It's not "pretending". It really is. You then have the choice of whether or not to actually take up that offer, and if you decide to leave the source code well alone and just use the tool "as is", then you are safe from any potential infection. Easy, isn't it?
Except that's not the attitudent typically put forth by the OSS community, which tends to be more along the lines of:
"Here's the product and here's the source code. Take it, use, modify it, do whatever you want with it.".
Then in really small letters down the bottom "but don't forget your modifications may be subject to the GPL (or similar)".
Very true. And that's a very good reason for companies to be wary of using GPLed source code. But I don't see why it's a reason for companies to be wary of using GPLed software.
This particular sub-thread is not about using GPLed software, it's about using GPLed (or closed-source) _code_.
Making these sorts of criticisms about using GPLed _software_ would be stupid, because they simply aren't relevant.
But it's just as disingenous to pretend, as you constantly do, that open-source products shove source code down your programmers' throats.
Where do I do this ?
For example, deploying OpenOffice.org and Firefox as part of your company's standard desktop build is in no way going to risk contaminating your own products or opening you up to any sort of liability whatsoever.
Nor have I ever suggested it would.
I find it amusing that you are lambasting OSS advocates for constantly harping on about source code availability, and yet you fall into the same trap yourself!
So people distributing under the GPL are trying to tell how you distribute *your* code!?
Yes. The whole point of the GPL is to influence how other developers license their unique, unrelated code if they want to use yours.
That's first news to me.
Maybe you should read it and understand RMS's objectives with the GPL, then.
I was under the strong impression (both because I developed code under the GPL and used code under the GPL... and took the time to read the GPL itself) that people distributing under the GPL are just telling under what circumnstances are you allowed to use/distribute such code.
Indeed. And those circumstances are targeted specifically at other developers' code.
If a developer wants to "open source" _their_ code, as they release it, they should use the BSDL.
If a developer wants to "open source" their code and any subsequent 3rd-party _modifications_ to that code, they should use the LGPL.
If a developer wants to "open source" their code, any subsequent 3rd-party modifications to that code, *and the independent code written by anyone else who wants to use their code*, they should use the GPL.
If you abide OK, if you don't, you won't use that code but, of course, you can still completly free to dictate how is *your* code to be distributed nevertheless.
Not if you want to use GPLed code, you can't. Your code is bound by the terms of the GPL, regardless of what you want to do with it.
And I again, have to say that you probably haven't been too long on this bussiness: having access to the source code is quite usual, even on source code being distributed under non-disclosure/closed source agreements.
Well, I have been around IT for a while and I'd have to say the number of development projects that have access to closed-source code, even under NDA, is relatively small. Moreoever, said access is granted with the very, very specific and obvious condition that it cannot be used.
The same cannot be said about open source. Where the code is easily obtainable and the general attitude is that it *can* be reused.
No. I didn't go into the relative frecuency of gaining access to open source code relative to closed source code, but I said (and so I maintain) that there's quite a lot of times where developers gain access to closed source code and that doesn't seem to pose "significant threats" as seems to be the case with open source.
And it doesn't, because the conditions around which that access occurs and the attitude to it is vastly different. Moreoever, the potential implications of "rogue code" are substantially different ("simple" lawsuit vs potentially having to GPL a previously closed-source product).
It is the last thing that gives the lawyers and directors the biggest worry, because once code is GPLed, its value as a standalone product rapidly approaches zero.
In other words, if $COMPANY is creating $SOFTWARE and has invested $X in doing so, planning to recoup that expense from selling $SOFTWARE at $Y per copy, then if $Y suddenly drops to $0, their whole business is basically fucked. OTOH, if they "only" get hit with a lawsuit for including some closed-source code, resulting in a once-off damages payment or maybe some sort of per-copy royalty, then the only real impact is that $X has gotten larger or $Y has gotten smaller and the time taken to recoup $X has gotten longer.
Where's the difference?
The differences are the likelihood of using "rogue code" (significantly higher with open source) and the potential implications of doing so (possibly much worse with GPLed source code).
Neither has my pocket calculator. DOS is not a fair target for comparison. DOS had no default method for remote connectivity.
Very good. You're halfway to understanding why your comparison was worthless.
If it were only potential attackers looking, I'd completely agree with you, but it's not just attackers. It is also people looking to patch vulnerabilities.
People looking to patch have zero influence on the additional exposure from people looking to attack.
Involuntarily, I screamed "WHAT?!" He paused and gave me a chance to speak, my response was to take the example of OpenBSD, it's Open Source too(different license, I know but that's not the point) and in the previous 8 years there had been exactly one remote exploit on a default install. Microsoft dreams of that kind of security.
Your "refutation" - and I use the term loosely - was worthless.
To understand why, consider that MS-DOS has never, ever had any remote exploits in a default install, in over twenty years of use, with a userbase orders of magnitude larger and less technically competent than OpenBSD.
He really had no response for that.
And _that_ is why your Professor was an ass. Not because he took a principle with a certain degree of truth and made an over-generalisation with it, but because he couldn't blow such an incredibly bad comparison out of the water with ease.
What bother me though is how many times did he give that exact same speech to students who didn't know any better and just assumed that it was true because a high ranking professor had said it? So as these people leave college and become managers in IT, they'll carry the misconceptions that Professor Dvorak had placed in their heads.
Anyone who doesn't consider the difficulty (or lack thereof) with which an attacker can closely examine the inner workings of a piece of software to be a potential security issue, is an incompetent fool.
But take someone else's code, close it up, and sell it as your own, without attribution, then you have a problem. It amazes me that anyone can think this is unfair or unreasonable.
But that - protecting someone's GPLed code from being "closed up" - is not the GPL's purpose. The BSDL or LGPL do just as good a job.
The *GPL*'s purpose is to force _other people's_ code under the GPL, if they want to use someone's GPLed code, even if that GPLed code makes up only a tiny proportion of the entire product.
If you are a developer, the GPL is not about what you want to happen to *your* code, it's about what you want to happen to *other people's* code. If you only want to protect *your* code, the BSDL, LGPL or similar will do the job just as well.
Pretty much all of it. People advocating the GPL tend to be the worst, however, since they are inherently more interested in influencing other people's code than their own (because, if they weren't, they wouldn't be using the GPL).
Or haven't you noticed how frequently "you have access to the source" is put forward as an advantage of open source software ?
There are potentially _significant_and_far_reaching_ effects of using closed licensed source code too.
Straw man. The source code for closed-source products is neither easily available nor, more importantly, advertised as being usable.
Where do those "disingenuous comparisions" come from?
People like you. You made one just a few sentences ago, trying to pretend that source code for open-source and closed-source has similar availability and, hence, using either has similar legal considerations.
Which completely misses the point. What I meant is, FOSS tools are safe to use in an environment where one wants to produce non-FOSS final products of any kind, including software, as long as the final products do not include any part of the original FOSS tool.
To be fair, I don't expect a manager beyond a certain level to understand the complexities of libraries and linking and 'derived work' and patent clauses or whatnot.
You should. It's their job (even if they often don't realise it).
I'm not going to try and argue the average manager *does* understand this sort of thing, however, they most certainly _should_ and you should endeavour to place yourself into a position (assuming you aren't shooting for management yourself) where you are working under someone who, at the very least, understands the principles which underly modern software, even if they are not a coder themselves.
Those of you changing jobs should be sure - assuming you aren't job searching under any sort of duress - to talk to the person who will be your manager and, ideally the person who will be his manager. Try to assess their technical knowledge. Probe principles, not specific implementations. Only take a job when you are comfortable that your boss and, ideally, his boss, have at least a broad understanding of what it entails on a technical level.
So once again: where is the novelty of the case so company's lawyers can cry "fire, fire!" when talking about open source that were not the same with all closed source they don't cry "fire, fire!" about?
Because closed-source code doesn't try to pretend it is available for source-level availability, as open-source frequently does.
There are potentially _significant_ and _far reaching_ effects of using GPLed source code in other software that are frequently glossed over by its advocates. Corporate legal departments are right to be wary of these implications as they could potentially have a large detrimental effect on key technologies and competitive advantages.
Disingenuous comparisons with using source code from closed-source products will not change this, not matter how frequently they are made. Closed-source products typically do not even try to pretend their source is available for viewing, let alone possible use.
Using an open source tool and modifying it are two deeply different things.
Not while "linking" and "modifying" remain synonymous, they're not.
Added to which, the GPL - probably the most popular OSS license - does not require "modification" to apply its restrictions, it merely requires "inclusion".
Something else you might want to consider are the things Windows will do that Samba does not (or, at least, does not do without lots of hacking around).
Two of these are DFS Replication (DFSR) and Volume SnapShots (VSS).
We are currently in the process of evaluation a replacement for our aging fileserver plus some sort of centralised, SAN-like storage. Two of the leading candidates are Sun's 5320 and IBM's N5200 which offer access for clients via both network (CIFS, NFS, etc) and block-level (iSCSI, FC). Several branch offices are also in the same situation, although they lack the need for block-level, centralised disk.
However, neither of them support DFSR (nor does any other non-Windows based NAS device from what I can gather). They do both have replication technologies of their own, but those are just as expensive (additional US$8k-ish) - if not more so - than just buying a dedicated Windows fileserver to connect to the SAN/NAS device via iSCSI.
Then there's the snapshotting, which Samba doesn't do on its own (but you can hack together something, depending on the host OS). VSS in Windows is trivial to enable, very simple to use and works quite well. It's primary benefit is to reduce the overheads on support staff from users "accidentally" deleting things and needing them restored - something they are now able to do themselves, rather than weighing down support staff with those requests. It can also be used for simplifying backup procedures. (Any decent NAS device will also have some sort of snapshotting functionality).
With regards to Samba in general, we use it fairly extensively on a per-host basis to allow easy access to certain parts of the filesystem for certain staff. I've experimented with it in the past on an AD level and successfully gotten it working, but the overhead for setup is non-trivial, especially if you want things like UIDs to match up across different machines.
Simple setups in Samba and Windows are simple. More complex (Active Directory integration, especially with multiple servers) are also fairly simple in Windows, but relatively much more difficult with Samba. If you're looking at the latter - *especially if you're not already an expert* - you'll probably need almost a complete person full-time to work with it during the implementation phase.
The simple version is this: software and hardware are cheap, people-time is expensive (this is a concept a *lot* of technically oriented people - myself included - have significant difficulty a) grasping and b) remembering). In all likelihood, you will use substantially more people-time - especially in the earlier phases - with Samba than you will with Windows. That's where the "value" of Windows (or NAS appliances) comes in - saving people-time $$$. If you're already a Samba expert, OTOH, the people-time aspect of the equation will be substantially different and you can compare largely on features. However, banging out a good, manageable, sustainable, reliable AD-integrated Samba infrastructure is something that will take on the order of weeks unless you already know what you're doing and have done it before. Your boss has a very poor argument against Samba, but do not kid yourself that good arguments against Samba do not exist.
The link you provided did nothing to back up your assertion.
On the contrary:
Apple Computer v. San Francisco Canyon Co.", filed on December 6, 1994, alleged that the San Francisco Canyon Company used some of the code developed under contract to Apple, in their additions to Video for Windows.
(The suit was _later_ expanded to include Intel and Microsoft.)
If you don't recall - you said MS unwittingly bought stolen goods, from (presumably) Canyon, the 'fence' was Intel and MS were the poor unwitting buyer of what they believed to be completely legitimate.
I said nothing of the sort. I said they *may have* been sold infringing code and used it without being aware of its legal standing, based on my recollection of a *10 year old* court case.
This was in response to your implication that Microsoft - and only Microsoft - had engaged in some sort of industrial espionage against Apple.
Clearly, my recollection was more accurate, even with its flaws.
Just to refresh your memory, you said:
Your deceptive and selective quoting does not change what actually happened. I made that comment in response to one of yours, as an _analogy_ to a possible scenario, not an assertion of actual events (since, at the time, I was working with decade-old memories).
You fucking retarded little monkey.
How unsurprising that a biased, dishonest, deceitful individual like you ultimately resorts to the ad hominem. Still, if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out.
Huh? Here's 7of7's journal entry in full. Tell me how the middle part I left out of the quote makes it (in your words) "deceptive, selective, out-of-context":
Firstly, because you didn't clearly indicate you had removed text.
Secondly, because the removed text changes the tone of the message.
Sounds entirely negative to me. Can't find a single laurel in all of that.
How about:
"It has this great new window manager called Compiz. It brings some eyecandy to the normally drab Gnome desktop."
"ATI users are having some troubles, but they're being ironed out quickly."
"I've got an Nvidia card so Compiz is running great except for some annoying querks."
Which are, at worst, neutral. Personally I would certainly interpret them as positive ("great new window manager").
Seems to be a quite reasonable post from some who went in well informed, found a few positive features, but those were outweighed by a lot of negatives, then related it to similar prior experiences.
In my experience any slashdotter, no matter what their camp, is shot down if there is a hole in their argument. Calling people names and not backing up your claims wastes everyone's time and convinces no one.
Completely irrelevant. The discussion wasn't about people being "shot down" in replies, it was about them posting content that was either "absolutely positive" or "absolutely negative" and how "nobody but advertising copywriters speak in those sort of extremes". I was merely pointing out that a significant proportion of postings to Slashdot praising Linux and/or criticising Microsoft typically have content with "those sort of extremes".
Yes and asking my grandmother to manipulate files and directories into an orderly fashion (especially a directory that is hidden from her by default) is not a user-friendly system.
Fortunate, then, that I'm doing nothing of the sort.
However, even if I was, you'd still be wrong in your assertion above, as the Start Menu folder is not hidden by default.
Uh...uh...wanna bet? Ever hear of Vista?
You'll need to be a bit more specific as to exactly what the hell you're on about. I'm no Vista expert, but I'm assuming the Start Menu is still contained in a directory full of shortcuts and other directories.
You and I have extremely different software installation experiences. Heck, I don't think that MS-Office (at least v. 2003) let's you choose where to put its icons.
99% means there's 1% that doesn't. The vast, vast majority of software I've ever installed, has asked at some point during the installation what "Start Menu Group" to put its icons in.
You obviously don't understand that "user" in the phrase user friendly does not consist solely of you, me, and the rest of us slashbots.
Then explain how it can be easier than opening Start Menu -> All Programs, grabbing an icon with the mouse and dragging it to where you would prefer it to be.
I didn't say get rid of "all users". I explicitly stated the "shortcut dupes issues". Surely you understand the problems that exist when a user has the same shortcuts as "all users" does, and then the user manipulates their start menu icon locations??? Or do you also consider this to be user friendly?
I'm struggling to see a reasonable chain of events where that will happen. Especially to the class of user you're talking about.
Again, "user friendly" does not mean "direct file system manipulation". Grandma don't get the whole "directory tree" concept, nor "root", "c-colon", "hidden files", "system directories", yada-yada-yada. The fact that the implementation of something is as straight forward as a directory structure and a bunch of wanna-be-symlinks does not detract from the fact that Grandma just don't get this stuff (nor the executive at my office, or her admin assistant, or the guy down the street who should have bought himself a Mac but went for a MS-Windows box because "everyone does",...)
Why do you think "Grandma" needs to know a thing about directory structures, hidden file, drive letters, or the like ? You don't need to know anything about any of them to manipulate the Start Menu and Quicklaunch bars.
...sigh...
You'll need to be a bit more helpful. Like actually saying *why* the current system is broken and, more productively, suggesting ways it could be improved, rather than assuming I can read your mind to figure out what you mean (as opposed to what you're actually posting).
I see maybe a dozen DHCP answers already, so I'll just pick on this one. If he's asking for that large a block, DHCP almost certainly isn't an answer. Fixed IP addresses on a per server basis is important in some environments, especially managed server environments in which security is tied to specific addresses.
Using DHCP does not preclude tying certain IPs to certain machines. You simply create a MAC <-> IP mapping and your DHCP client will always get the same IP.
I make this point because a hell of a lot of people seem to assume that DHCP == "changing IPs".
force installers to let the user choose where on the start menu items are to go
Ultimately, the Start Menu is just a collection of directories and shortcuts in the filesystem. Not much the OS can do to stop installers manipulating it. Added to that, 99% of installers _already_ let the user decide where to put their icons.
allow users to quickly and easily re-organize the Start menu
You can drag and drop program folders and icons. How much easier do you want it ?
get rid of the "all users" vs "my" shortcut dupes issues (i.e. reorganize the "my" folder and now you have dupe links because the "all users" links are in the original location
"All Users" exists for a perfectly valid reason.
improve the MRU and quick-pick lists so that users can easily discover and use them
They're *right there on the Start Menu*. How much easier can it get ?
(Judging by the number of "advanced" users who turn them both off at the first opportunity, I would have thought the problem was that they were too obvious, not that they were difficult to find.)
improve the Quick Launch toolbar, again more discoverable and easier to organize/clean up
Again, drag & drop stuff into (and out of) it. How much easier can it be ?
As one of the other posters said, nothing is perfect, yet 7of7's Vista comments were absolutely positive and their Ubuntu comments absolutely negative. Nobody but advertising copywriters speak in those sort of extremes.
Ignoring for a second his comments about Ubuntu weren't "completely negative" (although your deceptive, selective, out-of-context quoting of his journal makes that unclear), that would make 90% of the pro-Linux and anti-Microsoft content on Slashdot the product of "advertising copywriters". I had no idea the OSS community had so much money to throw around that they could waste it on that sort of thing...
Right (and that's what I always do), but only if you visit the website. I wasn't discussing that. I was discussing the Automatic Updates feature built into the System widget in the Windows XP control panel, which gives you only four options for auto-updating (and "Custom" isn't one of them.)
If you are using the "Download and Install Later" option (from Control Panel - Automatic Updates), when you get the balloon reminder and the little yellow shield icon that there are updates available, in the subsequent dialog box that opens (where you click the "Update" button to do the "Installing Later" part), there is a "Custom" radio button that turns the "Update" button into a "Next" and allows you to select which updates you do (or don't) want to install.
This has nothing to do with the Windows Update website. It's part of the built-in Automatic Updates tool (and always has been, IIRC).
Slashdot Mirror
It's not "pretending". It really is. You then have the choice of whether or not to actually take up that offer, and if you decide to leave the source code well alone and just use the tool "as is", then you are safe from any potential infection. Easy, isn't it?
Except that's not the attitudent typically put forth by the OSS community, which tends to be more along the lines of:
"Here's the product and here's the source code. Take it, use, modify it, do whatever you want with it.".
Then in really small letters down the bottom "but don't forget your modifications may be subject to the GPL (or similar)".
Very true. And that's a very good reason for companies to be wary of using GPLed source code. But I don't see why it's a reason for companies to be wary of using GPLed software.
This particular sub-thread is not about using GPLed software, it's about using GPLed (or closed-source) _code_.
Making these sorts of criticisms about using GPLed _software_ would be stupid, because they simply aren't relevant.
But it's just as disingenous to pretend, as you constantly do, that open-source products shove source code down your programmers' throats.
Where do I do this ?
For example, deploying OpenOffice.org and Firefox as part of your company's standard desktop build is in no way going to risk contaminating your own products or opening you up to any sort of liability whatsoever.
Nor have I ever suggested it would.
I find it amusing that you are lambasting OSS advocates for constantly harping on about source code availability, and yet you fall into the same trap yourself!
Where ?
So people distributing under the GPL are trying to tell how you distribute *your* code!?
Yes. The whole point of the GPL is to influence how other developers license their unique, unrelated code if they want to use yours.
That's first news to me.
Maybe you should read it and understand RMS's objectives with the GPL, then.
I was under the strong impression (both because I developed code under the GPL and used code under the GPL... and took the time to read the GPL itself) that people distributing under the GPL are just telling under what circumnstances are you allowed to use/distribute such code.
Indeed. And those circumstances are targeted specifically at other developers' code.
If a developer wants to "open source" _their_ code, as they release it, they should use the BSDL.
If a developer wants to "open source" their code and any subsequent 3rd-party _modifications_ to that code, they should use the LGPL.
If a developer wants to "open source" their code, any subsequent 3rd-party modifications to that code, *and the independent code written by anyone else who wants to use their code*, they should use the GPL.
If you abide OK, if you don't, you won't use that code but, of course, you can still completly free to dictate how is *your* code to be distributed nevertheless.
Not if you want to use GPLed code, you can't. Your code is bound by the terms of the GPL, regardless of what you want to do with it.
And I again, have to say that you probably haven't been too long on this bussiness: having access to the source code is quite usual, even on source code being distributed under non-disclosure/closed source agreements.
Well, I have been around IT for a while and I'd have to say the number of development projects that have access to closed-source code, even under NDA, is relatively small. Moreoever, said access is granted with the very, very specific and obvious condition that it cannot be used.
The same cannot be said about open source. Where the code is easily obtainable and the general attitude is that it *can* be reused.
No. I didn't go into the relative frecuency of gaining access to open source code relative to closed source code, but I said (and so I maintain) that there's quite a lot of times where developers gain access to closed source code and that doesn't seem to pose "significant threats" as seems to be the case with open source.
And it doesn't, because the conditions around which that access occurs and the attitude to it is vastly different. Moreoever, the potential implications of "rogue code" are substantially different ("simple" lawsuit vs potentially having to GPL a previously closed-source product).
It is the last thing that gives the lawyers and directors the biggest worry, because once code is GPLed, its value as a standalone product rapidly approaches zero.
In other words, if $COMPANY is creating $SOFTWARE and has invested $X in doing so, planning to recoup that expense from selling $SOFTWARE at $Y per copy, then if $Y suddenly drops to $0, their whole business is basically fucked. OTOH, if they "only" get hit with a lawsuit for including some closed-source code, resulting in a once-off damages payment or maybe some sort of per-copy royalty, then the only real impact is that $X has gotten larger or $Y has gotten smaller and the time taken to recoup $X has gotten longer.
Where's the difference?
The differences are the likelihood of using "rogue code" (significantly higher with open source) and the potential implications of doing so (possibly much worse with GPLed source code).
Neither has my pocket calculator. DOS is not a fair target for comparison. DOS had no default method for remote connectivity.
Very good. You're halfway to understanding why your comparison was worthless.
If it were only potential attackers looking, I'd completely agree with you, but it's not just attackers. It is also people looking to patch vulnerabilities.
People looking to patch have zero influence on the additional exposure from people looking to attack.
Public transport is useless for 85%-90% or so of journeys, it's a bad deal for the vast majority of the population.
And you base this on what, exactly ? Your utter ignorance of any remotely well-implemented public transport systems ?
Involuntarily, I screamed "WHAT?!" He paused and gave me a chance to speak, my response was to take the example of OpenBSD, it's Open Source too(different license, I know but that's not the point) and in the previous 8 years there had been exactly one remote exploit on a default install. Microsoft dreams of that kind of security.
Your "refutation" - and I use the term loosely - was worthless.
To understand why, consider that MS-DOS has never, ever had any remote exploits in a default install, in over twenty years of use, with a userbase orders of magnitude larger and less technically competent than OpenBSD.
He really had no response for that.
And _that_ is why your Professor was an ass. Not because he took a principle with a certain degree of truth and made an over-generalisation with it, but because he couldn't blow such an incredibly bad comparison out of the water with ease.
What bother me though is how many times did he give that exact same speech to students who didn't know any better and just assumed that it was true because a high ranking professor had said it? So as these people leave college and become managers in IT, they'll carry the misconceptions that Professor Dvorak had placed in their heads.
Anyone who doesn't consider the difficulty (or lack thereof) with which an attacker can closely examine the inner workings of a piece of software to be a potential security issue, is an incompetent fool.
Just as an example, try moving AD objects using the command line tools provided.
Your problem is that you're trying to manage Windows infrastructure like you would UNIX infrastructure.
But take someone else's code, close it up, and sell it as your own, without attribution, then you have a problem. It amazes me that anyone can think this is unfair or unreasonable.
But that - protecting someone's GPLed code from being "closed up" - is not the GPL's purpose. The BSDL or LGPL do just as good a job.
The *GPL*'s purpose is to force _other people's_ code under the GPL, if they want to use someone's GPLed code, even if that GPLed code makes up only a tiny proportion of the entire product.
If you are a developer, the GPL is not about what you want to happen to *your* code, it's about what you want to happen to *other people's* code. If you only want to protect *your* code, the BSDL, LGPL or similar will do the job just as well.
Which open source does so?
Pretty much all of it. People advocating the GPL tend to be the worst, however, since they are inherently more interested in influencing other people's code than their own (because, if they weren't, they wouldn't be using the GPL).
Or haven't you noticed how frequently "you have access to the source" is put forward as an advantage of open source software ?
There are potentially _significant_and_far_reaching_ effects of using closed licensed source code too.
Straw man. The source code for closed-source products is neither easily available nor, more importantly, advertised as being usable.
Where do those "disingenuous comparisions" come from?
People like you. You made one just a few sentences ago, trying to pretend that source code for open-source and closed-source has similar availability and, hence, using either has similar legal considerations.
Which completely misses the point. What I meant is, FOSS tools are safe to use in an environment where one wants to produce non-FOSS final products of any kind, including software, as long as the final products do not include any part of the original FOSS tool.
Does a shared library count as a "tool" ?
GPL-style is an economic incentive for corporations to act nice (help others or don't sell your "enhanced" version).
The GPL is an economic incentive for corporations to continue reinventing the wheel, so as to retain a competitive advantage in their software.
It is a _legal_ "incentive" to "play nice", assuming you believe that "playing nice" entails GPLing their own work.
BSD is no such thing.
True 'nuff. The BSDL's purpose is to create a widespread library of source code for general use, something the GPL almost specifically tries to avoid.
To be fair, I don't expect a manager beyond a certain level to understand the complexities of libraries and linking and 'derived work' and patent clauses or whatnot.
You should. It's their job (even if they often don't realise it).
I'm not going to try and argue the average manager *does* understand this sort of thing, however, they most certainly _should_ and you should endeavour to place yourself into a position (assuming you aren't shooting for management yourself) where you are working under someone who, at the very least, understands the principles which underly modern software, even if they are not a coder themselves.
Those of you changing jobs should be sure - assuming you aren't job searching under any sort of duress - to talk to the person who will be your manager and, ideally the person who will be his manager. Try to assess their technical knowledge. Probe principles, not specific implementations. Only take a job when you are comfortable that your boss and, ideally, his boss, have at least a broad understanding of what it entails on a technical level.
So once again: where is the novelty of the case so company's lawyers can cry "fire, fire!" when talking about open source that were not the same with all closed source they don't cry "fire, fire!" about?
Because closed-source code doesn't try to pretend it is available for source-level availability, as open-source frequently does.
There are potentially _significant_ and _far reaching_ effects of using GPLed source code in other software that are frequently glossed over by its advocates. Corporate legal departments are right to be wary of these implications as they could potentially have a large detrimental effect on key technologies and competitive advantages.
Disingenuous comparisons with using source code from closed-source products will not change this, not matter how frequently they are made. Closed-source products typically do not even try to pretend their source is available for viewing, let alone possible use.
Using an open source tool and modifying it are two deeply different things.
Not while "linking" and "modifying" remain synonymous, they're not.
Added to which, the GPL - probably the most popular OSS license - does not require "modification" to apply its restrictions, it merely requires "inclusion".
[...] two main file servers (2x250gb sata raid 0 each) [...]
So what you're saying is neither of your fileservers have any important data on them ?
As long as Samba 4 doesn't do AD LIKE Microsoft has done it, i.e., ridiculously complicated horseshit...
Huh ? Compared to what, is AD "ridiculously complicated" ?
Something else you might want to consider are the things Windows will do that Samba does not (or, at least, does not do without lots of hacking around).
Two of these are DFS Replication (DFSR) and Volume SnapShots (VSS).
We are currently in the process of evaluation a replacement for our aging fileserver plus some sort of centralised, SAN-like storage. Two of the leading candidates are Sun's 5320 and IBM's N5200 which offer access for clients via both network (CIFS, NFS, etc) and block-level (iSCSI, FC). Several branch offices are also in the same situation, although they lack the need for block-level, centralised disk.
However, neither of them support DFSR (nor does any other non-Windows based NAS device from what I can gather). They do both have replication technologies of their own, but those are just as expensive (additional US$8k-ish) - if not more so - than just buying a dedicated Windows fileserver to connect to the SAN/NAS device via iSCSI.
Then there's the snapshotting, which Samba doesn't do on its own (but you can hack together something, depending on the host OS). VSS in Windows is trivial to enable, very simple to use and works quite well. It's primary benefit is to reduce the overheads on support staff from users "accidentally" deleting things and needing them restored - something they are now able to do themselves, rather than weighing down support staff with those requests. It can also be used for simplifying backup procedures. (Any decent NAS device will also have some sort of snapshotting functionality).
With regards to Samba in general, we use it fairly extensively on a per-host basis to allow easy access to certain parts of the filesystem for certain staff. I've experimented with it in the past on an AD level and successfully gotten it working, but the overhead for setup is non-trivial, especially if you want things like UIDs to match up across different machines.
Simple setups in Samba and Windows are simple. More complex (Active Directory integration, especially with multiple servers) are also fairly simple in Windows, but relatively much more difficult with Samba. If you're looking at the latter - *especially if you're not already an expert* - you'll probably need almost a complete person full-time to work with it during the implementation phase.
The simple version is this: software and hardware are cheap, people-time is expensive (this is a concept a *lot* of technically oriented people - myself included - have significant difficulty a) grasping and b) remembering). In all likelihood, you will use substantially more people-time - especially in the earlier phases - with Samba than you will with Windows. That's where the "value" of Windows (or NAS appliances) comes in - saving people-time $$$. If you're already a Samba expert, OTOH, the people-time aspect of the equation will be substantially different and you can compare largely on features. However, banging out a good, manageable, sustainable, reliable AD-integrated Samba infrastructure is something that will take on the order of weeks unless you already know what you're doing and have done it before. Your boss has a very poor argument against Samba, but do not kid yourself that good arguments against Samba do not exist.
The link you provided did nothing to back up your assertion.
On the contrary:
(The suit was _later_ expanded to include Intel and Microsoft.)
If you don't recall - you said MS unwittingly bought stolen goods, from (presumably) Canyon, the 'fence' was Intel and MS were the poor unwitting buyer of what they believed to be completely legitimate.
I said nothing of the sort. I said they *may have* been sold infringing code and used it without being aware of its legal standing, based on my recollection of a *10 year old* court case.
This was in response to your implication that Microsoft - and only Microsoft - had engaged in some sort of industrial espionage against Apple.
Clearly, my recollection was more accurate, even with its flaws.
Just to refresh your memory, you said:
Your deceptive and selective quoting does not change what actually happened. I made that comment in response to one of yours, as an _analogy_ to a possible scenario, not an assertion of actual events (since, at the time, I was working with decade-old memories).
You fucking retarded little monkey.
How unsurprising that a biased, dishonest, deceitful individual like you ultimately resorts to the ad hominem. Still, if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out.
Huh? Here's 7of7's journal entry in full. Tell me how the middle part I left out of the quote makes it (in your words) "deceptive, selective, out-of-context":
Firstly, because you didn't clearly indicate you had removed text.
Secondly, because the removed text changes the tone of the message.
Sounds entirely negative to me. Can't find a single laurel in all of that.
How about:
Which are, at worst, neutral. Personally I would certainly interpret them as positive ("great new window manager").
Seems to be a quite reasonable post from some who went in well informed, found a few positive features, but those were outweighed by a lot of negatives, then related it to similar prior experiences.
In my experience any slashdotter, no matter what their camp, is shot down if there is a hole in their argument. Calling people names and not backing up your claims wastes everyone's time and convinces no one.
Completely irrelevant. The discussion wasn't about people being "shot down" in replies, it was about them posting content that was either "absolutely positive" or "absolutely negative" and how "nobody but advertising copywriters speak in those sort of extremes". I was merely pointing out that a significant proportion of postings to Slashdot praising Linux and/or criticising Microsoft typically have content with "those sort of extremes".
Yes and asking my grandmother to manipulate files and directories into an orderly fashion (especially a directory that is hidden from her by default) is not a user-friendly system.
Fortunate, then, that I'm doing nothing of the sort.
However, even if I was, you'd still be wrong in your assertion above, as the Start Menu folder is not hidden by default.
Uh...uh...wanna bet? Ever hear of Vista?
You'll need to be a bit more specific as to exactly what the hell you're on about. I'm no Vista expert, but I'm assuming the Start Menu is still contained in a directory full of shortcuts and other directories.
You and I have extremely different software installation experiences. Heck, I don't think that MS-Office (at least v. 2003) let's you choose where to put its icons.
99% means there's 1% that doesn't. The vast, vast majority of software I've ever installed, has asked at some point during the installation what "Start Menu Group" to put its icons in.
You obviously don't understand that "user" in the phrase user friendly does not consist solely of you, me, and the rest of us slashbots.
Then explain how it can be easier than opening Start Menu -> All Programs, grabbing an icon with the mouse and dragging it to where you would prefer it to be.
I didn't say get rid of "all users". I explicitly stated the "shortcut dupes issues". Surely you understand the problems that exist when a user has the same shortcuts as "all users" does, and then the user manipulates their start menu icon locations??? Or do you also consider this to be user friendly?
I'm struggling to see a reasonable chain of events where that will happen. Especially to the class of user you're talking about.
Again, "user friendly" does not mean "direct file system manipulation". Grandma don't get the whole "directory tree" concept, nor "root", "c-colon", "hidden files", "system directories", yada-yada-yada. The fact that the implementation of something is as straight forward as a directory structure and a bunch of wanna-be-symlinks does not detract from the fact that Grandma just don't get this stuff (nor the executive at my office, or her admin assistant, or the guy down the street who should have bought himself a Mac but went for a MS-Windows box because "everyone does", ...)
Why do you think "Grandma" needs to know a thing about directory structures, hidden file, drive letters, or the like ? You don't need to know anything about any of them to manipulate the Start Menu and Quicklaunch bars.
You'll need to be a bit more helpful. Like actually saying *why* the current system is broken and, more productively, suggesting ways it could be improved, rather than assuming I can read your mind to figure out what you mean (as opposed to what you're actually posting).
I see maybe a dozen DHCP answers already, so I'll just pick on this one. If he's asking for that large a block, DHCP almost certainly isn't an answer. Fixed IP addresses on a per server basis is important in some environments, especially managed server environments in which security is tied to specific addresses.
Using DHCP does not preclude tying certain IPs to certain machines. You simply create a MAC <-> IP mapping and your DHCP client will always get the same IP.
I make this point because a hell of a lot of people seem to assume that DHCP == "changing IPs".
force installers to let the user choose where on the start menu items are to go
Ultimately, the Start Menu is just a collection of directories and shortcuts in the filesystem. Not much the OS can do to stop installers manipulating it. Added to that, 99% of installers _already_ let the user decide where to put their icons.
allow users to quickly and easily re-organize the Start menu
You can drag and drop program folders and icons. How much easier do you want it ?
get rid of the "all users" vs "my" shortcut dupes issues (i.e. reorganize the "my" folder and now you have dupe links because the "all users" links are in the original location
"All Users" exists for a perfectly valid reason.
improve the MRU and quick-pick lists so that users can easily discover and use them
They're *right there on the Start Menu*. How much easier can it get ?
(Judging by the number of "advanced" users who turn them both off at the first opportunity, I would have thought the problem was that they were too obvious, not that they were difficult to find.)
improve the Quick Launch toolbar, again more discoverable and easier to organize/clean up
Again, drag & drop stuff into (and out of) it. How much easier can it be ?
Rustle up a link.
Here.
If MS are as blameless as you say, Apple shouldn't have been able to get the concessions they did.
I never said Microsoft were "blameless", I said they may not be quite the villian you would like them to be.
As one of the other posters said, nothing is perfect, yet 7of7's Vista comments were absolutely positive and their Ubuntu comments absolutely negative. Nobody but advertising copywriters speak in those sort of extremes.
Ignoring for a second his comments about Ubuntu weren't "completely negative" (although your deceptive, selective, out-of-context quoting of his journal makes that unclear), that would make 90% of the pro-Linux and anti-Microsoft content on Slashdot the product of "advertising copywriters". I had no idea the OSS community had so much money to throw around that they could waste it on that sort of thing...
Right (and that's what I always do), but only if you visit the website. I wasn't discussing that. I was discussing the Automatic Updates feature built into the System widget in the Windows XP control panel, which gives you only four options for auto-updating (and "Custom" isn't one of them.)
If you are using the "Download and Install Later" option (from Control Panel - Automatic Updates), when you get the balloon reminder and the little yellow shield icon that there are updates available, in the subsequent dialog box that opens (where you click the "Update" button to do the "Installing Later" part), there is a "Custom" radio button that turns the "Update" button into a "Next" and allows you to select which updates you do (or don't) want to install.
This has nothing to do with the Windows Update website. It's part of the built-in Automatic Updates tool (and always has been, IIRC).
Anytime somebody on the net unequivocally praises something, or has only strawman objections, odds on its a lying marketing asshole.
So you're saying 90% of Linux advocacy and Microsoft criticism is from "marketing assholes" ?