While I actually like the fact that Canadian content was forced on me growing up in Canada, and I agree with having the broadcasters have to give some breaks for Canadian-produced stuff. It makes sense - and it's easy to do at the broadcaster level.
There is no way to do this on the internet, without some kind of draconian filtering methods - which are totally and completely unacceptable.
With TV, there is a limited set of channels, and the worry was that Canadian content could not compete with larger American producers - larger market and budgets and all that. The end result, without content regulations, would have been basically no Canadian produced TV- no room for them on the dial. The internet does not have this problem, and therefore there is no need to attempt to regulate it.
There are a plethora of articles out there about open-source and why it's more secure.
In the end, though, you have to address each customer's concerns directly.
If they have a concern, answer it.
If they are looking for some type of certification, tell them how much it's going to cost.
If they are looking for guarantees, ask them what guarantees they get with these "other" secure produts they are considering. If they in fact DO get guarantees, which I doubt, than that's a legitimate point of competition.
"So what do we do now... We cant all go work at a SaaS shop"
We keep innovating, and designing and supporting BETTER services on top of those new, commoditized ones.
I don't have to worry about wasting time on VM infrastructure and SANS because I can use AWS now? Fantastic - I can get the team working on something more interesting to get a leg up on the competition.
Contrary to the "saas is bad because everyone outsources and doens't hire developers" statement linked...
1) Why should companies hire IT workers to do the same job they can do more economically with SAAS if it meets their needs?
2) If hiring local workers leads to better products and services for your company, then inevitably those businesses who want to rise above will pay for local developers.
3) Who do you think builds and maintains "software as a service?" - developers
Internet censorship like this isn't just internet censorship.
The internet isn't a thing - a single service - it's the end result of a whole bunch of private and public networks voluntarily choosing to use common protocols and volunatrily choosing to let certain groups administer some limited aspects (IP space, name space, etc).
The government making it law that this must be censored is the government saying:You are not allowed to establish digital communication with anyone else unless it's passed through our filters, and we decide what data goes and stays.
This remains true no matter how pretty you dress it up.
Because currently, modern systems leak. A cold re-start puts things back into a fresh state - and we need that.
Modern memory management is fantastic - but I'll still arguet hat my workstations work better and smoother with swap disabled than without it - which is telling.
Which is something I prefer - I'd rather see problems earlier, and know about leaky applications earlier, rather than endure an ever-slowing computer until finally it crashes.
It's going to do the same thing either way, one is just more annoying.
One will insist that, no matter how much memory is currently allocated, it makes more sense to swap out that which isn't needed in order to keep more free physical ram. They will argue until they are blue in the face that the benefits of doing so are good. Essentially - your OS is clever and it tries pre-emptively swap things out so the memory will be available as needed.
The other camp - and the one I subscribe to - says that as long as you have enough physical ram to do whatever you need to do - any time spent swapping is wasted time.
I run most of my workstations (Windows) without virtual memory. Yes, on occasion, I do hit a "low on virtual memory error" - usually when something is leaky - but I prefer to get the error and have to re-start or kill something rather than have the system spend days getting progressively slower, slowly annoying me more and more, and then giving me the same error.
This is not to say that swap is bad, or that it shouldn't be used - but I prefer the simpler approach.
The confusion is that a lot of people, despite the very clear language in the GPL itself, seem to be under the impression that anything *produced* with GPL tools is GPL.
I have had countless developers, especially in years past, tell me that "Oh well we don't program on Linux because we don't want to have to give away our code. We can't use GCC for that reason."
The point where employees and/or contractors start ignoring me and doing their own thing is the point where they are generally shown the door.
It's fine if they have their opinion, or even a better way to do things - but if I feel strongly enough about something to insist it's done a certain way, and they want to keep arguing about it or ignoring me... thanks, but I'll find someone who can do it my way.
A company writing software is free to license it, as well as any other business contracts surrounding it, however they want.
Whether or not they also happen to release an OSI-compliant version has no bearing on this.
Having their partners agree not to support the free version they also produce is legitimate, as is having their partners not agree to support competitor's products. *
* This might fall afoul of some kind of antitrust or fair-trade practices or something like that, in some jurisdictions, but if it does, it has nothing to do with the fact that they also release their code as OSS.
That's all true, but completely unrelated to the current issue.
If I write software, and decide to release it to you under the terms of the GPL - my obligation to you is: Absolutely Nothing. You are allowed to re-distribute and do 'stuff' with my code (per the GPL license I granted you).. but I have absolutely zero obligations towards you.
The GPL applies to you in this situation, but not to me... I own the original copyright.
If I also happen to have a beefed up commercial version of my code.. I am free to sign deals with potential business partners under whatever terms thy and I agree to. You don't get a say in the matter - it's not your code.
Curious why you think psychology is invalid - certainly there are crazy theories out there, but there are also many theories about human behavior and now the mind works that offer repeatable, testable, falsifiable experiments.
Freud didn't just come up with some crazy drug-induced ideas - he studied a HUGE number of cases. He formulated theories based on empirical observation of human behavior. He tested those theories.
If you push something away on a different angle but in the same altitude, your orbits will diverge. At some point, there is a possiblity that you will slam into each other at a high angle (opposite directions would be the worst, but any angle large enough would imply a high enough speed to do some real damage).
When you want to get rid of something - you don't just chuck it away and push off, you also slow it down so it heads into a lower orbit.
I'm conflicted about this... I do understand the low-budget need for lots of space, however, if there is one area IT in general generally fails at, especially in small business, is assessing risk.
More spindles on smaller drives is more expensive, but it's more manageable, and therefore more reliable. If they need to store terabytes of data, they need to store it correctly - the trick is in defining and selling what "correct" is.
Odds are this is being driven by a data-center engineering team, who are looking at the cost savings of running their data center 5 degrees hotter.
You don't get what you don't ask for.
Intel will do exactly as much engineering as necessary to keep their target market up, and no more.
If the market wants chips that operate 5 degrees hotter.. the engineers will do their job and see if it can be done. Intel will charge a premium for this.
From experience, setting up a forum for the call-center (well, the company in general, mostly call-center employees) quickly degenerates into whining about everything, and pointless posts. It can very quickly lead to employee uprisings and things like that.
I don't think this is true - I realize it seems intuitive at first - but consider when the engine is idling, it's turning itself over. When going downhill, and letting the engine do the breaking, the engine has to do even LESS work to keep spinning, using even less fuel.
Just because the engine is spinning at a certain RPM does not in any way mean it's using more fuel.
Slashdot Mirror
While I actually like the fact that Canadian content was forced on me growing up in Canada, and I agree with having the broadcasters have to give some breaks for Canadian-produced stuff. It makes sense - and it's easy to do at the broadcaster level.
There is no way to do this on the internet, without some kind of draconian filtering methods - which are totally and completely unacceptable.
With TV, there is a limited set of channels, and the worry was that Canadian content could not compete with larger American producers - larger market and budgets and all that. The end result, without content regulations, would have been basically no Canadian produced TV- no room for them on the dial.
The internet does not have this problem, and therefore there is no need to attempt to regulate it.
When the stock was experiencing solid, steady growht - the shareholders didn't complain.
Now that it's not, they are asking harder questions.
This same pattern can be seen in *any* situation involving investors, public and private.
When the money is falling off the trees, nobody asks too many questions.
When it's not, you tighten the belt.
There are a plethora of articles out there about open-source and why it's more secure.
In the end, though, you have to address each customer's concerns directly.
If they have a concern, answer it.
If they are looking for some type of certification, tell them how much it's going to cost.
If they are looking for guarantees, ask them what guarantees they get with these "other" secure produts they are considering. If they in fact DO get guarantees, which I doubt, than that's a legitimate point of competition.
This really isn't an obstacle to a professional pen-tester - 10 seconds to fire up metasploit is not a problem.
It's possible that without Ruby, we'd have a much faster, much less feature-rich framework.
"So what do we do now... We cant all go work at a SaaS shop"
We keep innovating, and designing and supporting BETTER services on top of those new, commoditized ones.
I don't have to worry about wasting time on VM infrastructure and SANS because I can use AWS now? Fantastic - I can get the team working on something more interesting to get a leg up on the competition.
Contrary to the "saas is bad because everyone outsources and doens't hire developers" statement linked...
1) Why should companies hire IT workers to do the same job they can do more economically with SAAS if it meets their needs?
2) If hiring local workers leads to better products and services for your company, then inevitably those businesses who want to rise above will pay for local developers.
3) Who do you think builds and maintains "software as a service?" - developers
Internet censorship like this isn't just internet censorship.
The internet isn't a thing - a single service - it's the end result of a whole bunch of private and public networks voluntarily choosing to use common protocols and volunatrily choosing to let certain groups administer some limited aspects (IP space, name space, etc).
The government making it law that this must be censored is the government saying :You are not allowed to establish digital communication with anyone else unless it's passed through our filters, and we decide what data goes and stays.
This remains true no matter how pretty you dress it up.
Because currently, modern systems leak. A cold re-start puts things back into a fresh state - and we need that.
Modern memory management is fantastic - but I'll still arguet hat my workstations work better and smoother with swap disabled than without it - which is telling.
Which is something I prefer - I'd rather see problems earlier, and know about leaky applications earlier, rather than endure an ever-slowing computer until finally it crashes.
It's going to do the same thing either way, one is just more annoying.
This should generate some polarized discussion.
There are two camps of thought.
One will insist that, no matter how much memory is currently allocated, it makes more sense to swap out that which isn't needed in order to keep more free physical ram. They will argue until they are blue in the face that the benefits of doing so are good.
Essentially - your OS is clever and it tries pre-emptively swap things out so the memory will be available as needed.
The other camp - and the one I subscribe to - says that as long as you have enough physical ram to do whatever you need to do - any time spent swapping is wasted time.
I run most of my workstations (Windows) without virtual memory. Yes, on occasion, I do hit a "low on virtual memory error" - usually when something is leaky - but I prefer to get the error and have to re-start or kill something rather than have the system spend days getting progressively slower, slowly annoying me more and more, and then giving me the same error.
This is not to say that swap is bad, or that it shouldn't be used - but I prefer the simpler approach.
The confusion is that a lot of people, despite the very clear language in the GPL itself, seem to be under the impression that anything *produced* with GPL tools is GPL.
I have had countless developers, especially in years past, tell me that "Oh well we don't program on Linux because we don't want to have to give away our code. We can't use GCC for that reason."
Maybe I'm having a really cynical weekend, but...
The point where employees and/or contractors start ignoring me and doing their own thing is the point where they are generally shown the door.
It's fine if they have their opinion, or even a better way to do things - but if I feel strongly enough about something to insist it's done a certain way, and they want to keep arguing about it or ignoring me... thanks, but I'll find someone who can do it my way.
Yes, they can do this.
A company writing software is free to license it, as well as any other business contracts surrounding it, however they want.
Whether or not they also happen to release an OSI-compliant version has no bearing on this.
Having their partners agree not to support the free version they also produce is legitimate, as is having their partners not agree to support competitor's products. *
* This might fall afoul of some kind of antitrust or fair-trade practices or something like that, in some jurisdictions, but if it does, it has nothing to do with the fact that they also release their code as OSS.
That's all true, but completely unrelated to the current issue.
If I write software, and decide to release it to you under the terms of the GPL - my obligation to you is: Absolutely Nothing. You are allowed to re-distribute and do 'stuff' with my code (per the GPL license I granted you).. but I have absolutely zero obligations towards you.
The GPL applies to you in this situation, but not to me... I own the original copyright.
If I also happen to have a beefed up commercial version of my code.. I am free to sign deals with potential business partners under whatever terms thy and I agree to. You don't get a say in the matter - it's not your code.
Curious why you think psychology is invalid - certainly there are crazy theories out there, but there are also many theories about human behavior and now the mind works that offer repeatable, testable, falsifiable experiments.
Freud didn't just come up with some crazy drug-induced ideas - he studied a HUGE number of cases. He formulated theories based on empirical observation of human behavior. He tested those theories.
Nobody owes you anything, whether it's open source or not, unless you have a real or legally implied contract with them to provide something.
Not on the other side.. no.
If you push something away on a different angle but in the same altitude, your orbits will diverge. At some point, there is a possiblity that you will slam into each other at a high angle (opposite directions would be the worst, but any angle large enough would imply a high enough speed to do some real damage).
When you want to get rid of something - you don't just chuck it away and push off, you also slow it down so it heads into a lower orbit.
If anti means antimatter, you would express it as
electron / antielectron.
Antielectron == positron
Wait, wait.. so math is not science?
Believe it or not, there are very few places in the world where regular, low-risk jobs earn you $83k a year.
I'm conflicted about this... I do understand the low-budget need for lots of space, however, if there is one area IT in general generally fails at, especially in small business, is assessing risk.
More spindles on smaller drives is more expensive, but it's more manageable, and therefore more reliable. If they need to store terabytes of data, they need to store it correctly - the trick is in defining and selling what "correct" is.
Odds are this is being driven by a data-center engineering team, who are looking at the cost savings of running their data center 5 degrees hotter.
You don't get what you don't ask for.
Intel will do exactly as much engineering as necessary to keep their target market up, and no more.
If the market wants chips that operate 5 degrees hotter.. the engineers will do their job and see if it can be done. Intel will charge a premium for this.
That's business.
I watch this article with curiosity.
From experience, setting up a forum for the call-center (well, the company in general, mostly call-center employees) quickly degenerates into whining about everything, and pointless posts. It can very quickly lead to employee uprisings and things like that.
Any idea where one can read the text of that law?
I don't think this is true - I realize it seems intuitive at first - but consider when the engine is idling, it's turning itself over.
When going downhill, and letting the engine do the breaking, the engine has to do even LESS work to keep spinning, using even less fuel.
Just because the engine is spinning at a certain RPM does not in any way mean it's using more fuel.