Who do you think you are! So you think you have rights! If you wan't rights, you have to buy them like everyone else. Contact your favourite policians and find out their going rates.
You still should be glad that you are running a secure OS. The fix for this problem has bin around for more than a month. And at that time there was no known exploits.
In the Windows world MS usually looks the other way and claim that all is well, until problems like this have exploits that may give them bad publicity.
Unfortunately many Linux distributers have shown the same atitude this time. But as we have the source we can always apply fixes anyway.
My suggestion is that we all write letters to Intel and other that have this feature, and ask them what other manefacturers they can recommend that doesn't include that crippling technology.
Write letters to manefacturers that doesn't include this technology and ask if they think that they will be able to cope withe the expected increase of demand for DRM free technology.
Write letters to your politicians give them reason that this is bad for democracy and consumer rights.
If and when the technology hits the stores, be difficult customers ask for a lot of support due to the new system. I.e. make them expensive to sell.
Remind your boss that DRM makes in house development of software close to impossible.
Make sure that your boss knows that this system will cost him money and hazzle. Remind him that DRM systems will increase the cost of software due to certification costs.
And most likely these costs will kill minor software companies, and that as a result competition will be less intense. And the software prices will rise.
Remind people around you that X-box security was broken, and that DRM will give them false sence of security, as viruses could be injected to the "secure" Palladium environment through such boxes.
Gnome and KDE or Windows are like swiss army knifes. A multi purpose tool designed to fit everybody. This is probably good in for home use.
But in a corporate environment, the user desktop should be customized to fit the business processes rather than the other way round.
In most cases this means that much simpler windowmanager only solutions may be preferable to Gnome or KDE. Most users use a rather limited set of applications. A desktop consisting of a few buttons to start these apps perhaps on different virtual desktops would be much simpler to handle than windows Gnome or KDE. To make it even simpler the apps could start automatically on different virtual desktops as the user logs in.
A simpler user environment could help reduce the hidden IT cost of users helping each others or trying to do things that should have bin done by the admin instead of doing the work they were hired to do.
"When people look at free operating systems, they know free doesn't necessarily mean good. The upfront costs are cheap but in the long term it won't be," Mr Beck said. "It's a risk to take the Linux route."
When people look at propriatory operating systems, they know that they are not necessarily good just because they pay for them. The upfront costs are steep and vender lock in could accelerate the costs over time. In the long term perspective there is also a risk that the OS is discontinued for some reason. In free software this doesn't happen. It's a risk to take the Microsoft route.
Just relying on that people running Linux are no fools would be foolish. To get real security we need things like mandatory access control and perhaps means of prevent code that havn't an approved digital signature. (Somthing like in Java)
Microsoft will add this kind of features to their future systems, and if the Linux community don't want to stand out as the insecure option it have to do something similar.
However, the MS model is very centralized wher the code will be signed by MS, and they also involve hardware to checking to get DRM. Thus MS aims more at the security of the IP of MPAA members material than actual user security. We don't need that.
To get user security we could use some in house CA that signed code for use in our own company. That way we wouldn't loose the advantages of GPL, as we would in the MS model, but would still have good security.
There is a replacements for Exchange server it's called bynari, and on the client side there is Evolution with a plugin for bynari. There are also plugins for Outlook if you want to keep windows on some desktops.
See http://www.bynari.net
Unfortunately this is not free software, but neither is Exchange/Outlook. And this baby scales to run even on Linux for IBM z/390
If the regular user have to know that he runs Linux then there is something seriously wrong with your user setup. In the ideal case all apps the user needs is started automagically on separate virtual desktops at login. Add a couple of buttons to restart the apps to the desktop in case the user should shut them down by mistake. Can hardly be more simple.
The user may need to learn some new applications, but this generally not harder than what it could be if you do a windows upgrade. E.g. any secretary that knows MS-Word would be fully productive in OpenOffice.org after about an hour or so.
And as for sysadmins, you are right. They need education, but they then can make use of that education for the next 10 to 15 years. In windows world you would have had to reeducate them many times to keep them up to date over that time span.
This also means that your windows admin always will be less experienced in managing his system than a unix one as the lifetime of a certain windows version only is a couple of years. While Unix/Linux is a older and more mature system that ages more slowly.
I wouldn't exactly agree that their is a significant lack of applications for development for Linux. E.g. you have Kylix, KDevelop and Eclipse. And if you want to do it the old way there is Emacs.
Application for publishing and vector graphics and image processing for print purposes (no gimp doesn't fit in here, as it lacks pantone) are far more scarse. Not to mention high end web tools like the Macromedia suite.
Actually, the cost of licences is only a minor part in most IT budgets. You will make the real savings on simplified administration of a thin client system. There are also other savings to be made:
Contrary to what most PHBs think you may actually save money on education in the long run if you switch to Linux. This is because Linux education lasts longer. A sysadmin that learned Unix 15 years ago will feel right at home in a modern Linux system. How much would a MSCE from 1997 be able to do to a win XP system. My guess is not much. Every time we get a windows update there seams to be a new revolutionary way to do basic things like setting up a TCP/IP connection, while in Linux it's ifconfig now and it was ifconfig then.
Even user education may be cheper in the long run as Linux has a more configurable user interface that let the sysadmin configure simple interfaces that only have the functions actually need. There is no need for adminstative tools that only confuse the user.
You will also find it easier to get your employes to focus on their work, as they will not be able to install games, mp3 players and other distractions.
In a LTSP thin client solution you are less vulnerable to hardware failures. A failing client can be replaced by computer illiterate persons as there is no need for configuration. And as the clients are relatively cheap you could have some spare replacement unit in each department. This means that you could cut down support personel that go out in the offices and replace broken computers.
Even if the server will constitute a single point of failure, it is easier to compensate for that on the server than on perhaps thousands of clients. E.g. you could use hot swapping systems for disks, various extension cards, and power supply. Or have some kind of failover system. All measures that would be far too expensive to use on more than a few machines.
Given all these advantages, I am surprised that LTSP isn't a default install option in most Linux distros. If it had, I think Linux had already bin quite common on the corporate desktop.
A widespread adoptation of Linux in China would be great for the Linux desktop. It would help to build up enough critical mass to get the attention of ISVs.
Apple still have a lot of ISV support and I believe their market share is below 10% so just a few desktops more and we could expect things to happen...
And now even Red Hat annonces that they will go for the desktop. This is great times for Linux!
I am using OpenOffice for business use and have had no problems what so ever. I could agree that it's a bit slow to start on Linux, but I start it automagically as I log in, so that isn't much of a problem.
So far I have had no problems communicating with our business partners or people in the company that still uses word.
And back when it was in beta I used it to open word documents that couldn't be opened in MS-Word due to MS-Office version incompatibilities.
So perhaps you could tell us a bit more on why you think It's still not ready for business. What am I missing?
It doesn't matter if Outlook should be part in an Office suite or not. It is part of MS-Office, and if we want to replace MS-Office we will have to replace Outlook as well.
And as I said Evolution is not available on windows.
This means that you you will have to change both OS to get it. That might be a to large step to make a PHB feel confortable.
So not having free alternatives on the windows desktop
also slows down the adoptation of free OS:es and free Desktops.
One that's actually have better usability would probably be enough. Today we have Open/StarOffice but unfortunately it doesn't contain all functionality of the MS product. I'm not talking about minor stuff like missing word count, that probably could be fixed by a macro, but things like a missing Outlook replacement.
If we run OpenOffice on som unixlike platform this problem is minor as here there are lot of Calendar/Mail available.
The real problem is that there is much fewer free calendar/mail replacements on windows. And this actually makes it harder for a company to switch to free OS:es like Linux.
Why? In most cases you would like to have one company wide standard for things like mail, calendering, e-mail, and office programs like spread sheets, word processors and presentation programs. This means that if there is one desktop in the company that needs to run a specialized program that so far only is available on windows, all the desktops will run windows, as that desktop will use Outlook for mail and calendaring.
Yes, I know that Mozilla is developing a calendar program. But it's still a long way before it have the functionality of MS-Outlook.
The convertion to a free desktop will probably need to start on windows. If we can break the MS-Office lock in completely. The next step will be a free OS.
But naturally it doesn't hurt if there are many good desktop alternatives. At least it may send the message to the windows community that MS-Word isn't a standard as most of them seam to think.
As long as MPAA, and RIAA lobby for laws that makes it legal for them to hack computers to prevent their precious IP to fall into the wrong hands, I wouldn't buy DVDs or go to the movies. Or for that matter copy film or music.
I can live without film and music. But can the movie and music companies live without customers
Slashdot Mirror
1) Freedom
2) Democracy
3) Justice
4) Common sence
So why shoul Linux be so difficult.
Who do you think you are! So you think you have rights! If you wan't rights, you have to buy them like everyone else. Contact your favourite policians and find out their going rates.
Oh yes I do!
It has very good IMAP support, and the quick search field for e-mail is very useful.
You still should be glad that you are running a secure OS. The fix for this problem has bin around for more than a month. And at that time there was no known exploits.
In the Windows world MS usually looks the other way and claim that all is well, until problems like this have exploits that may give them bad publicity.
Unfortunately many Linux distributers have shown the same atitude this time. But as we have the source we can always apply fixes anyway.
If that happens RIAA, and MPAA will probably demand that some kind of masterkey is implemented in the system. If it's not there allready that is.
Theoretically, nuclear power technology != atomic bomb technology
If you posess some kind of knowledge or technology it will be used and misused.
Once we have it, we can never put it back in the bottle.
My suggestion is that we all write letters to Intel and other that have this feature, and ask them what other manefacturers they can recommend that doesn't include that crippling technology.
Write letters to manefacturers that doesn't include this technology and ask if they think
that they will be able to cope withe the expected
increase of demand for DRM free technology.
Write letters to your politicians give them reason that this is bad for democracy and consumer rights.
If and when the technology hits the stores, be difficult customers ask for a lot of support due to the new system. I.e. make them expensive to
sell.
Remind your boss that DRM makes in house development of software close to impossible.
Make sure that your boss knows that this system will cost him money and hazzle. Remind him that DRM systems will increase the cost of software
due to certification costs.
And most likely these costs will kill minor software companies, and that as a result competition will be less intense. And the software prices will rise.
Remind people around you that X-box security was broken, and that DRM will give them false sence of security, as viruses could be injected to the "secure" Palladium environment through such boxes.
If it's on par with XP on usability then I really wouldn't like to try it. XP breaks almost every rule in the book when it comes to usability.
Gnome and KDE or Windows are like swiss army knifes. A multi purpose tool designed to fit everybody. This is probably good in for home use.
But in a corporate environment, the user desktop should be customized to fit the business processes rather than the other way round.
In most cases this means that much simpler windowmanager only solutions may be preferable to Gnome or KDE. Most users use a rather limited set of applications. A desktop consisting of a few buttons
to start these apps perhaps on different virtual desktops would be much simpler to handle than windows Gnome or KDE. To make it even simpler the apps could start automatically on different virtual desktops as the user logs in.
A simpler user environment could help reduce the hidden IT cost of users helping each others or trying to do things that should have bin done by the admin instead of doing the work they were hired to do.
"When people look at free operating systems, they know free doesn't necessarily mean good. The upfront costs are cheap but in the long term it won't be," Mr Beck said. "It's a risk to take the Linux route." When people look at propriatory operating systems, they know that they are not necessarily good just because they pay for them. The upfront costs are steep and vender lock in could accelerate the costs over time. In the long term perspective there is also a risk that the OS is discontinued for some reason. In free software this doesn't happen. It's a risk to take the Microsoft route.
That would actually be the dream of MS. Then MS could claim that they are forced to implement DRM and to make it a mandatory part of Palladium.
Just relying on that people running Linux are no fools would be foolish. To get real security we need things like mandatory access control and perhaps means of prevent code that havn't an approved digital signature. (Somthing like in Java)
Microsoft will add this kind of features to their future systems, and if the Linux community don't want to stand out as the insecure option it have to do something similar.
However, the MS model is very centralized wher the code will be signed by MS, and they also involve hardware to checking to get DRM. Thus MS aims more at the security of the IP of MPAA members material than actual user security. We don't need that.
To get user security we could use some in house CA that signed code for use in our own company. That way
we wouldn't loose the advantages of GPL, as we would
in the MS model, but would still have good security.
There is a replacements for Exchange server it's called bynari, and on the client side there is Evolution with a plugin for bynari. There are
also plugins for Outlook if you want to keep
windows on some desktops.
See http://www.bynari.net
Unfortunately this is not free software, but neither is Exchange/Outlook. And this baby scales to run even
on Linux for IBM z/390
If the regular user have to know that he runs Linux then there is something seriously wrong with your user setup. In the ideal case all apps the user needs is started automagically on separate virtual desktops at login. Add a couple of buttons to restart the apps to
the desktop in case the user should shut them down by
mistake. Can hardly be more simple.
The user may need to learn some new applications, but this generally not harder than what it could be if you do a windows upgrade. E.g. any secretary that knows MS-Word would be fully productive in OpenOffice.org after about an hour or so.
And as for sysadmins, you are right. They need education, but they then can make use of that education for the next 10 to 15 years. In windows world you would have had to reeducate them many times to keep them up to date over that time span.
This also means that your windows admin always will be less experienced in managing his system than a unix one as the lifetime of a certain windows version only is a couple of years. While Unix/Linux is a older and more mature system that ages more slowly.
As the systems costs the same with or without windows,
it's easy to figure out the real value of windows
I wouldn't exactly agree that their is a significant lack of applications for development for Linux. E.g. you have Kylix, KDevelop and Eclipse. And if you want to do it the old way there is Emacs.
Application for publishing and vector graphics and image processing for print purposes (no gimp doesn't fit in here, as it lacks pantone) are far more scarse.
Not to mention high end web tools like the Macromedia suite.
Actually, the cost of licences is only a minor part in most IT budgets. You will make the real savings on simplified administration of a thin client system. There are also other savings to be made:
Contrary to what most PHBs think you may actually save money on education in the long run if you switch to Linux. This is because Linux education lasts longer. A sysadmin that learned Unix 15 years ago will feel right at home in a modern Linux system. How much would a MSCE from 1997 be able to do to a win XP system. My guess is not much. Every time we get a windows update there seams to be a new revolutionary way to do basic things like setting up a TCP/IP connection, while in Linux it's ifconfig now and it was ifconfig then.
Even user education may be cheper in the long run as Linux has a more configurable user interface that let the sysadmin configure simple interfaces that only have the functions actually need. There is no need for adminstative tools that only confuse the user.
You will also find it easier to get your employes to focus on their work, as they will not be able to install games, mp3 players and other distractions.
In a LTSP thin client solution you are less vulnerable to hardware failures. A failing client can be replaced by computer illiterate persons as there is no need for configuration. And as the clients are relatively cheap you could have some spare replacement unit in each department. This means that you could cut down support personel that go out in the offices and replace broken computers.
Even if the server will constitute a single point of failure, it is easier to compensate for that on the server than on perhaps thousands of clients. E.g. you could use hot swapping systems for disks, various extension cards, and power supply. Or have some kind of failover system. All measures that would be far too expensive to use on more than a few machines.
Given all these advantages, I am surprised that LTSP isn't a default install option in most Linux distros.
If it had, I think Linux had already bin quite common on the corporate desktop.
A widespread adoptation of Linux in China would be great for the Linux desktop. It would help to build up enough critical mass to get the attention of ISVs.
Apple still have a lot of ISV support and I believe their market share is below 10% so just a few desktops more and we could expect things to happen...
And now even Red Hat annonces that they will go for the desktop. This is great times for Linux!
SVG would be a good candidate for vector Graphics standardization.
I am using OpenOffice for business use and have had no problems what so ever. I could agree that it's a bit
slow to start on Linux, but I start it automagically as I log in, so that isn't much of a problem.
So far I have had no problems communicating with our business partners or people in the company that still uses word.
And back when it was in beta I used it to open word documents that couldn't be opened in MS-Word due to MS-Office version incompatibilities.
So perhaps you could tell us a bit more on why you think It's still not ready for business. What am I missing?
No, no, it must be 42
It doesn't matter if Outlook should be part in an Office suite or not. It is part of MS-Office, and if we want to replace MS-Office we will have to replace Outlook as well. And as I said Evolution is not available on windows. This means that you you will have to change both OS to get it. That might be a to large step to make a PHB feel confortable. So not having free alternatives on the windows desktop also slows down the adoptation of free OS:es and free Desktops.
One that's actually have better usability would
probably be enough. Today we have Open/StarOffice
but unfortunately it doesn't contain all functionality
of the MS product. I'm not talking about minor stuff
like missing word count, that probably could be fixed
by a macro, but things like a missing Outlook
replacement.
If we run OpenOffice on som unixlike platform this
problem is minor as here there are lot of
Calendar/Mail available.
The real problem is that there is much fewer free
calendar/mail replacements on windows. And this
actually makes it harder for a company to switch
to free OS:es like Linux.
Why? In most cases you would like to have one
company wide standard for things like mail,
calendering, e-mail, and office programs like
spread sheets, word processors and presentation
programs. This means that if there is one desktop
in the company that needs to run a specialized
program that so far only is available on windows,
all the desktops will run windows, as that desktop
will use Outlook for mail and calendaring.
Yes, I know that Mozilla is developing a calendar
program. But it's still a long way before it have
the functionality of MS-Outlook.
The convertion to a free desktop will probably need
to start on windows. If we can break the MS-Office
lock in completely. The next step will be a free OS.
But naturally it doesn't hurt if there are many good
desktop alternatives. At least it may send the message
to the windows community that MS-Word isn't a standard
as most of them seam to think.
Applixware still has advantages that other office packages doesn't offer. For one thing it can be
used over the web, through java based clients.
It also have a better development environment for customized applications that can be written in
shelf.
Besides applixware is not the only noffice
software that costs money, we have also Hancom Office.
But you are right, unless they can't find their own niche in business the competition from free software will be very hard.
As long as MPAA, and RIAA lobby for laws that
makes it legal for them to hack computers
to prevent their precious IP to fall
into the wrong hands, I wouldn't buy DVDs
or go to the movies. Or for that matter
copy film or music.
I can live without film and music. But
can the movie and music companies live
without customers