised, arose mainly because the incentives given systems people contradict their service mandate. The incentive is to grow by expanding the systems budget and you don't do that by being effective, you do that by balancing on the knife edge of continous near failure because that gets you executive attention and user presure to increase your budget. Someone whose living depends on fighting aligators is, after all, more likely to breed them than to drain the swamp."
"There are two or three GOOD reasons why managers make the big bucks. In theory, they are the RESPONSIBLE ones. The buck stops there. Programmers can often excuse problems as being the result of other people's work, their deadlines, etc. But a manager has no such refuge."
In a sufficiently fat comapny, managers have a much better refuge: Other managers. Enter the theory of "circular accountability." Each manager points to the manager to the [right|left] of [him|her]. So, the buck never really stops anywhere. If the shit really hits the fan, and someone needs to be accountable for something, they hit the "reorg" alarm, ring the bell, and quickly play management musical chairs so that each manager can say one or the other of these classic quotes:
"You can't blame me. I just moved into this position last month."
"You can't blame me. I had no knowledge of this when I was in my previous position, and I was too busy preparing to hand off to my replacement to notice the problem. Now plase go away, I have nothing to say about my previous position anymore. Check with the new guy."
In small companies, perhaps, but larger corporations are very rigidly hierarchically (sp?) aligned. Where I am, in a large international manufacturing firm, managers get more than the people they "manage" -- period.
At this company, in no cases would someone get more salary than the person they report too.
Hell, as a matter of fact, most of our programmers are being outsourced to off-shore programming farms for a fraction of the cost.
I use several DOS-only apps to drive some computer-controlled radios and radio scanners. Also, many 2-way radios I use are programmed with DOS applications that talk to the radio via a serial cable. I was beginning to sweat some things, since DOS (and DOS-capable machines) is harder and harder to find. This will be a great help for many of my projects!
So use 54022. I'm sure River Falls, WI could use the attention. I can see them changing the signs outside of town now: "The Linux Capitol of Wisconsin".
Hell, we've got the "Cheese Curd Capitol" and the "Rudabaga (sp?) Capitol" right up the road...so why not a Linux capitol?
I would agree. Compaq SmartArray driver support has come a long way in the past 18 months: I had a Compaq to put linux on, and 18 months ago, I couldn't get the SmartArray controller to work well as mouch more than just a straight SCSI controller. So, I switched to an ICP Vortex. 18 months later, while doing some hardware upgrades, I switched the SmartArray card back in, and went to Compaq's web site for flash updates and driver information. Amazing what a difference a year and a half makes--went from little to no information to "Oh my god! There are so many support options and Linux drivers I'm not sure where to start!"
The SmartArray works great. The little lights now light up on the drives (ya know, green, yellow and "uh-oh"). Heh.
Many of my coworkers suspect a behind the scenes deal with Microsoft. Now, I know some of you will freak out and start talking about black-helicopter conspiracy theories, but consider: What would happen if Lotus ported a Notes client to Linux? Would this potentially cause people to seriously consider Notes as an Exchange alternative? Would Microsoft care/would it have an effect?
Consider: How could Microsoft keep the Lotus people from porting and releasing a Notes client for Linux? Could they threaten to withhold APIs and hooks into Windows from Lotus or perhaps even raise the tax...er...licensing fees they charge Lotus/IBM now?
"Oh, but Notes is reasonably stable running under WINE."
I work in a Lotus Notes shop, and the one thing that keeps people from wiping their Microsoft partitions is the lack of a good native Lotus Notes client for Linux. Most of the Lotus guys I know say that the biggest question they get is "When will there be a Notes client for Linux?"
So, what the answer? Why doesn't Lotus develop a native-Linux Notes client?
As for the "it works under Wine" point, that's probably true, but our IT weenies don't let us get our hands on the Notes install CDs. Grrr...
"However, for what ever reasons, the American corporate community does not seem to regard any experience garnered while under 18 years of age as "real"."
I work for a company that doesn't believe that any experience garnered for other (previous) employers counts as "real." Better yet, anyone who doesn't have a ten-year service anniversay is still considered a "new" employee. Bah.
"The problem with the "fix it and you won't have to worry about it" approach is that new vulnerabilities come out all the time. What if you're on vacation? Or someone forgets?"
You are correct. You need to use both strategies:
Patch and update to fix known problems as they come out
Have some "low-level" protections in place to detect (and possibly, correct) unauthorized changes
However, my problem is that management thinks that option #2 is sufficient, and we'll just wait two years for the next service pack to address option #1.
Gee, this sounds just like a certian company I work(ed) for. They were getting all proud when they bought a package that detected defacements and automatically copied a "known good" version of the web page back in place. Of course, I'm kind of a low man on the totem pole, so my idea of plugging the security holes, so there's no defacement in the first place has yet to make it past my next-level management.
"...it's pretty sweet being able to take a picture of something with your cell phone and then send it to your friend's cell phone where it can be instantly viewed. Not necessarily super useful but pretty fun..."
This would be very useful, for example:
You're debugging something over the phone, help-desk-like-stuff. The user on the other end can't describe what he sees very well. "No problem, just send me a picture of the screen."
You come upon an accident and need to call for help. Why not shoot the dispatcher a picture to help determine what rescure resources might be needed?
Ah, good old blackmail/insurance. Take a picture of someone doing something unethical or illegal, and zap it off to a few friends for safekeeping. If anything happens to you, the pictures get published. (Maybe I watch too many movies)
Torture your friends back in Wisconsin instantly with "Wish you were here in this tropical paradise like I am right now..." photos.
"It's not like we could use the money for other stuff. Like paying teachers, for instance. Teachers are gonna do a lto more than computers can ever hope to, and if we pay them more, we might even be able to attract people who could be great teachers."
There is a reason teachers aren't paid very much, and it's not because we don't value education or the teaching profession. It's just simple economics. For the "warm fuzzy" of getting to work with kids, the personal satisfaction the job brings, etc., people are willing to take a lower salary for teaching than they would for jobs in other fields. Teaching also seems to attract a number of people who don't really need the money at all (wealthy families, spouses, whatever) and are therefore willing to work for less. At least in my area of the country, for every teacher who demands a pay raise, there are a number of people willing to take that teacher's position at the current pay rate or even less.
But, I digress. I absolutely agree with one of your points: A good teacher in the classroom is infinately more important than a computer in the classroom.
*sigh* Not this again. Just because you pay for something, doesn't mean you get to sue someone when it breaks. This horse was beat to death over here a while back.
Have you ever called a paid support line and been told "We don't have a fix for that problem handy, however, if you'd like to upgrade to our platinum support package, I could...blah...blah...blah...[Insert Sales Pitch Here]"?
I have. It left a pretty bad taste in my mouth for commercial support offerings.
"Basically, in the past when Ive had a NT/2000 or MSSQL issues I've paid my $200 bucks and got it worked out... everytime."
Ok, but consider this: It's a pretty commonly known fact that commercial software vendors release products with known, but usually obscure, bugs in place so they can make you pay support costs later as your encunter these bugs.
Now, let's look at the other side of the coin:
"Anytime I've had a Linux issue I have basically been told to RTFM."
That's because the answer can (usually) acually be found in the "FM". There are no secret agendas to hide the answers from the end user in the hopes of screwing them for support money later.
People don't trust free because on the whole (outside the computer world) free is equivalent to "crap". If you pay real money, then you have the expectation of real service and at the very least, when things go to hell, you can sue someone.
The funny thing is, people think that paying for software gives them the right to "sue someone." Um, nope. Does the following look familiar? It should. It's attached to just about every commercial software package license agreeement:
"...PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
We've all see this verbiage before--Microsoft uses it, even. But, what's really interesting is where I got this legal verbage from: The GPL. At least the Open-Source community is up-front and honest about what you can expect. Sue someone. Hrumph.
"Having descriptive DNS names for your equipment is a security risk. Why tell hackers what you have?"
So, if I put names in the DNS like: this-is-a-fake-name-to-fool-the-733t-hax0rs.get-a- clue.com that will solve my problem? Uh, no. A quick nmap will tell you most of what you need to know about how a host and the network it's on is utilized.
It's almost a cliche: Security through obscurity is no security at all.
On the other hand, it sure is handy to be able to tell, at a glance, what an IP is supposed to be used for.
Slashdot Mirror
I loved Pinball Construction Kit. Something about it, however, struck me as disturbing some years later...in the early '90's, I ran a small computer lab at a non-profit kid's organization. The kids (around 5-12 years of age) would come in for their computer time, race for a copy of Pinball Construction Kit, and then proceed to build a simple machine--just a pinball surrounded by bumpers. So, in effect, there was no way for this ball to escape the surrounding bumpers, and it would just continually bounce around and rack up points. No hole, no flippers, nothing else. Then they would activate the pinball machine and watch the score crank up for the next 30 mintues or so, until their turn at the computer was over. When I'd ask the kids if maybe they might like to build a machine with a real challenge (you know, one that actually had flippers and perhaps a hole so you might actually lose the occaisional ball), they would almost universally respond by looking at me as if I was crazy, and say, "No way. Look at all the points I'm getting this way. I'm winning."
To this day, I shake my head over this.
I mean its not a bad thing, it keeps the geezers off the road for a while...
Are you sure about that? I'm thinking they're more on the road than ever.
de KF9FR
I agree that what you say does happen. But, where then are the upper level managers? Are they not calling these "rotating bosses" to accountability?
Because it is in their best interests to let things continue as they are. A great book on this topic is "The Unix Guide to Defenestration". Here's a little blurb from the overview page:
"This book argues that the present mess, in which most systems expenditures produce frustration and unmet expectations rather then the quietly effective solutions promised, arose mainly because the incentives given systems people contradict their service mandate. The incentive is to grow by expanding the systems budget and you don't do that by being effective, you do that by balancing on the knife edge of continous near failure because that gets you executive attention and user presure to increase your budget. Someone whose living depends on fighting aligators is, after all, more likely to breed them than to drain the swamp."
In a sufficiently fat comapny, managers have a much better refuge: Other managers. Enter the theory of "circular accountability." Each manager points to the manager to the [right|left] of [him|her]. So, the buck never really stops anywhere. If the shit really hits the fan, and someone needs to be accountable for something, they hit the "reorg" alarm, ring the bell, and quickly play management musical chairs so that each manager can say one or the other of these classic quotes:
In small companies, perhaps, but larger corporations are very rigidly hierarchically (sp?) aligned. Where I am, in a large international manufacturing firm, managers get more than the people they "manage" -- period.
At this company, in no cases would someone get more salary than the person they report too.
Hell, as a matter of fact, most of our programmers are being outsourced to off-shore programming farms for a fraction of the cost.
The X-Files Timeline has all the answers to your X-Files story arc questions.
I use several DOS-only apps to drive some computer-controlled radios and radio scanners. Also, many 2-way radios I use are programmed with DOS applications that talk to the radio via a serial cable. I was beginning to sweat some things, since DOS (and DOS-capable machines) is harder and harder to find. This will be a great help for many of my projects!
...an impartial university did a study with him..."
Do you have any linkage to this study? I'd like to see more info on this.
So use 54022. I'm sure River Falls, WI could use the attention. I can see them changing the signs outside of town now: "The Linux Capitol of Wisconsin".
Hell, we've got the "Cheese Curd Capitol" and the "Rudabaga (sp?) Capitol" right up the road...so why not a Linux capitol?
I would agree. Compaq SmartArray driver support has come a long way in the past 18 months: I had a Compaq to put linux on, and 18 months ago, I couldn't get the SmartArray controller to work well as mouch more than just a straight SCSI controller. So, I switched to an ICP Vortex. 18 months later, while doing some hardware upgrades, I switched the SmartArray card back in, and went to Compaq's web site for flash updates and driver information. Amazing what a difference a year and a half makes--went from little to no information to "Oh my god! There are so many support options and Linux drivers I'm not sure where to start!"
The SmartArray works great. The little lights now light up on the drives (ya know, green, yellow and "uh-oh"). Heh.
Sheesh. Google is your friend here:
Portable Network Graphics Home Site
Many of my coworkers suspect a behind the scenes deal with Microsoft. Now, I know some of you will freak out and start talking about black-helicopter conspiracy theories, but consider: What would happen if Lotus ported a Notes client to Linux? Would this potentially cause people to seriously consider Notes as an Exchange alternative? Would Microsoft care/would it have an effect?
Consider: How could Microsoft keep the Lotus people from porting and releasing a Notes client for Linux? Could they threaten to withhold APIs and hooks into Windows from Lotus or perhaps even raise the tax...er...licensing fees they charge Lotus/IBM now?
"Oh, but Notes is reasonably stable running under WINE."
I work in a Lotus Notes shop, and the one thing that keeps people from wiping their Microsoft partitions is the lack of a good native Lotus Notes client for Linux. Most of the Lotus guys I know say that the biggest question they get is "When will there be a Notes client for Linux?"
So, what the answer? Why doesn't Lotus develop a native-Linux Notes client?
As for the "it works under Wine" point, that's probably true, but our IT weenies don't let us get our hands on the Notes install CDs. Grrr...
"However, for what ever reasons, the American corporate community does not seem to regard any experience garnered while under 18 years of age as "real"."
I work for a company that doesn't believe that any experience garnered for other (previous) employers counts as "real." Better yet, anyone who doesn't have a ten-year service anniversay is still considered a "new" employee. Bah.
You are correct. You need to use both strategies:
- Patch and update to fix known problems as they come out
- Have some "low-level" protections in place to detect (and possibly, correct) unauthorized changes
However, my problem is that management thinks that option #2 is sufficient, and we'll just wait two years for the next service pack to address option #1.Gee, this sounds just like a certian company I work(ed) for. They were getting all proud when they bought a package that detected defacements and automatically copied a "known good" version of the web page back in place. Of course, I'm kind of a low man on the totem pole, so my idea of plugging the security holes, so there's no defacement in the first place has yet to make it past my next-level management.
This would be very useful, for example:
And so on...
"It's not like we could use the money for other stuff. Like paying teachers, for instance. Teachers are gonna do a lto more than computers can ever hope to, and if we pay them more, we might even be able to attract people who could be great teachers."
There is a reason teachers aren't paid very much, and it's not because we don't value education or the teaching profession. It's just simple economics. For the "warm fuzzy" of getting to work with kids, the personal satisfaction the job brings, etc., people are willing to take a lower salary for teaching than they would for jobs in other fields. Teaching also seems to attract a number of people who don't really need the money at all (wealthy families, spouses, whatever) and are therefore willing to work for less. At least in my area of the country, for every teacher who demands a pay raise, there are a number of people willing to take that teacher's position at the current pay rate or even less.
But, I digress. I absolutely agree with one of your points: A good teacher in the classroom is infinately more important than a computer in the classroom.
*sigh* Not this again. Just because you pay for something, doesn't mean you get to sue someone when it breaks. This horse was beat to death over here a while back.
"You OBVIOUSLY have never called MS support..."
Well, no. I don't have to work with Microsoft products. I do, however have to work with commercial UNIX vendors and their "support" offerings.
"I'll venture to say that the above poster spends way too much time in alt.conspiracy."
Or, perhaps, too much time on vendor support lines, listening to pitches for the support package upsells instead of solutions for my problem?
Have you ever called a paid support line and been told "We don't have a fix for that problem handy, however, if you'd like to upgrade to our platinum support package, I could...blah...blah...blah...[Insert Sales Pitch Here]"?
I have. It left a pretty bad taste in my mouth for commercial support offerings.
"Basically, in the past when Ive had a NT/2000 or MSSQL issues I've paid my $200 bucks and got it worked out... everytime."
Ok, but consider this: It's a pretty commonly known fact that commercial software vendors release products with known, but usually obscure, bugs in place so they can make you pay support costs later as your encunter these bugs.
Now, let's look at the other side of the coin:
"Anytime I've had a Linux issue I have basically been told to RTFM."
That's because the answer can (usually) acually be found in the "FM". There are no secret agendas to hide the answers from the end user in the hopes of screwing them for support money later.
The funny thing is, people think that paying for software gives them the right to "sue someone." Um, nope. Does the following look familiar? It should. It's attached to just about every commercial software package license agreeement:
We've all see this verbiage before--Microsoft uses it, even. But, what's really interesting is where I got this legal verbage from: The GPL. At least the Open-Source community is up-front and honest about what you can expect. Sue someone. Hrumph.
"Having descriptive DNS names for your equipment is a security risk. Why tell hackers what you have?"
- clue.com that will solve my problem? Uh, no. A quick nmap will tell you most of what you need to know about how a host and the network it's on is utilized.
So, if I put names in the DNS like: this-is-a-fake-name-to-fool-the-733t-hax0rs.get-a
It's almost a cliche: Security through obscurity is no security at all.
On the other hand, it sure is handy to be able to tell, at a glance, what an IP is supposed to be used for.