This contract is a win/win for all involved. NHS gets the systems it needs, Microsoft gets a boatload of money, and Linux advocates are not barred from introducing Linux systems into the NHS systems.
You forgot about the public. The NHS pissed away $800 million of public money that could have been spent on making people well, instead of lining the pockets of Microsoft and whoever had to be paid off to land the deal.
IIRC, linux has had a 1-1 model all this time because Linus thought it was good enough and way simpler than a n-m model.
And because of that, Ingo Molnar developed the O(1) scheduler which make the 1-1 model perfectly efficient. Linux also has the clone system call which lets you share whatever you want to share, including process memory.
With these improvements, PThreads are now inferior for anything except porting code. Oh, and PThreads provides its own mutexes, which are pretty much obsoleted by Linux's new futexes that have the advantage of not being specific to PThreads.
Ask some of those programmers how to portably pass a file descriptor between processes, when one isn't a child of the other. That's always good for a laugh. (In case you care, IIRC the answer is in Stevens:UNP1)
And is perhaps the ugliest interface I have ever seen, which is saying something.
There is a difference between installing an approved program that has known, but accepted, security risks (along with compensating controls) and installing an unknown, unapproved and undocumented (network/server documentation that is) program.
There is a difference, but does it matter? The person who knowingly puts the company at risk by using software with a history of known and unknown security flaws is the one who really needs to be fired, he is causing real damage.
Re:What Real Time is and what you can do with it.
on
RT Linux Patches
·
· Score: 1
"It is a nice addition to the linux kernel. Not very usefull for the every-day-workstation"
Audio and video are realtime problems. Unless you have a realtime solution, you will never get rid of dropouts and stutters.
I'm a senior security engineer for a major corporation. We, too, have a policy against running any unapproved software on workstations owned by the company... What if a security vulnerability was discovered in Seti@Home (or any other unauthorized software) and it resulted in a compromise of (in this case) private citizens' data?
Are you running Microsoft's Internet Explorer, with all its known security holes? If so, perhaps you should be fired.
The place can't afford to hire anyone with sufficient Active Directory experience-- hell, they can barely afford to pay me. The Bonds and Levies run in this district have failed for almost the last decade.
"If the service that the viruses are using aren't enabled, they can't be exploited."
That's just plain wrong. There are lots of ways to get into a Windows system, clicking on email or internet links or running downloaded programs for example, or one of the Outlook preview exploits.
But never mind, sound like you have a clue and be part of the problem, in the long run it actually helps people get into the mood to ditch Windows.
"I'd cringe if I had to use Bitkeeper", and because of my public pro-stance on free software (as they had researched from my homepage - http://www.souldound.net/), I was on their shitlist and they would not sell me, and therefore the company I currently work for, a license to use Bitkeeper.
Larry McVoy is just plain evil, and it's apalling that Linus cuddles up to him. I know in my heart that Linus does this in part to force the development of a free alternative that does things the way he wants, but it's still a bad idea to give the impression he supports McVoy's cynical and egotistical profiteering.
And by the way, a significant number of core kernel developers still refuse to use Bitkeeper, and yet, that means they tend to get marginalized by more, ahem, flexible individuals.
One of the major problem with patents (in my mind) is the fact that patent holders are permitted to sit on their patents and do nothing, even when they are aware of infringing acts. Then, 10 years down the road, they spring out of nowhere with the infringement suit. This is what Unisys did with GIFs [burnallgifs.org]. Unisys allowed the web to become addicted to GIFs, without filing any suits. No, no... they bided their time! Wait until everyone is dependent on GIFs, THEN spring the trap; that's the key! I find this behavior to be underhanded and repugnant. UNISYS HAD TO KNOW! As if they were not aware that GIF was the image format of choice on the web. It's impossible.
It's interesting how Unisys showed up in Microsoft's camp about the same time, with their joint "we have the way out" campaign, plus the "Windows mainframe" attempt. Both of which fizzled:-) Anyway, why does everything evil in the high tech world seem to somehow link back to Microsoft?
But Unisys now seems to realize that Microsoft is no way out, far from it. They appear to be quietly stepping back from the dud Windows concept and re-rolling their mainframe offerings around a Linux base.
I don't have that problem and I use the latest version of Firefox.
I can confirm that it happens on Mozilla 1.7.2/Debian unstable. However, last time it happened I did not think to check the html source to see if the problem is on the slashdot.org end. I suspect it is.
Google's Zeitgeist was a good measure of the average user, but they've dropped the browser stats.
Wrong, Google's Zeitgeist, showing 1% Mozilla, is at odds with every other source of browser stats I've seen. They have every reason to be ashamed of themselves on that count.
My non-techy websites get about 7% Firefox, and about another 3% of Mozilla/Netscape 6/7 users. Is Firefox/Mozilla usage increasing? Yes, but it is not at 15%.
It's a lot closer to 15% than it is to Google's 1%.
See, FLOPS mean `floating point operations', and RC5 key cracking is comprised entirely of integer operations. To answer the question `how well does it crack dnet keys': it doesn't.
Wrong. Floating point operations on integers are perfectly accurate so longs as you don't go outside the mantissa range for the particular floating point representation.
There needs to be a different system for software, with a much shorter duration, to allow the people who have the idea to cash in somewhat on their idea, but the system must be well funded in order to allow the PTO to hire the qualified examiners. Physical objects a much longer useful lifespan than software does.
How about just ending the sillyness by returning to the former, sensible situation where software could not be patented at all. It is clear that copyright provides all the protection a software business needs to survive and prosper. It is clear that software patents do not speed the development of better, more useful software, quite the contrary.
it really is amazing just how evil a single company can be. Microsoft seems to be completely committed to the singular goal of destroying everyone and everything that might ever compete with it, using whatever tactics (legal or not) it can come up with. The quirky thing about MS's antics are that unlike IBM making money doesn't seem to be the primary goal, but rather establishing control dominance. MS acts more like a government yearning for dictatorship than a for-profit institution.
It's not that amazing, Bill Gates thinks he is Napoleon. Fact: Bill Gates bought up Napoleon's original memoires. Speculation: they are are now nearly entirely covered in spunk.
Work was done on getting LTT in shape for merging, in the hallway BOFs. It's progress, but remember, Linus doesn't give a rat's fuzzy rear end about realtime support or trace tools. So the standard for merging is that much higher.
Unlike software patents, there designs are actual designs, if ARM was a company who sells steam engine designs you wouln't see anyone arguing when they take legal action against a student when he starts giving away designs which are in several parts identical to the ones they sell.
You're claiming that ARM's "actual design" should be protected under copyright? I agree. And this student's design was original, not working from ARM's design, but working from the processor specifications. Just like software.
Slashdot Mirror
This contract is a win/win for all involved. NHS gets the systems it needs, Microsoft gets a boatload of money, and Linux advocates are not barred from introducing Linux systems into the NHS systems.
You forgot about the public. The NHS pissed away $800 million of public money that could have been spent on making people well, instead of lining the pockets of Microsoft and whoever had to be paid off to land the deal.
"Not to be considered a troll here, but there are virtually NO practice management solutions for Linux."
500 million pounds should be more than sufficient to fix that problem (sounds like a 50,000 pound problem to me).
I should say that I use IE all the time and see no real benefit to wasting my time downloading Firefox
You enjoy being a trojan magnet?
I presume you see no real benefit to buckling up your seatbelt either.
IIRC, linux has had a 1-1 model all this time because Linus thought it was good enough and way simpler than a n-m model.
And because of that, Ingo Molnar developed the O(1) scheduler which make the 1-1 model perfectly efficient. Linux also has the clone system call which lets you share whatever you want to share, including process memory.
With these improvements, PThreads are now inferior for anything except porting code. Oh, and PThreads provides its own mutexes, which are pretty much obsoleted by Linux's new futexes that have the advantage of not being specific to PThreads.
Ask some of those programmers how to portably pass a file descriptor between processes, when one isn't a child of the other. That's always good for a laugh. (In case you care, IIRC the answer is in Stevens:UNP1)
And is perhaps the ugliest interface I have ever seen, which is saying something.
I don't know if that means the Slashdot crowd is overwhelmingly democrat and/or liberal
Overwhelmingly anti sock puppet.
There is a difference between installing an approved program that has known, but accepted, security risks (along with compensating controls) and installing an unknown, unapproved and undocumented (network/server documentation that is) program.
There is a difference, but does it matter? The person who knowingly puts the company at risk by using software with a history of known and unknown security flaws is the one who really needs to be fired, he is causing real damage.
"It is a nice addition to the linux kernel. Not very usefull for the every-day-workstation"
Audio and video are realtime problems. Unless you have a realtime solution, you will never get rid of dropouts and stutters.
Looks like somebody worked his face over with a Rototiller.
I'm a senior security engineer for a major corporation. We, too, have a policy against running any unapproved software on workstations owned by the company... What if a security vulnerability was discovered in Seti@Home (or any other unauthorized software) and it resulted in a compromise of (in this case) private citizens' data?
Are you running Microsoft's Internet Explorer, with all its known security holes? If so, perhaps you should be fired.
So that open source software could be threatened next. Tin foil hat.
The place can't afford to hire anyone with sufficient Active Directory experience-- hell, they can barely afford to pay me. The Bonds and Levies run in this district have failed for almost the last decade.
What is your recommendation? What do I *do*?
Ditch Windows as fast as you can.
"If the service that the viruses are using aren't enabled, they can't be exploited."
That's just plain wrong. There are lots of ways to get into a Windows system, clicking on email or internet links or running downloaded programs for example, or one of the Outlook preview exploits.
But never mind, sound like you have a clue and be part of the problem, in the long run it actually helps people get into the mood to ditch Windows.
"The user can corrupt the hell out of their hard disk, and they have only themselves to blame."
And how about the passwords they will enter that will get snooped, helping the intruder to move further through the network?
"I'd cringe if I had to use Bitkeeper", and because of my public pro-stance on free software (as they had researched from my homepage - http://www.souldound.net/), I was on their shitlist and they would not sell me, and therefore the company I currently work for, a license to use Bitkeeper.
Larry McVoy is just plain evil, and it's apalling that Linus cuddles up to him. I know in my heart that Linus does this in part to force the development of a free alternative that does things the way he wants, but it's still a bad idea to give the impression he supports McVoy's cynical and egotistical profiteering.
And by the way, a significant number of core kernel developers still refuse to use Bitkeeper, and yet, that means they tend to get marginalized by more, ahem, flexible individuals.
One of the major problem with patents (in my mind) is the fact that patent holders are permitted to sit on their patents and do nothing, even when they are aware of infringing acts. Then, 10 years down the road, they spring out of nowhere with the infringement suit. This is what Unisys did with GIFs [burnallgifs.org]. Unisys allowed the web to become addicted to GIFs, without filing any suits. No, no... they bided their time! Wait until everyone is dependent on GIFs, THEN spring the trap; that's the key! I find this behavior to be underhanded and repugnant. UNISYS HAD TO KNOW! As if they were not aware that GIF was the image format of choice on the web. It's impossible.
:-) Anyway, why does everything evil in the high tech world seem to somehow link back to Microsoft?
It's interesting how Unisys showed up in Microsoft's camp about the same time, with their joint "we have the way out" campaign, plus the "Windows mainframe" attempt. Both of which fizzled
But Unisys now seems to realize that Microsoft is no way out, far from it. They appear to be quietly stepping back from the dud Windows concept and re-rolling their mainframe offerings around a Linux base.
your own chart shows that IE6 usage has barely budged in the past year and holds firm around 70%, near its high.
What is not significant about a drop from a high of nearly 73% to today's figure near 70%, in a few months?
I don't have that problem and I use the latest version of Firefox.
I can confirm that it happens on Mozilla 1.7.2/Debian unstable. However, last time it happened I did not think to check the html source to see if the problem is on the slashdot.org end. I suspect it is.
The code isn't open, the development isn't open, it's just some wannabe game developer rockstars putting together a resume.
Google's Zeitgeist was a good measure of the average user, but they've dropped the browser stats.
Wrong, Google's Zeitgeist, showing 1% Mozilla, is at odds with every other source of browser stats I've seen. They have every reason to be ashamed of themselves on that count.
My non-techy websites get about 7% Firefox, and about another 3% of Mozilla/Netscape 6/7 users. Is Firefox/Mozilla usage increasing? Yes, but it is not at 15%.
It's a lot closer to 15% than it is to Google's 1%.
See, FLOPS mean `floating point operations', and RC5 key cracking is comprised entirely of integer operations. To answer the question `how well does it crack dnet keys': it doesn't.
Wrong. Floating point operations on integers are perfectly accurate so longs as you don't go outside the mantissa range for the particular floating point representation.
There needs to be a different system for software, with a much shorter duration, to allow the people who have the idea to cash in somewhat on their idea, but the system must be well funded in order to allow the PTO to hire the qualified examiners. Physical objects a much longer useful lifespan than software does.
How about just ending the sillyness by returning to the former, sensible situation where software could not be patented at all. It is clear that copyright provides all the protection a software business needs to survive and prosper. It is clear that software patents do not speed the development of better, more useful software, quite the contrary.
Only lawyers benefit from software patents.
it really is amazing just how evil a single company can be. Microsoft seems to be completely committed to the singular goal of destroying everyone and everything that might ever compete with it, using whatever tactics (legal or not) it can come up with. The quirky thing about MS's antics are that unlike IBM making money doesn't seem to be the primary goal, but rather establishing control dominance. MS acts more like a government yearning for dictatorship than a for-profit institution.
It's not that amazing, Bill Gates thinks he is Napoleon. Fact: Bill Gates bought up Napoleon's original memoires. Speculation: they are are now nearly entirely covered in spunk.
Work was done on getting LTT in shape for merging, in the hallway BOFs. It's progress, but remember, Linus doesn't give a rat's fuzzy rear end about realtime support or trace tools. So the standard for merging is that much higher.
Unlike software patents, there designs are actual designs, if ARM was a company who sells steam engine designs you wouln't see anyone arguing when they take legal action against a student when he starts giving away designs which are in several parts identical to the ones they sell.
You're claiming that ARM's "actual design" should be protected under copyright? I agree. And this student's design was original, not working from ARM's design, but working from the processor specifications. Just like software.