I think both of you may have a difference of opinion on what constitutes security. A highly integrated OS provides thick walls that will keep most attackers out, but once the attacker is in they have pretty much carte blanche. A modular OS provides slighlty less thick walls, but limits attackers as to what they can do once inside. It wouldn't be fair to say Windows embodies a pure implementation of the former and Unix the latter, but that seems to be the way they are biased. As in all engineering, there are trade-offs with either approach. Ergo, there is some security value in having a relatively heterogenous environment (i.e. don't run all your DNSs on one platform, etc...).
That may be true, but if Linux is ever going to be successful as a desktop OS, then less knowledgeable people will have to be able to use it. When that happens, any underlying vulnerabilities or possible holes will become evident, and many folks will take glee in pointing out that Linux is not as secure as it could be. This supposed advantage of a knowledgeable user base will erode as Linux becomes more commercially successful.
Hmmm... I don't think the OS inertia is peculiar to Apple, not that you were suggesting that it is... Look at the pattern of upgrades for Windows OSes, for example... Lots of people are still running 95 and NT 4.0... It even applies to Linux... Lots of people are still running Red Hat 7.x.
For this reason, I find it strange that so many media folks are focused on OS X's adoption rate... Check it in about five years, then we might have something to talk about... Oh well, I guess the media folks need to write about something... big media strikes again! If there isn't any news, they create it!
From a philosophical perspective, these answers are pretty weak, however, it is an interesting survey of some recent advances in cosmology and it's hard not to appreciate the author's enthusiasm. Anyone who has read the history of science knows that every generation lots of people become convinced that science is closing in on the final answer. I'm not saying that we won't finally reach some theory that wraps all of the loose ends of all existing theories. We may or we may not, but the author provides no evidence that we will. This isn't the fault of the author. He provides no evidence of this kind because he cannot. To do so, he would need to know already what the final answer will be. What kind of evidence then does he provide? He provides evidence that some of the questions that are in fact artifacts of existing theories may have answers some time in the near future. None of this criticism is meant to suggest that we may not actually find a theory of everything. There is no evidence to suggest that we can't or won't, assuming theory is understand properly (i.e. subject to revision). My objection, if it can be called that, is not that this or that theory is right or wrong. It is about the philosophical structure of knowlege. I am suggesting that a book like this book amounts to little more than PR for educated people, and that's fine as long as it is understood as such. This kind of PR may even be considered necessary to stoke the enthusiasm of people in order to get support for this kind of research, but it shouldn't create unrealistic expectations. It also shouldn't be an excuse for ascribing any more authority to science than it rightly deserves. This comment may make some people nervous, but rest-assured I'm no Luddite. Would I read Slashdot if I were? I just see some absolutist tendencies and almost religious enthusiasm in the author's text that are completely inappropriate to science.
The technologies were developped before 1996 and maybe as early as 1994. I'm not sure how patents work, whether it is by the date filed or the date they can provide documentation for origination.
Ommm... Not to be rude, but don't you think they might have heard of squid before? It's not like it is some rare, esoteric technology. I'm sure the folks at MII are more than well aware of squid and its implication for their patent claim. Akamai also used squid at one one time in conjunction with their penguin boxes. Anyone who has spent five seconds googling "web caching" knows about squid.
It precedes 1998. It goes back to 1996, I believe. It was part of the intellectual property that Excelera (the holding company that has a majority stake in MII) acquired by purchasing MII from its original Swedish shareholders. Through another acquisition, they also own the patent on URL rewrites for the purpose of exploiting caches. Akamai and Speedera use both of these technologies. Will all of this stand up in court? I dunno, but MII has some really good lawyers.
Well, regardless of whether or not the G5 is faster than a P4 (and I bet it is), the G5 is sure as hell a quantum leap above the G4, and as someone who was going to buy a Mac anyhow the G5 makes an even more compelling case that I buy one now... I'm sure a huge segment of Apple's installed base was waiting for the G5 in order to upgrade to OS X and their hardware. With the G5, they no longer have an excuse not to... The G5 is an awesome step forward for anyone already comitted to Apple and regardless of whether it makes anyone switch from Intel/AMD, it should generate significant sales from Apple's installed base and on that ground alone is a huge success for Apple's lagging and "beleagured" desktop sales...
I know it's hard to believe but there wasn't always sales tax and not all states have it. The tradition could have started a long time ago... Although my guess is that it was first studied in the 50's when advertising and marketing came into their own and completed America's transition into a consumtion obsessed country.
You don't think there will be a significant CAD package ported before 2007-2010 (the date intel intends to have 64-bit desktops)? It's really moot anyway, AMD will have 64 bits on the desktop in August as well.
yes, but it isn't exactly news... the fact that he feels he needs to point it out tells you something about what he thinks of himself and what he thinks of his audience... He seems to think he is very clever, and he might be for all I know, but I don't think he is an authority on anything except his crap bbs software. I'll wait till Tom's or Extremetech or Ars gets their hands on one...
It's really not all that shocking that Apple padded the numbers... but there is something about this article that doesn't sit right. I am not sure that the author knows exactly what he is talking about... I get the feeling he is cutting and pasting together an article without understanding how the pieces fit together. I think the jury is still out on this one.
Depends on the size of the organization... With Charter that might work, but with a smaller company, the same tech. support rep that you spoke with is just going to have to look into the issue again and with no good will toward you for cutting him out of the loop. The appropriate approach is to ask for the Tech. rep's boss, and then his boss, etc, and stay on the line till you get an answer that you like. If you are persistent in the beginning the issue will get resolved much more quickly than if you mail something to the CEO. It will also prevent some unwitting tech. support guy from getting blind-sided by an issue he thought was resolved. Going to the CEO should be a last resort. I know for a fact that people who write letters to the CEO without making a good faith attempt to go up the ladder usually get written off as reactionary, over-zealous, and lacking perspective.
Re:The opposite is also true
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 1
Nope, it's a "fact", at least for the moment, that cognitive ability peaks at about 24 and begins to fall off after there. It's not a major change. I'm "smarter" now, but my memory isn't what it used to be. If it weren't as good as it was, I doubt I would notice now. Wish I could remember the link for that study.;-)
The opposite is also true
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 2
For what's it worth, I have noticed a slow but steady decline in certain aspects of my congitive ability, especially memory (from near photgraphic to pretty decent), ever since I turned 23, and I'm only 27. Of course, experience helps make up for the decline. Experience, in a sense, is a mnemonic device. It lets you skip the working through of problems from scratch because they have at least one known solution familiar to you. The problem is it might not be the best solution at this time and a younger mind working through the problem for the first time might see something you didn't, however, experience, on the whole, out-weighs pure ability except in extraordinary circumstances. That being said, I have been managing various IT groups since I was twenty, and I have had people tell me I'm too young, in the past, for certain positions for which I interviewed. So, the opposite kind of ageism that the post examines also happens and is the norm. This trend of ageism is more conspicuous because it actually reverses the norm. I realize what I said about experience reinforces this sterotype (that's probably why it got started), but really the best solution is an in-depth interview, not trying to judge people based on external cues. Nothing is better than engaging in conversation with a person to find out how good (s)he is relative to yourself, of course. The problem is you can't do that for every resume that you get. Ergo, baseless generalizations on age in order to save time.
Seriously, companies are not your friends... If they were they wouldn't try to exploit you. There are some legitimate reasons for going above and beyond the call of duty, but assuming the dept. is run properly, they should be few and far between unless it's your own business.
I am sure someone else will say this but... Employees come and go (more going than coming these days) and (I hate to say this) if you have a vendor support contract you are not as locked into who you keep or let go, but you are locked into a vendor.
The second point is that if you are developping for Red Hat, then it makes sense to develop for the Advanced Server releases as these will be the most stable over time. Therefore, it makes sense to have at least some versions of AS lying around.
Last point, from what I understand the difference between AS and regular Red Hat is that AS is simply the "best of" Red Hat over the last 18 months plus some enterprise hooks. An 18 month life cycle is also a decent one for doing upgrades. Do you really want to upgrade every six months?
Good point. Everything really hinges on the contract SCO has with Novell. If they can sublicense it, then the terms of their contract with IBM are the issue, but if they breached, in scope or content, their sublicensing contract with Novell, then SCO is screwed.
Re:Military Industrial Complex
on
Secret Empire
·
· Score: 1
that's right... MacArthur... sorry I was drunk when I wrote that...
Re:Espionage and the Eisenhower Era
on
Secret Empire
·
· Score: 1
I think it's funny that the coup in Guatemala was staged over bananas... well the loss of income from bananas due to a communist take over... but who cares about details?;-)
Don't forget, the sexual revolution began in the 50's not the 60's...
Re:Military Industrial Complex
on
Secret Empire
·
· Score: 1
Omm yeah because the next war was supposed to be a nuke war... Hell, McCarthy wanted to use nukes in North Korea when the Chinese got involved...
Re:Military Industrial Complex
on
Secret Empire
·
· Score: 1
That's weird... I've read Kruschev was pissed off about all of the U-2 flights and wanted to make an example of Powers. Wasn't he flying over Russia during some sort of soviet holiday?
Slashdot Mirror
I think both of you may have a difference of opinion on what constitutes security. A highly integrated OS provides thick walls that will keep most attackers out, but once the attacker is in they have pretty much carte blanche. A modular OS provides slighlty less thick walls, but limits attackers as to what they can do once inside. It wouldn't be fair to say Windows embodies a pure implementation of the former and Unix the latter, but that seems to be the way they are biased. As in all engineering, there are trade-offs with either approach. Ergo, there is some security value in having a relatively heterogenous environment (i.e. don't run all your DNSs on one platform, etc...).
As to your last point, there is one reason viruses like those metioned won't work on Linux: Microsoft software doesn't run on Linux. ;-)
That may be true, but if Linux is ever going to be successful as a desktop OS, then less knowledgeable people will have to be able to use it. When that happens, any underlying vulnerabilities or possible holes will become evident, and many folks will take glee in pointing out that Linux is not as secure as it could be. This supposed advantage of a knowledgeable user base will erode as Linux becomes more commercially successful.
This is one of the weakest and thinnest articles I have read from slashdot in a while...
Hmmm... I don't think the OS inertia is peculiar to Apple, not that you were suggesting that it is... Look at the pattern of upgrades for Windows OSes, for example... Lots of people are still running 95 and NT 4.0... It even applies to Linux... Lots of people are still running Red Hat 7.x.
For this reason, I find it strange that so many media folks are focused on OS X's adoption rate... Check it in about five years, then we might have something to talk about... Oh well, I guess the media folks need to write about something... big media strikes again! If there isn't any news, they create it!
From a philosophical perspective, these answers are pretty weak, however, it is an interesting survey of some recent advances in cosmology and it's hard not to appreciate the author's enthusiasm. Anyone who has read the history of science knows that every generation lots of people become convinced that science is closing in on the final answer. I'm not saying that we won't finally reach some theory that wraps all of the loose ends of all existing theories. We may or we may not, but the author provides no evidence that we will. This isn't the fault of the author. He provides no evidence of this kind because he cannot. To do so, he would need to know already what the final answer will be. What kind of evidence then does he provide? He provides evidence that some of the questions that are in fact artifacts of existing theories may have answers some time in the near future. None of this criticism is meant to suggest that we may not actually find a theory of everything. There is no evidence to suggest that we can't or won't, assuming theory is understand properly (i.e. subject to revision). My objection, if it can be called that, is not that this or that theory is right or wrong. It is about the philosophical structure of knowlege. I am suggesting that a book like this book amounts to little more than PR for educated people, and that's fine as long as it is understood as such. This kind of PR may even be considered necessary to stoke the enthusiasm of people in order to get support for this kind of research, but it shouldn't create unrealistic expectations. It also shouldn't be an excuse for ascribing any more authority to science than it rightly deserves. This comment may make some people nervous, but rest-assured I'm no Luddite. Would I read Slashdot if I were? I just see some absolutist tendencies and almost religious enthusiasm in the author's text that are completely inappropriate to science.
The technologies were developped before 1996 and maybe as early as 1994. I'm not sure how patents work, whether it is by the date filed or the date they can provide documentation for origination.
Ommm... Not to be rude, but don't you think they might have heard of squid before? It's not like it is some rare, esoteric technology. I'm sure the folks at MII are more than well aware of squid and its implication for their patent claim. Akamai also used squid at one one time in conjunction with their penguin boxes. Anyone who has spent five seconds googling "web caching" knows about squid.
It precedes 1998. It goes back to 1996, I believe. It was part of the intellectual property that Excelera (the holding company that has a majority stake in MII) acquired by purchasing MII from its original Swedish shareholders. Through another acquisition, they also own the patent on URL rewrites for the purpose of exploiting caches. Akamai and Speedera use both of these technologies. Will all of this stand up in court? I dunno, but MII has some really good lawyers.
Well, regardless of whether or not the G5 is faster than a P4 (and I bet it is), the G5 is sure as hell a quantum leap above the G4, and as someone who was going to buy a Mac anyhow the G5 makes an even more compelling case that I buy one now... I'm sure a huge segment of Apple's installed base was waiting for the G5 in order to upgrade to OS X and their hardware. With the G5, they no longer have an excuse not to... The G5 is an awesome step forward for anyone already comitted to Apple and regardless of whether it makes anyone switch from Intel/AMD, it should generate significant sales from Apple's installed base and on that ground alone is a huge success for Apple's lagging and "beleagured" desktop sales...
I know it's hard to believe but there wasn't always sales tax and not all states have it. The tradition could have started a long time ago... Although my guess is that it was first studied in the 50's when advertising and marketing came into their own and completed America's transition into a consumtion obsessed country.
You don't think there will be a significant CAD package ported before 2007-2010 (the date intel intends to have 64-bit desktops)? It's really moot anyway, AMD will have 64 bits on the desktop in August as well.
yes, but it isn't exactly news... the fact that he feels he needs to point it out tells you something about what he thinks of himself and what he thinks of his audience... He seems to think he is very clever, and he might be for all I know, but I don't think he is an authority on anything except his crap bbs software. I'll wait till Tom's or Extremetech or Ars gets their hands on one...
It's really not all that shocking that Apple padded the numbers... but there is something about this article that doesn't sit right. I am not sure that the author knows exactly what he is talking about... I get the feeling he is cutting and pasting together an article without understanding how the pieces fit together. I think the jury is still out on this one.
Depends on the size of the organization... With Charter that might work, but with a smaller company, the same tech. support rep that you spoke with is just going to have to look into the issue again and with no good will toward you for cutting him out of the loop. The appropriate approach is to ask for the Tech. rep's boss, and then his boss, etc, and stay on the line till you get an answer that you like. If you are persistent in the beginning the issue will get resolved much more quickly than if you mail something to the CEO. It will also prevent some unwitting tech. support guy from getting blind-sided by an issue he thought was resolved. Going to the CEO should be a last resort. I know for a fact that people who write letters to the CEO without making a good faith attempt to go up the ladder usually get written off as reactionary, over-zealous, and lacking perspective.
Nope, it's a "fact", at least for the moment, that cognitive ability peaks at about 24 and begins to fall off after there. It's not a major change. I'm "smarter" now, but my memory isn't what it used to be. If it weren't as good as it was, I doubt I would notice now. Wish I could remember the link for that study. ;-)
For what's it worth, I have noticed a slow but steady decline in certain aspects of my congitive ability, especially memory (from near photgraphic to pretty decent), ever since I turned 23, and I'm only 27. Of course, experience helps make up for the decline. Experience, in a sense, is a mnemonic device. It lets you skip the working through of problems from scratch because they have at least one known solution familiar to you. The problem is it might not be the best solution at this time and a younger mind working through the problem for the first time might see something you didn't, however, experience, on the whole, out-weighs pure ability except in extraordinary circumstances. That being said, I have been managing various IT groups since I was twenty, and I have had people tell me I'm too young, in the past, for certain positions for which I interviewed. So, the opposite kind of ageism that the post examines also happens and is the norm. This trend of ageism is more conspicuous because it actually reverses the norm. I realize what I said about experience reinforces this sterotype (that's probably why it got started), but really the best solution is an in-depth interview, not trying to judge people based on external cues. Nothing is better than engaging in conversation with a person to find out how good (s)he is relative to yourself, of course. The problem is you can't do that for every resume that you get. Ergo, baseless generalizations on age in order to save time.
Seriously, companies are not your friends... If they were they wouldn't try to exploit you. There are some legitimate reasons for going above and beyond the call of duty, but assuming the dept. is run properly, they should be few and far between unless it's your own business.
I am sure someone else will say this but... Employees come and go (more going than coming these days) and (I hate to say this) if you have a vendor support contract you are not as locked into who you keep or let go, but you are locked into a vendor.
The second point is that if you are developping for Red Hat, then it makes sense to develop for the Advanced Server releases as these will be the most stable over time. Therefore, it makes sense to have at least some versions of AS lying around.
Last point, from what I understand the difference between AS and regular Red Hat is that AS is simply the "best of" Red Hat over the last 18 months plus some enterprise hooks. An 18 month life cycle is also a decent one for doing upgrades. Do you really want to upgrade every six months?
Good point. Everything really hinges on the contract SCO has with Novell. If they can sublicense it, then the terms of their contract with IBM are the issue, but if they breached, in scope or content, their sublicensing contract with Novell, then SCO is screwed.
that's right... MacArthur... sorry I was drunk when I wrote that...
I think it's funny that the coup in Guatemala was staged over bananas... well the loss of income from bananas due to a communist take over... but who cares about details? ;-)
Don't forget, the sexual revolution began in the 50's not the 60's...
Omm yeah because the next war was supposed to be a nuke war... Hell, McCarthy wanted to use nukes in North Korea when the Chinese got involved...
That's weird... I've read Kruschev was pissed off about all of the U-2 flights and wanted to make an example of Powers. Wasn't he flying over Russia during some sort of soviet holiday?