If you can selectively degrade it simply by flipping a switch that give the EU a bargaining chip in negotiations with the US (ie, we can make this whole galileo-jamming bit real easy for you if you only change policy xyz).
The funny thing is that in the last three armed conflicts in which the US has taken part (Iraq I, Balkans, Iraq II) the US Space Command has bent on every effort to increase the accuracy of the GPS system. During Iraq II they took the risk of degrading the signal in the rest of the world so they could concentrate more satellites over Iraq, which increased both diversity and accuracy.
Guess that wouldn't always be the case, but it is a bit ironic.
Blogs aren't subject to editorial review, and therefore don't count as "high-quality" links. Blogs are a part of the equation, but they definitely should not be a major factor.
Under historical patterns of media control, this is true. Of course that didn't stop Jason Blair, Stephen Glass, or the NYT failing to report the Soviet famines, but hey, editorial review can't be perfect can it?
The question outstanding is whether there is acually a (ugly buzzword alert) paradigm shift in event reporting going on, driven by blogs. If so, the judgement that www.nyt.com is "high quality" and www.instapundit.com is "low quality" may no longer be correct. Unless Google, the arbiter of culture in the 'oughts, forces it to be so.
Unfortunately, PageRank didn't work so well when blogs came along, because of their high amount of interlinking. So Google was forced to reduce the weight of PageRank in the algorithm
I think Pagerank and similar algorithms worked just fine when blogs came along - they correctly signaled a potential trend away from historical media control patterns to a new way of disseminating information - particularly political information. But the entities which have historically made a lot of money by controlling the flow of information don't like that, so they have been pressuring Google and other search engines very hard to "eliminate" blogs from search results. Thus returning to the status quo ante.
CP/M?? I think you mean SAP. CP/M was an 8bit OS back in the early 80s.
CP/M is also a project scheduling technique, and such databases can be very large for complex projects. Or he might have been using a different acronym for what is usually called (in the US at least) CRM.
The suggestion that money could be more usefully spent on caring for people rather than being pissed away on some unnecessary OSS software earns poster -1 !!
GO SLASHDOT!!
Is the Internet the most important thing in the human world? No, of course not. Is it of some importance? Well, yes. Is free access (free in the Stallman sense that is) to the Internet of some importance? IMHO, yes.
Right now a lot of western governments are under pressure to "get services on the web". Heck , I write my state representative once a quarter and ask him when our archiac drivers' license bureau is going to make services available on-line, the way all our neighboring states have.
But - if the only way to get those services is through a propriatary browser, one which controls 97% of the market and is manufactured by a convicted monopolist, is there a bit of an issue? Tracking the recent "eGovernment" camapign in the UK, I would say yes, there is an issue.
So I would like to see some good, supportable, sustainable alternatives to Internet Explorer available and in use, as I think it has some bearing on the future of free information access.
sPh
PS Yes, I am aware of the problems of living on a low income, and I do not expect those people to contribute any cash to Mozilla. But I am quite sure there are 1,000,000 Mozilla users on the face of the earth who can afford to skip 25 coffees or 10 super-latte-mocha-blobs at their local shop and donate the savings to Mozilla Foundation. They they haven't done this says something about the Open Source model. IMHO.
I think there is a lot of food for thought in your post. The other issue that bothers me is this: millions of people have posted to various on-line forums over the last 4 years about how much they love Netscape/Mozilla and how much they dislike Internet Explorer. Ok, if there are 1,000,000 people with this level of concern, and they each sent 50 USD to the Mozilla Foundation (not a lot of money for someone in the Western world; just 25 cups of Starbucks coffee), then the Moz Foundation would have 50,000,000 USD available to support development. That would be enough to keep a good team running for 5-10 years.
So - how is Mozilla Foundation's fundraising going? What is their endowment status at the moment?
Swell, Stallman will be rocking in his chair, picking fleas from his beard and muttering "GNU/SCO.. GNU/SCO.. GNU/SCO.." It's like a strawman argument against the millions of free software users.
Keep in mind the line from The Firm: "Remember - he's smarter than you.". Stallman will be well-prepared by Moglen. He will probably leave SCO's top-notch lawyers tied up in knots by their own questions.
The second cool thing is that all of a sudden there is a viable alternative to the Red Hat evil empire. I would bet that Novell/Suse arent going to piss off all the developers like Red Hat has done.
Historically however, Novell has done an excellent job of pissing off the independent developer community, and in so doing drove the developers into the arms of IBM and Microsoft. IBM in turn drove developers away from OS/2, which left Windows to take the field when Microsoft pampered those same ISVs.
IBM learned from that set of mistakes. The question is: has Novell learned? Or is this the same bunch of guys who think it is still 1993 with Netware holding 85% market share?
I have always liked Novell technology, despite its quirks and flaws. And back in the day no technology supplier gave its customers better support than Novell. In fact, my first experience with Novell tech support was at 2 AM on Easter Sunday - with our support contract not yet approved by either company's legal dept, they nonetheless had a developer on the line by 4 AM who worked with us for 8 hours to get the problem fixed. So this could be a good thing.
Vs. Microsoft this is a tricky move, because I think even the Bush Justice Dept would look very hard at Microsoft entering the Linux market.
But historically, Novell has thrown away every technology and market advantage they have ever held, and handed their business on a silver platter to Microsoft (and maybe Sun). So does this mean Novell will now screw up SuSE, whose distribution I like a lot?
I think you're right. M$ is in the enterprise because M$ is what the decision makers use at home. Redhat is in a lot of enterprises because Redhat is what a lot of IT decision makers use at home.
I think that's exactly right. A lot of enterprise Linux projects get sold by a guy who has spent the time screwing around with the prototype using RH8 at home or on a junk box he scrounged at work. I have even run into some of the Excel-crazy CFO types who are playing around with a RedHat home distro and Open Office. Now those avenues are closed. Yes, I could build my own from the Fedora sources, but if my goal is to prototype a web service I really don't want to waste time building the distro.
That's certainly a good thing, but it raises the question of why they were there in the first place. I mean, everyone's known for ages that these are unsecure, and the manpage lists it a bug etc.
Two factors. First, there is a difference between "dangerous" and "unsafe". Explosives are dangerous but they are used safely on construction sites every day.
Second, there is also danger in changing code that is known to work. I read a quote once from the IBM guy responsible for the core of IBM's MVS mainframe OS: "old code is good code". If it is known to be working, even if it uses dangerous tools, it is better to leave it be while you study the situation carefully and replace the dangerous (but not necessarily unsafe) tools in a controlled manner.
Hasn't the slashdot crowd been clamoring for a test of the GPL since day one?
Why is this a bad thing?
In the long run, the SCO suit is a very good thing for Linux and the GPL. The weakest possible opponent filed the weakest possible challenge under the most disadvantageous circumstances with overt support from Microsoft. Assuming a victory of some sort for IBM, RedHat, and the GPL (looks likely but of course not certain) solid case law will be laid down on the most advantageous terms for Linux.
In the short term though Linux will have to endure a little pain and FUD, but that's OK: "whatever doesn't kill me makes me stronger [unless it leaves me a cripped wreck!]"
True, and I find such discussions valuable, but they typically do not form a large-scale, coherent whole on the order of Massy's Dreadnaught, for example. Or even a well-written corporate research paper.
OK, OK, but I did also say "document". My comment was intended to apply to works of literature, rhetoric, exposition, etc., or even corporate memos, not to engineering documents such as source code. Although come to think of it I have seen some industrial construction specifications that were works of art...
A serious question (as opposed to a modest proposal): has anyone ever seen a document emerge from a collaboration / groupware system better than one produced by a single knowledgable person?
I have seen a lot of computerized collaboration systems tried over the last 25 years, and I have never seen them produce a better (or even usable) product. Typically the single dedicated person with a quill pen does a better job than 50 people with $$$ of computers. Anyone else have a different experience?
Well, I was just reaching for an extreme example and that one popped to mind. I thought that Honeywell killed Multics because it competed with BOS, not because it wasn't profitable? Perhaps that is an urban legend though.
Well if you are in to conspiracy theories, it could also be said that maybe Microsoft is pulling the strings and funneling money into SCO to try to undermine the Linux movement. That makes more sense then Noorda starting this whole mess.
After losing the first anti-trust trial (not the one most recently concluded), Bill Gates vowed never to be out-maneuvered in Washington again. And he appears to have purchased the best and the brightest in political, lobbying, and legal advice. If he wants to go after the GPL he will do so in a much more controlled and precise manner. In fact I think Microsoft is lobbying right now to have the GPL outlawed, but you aren't hearing about it in Infoworld. No, this doesn't smell like the new, politically aware Microsoft. Not that they aren't enjoying the pre-game anyway.
Why, if he wanted to get back at Microsoft, would he do something that directs most of the damage to IBM and Linux? Microsoft is loving every minute of this Linux FUD. Even if he advised that SCO go after IBM, if Darl McBride was the least bit sane he would have known he could never win.
In the short term, Linux is being "harmed" in some eyes. But if the outcome is solid case law that backs the GPL and once-and-forall resolves the SysV ownership issue, then the long term benefits to Linux will be immense. And IBM really isn't being hurt by this. Their lawyers get paid whether they work today or not, and IBM can make money selling Linux, AIX, Unixware, Multics, Windows, whatever. They are pushing Linux right now because it is hot and it keeps Microsoft under control, but they don't have any intrinsic stake in anything nowadays except the S/370 systems.
The one thing I've never truely understood about the Export Control argument is that, firstly, Linux is not American, and can therefore not be controlled by it's government,
That argument has been advanced since the dawn of the Internet, but it turns out not to be the case. A lot of Linux developers do live in the US, RedHat is headquartered in the US, and at the moment Linus lives in the US as well. Whether or not "Linux" could be controlled by the USG, a lot of people who work on Linux could suffer adverse consequences if distribution of Linux is found to violate US export regs. Not that I think it will or that the argument is strong, but the potential consequences are there.
The exit strategy isn't for the company, it's for the execs who plan to make a ton of money with this pump and dump scheme. They could care less what happens to the company long term.
Yes, but shareholder lawsuits can go after the executives' personal fortunes. The SCOids have to know this, yet while their lawyers use careful, lawyerly, deniable language the SCO execs continue to say things that "could be used against you in a court of law". That is hard to understand.
Well, we haven't seen SCO's detailed arguments on these points yet. At a minimum a couple of problems seem to pop up.
SCO's argument will likely be that this contravenes Congress's will, by creating a commons under rules other than those established by law.
Problem #1: how is this unconstitutional? The United States is not the Soviet Union; in the US anything which is not prohibited is permitted (more or less). And the 9th Amendment would certainly come into play here also.
SCO will say that GPLed code cannot be restricted by export controls, thus violates national security laws.
I can make all the high speed routers I desire, and I can license them under any terms I like. I just can't sell them to, e.g., North Korea, and if I do I can be prosecuted. How is distributing GPL software any different?
SO convenient, that it would often be said that "If [whomever] didn't exist we'd have to invent him.", i.e. we'd have to plant a shill in the crowd to do the same function (but less believably, because someone who actually believes the opposite position won't get the rhetoric quite right.)
It has occured to me that the whole SCO mess might be Ray Noorda's final revenge on Microsoft. He took some people he knew to be C players, gave them a bit of misdirection about the great case they had against Linux and the GPL, and turned them loose against the strongest opponent. Knowing that they would fail miserably and, in so doing, lay down some case law that Microsoft would have a very hard time overturning. A last service to mankind, perhaps, if the reports of Noorda's poor health are correct.
Slashdot Mirror
Guess that wouldn't always be the case, but it is a bit ironic.
sPh
The question outstanding is whether there is acually a (ugly buzzword alert) paradigm shift in event reporting going on, driven by blogs. If so, the judgement that www.nyt.com is "high quality" and www.instapundit.com is "low quality" may no longer be correct. Unless Google, the arbiter of culture in the 'oughts, forces it to be so.
sPh
sPh
sPh
sPh
sPh
Right now a lot of western governments are under pressure to "get services on the web". Heck , I write my state representative once a quarter and ask him when our archiac drivers' license bureau is going to make services available on-line, the way all our neighboring states have.
But - if the only way to get those services is through a propriatary browser, one which controls 97% of the market and is manufactured by a convicted monopolist, is there a bit of an issue? Tracking the recent "eGovernment" camapign in the UK, I would say yes, there is an issue.
So I would like to see some good, supportable, sustainable alternatives to Internet Explorer available and in use, as I think it has some bearing on the future of free information access.
sPh
PS Yes, I am aware of the problems of living on a low income, and I do not expect those people to contribute any cash to Mozilla. But I am quite sure there are 1,000,000 Mozilla users on the face of the earth who can afford to skip 25 coffees or 10 super-latte-mocha-blobs at their local shop and donate the savings to Mozilla Foundation. They they haven't done this says something about the Open Source model. IMHO.
To donate to Mozilla Foundation:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/donate.html
sPh
So - how is Mozilla Foundation's fundraising going? What is their endowment status at the moment?
sPh
sPh
IBM learned from that set of mistakes. The question is: has Novell learned? Or is this the same bunch of guys who think it is still 1993 with Netware holding 85% market share?
sPh
Vs. Microsoft this is a tricky move, because I think even the Bush Justice Dept would look very hard at Microsoft entering the Linux market.
But historically, Novell has thrown away every technology and market advantage they have ever held, and handed their business on a silver platter to Microsoft (and maybe Sun). So does this mean Novell will now screw up SuSE, whose distribution I like a lot?
sPh
Bad move by RedHat IMHO.
sPh
Second, there is also danger in changing code that is known to work. I read a quote once from the IBM guy responsible for the core of IBM's MVS mainframe OS: "old code is good code". If it is known to be working, even if it uses dangerous tools, it is better to leave it be while you study the situation carefully and replace the dangerous (but not necessarily unsafe) tools in a controlled manner.
sPh
In the short term though Linux will have to endure a little pain and FUD, but that's OK: "whatever doesn't kill me makes me stronger [unless it leaves me a cripped wreck!]"
sPh
sPh
sph
sPh
I have seen a lot of computerized collaboration systems tried over the last 25 years, and I have never seen them produce a better (or even usable) product. Typically the single dedicated person with a quill pen does a better job than 50 people with $$$ of computers. Anyone else have a different experience?
sPh
sPh
sPh
sPh
sPh
sPh
sPh