But really, just use/consider BSD if such stability is required, Linux has to man
Spoken like a clueless AC who mindlessly suggests open source for everything.
BSD and Linux do not usually have functioning, enterprise software for a lot of things.
So your little toy won't cut it, doesn't have the same kind of software, and what you say is utterly meaningless.
This is precisely the difference between corporate production environments than what some smarmy little twit thinks can be solved with "just use BSD or Linux".
Some of us still work in environments where constant restarts are strictly not allowed, and software which expects to be on a constant release cycle is shunned.
We had a vendor once, who wrote a component for a large enterprise system... they released builds pretty much weekly and thought that was grand.
We filed a bug once, and they said "we don't support that version because it's a month old, and therefore 4 versions out of date, you need to upgrade". We said "you'll be hearing from our lawyers because we don't take a prod outage every week just for you idiots". Needless to say, they quickly realized they were going to lose that fight.
Sorry, we need a lot more stability, and we don't care if you think you're on an agile cycle. It takes around two months to promote something through to Production... we simply don't care that you want to build weekly.
Not all places (specifically most regulated industries) have the ability to have stuff constantly changing underneath them, and they certainly haven't got the patience for some company who thinks a product lifecycle is measured in weeks.
Continuous releases often have the effect of making your customers your beta testers. And we can't do that for you.
I think rolling releases are good for developers, and gives you that whole agile thingy...
But really what it instills is a culture of "almost got it" where you'll run the risk of breaking your user's systems and then just say "whoops, we'll fix that next time".
I think it leads to sloppy release engineering (because, after all, it's just a build), and will be fundamentally incompatible with how companies need to do IT.
And every time I see Firefox telling me "It is strongly recommended you upgrade to this version" what I really see is "holy crap, did we inject some garbage in that last one".
I think in general the "continuous release" says "we're not worried that people in the real world can't do this, and we don't care... we'll fix it on the next release... maybe".
So, for your personal desktop, or a sandbox, or a toy... sure, have at it. But for a real machine, doing real work... I think "continuous release" is a terrible idea.
Because in the real world, we're not prepared to patch Prod system just because you committed some new changes -- we have bigger issues to deal with than constantly updating software to keep you happy.
I should think nobody in a corporate environment is a fan of that. And if you're a small shop of 20 people who are risk takers... you're not in what I'd call a corporate environment.
Sadly, in the absence of data protection laws which makes corporations liable for this, this will continue.
Unless companies carry a real cost for failing to secure this stuff, they'll continue to treat this as an afterthought.
But apparently forcing corporations to not be clueless and careless idiots would somehow be a bad thing.
Sorry, but if you need to have private information like that, you need to be accountable. If you aren't going to make companies accountable, don't allow them to have the data in the first place.
and in fact transportation secretary Anthony Foxx was joined by Google CEO Eric Schmidt
Some government hack got dazzled by the fancy talk of a billionaire CEO and is convinced in the future, as seen by a billionaire CEO, and oddly including technology being developed by that billionaire CEO.
All of these futurists talking about their uber fancy high tech world of the future are kidding themselves if they think there is enough money to pay for this shit.
In which case we'll get the dystopian future alright -- the one in which we spend zillions of dollars for a separate infrastructure for the wealthy with all the cool stuff... and we'll leave the rotting husk of everything else to the rest of us.
There's no truth to any of this crap. It's "blah blah blah, give us lots of money to build something cool".
Interestingly the central focus of the new initiative is about supporting the existing 19thC models of society, where workers travel into highly-priced urban conurbations; its vision of currently barren areas of the U.S. becoming traffic-clogged has more to do with the spread of the urban epicentre than any genuine move towards geography-neutral digital working, or âtelecommutingâ(TM).
This is children who grew up reading Popular Science and dreaming of flying cars trying to sell us their vision of the future.
And other than being swindled by Google and Uber... there's nothing to say this is good, meaningful, true, or even possible.
Eric Schmidt wants a fucking pony. Let's not pretend this has any bearing to reality.
In fact, let's assume this entire thing is a waste of resources based on the pie eyed fantasies of a billionaire CEO.
I can't fathom how extending the terms after the works have been created is an incentive to create them in the first place.
Are you kidding?
Perpetual rent seeking entrenched in law, allowing you to profit from the public domain stuff you ripped off in the first place, and preventing anybody from ever having access to stuff created generations ago which should have become public domain by now isn't an incentive?
Sorry, this is ALL about guaranteeing corporate revenues for the next bunch of decades.
This is just another example of how governments have sold out to corporations, and how the public is pretty much getting fucked over to maximize corporate revenue.
And those governments keep feeding us the bullshit that this crap creates jobs and prosperity -- which is a complete fucking lie.
This is just Wall Street co-opting democracy for profit.
These days copyright and patents mean whatever the fuck corporations tell the American government it means... who then dutifully work to force it on the rest of the world.
Because sadly the American government are more or less just the enforcement arm for multinational entities.
Well, sort of... you'll never get updates, and good luck confirming that just because you don't log into a Google account you don't hit Google servers.
On a stock Nexus tablet, for instance, Google is pretty much baked into EVERYTHING.
You want to keep an Android device from calling home to Google (or whoever made it), remove its battery. Otherwise, I'd not be so sure it's not.
Now let's see if it actually happens. There's plenty of time yet for lobbyists and donors to flood the final process with blood money.
They already have.. in the form of Tom Wheeler.
And since most people expect him to return to being one of those lobbyists... it seems highly unlikely he's actually going to do anything which imposes regulations on the industry he's a paid shill for. At least, not if those regulations don't have loopholes you could drive a bus through.
I may at some point be pleasantly surprised, and this guy won't turn out to be a dancing monkey beholden to the cable/wireless companies... but I seriously doubt it.
Who hasn't seen some of these joggers who do it obsessively?
I've seen a bunch of people who look skinny and emaciated from being jogging freaks. At a certain point you look like you're ill -- and quite disturbingly so.
Hell, back when I used to go to the gym there used to be one lady on the treadmill... she stayed on it for hours, and essentially looked terrible to the point it looked like she could probably use some therapy... she looked anorexic.
Dude, seriously, we don't know what's in fracking solutions.
"Proprietary formulation" and "trade secrets" are used all the frickin' time for companies to claim that they can't tell you what they're using because they say it's a secret and how they make money.
The companies making this stuff know exactly what they put in it. Make no mistake about it.
But if you think this is the only example of companies not disclosing that kind of stuff, you simply haven't been paying attention.
And governments seem quite willing to allow corporations to keep their chemical compounds secret.
But you can bet your ass that huge chemical companies with lots of lawyers and lobbyists are fighting to keep it that way.
Well, one can point out that the record companies have been pushing predatory contracts on artists for decades, and giving them little choice.
Seriously, if the *AAs are going to heavily run this "listening is theft" crap campaign and then keep all of the damned money.. then as much as it screws the artists even more, it's almost a moral imperative to rip off the record companies even more.
The theft is by major corporations who act like they've done something to earn this money and should be earning it in perpetuity.
And one of the problems with these contracts is at the time they were signed nobody had even THOUGHT of how the royalties for streaming would work -- or thought of streaming at all in many cases. The record companies defined that to be the one which gets the artists the least possible money.
Essentially the record companies have stacked the deck so badly that the game is unwinnable.
How on Earth can Apple tie your account activity to a credit card without ever having that credit card number to generate that token?
And, if at ANY point in this chain Apple has your credit card number... why would I trust they (or any other corporation) aren't retaining that.
I don't see how any of this one-time token stuff can be generated without first having your credit card information.
There's either a missing step there in which they certainly do have it... or there is voodoo magic by which they can attach your account information to you without knowing anything.
Branding... you'll have a Samsung phone, and probably opt to go with a Samsung wallet because it's probably pushed in your face and easy to use, and you don't have to go looking for it.
Hell, they'll probably have a wizard to sign you up quick like. Everything the handset makers do is more or less designed to drive you towards using their stuff.
Why let Google get that business, and all that tasty analytics data, when you can get it yourself?
Whether or not it has any decentsecurity will be seen -- me, I predict a huge amount of people will get their financial information compromised by more than one of these services over the next year.
It seems practically a given that at least two of them will fuck up on security and privacy, and relatively soon.
Sorry, but there isn't a single player in the "pay with your phone" market I trust. Nor will there ever be
Neither to safeguard my financial data, nor to not be complete douchebags with the information they'd get from it.
Sorry Samsung, and Apple, and Google, and Microsoft... and the whole lot of you... giving you access to my credit cards sounds like a Dumb Fucking Idea(tm).
And the carriers who muck about with the phone to lock it to them and inject their own crap? I trust them even less.
but capitalism also allows good things to happen too. Cars get you to and fro every day, and also get people killed at the rate of 35,303 per year for 2011
Which is only true because governments have enacted safety legislation.
Without those laws, cars would still be death traps.
Capitalism does NOT solve things like safety issues, no matter how much the proponents of free markets keep repeating the lie.
So, some Aspie is on a nerd quest and this is news worthy?
I bet the women swoon, and he's fun at parties -- or, possibly, the other one.
Dude, seriously, have you not learned to not broadcast this stuff in 51 years? If you're high functioning to hold a job, surely you've figured out to dial back the "dork" a little in public.
Now, excuse me, I have to go sort my pencils and re-stack the toilet paper.
LOL, that's like saying you're entitled to mug someone unless they have a gun or a bodyguard. Their site is ad-based because that's the only way they can make money -- don't tell them how to run their business.
I'm not telling them how to run their business... I'm saying their business isn't my problem, and charity doesn't mean I'm willing to put up with the shady players who serve the ads.
Because those players I deem to be so utterly untrustworthy that if you depend on them for your revenue, you might as well sign up with organized crime.
You are ripping them off -- they get 0 benefit from you using their commercial service. That's theft.
Theft would imply I'm depriving them of something -- I'm not.
That argument is as asinine as the cable companies claiming I'm "stealing" by fast forwarding commercials... sorry, wasn't going to buy those maxipads, don't give a crap.. and since every market got a different set of commercials, Crazy Bob's House of Used Poo doesn't have any meaningful copyright or skin in the game... paying the cable company to air your ads doesn't make me beholden to you.
Similarly, doubleclick and all the othe shady players paying you for the privilege to put shit in my web browser doesn't place any obligation to me.
If these companies, with their FREE and PUBLICLY available websites think that somehow that means I should view and click all of their ads.. they're sorely mistaken.
Don't make it free and publicly available. And don't act like I owe you something.
Yup, I'm leaching your content that you're freely giving away, and I'm not clicking on your ads. In the same way when I fast forward through commercials... I genuinely don't give a crap.
Their contract with me extends as far as an HTTP GET, which either works or it doesn't. And that's about as far as it goes.
Slashdot Mirror
Spoken like a clueless AC who mindlessly suggests open source for everything.
BSD and Linux do not usually have functioning, enterprise software for a lot of things.
So your little toy won't cut it, doesn't have the same kind of software, and what you say is utterly meaningless.
This is precisely the difference between corporate production environments than what some smarmy little twit thinks can be solved with "just use BSD or Linux".
Some of us still work in environments where constant restarts are strictly not allowed, and software which expects to be on a constant release cycle is shunned.
We had a vendor once, who wrote a component for a large enterprise system ... they released builds pretty much weekly and thought that was grand.
We filed a bug once, and they said "we don't support that version because it's a month old, and therefore 4 versions out of date, you need to upgrade". We said "you'll be hearing from our lawyers because we don't take a prod outage every week just for you idiots". Needless to say, they quickly realized they were going to lose that fight.
Sorry, we need a lot more stability, and we don't care if you think you're on an agile cycle. It takes around two months to promote something through to Production ... we simply don't care that you want to build weekly.
Not all places (specifically most regulated industries) have the ability to have stuff constantly changing underneath them, and they certainly haven't got the patience for some company who thinks a product lifecycle is measured in weeks.
Continuous releases often have the effect of making your customers your beta testers. And we can't do that for you.
I think rolling releases are good for developers, and gives you that whole agile thingy ...
But really what it instills is a culture of "almost got it" where you'll run the risk of breaking your user's systems and then just say "whoops, we'll fix that next time".
I think it leads to sloppy release engineering (because, after all, it's just a build), and will be fundamentally incompatible with how companies need to do IT.
And every time I see Firefox telling me "It is strongly recommended you upgrade to this version" what I really see is "holy crap, did we inject some garbage in that last one".
I think in general the "continuous release" says "we're not worried that people in the real world can't do this, and we don't care ... we'll fix it on the next release ... maybe".
So, for your personal desktop, or a sandbox, or a toy ... sure, have at it. But for a real machine, doing real work ... I think "continuous release" is a terrible idea.
Because in the real world, we're not prepared to patch Prod system just because you committed some new changes -- we have bigger issues to deal with than constantly updating software to keep you happy.
I should think nobody in a corporate environment is a fan of that. And if you're a small shop of 20 people who are risk takers ... you're not in what I'd call a corporate environment.
Sadly, in the absence of data protection laws which makes corporations liable for this, this will continue.
Unless companies carry a real cost for failing to secure this stuff, they'll continue to treat this as an afterthought.
But apparently forcing corporations to not be clueless and careless idiots would somehow be a bad thing.
Sorry, but if you need to have private information like that, you need to be accountable. If you aren't going to make companies accountable, don't allow them to have the data in the first place.
Some government hack got dazzled by the fancy talk of a billionaire CEO and is convinced in the future, as seen by a billionaire CEO, and oddly including technology being developed by that billionaire CEO.
All of these futurists talking about their uber fancy high tech world of the future are kidding themselves if they think there is enough money to pay for this shit.
In which case we'll get the dystopian future alright -- the one in which we spend zillions of dollars for a separate infrastructure for the wealthy with all the cool stuff ... and we'll leave the rotting husk of everything else to the rest of us.
There's no truth to any of this crap. It's "blah blah blah, give us lots of money to build something cool".
This is children who grew up reading Popular Science and dreaming of flying cars trying to sell us their vision of the future.
And other than being swindled by Google and Uber ... there's nothing to say this is good, meaningful, true, or even possible.
Eric Schmidt wants a fucking pony. Let's not pretend this has any bearing to reality.
In fact, let's assume this entire thing is a waste of resources based on the pie eyed fantasies of a billionaire CEO.
Wait ... isn't the "exit strategy" dying, becoming a martyr, and collecting your 72 virgins?
Are you kidding?
Perpetual rent seeking entrenched in law, allowing you to profit from the public domain stuff you ripped off in the first place, and preventing anybody from ever having access to stuff created generations ago which should have become public domain by now isn't an incentive?
Sorry, this is ALL about guaranteeing corporate revenues for the next bunch of decades.
This is just another example of how governments have sold out to corporations, and how the public is pretty much getting fucked over to maximize corporate revenue.
And those governments keep feeding us the bullshit that this crap creates jobs and prosperity -- which is a complete fucking lie.
This is just Wall Street co-opting democracy for profit.
Thanks, America, you greedy assholes.
These days copyright and patents mean whatever the fuck corporations tell the American government it means ... who then dutifully work to force it on the rest of the world.
Because sadly the American government are more or less just the enforcement arm for multinational entities.
O.O <--- shoot Mickey Mouse
And, more importantly ... if you buy an Android device without Google's crap loaded on it ... just whose crap will be on it?
I doubt anybody is selling you an Android phone which is clean, pristine, rooted, and doesn't have their own crap on it.(*)
Sure, and you can have a sparkly unicorn which shits gold.
(*) If such an animal exists, I'd love to know where to get one.
Well, sort of ... you'll never get updates, and good luck confirming that just because you don't log into a Google account you don't hit Google servers.
On a stock Nexus tablet, for instance, Google is pretty much baked into EVERYTHING.
You want to keep an Android device from calling home to Google (or whoever made it), remove its battery. Otherwise, I'd not be so sure it's not.
They already have .. in the form of Tom Wheeler.
And since most people expect him to return to being one of those lobbyists ... it seems highly unlikely he's actually going to do anything which imposes regulations on the industry he's a paid shill for. At least, not if those regulations don't have loopholes you could drive a bus through.
I may at some point be pleasantly surprised, and this guy won't turn out to be a dancing monkey beholden to the cable/wireless companies ... but I seriously doubt it.
Who hasn't seen some of these joggers who do it obsessively?
I've seen a bunch of people who look skinny and emaciated from being jogging freaks. At a certain point you look like you're ill -- and quite disturbingly so.
Hell, back when I used to go to the gym there used to be one lady on the treadmill ... she stayed on it for hours, and essentially looked terrible to the point it looked like she could probably use some therapy ... she looked anorexic.
That's not healthy, that's obsessive.
Well ... technically it doesn't need to be magic to stop you from getting old.
So, you take a couple of empty Foster's tins, and a really long piece of string ...
They have whales blow into the tubes ... true fact!
No, it means they can oversubscribe now by twice as much as they do now.
NO technology will cause your internet to get cheaper -- the assholes who run telecom companies see to that.
Dude, seriously, we don't know what's in fracking solutions.
"Proprietary formulation" and "trade secrets" are used all the frickin' time for companies to claim that they can't tell you what they're using because they say it's a secret and how they make money.
The companies making this stuff know exactly what they put in it. Make no mistake about it.
But if you think this is the only example of companies not disclosing that kind of stuff, you simply haven't been paying attention.
And governments seem quite willing to allow corporations to keep their chemical compounds secret.
But you can bet your ass that huge chemical companies with lots of lawyers and lobbyists are fighting to keep it that way.
Well, one can point out that the record companies have been pushing predatory contracts on artists for decades, and giving them little choice.
Seriously, if the *AAs are going to heavily run this "listening is theft" crap campaign and then keep all of the damned money .. then as much as it screws the artists even more, it's almost a moral imperative to rip off the record companies even more.
The theft is by major corporations who act like they've done something to earn this money and should be earning it in perpetuity.
And one of the problems with these contracts is at the time they were signed nobody had even THOUGHT of how the royalties for streaming would work -- or thought of streaming at all in many cases. The record companies defined that to be the one which gets the artists the least possible money.
Essentially the record companies have stacked the deck so badly that the game is unwinnable.
Wait, what?
How on Earth can Apple tie your account activity to a credit card without ever having that credit card number to generate that token?
And, if at ANY point in this chain Apple has your credit card number ... why would I trust they (or any other corporation) aren't retaining that.
I don't see how any of this one-time token stuff can be generated without first having your credit card information.
There's either a missing step there in which they certainly do have it ... or there is voodoo magic by which they can attach your account information to you without knowing anything.
Branding ... you'll have a Samsung phone, and probably opt to go with a Samsung wallet because it's probably pushed in your face and easy to use, and you don't have to go looking for it.
Hell, they'll probably have a wizard to sign you up quick like. Everything the handset makers do is more or less designed to drive you towards using their stuff.
Why let Google get that business, and all that tasty analytics data, when you can get it yourself?
Whether or not it has any decentsecurity will be seen -- me, I predict a huge amount of people will get their financial information compromised by more than one of these services over the next year.
It seems practically a given that at least two of them will fuck up on security and privacy, and relatively soon.
Because they want a cut. Because they want the analytics. Because they want the market share. Because they want to tie you to their platform.
They don't give a crap if someone else's app runs on their phone .... they want the money, and the data, and customer lock-in if possible.
Do you seriously need to ask? Why does a corporation do anything besides "branding" and "money"?
Sorry, but there isn't a single player in the "pay with your phone" market I trust. Nor will there ever be
Neither to safeguard my financial data, nor to not be complete douchebags with the information they'd get from it.
Sorry Samsung, and Apple, and Google, and Microsoft ... and the whole lot of you ... giving you access to my credit cards sounds like a Dumb Fucking Idea(tm).
And the carriers who muck about with the phone to lock it to them and inject their own crap? I trust them even less.
Which is only true because governments have enacted safety legislation.
Without those laws, cars would still be death traps.
Capitalism does NOT solve things like safety issues, no matter how much the proponents of free markets keep repeating the lie.
So, some Aspie is on a nerd quest and this is news worthy?
I bet the women swoon, and he's fun at parties -- or, possibly, the other one.
Dude, seriously, have you not learned to not broadcast this stuff in 51 years? If you're high functioning to hold a job, surely you've figured out to dial back the "dork" a little in public.
Now, excuse me, I have to go sort my pencils and re-stack the toilet paper.
I'm not telling them how to run their business ... I'm saying their business isn't my problem, and charity doesn't mean I'm willing to put up with the shady players who serve the ads.
Because those players I deem to be so utterly untrustworthy that if you depend on them for your revenue, you might as well sign up with organized crime.
Theft would imply I'm depriving them of something -- I'm not.
That argument is as asinine as the cable companies claiming I'm "stealing" by fast forwarding commercials ... sorry, wasn't going to buy those maxipads, don't give a crap .. and since every market got a different set of commercials, Crazy Bob's House of Used Poo doesn't have any meaningful copyright or skin in the game ... paying the cable company to air your ads doesn't make me beholden to you.
Similarly, doubleclick and all the othe shady players paying you for the privilege to put shit in my web browser doesn't place any obligation to me.
If these companies, with their FREE and PUBLICLY available websites think that somehow that means I should view and click all of their ads .. they're sorely mistaken.
Don't make it free and publicly available. And don't act like I owe you something.
Yup, I'm leaching your content that you're freely giving away, and I'm not clicking on your ads. In the same way when I fast forward through commercials ... I genuinely don't give a crap.
Their contract with me extends as far as an HTTP GET, which either works or it doesn't. And that's about as far as it goes.