It sort of sounds like Squeak (a Modern Smalltalk) running "on the metal". ZFS could be bent to work in the way they "describe" (they don't really describe anything - just hint at).
Their approach of assembler sounds a bit like PrimeOS (very old OS - which actually had things called phantoms, makes me think they might have seen it)
You think life without the banks is something you actually want?!
Seriously, consider what might happen if the government doesn't keep the banks around (and yes, I agree, the Banks are to blame and the taxpayer is going to pick up the tab on this).
I think the problem is we all think government has a lot more power and latitude than it actually has. There simply isn't any real alternative to helping the banks.
Now back to climate change, here government does have a choice, because the results of action or inaction won't be felt in government time scales (4 years). The easy option is to do nothing, to wait it out and see what happens.
Now the easy option isn't always the right one, but I think that if government chooses to do something, we have to at least admit there is a possibility they are doing it because they believe it is right. There will be other things we can believe, but for our own sanity - it's probably better to think that they believe it is the right thing.
If not, then why bother with democracy at all? If we really don't trust government at all, then what's the point of choosing?
Now do I think we should act? Well the earth is a big complex system, it can self-heal, it is hard to predict (anyone who tells you different, just ask them: "what will the weather be like in 6 weeks time, will I need a coat?" Assuming you live somewhere like me, I'll bet their answer will be no better than a guess). However we only have THIS planet, if we break it, that's it. We need to be cautious with whatever we do, and act in a pessimistic manor. The consequences for being too optimistic are dire. Reducing the amount of fuel we use seems only sensible. Placing more emphasis on renewables seems like good economics, as well as green. We also need to think about TCO especially in green terms (How much energy does it take to build this "green doodah"? Will the fuel saving for the life of the product more than make up for the extra power used in manufacture?)
Probably best if you avoid Microsoft's products. If anyone offers to explain how Microsoft charge for Exchange and Outlook, well make sure you're not near the swear box.;-)
I agree totally. I'm saying when you're talking to your boss, saying "free" all the time will only turn him (or her) off.
That's why I think paying for service with an open source alternative can often make good business sense. But if you're trying to convince your boss, you'll need to explain things in their terms. They will find many of your arguments hard to swallow (even when you're right).
Lets look at your questions:
Who is accountable if your Windows shop gets a virus through it, and it stops working?
They will find it unbelievable that Linux doesn't have the same problem! (No really)
Who is accountable if a worker of yours imports a malware onto your business LAN via a USB key?
This will panic them, and they'll tell you that nobody on the staff would do such a thing. You'll need to explain that it is almost certain that the individual concerned will have no idea the malware is even on the USB key!
Who is accountable for the long waits every time a Windows machine must reboot, and who is accountable for the 15% or so of CPU (on a fast system) that Vista consumes for whatever it is that Vista does (DRM perhaps?) that makes it so slow?
I doubt they'll even see this as a problem, they'll tell you "buy faster machines". (Yes I know that's stupid - but your boss doesn't read Slashdot;-) )
Who is accountable for the licence compliance checking and auditing that must be undertaken if you run a Vista shop, under the threat of even more costly lawsuits if found to be non-compliant?
I hope they've already got this covered, if they don't YOU should.
Who is accountable for the myriad unproductive hours trying to work around file format incompatibilities deliberately invoked by Microsoft in order for Microsoft to try to keep its lock-in?
Don't expect to win this, you'll find this will be an ongoing nightmare, simply put you'll be presented with all manor of closed files Linux or not. The other day I was given something in Microsoft Publisher pre 2000 - the mind boggles.
Who is accountable for the ongoing heavy (and avoidable) expenses involved in the Microsoft upgrade treadmill?
They'll find this hard to believe too: "What we don't need new computers every few years?"
Who is accountable if your web server gets hacked and all your machines become botnet zombies, and your organisation starts emitting copious spam, or worse still, it starts compromising any other people who visit your site using IE?
Agreed, you are.
You'll soon find being right and being understood are very different things, and the weight of your argument has much more to do with how it's perceived than any logic or truth.
Oh, just in case you were wondering, I'm not running Windows here.
Now some think this is a total waste of money and the whole point of Linux is you don't pay for anything. While it's true you can do this, if you're multi-million wonga business is relying on your IT that may not be too smart.
But buying "service" isn't some nasty con, you're actually getting something. Also you can shop around for it, and even switch suppliers.
Now the "free" aspect of Linux really helps you (as a business) as all your "computer wonks" can have a copy (for free) and take it home, use it outside the office (so they learn the product inside out). It does work out cheaper than Microsoft. The product evolves quicker, but you're not forced on some insane upgrade cycle.
You can get lots of certified hardware (which is important) and you're not alone (lots of other businesses have done the same).
Business get very twitchy when Linux advocates talk about "free" and the reason is they want to know: "Who's accountable if this stops working". A word of advice if you're trying to get your employer to consider Linux, keep the talk about "free" to a minimum (even "cheap" has negative connotations) instead talk about:
Lower Total Cost of Ownership Competition in the market for Linux Support No vendor lock-in Hardware support from all major suppliers Plenty of success stories
Oh and don't forget Sun make great Linux kit (not just Solaris)
Microsoft don't just charge "per server", you also buy "CALs". All server products come with some, but that can be as few as five. That means you can't connect more than five clients to the server.
You buy them in blocks. Seriously, if this looks like it might be a problem you might like to look at getting a MOLP which often works out "cheaper". (Some would argue that this "rental" agreement isn't cheaper than buying as you pay the "rental" forever. In reality it often is, because you don't pay for upgrades.)
So while you're right AD is part of server, you do need to buy connection licences. Think about it this way, if you only wanted to run Server on a system (maybe to avoid Vista... yes, people do this) then you'd never need to buy any extra CALs, but if you're planning to use AD then you're probably wanting to connect a number of clients - then CALs come into play.
Please note, I'm no expert in MS licensing (it's complex).
Sadly this idea isn't uncommon amongst business professional either.
"Free" is a word loaded with negative connotations, and a lot of business people think Windows is "free". Then there are those I just behave like Windows and Microsoft Office are free...
Probably more useful for companies to use "in house". It's low risk (if Novell et al decide to scrap it - use.Net, if Microsoft change.Net out of all recognition - use mono) it isn't too bad as a development platform (.Net is well considered - even if it is Microsoft). You might argue that Java is an alternative - and yes, it is.
I've programmed in Java, not in Mono/.Net - so I won't attempt to argue the case either way (as I just don't know enough about Mono/.Net).
Or we can create something on Linux that has to run on Windows (for whatever reason). This is a two way street - Mono can create software that runs on Linux, Solaris, Mac OS X AND Windows.
This isn't just getting Windows stuff to run on Linux.
Viewed from this perspective it is less important that Mono is behind.NET - if you're creating something new you target Mono and it should run on.NET
For many users Windows is where they are (stuck quite often) and they can't migrate 100% of their desktops to *nix, they have something that stops them on a number of systems. Mono means they can create applications that can run on a mix.
Perhaps even more than this, if you borrow my ladder, I might not even ask why you want it (probably ask when you'll be finished with it - but that's different). Would it be reasonable for me to just expect you not to break the law with it.
Yeah, many ISPs do this. In this case you're right, you'd be in "breach of contract". Again, your liability would be tied to "reasonable" expectation. If the court found you should have taken "reasonable steps" to protect the connection and "adding security" to your WiFi is a "reasonable step" then not doing so could be viewed as "breach of contract".
Personally I tend to agree with you. But I do think that WiFi makers don't make security very easy for consumers.
Personally I don't think a WiFi basestation should function "out of the box" with no security. I think it should walk you through the setup, and to "open" it should be a choice the user should have to make, not the default.
It's easy for us readers of/. to pontificate about users not closing their WiFi, but these things are sold in stores to non-computer savvy consumers, why would they know?
Right, so the cops DON'T conduct a search - and they expect to catch you...
Does this sound likely? (clearly if the cops are dribbling morons...)
And also you keep your laptop hidden in a good place (I'm assuming under the floor boards - that kind of thing). How exactly am I supposed to "enjoy" my stolen Britney Spears collection?
Not really very practical is it? I might as well buy the damn CDs, rather than go to all the expense of a 2nd laptop, trick floor boards and still being afraid to listen to "Oops I did it again" for fear the cops will catch me.
Let's be realistic here, I download something I want reasonable access to the files I downloaded, and as soon as I do that - well the cops will find it (and I'm not so sure about your idea of hiding the laptop).
Thinking about this more deeply, if the law want to see using an open WiFi (without express permission) as "trespass" you cannot then hold the owner of the WiFi responsible for any subsequent crime committed.
If someone trespasses on my land and does something illegal (say dog fighting as an example) then I'm not responsible for that. Essentially I didn't do it, I didn't know it was happening, I cannot have reasonably have known it would happen.
If you look at it this way you'll kill WiFi. Imagine I own a coffee shop (hell this is the Internet - for all you know I do) and I want to provide WiFi to get laptop toting punters in (access could be paid for or free - it matters not). How do I do this without opening myself up to some lawsuit? Don't be silly, if some patron downloads a song while sipping an expresso in my coffee emporium, the he (or she) is responsible for that, not me, just trying to scrap a living selling caffeinated hot beverages.
(Right I'm off to put the kettle on - there's punters here!)
So if I borrow your ladder, use it to get into someone's house, you should be held partly accountable. Don't be silly.
This might make it easier to do "bad things" and not get caught,but that fact alone cannot make the owner of the open router liable. That's just silly!
Then don't sell the code - sell a maintenance contract, or some other service around the code. For the video player you mention:
Embed the GPL'd code into a product. Make the product shiny, stylish and nice (hardware). Sure everyone will know HOW the product works - but people will pay for a **whatever** that looks/feel nice and/or works well.
Red Hat are doing OK. Even Sun Microsystems are doing it now.
The GPL isn't "anti-business", it can work. Just stops you making money from software like Microsoft do. You need to "add value" to the product.
The GPL isn't really about some abstract "protect the code" idea - it IS about protecting the end user. GPL'd code cannot come with a "ransom note":
PaY mE mORe MOneYoR yOU wOn'TgET thE pATchES tOmaKE tHiSWOr KpROpeRLy, oR sTAy SeCUre
If the success of your project is predicated on the obscurity of the implementation then the GPL is useless for that. There are legitimate reasons for this, but they are fairly rare. Most business case around software are quite compatible with the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
It sort of sounds like Squeak (a Modern Smalltalk) running "on the metal". ZFS could be bent to work in the way they "describe" (they don't really describe anything - just hint at).
Their approach of assembler sounds a bit like PrimeOS (very old OS - which actually had things called phantoms, makes me think they might have seen it)
Sure I'm sceptical, but never say never.
This is pure conjecture. I'm not saying it won't happen, but I can't see it as certain either.
Did we really think Vista was going to have the reception it has had?
I seriously doubt the Windows source code is in any state to do this anyway.
You think life without the banks is something you actually want?!
Seriously, consider what might happen if the government doesn't keep the banks around (and yes, I agree, the Banks are to blame and the taxpayer is going to pick up the tab on this).
I think the problem is we all think government has a lot more power and latitude than it actually has. There simply isn't any real alternative to helping the banks.
Now back to climate change, here government does have a choice, because the results of action or inaction won't be felt in government time scales (4 years). The easy option is to do nothing, to wait it out and see what happens.
Now the easy option isn't always the right one, but I think that if government chooses to do something, we have to at least admit there is a possibility they are doing it because they believe it is right. There will be other things we can believe, but for our own sanity - it's probably better to think that they believe it is the right thing.
If not, then why bother with democracy at all? If we really don't trust government at all, then what's the point of choosing?
Now do I think we should act? Well the earth is a big complex system, it can self-heal, it is hard to predict (anyone who tells you different, just ask them: "what will the weather be like in 6 weeks time, will I need a coat?" Assuming you live somewhere like me, I'll bet their answer will be no better than a guess). However we only have THIS planet, if we break it, that's it. We need to be cautious with whatever we do, and act in a pessimistic manor. The consequences for being too optimistic are dire. Reducing the amount of fuel we use seems only sensible. Placing more emphasis on renewables seems like good economics, as well as green. We also need to think about TCO especially in green terms (How much energy does it take to build this "green doodah"? Will the fuel saving for the life of the product more than make up for the extra power used in manufacture?)
Probably best if you avoid Microsoft's products. If anyone offers to explain how Microsoft charge for Exchange and Outlook, well make sure you're not near the swear box. ;-)
I think Linux has been providing "Cloud" computing for a while now...
I agree totally. I'm saying when you're talking to your boss, saying "free" all the time will only turn him (or her) off.
That's why I think paying for service with an open source alternative can often make good business sense. But if you're trying to convince your boss, you'll need to explain things in their terms. They will find many of your arguments hard to swallow (even when you're right).
Lets look at your questions:
Who is accountable if your Windows shop gets a virus through it, and it stops working?
They will find it unbelievable that Linux doesn't have the same problem! (No really)
Who is accountable if a worker of yours imports a malware onto your business LAN via a USB key?
This will panic them, and they'll tell you that nobody on the staff would do such a thing. You'll need to explain that it is almost certain that the individual concerned will have no idea the malware is even on the USB key!
Who is accountable for the long waits every time a Windows machine must reboot, and who is accountable for the 15% or so of CPU (on a fast system) that Vista consumes for whatever it is that Vista does (DRM perhaps?) that makes it so slow?
I doubt they'll even see this as a problem, they'll tell you "buy faster machines". (Yes I know that's stupid - but your boss doesn't read Slashdot ;-) )
Who is accountable for the licence compliance checking and auditing that must be undertaken if you run a Vista shop, under the threat of even more costly lawsuits if found to be non-compliant?
I hope they've already got this covered, if they don't YOU should.
Who is accountable for the myriad unproductive hours trying to work around file format incompatibilities deliberately invoked by Microsoft in order for Microsoft to try to keep its lock-in?
Don't expect to win this, you'll find this will be an ongoing nightmare, simply put you'll be presented with all manor of closed files Linux or not. The other day I was given something in Microsoft Publisher pre 2000 - the mind boggles.
Who is accountable for the ongoing heavy (and avoidable) expenses involved in the Microsoft upgrade treadmill?
They'll find this hard to believe too: "What we don't need new computers every few years?"
Who is accountable if your web server gets hacked and all your machines become botnet zombies, and your organisation starts emitting copious spam, or worse still, it starts compromising any other people who visit your site using IE?
Agreed, you are.
You'll soon find being right and being understood are very different things, and the weight of your argument has much more to do with how it's perceived than any logic or truth.
Oh, just in case you were wondering, I'm not running Windows here.
Well really they probably pay for "service".
Now some think this is a total waste of money and the whole point of Linux is you don't pay for anything. While it's true you can do this, if you're multi-million wonga business is relying on your IT that may not be too smart.
But buying "service" isn't some nasty con, you're actually getting something. Also you can shop around for it, and even switch suppliers.
Now the "free" aspect of Linux really helps you (as a business) as all your "computer wonks" can have a copy (for free) and take it home, use it outside the office (so they learn the product inside out). It does work out cheaper than Microsoft. The product evolves quicker, but you're not forced on some insane upgrade cycle.
You can get lots of certified hardware (which is important) and you're not alone (lots of other businesses have done the same).
Business get very twitchy when Linux advocates talk about "free" and the reason is they want to know: "Who's accountable if this stops working". A word of advice if you're trying to get your employer to consider Linux, keep the talk about "free" to a minimum (even "cheap" has negative connotations) instead talk about:
Lower Total Cost of Ownership
Competition in the market for Linux Support
No vendor lock-in
Hardware support from all major suppliers
Plenty of success stories
Oh and don't forget Sun make great Linux kit (not just Solaris)
Err, "CALs"?
Microsoft don't just charge "per server", you also buy "CALs". All server products come with some, but that can be as few as five. That means you can't connect more than five clients to the server.
You buy them in blocks. Seriously, if this looks like it might be a problem you might like to look at getting a MOLP which often works out "cheaper". (Some would argue that this "rental" agreement isn't cheaper than buying as you pay the "rental" forever. In reality it often is, because you don't pay for upgrades.)
So while you're right AD is part of server, you do need to buy connection licences. Think about it this way, if you only wanted to run Server on a system (maybe to avoid Vista... yes, people do this) then you'd never need to buy any extra CALs, but if you're planning to use AD then you're probably wanting to connect a number of clients - then CALs come into play.
Please note, I'm no expert in MS licensing (it's complex).
The parent post is "Funny" - not a troll, it's called irony. (Technically irony is seldom "funny" as such... but I digress)
Sadly this idea isn't uncommon amongst business professional either.
"Free" is a word loaded with negative connotations, and a lot of business people think Windows is "free". Then there are those I just behave like Windows and Microsoft Office are free...
but that's another story!
Probably more useful for companies to use "in house". It's low risk (if Novell et al decide to scrap it - use .Net, if Microsoft change .Net out of all recognition - use mono) it isn't too bad as a development platform (.Net is well considered - even if it is Microsoft). You might argue that Java is an alternative - and yes, it is.
I've programmed in Java, not in Mono/.Net - so I won't attempt to argue the case either way (as I just don't know enough about Mono/.Net).
Or we can create something on Linux that has to run on Windows (for whatever reason). This is a two way street - Mono can create software that runs on Linux, Solaris, Mac OS X AND Windows.
This isn't just getting Windows stuff to run on Linux.
Viewed from this perspective it is less important that Mono is behind .NET - if you're creating something new you target Mono and it should run on .NET
For many users Windows is where they are (stuck quite often) and they can't migrate 100% of their desktops to *nix, they have something that stops them on a number of systems. Mono means they can create applications that can run on a mix.
My brother died that way, you insensitive clod!
By installing Vista? Wow, and I thought it was painful moving to Hardy Heron...
(I miss that monkey)
Perhaps even more than this, if you borrow my ladder, I might not even ask why you want it (probably ask when you'll be finished with it - but that's different). Would it be reasonable for me to just expect you not to break the law with it.
Might be different with a gun ;-)
So where do the files get stored?
(I'm guessing your answer is "googlemail" - and that's not a bad answer) Still I think there are still "digital footprints".
Actually technology often makes law enforcement harder. (Consider what the gun did when it was first introduced)
Damn! That's why my beverage isn't matched...
Only if I tell you what I'm doing with the ladder.
Yeah, many ISPs do this. In this case you're right, you'd be in "breach of contract". Again, your liability would be tied to "reasonable" expectation. If the court found you should have taken "reasonable steps" to protect the connection and "adding security" to your WiFi is a "reasonable step" then not doing so could be viewed as "breach of contract".
Personally I tend to agree with you. But I do think that WiFi makers don't make security very easy for consumers.
Personally I don't think a WiFi basestation should function "out of the box" with no security. I think it should walk you through the setup, and to "open" it should be a choice the user should have to make, not the default.
It's easy for us readers of /. to pontificate about users not closing their WiFi, but these things are sold in stores to non-computer savvy consumers, why would they know?
Right, so the cops DON'T conduct a search - and they expect to catch you...
Does this sound likely? (clearly if the cops are dribbling morons...)
And also you keep your laptop hidden in a good place (I'm assuming under the floor boards - that kind of thing). How exactly am I supposed to "enjoy" my stolen Britney Spears collection?
Not really very practical is it? I might as well buy the damn CDs, rather than go to all the expense of a 2nd laptop, trick floor boards and still being afraid to listen to "Oops I did it again" for fear the cops will catch me.
Let's be realistic here, I download something I want reasonable access to the files I downloaded, and as soon as I do that - well the cops will find it (and I'm not so sure about your idea of hiding the laptop).
Thinking about this more deeply, if the law want to see using an open WiFi (without express permission) as "trespass" you cannot then hold the owner of the WiFi responsible for any subsequent crime committed.
If someone trespasses on my land and does something illegal (say dog fighting as an example) then I'm not responsible for that. Essentially I didn't do it, I didn't know it was happening, I cannot have reasonably have known it would happen.
Same argument. The nature of the crime doesn't affect the legal argument.
Negligence?! You're kidding right?
If you look at it this way you'll kill WiFi. Imagine I own a coffee shop (hell this is the Internet - for all you know I do) and I want to provide WiFi to get laptop toting punters in (access could be paid for or free - it matters not). How do I do this without opening myself up to some lawsuit? Don't be silly, if some patron downloads a song while sipping an expresso in my coffee emporium, the he (or she) is responsible for that, not me, just trying to scrap a living selling caffeinated hot beverages.
(Right I'm off to put the kettle on - there's punters here!)
I've got two words for you:
"Computer Forensics"
(I would remind you that you need to use a computer to access the WiFi, and that your misdeeds will leave evidence there)
So if I borrow your ladder, use it to get into someone's house, you should be held partly accountable. Don't be silly.
This might make it easier to do "bad things" and not get caught,but that fact alone cannot make the owner of the open router liable. That's just silly!
Then don't sell the code - sell a maintenance contract, or some other service around the code. For the video player you mention:
Embed the GPL'd code into a product. Make the product shiny, stylish and nice (hardware). Sure everyone will know HOW the product works - but people will pay for a **whatever** that looks/feel nice and/or works well.
Red Hat are doing OK. Even Sun Microsystems are doing it now.
The GPL isn't "anti-business", it can work. Just stops you making money from software like Microsoft do. You need to "add value" to the product.
The GPL isn't really about some abstract "protect the code" idea - it IS about protecting the end user. GPL'd code cannot come with a "ransom note":
PaY mE mORe MOn eY oR yOU wOn'T gET t hE pATchES tO m aKE tHi S WOr K pROpeRL y, oR sTAy SeCU re
If the success of your project is predicated on the obscurity of the implementation then the GPL is useless for that. There are legitimate reasons for this, but they are fairly rare. Most business case around software are quite compatible with the GPL.