This is something the BHPs seem to forget: Efficiency is a finite quantity. If you let: P= productivity E= efficiency N= the number of workers W= workload
then
P=(N*E)/W
Once E = 100%, P will cease to increase by reduction of N. Decreasing the number of workers will only gain an increase in productivity as long as there is a way to increase effeciency of the individual employee.
If the employees are working at 100% effeciency, then decreasing employess will decrease productivity.
Windows is currently king of the desktop market. Alternative OSes, like Linux, want to get Windowers to migrate to their system.
Users are not going to migrate if nothing works the same in the new system. Even if its "better", they're not going to use it if they can't understand it.
Linux, at least in terms of the UI elements, has to follow Windows conventions if it wants to win followers from the non-geek world.
So, are you saying that if the OSS Community came up with something better, easier, more secure, more stable, and better supported people would not use it?
Something to think about: Linux is based on Unix, which is about 30 years old. Its GUI, and that GUI's paradigm (the WIMP model), is about 20 years old. And, for the most part, the look and feel of that GUI has been duplicating that of Windows and MacOS.
The most revolutionary thing about Linux is the way it was developed and distributed. The most revolutionary thing about most of the OSS applications are the way they are developed and distributed. But, there has been very little revolutionary change in the way software works and how people interact with it. The challenge is to create a UI that is easier to use and more intuitive and "better".
Oh, and maybe if instead trying to change the OS experience, if the new UI was implemented on some applications that are "better" and garnered users, then changing to a new OS that uses the new UI would not be so painful.
We do not have to follow Windows, we merely have to be better, easier and more intuitive.
"My company has recently decided to support Linux for it's embedded networking products which means that I'm starting to write Linux device drivers for our hardware"
The following assumes the device in question uses embedded linux on a stand-alone device, such as a router, switch, etc.
This will probably get me flamed to hell and back but...
In theory, one could use embedded linux and device drivers as a binary in a stand-alone device and distribute the source code on a ROM built into the device, accessable only using the linux implementation in the device. By having the UI of the device limited to what it can do, i.e. no access to a shell or text editor, one can make it extremely difficult to access the source, but you have still distributed the source.
One has complied with the letter of the GPL. Specifically Section 3, subsection a, because ROM is a "medium customarily used for software interchange" and the source is being distributed with the binary. The only thing is that the source is not in an easily accessable or usable format.
"II. Applicability This Final Judgment applies to Microsoft and to each of its officers, directors, agents, employees, subsidiaries, successors and assigns; and to all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them who shall have received actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise."
Any kind of shill company would have to be controlled by one of the listed entities in order to keep control of the the IP. And the, company may be considered a " subsidiaries, successors and assigns". They might try, but would probably fail.
This could lead to companies and individuals selling excess processing power as a commodity.
Imagine something like a client that user X starts to put his processing power on the exchange with a price for use for X minutes. A buyer, Y, looking to do some intense number crunching for a certain amount of time buys the time from X, as well as other users, to get the job done.
Now, imagine building a Beowulf cluster and selling processing time on that!
The providers lock the phones to there particular service. This way they can sell the phones below cost, and make up the difference over the term of the contract.
The phones can be unlocked from the providers, but it requires special equipment and/or special codes that are only available from the provider.
The providers don't have to help one unlock the phone. Some will, some won't.
Personally, I think things would be better for the customer if we could keep our phone number, could by phones from retailers and use them on any compatible network.
I know this because I currently work in the wireless phone industry.
Exactly how is that not a search of the "pre-criminals" is beyond me The police are not searching the individuals. The individuals have been listed as some sort of "person who is at high risk of being involved in criminal activity". A search of the individual would be exactly what the term implies: stopping the person and searching them for illegal items.
We are all guaranteed to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". What does that mean? Is your picture, your demographics and non-criminal history not your "effects", not your "person"? Your person is your physical being. Your demographics and non-criminal history are mostly regarded as public information. Your picture is may be regarded as "papers and effects", but only if the picture is your possession. If I were to take a picture of you, the picture would be my "papers and effects". The article said the individuals' pictures were taken after they were stopped for loitering and then let go. Loitering is considered a crime in many areas, and loitering in a high crime area may be considered a suspicous activity.
What is absolute is the fundamental protection that all Americans enjoy from persecution. This may be true, but it is questionable as to whether or not this is persecution.
We can do a lot of things to retard development of criminals, but most of them have higher costs than benefits. 1) Support this statement. 2) Shall we do nothing then?
The easiest way to cure world hunger is to kill all the hungry people. The easiest way to cure crime is to kill all the criminals. Does that mean these are routes we should pursue? Actually, the easiest way to cure world hunger is to encourage canablism. The easiest way to cure crime is to repeal all laws. The actions in the article do neither what you suggest, or what I counter with.
Most importantly, the article says very little. The article has 5 lines. It says effectively nothing about the individuals in the database, and nothing about the methodology used by the police in selecting the individuals. It also says nothing about what the database actually contains, who has access to it, how and when it is used, and why it was developed.
At best, the article is uninformative. At worst, it is sensationalism.
In a recent article, California Secretary of State Bill Jones sending
unsolicited political email ( spam) is treated as a smart decision on Jones'
part. And, that may be the case. It was mentioned that Jones spent a mere 2
cents on each mailing. What is not mentioned is more telling as to why it was
a bad decision for the recipients of Jones' spam.
The constituents he so blithely emailed had to pay to receive that spam. This
is the primary problem many of today's direct marketing methods. Whether it
is by fax, telephone, or email, the recipient ends up paying a portion of the
cost. This is unfair to the recipients.
It is worse when a political candidate uses spam. The recipient ends up
subsidizing the campaign, whether he supports the candidate or not.
Commercial spam is described in the article as "irrelevant and untargeted and
can be highly intrusive and even offensive". It is my opinion that political
spam is more intrusive and offensive than commercial spam. Rather than being
an attempt to sell something and a demand on time, political spam is a de
facto campaign contribution.
Spam, especially political spam, will be acceptable only when the sender pays
for the total cost of the email.
Turn the phone lines into leased pairs, buy some CSU/DSUs, router/gateways, and go to town. Low speed, but effective and reliable. Do point to multipoint or multiple point to point connections, centralize into the building that needs the highest speeds out. Bring in ISDN,DSL,etc into the one building.
This arrangement allows for 56K between the buildings and then however fast you need out of the group.
Find a 2 or 3 used diamond rings, take them to a jewler and have them turned into a single engagement ring in a custom mounting. Remember, they have little resale value, so you can get the source rings cheap.
I guess I should be able to modify the serial number on my car, boat, etc. too, right? But, there are laws against that as well. The IMEI number is a serial number, and it is used as a means of identifying the phone to the network.
I wonder if the Princeton Officials will be arrested for cracking in to the site. After all, they did gain unauthorized access to the Yale site. I believe that is against the law now. Hmmm.
As long as the cost of sending spam is less than the money they make from it, spam will keep comming. And sending spam is pretty cheap, so it will be here for a long time.
It looks to me like any OS that would work with Palladium would be infringing on M$'s patent. Even if it didn't, M$ could still sue claiming it did and force the competition out of exsistance/business under the weight of legal bills.
This would be an easy way for M$ to keep competition under it's control.
It would be legal for you to compile them but they would not SUPPORT them. If you sold the binaries to someone, UL would not SUPPORT the binaries, because you could have changed them.
From what I read, it looks to me like UL is only supporting the binaries it sells, which is why they have per server licensing. UL only supports the binaries THEY have compiled and sold. They want to keep tight control of the binaries they are selling to prevent someone from going and slipping a backdoor or trojan horse into the code.
From what I remember, there is nothing in the GPL against what UL is doing.
Most local governments have acceptable/appropriate use policies. Most school districts are about of the city or count/parish/whatever government and are bound by the same policies. "In order to comply with county regulations, certain services have been blocked..." - YMMV
Slashdot Mirror
This is something the BHPs seem to forget:
Efficiency is a finite quantity. If you let:
P= productivity
E= efficiency
N= the number of workers
W= workload
then
P=(N*E)/W
Once E = 100%, P will cease to increase by reduction of N. Decreasing the number of workers will only gain an increase in productivity as long as there is a way to increase effeciency of the individual employee.
If the employees are working at 100% effeciency, then decreasing employess will decrease productivity.
Users are not going to migrate if nothing works the same in the new system. Even if its "better", they're not going to use it if they can't understand it.
Linux, at least in terms of the UI elements, has to follow Windows conventions if it wants to win followers from the non-geek world.
So, are you saying that if the OSS Community came up with something better, easier, more secure, more stable, and better supported people would not use it?
Something to think about: Linux is based on Unix, which is about 30 years old. Its GUI, and that GUI's paradigm (the WIMP model), is about 20 years old. And, for the most part, the look and feel of that GUI has been duplicating that of Windows and MacOS.
The most revolutionary thing about Linux is the way it was developed and distributed. The most revolutionary thing about most of the OSS applications are the way they are developed and distributed. But, there has been very little revolutionary change in the way software works and how people interact with it. The challenge is to create a UI that is easier to use and more intuitive and "better".
Oh, and maybe if instead trying to change the OS experience, if the new UI was implemented on some applications that are "better" and garnered users, then changing to a new OS that uses the new UI would not be so painful.
We do not have to follow Windows, we merely have to be better, easier and more intuitive.
The following assumes the device in question uses embedded linux on a stand-alone device, such as a router, switch, etc.
This will probably get me flamed to hell and back but...
In theory, one could use embedded linux and device drivers as a binary in a stand-alone device and distribute the source code on a ROM built into the device, accessable only using the linux implementation in the device. By having the UI of the device limited to what it can do, i.e. no access to a shell or text editor, one can make it extremely difficult to access the source, but you have still distributed the source.
One has complied with the letter of the GPL. Specifically Section 3, subsection a, because ROM is a "medium customarily used for software interchange" and the source is being distributed with the binary. The only thing is that the source is not in an easily accessable or usable format.
Not quite:
"II. Applicability
This Final Judgment applies to Microsoft and to each of its officers, directors, agents,
employees, subsidiaries, successors and assigns; and to all other persons in active concert or
participation with any of them who shall have received actual notice of this Final Judgment by
personal service or otherwise."
Any kind of shill company would have to be controlled by one of the listed entities in order to keep control of the the IP. And the, company may be considered a " subsidiaries, successors and assigns". They might try, but would probably fail.
This could lead to companies and individuals selling excess processing power as a commodity.
Imagine something like a client that user X starts to put his processing power on the exchange with a price for use for X minutes. A buyer, Y, looking to do some intense number crunching for a certain amount of time buys the time from X, as well as other users, to get the job done.
Now, imagine building a Beowulf cluster and selling processing time on that!
I can just see the scriptkiddy and h4x0r IRC channels now:
<me> I'm me!
<7heR341M3> No, I am ME!
<7he7ru3M3>No, you are both lying! I am ME!
Join up with the Peace Corp, Geek Corp, or even the Marine Corp. Of course if you really want to travel, join the Navy and see the world.
The providers lock the phones to there particular service. This way they can sell the phones below cost, and make up the difference over the term of the contract.
The phones can be unlocked from the providers, but it requires special equipment and/or special codes that are only available from the provider.
The providers don't have to help one unlock the phone. Some will, some won't.
Personally, I think things would be better for the customer if we could keep our phone number, could by phones from retailers and use them on any compatible network.
I know this because I currently work in the wireless phone industry.
All opinions are Mine. No one else, just mine.
Too late, the abstract art depicting whiteness has already been copyrighted.
We may actually see Apple V. Microsoft, over Windows. This could be really interesting.
The police are not searching the individuals. The individuals have been listed as some sort of "person who is at high risk of being involved in criminal activity". A search of the individual would be exactly what the term implies: stopping the person and searching them for illegal items.
We are all guaranteed to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". What does that mean? Is your picture, your demographics and non-criminal history not your "effects", not your "person"?
Your person is your physical being. Your demographics and non-criminal history are mostly regarded as public information. Your picture is may be regarded as "papers and effects", but only if the picture is your possession. If I were to take a picture of you, the picture would be my "papers and effects". The article said the individuals' pictures were taken after they were stopped for loitering and then let go. Loitering is considered a crime in many areas, and loitering in a high crime area may be considered a suspicous activity.
What is absolute is the fundamental protection that all Americans enjoy from persecution.
This may be true, but it is questionable as to whether or not this is persecution.
We can do a lot of things to retard development of criminals, but most of them have higher costs than benefits.
1) Support this statement.
2) Shall we do nothing then?
The easiest way to cure world hunger is to kill all the hungry people. The easiest way to cure crime is to kill all the criminals. Does that mean these are routes we should pursue?
Actually, the easiest way to cure world hunger is to encourage canablism. The easiest way to cure crime is to repeal all laws. The actions in the article do neither what you suggest, or what I counter with.
Most importantly, the article says very little. The article has 5 lines. It says effectively nothing about the individuals in the database, and nothing about the methodology used by the police in selecting the individuals. It also says nothing about what the database actually contains, who has access to it, how and when it is used, and why it was developed.
At best, the article is uninformative. At worst, it is sensationalism.
If the programmer has contributed to an OSS project, then the interviewers can go look at the code as an example of the quality, etc. of work created.
If the programmer hasn't contributed, then no big deal.
Turn the phone lines into leased pairs, buy some CSU/DSUs, router/gateways, and go to town. Low speed, but effective and reliable. Do point to multipoint or multiple point to point connections, centralize into the building that needs the highest speeds out. Bring in ISDN,DSL,etc into the one building.
This arrangement allows for 56K between the buildings and then however fast you need out of the group.
Find a 2 or 3 used diamond rings, take them to a jewler and have them turned into a single engagement ring in a custom mounting. Remember, they have little resale value, so you can get the source rings cheap.
I guess I should be able to modify the serial number on my car, boat, etc. too, right? But, there are laws against that as well. The IMEI number is a serial number, and it is used as a means of identifying the phone to the network.
I wonder if the Princeton Officials will be arrested for cracking in to the site. After all, they did gain unauthorized access to the Yale site. I believe that is against the law now. Hmmm.
This could be interesting.
As long as the cost of sending spam is less than the money they make from it, spam will keep comming. And sending spam is pretty cheap, so it will be here for a long time.
Smoke'em if ya got them!
It looks to me like any OS that would work with Palladium would be infringing on M$'s patent.
Even if it didn't, M$ could still sue claiming it did and force the competition out of exsistance/business under the weight of legal bills.
This would be an easy way for M$ to keep competition under it's control.
Is it just me, or is KDE looking a lot like WinXP?
Personally, I think it's ugly.
It probably won't be here soon, because the US doesn't really have GPRS or MMS ( MultiMedia Messaging System).
Car: Yes
Fridge: Yes
Plane: Yes
Phone: Yes
Computer: Yes
I know how many things work because I bothered to learn how they work, especially things I want to use and use often.
It would be legal for you to compile them but they would not SUPPORT them. If you sold the binaries to someone, UL would not SUPPORT the binaries, because you could have changed them.
From what I read, it looks to me like UL is only supporting the binaries it sells, which is why they have per server licensing. UL only supports the binaries THEY have compiled and sold. They want to keep tight control of the binaries they are selling to prevent someone from going and slipping a backdoor or trojan horse into the code.
From what I remember, there is nothing in the GPL against what UL is doing.
Most local governments have acceptable/appropriate use policies. Most school districts are about of the city or count/parish/whatever government and are bound by the same policies. "In order to comply with county regulations, certain services have been blocked..." - YMMV