However, can you please stop dragging trustworthy computing into this? Bill Gates has said many times that the increased focus on security is for new products, not retrospectively fixing existing products.
The cynical amongst us would probably interpret this as yet another way of trying to force people to upgrade.
MS doesn't *have* to rush to push out a product, because the one they have right now is pretty damn good
No, you're wrong. That's just exactly why they do have to push out a new product. Windows 2000 is good enought that people don't want to change from it once they have it working. This, of course, hits Microsoft's revenue, and they need to keep bringing in the shekels. Hence the push (with License 6 among other things) to get people into a model where they have to upgrade whenever Microsoft's business needs dictate, not when the user's business needs dictate.
I have noticed a trend recently that people are more and more often referring to SQL Server as SQL. This is wrong! SQL is an ISO standard, and this habit, which I have noticed especially among Microsoft staff, of trying to conflate the standard with the Microsoft product is just another example of the company trying to create a meme that is misleading.
If the bighorkinmachine ever went down, you're SOL, EVERYONE is down.
You're absolutely right. But this doesn't really need to happen, except in case of a real catastrophe which will take down all the client-server stuff too. People, back in the '70 and '80 I used servers that had uptimes of 2 *YEARS* or more, and these were serving apps out to over 400 people. People are *so* used to the prophylactic reboot (Ooo-er, Missus!) on Windows machines, that they seem to accept machines going down regularly as normal. It currently IS, for Windows servers, but it doesn't NEED to be for other servers.
The real issue here is control: people don't feel happy about letting IT control the resources. I would urge everybody to read A Unix Guide to Defenestration before they comment on centralised vs client-server computing.
If their code is secret, it means they could put whatever they want in there now and claim that it was there from the very beginning. Who knows when that particular piece of code was placed there. 20 years ago? Yesterday? Or just before they go to court to present the evidence?
Even the least clueful software company won't simply have a single corpus of code that gets modified over and over again, without keeping some sort of history. This is usually done with a source control system, like CVS.
Such a system allows an organisation to maintain an arbitrarily complete and detailed tree of its software development history. It is almost inconceivable that SCO have not done this. The history could be subpoenaed in court, and people who worked on the code could also be called to testify about the code base.
SCO could not use your argument as a get-out-of-jail-free-and-put-IBM-in-instead card.
One of the most precious recources for any geek is a moist towelette that can be substituted for that unnecessary showering...
Just got back for LinuuxFest NW, in Bellingham. Jon "maddog" Hall gave a talk about how to get the Linux message across to unbelievers. One of the things he said is that you with some people at least, you need to put on fairly respectable, clothes, or at least change the ones you do wear.
SCO: "You haven't seen the last of us, do-gooders!"
I like the idea of SCO execs shaking their fists at Linus et al. from under their bedsheets, and saying "And I would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you pesky kids!"
I notice that they use a triple bypass valve, so now when you've had your triple bypass operation for your heart, because of all the burgers you've been chowing down, you can get a triple bypass for the car, so it matches...
Slashdot Mirror
BUT he's going about it the wrong way. The RIGHT way to do this is make it a physical bitch to modify the box, not to get lawyers involved.
:-)
But then he's getting into a technical pissing contest with a couple of million geeks 'n' hackers: I know who my money would be on
I don't see the car companies invoking DMCA to stop that..
What the hell is the difference?
Perhaps because Joe Sixpack would easily be able to understand that his rights are being violated in this case?
So if I start the .ORG service, can I kill the .NET system?
Only if you program in ASM
However, can you please stop dragging trustworthy computing into this? Bill Gates has said many times that the increased focus on security is for new products, not retrospectively fixing existing products.
The cynical amongst us would probably interpret this as yet another way of trying to force people to upgrade.
Actually, the code is complete. It'll take the lawyers until 2005 to write the EULA that you have to agree to before installation
Not to mention that they have to wait for the terabyte disks that will be required for a full install...
MS doesn't *have* to rush to push out a product, because the one they have right now is pretty damn good
No, you're wrong. That's just exactly why they do have to push out a new product. Windows 2000 is good enought that people don't want to change from it once they have it working. This, of course, hits Microsoft's revenue, and they need to keep bringing in the shekels. Hence the push (with License 6 among other things) to get people into a model where they have to upgrade whenever Microsoft's business needs dictate, not when the user's business needs dictate.
Okay, well, the blowjobs would easily win out. But you get the idea.
Sorry, SOL there. ISTR that I read in Wired that she wears comfortable shoes...
SQL has a pretty good record for security.
I have noticed a trend recently that people are more and more often referring to SQL Server as SQL. This is wrong! SQL is an ISO standard, and this habit, which I have noticed especially among Microsoft staff, of trying to conflate the standard with the Microsoft product is just another example of the company trying to create a meme that is misleading.
If the bighorkinmachine ever went down, you're SOL, EVERYONE is down.
You're absolutely right. But this doesn't really need to happen, except in case of a real catastrophe which will take down all the client-server stuff too. People, back in the '70 and '80 I used servers that had uptimes of 2 *YEARS* or more, and these were serving apps out to over 400 people. People are *so* used to the prophylactic reboot (Ooo-er, Missus!) on Windows machines, that they seem to accept machines going down regularly as normal. It currently IS, for Windows servers, but it doesn't NEED to be for other servers.
The real issue here is control: people don't feel happy about letting IT control the resources. I would urge everybody to read A Unix Guide to Defenestration before they comment on centralised vs client-server computing.
Considering your screen name of jonJOHNSON I'd say that is QUITE a mis-pronounciation!
No, it's spelt "Raymond Luxury-Yacht", but it's pronounced "Throatwobbler Mangrove"...
...dump core.
/* You are not expected to understand this */
s/understand/believe/
If their code is secret, it means they could put whatever they want in there now and claim that it was there from the very beginning. Who knows when that particular piece of code was placed there. 20 years ago? Yesterday? Or just before they go to court to present the evidence?
Even the least clueful software company won't simply have a single corpus of code that gets modified over and over again, without keeping some sort of history. This is usually done with a source control system, like CVS.
Such a system allows an organisation to maintain an arbitrarily complete and detailed tree of its software development history. It is almost inconceivable that SCO have not done this. The history could be subpoenaed in court, and people who worked on the code could also be called to testify about the code base.
SCO could not use your argument as a get-out-of-jail-free-and-put-IBM-in-instead card.
Yva Neht Nioj
Join Then Avy???
In the wonderfully written "Code Red for Open Source" article at Cnet
I honestly interpreted this as meaning that somebody had ported the worm!!!
There's a lot to be said for "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" sometimes.
But the geek motto is "If it ain't broke, fix it till it is".
would help the iliteracy problem in the US in any way.
:-)
Or even in Germany
Can't we just ban them? :-)
But then you would be a banner!
One of the most precious recources for any geek is a moist towelette that can be substituted for that unnecessary showering...
Just got back for LinuuxFest NW, in Bellingham. Jon "maddog" Hall gave a talk about how to get the Linux message across to unbelievers. One of the things he said is that you with some people at least, you need to put on fairly respectable, clothes, or at least change the ones you do wear.
s it gonna be a 3 part trilogy?
What other types of trilogy do you have?
Before anybody applauds the idea of electronic voting, it would be wise to take a look at the following two web sites, and the links therein:
Notable Software
Black Box Voting
Then feel free to start talking about the merits of a rush to e-voting...
Is it just me or does this guy use some of the worst metaphorsever:
Ladies and Gentlemen: the next President of the United States of America!
SCO: "You haven't seen the last of us, do-gooders!"
:-)
I like the idea of SCO execs shaking their fists at Linus et al. from under their bedsheets, and saying "And I would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you pesky kids!"
(And yes, Alan Cox is playing Shaggy
I notice that they use a triple bypass valve, so now when you've had your triple bypass operation for your heart, because of all the burgers you've been chowing down, you can get a triple bypass for the car, so it matches...
J.A.B.B.E.R.W.O.C.K.Y.
Just Another Browser, But Extremely Rad, With Outstanding Code and Karma. Yeah!!!
Actually, given the Alician world some of these people seem to inhabit, maybe Jabberwocky isn't such a bad name...