I don't think it would be that big a problem. The main problem is the vastness of the search space. Verifying that the path that returns the highest score really should return that score is trivial in comparison. And if it turns out that the highest score is bogus, go to the runner up and check that one.
Your one stop GPL-for-Windows shop. It doesn't look like they've included the most recent versions of most programs, but it does give some great leads.
Oh, forgot one thing. Did you read at the end where he pretty much implied that, if Verisign doesn't find a way to make more money off the Internet, they'll no longer be able to keep the root nameservers running effectively?
Obviously, somebody is paying good money for Verisign to take the heat off SCO. I'll give you three guesses who, and the first two don't count.
The thing is, despite the absurd, self-serving nature of this "innovation," I can see how it might be useful for a browser to behave this way. This would be perfectly fine as an application-level behavior, and I'd go so far as to say I'd like to see it as an option in Mozilla. Google could have a "domain guessing" service, Verisign could have a service, Microsoft could have a service, your local floral shop could have a service, and the user could decide which one was most useful.
A few people have already mentioned this, and I'm just agreeing. What I don't agree with is breaking DNS for the sake of getting Verisign a few extra hits, then calling it "innovation." What utter crap.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter. Microsoft created a DLL which IE uses, and then hooked it so that it would also run things like Outlook and their help system. Whether it was a good idea, whether it's critical to the overall behavior of a given flavor of Windows, it's still a library that sits on top of the actual operating system. It will remain so until such a time as Microsoft integrates Explorer directly into the kernel, and lets it decide for itself how much memory it should be allowed to access.
Take another example: X11. X11 is critical to the overall behavior of most Linux systems. 90% of the software I use will break without it. But it's still a user-level application, which has to ask the OS whenever it wants more memory or access to the hard drive. Therefore, it's not part of the operating system.
I disagree. It doesn't matter what hand-waving the marketroids of Redmond* do, Outlook is not a part of the operating system. Same goes for Internet Explorer, Media Player, or anything else they choose to "integrate."
In its most proper definition, the Operating System is that bit of software that sits between the application and the hardware, controlling access to machine resources like RAM, the disk, the network card, etc.
The point is, Microsoft is trying to redefine "the operating system" to include whatever products get shipped on their install CDs. But it's not true, and never will be, so long as one CS grad lives who knows the truth.
Help us keep the flame alive, my friend. Join our noble cause.
Are people really this misinformed? How did parent get modded up?
It didn't. Grandparent was blessed with the Karma-modifier bonus. It grants a (+1 by default) bonus to those who have scored mucho karma in the past. You can turn it off in the settings, if you're not interested.
I've had excellent success taking the drive outside, opening the casing, and whacking it against the concrete to unbind the motor. Then I submerge it in 17% H2SO4 for 48 hours to clean it off nice, then tie it to the back of my car and drag it down the highway for 17.4 miles, just to make absolutely sure.
Can I have my +2 Informative now?
[Note to AC: That was funny, but the moderators are smoking something today.]
Actually, I wrote this comment in a general sense, not with the Massachusetts situation in mind. However...
Whether or not it's particularly easy for an entity as large as a state government to fork the kernel (I would maintain that it's doable), the simple fact that it is possible and legal forces certain responsibilities on the current kernel-hacking regime. If they can't do it right, or start making irresponsible decisions, then it won't take long for everyone to band together and take the code away from them. Short of a judicial battle royale, this is a threat that Microsoft will never face.
I don't think that lowest TCO is the only driver of software decisions. In government, openness should be an overriding standard. If the cheapest "solution" to a problem doesn't guarantee the ability to migrate data away from that platform, or locks the citizens of the state to purchasing software X in order to interact with the government, then TCO has to take the back seat to openness.
I'm wholeheartedly in favor of holding government to open standards. Requiring OSS, on the other hand, seems a bit too drastic a step to me. The closest I would come is to require that a copy of the source be held in escrow (if the software is being used to save critical public data), so that there is an escape hatch in case the developer goes wahooni-shaped.
I'm not fully convinced that the CAGW's "analysis" is even close to an accurate depiction of the proposal. You have to remember that it's one of those groups that lives and dies by getting its members pissed off enough to get involved and get contributing. I would bet 20 karma that the real proposal is more akin to the proposals that have been floated in other states. None of them come close to a blanket rejection of closed-source software.
If I decide that my business is going to switch entirely to Linux, I haven't created a "Linux monopoly." Nor would the government of Massachusetts do so--if indeed the proposal actually requires open source software rather than merely open standards. The government of Massachusetts has a right to decide what software they will and will not use, and its people have a right to let their ballots do the complaining if those decisions are incompetent.
Now, if the government cannot use Oracle databases even when nothing else will do the job, then the law is a bad one. But somehow I doubt that the proposal is that inflexible.
I don't know why you would even speculate that any person on the planet would have more difficulty learning AbiWord than Microsoft Word, given that it has about a tenth of the functionality and big, friendly buttons. OpenOffice.org, perhaps, but I see them as being approximately equal in complexity. For the big end-user applications like KDE, Mozilla, and OpenOffice, there simply isn't enough usability difference to justify a decision on those grounds.
Finally, I didn't read anywhere in the press release that the good citizens of Massville should be "asking questions and demanding answers." Just a demand that they petition Governor Romney to stop this insane proposal before the gates of Hell are unleashed.
First: I've done a limited amount of googling on the recent Massachusetts initiative, and it appears that it's not demanding open source, just open standards. On the other hand, even some of the technical people in Mass.gov seem to be getting the definition wrong, so I'm not sure what's going on there. While I don't think that it's a good idea for a government to mandate open source any more than closed source, it is simply irresponsible to store public data in proprietary formats.
Second: The problem with "letting the market decide" between open and closed source is this: proprietary companies are the ones in the best position to bid on software. Cuz, like, they have salesmen and stuff.
That's hardly evidence at all. Most likely they just pay somebody for web hosting services. They may not even know what software is used to publish their website.
Also, where do you get off saying that using FreeBSD shows that they have nothing against Linux? Everyone knows those FreeBSD folks will not rest until their unholy demons have wiped Linux off the face of the Earth.:)
A Microsoft monopoly is bad, a Linux monopoly is good.
Exactly. Now you're starting to get it.
If GPL'ed software gets a monopoly, then it's a monopoly of a sort wholly new to the world: a monopoly where no single group has total control over it, and nobody can take exclusive possession of it.
A world where Linux dominates is a world where no-one dominates. Everyone is free to take software and use it, study it, and modify it in any way they like. The only restriction is on redistribution, and if you don't like the terms, hey, use something else.
I've been playing with the earlier release candidates, and so far it's been sweet. Much faster than 1.0, better conversion from Office formats, the whole.pdf exporter.
In other wondrous news, KOffice plans on switching to the StarOffice file formats. That should save the filter writers a whole bunch of work on both sides.
I would say, "I'm going to install this on the machines of all my friends and relatives," but rampant piracy has led them to think of Microsoft Office as "free," and the power of brand naming has led them to think of any replacement as inferior. So I'll be installing it on the machines of all friends and neighbors who aren't computer savvy enough to notice the difference.:)
Somewhat off-topic. I was listening to one of my local ClearChannel stations (there's a local talk show I've been listening to since before the station got bought out). Anyways, when it went to national news, one of the "news items" was the availability of a new cable channel called "Wheels." They felt it necessary to inform me that the new station was devoted to cars, trucks, and so on, but was somehow different from "The Speed Channel."
With only five minutes to cover the most important happenings of the day, why was this selected as important for me to know? It seems too trivial to be news and too mundane to be human interest. The only theory I can come up with is that somebody wanted the new station advertised.
I have to get off the computer, so please insert Media Consolidation Rant #11 here.
Generally speaking, I don't think his religious views are important. Most Mormons, if made aware of the facts surrounding SCO's activities, would probably see him as a complete hypocrite and an embarassment to their religion.
On the other hand, there does seem to be a cultural link between Mormonism and weird business practices. It would be going overboard to say that the LDS Church or its members are obsessed with money. But thanks to a tradition of devout tithe-paying, the LDS Church is the richest per-capita religion in the world. There is also a not-exactly-doctrinal but often implied belief that righteousness leads to material blessings. Between the tithe-paying, large families, and the desire to be seen as successful, Utah leads the nation in bankruptcies despite having a highly educated population.
The politics of Utah are themselves pretty weird, and there's a lot of backscratching that goes on. But I haven't lived in other states, which makes it difficult for me to say if it's really worse than goes on elsewhere.
I fail to comprehend. If I'm a restaurant owner, and I've written some nifty restaurant management software that makes my business run much more effectively, then by giving away this powerful tool (which, having already been produced, costs me nothing to replicate) I'm somehow harming the economy? But if I sell it for $2700 per site, I'm creating value?
My opinion is, if it costs me $3000 worth of time and resources to produce a restaurant management suite, give it away for free, and it is adopted by a few hundred sites (saving $10000/year each), I've just turned $3000 into something that generates millions of dollars a year. That's millions of dollars that the owners can spend on other things (including paying hackers for even more software).
With all that wealth being created by my software, somehow I don't feel bad that I didn't get my $3000 back. And yet I somehow suspect that I would make a fair amount on support contracts.
The problem is, the 25B number probably requires putting all arable land into food production, and having everyone live on a vegetarian diet (meat is horribly inefficient as a calorie-delivery mechanism). The question is, with 25 billion of us, is there enough for everyone to have:
- A good education? - Living quarters bigger than an average-sized toaster oven? - Quality medical care? - A Playstation?
It's not a matter of physical living space. Every square mile of city needs to be supported by hundreds of square miles of farmland and other resource-producing areas. There is also the question of how to maintain a viable ecosystem with every square inch of land being harvested.
In conclusion: I'd rather see five billion people living comfortably than twenty-five billion constantly on the verge of catastrophe.
Your basic premise here is "free market: GOOD", "government spending: BAD." At best, it's a useful rule of thumb. At worst, it's mindless free-market worship that denigrates the important role that govenrment spending and government regulations can play.
My favorite example of government gone right: The Interstate Highway System. It provides huge benefits to the economy at bargain prices. But no private company could ever have created it, because it would never be profitable for a single corporation to do so.
Another example: Environmental regulation. Unregulated free markets have little incentive to protect the environment. If one company decides to incur the burdens of "going green," they would get eaten alive by the companies who continued to dump their waste wherever it was cheapest. Sure, some of the regulations are overly intrusive or otherwise silly. But the big picture is that government interference improved air and water quality. Just because you can't easily slap a pricetag on that form of wealth doesn't make them any less valuable.
It's also silly to imply that tax cuts can only be a good thing. It depends on which programs have to be cut (or how far in debt we have to go) to make the tax cuts possible. If some real pork is trimmed pursuing them, great. But if it means cutting back on something like child immunizations, and setting up a public health disaster twenty years down the road, then the tax cut is bad. Same thing happens if the tax cut means ratcheting the federal debt up even higher (as seems to be the case with the last few rounds of short-sighted tax cuts).
Sure, there is waste and mismanagment in government--though as Enron showed, government isn't the only place where it can happen. But there is an advantage to having an institution that can look beyond the next earnings statement, see what needs to be done to improve things for everyone, and then make it happen.
Ooh, we become France. Now there's a threat. We'd live longer, work fewer hours, and put out lower-budget films. We'd still get to wreak merry hell with the U.N., but on the downside we have to speak a language that is practically unusable while drunk.
You're right, it's far better to bust your ass from 5th grade onward. Bust your ass to get the grades that will get you into that prestigious university. Bust your ass to get the grades that will land you that job with a Fortune 500 company. Bust your ass to get promoted over your less ass-busting colleagues.
By the time you've finished with all your noble ass-busting, sacrificing your years at the altar of financial gain, you're old, bald, overweight, with arteries blocked solid from decades of fast food, with adult children who remember you as that guy who came home late in the evening too tired to play with them.
Slashdot Mirror
I know I'd pay good money to see it.
They have Moore's Law. We have the power cord.
Any questions?
I don't think it would be that big a problem. The main problem is the vastness of the search space. Verifying that the path that returns the highest score really should return that score is trivial in comparison. And if it turns out that the highest score is bogus, go to the runner up and check that one.
Your one stop GPL-for-Windows shop. It doesn't look like they've included the most recent versions of most programs, but it does give some great leads.
The OpenCD Project
Neither. We all know that Google became self-aware years ago, but now it's apparently able to fortell the future.
Some pretty impressive hackers over there, no?
Oh, forgot one thing. Did you read at the end where he pretty much implied that, if Verisign doesn't find a way to make more money off the Internet, they'll no longer be able to keep the root nameservers running effectively?
I loved that part.
Semi-topical link.
Obviously, somebody is paying good money for Verisign to take the heat off SCO. I'll give you three guesses who, and the first two don't count.
The thing is, despite the absurd, self-serving nature of this "innovation," I can see how it might be useful for a browser to behave this way. This would be perfectly fine as an application-level behavior, and I'd go so far as to say I'd like to see it as an option in Mozilla. Google could have a "domain guessing" service, Verisign could have a service, Microsoft could have a service, your local floral shop could have a service, and the user could decide which one was most useful.
A few people have already mentioned this, and I'm just agreeing. What I don't agree with is breaking DNS for the sake of getting Verisign a few extra hits, then calling it "innovation." What utter crap.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter. Microsoft created a DLL which IE uses, and then hooked it so that it would also run things like Outlook and their help system. Whether it was a good idea, whether it's critical to the overall behavior of a given flavor of Windows, it's still a library that sits on top of the actual operating system. It will remain so until such a time as Microsoft integrates Explorer directly into the kernel, and lets it decide for itself how much memory it should be allowed to access.
Take another example: X11. X11 is critical to the overall behavior of most Linux systems. 90% of the software I use will break without it. But it's still a user-level application, which has to ask the OS whenever it wants more memory or access to the hard drive. Therefore, it's not part of the operating system.
I disagree. It doesn't matter what hand-waving the marketroids of Redmond* do, Outlook is not a part of the operating system. Same goes for Internet Explorer, Media Player, or anything else they choose to "integrate."
In its most proper definition, the Operating System is that bit of software that sits between the application and the hardware, controlling access to machine resources like RAM, the disk, the network card, etc.
The point is, Microsoft is trying to redefine "the operating system" to include whatever products get shipped on their install CDs. But it's not true, and never will be, so long as one CS grad lives who knows the truth.
Help us keep the flame alive, my friend. Join our noble cause.
* Hmm. Good band name.
Lindon is much closer to Provo than Salt Lake. Salt Lake is a virtual bastion of sanity compared to the rest of the state.
I guess I'm not saying a whole lot there.
I've had excellent success taking the drive outside, opening the casing, and whacking it against the concrete to unbind the motor. Then I submerge it in 17% H2SO4 for 48 hours to clean it off nice, then tie it to the back of my car and drag it down the highway for 17.4 miles, just to make absolutely sure.
Can I have my +2 Informative now?
[Note to AC: That was funny, but the moderators are smoking something today.]
Actually, I wrote this comment in a general sense, not with the Massachusetts situation in mind. However...
Whether or not it's particularly easy for an entity as large as a state government to fork the kernel (I would maintain that it's doable), the simple fact that it is possible and legal forces certain responsibilities on the current kernel-hacking regime. If they can't do it right, or start making irresponsible decisions, then it won't take long for everyone to band together and take the code away from them. Short of a judicial battle royale, this is a threat that Microsoft will never face.
I don't think that lowest TCO is the only driver of software decisions. In government, openness should be an overriding standard. If the cheapest "solution" to a problem doesn't guarantee the ability to migrate data away from that platform, or locks the citizens of the state to purchasing software X in order to interact with the government, then TCO has to take the back seat to openness.
I'm wholeheartedly in favor of holding government to open standards. Requiring OSS, on the other hand, seems a bit too drastic a step to me. The closest I would come is to require that a copy of the source be held in escrow (if the software is being used to save critical public data), so that there is an escape hatch in case the developer goes wahooni-shaped.
I'm not fully convinced that the CAGW's "analysis" is even close to an accurate depiction of the proposal. You have to remember that it's one of those groups that lives and dies by getting its members pissed off enough to get involved and get contributing. I would bet 20 karma that the real proposal is more akin to the proposals that have been floated in other states. None of them come close to a blanket rejection of closed-source software.
If they need to write a 30 page report, I recommend LATEX. Why? Because I'm evil, dammit!
If I decide that my business is going to switch entirely to Linux, I haven't created a "Linux monopoly." Nor would the government of Massachusetts do so--if indeed the proposal actually requires open source software rather than merely open standards. The government of Massachusetts has a right to decide what software they will and will not use, and its people have a right to let their ballots do the complaining if those decisions are incompetent.
Now, if the government cannot use Oracle databases even when nothing else will do the job, then the law is a bad one. But somehow I doubt that the proposal is that inflexible.
I don't know why you would even speculate that any person on the planet would have more difficulty learning AbiWord than Microsoft Word, given that it has about a tenth of the functionality and big, friendly buttons. OpenOffice.org, perhaps, but I see them as being approximately equal in complexity. For the big end-user applications like KDE, Mozilla, and OpenOffice, there simply isn't enough usability difference to justify a decision on those grounds.
Finally, I didn't read anywhere in the press release that the good citizens of Massville should be "asking questions and demanding answers." Just a demand that they petition Governor Romney to stop this insane proposal before the gates of Hell are unleashed.
A couple of points:
First: I've done a limited amount of googling on the recent Massachusetts initiative, and it appears that it's not demanding open source, just open standards. On the other hand, even some of the technical people in Mass.gov seem to be getting the definition wrong, so I'm not sure what's going on there. While I don't think that it's a good idea for a government to mandate open source any more than closed source, it is simply irresponsible to store public data in proprietary formats.
Second: The problem with "letting the market decide" between open and closed source is this: proprietary companies are the ones in the best position to bid on software. Cuz, like, they have salesmen and stuff.
That's hardly evidence at all. Most likely they just pay somebody for web hosting services. They may not even know what software is used to publish their website.
:)
Also, where do you get off saying that using FreeBSD shows that they have nothing against Linux? Everyone knows those FreeBSD folks will not rest until their unholy demons have wiped Linux off the face of the Earth.
If GPL'ed software gets a monopoly, then it's a monopoly of a sort wholly new to the world: a monopoly where no single group has total control over it, and nobody can take exclusive possession of it.
A world where Linux dominates is a world where no-one dominates. Everyone is free to take software and use it, study it, and modify it in any way they like. The only restriction is on redistribution, and if you don't like the terms, hey, use something else.
I've been playing with the earlier release candidates, and so far it's been sweet. Much faster than 1.0, better conversion from Office formats, the whole .pdf exporter.
:)
In other wondrous news, KOffice plans on switching to the StarOffice file formats. That should save the filter writers a whole bunch of work on both sides.
I would say, "I'm going to install this on the machines of all my friends and relatives," but rampant piracy has led them to think of Microsoft Office as "free," and the power of brand naming has led them to think of any replacement as inferior. So I'll be installing it on the machines of all friends and neighbors who aren't computer savvy enough to notice the difference.
Somewhat off-topic. I was listening to one of my local ClearChannel stations (there's a local talk show I've been listening to since before the station got bought out). Anyways, when it went to national news, one of the "news items" was the availability of a new cable channel called "Wheels." They felt it necessary to inform me that the new station was devoted to cars, trucks, and so on, but was somehow different from "The Speed Channel."
With only five minutes to cover the most important happenings of the day, why was this selected as important for me to know? It seems too trivial to be news and too mundane to be human interest. The only theory I can come up with is that somebody wanted the new station advertised.
I have to get off the computer, so please insert Media Consolidation Rant #11 here.
Former Mormon here.
Generally speaking, I don't think his religious views are important. Most Mormons, if made aware of the facts surrounding SCO's activities, would probably see him as a complete hypocrite and an embarassment to their religion.
On the other hand, there does seem to be a cultural link between Mormonism and weird business practices. It would be going overboard to say that the LDS Church or its members are obsessed with money. But thanks to a tradition of devout tithe-paying, the LDS Church is the richest per-capita religion in the world. There is also a not-exactly-doctrinal but often implied belief that righteousness leads to material blessings. Between the tithe-paying, large families, and the desire to be seen as successful, Utah leads the nation in bankruptcies despite having a highly educated population.
The politics of Utah are themselves pretty weird, and there's a lot of backscratching that goes on. But I haven't lived in other states, which makes it difficult for me to say if it's really worse than goes on elsewhere.
I fail to comprehend. If I'm a restaurant owner, and I've written some nifty restaurant management software that makes my business run much more effectively, then by giving away this powerful tool (which, having already been produced, costs me nothing to replicate) I'm somehow harming the economy? But if I sell it for $2700 per site, I'm creating value?
My opinion is, if it costs me $3000 worth of time and resources to produce a restaurant management suite, give it away for free, and it is adopted by a few hundred sites (saving $10000/year each), I've just turned $3000 into something that generates millions of dollars a year. That's millions of dollars that the owners can spend on other things (including paying hackers for even more software).
With all that wealth being created by my software, somehow I don't feel bad that I didn't get my $3000 back. And yet I somehow suspect that I would make a fair amount on support contracts.
The problem is, the 25B number probably requires putting all arable land into food production, and having everyone live on a vegetarian diet (meat is horribly inefficient as a calorie-delivery mechanism). The question is, with 25 billion of us, is there enough for everyone to have:
- A good education?
- Living quarters bigger than an average-sized toaster oven?
- Quality medical care?
- A Playstation?
It's not a matter of physical living space. Every square mile of city needs to be supported by hundreds of square miles of farmland and other resource-producing areas. There is also the question of how to maintain a viable ecosystem with every square inch of land being harvested.
In conclusion: I'd rather see five billion people living comfortably than twenty-five billion constantly on the verge of catastrophe.
Your basic premise here is "free market: GOOD", "government spending: BAD." At best, it's a useful rule of thumb. At worst, it's mindless free-market worship that denigrates the important role that govenrment spending and government regulations can play.
My favorite example of government gone right: The Interstate Highway System. It provides huge benefits to the economy at bargain prices. But no private company could ever have created it, because it would never be profitable for a single corporation to do so.
Another example: Environmental regulation. Unregulated free markets have little incentive to protect the environment. If one company decides to incur the burdens of "going green," they would get eaten alive by the companies who continued to dump their waste wherever it was cheapest. Sure, some of the regulations are overly intrusive or otherwise silly. But the big picture is that government interference improved air and water quality. Just because you can't easily slap a pricetag on that form of wealth doesn't make them any less valuable.
It's also silly to imply that tax cuts can only be a good thing. It depends on which programs have to be cut (or how far in debt we have to go) to make the tax cuts possible. If some real pork is trimmed pursuing them, great. But if it means cutting back on something like child immunizations, and setting up a public health disaster twenty years down the road, then the tax cut is bad. Same thing happens if the tax cut means ratcheting the federal debt up even higher (as seems to be the case with the last few rounds of short-sighted tax cuts).
Sure, there is waste and mismanagment in government--though as Enron showed, government isn't the only place where it can happen. But there is an advantage to having an institution that can look beyond the next earnings statement, see what needs to be done to improve things for everyone, and then make it happen.
Hmm... wish I had a government like that.
Ooh, we become France. Now there's a threat. We'd live longer, work fewer hours, and put out lower-budget films. We'd still get to wreak merry hell with the U.N., but on the downside we have to speak a language that is practically unusable while drunk.
You're right, it's far better to bust your ass from 5th grade onward. Bust your ass to get the grades that will get you into that prestigious university. Bust your ass to get the grades that will land you that job with a Fortune 500 company. Bust your ass to get promoted over your less ass-busting colleagues.
By the time you've finished with all your noble ass-busting, sacrificing your years at the altar of financial gain, you're old, bald, overweight, with arteries blocked solid from decades of fast food, with adult children who remember you as that guy who came home late in the evening too tired to play with them.
At least you got a BMW out of it.