That mainframe thing was released on June 19, so it is the old news. Their tech support for mainframe is non-existent internally, becaue they (the engineering head) gave it away in a sweet deal to Sytek, the third part vendor. Their upper management is no better than in some of those companies who we hear about in the news. It's all managemens decissions, or mmost of it.
They're still around, they indeed have best Asian languages support. Their current release is 7.0 for Work/Server. But they're barely surviving due to mismanagement and their current CEO will pretty much finish it off. With only one support eng. and minimal dev. and sales teams they scaled down everything and are trying to survide on one product called PowerCockpit. They made some big mistakes when there was still some money to throw around. Today's market is unforgiving, not growing, so they also aren't growing. It's the cause and effect called karma.
One issue is that RH is rpm (RedHat Package Manager) based software that other Linux companies use as well: Caldera, SuSE, Turbo, Mandrake, etc., are all rpm based. To make one Linux standard they'd need to include Slackware, Debian and some more. Therefore this is a hoax, because even if they release such distro it'll be rpm as well, unless they do their own package manager, which I doubt they'll do, it'd take time and $, which they don't have.
RH's dominance in the US is also due in part to IBM's support for RH mainframe releases. Even though SuSE and Turbo were way ahead of RH in releasing their mainframe Linux software, IBM still took RH as their main Linux supplier even though RH software on S/390 or AS400 as buggy as hell. Guess what, apparently, other Linux companies being weak in tech support can't afford their engineers to focus on IBM support.
Would you believe that in Turbo there's only one tech support eng?, SuSE doesn't even have mainframe Linux support in the US, etc., and what is laughable is that while Turbo had good S/390 software it gave away support to mainframe vendor Sytek, which obiously did their own installation by tape so they can claim it as propriatory. It's a sham created by upper managment. They're destroying what's let of Linux. In other words M$ doesn't have to worry about anything.
Let 'em lay off managers and preserve people who wrok in development, tech. support, sales, HR, education. Let 'em lay off all those blood socking bastards that suppose to make right decissions and instead don't. This issue is not just with Mandrake alone but with most of Linux business world, including Turbolinux, SuSE, RedHat, VALinux, Caldera. They pay high salaries to management while prospects for revenues are small and so called expandable positions are cut over and over again until there's no way to go but to fold it up. Well, ofcourse, they want to survive themselves, don't they? That proves that Linux business model, GPL ideals, etc., are good on paper and in public speaches but actually mean little when it comes to preserving their way of life.
Since Linux idea of software is a bit different from the rest of corporate capitalist profit driven values, let those managers take 1/3 salary cut before laying people off in lower managment and support. Or, don't listen to someone like me and just do your blood sucking mistakes until you destroy it all - and that's what they'll do most likely.
Linux may not be around in 5-6yrs. because there's no linux distro that is as strong as M$ or IBM to face dire straits of the present economical downfall. IBM is putting some money into advertising it's mainframes and Linux but actually their commitment ends there, there's no $ going into technical support that's needed for Linux and they won't hire anyone that worked for Linux company that developed their software. Did you know that IBM stoped hiring recently?. Out of that $1bill. how much went for real Linux development? Each L. company that works with IBM gets only scraps that don't really mean anyhting, so it goes in corporate America: stronger dictates the terms and makes sure its iterenst are taken care of first.
The new corporate reality regarding laid off people is no longer like it used to be. Before you could count on getting rehired pretty fast, often getting intervies while still doing old job. Those times are gone, now you'd be lucky if you had interviews at all.
At the same time, with the world talking wars and terrorism, the prospect for new growth in the US economy is obliterated. We'll be lucky if the current shaky situation lasts until 2003/2004. Then what? Then, even those companies that currently are still holding up will go under. How? Because confrontations between different coutries, groups and individuals will intensify. There will be even less stability than now and the reason to contiue current state of technological research and development will no longer exist. People will get scarred and will not know what hit them.
In a bull market companies like VAL or Caldera would have good chance of making it. Now, it is more and more clear that bull market may not be back for some time. When it is back, VAL or Caldera may no longer exist (it could take a while). What is the remedy for that? One possibility: let IBM and Intel spend some of their $$ directly for Linux development and support and not so much for Linux advertising. But it is probably too late for that either, because IBM itself stoped hiring, financing, etc.
In case of RedHat it is better but not to the extent that would create a lot of confidence in Linux market. So, when the US economy is hit again by a major dawnfall RH may also be gone. Then what? Then, after a lot of pain a new paradigm will be developed. Say, capitalism as we know it will also be gone.
"The fact is many of us in the corporate world outsource our IT needs to foreign companies and professionals simply because this practice is cheaper..." - I read studies that show "cheaper" is misleading in case of outsourcing, perhaps in the short run it might be cheaper and only when that is possible by hitring out of the coutry vendor, but when you ousource you give up control of your tech. support or professional services to other entities. Obviously, outside vendors will not have the same level of loyalty to that company's product line as it is the case with native support. The real reason companies outsource is that their managers commit over and over again mismanagement mistakes by dogmatically believing outsourcing is the answer to everything. It is not, and it is usuly cheaper to train a person internally than to have outsources be paid double that especially in the US. It so happens that I know some figures. One ousourcing position can cost up to $5-6k/month for the 1st level support, wile native support engineer by taking the same pay can provide 1, 2 and often 3rd level support that includes software and custom developement. At the same time ousourcing inflicts problems often related to customer satisfaction. They aren't as polite or diplomatic to customers as native support and can't answer more sophisticated questions that come up. In short, don't relay on outsourcing to be the answer to everything or even most problems.
It is not clear if VALinux or even RedHat will survive the carnage that is going on Wall St. and in the US economy. It is only arguable that Caldera made mistake buying SCO, because doing business is taking risks and so buying SCO was not so much mistake but it turned out that it happened during the economy's downfall. And downfall it is, for some companies it is a free fall. Even stronger firms are laying off people left and right. If this continues RedHat's stock value will plummet further (it is ~$3.08 today), if it goes under $1.00, what is happening to Caldera right now may happen to RH: decrease in shareholders confidence, delisting from Nasdaq, making desperate reverse split measures, etc. On the other hand SuSE was already close to getting insolvent and without the support of IBM and Intel it'd do just that. That was just few days ago in the news.
Similar situation exists for companies such as Turbolinux or Linuxcare. While Turbo keeps announcing new releases for IBM's mainframes it also keeps releasing employees from its payroll, the last such move took place quietly in last July. While their new CEO gets some visibility in local TV, their tech. support and software engineering staff are decimated, not to mention professional services, which don't exist. Yet, CEOs of fledging companies keep playing though to the end and when asked how are they doing they deny that situation is bad, so they quitely lay off more dedicated workers.
At the same time we just had LinuxWorld in S. Fr. where several companies were not even visible due to financial constrains. What does that all tell you? IBM keeps pushing Linux and keeps advertising Linux for mainframes, but if Linux companies can't survive their whole strategy may also fail. Big Blue, in my opinion, should put some of their dollars directly supporting those Linux conpanies that have software developement agreements with them: SuSE, Turbolinux, RedHat, Caldera - in that order. SuSE and Turbo have already released products for all IBM's mainframes, however, those dollars were paid for their developement and not for other expenses, such as tech. support training and education. I believe it'd be wise for IBM and Intel to go beyond advertising stunts and train Linux technical support from Linux develepement software companies to support their hardware for Linux implementations and support. When there's no tech. support big companies will not commit to implementing Linux even if it is more cost effective. That way, even if Linux companies fail, tech. support could be retained as their own work force. Then, at least some of Linux people would stop worring about their future, not to mention that IBM's/Intel's own interests would have been served better.
The real reason that RedHat is complaining about Linux developers in China is that they can't penetrate that market. One of the most important considerations here is ethnic/cultural background. Even though RH is well respected in the US and Europe, in Asia they're too late to become the top Linux distro in Asia. So, that is hard to swollow. Turbolinx, on the other hand, is much more accepted in Asia markets because they had their focus and ethinic backgroud in Asia to begin with. Naturally, companies such as IBM or Dell recognized it already and use Turbolinux as their main Linux installation option in China, Japan and S. Korea. So, I guess, my point is that unlike M$ world domination Linux world domination can't be accomplished by one distro.only.
When it comes to Linux distributions that are developed for IBM four are mentioned in press releases: Caldera, RedHat, SuSE and Turbolinux. It seems to me that IBM fevours RedHat over others even though RedHat is behind SuSE and Turbolinux in developement and support of IBM related software. It is as if the stronger Linux distro is getting credit where it may not be due. So, my question is: How do you rate Linux ditributions and based on what?
If you have low and flowed standards you're comparing to then your own inventions and progress is the reflection of that as well. I would rather follow the most excelent standards and make sure that the next generation of software is at least as good. So, I'm not impressed with the M$ comeback, because it's not really a comeback, but the continuation of the same shamefull desire for more profits. However, Microsoft is also the reflection of our own everage-Joe mentality in computing: even though there maybe better solutions than Windows, a lot of people will stay with the everage because they feel comfortable in what they already know and anything new is a challange requiring work and learning. Which again doesn't stop me from progressing, so let those people who are slaves to M$ earn 20-30k less than I'm making in Linux. Hard work is rewarded, don't fear BigBillG...., every bubble can burst.
Here's the response by Microsoft to the email "Microsoft" attempted by "chongo" and resent by "towatatalko" (for the opriginal email-text see below). I guess this could invite few more comments or though there's hardly anything new in the M$'s view here, but one thing is clear: they know the issue is generating more and more interest and they have to define their position just in case the next escalation it comes around.
Microsoft Shared Source
May 2001
The past several months have seen a growing number of people talking about source code - the code that underlies every computer software program. Over the past 25 years, few people outside of the development community talked about source code and even fewer had access. Today, that is changing as more and more software products offer some access to source code under certain conditions. Many of our customers and partners have asked us about our source code philosophy and how it compares to other models in the industry today, specifically the Open Source Software (OSS) model used for such software as the Linux operating system.
Microsoft views source code and source code licensing as just one component of an umbrella framework that is the Commercial Software Model. Five key elements make up this model:
1.Community: A strong support community of developers.
2.Standards: Promote collaboration and interoperability while supporting innovation and healthy competition.
3.Business model: Promote the growth of a profitable business.
4.Investment: Level of research and development investment drives resources for future innovation.
5.Licensing model: Provides product and source access without jeopardizing the intellectual property rights of those who create or use the software.
Shared Source Discussions
Craig Mundie Discusses Shared Source on CNET
The Commercial Software Model and Sustainable Innovation. (May 17, opinion)
Shared Source Philosophy Overvie
Microsoft affirms commitment to shared source in this overview.
Microsoft Shared Source Frequently Asked Questions
This FAQ addresses common questions and concerns about our Shared Source Philosophy.
The Commercial Software Model
Craig Mundie, Senior Vice President of Advanced Strategies, outlines Microsoft's position on source code sharing at the New York University Stern School of Business. (May 3, 2001, text remarks)
Tradeoffs in Software Development Philosophies
View the full speech from May 3, 2001 at NYU. Speech delivered by Craig Mundie, Microsoft Senior
Vice President at the New York University Stern School of Business. (May 2001, video)
The only thing we have a problem with is when the government funds open-source work. Government funding should be for work that is available to everybody. Open source is not available to commercial companies." -- not available? GPL code is available to everybody who abides by GPL rules, including any commercial company. But ofcourse commercial M$ feels excluded from GPL game, because they want to play software game by M$ profit rules. Poor boys, after several years of GPL developement and massive movement towards GPL among developers, including heavyweights such as IBM, M$ is realiyzing they're missing a lot of fun. Now they want to be included. But "included" means giving up their corporate ego very much glued to profit. Bottom line? $M wants to have a lot of profit but also a lot of fun, because profit without fun is like a pit filled with gold - you can buy a lot of things with that gold but feel imprisoned. Can M$ buy a lot of fun with a lot of gold? It seems a lot of fun is not for sale so they can't buy it an they know it, therefore they'd rather destroy it than let others have it. Let's make sure that won't happen.
What they're trying to do at M$ is to define the terms and the territory relevent to their views. Once that is done they may try to start legal process. Say, they will try to undercut GPL by making it legal to mix open source code under GPL with propriatory code and the end result to be propriatory controlled by them under some new license type. Their claim is likely to be that GPL stifles competition, because not every company wants or can use GPL if they have to make their code public. In other words, as it is now GPL can't be "extended" with propriatory code, which M$ always does. They may claim their use of GPL software will be aimed to improve it. Since M$ is a big part of US economy, the argument could go, it should be allowed to grow further by using GPL but not releasing is as such. Can it be done? It is likely they'll try something since their market share is getting eroded by GPL's like software.
"...The probability is large that the Mars samples will display properties that at least some people consider suggestive of life forms or life processes, or other observers disagree. In the event of such equvocal evidence, plans should be in place to begin distributing steralized samples immediately to approved investigators..." -- this is taken from The Quarantine and Certification of Martian Samples posted on:
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309075718/html/149.htm l#pagetop,
so it is rather clear what the intentions will be of those in control of samples, in other words there will be select few who will steralize and distribute samples. Now, is that fair to sience? Or is it rather interferance in the scientific process, which assusmes freedom from imposed and controlled by authorities rules.
"Rocks and soil brought back to Earth from Mars by a future space mission should be handled as if they were chock full of deadly microbes, even though they will almost certainly prove lifeless, a panel of experts said yesterday..." -- even though they agree those rocks would be lifless they still recommend for that material to be "quarantined in a special laboratory similar to those used to study Ebola". Why? Guess what, once that material is isolated and put under very strict control very few scienties can access it for research, right?. Who is going to get access, if any? Who will decide one should have access and not the other? It is the control that those people are after, don't you see? It's one thing to impose quarantine but unless at the same time you device a definite way of allowing research you're dealing with the conditions that are hampering scientific progress. They don't even say how long access to those rocks will be kept restricted and what will make those restrictions to be lifted. It is all arbirtrary. They impose rules, don't define means of modyfing them and also don't say how long those rules will be implemented. Maybe forever, right? That's the way to remove a threat that something could be discovered that they don't want to be discovered.
The main benefit of the Canadian involvement in space exploration I see in veryfication. So far NASA/JLP monopolized Mars missions and lately they released data that contradicts some of earier findings, so some other veryfication process is needed outside of NASA's. Otherwise they'll always claim what they want. What we're talking about here is the possibility of civilized life on Mars in some distant past.
Importance of the Canadian Space Initiative for Mars exploration goes far beyond the surface level competition with the USA, Russia, or some other coutry. I don't know if you noticed but two days ago all major national and local TV stations in the US displayed a picture prepared by JPL (Jet Propulsion Lab) showing so called "Face" from Cydonia on Mars, an object that is stirring up controversy since its first appearance in 1976. The latest official picture of the "Face" looks unlike any human or animal face visible on the original picture. It was released with the commentary that the problem is really solved meannig don't expect it to be artificially made or implying some ancient civilised involvement. As it turns out, the official "Face" photo was filtered out with more than one software filter so it loses its facial details and appears to be flat and not as 3D object. Since NASA/JPL have the monopoly in Mars exploration right now, there's no way that the Face can be veryfied otherwise. So, with the Canadian Mars Initiative this subject could return for veryfication bypassing NASA and other US agencies. Good luck.
By the way, some good quality info about the Face is on: http://metaresearch.org/
"No operating system, not even our beloved Linux, is totally secure" -- in general that sounds right, however, security goes beyond OS running on some box, in other words it's not just software. If physical enviroment is compromised by someone attaching a listeneing device to the network even the most secure software fails. In that regard mainframe base network is by far more secure than dostributed server based network. In addition, the philosophy that dogmatically applies multiple servers manged by several people increses the odds even more against distributed networks. If your network grows beyond 30-40 servers it's time to think mainframe. On most mainframes you can't run executable program unless it is authorised by the OS. That means no virus can damage the system and usualy only one/two people manage one box, etc. Therefore, in my view, network (in)security is not so much software or OS problem, but rather dogmatic overreliance of some network managers on distributed network ideas and models, which creates security holes that can be exploited at more than one entry point.
Can't really blame IBM for what they do, not do with their money. By definition it's their money. In the meantime they're already commited to Linux developement like none else in the big corporate business and also it gives some hope for Linux companies such as Turbolinux, SuSe, maybe Caldera. I believe Turbolinux is going to fare good out of those theree because they have the strongest developement ties with IBM and can offer service support for both Linux and IBM's hardware.
In S/390 you can define what applications, workloads can run and also define how much processor power, I/O and disk space you get, so it's not unlimited to a particular user, therefore I believe it wouldn't be possible to do denial of service type of thing on such system, because the processor(s) will never be tied up by one user or even several users.
What happens is that each user gets his IP address to connect to his account, your account is not connected to other users directly on Virtual Machine, therefore it won't be possible to make changes to other accounts unless you're told by some other user his login.
Slashdot Mirror
That mainframe thing was released on June 19, so it is the old news. Their tech support for mainframe is non-existent internally, becaue they (the engineering head) gave it away in a sweet deal to Sytek, the third part vendor. Their upper management is no better than in some of those companies who we hear about in the news. It's all managemens decissions, or mmost of it.
They're still around, they indeed have best Asian languages support. Their current release is 7.0 for Work/Server. But they're barely surviving due to mismanagement and their current CEO will pretty much finish it off. With only one support eng. and minimal dev. and sales teams they scaled down everything and are trying to survide on one product called PowerCockpit. They made some big mistakes when there was still some money to throw around. Today's market is unforgiving, not growing, so they also aren't growing. It's the cause and effect called karma.
One issue is that RH is rpm (RedHat Package Manager) based software that other Linux companies use as well: Caldera, SuSE, Turbo, Mandrake, etc., are all rpm based. To make one Linux standard they'd need to include Slackware, Debian and some more. Therefore this is a hoax, because even if they release such distro it'll be rpm as well, unless they do their own package manager, which I doubt they'll do, it'd take time and $, which they don't have.
RH's dominance in the US is also due in part to IBM's support for RH mainframe releases. Even though SuSE and Turbo were way ahead of RH in releasing their mainframe Linux software, IBM still took RH as their main Linux supplier even though RH software on S/390 or AS400 as buggy as hell. Guess what, apparently, other Linux companies being weak in tech support can't afford their engineers to focus on IBM support.
Would you believe that in Turbo there's only one tech support eng?, SuSE doesn't even have mainframe Linux support in the US, etc., and what is laughable is that while Turbo had good S/390 software it gave away support to mainframe vendor Sytek, which obiously did their own installation by tape so they can claim it as propriatory. It's a sham created by upper managment. They're destroying what's let of Linux. In other words M$ doesn't have to worry about anything.
Let 'em lay off managers and preserve people who wrok in development, tech. support, sales, HR, education. Let 'em lay off all those blood socking bastards that suppose to make right decissions and instead don't. This issue is not just with Mandrake alone but with most of Linux business world, including Turbolinux, SuSE, RedHat, VALinux, Caldera. They pay high salaries to management while prospects for revenues are small and so called expandable positions are cut over and over again until there's no way to go but to fold it up. Well, ofcourse, they want to survive themselves, don't they? That proves that Linux business model, GPL ideals, etc., are good on paper and in public speaches but actually mean little when it comes to preserving their way of life.
Since Linux idea of software is a bit different from the rest of corporate capitalist profit driven values, let those managers take 1/3 salary cut before laying people off in lower managment and support. Or, don't listen to someone like me and just do your blood sucking mistakes until you destroy it all - and that's what they'll do most likely.
Linux may not be around in 5-6yrs. because there's no linux distro that is as strong as M$ or IBM to face dire straits of the present economical downfall. IBM is putting some money into advertising it's mainframes and Linux but actually their commitment ends there, there's no $ going into technical support that's needed for Linux and they won't hire anyone that worked for Linux company that developed their software. Did you know that IBM stoped hiring recently?. Out of that $1bill. how much went for real Linux development? Each L. company that works with IBM gets only scraps that don't really mean anyhting, so it goes in corporate America: stronger dictates the terms and makes sure its iterenst are taken care of first.
At the same time, with the world talking wars and terrorism, the prospect for new growth in the US economy is obliterated. We'll be lucky if the current shaky situation lasts until 2003/2004. Then what? Then, even those companies that currently are still holding up will go under. How? Because confrontations between different coutries, groups and individuals will intensify. There will be even less stability than now and the reason to contiue current state of technological research and development will no longer exist. People will get scarred and will not know what hit them.
In a bull market companies like VAL or Caldera would have good chance of making it. Now, it is more and more clear that bull market may not be back for some time. When it is back, VAL or Caldera may no longer exist (it could take a while). What is the remedy for that? One possibility: let IBM and Intel spend some of their $$ directly for Linux development and support and not so much for Linux advertising. But it is probably too late for that either, because IBM itself stoped hiring, financing, etc.
In case of RedHat it is better but not to the extent that would create a lot of confidence in Linux market. So, when the US economy is hit again by a major dawnfall RH may also be gone. Then what? Then, after a lot of pain a new paradigm will be developed. Say, capitalism as we know it will also be gone.
"The fact is many of us in the corporate world outsource our IT needs to foreign companies and professionals simply because this practice is cheaper..." - I read studies that show "cheaper" is misleading in case of outsourcing, perhaps in the short run it might be cheaper and only when that is possible by hitring out of the coutry vendor, but when you ousource you give up control of your tech. support or professional services to other entities. Obviously, outside vendors will not have the same level of loyalty to that company's product line as it is the case with native support. The real reason companies outsource is that their managers commit over and over again mismanagement mistakes by dogmatically believing outsourcing is the answer to everything. It is not, and it is usuly cheaper to train a person internally than to have outsources be paid double that especially in the US. It so happens that I know some figures. One ousourcing position can cost up to $5-6k/month for the 1st level support, wile native support engineer by taking the same pay can provide 1, 2 and often 3rd level support that includes software and custom developement. At the same time ousourcing inflicts problems often related to customer satisfaction. They aren't as polite or diplomatic to customers as native support and can't answer more sophisticated questions that come up. In short, don't relay on outsourcing to be the answer to everything or even most problems.
It is not clear if VALinux or even RedHat will survive the carnage that is going on Wall St. and in the US economy. It is only arguable that Caldera made mistake buying SCO, because doing business is taking risks and so buying SCO was not so much mistake but it turned out that it happened during the economy's downfall. And downfall it is, for some companies it is a free fall. Even stronger firms are laying off people left and right. If this continues RedHat's stock value will plummet further (it is ~$3.08 today), if it goes under $1.00, what is happening to Caldera right now may happen to RH: decrease in shareholders confidence, delisting from Nasdaq, making desperate reverse split measures, etc. On the other hand SuSE was already close to getting insolvent and without the support of IBM and Intel it'd do just that. That was just few days ago in the news.
Similar situation exists for companies such as Turbolinux or Linuxcare. While Turbo keeps announcing new releases for IBM's mainframes it also keeps releasing employees from its payroll, the last such move took place quietly in last July. While their new CEO gets some visibility in local TV, their tech. support and software engineering staff are decimated, not to mention professional services, which don't exist. Yet, CEOs of fledging companies keep playing though to the end and when asked how are they doing they deny that situation is bad, so they quitely lay off more dedicated workers.
At the same time we just had LinuxWorld in S. Fr. where several companies were not even visible due to financial constrains. What does that all tell you? IBM keeps pushing Linux and keeps advertising Linux for mainframes, but if Linux companies can't survive their whole strategy may also fail. Big Blue, in my opinion, should put some of their dollars directly supporting those Linux conpanies that have software developement agreements with them: SuSE, Turbolinux, RedHat, Caldera - in that order. SuSE and Turbo have already released products for all IBM's mainframes, however, those dollars were paid for their developement and not for other expenses, such as tech. support training and education. I believe it'd be wise for IBM and Intel to go beyond advertising stunts and train Linux technical support from Linux develepement software companies to support their hardware for Linux implementations and support. When there's no tech. support big companies will not commit to implementing Linux even if it is more cost effective. That way, even if Linux companies fail, tech. support could be retained as their own work force. Then, at least some of Linux people would stop worring about their future, not to mention that IBM's/Intel's own interests would have been served better.
The real reason that RedHat is complaining about Linux developers in China is that they can't penetrate that market. One of the most important considerations here is ethnic/cultural background. Even though RH is well respected in the US and Europe, in Asia they're too late to become the top Linux distro in Asia. So, that is hard to swollow. Turbolinx, on the other hand, is much more accepted in Asia markets because they had their focus and ethinic backgroud in Asia to begin with. Naturally, companies such as IBM or Dell recognized it already and use Turbolinux as their main Linux installation option in China, Japan and S. Korea. So, I guess, my point is that unlike M$ world domination Linux world domination can't be accomplished by one distro.only.
When it comes to Linux distributions that are developed for IBM four are mentioned in press releases: Caldera, RedHat, SuSE and Turbolinux. It seems to me that IBM fevours RedHat over others even though RedHat is behind SuSE and Turbolinux in developement and support of IBM related software. It is as if the stronger Linux distro is getting credit where it may not be due. So, my question is: How do you rate Linux ditributions and based on what?
If you have low and flowed standards you're comparing to then your own inventions and progress is the reflection of that as well. I would rather follow the most excelent standards and make sure that the next generation of software is at least as good. So, I'm not impressed with the M$ comeback, because it's not really a comeback, but the continuation of the same shamefull desire for more profits. However, Microsoft is also the reflection of our own everage-Joe mentality in computing: even though there maybe better solutions than Windows, a lot of people will stay with the everage because they feel comfortable in what they already know and anything new is a challange requiring work and learning. Which again doesn't stop me from progressing, so let those people who are slaves to M$ earn 20-30k less than I'm making in Linux. Hard work is rewarded, don't fear BigBillG...., every bubble can burst.
Here's the response by Microsoft to the email "Microsoft" attempted by "chongo" and resent by "towatatalko" (for the opriginal email-text see below). I guess this could invite few more comments or though there's hardly anything new in the M$'s view here, but one thing is clear: they know the issue is generating more and more interest and they have to define their position just in case the next escalation it comes around. Microsoft Shared Source May 2001 The past several months have seen a growing number of people talking about source code - the code that underlies every computer software program. Over the past 25 years, few people outside of the development community talked about source code and even fewer had access. Today, that is changing as more and more software products offer some access to source code under certain conditions. Many of our customers and partners have asked us about our source code philosophy and how it compares to other models in the industry today, specifically the Open Source Software (OSS) model used for such software as the Linux operating system. Microsoft views source code and source code licensing as just one component of an umbrella framework that is the Commercial Software Model. Five key elements make up this model: 1.Community: A strong support community of developers. 2.Standards: Promote collaboration and interoperability while supporting innovation and healthy competition. 3.Business model: Promote the growth of a profitable business. 4.Investment: Level of research and development investment drives resources for future innovation. 5.Licensing model: Provides product and source access without jeopardizing the intellectual property rights of those who create or use the software. Shared Source Discussions Craig Mundie Discusses Shared Source on CNET The Commercial Software Model and Sustainable Innovation. (May 17, opinion) Shared Source Philosophy Overvie Microsoft affirms commitment to shared source in this overview. Microsoft Shared Source Frequently Asked Questions This FAQ addresses common questions and concerns about our Shared Source Philosophy. The Commercial Software Model Craig Mundie, Senior Vice President of Advanced Strategies, outlines Microsoft's position on source code sharing at the New York University Stern School of Business. (May 3, 2001, text remarks) Tradeoffs in Software Development Philosophies View the full speech from May 3, 2001 at NYU. Speech delivered by Craig Mundie, Microsoft Senior Vice President at the New York University Stern School of Business. (May 2001, video)
I tried to resend your comments to M$, it worked, or so it seems. I hope you don't mind I did that.
The only thing we have a problem with is when the government funds open-source work. Government funding should be for work that is available to everybody. Open source is not available to commercial companies." -- not available? GPL code is available to everybody who abides by GPL rules, including any commercial company. But ofcourse commercial M$ feels excluded from GPL game, because they want to play software game by M$ profit rules. Poor boys, after several years of GPL developement and massive movement towards GPL among developers, including heavyweights such as IBM, M$ is realiyzing they're missing a lot of fun. Now they want to be included. But "included" means giving up their corporate ego very much glued to profit. Bottom line? $M wants to have a lot of profit but also a lot of fun, because profit without fun is like a pit filled with gold - you can buy a lot of things with that gold but feel imprisoned. Can M$ buy a lot of fun with a lot of gold? It seems a lot of fun is not for sale so they can't buy it an they know it, therefore they'd rather destroy it than let others have it. Let's make sure that won't happen.
What they're trying to do at M$ is to define the terms and the territory relevent to their views. Once that is done they may try to start legal process. Say, they will try to undercut GPL by making it legal to mix open source code under GPL with propriatory code and the end result to be propriatory controlled by them under some new license type. Their claim is likely to be that GPL stifles competition, because not every company wants or can use GPL if they have to make their code public. In other words, as it is now GPL can't be "extended" with propriatory code, which M$ always does. They may claim their use of GPL software will be aimed to improve it. Since M$ is a big part of US economy, the argument could go, it should be allowed to grow further by using GPL but not releasing is as such. Can it be done? It is likely they'll try something since their market share is getting eroded by GPL's like software.
"...The probability is large that the Mars samples will display properties that at least some people consider suggestive of life forms or life processes, or other observers disagree. In the event of such equvocal evidence, plans should be in place to begin distributing steralized samples immediately to approved investigators..." -- this is taken from The Quarantine and Certification of Martian Samples posted on: http://books.nap.edu/books/0309075718/html/149.htm l#pagetop,
so it is rather clear what the intentions will be of those in control of samples, in other words there will be select few who will steralize and distribute samples. Now, is that fair to sience? Or is it rather interferance in the scientific process, which assusmes freedom from imposed and controlled by authorities rules.
"Rocks and soil brought back to Earth from Mars by a future space mission should be handled as if they were chock full of deadly microbes, even though they will almost certainly prove lifeless, a panel of experts said yesterday..." -- even though they agree those rocks would be lifless they still recommend for that material to be "quarantined in a special laboratory similar to those used to study Ebola". Why? Guess what, once that material is isolated and put under very strict control very few scienties can access it for research, right?. Who is going to get access, if any? Who will decide one should have access and not the other? It is the control that those people are after, don't you see? It's one thing to impose quarantine but unless at the same time you device a definite way of allowing research you're dealing with the conditions that are hampering scientific progress. They don't even say how long access to those rocks will be kept restricted and what will make those restrictions to be lifted. It is all arbirtrary. They impose rules, don't define means of modyfing them and also don't say how long those rules will be implemented. Maybe forever, right? That's the way to remove a threat that something could be discovered that they don't want to be discovered.
The main benefit of the Canadian involvement in space exploration I see in veryfication. So far NASA/JLP monopolized Mars missions and lately they released data that contradicts some of earier findings, so some other veryfication process is needed outside of NASA's. Otherwise they'll always claim what they want. What we're talking about here is the possibility of civilized life on Mars in some distant past.
Importance of the Canadian Space Initiative for Mars exploration goes far beyond the surface level competition with the USA, Russia, or some other coutry. I don't know if you noticed but two days ago all major national and local TV stations in the US displayed a picture prepared by JPL (Jet Propulsion Lab) showing so called "Face" from Cydonia on Mars, an object that is stirring up controversy since its first appearance in 1976. The latest official picture of the "Face" looks unlike any human or animal face visible on the original picture. It was released with the commentary that the problem is really solved meannig don't expect it to be artificially made or implying some ancient civilised involvement. As it turns out, the official "Face" photo was filtered out with more than one software filter so it loses its facial details and appears to be flat and not as 3D object. Since NASA/JPL have the monopoly in Mars exploration right now, there's no way that the Face can be veryfied otherwise. So, with the Canadian Mars Initiative this subject could return for veryfication bypassing NASA and other US agencies. Good luck. By the way, some good quality info about the Face is on: http://metaresearch.org/
"No operating system, not even our beloved Linux, is totally secure" -- in general that sounds right, however, security goes beyond OS running on some box, in other words it's not just software. If physical enviroment is compromised by someone attaching a listeneing device to the network even the most secure software fails. In that regard mainframe base network is by far more secure than dostributed server based network. In addition, the philosophy that dogmatically applies multiple servers manged by several people increses the odds even more against distributed networks. If your network grows beyond 30-40 servers it's time to think mainframe. On most mainframes you can't run executable program unless it is authorised by the OS. That means no virus can damage the system and usualy only one/two people manage one box, etc. Therefore, in my view, network (in)security is not so much software or OS problem, but rather dogmatic overreliance of some network managers on distributed network ideas and models, which creates security holes that can be exploited at more than one entry point.
RPM stands for Red Hat Package Manager, so I guess that explains it all.
Can't really blame IBM for what they do, not do with their money. By definition it's their money. In the meantime they're already commited to Linux developement like none else in the big corporate business and also it gives some hope for Linux companies such as Turbolinux, SuSe, maybe Caldera. I believe Turbolinux is going to fare good out of those theree because they have the strongest developement ties with IBM and can offer service support for both Linux and IBM's hardware.
In S/390 you can define what applications, workloads can run and also define how much processor power, I/O and disk space you get, so it's not unlimited to a particular user, therefore I believe it wouldn't be possible to do denial of service type of thing on such system, because the processor(s) will never be tied up by one user or even several users.
What happens is that each user gets his IP address to connect to his account, your account is not connected to other users directly on Virtual Machine, therefore it won't be possible to make changes to other accounts unless you're told by some other user his login.