Typically the Linux user knows a lot more about his system... than the windows users
Perhaps because "typical" Linux users are geeks, and "typical" Windows users are office workers and gamers who couldn't care less? Why should users know the inner workings of the systems they use? There are systems administrators and programmers for that. Whilst there may be Windows sysadmins who don't know as much as they should, they have their equivalents in the linux camp -- just look at some of the stupid questions posed to the Answer Guy in the Linux Gazette (note: this is not intended to be a slur against the Answer Guy, who really knows his stuff). Lack of in-depth technical knowledge becomes increasingly common as a piece of software moves into the mainstream.
Windows may hold no interest to you, but assuming your views are held by the majority across the combined tech-users communities is asinine.
I could be mistaken here, but it is my impression that any user can spin off a virtual machine.
What happens in the following scenario:
A user spins off a vserver, specifying the IP address of the default gateway for the parent server. The user then somehow convinces the parent server that it really *is* the gateway, and effectively takes the parent server off the network. If this is possible, someone without physical access to the network, but with an unpriviledged login to the parent server, could effectively perform a DOS attack on it.
I must be missing something here. It can't be this simple. Can anyone point out where I've gone wrong?
I can't say that I was affected by the blocking of macromedia's web site. If MAPS manages to help prevent the 200-400 unsolicited emails I receive weekly from arriving in my inbox, I will be more than happy to put up with the occasional glitch.
If you're interested in scaling Windows, look into hiring DCOM/MTS/COM+ programmers and have them teach your MCSEs how to use these technologies, coupled with Network Load Balancing and SQL clustering and/or replication to scale out you systems. A well architectured Windows platform can scale more than most people think, because so many think MCSE is the be-all-and-end-all of MS platform know-how.
Windows clients typically authenticate against an Windows Server (be it NT4 or 2000). Each individual client connecting to the Server must have a Client Access License (CAL). Windows 2000 Server comes bundled with 5 CALs, and Windows 2000 Advanced Server comes with 25 CALs. Additional CALs can be purchased seperately. The important point is that CALs are only required if you want to connect to a Windows NT4/2000 Server.
For example, if you plan on having a network of 20 Windows 2000 Professional workstations connected to a single Windows 2000 Server, in addition to the 20 licenses for Windows 2000 Professional and 1 copy of Windows 2000 Server, you would need to purchase an additional 15 CALs.
By providing you with free server software, Samba eliminates the need to purchase CALs, as they are server-specific. In the above example, the customer would only need the 20 Windows 2000 Professional licenses.
You won't be able to get a C compiler? You've obviously never worked as a developer on Microsoft's platforms. They have the best developer tools, documentation, training and support options I have ever seen. Nothing else from any other company comes close. Novell, Sun, IBM and all the largest software vendors are simply playing catch-up in this ballgame, and Microsoft is not letting up.
Microsoft is firmly committed to providing the best development environment around.
Sure, with Linux you have the source code. There's no denying that is useful. Does it have anything approaching the quality of Visual Studio? Any developer documentation as comprehensive, accessible and easy to use as the MSDN Library? Regular training events, developer conferences by the dozen even out in Australia? Anything to rival COM+ for power, scalability and relative ease of use? Notice I haven't even mentioned the.NET framework yet, which is probably the best thing since sliced bread.
The reason for this is simple: a significant reason for upgrading your Windows PC is that Windows runs all the latest games, which rely on ever-faster CPUs, RAM and video cards. As a result, people wanting to play Quake, Quake 2, Half-Life, Unreal Tournament, Quake 3 Arena, Tribes and the multitude of cutting-edge games in their full glory and at maximum speed, upgrade. The single most popular multiplayer game (mod) in history, Counter-Strike, does not have a linux client (as it uses the HL engine). Only several of the latest games are available under Linux, and those that are do not generally run as fast under the latest hardware as they do in Windows, due to sub-par driver support.
Remember, that as well as being the mainstream office productivity platform, Windows has DirectX and the attendant hardware drivers that make it the only serious gamers' platform around.
btw, yes, I know NVIDIA cards run under X. Are the drivers as good as under Win32? No. What about my Vortex2 sound card for linux driver support? Not even close. And my force feedback steering wheel? Nope. And my digital joystick? Nah, mine's not listed amongst those supported. And my ultra-smooth intellimouse?... heck, where's decent USB support?!?
Linux needs a lot of work before it finds a home on my home desktop. You can bet Microsoft won't stop improving Windows, either.
Now, how is this relevant, and not entirely a rant? Simple: Linux, and the Open Source/Free Software development models rely on the end-user performing the development work. This generally means programmers. Are programmers as likely as Joe User to want good gaming support under linux. Not likely. They'd rather have new Apache modules, new SAMBA features, and a better GNOME. Not that there's anything wrong with that. However, as long as this is the case, linux will continue to be a fringe OS. Frankly, Joe User could care less about the occasional cost of upgrades, as long as Team Fortress 2, Wolfenstein 2000, Halo, Tribes 2, Pool of Radiance and Need for Speed VI run well when they are released, and as long as Word and Excel continue to look "cooler" with each upgrade whilst being backward-compatible.
I won't even go into the whole web browser (in)compatibility thing, as it is not really directly related to Linux, although it does contribute to linux being less that ideal as a desktop platform.
All that said, keep up the good work, those folks who do actual open source or Free Software development. You're the reason my firewall/gateway doesn't need rebooting, and runs on my Pentium ex-doorstop.
Certainly, that would have to be considered by any business if there was a chance to find a publisher as good as or better than GT Interactive who would agree to support Linux.
However, the ability to have Linux support in the box has to be weighed against the existing good relationship Epic Megagames has with GT Interactive. GT Interactive is a well-established publisher, with all the attendant resources. In the eyes of many Slashdot readers, the ability to put a penguin logo on the box might be a more important concern than having a publisher with the ability to distribute in mass-market quantities, world-wide and at a competitive price. However, Epic Megagames also has a duty to its Windows user base (the over 90% of sales from Mr Sweeney's figures). These users might not be as "enlightened" as Linux users, but they are the major source of value for Epic Megagames and the publisher. If there has to be a trade-off between having Tux on the box and making sure Unreal Tournament gets to a million people worldwide in a timely manner and through careful marketing, the latter must win due to financial concerns.
Remember, even though the Linux version is not in the box, its only a 3MB download. At least we have it.
Your own statement answers your question. They chose not port to BeOS because they didn't get "enough BeOS user feedback". IIRC, there are only approximately 100k BeOS users. There are over 100 million Windows users and an estimated 7 million Linux users. Epic was willing to make a Linux port to support what in their opinion are the hardcore players, the server admins and a viable market that justifies the expense of porting the game.
Companies do not want to support an operating system with a tiny user base.
So you're saying that the gameplay changes with each level? It's Quake on level 1 and it PowerPuff girls on level 3? Doubt it.
Yes, unfortunately that's exactly what I have to say. The classic example is Thief, an FPS where you're a medieval master thief and your missions concern themselves with theft and assasination. The first level is great -- you get to sneak around a beautiful castle, avoiding guards and traps, and silently eliminating others.
If that was how the rest of the game would've turned out, it would have become one of my all-time favourites.
However, the second level and those that follow add a new twist. Your former master thief suddenly finds himself having to run around killing zombies all the time, in a hit-and-run fashion. This changes the game dramatically, particularly since the interface is designed for slow, precise movement and environment manipulation. What was a riveting test of nerve and patience becomes an awkward rendition of Alone in the Dark.
The demo doesn't inform you of this. See, the creators decided the first level was enough for a potential buyer to decide whether or not to commit their dollars to play the rest.:\
Waste of my money, that was.
Of course a company is going to release the best or more hooking, addictive part of the game as the demo. This could be true with some demos. But it could also be just as likely not true with others.
Thanks very much, but after being burned like that, I'd rather be certain. I gave only one example of such games. From my experience with many, I'd say the majority subscribe to the same school of thought. Its only the minority (eg. Valve, whose "Day One" was an excellent demo for "Half-Life", a copy of which I own) that do the right thing.
If I can beat a game in a week (can some, others not), then I don't want it. I understand. I feel the same way. However, it only takes a week at the most to beat half-life. Think more on terms of replay value rather than the time it takes to beat it.
I agree. Note that despite finishing Half-Life within a couple of days or so, I still bought it. It is the replay value I cherish.
Did you read anything I said before? These things tell you nothing. Reviews are worse than useless, because often they're simply hype. That's an opinion, not an actual fact. These things tell me nothing? Have you ever actually read an online review? You most likely just have a grudge because one of the reviews gave a bad rating on your favorite game. Hey, they're only human.
Otto's right here. Its not merely a matter of personal opinion. Most game reviews are biased insofar as the reviewing site doesn't want to bash a lousy game too badly, lest the site not get future games from the publisher in question.
My "bias" here is that I probably play more games than many reviewers do, and the sheer volume of rubbish I encounter is not proportional to the number of damning reviews there are on the Web. I can only count a handful of reviews that have deemed a game I like unworthy, whilst I can count literally hundreds who have been too soft on poorly designed and/or implemented games. It is very, very rare to find a review site willing to give criticism where its due. I know of a few, but I won't name them here for fear of showing favouritism. You can easily find out which ones belong to this group byn reading through a few reviews and noting that they don't mince their words. (I don't mean that they all use profane language;-)
Sure, they're only human, but they are remiss in doing their jobs if they lead readers to believe a game is enjoyable if it is a poorly conceived rush-job, with critical gameplay issues.
I suppose with game demos you only get the game engine, no keyboard support, and no textures? This kind of accusation is baseless.
I think you've misunderstood Otto's point here. What he's getting at is that most demos available don't give you the opportunity to choose what aspects of the game you would like to focus on, typically by only making one or two levels avialable, or one or two modes of play, or restricting the item/weapon selection. In a car's test drive, you can choose to do it in wet weather, or on a sunny day. You can choose to drive on the main roads or on winding back-streets. You can even do more than one of these by test-driving several times -- if you want to, and have the temerity to ask. The dealer will never say "but you can't use the reverse gear", or "no taking this car up hills". Some commonsense rules apply, by these are only concerned with preventing damage to the vehicle. Using most game demos is like going on a test drive with the salesman sitting in the front passenger seat, telling things like "Turn right -- see how well it handles? No! You can't turn left, you have to buy the whole car for that.":)
I am not trying to say that software game piracy is a good thing. I am pointing out that game demos are normally a flawed mechanism for allowing potential customers to evaluate a product. Sure, they're better than reviews, but not good enough for conclusive, comprehensive analysis. It is a market failure that causes consumers to correct through whatever means is available.
WiPEOUT
ps. when I said awkward interface for movement in my first point, don't read "this guy's no good at hair-trigger FPS" -- I've been playing FPSes since Doom and consider myself capable in multiplayer and singleplayer modes. The Thief interface/engine is not good for this.
Baan is a company that makes/sells an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) package named BaanERP, which is like SAP R/3. Go to their site for more information.
You're playing a dangerous game hiring contractors if you've never done it before -- its easy to be burned.
Ideally in your position, one would find programmers through word-of-mouth. Ask around, and with some luck you could get references from people you know, hopefully improving the chances that the contractor(s) are good.
I can't comment on contact people in locations remote to your own beyond emphasising that if you've never contracted work out before, judging the suitability of candidates will be difficult as it is without the added problem of not being able to converse in person. Its a lot easier to lie over the phone.
To pay them, I believe you will find hourly rates most common, though a staggered payment for completion of work could be a viable alternative, particularly if you have frequent progress checks.
Finally, (off topic somewhat) you didn't mention whether or not you are a programmer yourself. If you are not, get a competent one you can trust to verify the skill level of potential contractors in a tech interview, and subsequently verify the quality of the work-in-progress.
first you respond to someone with: p.s. if you don't understand that beginning from the same code base and producing a different operating system is the *definition* of "fragmentation", there is no hope for you.
then, when someone else has the temerity to use a definition to respond to your post: Go ahead, define the problem away. Do you think we'll believe you?
notice any inconsistencies in approach?
you also state: OpenBSD is secure -- does that mean FreeBSD and NetBSD don't care about security?
A: No. It means that their first priority is not security, not that security is ignored. completely.
Not to stand up for the Chinese government here, ppl, but couldn't the group have organised this attack on themselves to draw the matter into the US public arena? (Or simply bolster their standing in the eyes of US citizens, since their plight was already revealed in the news media, eg TIME).
All I'm saying is be careful before you bandy about blame. A Falun Gong insider in the "Chinese national police bureau in Beijing" could just as easily done it.
"This 'security' risk is nothing specific to the Windows world."
The security risk *is* specific to the Windows world. BO/BO2K can be installed by any user, priviledged or not.
To do the same on a Unix-based system, one would need either root access or a poorly configured system (ie. you need to somehow trick a priviledged user into running it for you).
"Any mildly compitant [sic] sys admin would know not to run random files on the server, so as long as the admin isn't dumb, the system is secure."
Thanks for emphasising my point. Your problem is that under Windows, anyone can install BO, not simply the system administrator.
Aside from that, any problems that are discovered in an open-source Unix-based OS have patches released within *hours*. Contrast this with MS's responses to past issues, and come to your own conclusions.
"Designing this program to comprimise [sic] a system that isn't designed to be secure is ridiculous."
I couldn't agree more. But Microsoft claims that its "enterprise-ready" OS *is* secure. Your ridicule should be directed at MS.
Slashdot Mirror
Typically the Linux user knows a lot more about his system ... than the windows users
Perhaps because "typical" Linux users are geeks, and "typical" Windows users are office workers and gamers who couldn't care less? Why should users know the inner workings of the systems they use? There are systems administrators and programmers for that. Whilst there may be Windows sysadmins who don't know as much as they should, they have their equivalents in the linux camp -- just look at some of the stupid questions posed to the Answer Guy in the Linux Gazette (note: this is not intended to be a slur against the Answer Guy, who really knows his stuff). Lack of in-depth technical knowledge becomes increasingly common as a piece of software moves into the mainstream.
Windows may hold no interest to you, but assuming your views are held by the majority across the combined tech-users communities is asinine.
I could be mistaken here, but it is my impression that any user can spin off a virtual machine.
What happens in the following scenario:
A user spins off a vserver, specifying the IP address of the default gateway for the parent server. The user then somehow convinces the parent server that it really *is* the gateway, and effectively takes the parent server off the network. If this is possible, someone without physical access to the network, but with an unpriviledged login to the parent server, could effectively perform a DOS attack on it.
I must be missing something here. It can't be this simple. Can anyone point out where I've gone wrong?
Expert programmers use whatever is best for the job. If that is VB, then that's what's used.
No, but professional adults who make pedal-powered cars outperform amateurs in Porsche 911s may well do.
:)
I think you're missing Lord Omlette's pun here. "Lawless" == no laws. Hence, the suspects could not have broken any, regardless of their actions.
I can't say that I was affected by the blocking of macromedia's web site. If MAPS manages to help prevent the 200-400 unsolicited emails I receive weekly from arriving in my inbox, I will be more than happy to put up with the occasional glitch.
If you're interested in scaling Windows, look into hiring DCOM/MTS/COM+ programmers and have them teach your MCSEs how to use these technologies, coupled with Network Load Balancing and SQL clustering and/or replication to scale out you systems. A well architectured Windows platform can scale more than most people think, because so many think MCSE is the be-all-and-end-all of MS platform know-how.
:)
Just my 2c.
Yes, it was 10 CALs, not 5. Sorry, my mistake.
Windows clients typically authenticate against an Windows Server (be it NT4 or 2000). Each individual client connecting to the Server must have a Client Access License (CAL). Windows 2000 Server comes bundled with 5 CALs, and Windows 2000 Advanced Server comes with 25 CALs. Additional CALs can be purchased seperately. The important point is that CALs are only required if you want to connect to a Windows NT4/2000 Server.
For example, if you plan on having a network of 20 Windows 2000 Professional workstations connected to a single Windows 2000 Server, in addition to the 20 licenses for Windows 2000 Professional and 1 copy of Windows 2000 Server, you would need to purchase an additional 15 CALs.
By providing you with free server software, Samba eliminates the need to purchase CALs, as they are server-specific. In the above example, the customer would only need the 20 Windows 2000 Professional licenses.
WiPEOUT
You won't be able to get a C compiler? You've obviously never worked as a developer on Microsoft's platforms. They have the best developer tools, documentation, training and support options I have ever seen. Nothing else from any other company comes close. Novell, Sun, IBM and all the largest software vendors are simply playing catch-up in this ballgame, and Microsoft is not letting up.
.NET framework yet, which is probably the best thing since sliced bread.
Microsoft is firmly committed to providing the best development environment around.
Sure, with Linux you have the source code. There's no denying that is useful. Does it have anything approaching the quality of Visual Studio? Any developer documentation as comprehensive, accessible and easy to use as the MSDN Library? Regular training events, developer conferences by the dozen even out in Australia? Anything to rival COM+ for power, scalability and relative ease of use? Notice I haven't even mentioned the
The reason for this is simple: a significant reason for upgrading your Windows PC is that Windows runs all the latest games, which rely on ever-faster CPUs, RAM and video cards. As a result, people wanting to play Quake, Quake 2, Half-Life, Unreal Tournament, Quake 3 Arena, Tribes and the multitude of cutting-edge games in their full glory and at maximum speed, upgrade. The single most popular multiplayer game (mod) in history, Counter-Strike, does not have a linux client (as it uses the HL engine). Only several of the latest games are available under Linux, and those that are do not generally run as fast under the latest hardware as they do in Windows, due to sub-par driver support.
... heck, where's decent USB support?!?
Remember, that as well as being the mainstream office productivity platform, Windows has DirectX and the attendant hardware drivers that make it the only serious gamers' platform around.
btw, yes, I know NVIDIA cards run under X. Are the drivers as good as under Win32? No. What about my Vortex2 sound card for linux driver support? Not even close. And my force feedback steering wheel? Nope. And my digital joystick? Nah, mine's not listed amongst those supported. And my ultra-smooth intellimouse?
Linux needs a lot of work before it finds a home on my home desktop. You can bet Microsoft won't stop improving Windows, either.
Now, how is this relevant, and not entirely a rant? Simple: Linux, and the Open Source/Free Software development models rely on the end-user performing the development work. This generally means programmers. Are programmers as likely as Joe User to want good gaming support under linux. Not likely. They'd rather have new Apache modules, new SAMBA features, and a better GNOME. Not that there's anything wrong with that. However, as long as this is the case, linux will continue to be a fringe OS. Frankly, Joe User could care less about the occasional cost of upgrades, as long as Team Fortress 2, Wolfenstein 2000, Halo, Tribes 2, Pool of Radiance and Need for Speed VI run well when they are released, and as long as Word and Excel continue to look "cooler" with each upgrade whilst being backward-compatible.
I won't even go into the whole web browser (in)compatibility thing, as it is not really directly related to Linux, although it does contribute to linux being less that ideal as a desktop platform.
All that said, keep up the good work, those folks who do actual open source or Free Software development. You're the reason my firewall/gateway doesn't need rebooting, and runs on my Pentium ex-doorstop.
IIRC, Professional doesn't quite install everything. Some components (eg. IIS) you have to Add after the installation.
Certainly, that would have to be considered by any business if there was a chance to find a publisher as good as or better than GT Interactive who would agree to support Linux.
However, the ability to have Linux support in the box has to be weighed against the existing good relationship Epic Megagames has with GT Interactive. GT Interactive is a well-established publisher, with all the attendant resources. In the eyes of many Slashdot readers, the ability to put a penguin logo on the box might be a more important concern than having a publisher with the ability to distribute in mass-market quantities, world-wide and at a competitive price. However, Epic Megagames also has a duty to its Windows user base (the over 90% of sales from Mr Sweeney's figures). These users might not be as "enlightened" as Linux users, but they are the major source of value for Epic Megagames and the publisher. If there has to be a trade-off between having Tux on the box and making sure Unreal Tournament gets to a million people worldwide in a timely manner and through careful marketing, the latter must win due to financial concerns.
Remember, even though the Linux version is not in the box, its only a 3MB download. At least we have it.
Your own statement answers your question. They chose not port to BeOS because they didn't get "enough BeOS user feedback". IIRC, there are only approximately 100k BeOS users. There are over 100 million Windows users and an estimated 7 million Linux users. Epic was willing to make a Linux port to support what in their opinion are the hardcore players, the server admins and a viable market that justifies the expense of porting the game.
Companies do not want to support an operating system with a tiny user base.
So you're saying that the gameplay changes with each level? It's Quake on level 1 and it PowerPuff girls on level 3? Doubt it.
Yes, unfortunately that's exactly what I have to say. The classic example is Thief, an FPS where you're a medieval master thief and your missions concern themselves with theft and assasination. The first level is great -- you get to sneak around a beautiful castle, avoiding guards and traps, and silently eliminating others.
If that was how the rest of the game would've turned out, it would have become one of my all-time favourites.
However, the second level and those that follow add a new twist. Your former master thief suddenly finds himself having to run around killing zombies all the time, in a hit-and-run fashion. This changes the game dramatically, particularly since the interface is designed for slow, precise movement and environment manipulation. What was a riveting test of nerve and patience becomes an awkward rendition of Alone in the Dark.
The demo doesn't inform you of this. See, the creators decided the first level was enough for a potential buyer to decide whether or not to commit their dollars to play the rest. :\
Waste of my money, that was.
Of course a company is going to release the best or more hooking, addictive part of the game as the demo.
This could be true with some demos. But it could also be just as likely not true with others.
Thanks very much, but after being burned like that, I'd rather be certain. I gave only one example of such games. From my experience with many, I'd say the majority subscribe to the same school of thought. Its only the minority (eg. Valve, whose "Day One" was an excellent demo for "Half-Life", a copy of which I own) that do the right thing.
If I can beat a game in a week (can some, others not), then I don't want it.
I agree. Note that despite finishing Half-Life within a couple of days or so, I still bought it. It is the replay value I cherish.I understand. I feel the same way. However, it only takes a week at the most to beat half-life. Think more on terms of replay value rather than the time it takes to beat it.
Did you read anything I said before? These things tell you nothing. Reviews are worse than useless, because often they're simply hype.
That's an opinion, not an actual fact. These things tell me nothing? Have you ever actually read an online review?
You most likely just have a grudge because one of the reviews gave a bad rating on your favorite game. Hey, they're only human.
Otto's right here. Its not merely a matter of personal opinion. Most game reviews are biased insofar as the reviewing site doesn't want to bash a lousy game too badly, lest the site not get future games from the publisher in question.
My "bias" here is that I probably play more games than many reviewers do, and the sheer volume of rubbish I encounter is not proportional to the number of damning reviews there are on the Web. I can only count a handful of reviews that have deemed a game I like unworthy, whilst I can count literally hundreds who have been too soft on poorly designed and/or implemented games. It is very, very rare to find a review site willing to give criticism where its due. I know of a few, but I won't name them here for fear of showing favouritism. You can easily find out which ones belong to this group byn reading through a few reviews and noting that they don't mince their words. (I don't mean that they all use profane language ;-)
Sure, they're only human, but they are remiss in doing their jobs if they lead readers to believe a game is enjoyable if it is a poorly conceived rush-job, with critical gameplay issues.
I suppose with game demos you only get the game engine, no keyboard support, and no textures? This kind of accusation is baseless.
I think you've misunderstood Otto's point here. What he's getting at is that most demos available don't give you the opportunity to choose what aspects of the game you would like to focus on, typically by only making one or two levels avialable, or one or two modes of play, or restricting the item/weapon selection. In a car's test drive, you can choose to do it in wet weather, or on a sunny day. You can choose to drive on the main roads or on winding back-streets. You can even do more than one of these by test-driving several times -- if you want to, and have the temerity to ask. The dealer will never say "but you can't use the reverse gear", or "no taking this car up hills". Some commonsense rules apply, by these are only concerned with preventing damage to the vehicle. Using most game demos is like going on a test drive with the salesman sitting in the front passenger seat, telling things like "Turn right -- see how well it handles? No! You can't turn left, you have to buy the whole car for that." :)
I am not trying to say that software game piracy is a good thing. I am pointing out that game demos are normally a flawed mechanism for allowing potential customers to evaluate a product. Sure, they're better than reviews, but not good enough for conclusive, comprehensive analysis. It is a market failure that causes consumers to correct through whatever means is available.
WiPEOUT
ps. when I said awkward interface for movement in my first point, don't read "this guy's no good at hair-trigger FPS" -- I've been playing FPSes since Doom and consider myself capable in multiplayer and singleplayer modes. The Thief interface/engine is not good for this.
Baan is a company that makes/sells an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) package named BaanERP, which is like SAP R/3. Go to their site for more information.
my 2c:
You're playing a dangerous game hiring contractors if you've never done it before -- its easy to be burned.
Ideally in your position, one would find programmers through word-of-mouth. Ask around, and with some luck you could get references from people you know, hopefully improving the chances that the contractor(s) are good.
I can't comment on contact people in locations remote to your own beyond emphasising that if you've never contracted work out before, judging the suitability of candidates will be difficult as it is without the added problem of not being able to converse in person. Its a lot easier to lie over the phone.
To pay them, I believe you will find hourly rates most common, though a staggered payment for completion of work could be a viable alternative, particularly if you have frequent progress checks.
Finally, (off topic somewhat) you didn't mention whether or not you are a programmer yourself. If you are not, get a competent one you can trust to verify the skill level of potential contractors in a tech interview, and subsequently verify the quality of the work-in-progress.
check out:
http://www.counterpane.com/nsakey.html
first you respond to someone with: p.s. if you don't understand that beginning from the same code base and producing a different operating system is the *definition* of "fragmentation", there is no hope for you.
then, when someone else has the temerity to use a definition to respond to your post: Go ahead, define the problem away. Do you think we'll believe you?
notice any inconsistencies in approach?
you also state: OpenBSD is secure -- does that mean FreeBSD and NetBSD don't care about security?
A: No. It means that their first priority is not security, not that security is ignored. completely.
Not to stand up for the Chinese government here, ppl, but couldn't the group have organised this attack on themselves to draw the matter into the US public arena? (Or simply bolster their standing in the eyes of US citizens, since their plight was already revealed in the news media, eg TIME).
All I'm saying is be careful before you bandy about blame. A Falun Gong insider in the "Chinese national police bureau in Beijing" could just as easily done it.
"This 'security' risk is nothing specific to the Windows world."
The security risk *is* specific to the Windows world. BO/BO2K can be installed by any user, priviledged or not.
To do the same on a Unix-based system, one would need either root access or a poorly configured system (ie. you need to somehow trick a priviledged user into running it for you).
"Any mildly compitant [sic] sys admin would know not to run random files on the server, so as long as the admin isn't dumb, the system is secure."
Thanks for emphasising my point. Your problem is that under Windows, anyone can install BO, not simply the system administrator.
Aside from that, any problems that are discovered in an open-source Unix-based OS have patches released within *hours*. Contrast this with MS's responses to past issues, and come to your own conclusions.
"Designing this program to comprimise [sic] a system that isn't designed to be secure is ridiculous."
I couldn't agree more. But Microsoft claims that its "enterprise-ready" OS *is* secure. Your ridicule should be directed at MS.