Who should be held responsible --- software companies or hackers? Will it take major lawsuit to change the thinking of businesses?
What would happen if a large corporation sued another large corporation for a security weakness that was exploited and caused damage (loss of data / bad publicity / etc.)? Once other corporate lawyers begin to smell the blood, do you think this would force software manufactures to pay attention to security during the design stage?
Although various white-hat hacker groups (Oops! network security experts) continue expose design flaws and security weaknesses in numerous software products, government spokespersons and the media contine to blame "hackers" for all the nation's woes. Some news reports would have us believe that "hackers" can collapse etire economies with a single mouse-click.
Government agencies promise to prosecute "to the full extent of the law" a teenager that "hacks" into a non-classified, non-critical web site without even questioning the company that provides the flawed software. Operating systems and applications are purchased without a thought to security issues, yet companies are able to demand that those programs be "Y2K-compliant".
Imagine that a large company installed a security system in hundreds of banks across the country, but it was soon discovered (and widely publicized for years) that the alarms do not work from midnight to 1:00 a.m.! Suppose a criminal broke in and stole $249 dollars. Where would your efforts be expended? In prosecuting the the petty thief, the security company or both? Certainly not the thief alone?!
When a company decides to pre-install a distribution of Linux on its systems, it is making a business decision with various motives (usually profit) in mind. Red Hat seems to be one of the few Linux distributions that provides reassurances needed by other profit-driven organizations.
Who will provide drivers that match system hardware?
Who will give reasonable assurances that software upgrades will be released on-time?
Who will provide customer support?
What is most familiar to the public (and will potentially help increase sales)?
These are a few of the questions a hardware vendor must ask when selecting an OS to pre-install. Of course, some of those points outweigh others in the minds of profit-driven businesspersons. Micro$oft produces software that is notoriously late and is extremely buggy. (". . . most glitches are caused by poorly written drivers . .." Yeah, right!) But system manufacturers install Micro$tuff anyway because they are forced . . . (OOPS!!!) I mean, because they feel that packaging a system with Win95/98 or NT will have a greater sales impact than shipping the same system with OS/2 or BeOS!
In the Linux community, only Red Hat consistently exceeds the criteria needed to justify the business decision for pre-installation, with the expectation of increased sales! Debian may be technically superior in some ways, but its non-profit nature makes the organization a bad choice for people who only see dollar signs. On the other hand, I wonder what promises the Red Hat guys are making that they know they can't deliver. If the Mad Hatters fall short of expectations, how bad will it damage the reputation of Linux as a whole in the business community?
But things could be much worse! Broup Bull SA and those other new Linux software providers and box-builders in the news could have signed agreements with CALDERA ! ! !
In this current system of things, death is a sad, tragic, and yet common aspect of life. But when you have several family members to die of various types of cancer and heart disease in a few short years, your view of the world will begin to take on a slightly different shape.
The attitude of one of my close family members is to make all decisions "dead seriously," seldom smiling, and criticizing others as "inappropriate" and uncaring when they do not share her dark, somber view of the world.
Others (including myself) take the attitude of the song lyrics above:
"How are you supposed to live
If you're afraid to die? When I pass away, Party --- don't cry!"
Not everyone agrees with that attitude, but it keeps me from going insane.
Star Trek was a GREAT series, and DeForest did a superb job defining the character of Dr. McCoy. But for all it was (and continues to be), Star Trek was a TELEVISION SHOW! Despite its lofty themes and subtexts, there is still greed, war, crime and racism in the world --- some acts even being committed by computer literate persons who love the show. It ENTERTAINED people. Period. That is how Bones made a living. And if you have never personally eaten dinner with him, I doubt that you know what HE would have considered as inappropriate.
Oh, great. Now you've got me sounding like my sister!
What did you expect! He was a HUMAN, not a LINUX SERVER, Jim!
When someone of that reputation dies, it makes you realize just how truly forward-thinking Star Trek was. Almost forty years later, and the series (theme/characters) still generates a crowd. I think the success of Dr. McCoy (Star Trek as a whole) was that it was about people, and not about "technology for technology's sake."
Anyone have favorite episodes? A favorite movie line?
A recent article in Sm@rtReseller magazine talked about where IBM and HP are finding their Linux gurus. Here are a few interesting quotes:
"Most Linux guys don't want to go and work for the IBMs . . . IBM and HP are probably grabbing a couple of retread Unix guys from HP-UX or somewhere else" and calling it Linux support. --- Arthur Tyde, president of LinuxCare
Do Linux gurus blend into IBM's "Big Blue" mentality? Can they work with HP's service sector? A relative of mine programmed at an IBM plant in Kentucky over a decade ago, and he was very pleased with their flexibility in dealing with employees from a variety of backgrounds. I have heard from others, too, that IBM has relaxed its strict personnel rules over the past few years. But can they integrate Linux developers into their fold?
If salary and benefit packages were identical, would would you guys work for IBM, or would you prefer another company?
The Sm@rtReseller magazine article I mentioned was on May 17, page 22. "Channel Surf: Calling All Hippies" was the name of the article. They have a web page (www.smartreseller.com), but I can't find a link to this article! Oh, well . . .
THE POINT: Technology will filter down!
on
Rugged Laptops
·
· Score: 3
Several posts mention the "old" rugged laptops which have been used by certain military servicemen for years. But they were usually off-the-shelf laptops retrofitted to meet various durability standards and resold to the military. However, this article points to a relatively new trend: a MAJOR VENDOR has a line of laptops specifically designed for harsh environments that is available to the general public.
The technology, materials and manufacturing processes used by these laptops will eventually filter through the channel to other vendors (who will copy them once they see the demand --- and smell money to be made) and then down to slightly less expensive models.
Of course, I don't really think that these rugged electronic lunchboxes will ever be needed by the "general public." If you are stupid enough to drive your Hummer over your laptop (warranty or not), you should not be allowed to roam around in public. And if you can afford a Hummer, you probably won't be worried about a notebook's price or the loss of data!
What's the going rate: 3 heavy-duty laptops = 2 Hummer wiper blades = 1/2 tank of Hummer-grade gas? But I must admit: dropping a laptop 6 feet and using it afterwards is COOL!
Yet another Link to Bookmark!
on
Linux.com Debut
·
· Score: 2
Yet another site to add to my hotlist of web pages! But I am concerned about a few statements on their page:
"The over-commercialization of the Linux.com domain is not what VA feels is best for Linux.com or the Linux community in general. VA has always been proud of its role in the Linux community and continues to do whatever it can to forward Linux towards commercial acceptance and world domination."
What is the goal of VA Linux Systems for this site? Are they fighting against "over-commercialism" or for "commercial acceptance"?
My understanding of that statement is that VA will host this site out of good will, using it ONLY to benefit the Linux community as a whole. Information found on LINUX.COM will NOT favor any particular distribution, vendor and/or commercial endeavor over another. All of VA's sales and marketing campaigns will be confined to other sites.
Is that what they mean? Is is really possible? Since VA is hosting this site, will they allow posting of information that criticizes their systems? How will banner ads (if any) be selected ?
If you twist and rotate the "V" and "A" in the VA logo, you end up with a great big "M" . . . or perhaps I just need some sleep. I will check the site again in six hours or so!
Because the computing world changes so rapidly, it is IMPOSSIBLE to learn everything about a modern, multi-tasking, multi-user operating system by simple by trial-and-error!
For simple tasks on a non-critical (home) machine, spending hours to learn one command may be acceptable. But in a business environment, taking that kind of action when numerous manuals are available is irresponsible! It makes people question your level of competence, and it encourages the faulty thinking that UNIX is too complicated (compared to Windows NT).
The "UNIX Way of Thinking" offers a variety of tools and encourages you to use the right tool(s) for the job. I think of a good UNIX manual as simply another tool to add to my toolkit. It's another weapon in my admin arsenal. To deny the value of books is to potentially waste several productive hours!
What's needed is a machine on which (at first your all alone) you can try things. The more you try the more you learn. If it take 2 hours to solve a pb then You'll remember the thing in a much better way than by just reading a book and finding a solution in that book.
If I follow your suggestions, I will also remember "in a much better way" how I was fired as the secretary simply picked up an O'Reilly manual and solved the problem!
Red Hat has recently made efforts to fully support various open source projects and Linux consortiums. Instead of bundling huge chunks of proprietary code in their distribution (a la Caldera), the advancements of the Red Hat team often benefit the entire Linux community.
Let the guys at Red Hat get their foot in the door. Then a herd of Penguins behind them will kick it wide open!
It is GREAT to see another vendor certifying a line of PCs as Linux-ready! As Linux gets more and more visible corporate backing, the entire computing community will improve with increased OS Competition and Choice.
Linux tends to suffer from the "Chicken or the Egg" Syndrome: Major IT department heads do not request Linux-equipped boxes for mass deployment because major vendors do not certify it, and (until recently) major vendors do not Linux-certify their equipment because major customers do not request it! Until we get both the Chicken AND the Egg, Linux will continue to suffer from a lack of open corporate acceptance.
The Linux community should acknowledge Toshiba's choice of the Red Hat as a ligitimate business decision. To protect their careers, IT buyers often must justify their purchases. In the Linux community, it is much easier to make a business case with the Red Hat distribution than any other version. Remember, IT heads report to CEOs who are MBAs and accountants, not technicians and network admins. They listen when you say that "IBM and Oracle back it" and "Dell installs it". They don't really care what you feel about non-business-related technical advantages or customizable options.
Don't be upset that Toshiba chose the Red Hat distribution over your personal favorite! Spread the word that yet another vendor wakes up and acknowldges Linux as a viable OS choice!
iNAX: Where do you want to go after you eat today?
What is it about Apple products that sparks creative juices in people? Does anyone remember similar takes on PCs? (Not simply jokes, but imaginative products incorporating beige boxes.)
Are there any household appliances that don't have inbedded chips? Are there any products that will not have chips in the future? We have already have bathroom faucets that turn on when you place your hands underneath them. What's left?
Ok, ok! Your points are well made! Let me get this straight: CPUs with silicon SUBSTRATES and aluminum INTERCONNECTS are fashionable today, but IBM has announced plans to produce them with copper interconnects in the near future. Is that better? I realize that if I am brave enough to post a comment, I should also be smart enough to double-check all technical issues I rave about. My mistake!
But you seemed to back me up when you mentioned special-purpose computers:
Because of its narrow function, the "TWINKLE" box will likely have a much cleaner, simpler design . ..
This is true of any special-purpose computer. What of it?. See Deep Crack for an example, or look at DSP designs (they elminate a lot of the scheduling cruft that conventional chips have, with the cost of requiring the compiler to optimize code for them).
"What of it?" My thoughts were that as a special-purpose computer, the hopefully more efficient design of the "TWINKLE" box would off-set the size increase of various optical components. You know: "Six in one hand, a half-a-dozen in the other . .." But PLEASE don't quote me on that! I have been wrong before!:)
Frankly, I'm surprised you didn't ask about my magical GigaHertz Ethernet technology! I think I'll just skip GigaBit technology altogether! And you criticized my comments on Optical technology? Wait until you hear about my new Local Audible Network! With GigaHertz Ethernet, I will have the fastest and the loudest network on the block!
Thanks for the correction: silicon-based chips with copper substrates, NOT copper-based chips.
But you're still thinking in terms of current CPU manufacturing processes!
. . . They would be bulkier, and wouldn't be faster, because while electrical signals propagate slower than light, they would have a much shorter distance to travel. If you try using light with a much shorter wavelength, you wind up destroying your substrate (the photon energy must remain lower than the energy required to dislodge an atom in in the device).
An electro-optical device does not use a silicon substrate, nor does it need the interconnect metals that we see today. Furthermore, the materials used for the device's internal parts and casing allow researchers to experiment with light wavelengths outside the visible spectrum.
But remember: Prof. Shamir's theoretical device is NOT A CPU! It is an "electro-optical sieving device" --- an entire computational machine designed to perform a specific mathematical process. Because of its narrow function, the "TWINKLE" box will likely have a much cleaner, simpler design than CPUs used today for similar computations. Just looks at current electro-optical devices used for various computing needs today: they have simple, elegant designs, fewer parts and are often smaller than their fully electrical counterparts operating at the same data transmission rates.
It's hard to compare apples to penguins. I don't even think penguins like apples!
Although Prof. Shamir's device is still a theoretical one, it is based on existing technology. That is what makes his paper so important!
Today's "conventional PC" uses silicon-based CPU technology, but that will change in a few years when IBM begins to mass-produce copper-based chips. A change in material design allows slimmer, faster, cheaper CPUs to be manufactured. The idea of copper chips has been around for decades; IBM is the first private-sector organization to release operational details to the public. This has no bearing on military technology, which is usually several steps ahead of what is publicly available.
An "electro-optical" computational device is the next paradign shift in computer engineering. By transmitting data via light (LEDs!!!), the current CPU problems with heat, electromagnetic interference (EMI) and wafer size all disappear.
REALITY CHECK: High-speed "electro-optical" data transmission devices already exist! Businesses around the world use GigaHertz Ethernet, Fiber-Channel devices and various fiber optic lines every day. Various military organizations are far ahead of the game in high-speed communications. True, these devices work in entirely different ways than does a CPU. But the theory of electro-optical devices has been reality for years!
The problem facing researchers today is miniturization: shrinking currently know timing and data switching designs to CPU-scale size, or creating new optical gates and relays that defy "conventional wisdom" to leap past today's hurdles. But, of course, this is the challenge of non-classified researchers. Who knows what goodies the NSA has cooked up! Interestingly, Robert Silverman of the RSA stated that the device is practical! And $5000 is a bargain to government agencies! A 10-pack of floppy disks use to cost them more that that!:)
So Prof. Shamir's little "TWINKLE" box may be here sooner that we think! In the meantime, I think I'll change my PGP keys . . . to 4096 bits!
Thanks for insight on the Beowulf project at Amerada Hess. And thanks for posting the dsh script that you guys used.
I have a few more questions:
Were there any negative aspects on implementing the Beowulf cluster? Management tools, documentation, etc.?
What things would you like to see improved in Linux in general?
Why the Red Hat distribution? Do you consider its RPMs better than Debian or SuSe installation methods, or were there other reasons for this choice?
Have you heard IBM's reaction?
These questions are not intended to be Flame-bait material! I have examined various distributions for smaller projects, and I would like your opinion on why Red Hat was used. I have a couple of "business case" reasons for recommending Red Hat to certain clients, but I am wondering if there were any other technical or support-related issues involved in your decision.
When a piece of music (or software) is created, in this country it is the intellectual property of its creator. When another person makes use of that property (by playing the music or running the application), it is the legal right of the owner to require some form of credit for such use. Such "credit" commonly takes the form of monetary compensation in the Western world, but that is always the case. However, the creator's legal right to control use of his private property (even intellectual property existing in the form of digital data) remains in effect for quite some time! Unless the creator has given up ownership, he has the right to sue others for violation of his restrictions on use of said property.
When a musical score is created and sent to a company for CD/tape mastering, distribution and selling, the owner of that music wants credit in the form of money and recognition. To obtain an illegal copy of the music (a bootlegged CD, MP3 download, etc.) is a violation of the intellectual property rights of the owner because the strict guidelines set forth in his contract with the record company/distributor/etc. has not been followed.
If a painting was illegally copied, there would be no question as to the painter's rights. A novelist would also demand compensation in a case of plagerism. One of the definitions of "plagerism" is "to use the work of another without giving credit." (Literary plagerism is simply the most common form of it.) Data piracy is plagerism, which is a form of theft.
In the case of Duel of the Fates, it was stolen while apparently in the possession of the distributors. Lucasfilm may be able to sue their distributors for the loss of potential record sales due to inadequate security around their product. That is why the RIAA stepped in.
What if it were YOUR code? As I stated before, you would feel differently if you had created something of value and another person copied it without giving you the "credit" you deserve and demand up front --- name recognition, monetary compensation or anything else you ask for. That's the law in this country!
I honetstly don't think a lawsuit will be possible for EDS. Some suspect that EDS approved of a Win98 upgrade for other reasons . . .
A client ("MS Developer") like EDS has the "inside scoop" on quite a bit of Micro$oft planning. An earlier posting to this article stated that the fellow at EDS "must be the most dumb CIO in the world" if he believed the Micro$oft hype. (See "Vapourware vs Win95 Y2K patch" posted above.) To become CIO of EDS, he probably wasn't that ignorant! Just GREEDY!
There are many under-the-table deals that take place in the world of purchasing --- especially when it comes to computers. Lots of money can be made by a manager who chooses to buy 10,000 licenses from Vendor X instead of Vendor Y, or by "upgrading" from Version 99 to Version 2000. In too many cases, no one dares to extensively questions a senior official why this product is better or why that upgrade is needed. No one bothers to ask who paid the bill for this dinner or that trip. (Oops! I mean "seminar"!) And when Micro$oft recommends it . . . Well you know the saying: "You can't go wrong if you buy Micro$oft." (They used to say that about IBM!)
In early January 1999, Micro$oft issued their first patch for Win95 Y2K errors. Although it had a "Compliant with Minor Issues" rating, many businesses chose to keep the OS since Y2K testing had started or was completed. And the "Minor Issues" involved were insignificant to most desktop users! Even power users! It is possible that the decision of EDS to upgrade to Win98, a release of a second (and supposedly complete) Win95 Y2K patch, and the quick resignation of the CIO of EDS had to do with some extra incentives (monetary or in some other form). The CEO, CFO and/or other board members discovered his backdoor dealings and forced his "resignation". But because EDS has encouraged their clients to upgrade all sorts of software over the past few years, its best to keep the incident as quiet as possible.
Who knows why he really resigned? Perhaps a Linux guru showed the CEO how he could have used kernel 2.2 and saved hundreds of thousands on Wintel server downtime! One day there might be a saying: "You can't go wrong by installing Linux!"
Only a monopoly can treat its customers is such a careless manner and get away with it! Other computer companies are either fixing their flawed applications free of charge, or are in court because of customer demands. Even IBM has been to court because of Y2K-related litigation, and they are huge!
Q: How can Micro$oft sell faulty OS software, tell major business partners to upgrade to the latest version (with all new Y2K flaws), then issue patches for the old version once people have jumped onto the "upgrade path" bandwagon?
A: They are THE MONOPOLY VENDOR in the desktop PC OS marketplace.
Let's be honest. Although Linux is making great strides on the desktop, it still has a LONG way to go before I will recommend it to most of my clients everyday for desktop use. I have even seen tips for troubleshooting Linux that instruct the user to (1)download an app or script onto your Windows machine; (2)copy the data to disk; and (3)transfer it to Linux to get your modem, ISP connection, etc. working properly! Can you imagine Micro$oft saying: "Power up your Mac, Linux or Be box in order to get your Wintel PC working" ??? NOT HAPPENING!
Micro$oft's Y2K fiasco would not happen if it didn't exercise monopolistic rights on the computing community. But the strength of a Windows desktop is that it makes the user feel and think he knows what he is doing even when he doesn't. Linux is not there . . . yet!
However, should the government step in and change things? Can Linux (or any new OS) compete on its own merits? Remember, Micro$oft has not yet begun to fight Linux with all its resources.
If you have already read plot synopses, then you know much more than what a 4-minute video will tell! True, music adds to the FEEL of the story. But it does not tell the story itself. You needs words - from a plot synopsis, a book or actual movie dialog - for that. Putting two of them together - a synopsis with music - does kind of ruin some of the surprise. But somehow I think you will still enjoy the film.
Everyone knows that a C2 security rating is low on the list. But frankly, Micro$oft has taken the time (and money) to do something that other vendors should also do.
How many of you think that a "Network Certification" (CNA, CNE, MCP, MCSE) reallly means anything? It is no guarantee to an employer, but it is helpful to a job applicant that needs an edge to stand out from the rest of the crowd! Likewise, Micro$oft has excelled at what it does best: Great PR! C2 Certification doesn't merit much technical praise, but its goal is not to impress technicians! When the procurement agent for a large organization has to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars on OS software, which is easier to justify to the Pointy Haired Bosses? One with a "NSA Level C2 Security Rating" or one without it?
Not all OSes are created equal. NT certainly has a ton of weaknesses right out of the box. But so does every distribution of Linux, as well as every flavor of Unix (except specially modified versions known as "secure" or "trusted" UNIX). The common versions of Unix that populate most business and educational organizations are NOT the secure versions offered by their vendors. That is why they can be hacked so easily! But why didn't IBM release "Trusted OS/2 Warp 4"? And where is VA Research "Trusted Linux 9.0"? When will we see Dell/Red Hat's "Trusted Linux 7.0"? Although a C2 security rating isn't the greatest, it is NOT that easy to achieve! Or else, other OSes would be rated, too.
However, a C2-rated box is different from a reliable network. Regardless of the OS, what makes a network great is the work of a great administrator! I have happy customers running Linux and NT boxes. They smile, not because of the vendor's promises, but because of the knowledge I applied to their individual networks.
Work to make Linux better, including "C2 Certification", if needed! Don't waste time responding to every Micro$oft press release!
Piracy comes in many forms --- illegally copying software from a friend, stealing source-code from other programmers and taking the credit, and making MP3 files of copyrighted music, to name a few common practices. Most of the people I know that advocate any of these forms of piracy are NOT VERY CREATIVE themselves!
What if you had spent days, weeks or months coding, testing and debugging a new application. Shortly after completion, however, you find out that an associate has taken your executable code and posted it throught the Internet. How would you feel?
Attitudes change when you are the one doing all the work, intead of merely benefitting from someone else's creative efforts and years of experience. Data Piracy is Theft. That's the bottom line. An MP3-encoded sound track is NOT like source code that can be used as a teaching tool, modified and then turned into something even more effective. A stolen soundtrack (whether poorly dubbed onto cassette, CD or MP3) is a final product that belongs to someone.
Spend some time producing code that other people actually want, and sooner or later you may run across a "friend" who DECIDES FOR YOU that your right to ownership does not matter. It may open your eyes to the world of Intellectual Property and the U.S. legal system.
There is a difference: Open Source software is NOT "Open Season" software. Did the author give permission? Theft is Theft.
It's obvious to/. readers that most new stories from the mainstream press about Linux are going to have quite a few inaccurate statements. Some of us feel that any stories about Linux are a good thing. Others feel that to make mistakes - or spread outright FUD (like the Mindcraft "study") - does more harm to the entire computing environment of users, developers and administrators of all OS and system types.
But I want to know this: How do we change the news?
Do we e-mail articulate replies to the editors (instead of crashing their servers)? Do we send in our own well-written, thoroughly proofed and edited articles? (Not technical FAQs, but articles for mainstream readers and Micro$oft clones.) What is the best way to help technical journalists to produce accurate articles about Linux? One of the reasons why Micro$oft gets wonderful reviews is because it helps writers, editors and advertising directors in SO MANY WAYS$$$$.
What can we do? Appeal to honest, ethical reporters. (Yes, there are some.) And expose those "journalists" that are not.
So we all agree to disagree, right? Red Hat is great for newbies, but there are other distributions that users can install, depending on individual need. Isn't that what we all want? The CHOICE in OS fine-tuning that Micro$oft and certain vendors do not allow!
Perhaps the real problem with Red Hat is their logo - a red hat. Red is just too aggressive! Perhaps if they were "Grey Hat" or "Plaid Hat" or "Seuss Hat", their perception in the computing community would be much different. (What guy wears a red hat, anyway?)
Perhaps if I got some food and rest instead of reading all the previous/. comments, this reply would make sense. It might even be funny.
I love the entire series. But does it really encourage Creativity, or does the Star Wars series, like most movies and TV programs today, simply numb the viewer's mind and encourage us to sit and be entertained?
One of my favorite modern myth-tellers is Neil Gaiman of the Sandman graphic novel/comic book world. Somehow, Gaiman's work seems to challenge readers - whether casual or die-hard Sandman fans - to widen out and re-examine the original sources. But of all the people that have seen any of the Star Wars movies, very few are willing or able to discuss its religious or literary allusions. Most just want to sit and watch a "good" movie!
Lucas one of the best at what he does, but is what he does really in the best interests of the public?
(I will be pondering these thoughts while standing in line on the 19th.)
Slashdot Mirror
What would happen if a large corporation sued another large corporation for a security weakness that was exploited and caused damage (loss of data / bad publicity / etc.)? Once other corporate lawyers begin to smell the blood, do you think this would force software manufactures to pay attention to security during the design stage?
Although various white-hat hacker groups (Oops! network security experts) continue expose design flaws and security weaknesses in numerous software products, government spokespersons and the media contine to blame "hackers" for all the nation's woes. Some news reports would have us believe that "hackers" can collapse etire economies with a single mouse-click.
Government agencies promise to prosecute "to the full extent of the law" a teenager that "hacks" into a non-classified, non-critical web site without even questioning the company that provides the flawed software. Operating systems and applications are purchased without a thought to security issues, yet companies are able to demand that those programs be "Y2K-compliant".
Imagine that a large company installed a security system in hundreds of banks across the country, but it was soon discovered (and widely publicized for years) that the alarms do not work from midnight to 1:00 a.m.! Suppose a criminal broke in and stole $249 dollars. Where would your efforts be expended? In prosecuting the the petty thief, the security company or both? Certainly not the thief alone?!
What will force a change in thinking? Money?
- Who will provide drivers that match system hardware?
- Who will give reasonable assurances that software upgrades will be released on-time?
- Who will provide customer support?
- What is most familiar to the public (and will potentially help increase sales)?
These are a few of the questions a hardware vendor must ask when selecting an OS to pre-install. Of course, some of those points outweigh others in the minds of profit-driven businesspersons. Micro$oft produces software that is notoriously late and is extremely buggy. (". . . most glitches are caused by poorly written drivers . .In the Linux community, only Red Hat consistently exceeds the criteria needed to justify the business decision for pre-installation, with the expectation of increased sales! Debian may be technically superior in some ways, but its non-profit nature makes the organization a bad choice for people who only see dollar signs. On the other hand, I wonder what promises the Red Hat guys are making that they know they can't deliver. If the Mad Hatters fall short of expectations, how bad will it damage the reputation of Linux as a whole in the business community?
But things could be much worse! Broup Bull SA and those other new Linux software providers and box-builders in the news could have signed agreements with CALDERA ! ! !
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. For that one line by Ricardo Montebon! Nothing else comes close!
The attitude of one of my close family members is to make all decisions "dead seriously," seldom smiling, and criticizing others as "inappropriate" and uncaring when they do not share her dark, somber view of the world.
Others (including myself) take the attitude of the song lyrics above:
Not everyone agrees with that attitude, but it keeps me from going insane.
Star Trek was a GREAT series, and DeForest did a superb job defining the character of Dr. McCoy. But for all it was (and continues to be), Star Trek was a TELEVISION SHOW! Despite its lofty themes and subtexts, there is still greed, war, crime and racism in the world --- some acts even being committed by computer literate persons who love the show. It ENTERTAINED people. Period. That is how Bones made a living. And if you have never personally eaten dinner with him, I doubt that you know what HE would have considered as inappropriate.
Oh, great. Now you've got me sounding like my sister!
What did you expect! He was a HUMAN, not a LINUX SERVER, Jim!
When someone of that reputation dies, it makes you realize just how truly forward-thinking Star Trek was. Almost forty years later, and the series (theme/characters) still generates a crowd. I think the success of Dr. McCoy (Star Trek as a whole) was that it was about people, and not about "technology for technology's sake."
Anyone have favorite episodes? A favorite movie line?
If salary and benefit packages were identical, would would you guys work for IBM, or would you prefer another company?
The Sm@rtReseller magazine article I mentioned was on May 17, page 22. "Channel Surf: Calling All Hippies" was the name of the article. They have a web page (www.smartreseller.com), but I can't find a link to this article! Oh, well . . .
Several posts mention the "old" rugged laptops which have been used by certain military servicemen for years. But they were usually off-the-shelf laptops retrofitted to meet various durability standards and resold to the military. However, this article points to a relatively new trend: a MAJOR VENDOR has a line of laptops specifically designed for harsh environments that is available to the general public.
The technology, materials and manufacturing processes used by these laptops will eventually filter through the channel to other vendors (who will copy them once they see the demand --- and smell money to be made) and then down to slightly less expensive models.
Of course, I don't really think that these rugged electronic lunchboxes will ever be needed by the "general public." If you are stupid enough to drive your Hummer over your laptop (warranty or not), you should not be allowed to roam around in public. And if you can afford a Hummer, you probably won't be worried about a notebook's price or the loss of data!
What's the going rate: 3 heavy-duty laptops = 2 Hummer wiper blades = 1/2 tank of Hummer-grade gas?
But I must admit: dropping a laptop 6 feet and using it afterwards is COOL!
My understanding of that statement is that VA will host this site out of good will, using it ONLY to benefit the Linux community as a whole. Information found on LINUX.COM will NOT favor any particular distribution, vendor and/or commercial endeavor over another. All of VA's sales and marketing campaigns will be confined to other sites.
Is that what they mean? Is is really possible? Since VA is hosting this site, will they allow posting of information that criticizes their systems? How will banner ads (if any) be selected ?
If you twist and rotate the "V" and "A" in the VA logo, you end up with a great big "M" . . . or perhaps I just need some sleep. I will check the site again in six hours or so!
For simple tasks on a non-critical (home) machine, spending hours to learn one command may be acceptable. But in a business environment, taking that kind of action when numerous manuals are available is irresponsible! It makes people question your level of competence, and it encourages the faulty thinking that UNIX is too complicated (compared to Windows NT).
The "UNIX Way of Thinking" offers a variety of tools and encourages you to use the right tool(s) for the job. I think of a good UNIX manual as simply another tool to add to my toolkit. It's another weapon in my admin arsenal. To deny the value of books is to potentially waste several productive hours! If I follow your suggestions, I will also remember "in a much better way" how I was fired as the secretary simply picked up an O'Reilly manual and solved the problem!
Red Hat has recently made efforts to fully support various open source projects and Linux consortiums. Instead of bundling huge chunks of proprietary code in their distribution (a la Caldera), the advancements of the Red Hat team often benefit the entire Linux community.
Let the guys at Red Hat get their foot in the door. Then a herd of Penguins behind them will kick it wide open!
It is GREAT to see another vendor certifying a line of PCs as Linux-ready! As Linux gets more and more visible corporate backing, the entire computing community will improve with increased OS Competition and Choice.
Linux tends to suffer from the "Chicken or the Egg" Syndrome: Major IT department heads do not request Linux-equipped boxes for mass deployment because major vendors do not certify it, and (until recently) major vendors do not Linux-certify their equipment because major customers do not request it! Until we get both the Chicken AND the Egg, Linux will continue to suffer from a lack of open corporate acceptance.
The Linux community should acknowledge Toshiba's choice of the Red Hat as a ligitimate business decision. To protect their careers, IT buyers often must justify their purchases. In the Linux community, it is much easier to make a business case with the Red Hat distribution than any other version. Remember, IT heads report to CEOs who are MBAs and accountants, not technicians and network admins. They listen when you say that "IBM and Oracle back it" and "Dell installs it". They don't really care what you feel about non-business-related technical advantages or customizable options.
Don't be upset that Toshiba chose the Red Hat distribution over your personal favorite!
Spread the word that yet another vendor wakes up and acknowldges Linux as a viable OS choice!
iNAX: Where do you want to go after you eat today?
What is it about Apple products that sparks creative juices in people? Does anyone remember similar takes on PCs? (Not simply jokes, but imaginative products incorporating beige boxes.)
Are there any household appliances that don't have inbedded chips? Are there any products that will not have chips in the future? We have already have bathroom faucets that turn on when you place your hands underneath them. What's left?
But you seemed to back me up when you mentioned special-purpose computers: "What of it?" My thoughts were that as a special-purpose computer, the hopefully more efficient design of the "TWINKLE" box would off-set the size increase of various optical components. You know: "Six in one hand, a half-a-dozen in the other . .
Frankly, I'm surprised you didn't ask about my magical GigaHertz Ethernet technology! I think I'll just skip GigaBit technology altogether! And you criticized my comments on Optical technology? Wait until you hear about my new Local Audible Network! With GigaHertz Ethernet, I will have the fastest and the loudest network on the block!
But you're still thinking in terms of current CPU manufacturing processes! An electro-optical device does not use a silicon substrate, nor does it need the interconnect metals that we see today. Furthermore, the materials used for the device's internal parts and casing allow researchers to experiment with light wavelengths outside the visible spectrum.
But remember: Prof. Shamir's theoretical device is NOT A CPU! It is an "electro-optical sieving device" --- an entire computational machine designed to perform a specific mathematical process. Because of its narrow function, the "TWINKLE" box will likely have a much cleaner, simpler design than CPUs used today for similar computations. Just looks at current electro-optical devices used for various computing needs today: they have simple, elegant designs, fewer parts and are often smaller than their fully electrical counterparts operating at the same data transmission rates.
It's hard to compare apples to penguins. I don't even think penguins like apples!
Although Prof. Shamir's device is still a theoretical one, it is based on existing technology. That is what makes his paper so important!
:)
Today's "conventional PC" uses silicon-based CPU technology, but that will change in a few years when IBM begins to mass-produce copper-based chips. A change in material design allows slimmer, faster, cheaper CPUs to be manufactured. The idea of copper chips has been around for decades; IBM is the first private-sector organization to release operational details to the public. This has no bearing on military technology, which is usually several steps ahead of what is publicly available.
An "electro-optical" computational device is the next paradign shift in computer engineering. By transmitting data via light (LEDs!!!), the current CPU problems with heat, electromagnetic interference (EMI) and wafer size all disappear.
REALITY CHECK: High-speed "electro-optical" data transmission devices already exist! Businesses around the world use GigaHertz Ethernet, Fiber-Channel devices and various fiber optic lines every day. Various military organizations are far ahead of the game in high-speed communications. True, these devices work in entirely different ways than does a CPU. But the theory of electro-optical devices has been reality for years!
The problem facing researchers today is miniturization: shrinking currently know timing and data switching designs to CPU-scale size, or creating new optical gates and relays that defy "conventional wisdom" to leap past today's hurdles. But, of course, this is the challenge of non-classified researchers. Who knows what goodies the NSA has cooked up! Interestingly, Robert Silverman of the RSA stated that the device is practical! And $5000 is a bargain to government agencies! A 10-pack of floppy disks use to cost them more that that!
So Prof. Shamir's little "TWINKLE" box may be here sooner that we think! In the meantime, I think I'll change my PGP keys . . . to 4096 bits!
I have a few more questions:
- Were there any negative aspects on implementing the Beowulf cluster? Management tools, documentation, etc.?
- What things would you like to see improved in Linux in general?
- Why the Red Hat distribution? Do you consider its RPMs better than Debian or SuSe installation methods, or were there other reasons for this choice?
- Have you heard IBM's reaction?
These questions are not intended to be Flame-bait material! I have examined various distributions for smaller projects, and I would like your opinion on why Red Hat was used. I have a couple of "business case" reasons for recommending Red Hat to certain clients, but I am wondering if there were any other technical or support-related issues involved in your decision.Data piracy IS theft . . . just one form of it!
When a piece of music (or software) is created, in this country it is the intellectual property of its creator. When another person makes use of that property (by playing the music or running the application), it is the legal right of the owner to require some form of credit for such use. Such "credit" commonly takes the form of monetary compensation in the Western world, but that is always the case. However, the creator's legal right to control use of his private property (even intellectual property existing in the form of digital data) remains in effect for quite some time! Unless the creator has given up ownership, he has the right to sue others for violation of his restrictions on use of said property.
When a musical score is created and sent to a company for CD/tape mastering, distribution and selling, the owner of that music wants credit in the form of money and recognition. To obtain an illegal copy of the music (a bootlegged CD, MP3 download, etc.) is a violation of the intellectual property rights of the owner because the strict guidelines set forth in his contract with the record company/distributor/etc. has not been followed.
If a painting was illegally copied, there would be no question as to the painter's rights. A novelist would also demand compensation in a case of plagerism. One of the definitions of "plagerism" is "to use the work of another without giving credit." (Literary plagerism is simply the most common form of it.) Data piracy is plagerism, which is a form of theft.
In the case of Duel of the Fates, it was stolen while apparently in the possession of the distributors. Lucasfilm may be able to sue their distributors for the loss of potential record sales due to inadequate security around their product. That is why the RIAA stepped in.
What if it were YOUR code? As I stated before, you would feel differently if you had created something of value and another person copied it without giving you the "credit" you deserve and demand up front --- name recognition, monetary compensation or anything else you ask for. That's the law in this country!
I honetstly don't think a lawsuit will be possible for EDS. Some suspect that EDS approved of a Win98 upgrade for other reasons . . .
A client ("MS Developer") like EDS has the "inside scoop" on quite a bit of Micro$oft planning. An earlier posting to this article stated that the fellow at EDS "must be the most dumb CIO in the world" if he believed the Micro$oft hype. (See "Vapourware vs Win95 Y2K patch" posted above.) To become CIO of EDS, he probably wasn't that ignorant! Just GREEDY!
There are many under-the-table deals that take place in the world of purchasing --- especially when it comes to computers. Lots of money can be made by a manager who chooses to buy 10,000 licenses from Vendor X instead of Vendor Y, or by "upgrading" from Version 99 to Version 2000. In too many cases, no one dares to extensively questions a senior official why this product is better or why that upgrade is needed. No one bothers to ask who paid the bill for this dinner or that trip. (Oops! I mean "seminar"!) And when Micro$oft recommends it . . . Well you know the saying: "You can't go wrong if you buy Micro$oft." (They used to say that about IBM!)
In early January 1999, Micro$oft issued their first patch for Win95 Y2K errors. Although it had a "Compliant with Minor Issues" rating, many businesses chose to keep the OS since Y2K testing had started or was completed. And the "Minor Issues" involved were insignificant to most desktop users! Even power users! It is possible that the decision of EDS to upgrade to Win98, a release of a second (and supposedly complete) Win95 Y2K patch, and the quick resignation of the CIO of EDS had to do with some extra incentives (monetary or in some other form). The CEO, CFO and/or other board members discovered his backdoor dealings and forced his "resignation". But because EDS has encouraged their clients to upgrade all sorts of software over the past few years, its best to keep the incident as quiet as possible.
Who knows why he really resigned? Perhaps a Linux guru showed the CEO how he could have used kernel 2.2 and saved hundreds of thousands on Wintel server downtime! One day there might be a saying: "You can't go wrong by installing Linux!"
Only a monopoly can treat its customers is such a careless manner and get away with it! Other computer companies are either fixing their flawed applications free of charge, or are in court because of customer demands. Even IBM has been to court because of Y2K-related litigation, and they are huge!
Q: How can Micro$oft sell faulty OS software, tell major business partners to upgrade to the latest version (with all new Y2K flaws), then issue patches for the old version once people have jumped onto the "upgrade path" bandwagon?
A: They are THE MONOPOLY VENDOR in the desktop PC OS marketplace.
Let's be honest. Although Linux is making great strides on the desktop, it still has a LONG way to go before I will recommend it to most of my clients everyday for desktop use. I have even seen tips for troubleshooting Linux that instruct the user to (1)download an app or script onto your Windows machine; (2)copy the data to disk; and (3)transfer it to Linux to get your modem, ISP connection, etc. working properly! Can you imagine Micro$oft saying: "Power up your Mac, Linux or Be box in order to get your Wintel PC working" ??? NOT HAPPENING!
Micro$oft's Y2K fiasco would not happen if it didn't exercise monopolistic rights on the computing community. But the strength of a Windows desktop is that it makes the user feel and think he knows what he is doing even when he doesn't. Linux is not there . . . yet!
However, should the government step in and change things? Can Linux (or any new OS) compete on its own merits? Remember, Micro$oft has not yet begun to fight Linux with all its resources.
I wonder if anyone else feels this way?
NO!
If you have already read plot synopses, then you know much more than what a 4-minute video will tell! True, music adds to the FEEL of the story. But it does not tell the story itself. You needs words - from a plot synopsis, a book or actual movie dialog - for that. Putting two of them together - a synopsis with music - does kind of ruin some of the surprise. But somehow I think you will still enjoy the film.
See you on the 19th!!!
Everyone knows that a C2 security rating is low on the list. But frankly, Micro$oft has taken the time (and money) to do something that other vendors should also do.
How many of you think that a "Network Certification" (CNA, CNE, MCP, MCSE) reallly means anything? It is no guarantee to an employer, but it is helpful to a job applicant that needs an edge to stand out from the rest of the crowd! Likewise, Micro$oft has excelled at what it does best: Great PR! C2 Certification doesn't merit much technical praise, but its goal is not to impress technicians! When the procurement agent for a large organization has to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars on OS software, which is easier to justify to the Pointy Haired Bosses? One with a "NSA Level C2 Security Rating" or one without it?
Not all OSes are created equal. NT certainly has a ton of weaknesses right out of the box. But so does every distribution of Linux, as well as every flavor of Unix (except specially modified versions known as "secure" or "trusted" UNIX). The common versions of Unix that populate most business and educational organizations are NOT the secure versions offered by their vendors. That is why they can be hacked so easily! But why didn't IBM release "Trusted OS/2 Warp 4"? And where is VA Research "Trusted Linux 9.0"? When will we see Dell/Red Hat's "Trusted Linux 7.0"? Although a C2 security rating isn't the greatest, it is NOT that easy to achieve! Or else, other OSes would be rated, too.
However, a C2-rated box is different from a reliable network. Regardless of the OS, what makes a network great is the work of a great administrator! I have happy customers running Linux and NT boxes. They smile, not because of the vendor's promises, but because of the knowledge I applied to their individual networks.
Work to make Linux better, including "C2 Certification", if needed! Don't waste time responding to every Micro$oft press release!
Piracy comes in many forms --- illegally copying software from a friend, stealing source-code from other programmers and taking the credit, and making MP3 files of copyrighted music, to name a few common practices. Most of the people I know that advocate any of these forms of piracy are NOT VERY CREATIVE themselves!
What if you had spent days, weeks or months coding, testing and debugging a new application. Shortly after completion, however, you find out that an associate has taken your executable code and posted it throught the Internet. How would you feel?
Attitudes change when you are the one doing all the work, intead of merely benefitting from someone else's creative efforts and years of experience. Data Piracy is Theft. That's the bottom line. An MP3-encoded sound track is NOT like source code that can be used as a teaching tool, modified and then turned into something even more effective. A stolen soundtrack (whether poorly dubbed onto cassette, CD or MP3) is a final product that belongs to someone.
Spend some time producing code that other people actually want, and sooner or later you may run across a "friend" who DECIDES FOR YOU that your right to ownership does not matter. It may open your eyes to the world of Intellectual Property and the U.S. legal system.
There is a difference: Open Source software is NOT "Open Season" software. Did the author give permission? Theft is Theft.
It's obvious to /. readers that most new stories from the mainstream press about Linux are going to have quite a few inaccurate statements. Some of us feel that any stories about Linux are a good thing. Others feel that to make mistakes - or spread outright FUD (like the Mindcraft "study") - does more harm to the entire computing environment of users, developers and administrators of all OS and system types.
But I want to know this: How do we change the news?
Do we e-mail articulate replies to the editors (instead of crashing their servers)? Do we send in our own well-written, thoroughly proofed and edited articles? (Not technical FAQs, but articles for mainstream readers and Micro$oft clones.) What is the best way to help technical journalists to produce accurate articles about Linux? One of the reasons why Micro$oft gets wonderful reviews is because it helps writers, editors and advertising directors in SO MANY WAYS$$$$.
What can we do? Appeal to honest, ethical reporters. (Yes, there are some.) And expose those "journalists" that are not.
So we all agree to disagree, right? Red Hat is great for newbies, but there are other distributions that users can install, depending on individual need. Isn't that what we all want? The CHOICE in OS fine-tuning that Micro$oft and certain vendors do not allow!
/. comments, this reply would make sense. It might even be funny.
Perhaps the real problem with Red Hat is their logo - a red hat. Red is just too aggressive! Perhaps if they were "Grey Hat" or "Plaid Hat" or "Seuss Hat", their perception in the computing community would be much different. (What guy wears a red hat, anyway?)
Perhaps if I got some food and rest instead of reading all the previous
I love the entire series. But does it really encourage Creativity, or does the Star Wars series, like most movies and TV programs today, simply numb the viewer's mind and encourage us to sit and be entertained?
One of my favorite modern myth-tellers is Neil Gaiman of the Sandman graphic novel/comic book world. Somehow, Gaiman's work seems to challenge readers - whether casual or die-hard Sandman fans - to widen out and re-examine the original sources. But of all the people that have seen any of the Star Wars movies, very few are willing or able to discuss its religious or literary allusions. Most just want to sit and watch a "good" movie!
Lucas one of the best at what he does, but is what he does really in the best interests of the public?
(I will be pondering these thoughts while standing in line on the 19th.)