Based the their use of equivalence. The average home with a GameCube/XBox, P4 PC, VCR, DVD player and PDA has more computing power that all the fighters on an aircraft carrier, with enough left over to wage a little cyberwarfare. I guess we should have all of our computing and entertainment equipment licensed and regulated. Oops, I forgot I was taking about the RIAA.
How about a faery tail castle (or some similar structure) in the Rocky's. Ideally visible from roads and highways up to 20 miles away, or better yet, from space. Could also be in the Seattle/Denver/Vancouver area where the entire city could see it.
Another possibility is the Zanatos building in the Gargoyles tv series.
Intel is just putting encryption/signing functions in silicon. They call it LaGrande. It can be used to encrypt data on your harddrive, or used in DRM. Chances are someone will write an version of SSL that uses LaGrande to do the math. It can also be disabled just like the PIIIs serial number.
I say lets make lemmonade and use it to encrypt peer-to-peer sessions. Let the RIAA think about that.
So far: M$ proposes improvement to wireless security. Bad! Ci$co supports M$. Bad!
IETF in the pockets of M$ & Ci$co. Bad!
Open Source community cannot implement IETF standards. Bad! Microsoft! Bad! Ci$co! Bad! No wireless security! Bad! Slashdot users have no alternatives! Bad! Slashdot users waste their time reading this! Bad! In case Slashdot users need to hear it again. Microsoft BAD!!
Someone should also do a proper analysis of the problem at hand. So far the statement has been made that they want to switch from Windows 2000 to Linux, and need multilingual support, and the ability to to keep guest users from changing settings? So far haven't seen anything about needing to browse the web, printing, using spreadsheets? Anyway the answer is black.
For that matter why not a dedicated satellite solution? So far they are only grabbing time on old geos that have slipped their orbits. For $250 Million I think some one would be able to engineer a broadband satellite solution that would work over the southern pole. A good solution would also allow them to sell excess capacity to locations like Argentina that have high squint angles and have similar problems with geos.
Does this mean that the California government cannot buy ANY software the doesn't have open source? That would include software upgrades to: Cisco IOS routers Traffic light controllers Motherboard BIOS Government owned telephone switches etc.
So the mantra will be I am not buying software upgrades to "insert name of device with buggy software here" because the manaufacture isn't open source.
Now is the time to start making Linux powered phone switches, traffic controllers, and routers!
Most video professionals, including TV stations have off the shelf video processing gear to clean up signals. Most of the pre-digital and pre-Hi8 consumer video cameras are crap. A cheap re-syncronizer is usually the first step in cleaning up the signal for viewer submitted video of accidents, disasters, stupidity, etc.
You can replace the Switching ATX power supply in a Desktop computer with a DC-DC model that runs off of 12/24 or -48V DC power. Eliminates the need for an inefficient inverter. After all why convert to AC if all your computer components (sans CRT monitors) are DC anyway. Installed one in a friends motor home and it works well.
Star Wars introduced that AT-AT twenty years ago, and ALIENS the CAT walking forklift 15 years ago. Back in reality we have seen walking machines in labs for decades.
So after decades of research, the only commercial walking machine you can buy is an AIBO, and you can only lease a Honda ASIMO.
Is the walking lawn tractor slow and noisy? Yes, but so were IBM 360s and Ford Model Ts.
So congratulations to a company willing to do the hard R&D. With luck they will have a commercial machine on the market in a decade.
OFS is Microsofts attempt at virtualizing the filesystem. It is a new layer between the OS and low level filesystems such as NTFS, FATxx, CDFS, etc. and from I have heard even Ext, and Reiser. Using the OFS, an application only sees a single unified view of all files accessible to it regardless of media type, format or location. This way OFS can deal with different filename conventions (DOS 8.3 or long), read-write privileges, owners, ACL, etc., access method (rw, r); media (flash, WORM, CD-RW, RAMDISK, etc; NFS, etc.) and the countless other things that differentiate one filesystem from another and keep it away from applications. Additionally OFS maintains a database (hence builtin SQL Server) of all files in the system, complete with attributes, properties, and where the physical file resides.
Arguably this is nothing new, and has been discussed and even implemented to a certain extend (Plan 9?).
Another view would be that it is a database, that allows you to store files as BLOBS, but as with most databases (Oracle, SQL Server, Sybase) the actual data is stored on a filesystem, and the database only has a link to it.
Consider use a naming system that makes sense from the management point of view (e.g. HP002A3), but then create aliases (e.g. vanmail1) that make it easy for us humans to figure out.
This also comes in handing when you move systems for what ever reason, it just becomes a change in the DNS.
Assuming Microsoft is market driven, what is the market for a browserless OS? The general computer user will not be too thrilled to learn that they have to download, buy. etc. a browsers (which one???). Especially after getting used to having one included for free.
Imagine going to buy a car and find out that you have to buy a radio if you want it, and you have your choice of 5+ radio's, all with different features, prices, etc.
Bottom line is the buying public has gotten used to getting the browser for free, and we can't turn back the clock.
Maybe somebody should inform the good senator of how much money the high tech sector is worth and that it is distributed nationally, where as the movie industry primarily operates out of Southern California (percentage $$$ wise). He should be reminded that if a flaw is found, then every consumer item is vulnerable. Is he planning on setting up a firmware police to make sure your refrigerator won't play pirated software?
Germany did find in my opinion. Going all of one thing is insane. An all Linux network is no better than an all Microsoft network. Lest ye protest, remember that they just found a major security hole in PHP. I wonder how many unpatched Linux boxes their will be after a week? They can join all of those unpatched Windows boxes.
HTTP is a protocol that was developed as a solution to a problem. That didn't mean we stopped using POP, FTP, Gopher, Telnet, KERMIT, etc., as they were developed to solve different problems. Now the new problem is Web Services, and the solution should not mean that we will stop using HTTP it to deliver web pages, or FTP to move files. We should not fear a new protocol (assuming it is good & worthy). As long as the solution has an IETF RFC number, with all the consultation and work required, it can be implemented by anyone. Remember HTTP wasn't invented by Microsoft, Netscape or even Linus. If you don't want Microsoft, AOL, Oracle or the MPAA developing the next solution, then come up with a great idea and start submitting RFCs.
Managed means that the code operates within the CLR and plays strictly by the rules. Unmanaged code can bypass the CLR. This is required as their are millions of lines of C/C++ source using pointers.
Just about every ISP claims that they are not liable for anything that happens to your machine. Specifically getting hacked, virii, etc. They say it is your responsibility. Given that NAT is often used in firewall/router like the the LinkSys, Comcast maybe opening itself up to being sued by denying it to its customers. Granted a users can ensure their machines are properly patched, and have security software installed, and have their antivirus software up-to-date, but their is nothing like stopping an attack before it even gets to your box.
If suing them doesn't work, get Microsoft to do it. Imagine all those people who can't have their XBox's and PC's connected at the sametime.
Looks like someone is envious of the Truck class in the Dakar Rally which ended yesterday. Check out Dakar 2002.
For those non-Rallye types, it spends most of the Paris-Dakar route in West Africa. Two weeks long, has car, motorcycle & truck classes, lots and lots of sand. Last year had a one week detour while they were airlifted over a country whose guerrilas threatened to kidnap the drivers. Makes the Baja look like drive to the beach.
Microsoft has a multi-prong approach. It is similar to Sun's Java write once run everywhere strategy, but with the benefit of history and money on its side.
MS has the CLR (Common Language Runtime) and MSIL (MS Intermediate Language). This is nothing new, with CLR = JVM, and MSIL being javacode. Additionally MS also has the.NET Framework (JFC/Swing) which will eventually replace the Win32 API. Once Microsoft ports the CLR to a new hardware platform or operating system, it is simple to also port the.NET framework. MS really doesn't need to port Windows unless it wants everything from the hardware up (as in JavaOS).
So if this is nothing more than MS rehash of Sun's Java approach, what's the difference. . First MS has the advantage of learning from Sun's mistakes. For example C#, Visual Basic, & VC++ are not the only languages that can use CLR & MSIL. Any language can compile to MSIL, and MS encourages it, claiming over 20 languages from 3rd party vendors, including PERL and Java. Additionally MS supports both compiled and bytecode, with a built-in native code compiler as part of the framework. These were all possible with the JVM, but not advocated/pushed by Sun.
Second, instant market. MS is including the.NET framework in it's upcoming Windows.NET Server (aka Windows XP Server), and will have it included as free upgrades for Windows 2000 and Windows XP before the end of the year. This means that MS could potentially have tens of millions of.NET ready systems on the street before the end of the year. On advantage MS has is that in its first incarnation the.NET Framework just hooks into the Win32 API, giving them time to rewrite the entire Windows codebase (supposedly due with the Blackcomb release).
Third. Applications. Microsoft has Office. Lets face it. People don't buy Windows for IE and Solitaire. Java never had a killer app.
Fourth. Inertia & Clout. Once MS ports Office to.NET Framework and eliminates Win32, their will be nothing stopping MS from porting Office to any hardware and/or OS platform on the market. 3rd party developers like Adobe, Macromedia, etc. can port their applications to.NET now with a tryed and true customer base, and once MS is ready, jump with them to other platforms/OS' with an almost minimal risk and expense. Instant application base. The first candidates are MAC OS X and Windows CE (.NET). Adobe for one will probably welcome having less codebases to maintain. Any port that makes economic sense to MS is a candidate, including Unix and Linux.
Five. Future proofing. If the DOJ or anyone else causes problems, MS can easily port Office to Linux just by porting the.NET framework. As new hardware or OS' hit the market, port. Where as Sun could port Java to any enviroment easy enough, it doesn't have the same application base as MS.
Reverse engineering of your command structure is not necessary unless someone wants real control of the satellite. The ability to record and playback commands is probably enough to do some serious damage.
Okay so M$ makes a case for why embedded XP is better embedded Linux.
This is plain old good marketing. Linux should be so lucky (aka get better at marketing Linux).
Microsoft could have just as well targeted many other embedded OS venders including VxWorks or QNX. Shows that Linux is definitely on Microsoft's radar screen.
Whether M$ arguments are right or wrong is irrelevant. Embedded developers know that a product with an embedded OS maybe in use for decades (as demonstrated by Y2K). The opinions of Microsoft, VxWorks, QNX, and the Open Source community are just that. If in a few years I see a Aibo clone catching frisbees and its running embedded XP, that will impress me.
Until then M$ marketing must be rolling in the aisles reading/. One of these days they will make some bizarre claim, and then take over the world while/.ers complain about how bad M$ is.
Aside from paying M$ for licenses, is Linux in 2001 any easier to maintain?
If I installed 100 workstations in 2000 (all up to date software/patches/etc.) how easy would it be to maintain them. What if I wanted to install the latest version of Open Office? Would I need to upgrade KDE/Gnome, libraries, the kernel, etc?How easy would it be?
My experience is we spend most of our money on people to support the infrastructure, and things like licenses are small in the great scheme of things? Would I spend any less time maintaining and upgrading my Linux boxes?
Slashdot Mirror
Based the their use of equivalence.
The average home with a GameCube/XBox, P4 PC, VCR, DVD player and PDA has more computing power that all the fighters on an aircraft carrier, with enough left over to wage a little cyberwarfare. I guess we should have all of our computing and entertainment equipment licensed and regulated. Oops, I forgot I was taking about the RIAA.
How about a faery tail castle (or some similar structure) in the Rocky's. Ideally visible from roads and highways up to 20 miles away, or better yet, from space. Could also be in the Seattle/Denver/Vancouver area where the entire city could see it.
Another possibility is the Zanatos building in the Gargoyles tv series.
Intel is just putting encryption/signing functions in silicon. They call it LaGrande. It can be used to encrypt data on your harddrive, or used in DRM. Chances are someone will write an version of SSL that uses LaGrande to do the math. It can also be disabled just like the PIIIs serial number.
I say lets make lemmonade and use it to encrypt peer-to-peer sessions. Let the RIAA think about that.
What a bargain when you can by a genuine Cisco PIX 501 for less.
So far:
M$ proposes improvement to wireless security. Bad!
Ci$co supports M$. Bad!
IETF in the pockets of M$ & Ci$co. Bad!
Open Source community cannot implement IETF standards. Bad!
Microsoft! Bad!
Ci$co! Bad!
No wireless security! Bad!
Slashdot users have no alternatives! Bad!
Slashdot users waste their time reading this! Bad!
In case Slashdot users need to hear it again. Microsoft BAD!!
Someone should also do a proper analysis of the problem at hand. So far the statement has been made that they want to switch from Windows 2000 to Linux, and need multilingual support, and the ability to to keep guest users from changing settings? So far haven't seen anything about needing to browse the web, printing, using spreadsheets? Anyway the answer is black.
For that matter why not a dedicated satellite solution? So far they are only grabbing time on old geos that have slipped their orbits.
For $250 Million I think some one would be able to engineer a broadband satellite solution that would work over the southern pole. A good solution would also allow them to sell excess capacity to locations like Argentina that have high squint angles and have similar problems with geos.
Does this mean that the California government cannot buy ANY software the doesn't have open source?
That would include software upgrades to:
Cisco IOS routers
Traffic light controllers
Motherboard BIOS
Government owned telephone switches
etc.
So the mantra will be I am not buying software upgrades to "insert name of device with buggy software here" because the manaufacture isn't open source.
Now is the time to start making Linux powered phone switches, traffic controllers, and routers!
Most video professionals, including TV stations have off the shelf video processing gear to clean up signals. Most of the pre-digital and pre-Hi8 consumer video cameras are crap. A cheap re-syncronizer is usually the first step in cleaning up the signal for viewer submitted video of accidents, disasters, stupidity, etc.
You can replace the Switching ATX power supply in a Desktop computer with a DC-DC model that runs off of 12/24 or -48V DC power. Eliminates the need for an inefficient inverter. After all why convert to AC if all your computer components (sans CRT monitors) are DC anyway. Installed one in a friends motor home and it works well.
Star Wars introduced that AT-AT twenty years ago, and ALIENS the CAT walking forklift 15 years ago. Back in reality we have seen walking machines in labs for decades.
So after decades of research, the only commercial walking machine you can buy is an AIBO, and you can only lease a Honda ASIMO.
Is the walking lawn tractor slow and noisy? Yes, but so were IBM 360s and Ford Model Ts.
So congratulations to a company willing to do the hard R&D. With luck they will have a commercial machine on the market in a decade.
And then we can start hacking!
Let's see
Microsoft can hack into ANY computer in the United States to make sure you aren't violating their copyright.
The Open Source community can hack into Microsoft to make sure they aren't using GPL'd code in their products.
You can hack into any military weapon system to make sure they are not using code from you thesis.
And its legal. I love this country.
I have a USRobotic Pilot 5000 w/2Mb upgrade.
8 years old and still does what I bought it for.
OFS is Microsofts attempt at virtualizing the filesystem. It is a new layer between the OS and low level filesystems such as NTFS, FATxx, CDFS, etc. and from I have heard even Ext, and Reiser. Using the OFS, an application only sees a single unified view of all files accessible to it regardless of media type, format or location. This way OFS can deal with different filename conventions (DOS 8.3 or long), read-write privileges, owners, ACL, etc., access method (rw, r); media (flash, WORM, CD-RW, RAMDISK, etc; NFS, etc.) and the countless other things that differentiate one filesystem from another and keep it away from applications. Additionally OFS maintains a database (hence builtin SQL Server) of all files in the system, complete with attributes, properties, and where the physical file resides.
Arguably this is nothing new, and has been discussed and even implemented to a certain extend (Plan 9?).
Another view would be that it is a database, that allows you to store files as BLOBS, but as with most databases (Oracle, SQL Server, Sybase) the actual data is stored on a filesystem, and the database only has a link to it.
Don't forget about aliases.
Consider use a naming system that makes sense from the management point of view (e.g. HP002A3), but then create aliases (e.g. vanmail1) that make it easy for us humans to figure out.
This also comes in handing when you move systems for what ever reason, it just becomes a change in the DNS.
Interesting.
Assuming Microsoft is market driven, what is the market for a browserless OS? The general computer user will not be too thrilled to learn that they have to download, buy. etc. a browsers (which one???). Especially after getting used to having one included for free.
Imagine going to buy a car and find out that you have to buy a radio if you want it, and you have your choice of 5+ radio's, all with different features, prices, etc.
Bottom line is the buying public has gotten used to getting the browser for free, and we can't turn back the clock.
Wow.
Maybe somebody should inform the good senator of how much money the high tech sector is worth and that it is distributed nationally, where as the movie industry primarily operates out of Southern California (percentage $$$ wise). He should be reminded that if a flaw is found, then every consumer item is vulnerable. Is he planning on setting up a firmware police to make sure your refrigerator won't play pirated software?
Germany did find in my opinion. Going all of one thing is insane. An all Linux network is no better than an all Microsoft network. Lest ye protest, remember that they just found a major security hole in PHP. I wonder how many unpatched Linux boxes their will be after a week? They can join all of those unpatched Windows boxes.
HTTP is a protocol that was developed as a solution to a problem. That didn't mean we stopped using POP, FTP, Gopher, Telnet, KERMIT, etc., as they were developed to solve different problems. Now the new problem is Web Services, and the solution should not mean that we will stop using HTTP it to deliver web pages, or FTP to move files. We should not fear a new protocol (assuming it is good & worthy). As long as the solution has an IETF RFC number, with all the consultation and work required, it can be implemented by anyone. Remember HTTP wasn't invented by Microsoft, Netscape or even Linus. If you don't want Microsoft, AOL, Oracle or the MPAA developing the next solution, then come up with a great idea and start submitting RFCs.
Managed means that the code operates within the CLR and plays strictly by the rules. Unmanaged code can bypass the CLR. This is required as their are millions of lines of C/C++ source using pointers.
Just about every ISP claims that they are not liable for anything that happens to your machine. Specifically getting hacked, virii, etc. They say it is your responsibility. Given that NAT is often used in firewall/router like the the LinkSys, Comcast maybe opening itself up to being sued by denying it to its customers. Granted a users can ensure their machines are properly patched, and have security software installed, and have their antivirus software up-to-date, but their is nothing like stopping an attack before it even gets to your box.
If suing them doesn't work, get Microsoft to do it. Imagine all those people who can't have their XBox's and PC's connected at the sametime.
Looks like someone is envious of the Truck class in the Dakar Rally which ended yesterday. Check out Dakar 2002.
For those non-Rallye types, it spends most of the Paris-Dakar route in West Africa. Two weeks long, has car, motorcycle & truck classes, lots and lots of sand. Last year had a one week detour while they were airlifted over a country whose guerrilas threatened to kidnap the drivers. Makes the Baja look like drive to the beach.
Microsoft has a multi-prong approach. It is similar to Sun's Java write once run everywhere strategy, but with the benefit of history and money on its side.
.NET Framework (JFC/Swing) which will eventually replace the Win32 API. Once Microsoft ports the CLR to a new hardware platform or operating system, it is simple to also port the .NET framework. MS really doesn't need to port Windows unless it wants everything from the hardware up (as in JavaOS).
.NET framework in it's upcoming Windows .NET Server (aka Windows XP Server), and will have it included as free upgrades for Windows 2000 and Windows XP before the end of the year. This means that MS could potentially have tens of millions of .NET ready systems on the street before the end of the year. On advantage MS has is that in its first incarnation the .NET Framework just hooks into the Win32 API, giving them time to rewrite the entire Windows codebase (supposedly due with the Blackcomb release).
.NET Framework and eliminates Win32, their will be nothing stopping MS from porting Office to any hardware and/or OS platform on the market. 3rd party developers like Adobe, Macromedia, etc. can port their applications to .NET now with a tryed and true customer base, and once MS is ready, jump with them to other platforms/OS' with an almost minimal risk and expense. Instant application base. The first candidates are MAC OS X and Windows CE (.NET). Adobe for one will probably welcome having less codebases to maintain. Any port that makes economic sense to MS is a candidate, including Unix and Linux.
.NET framework. As new hardware or OS' hit the market, port. Where as Sun could port Java to any enviroment easy enough, it doesn't have the same application base as MS.
MS has the CLR (Common Language Runtime) and MSIL (MS Intermediate Language). This is nothing new, with CLR = JVM, and MSIL being javacode. Additionally MS also has the
So if this is nothing more than MS rehash of Sun's Java approach, what's the difference.
.
First MS has the advantage of learning from Sun's mistakes. For example C#, Visual Basic, & VC++ are not the only languages that can use CLR & MSIL. Any language can compile to MSIL, and MS encourages it, claiming over 20 languages from 3rd party vendors, including PERL and Java. Additionally MS supports both compiled and bytecode, with a built-in native code compiler as part of the framework. These were all possible with the JVM, but not advocated/pushed by Sun.
Second, instant market. MS is including the
Third. Applications. Microsoft has Office. Lets face it. People don't buy Windows for IE and Solitaire. Java never had a killer app.
Fourth. Inertia & Clout. Once MS ports Office to
Five. Future proofing. If the DOJ or anyone else causes problems, MS can easily port Office to Linux just by porting the
Reverse engineering of your command structure is not necessary unless someone wants real control of the satellite. The ability to record and playback commands is probably enough to do some serious damage.
Okay so M$ makes a case for why embedded XP is better embedded Linux.
/. One of these days they will make some bizarre claim, and then take over the world while /.ers complain about how bad M$ is.
This is plain old good marketing. Linux should be so lucky (aka get better at marketing Linux).
Microsoft could have just as well targeted many other embedded OS venders including VxWorks or QNX. Shows that Linux is definitely on Microsoft's radar screen.
Whether M$ arguments are right or wrong is irrelevant. Embedded developers know that a product with an embedded OS maybe in use for decades (as demonstrated by Y2K). The opinions of Microsoft, VxWorks, QNX, and the Open Source community are just that. If in a few years I see a Aibo clone catching frisbees and its running embedded XP, that will impress me.
Until then M$ marketing must be rolling in the aisles reading
Lets look at this in perspective?
Aside from paying M$ for licenses, is Linux in 2001 any easier to maintain?
If I installed 100 workstations in 2000 (all up to date software/patches/etc.) how easy would it be to maintain them. What if I wanted to install the latest version of Open Office? Would I need to upgrade KDE/Gnome, libraries, the kernel, etc?How easy would it be?
My experience is we spend most of our money on people to support the infrastructure, and things like licenses are small in the great scheme of things? Would I spend any less time maintaining and upgrading my Linux boxes?