Jut to point out how what you're saying relates to Perens' article, not to agree or disagree... Office was written with unnecessarily proprietary binary file formats. They could have gone the OpenOffice.org route and published file formats which could be shared by others. (Some would argue they did by allowing some others to license the binary format, but I don't call that being open.) DirectX was a direct response to OpenGL, which literally is an open standard. Instead of going with what was (maybe) the only all-inclusive open API, they created their own. These are the things Perens is arguing against.
The big news isn't the client. It's the server. Bringing all the available standards together into one server that a client like Outlook or Evolution can use is what's missing. Companies have no option for a good colaborative groupware server other than Exchange and Lotus Notes. Notes is a viable option, but myself and others do not like using it's client at all.
Point being, what they're creating (or bringing together) is the only server for Linux/Unix which will directly compete with Exchange.
Can someone please explain why the desired level of security can't be obtained by only software? What exactly are the situations which require a security chip as opposed to software? I'm not speaking of physically breaking into the computer, but someone at the keyboard or over a network.
This is how DSL service has worked for years. In my area, for example, Verizon has 3 levels of DSL speed in a similar price range to this AT&T cable. I don't understand how "this had to happen sometime" when it has been happening, just not for cable. I realize DSL is tiered and cable is not for technical reasons (DSL's distance factors, dedicated servers, etc.). But to offer more bandwidth at a higher price makes sense if you believe in the basics of supply and demand. My only real issue with this topic is that there's virtually no competition (at least in the NYC metro area). Phone service is mostly monoply and cable is pure monopoly. That throws a wrench into the whole supply and demand thing, but basically if you want more data through the provider, it makes sense to pay more.
"What next - a bill to disallow modifying your PC?"
Didn't the Microsoft board already pass that bill and had Bill G sign it into law?
Flamebait, I know, but hard to resist. But really, it seems strange that XP requires you to re-register if too much hardware is changed on your PC. The only stealing it really prevents is duplicating a hard disk and installing that hard disk in a different computer containing different hardware. Ok, so it's Offtopic too, but it sorta relates to the whole "What am I not allowed to do now?" question.
The word "never" should never be used in a technology news article. Well, maybe if they're referring to OS/2...;)
It's hard to believe the author of this article has been a technology news writer for at least a decade. "Linux will never be..." "Linux will never gain..." She doesn't mean never. I think she means in the short term (5 yrs maybe), which seems like an eternity in the tech industry. But to say something, especially something new, will never take over a market or will never be used for critical systems is simply rediculous. By this author's writing, some execs, if they're smart enough to read that far into the articles, will think Linux has mostly run its course and found its place in the industry since it'll "never" get beyond certain levels. By her logic, if she wrote an article about Microsoft back in 1985, she'd have said "Windows will never be a serious player in the server market."
This author's writing is incredibly irresponsible.
Wow, that's a good point. The users in my company only see the standard office apps plus our custom apps. We know what to expect as output, so I hadn't thought about the little things that might pop up like documentation or stuff sys admins might come across.
That's something for distro makers to think about. Maybe they should take a hard look at things like that to keep it looking professional.
I agree in general, but I'd like to add something important. In the "corporate boardroom" this is irrelevant. I'm sure that when a Red Hat rep walks into a company his materials leave out the $ in Micro$oft. A company needs an internal linux advocate (like me at my company) who speaks intelligently about it. As long as I speak knowledgably and maturely, my promotion of linux is heard. My manager, his boss, and the CTO don't care about the linux community and won't be reading/. or any other linux/open source community sites any time soon. When decisions are to be made, it's my voice they'll remember. Similar to what you said, they'll ignore the community, but perceive linux from the loudest voice they hear: me.
I agree. I'm mostly thinking along the lines of MS Visual Studio's integration with Visual SourceSafe. Yes, like everyone else I hate VSS. But the VB6 IDE makes checking in and out as easy as it could be by right clicking on the module name in the project "explorer" window. With a good set of APIs maybe I could easily add the same feature to some Linux IDEs for integration with a new version control system, which I'd much rather work on than VB.
Absolutely key is (relatively) easy integration with IDEs. Preferably a nice set of APIs for any IDE creators to use to interact with the version control server. I would imagine those same APIs could then be used by any GUI developers of the version control system. IMO without the ability of the system to integrate well with IDEs adoption would be slow.
So I'm browsing around last night for an RPG, or really any game which looks especially interesting. I run across many RPG engines... more engines than games. While this and other engines of course are interesting, I'm looking to play on them. Can someone tell me (us) where to get the good RPGs and other games?
WHY would he need Buffett to come in and buy them first? Why didn't he just buy the stock earlier this week?
It's not that simple. (I work for an investment firm but I AM NOT SPEAKING ON THEIR BEHALF, SO DON'T LET THEM SUE ME, BOSS.) It seems I could walk into the market and buy all the stock that's for sale by a few companies. But it's not that simple. Large trades are automatically tracked by the market (e.g. NYSE has a department with lots of computers checking what's up). Huge purchases can be instantly blocked pending an investigation. Plus remember that only stocks which are being offered can be bought. If 51% of a company's investors aren't selling their stock, Bill could only buy 49%.
Plus on top of all of that, if the board is against a majority purchase of stock (51% or more) it's called a hostile takeover. It's legal, but angers investors and employees, plus the board might be able to sue to buy stock back. But if Bill's in with a huge investor, he'll face no arguments from inside the company. He can also then slowly move in, rather than buy everything at once, preventing regulation flags from being raised by the SEC.
So basically it's a lot more complicated than you might think. Although I agree that this probably isn't a conspiracy. Buffett saw a good deal and took it. Anything now that happens with Bill probably was not planned.
The interview with the project manager states that this started as a pet project of some tech employees. They were working out what was possible, supposedly on their personal time. Then they raised it as a project idea and it was approved by management. Since it didn't come down from management, I'm more inclined to think the technical implications were well thought through. Once management got wind of it and realized the possibilities more ego went into it. Since this project was actually started 4 or 5 years ago I'm inclined to believe they thought it through. There's no guarantee, but when it comes to the methods of pushing out features they're pretty smart.
If I thought this was a good idea and I worked as head of this project, I would compensate for the points your making. This plan is so large that they must have thought this through. I would get the manufacturing companies on my side, get the hardware and write the software, but only activate a small portion, probably just multimedia DRM. That could be used as the initial focus. If this were pulled off well and accepted, then I'd start to turn on everything else, like only running "authorized code" and such.
So if they want to get this adopted and in use - below the radar if possible - they have to do it very slowly. Get the stuff out there and then launch BigBrother.exe (or actually, bigbro~1.exe).
Between a valid point and paranoia
on
Analyzing Palladium
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
He makes quite a valid run through his logic. It's not impossible, so I wouldn't call it simple paranoia. However I still don't think MS finds the GPL or Linux that much of a threat to its entire business. They're putting way too much effort into Palladium if it were only to make the GPL useless. It's really all about control, as a lot of people said in previous/. articles. It's somewhat about money, but at this point it's about growing an empire and making it even stronger.
Self-employed purchase of health insurance is very expensive. Maybe you live in the middle of nowhere and the rates are cheap, or maybe you're smoking some really good crack;), but in the NYC metro area, if you're self-employed it costs a small fortune to buy health insurance from anyone. HMOs and others charge much higher fees to self-employed individuals than to corporations (per person). That's one reason why there's a larger federal tax break for money spent on health insurance when you're self-employed (there's an additional Schedule (E?) that you have to fill out if you don't work for someone else's corporation). So I'm sure the "bulk" insurance that E-Bay is selling is cheaper per person than buying it alone. E-Bay's insentive may partly be for the tax benefits.
Because they're a monopoly, they may be able to get away with charging per use like electricity
Exactly. In the NY metro area cable in every county is a monopoly. Westchester only has Cablevision, Manhattan only has Time Warner (although RCN's now getting a little slice). But since the government's latest trends have been away from closely controlling utility companies, these guys can basically charge what they want. I hate to say it, but the government needs to step in where cable is a monopoly and treat it like a regular utility, closely controlling its price. IIRC, a utility is defined in NY as a service provided by a monopoly which is deemed almost necessary by most citizens. TV certainly isn't necessary, but it's so common I think it falls under the class of utility, just like the telephone. If they don't control it like a utility they need to allow true opening of the market, which they failed to do correctly with the phone companies.
...much confusion in MS as to whether or not this is a good thing.
AFAIK the cost of building the XBox is still more than the $200 they're selling it for. The original idea was to lose money on the hardware and make huge profit on the games. So if people are to buy the XBox but no games, it's a loss for MS (at least $$$). When it's hacked in a way to simply use it as a linux PC without much hastle, you can buy the hardware, theoretically taking money away from MS, and have a relatively powerful cheap PC.
One major consideration will be the service contract with the vendors. With 2 vendors, you'll buy 2 service contracts. You can have all the best sys admins you want, but I'm sure you'll need at least a minimal service contract for a commercial Unix. Can adding a second contract add a lot to overall cost? Hard to say without any details of the company, but I'd guess adding a basic service contract from the new vendor will significantly add to TCO.
...to help U.S. telecommunications carriers comply with wiretapping regulations that have gained more prominence since the attacks of Sept. 11.
I prefer to see them as regulations that were pushed through legislation by taking advantage of public fears after Sept. 11. I'm from NYC and I hear the warnings every week and occassionally still hear military fighters and helicopters fly over my home, but that batch of regulations under the Patriot Act are nothing patriotic. I want terrorists caught just as much as anyone else. Some people had been pushing for more wiretapping freedom for years. They took advantage of our fears to slip these regulations through which give too much power to our government.
Have you tried contacting the publishers directly? Or maybe the companies that created any of your software documentation? I know that some companies have PDFs of their manuals and other books, but don't make it well known. They don't usually offer them for free download, but if you prove you have a hard copy some companies will tell you how to get a PDF version. This works especially well for lost instruction manuals, which you can always get for free.
One good, but old, example is Oracle. Back in the day my company had megs of PDFs of all of Oracle's documentation. There was a main index PDF with links to basically every other possible document. I don't recall Oracle leaving them open for download on the internet. We got them on CD. But it was easy to get since they new we were a customer.
I'm the same, basically no more shock value. What truely surprises me, though, is how fans of the company aren't shocked either and remain fans! If I found a company that made a burger I really loved, then found out they were cutting up babies to add flavor, I'd turn around and dislike the company. It's amazing how some fans make excuses for all of the bad press (I have a co-worker notorious for this), but at some point any reasonable human being will have to see all this bad press is created because of a bad company. It's hard to believe so many people choose to remain so blind.
It doesn't bother me that I'm no longer shocked. It bothers me that fans of MS and their software aren't shocked.
If the investigation leads to a finding that the contract was part of a bribe, the contract could be nullified due to being based on a criminal act. The taxpayers will most definitely pay for any multi-million dollar trials, but Oracle may not be able to sue for breach of contract if a court finds the contract was signed for a bribe.
Slashdot Mirror
Jut to point out how what you're saying relates to Perens' article, not to agree or disagree... Office was written with unnecessarily proprietary binary file formats. They could have gone the OpenOffice.org route and published file formats which could be shared by others. (Some would argue they did by allowing some others to license the binary format, but I don't call that being open.) DirectX was a direct response to OpenGL, which literally is an open standard. Instead of going with what was (maybe) the only all-inclusive open API, they created their own. These are the things Perens is arguing against.
The big news isn't the client. It's the server. Bringing all the available standards together into one server that a client like Outlook or Evolution can use is what's missing. Companies have no option for a good colaborative groupware server other than Exchange and Lotus Notes. Notes is a viable option, but myself and others do not like using it's client at all.
Point being, what they're creating (or bringing together) is the only server for Linux/Unix which will directly compete with Exchange.
Can someone please explain why the desired level of security can't be obtained by only software? What exactly are the situations which require a security chip as opposed to software? I'm not speaking of physically breaking into the computer, but someone at the keyboard or over a network.
This is how DSL service has worked for years. In my area, for example, Verizon has 3 levels of DSL speed in a similar price range to this AT&T cable. I don't understand how "this had to happen sometime" when it has been happening, just not for cable. I realize DSL is tiered and cable is not for technical reasons (DSL's distance factors, dedicated servers, etc.). But to offer more bandwidth at a higher price makes sense if you believe in the basics of supply and demand. My only real issue with this topic is that there's virtually no competition (at least in the NYC metro area). Phone service is mostly monoply and cable is pure monopoly. That throws a wrench into the whole supply and demand thing, but basically if you want more data through the provider, it makes sense to pay more.
"What next - a bill to disallow modifying your PC?"
Didn't the Microsoft board already pass that bill and had Bill G sign it into law?
Flamebait, I know, but hard to resist. But really, it seems strange that XP requires you to re-register if too much hardware is changed on your PC. The only stealing it really prevents is duplicating a hard disk and installing that hard disk in a different computer containing different hardware. Ok, so it's Offtopic too, but it sorta relates to the whole "What am I not allowed to do now?" question.
The word "never" should never be used in a technology news article. Well, maybe if they're referring to OS/2... ;)
It's hard to believe the author of this article has been a technology news writer for at least a decade. "Linux will never be..." "Linux will never gain..." She doesn't mean never. I think she means in the short term (5 yrs maybe), which seems like an eternity in the tech industry. But to say something, especially something new, will never take over a market or will never be used for critical systems is simply rediculous. By this author's writing, some execs, if they're smart enough to read that far into the articles, will think Linux has mostly run its course and found its place in the industry since it'll "never" get beyond certain levels. By her logic, if she wrote an article about Microsoft back in 1985, she'd have said "Windows will never be a serious player in the server market."
This author's writing is incredibly irresponsible.
Wow, that's a good point. The users in my company only see the standard office apps plus our custom apps. We know what to expect as output, so I hadn't thought about the little things that might pop up like documentation or stuff sys admins might come across.
That's something for distro makers to think about. Maybe they should take a hard look at things like that to keep it looking professional.
I agree in general, but I'd like to add something important. In the "corporate boardroom" this is irrelevant. I'm sure that when a Red Hat rep walks into a company his materials leave out the $ in Micro$oft. A company needs an internal linux advocate (like me at my company) who speaks intelligently about it. As long as I speak knowledgably and maturely, my promotion of linux is heard. My manager, his boss, and the CTO don't care about the linux community and won't be reading /. or any other linux/open source community sites any time soon. When decisions are to be made, it's my voice they'll remember. Similar to what you said, they'll ignore the community, but perceive linux from the loudest voice they hear: me.
I agree. I'm mostly thinking along the lines of MS Visual Studio's integration with Visual SourceSafe. Yes, like everyone else I hate VSS. But the VB6 IDE makes checking in and out as easy as it could be by right clicking on the module name in the project "explorer" window. With a good set of APIs maybe I could easily add the same feature to some Linux IDEs for integration with a new version control system, which I'd much rather work on than VB.
Absolutely key is (relatively) easy integration with IDEs. Preferably a nice set of APIs for any IDE creators to use to interact with the version control server. I would imagine those same APIs could then be used by any GUI developers of the version control system. IMO without the ability of the system to integrate well with IDEs adoption would be slow.
Almost offtopic, but it relates:
So I'm browsing around last night for an RPG, or really any game which looks especially interesting. I run across many RPG engines... more engines than games. While this and other engines of course are interesting, I'm looking to play on them. Can someone tell me (us) where to get the good RPGs and other games?
WHY would he need Buffett to come in and buy them first? Why didn't he just buy the stock earlier this week?
It's not that simple. (I work for an investment firm but I AM NOT SPEAKING ON THEIR BEHALF, SO DON'T LET THEM SUE ME, BOSS.) It seems I could walk into the market and buy all the stock that's for sale by a few companies. But it's not that simple. Large trades are automatically tracked by the market (e.g. NYSE has a department with lots of computers checking what's up). Huge purchases can be instantly blocked pending an investigation. Plus remember that only stocks which are being offered can be bought. If 51% of a company's investors aren't selling their stock, Bill could only buy 49%.
Plus on top of all of that, if the board is against a majority purchase of stock (51% or more) it's called a hostile takeover. It's legal, but angers investors and employees, plus the board might be able to sue to buy stock back. But if Bill's in with a huge investor, he'll face no arguments from inside the company. He can also then slowly move in, rather than buy everything at once, preventing regulation flags from being raised by the SEC.
So basically it's a lot more complicated than you might think. Although I agree that this probably isn't a conspiracy. Buffett saw a good deal and took it. Anything now that happens with Bill probably was not planned.
Very insightful. I just want to add the fact that MS Office makes up about 60% of MS revenue. It's their most profitable product, by far.
The interview with the project manager states that this started as a pet project of some tech employees. They were working out what was possible, supposedly on their personal time. Then they raised it as a project idea and it was approved by management. Since it didn't come down from management, I'm more inclined to think the technical implications were well thought through. Once management got wind of it and realized the possibilities more ego went into it. Since this project was actually started 4 or 5 years ago I'm inclined to believe they thought it through. There's no guarantee, but when it comes to the methods of pushing out features they're pretty smart.
If I thought this was a good idea and I worked as head of this project, I would compensate for the points your making. This plan is so large that they must have thought this through. I would get the manufacturing companies on my side, get the hardware and write the software, but only activate a small portion, probably just multimedia DRM. That could be used as the initial focus. If this were pulled off well and accepted, then I'd start to turn on everything else, like only running "authorized code" and such.
So if they want to get this adopted and in use - below the radar if possible - they have to do it very slowly. Get the stuff out there and then launch BigBrother.exe (or actually, bigbro~1.exe).
He makes quite a valid run through his logic. It's not impossible, so I wouldn't call it simple paranoia. However I still don't think MS finds the GPL or Linux that much of a threat to its entire business. They're putting way too much effort into Palladium if it were only to make the GPL useless. It's really all about control, as a lot of people said in previous /. articles. It's somewhat about money, but at this point it's about growing an empire and making it even stronger.
Self-employed purchase of health insurance is very expensive. Maybe you live in the middle of nowhere and the rates are cheap, or maybe you're smoking some really good crack ;), but in the NYC metro area, if you're self-employed it costs a small fortune to buy health insurance from anyone. HMOs and others charge much higher fees to self-employed individuals than to corporations (per person). That's one reason why there's a larger federal tax break for money spent on health insurance when you're self-employed (there's an additional Schedule (E?) that you have to fill out if you don't work for someone else's corporation). So I'm sure the "bulk" insurance that E-Bay is selling is cheaper per person than buying it alone. E-Bay's insentive may partly be for the tax benefits.
Because they're a monopoly, they may be able to get away with charging per use like electricity
Exactly. In the NY metro area cable in every county is a monopoly. Westchester only has Cablevision, Manhattan only has Time Warner (although RCN's now getting a little slice). But since the government's latest trends have been away from closely controlling utility companies, these guys can basically charge what they want. I hate to say it, but the government needs to step in where cable is a monopoly and treat it like a regular utility, closely controlling its price. IIRC, a utility is defined in NY as a service provided by a monopoly which is deemed almost necessary by most citizens. TV certainly isn't necessary, but it's so common I think it falls under the class of utility, just like the telephone. If they don't control it like a utility they need to allow true opening of the market, which they failed to do correctly with the phone companies.
...much confusion in MS as to whether or not this is a good thing.
AFAIK the cost of building the XBox is still more than the $200 they're selling it for. The original idea was to lose money on the hardware and make huge profit on the games. So if people are to buy the XBox but no games, it's a loss for MS (at least $$$). When it's hacked in a way to simply use it as a linux PC without much hastle, you can buy the hardware, theoretically taking money away from MS, and have a relatively powerful cheap PC.
One major consideration will be the service contract with the vendors. With 2 vendors, you'll buy 2 service contracts. You can have all the best sys admins you want, but I'm sure you'll need at least a minimal service contract for a commercial Unix. Can adding a second contract add a lot to overall cost? Hard to say without any details of the company, but I'd guess adding a basic service contract from the new vendor will significantly add to TCO.
...to help U.S. telecommunications carriers comply with wiretapping regulations that have gained more prominence since the attacks of Sept. 11.
I prefer to see them as regulations that were pushed through legislation by taking advantage of public fears after Sept. 11. I'm from NYC and I hear the warnings every week and occassionally still hear military fighters and helicopters fly over my home, but that batch of regulations under the Patriot Act are nothing patriotic. I want terrorists caught just as much as anyone else. Some people had been pushing for more wiretapping freedom for years. They took advantage of our fears to slip these regulations through which give too much power to our government.
Have you tried contacting the publishers directly? Or maybe the companies that created any of your software documentation? I know that some companies have PDFs of their manuals and other books, but don't make it well known. They don't usually offer them for free download, but if you prove you have a hard copy some companies will tell you how to get a PDF version. This works especially well for lost instruction manuals, which you can always get for free.
One good, but old, example is Oracle. Back in the day my company had megs of PDFs of all of Oracle's documentation. There was a main index PDF with links to basically every other possible document. I don't recall Oracle leaving them open for download on the internet. We got them on CD. But it was easy to get since they new we were a customer.
I'm the same, basically no more shock value. What truely surprises me, though, is how fans of the company aren't shocked either and remain fans! If I found a company that made a burger I really loved, then found out they were cutting up babies to add flavor, I'd turn around and dislike the company. It's amazing how some fans make excuses for all of the bad press (I have a co-worker notorious for this), but at some point any reasonable human being will have to see all this bad press is created because of a bad company. It's hard to believe so many people choose to remain so blind.
It doesn't bother me that I'm no longer shocked. It bothers me that fans of MS and their software aren't shocked.
If the investigation leads to a finding that the contract was part of a bribe, the contract could be nullified due to being based on a criminal act. The taxpayers will most definitely pay for any multi-million dollar trials, but Oracle may not be able to sue for breach of contract if a court finds the contract was signed for a bribe.
Wrong Starting Estimate of Uranus mass
But I thought Uranus is a hole...
(Sorry, I just had to)