This is an obvious piece of counter-hoax propaganda posturing. It should be clear to any disinterested observer that this is a desperate move on the part of the N(A)SA organization, and act which at once legitimizes the hoax/fraud theory and brushes it aside. However, it will have neither effect: it will at once pique the interest of those who have previously dismissed the fraud theory out of hand, and simultaneously fail to convince those who have previously given the hoaxes credit that the so-called 'artifacts' cited by the fraud theorists should not be given the weight that they have been in some parts.
What sort of conclusions can be drawn from this one-step-forward-one-step-back policy? Perhaps none. Perhaps that the posturing around the so-called "moon" expedition is exactly that. Posturing, and posturing that is still pertinent today.
But the real question that should be on your minds is, when will China reach the moon, and what will they find there? Will they find the footprints and detritus of the N(A)SA agents who purportedly reached the moon? Will they find the sovereign flag of the United States, claiming the entire Moon for our grand country? Or will they find a pristine moon, quite free of all evidence of a 1969 landing, and perhaps even quite different in character than the one shown in the 1969 films.
BUT
Will the communist Chinese even be allowed to reach the moon? Or will their vessel be struck down by an 'antiballistic' missile or laser, with the only information released to the public a Chinese government release describing a non-specific "failure."
I think that the meaning is clear. There is something that the N(A)SA doesn't want us to know about the 1969 moon landing films, OR the hoax surrounding them. Or there is something that they DO want us to know, and this book would not have contained it. The only thing that is clear, is that this book will not be published officially; and that will either lead us in the direction of the truth or away from it, and this may or may not be the intention of the evil N(A)SA and the so-called United States "Government."
Maybe he's a bit rude, but I've never thought that Apache's configuration was a nightmare. Especially compared with another major free offering, which is configured with GUI boxes...
But who IS this other, older and yet sci-fi loving William Gibson???
I for one am not ready to count out the idea that time travel was involved and that this is the cyberpunk author William Gibson. I think that the age of some of the pieces in the collection supports that theory as well.
As we all know, the sci-fi writers of the 20th century are, in the future, remembered as pre-cogs, and for that reason, they are sometimes retrieved by time dredge by interested parties in the distant future. Phil Dick tells us that this happened on one occasion to Poul Andersen. It seems conceivable that this happened to Gibson, but he was returned to a different time, either accidentally or for some purpose -- perhaps to amass this very sci-fi collection.
Well, on Saturday, when there was an explosion at the Con Ed plant in Manhattan, the street lights didn't work...but nothing bad happened other than a few stores closing. Hell, traffic was a little backed up, but if they'd had some traffic officers there, that could have been avoided. And to tell the truth, it didn't look so bad.
I really can't stand the tech-attack FUD that the Bush administration is spewing out. If someone fucks up the global bank records, I could see that being a problem (although the economy is more or less in shambles already) but c'mon, what else is going to happen? Al-Qaeda spam ? Someone will hijack my ebay account ?
C'mon, really. I'll believe it when someone gets past my home firewall and somehow manages to strangle me with an ethernet cable by sending the right packets through it.
The company I work for doesn't have a project manager. We have this guy who calls himself one though -- but he doesn't manage anything but his own department, our content production team.
Our 'managers' -- two twentysomethings who worked at a financial company for a year, so they think they know how to do things professionally -- are the ones that demand the impossible. Or micromanage tech-side solutions so they are inefficient. Or simple don't spec things out, and then add requirements on the last day before a deadline.
My opinion is that a good project manager, tech knowledge or no, would keep this kind of stuff in check. He or she would have a clear idea of what's really necessary for our product to get off the ground, and listen to the right people. Technical knowledge might help. It might help a lot. But not as much as common sense. And not as much as a clear idea of what the project really needs.
It sounds like you've been dealing with BAD project managers. The tech stuff might be hurting them, but it's definitely possible to be a decent manager without tech knowledge. Just harder.
Well, at Columbia, they have all these dumb terminals, which run Linux and an X session. They're not bad for checkin' yer mail, but they don't allow you to do much else. For some application where the types of software needed are very limited, I think that it's prolly great.
For the real computers labs, for the non-cs types, they are mostly Windows (NT or some such) or Mac. The NT machines are pretty well locked-down and something like this would be quite easy to achieve; it would probably even be more secure (well maybe) with Linux.
I guess the real thing is choosing software. OpenOffice is alright, but I don't know if random people are actually going to want to write papers with it. I mean, I have, but...well...people might have some issues with their floppies. That's probably the biggest thing. Dang floppies.
You should really use DOS and WordPerfect 5.1, maybe Lotus 1-2-3.
It just plain won't work -- these terrorist cells will simply get smarter. If it correlates and monitors addresses, then they will live separately. Anyway -- the next time something goes down, it won't be done by people who have lived at known terrorist addresses.
More importantly, I don't think that airplanes are going to be the used like they were on 9/11 ever again -- everyone is so hypersensitive about them. Another method which is less suspect would be easier for them.
The real upshot of this is obvious -- it's like the so-called 'Patriot Act.' It's an attempt to fight terrorism which results only in the restriction of freedom for normal citizens. This system won't be used to catch any terrorists -- it will be used to catch plain old criminals, who are just trying to catch a plane ride. You may say 'well, they're criminals, screw them.' But how many moving violations does it take to get a warrant issued? How does that factor into correlations?
Anway I've ranted enough -- this is obviously a bad thing. We need CLOSED COCKPITS and AIR MARSHALS, which are effective, proven means against terrorism used in particular by Israeli airlines, not some gigantic asinine computer database. Once this system lets a terrorist on a plane, it can no longer protect you.
This idea just sucks so much, I wish I could express it. And remember -- we're helping pay for it!!!!!!!!!
From Culp's piece at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default. asp?url=/technet/columns/security/noarch.asp:
"Providing a recipe for exploiting a vulnerability doesn?t aid administrators in protecting their networks. In the vast majority of cases, the only way to protect against a security vulnerability is to apply a fix that changes the system behavior and eliminates the vulnerability; in other cases, systems can be protected through administrative procedures. But regardless of whether the remediation takes the form of a patch or a workaround, an administrator doesn't need to know how a vulnerability works in order to understand how to protect against it, any more than a person needs to know how to cause a headache in order to take an aspirin."
This is Microsoft's opinion in a nutshell: Don't worry about the details, we'll take care of you. That doesn't surprise me for end-users, but for administrators? When I see a bug announcement with a detailed example, such as the ftp_conntrack bug in iptables, it is tremendously advantageous to actually understand the bug and how to deal with it. In that case, several workarounds suggested themselves, because the bug only afected RELATED connections.
Now take the MS paradigm: I wait until they release a patch, or detailed instructions which I should follow by rote. Of course, I am affected by the vulnerability longer; furthermore, I get no transferable knowledge from the experience. Next time there's a similar bug, I just have to wait, again, instead of being able to invent a workaround.
Sure, it's _possible_ to implement a workaround when I don't understand the vulnerability, but I sure feel a lot better when I understand the problem AND the solution. I simply don't understand how this MS scheme (where everyone is an unenlightened end-user, waiting for cryptically-named patches which they don't understand) could appeal to any business OR home user. By assuming that even its administrators are unqualified to do manual reconfiguration by themselves, or even really understand what they're doing with the OS, MS has effectively crippled their fleet of administrators. And this, ultimately, is why the NT(2k/xp, whatever)platform is the huge, gaping security hole it is.
I simply can't believe the arrogance and stupidity of the statement above.
"...an administrator doesn't need to know how a vulnerability works in order to understand how to protect against it, any more than a person needs to know how to cause a headache in order to take an aspirin."
Doing Latin and Greek just made unix seem really easy to understand...it's all the same, really, just lots of text. A little Ars Technica goes a long way.
Also just messing with computers...I think it all started with dos batchfiles. I don't know...it just happens.
Well, I just got my DSL at home (alright, sure, I sit in front of the 'net at work too) but I'm not about to dump it in favor of a modem again--I live with three other people and that means that if anyone is using the net(and I didn't have a linux modem, so I couldn't share it)no one could get phone calls(except on their cellphones). Basically, broadband is far, far, far, far, far better than modem and anyone who says otherwise is a huge complete jackass. Now sure, some people are dumping it; some people didn't get hooked at an internet2 college either.
I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, but the reports of broadband's demise are much exaggerated.
Interesting--all the machines that are coming out with XP are very high-end of course, and the stated hardware requirements are definitely higher than your hardware. It's cool that it works though...but wasn't your machine faster with 95?
Another major factor is the 128mb ram. Try running XP after swapping out half your ram--a friend of mine has been running Win2000 on a laptop with 64mb ram for awhile, and it was rather unpleasant. Doable, but unpleasant. He finally got the 128 megs I told him to and the difference is quite palpable.
Dude...the gameboy camera sucks. I mean, digichromawhatevertography is cool and all...but the gameboy cam still sucks...
Why can't he concentrate on making a supercool GBA light like this guy?
Most of the data in this article came from Goldman Sachs, which is heavily invested in MS. My company had a consultant from Goldman long before I came here, who made them implement their first demos with NT4 and Oracle. By the time I came in, they realized that they didn't have the cash or the need for Oracle. Now we're running on Red Hat and Postgres.
Also note that these are Fortune 1000 companies--all really, really big, with lots of investment in MS desktops already, and some MS server infrastructure. Linux is faring much better with small companies that are strapped for cash, not bigass companies looking ways to cut people simply to increase profitability.
Also--upgrading to XP or 2000 is one of the biggest expenditures. This is _not_ a good thing. It means that big companies are shelling out tons and tons of cash simply to stay current and keep WinWord 2.0 functionality. Eventually people will realize that this is not necessary.
Even in this article, there is a spot of hope, however: they say that financial companies are quick to adopt linux, compared to other bigass Fortune 1000 companies. Maybe that's because they understand the bottom line a bit better, huh?
I wouldn't worry about this article too much. Linux isn't about big business; it's about small business and low overhead. Big business and MS can do all they want and it won't matter.
Anyways--linux is doing fine. Anybody running XP on a p2 266? If you don't get my point now, you will soon. Don't worry.
I got my job through a friend who left it. I really don't think that any method compares to the person-to-person hookup, when the two people actually know each other.
I know a lot of people who've used online job search engines, and very few of them have gotten good results. It's a very obvious place to start these days, and I don't think that an email application impresses anyone these days. Also it seems that a lot of online openings are stale--just left over from a position that might already be filled, or might never be filled.
UH...I'm pretty sure that BETAMAX was made by sony...if you don't believe me, then check out the Betamax PALsite.
I believe you are partly correct, however: Beta has long been acknowledged as a better format, and it was market forces that allowed VHS to win out. I'm sure that there are lots of people on the PALsite who would say the same...
Damn...they hit their counter level for the day. That's a bummer--serious/. effect.
Anyway--it sure is hard to get interested in something when it's unavailable; maybe with a little bit more interest they can get some better hosting or something.
I've actually checked out this project before, a little bit, and it seems very cool. I'll have to give it a shot when it's back up.
They suck in fact. Well, not for IT, certainly; but I don't like working in that sort of environment.
I work in a small office where I bring my home laptop to work. I'm also the firewall administrator, and tech support guy, and I maintain the servers, and it's a tiny office, so as you can see, my situation is about as far as can be from this sort of thing.
Which is the way I like it. I don't like the idea of working in an environment where there aren't enough tech support people to support users (and their work habits and personalities) as opposed to computers. A computer booting up all the time doesn't necessarily mean it's being efficient; a lot of people make changes to their computers that make them more efficient, perhaps simply because that's the way that they feel comfortable working.
So basically, I hope that I am never in a position to work in or administer an environment like this. It seems cold, sterile, and on some level, unrealistic to me. But hey, I probably seem that way to some people!!!
Ok, I reacted harshly because I didn't like the term.
I'll admit that I've had similar thoughts, but the whole thing is so simplistic--it doesn't take a lot of things into account, like, for example, what if open-source just never ever can deliver some of the stuff that closed projects can? It seems possible.
It's just to early to give open-source this sort of self-congratulatory pat on the back--so, once again, whatever.
Anyways I still prefer saying 'whatever' to simplistic open-source zealots than to raving MS/commercial software zealots. It's somehow heartening?? Maybe?
Too bad that WW3 will hit before the open monopoly takes over, huh?
Is this guy serious? The term doesn't even make sense...
Whatever. I think you'll be able to count the number of people that object to this 'open monopoly' on one finger when and if it happens. And I personally don't believe that commercial software will disappear completely.
And even if it did--think about it: we'll be back to only buying real physical products, not bits and bytes and words. That doesn't sound SO bad to me...
It just seems to me that the best way to deal with the DMCA is keep publishing the material. This causes a stir, but isn't quite so good as actually putting the details in a changelog--also, since the code is open, can't people still figure out the changes?
Sigh. I just want to know what's in my kernels...preferably without learning C first and reading them.
A story about a tech support guy hosing somebody's windows laptop is supposed to convince us that windows will forever own the desktop? Are you serious? I hope that guy was promptly fired.
I do tech support and systems administration at a small company. I use linux on my desktop machine--which I was alone in doing until recently, when we brought on a new developer who's running linux. Now--I run blackbox, and don't do graphical file management or anything, but the new guy is using Gnome.
Basically--this story is stupid. MS is great, like everybody knows--and also leaves a lot of people cold. Like me. Because it's monolithic, and hard to individualize. Basically, it's nothing special.
The worst thing, as everybody knows, is that MS Windows is all about upgrading--upgrade your OS until they can figure out how to make the os upgrade require a new machine, at which point you have to buy a new machine, preferably with preinstalled WinXP2005Supertron or whatever.
Also, win2k doesn't run worth a damn on a lot of machines--like anything before a pentium 200 or so, with less than 128 mb of ram.
MS has already lost the 'war.' In a few years, the number of computers that don't have the specs for MS's new OS will be staggering, and there will be next to no reason to upgrade. My company, like a lot of others is already passing on the XP upgrade. Because there's no benefit.
MS's dominance was the product of an incredible economic boom. But in a few years, when most pc's are 'obsolete' by MS standards, we'll see how high their stock price is.
And you know what else? I hate it when people complain about linux business models. Linux isn't about business (although it is helping mine out quite a bit--it sure would have hurt us to have to use something like MS Adv. Server 2000 which is like $10k and would have required us to hire an MSCE just to make IIS work, or get Solaris boxes for the price of a luxury car).
Linux is great because it's free dammit--Linux doesn't care if it 'defeats' windows. Linux isn't going anywhere when the funds dry up. To talk about this in terms of conflict is inherently looking at it from a corporate perspective, which Linux doesn't need or care about. Sure, a lot of companies are now using it because it's a great product, nearly for free, but Linux was doing great with just home users, smart hobbyists who liked to hack.
You know what, I've said too much already--that article just really got my goat. I haven't seen too many articles that dumb in awhile. I thought the 'Will Linux conquer or will it die?' thing was done because people had realized how stupid it was.
Remember that Linux has a better ip stack than most MS OS's, including 2k. Don't be surprised by your winbox outperforming them. If you want to test this, hook a winmachine up to your cable directly, and measure the results.
Also make sure that you're using a reliable way of testing bandwidth; your browser probably isn't he best way.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an obvious piece of counter-hoax propaganda posturing. It should be clear to any disinterested observer that this is a desperate move on the part of the N(A)SA organization, and act which at once legitimizes the hoax/fraud theory and brushes it aside. However, it will have neither effect: it will at once pique the interest of those who have previously dismissed the fraud theory out of hand, and simultaneously fail to convince those who have previously given the hoaxes credit that the so-called 'artifacts' cited by the fraud theorists should not be given the weight that they have been in some parts.
What sort of conclusions can be drawn from this one-step-forward-one-step-back policy? Perhaps none. Perhaps that the posturing around the so-called "moon" expedition is exactly that. Posturing, and posturing that is still pertinent today.
But the real question that should be on your minds is, when will China reach the moon, and what will they find there? Will they find the footprints and detritus of the N(A)SA agents who purportedly reached the moon? Will they find the sovereign flag of the United States, claiming the entire Moon for our grand country? Or will they find a pristine moon, quite free of all evidence of a 1969 landing, and perhaps even quite different in character than the one shown in the 1969 films.
BUT
Will the communist Chinese even be allowed to reach the moon? Or will their vessel be struck down by an 'antiballistic' missile or laser, with the only information released to the public a Chinese government release describing a non-specific "failure."
I think that the meaning is clear. There is something that the N(A)SA doesn't want us to know about the 1969 moon landing films, OR the hoax surrounding them. Or there is something that they DO want us to know, and this book would not have contained it. The only thing that is clear, is that this book will not be published officially; and that will either lead us in the direction of the truth or away from it, and this may or may not be the intention of the evil N(A)SA and the so-called United States "Government."
Maybe he's a bit rude, but I've never thought that Apache's configuration was a nightmare. Especially compared with another major free offering, which is configured with GUI boxes...
But who IS this other, older and yet sci-fi loving William Gibson???
I for one am not ready to count out the idea that time travel was involved and that this is the cyberpunk author William Gibson. I think that the age of some of the pieces in the collection supports that theory as well.
As we all know, the sci-fi writers of the 20th century are, in the future, remembered as pre-cogs, and for that reason, they are sometimes retrieved by time dredge by interested parties in the distant future. Phil Dick tells us that this happened on one occasion to Poul Andersen. It seems conceivable that this happened to Gibson, but he was returned to a different time, either accidentally or for some purpose -- perhaps to amass this very sci-fi collection.
But why ??? What forces are at work here ?
Well, on Saturday, when there was an explosion at the Con Ed plant in Manhattan, the street lights didn't work...but nothing bad happened other than a few stores closing. Hell, traffic was a little backed up, but if they'd had some traffic officers there, that could have been avoided. And to tell the truth, it didn't look so bad.
I really can't stand the tech-attack FUD that the Bush administration is spewing out. If someone fucks up the global bank records, I could see that being a problem (although the economy is more or less in shambles already) but c'mon, what else is going to happen? Al-Qaeda spam ? Someone will hijack my ebay account ?
C'mon, really. I'll believe it when someone gets past my home firewall and somehow manages to strangle me with an ethernet cable by sending the right packets through it.
The company I work for doesn't have a project manager. We have this guy who calls himself one though -- but he doesn't manage anything but his own department, our content production team.
Our 'managers' -- two twentysomethings who worked at a financial company for a year, so they think they know how to do things professionally -- are the ones that demand the impossible. Or micromanage tech-side solutions so they are inefficient. Or simple don't spec things out, and then add requirements on the last day before a deadline.
My opinion is that a good project manager, tech knowledge or no, would keep this kind of stuff in check. He or she would have a clear idea of what's really necessary for our product to get off the ground, and listen to the right people. Technical knowledge might help. It might help a lot. But not as much as common sense. And not as much as a clear idea of what the project really needs.
It sounds like you've been dealing with BAD project managers. The tech stuff might be hurting them, but it's definitely possible to be a decent manager without tech knowledge. Just harder.
Just kidding...
Well, at Columbia, they have all these dumb terminals, which run Linux and an X session. They're not bad for checkin' yer mail, but they don't allow you to do much else. For some application where the types of software needed are very limited, I think that it's prolly great.
For the real computers labs, for the non-cs types, they are mostly Windows (NT or some such) or Mac. The NT machines are pretty well locked-down and something like this would be quite easy to achieve; it would probably even be more secure (well maybe) with Linux.
I guess the real thing is choosing software. OpenOffice is alright, but I don't know if random people are actually going to want to write papers with it. I mean, I have, but...well...people might have some issues with their floppies. That's probably the biggest thing. Dang floppies.
You should really use DOS and WordPerfect 5.1, maybe Lotus 1-2-3.
It just plain won't work -- these terrorist cells will simply get smarter. If it correlates and monitors addresses, then they will live separately. Anyway -- the next time something goes down, it won't be done by people who have lived at known terrorist addresses.
More importantly, I don't think that airplanes are going to be the used like they were on 9/11 ever again -- everyone is so hypersensitive about them. Another method which is less suspect would be easier for them.
The real upshot of this is obvious -- it's like the so-called 'Patriot Act.' It's an attempt to fight terrorism which results only in the restriction of freedom for normal citizens. This system won't be used to catch any terrorists -- it will be used to catch plain old criminals, who are just trying to catch a plane ride. You may say 'well, they're criminals, screw them.' But how many moving violations does it take to get a warrant issued? How does that factor into correlations?
Anway I've ranted enough -- this is obviously a bad thing. We need CLOSED COCKPITS and AIR MARSHALS, which are effective, proven means against terrorism used in particular by Israeli airlines, not some gigantic asinine computer database. Once this system lets a terrorist on a plane, it can no longer protect you.
This idea just sucks so much, I wish I could express it. And remember -- we're helping pay for it!!!!!!!!!
This is bs. This guy obviously wrote the virus...maybe I should stop icqing him...
From Culp's piece at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default. asp?url=/technet/columns/security/noarch.asp:
"Providing a recipe for exploiting a vulnerability doesn?t aid administrators in protecting their networks. In the vast majority of cases, the only way to protect against a security vulnerability is to apply a fix that changes the system behavior and eliminates the vulnerability; in other cases, systems can be protected through administrative procedures. But regardless of whether the remediation takes the form of a patch or a workaround, an administrator doesn't need to know how a vulnerability works in order to understand how to protect against it, any more than a person needs to know how to cause a headache in order to take an aspirin."
This is Microsoft's opinion in a nutshell: Don't worry about the details, we'll take care of you. That doesn't surprise me for end-users, but for administrators? When I see a bug announcement with a detailed example, such as the ftp_conntrack bug in iptables, it is tremendously advantageous to actually understand the bug and how to deal with it. In that case, several workarounds suggested themselves, because the bug only afected RELATED connections.
Now take the MS paradigm: I wait until they release a patch, or detailed instructions which I should follow by rote. Of course, I am affected by the vulnerability longer; furthermore, I get no transferable knowledge from the experience. Next time there's a similar bug, I just have to wait, again, instead of being able to invent a workaround.
Sure, it's _possible_ to implement a workaround when I don't understand the vulnerability, but I sure feel a lot better when I understand the problem AND the solution. I simply don't understand how this MS scheme (where everyone is an unenlightened end-user, waiting for cryptically-named patches which they don't understand) could appeal to any business OR home user. By assuming that even its administrators are unqualified to do manual reconfiguration by themselves, or even really understand what they're doing with the OS, MS has effectively crippled their fleet of administrators. And this, ultimately, is why the NT(2k/xp, whatever)platform is the huge, gaping security hole it is.
I simply can't believe the arrogance and stupidity of the statement above.
"...an administrator doesn't need to know how a vulnerability works in order to understand how to protect against it, any more than a person needs to know how to cause a headache in order to take an aspirin."
I think that speaks for itself.
Doing Latin and Greek just made unix seem really easy to understand...it's all the same, really, just lots of text. A little Ars Technica goes a long way.
Also just messing with computers...I think it all started with dos batchfiles. I don't know...it just happens.
Well, I just got my DSL at home (alright, sure, I sit in front of the 'net at work too) but I'm not about to dump it in favor of a modem again--I live with three other people and that means that if anyone is using the net(and I didn't have a linux modem, so I couldn't share it)no one could get phone calls(except on their cellphones). Basically, broadband is far, far, far, far, far better than modem and anyone who says otherwise is a huge complete jackass. Now sure, some people are dumping it; some people didn't get hooked at an internet2 college either.
I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, but the reports of broadband's demise are much exaggerated.
That's impressive on some level...I suppose...maybe I should dig out the ol' 386DX 25
Interesting--all the machines that are coming out with XP are very high-end of course, and the stated hardware requirements are definitely higher than your hardware. It's cool that it works though...but wasn't your machine faster with 95?
Another major factor is the 128mb ram. Try running XP after swapping out half your ram--a friend of mine has been running Win2000 on a laptop with 64mb ram for awhile, and it was rather unpleasant. Doable, but unpleasant. He finally got the 128 megs I told him to and the difference is quite palpable.
Dude...the gameboy camera sucks. I mean, digichromawhatevertography is cool and all...but the gameboy cam still sucks...
Why can't he concentrate on making a supercool GBA light like this guy?
Most of the data in this article came from Goldman Sachs, which is heavily invested in MS. My company had a consultant from Goldman long before I came here, who made them implement their first demos with NT4 and Oracle. By the time I came in, they realized that they didn't have the cash or the need for Oracle. Now we're running on Red Hat and Postgres.
Also note that these are Fortune 1000 companies--all really, really big, with lots of investment in MS desktops already, and some MS server infrastructure. Linux is faring much better with small companies that are strapped for cash, not bigass companies looking ways to cut people simply to increase profitability.
Also--upgrading to XP or 2000 is one of the biggest expenditures. This is _not_ a good thing. It means that big companies are shelling out tons and tons of cash simply to stay current and keep WinWord 2.0 functionality. Eventually people will realize that this is not necessary.
Even in this article, there is a spot of hope, however: they say that financial companies are quick to adopt linux, compared to other bigass Fortune 1000 companies. Maybe that's because they understand the bottom line a bit better, huh?
I wouldn't worry about this article too much. Linux isn't about big business; it's about small business and low overhead. Big business and MS can do all they want and it won't matter.
Anyways--linux is doing fine. Anybody running XP on a p2 266? If you don't get my point now, you will soon. Don't worry.
I got my job through a friend who left it. I really don't think that any method compares to the person-to-person hookup, when the two people actually know each other.
I know a lot of people who've used online job search engines, and very few of them have gotten good results. It's a very obvious place to start these days, and I don't think that an email application impresses anyone these days. Also it seems that a lot of online openings are stale--just left over from a position that might already be filled, or might never be filled.
But good luck in your search!
UH...I'm pretty sure that BETAMAX was made by sony...if you don't believe me, then check out the Betamax PALsite.
I believe you are partly correct, however: Beta has long been acknowledged as a better format, and it was market forces that allowed VHS to win out. I'm sure that there are lots of people on the PALsite who would say the same...
Damn...they hit their counter level for the day. That's a bummer--serious /. effect.
Anyway--it sure is hard to get interested in something when it's unavailable; maybe with a little bit more interest they can get some better hosting or something.
I've actually checked out this project before, a little bit, and it seems very cool. I'll have to give it a shot when it's back up.
They suck in fact. Well, not for IT, certainly; but I don't like working in that sort of environment.
I work in a small office where I bring my home laptop to work. I'm also the firewall administrator, and tech support guy, and I maintain the servers, and it's a tiny office, so as you can see, my situation is about as far as can be from this sort of thing.
Which is the way I like it. I don't like the idea of working in an environment where there aren't enough tech support people to support users (and their work habits and personalities) as opposed to computers. A computer booting up all the time doesn't necessarily mean it's being efficient; a lot of people make changes to their computers that make them more efficient, perhaps simply because that's the way that they feel comfortable working.
So basically, I hope that I am never in a position to work in or administer an environment like this. It seems cold, sterile, and on some level, unrealistic to me. But hey, I probably seem that way to some people!!!
Ok, I reacted harshly because I didn't like the term.
I'll admit that I've had similar thoughts, but the whole thing is so simplistic--it doesn't take a lot of things into account, like, for example, what if open-source just never ever can deliver some of the stuff that closed projects can? It seems possible.
It's just to early to give open-source this sort of self-congratulatory pat on the back--so, once again, whatever.
Anyways I still prefer saying 'whatever' to simplistic open-source zealots than to raving MS/commercial software zealots. It's somehow heartening?? Maybe?
Too bad that WW3 will hit before the open monopoly takes over, huh?
Open monopoly????
Is this guy serious? The term doesn't even make sense...
Whatever. I think you'll be able to count the number of people that object to this 'open monopoly' on one finger when and if it happens. And I personally don't believe that commercial software will disappear completely.
And even if it did--think about it: we'll be back to only buying real physical products, not bits and bytes and words. That doesn't sound SO bad to me...
But, just to reiterate, whatever.
I'm waiting for mirrored contact lenses personally, so I can pretend that I'm in an William Gibson novel.
Or how about lenses with apple logos for pupils? They might sell.
It just seems to me that the best way to deal with the DMCA is keep publishing the material. This causes a stir, but isn't quite so good as actually putting the details in a changelog--also, since the code is open, can't people still figure out the changes?
Sigh. I just want to know what's in my kernels...preferably without learning C first and reading them.
A story about a tech support guy hosing somebody's windows laptop is supposed to convince us that windows will forever own the desktop? Are you serious? I hope that guy was promptly fired.
I do tech support and systems administration at a small company. I use linux on my desktop machine--which I was alone in doing until recently, when we brought on a new developer who's running linux. Now--I run blackbox, and don't do graphical file management or anything, but the new guy is using Gnome.
Basically--this story is stupid. MS is great, like everybody knows--and also leaves a lot of people cold. Like me. Because it's monolithic, and hard to individualize. Basically, it's nothing special.
The worst thing, as everybody knows, is that MS Windows is all about upgrading--upgrade your OS until they can figure out how to make the os upgrade require a new machine, at which point you have to buy a new machine, preferably with preinstalled WinXP2005Supertron or whatever.
Also, win2k doesn't run worth a damn on a lot of machines--like anything before a pentium 200 or so, with less than 128 mb of ram.
MS has already lost the 'war.' In a few years, the number of computers that don't have the specs for MS's new OS will be staggering, and there will be next to no reason to upgrade. My company, like a lot of others is already passing on the XP upgrade. Because there's no benefit.
MS's dominance was the product of an incredible economic boom. But in a few years, when most pc's are 'obsolete' by MS standards, we'll see how high their stock price is.
And you know what else? I hate it when people complain about linux business models. Linux isn't about business (although it is helping mine out quite a bit--it sure would have hurt us to have to use something like MS Adv. Server 2000 which is like $10k and would have required us to hire an MSCE just to make IIS work, or get Solaris boxes for the price of a luxury car).
Linux is great because it's free dammit--Linux doesn't care if it 'defeats' windows. Linux isn't going anywhere when the funds dry up. To talk about this in terms of conflict is inherently looking at it from a corporate perspective, which Linux doesn't need or care about. Sure, a lot of companies are now using it because it's a great product, nearly for free, but Linux was doing great with just home users, smart hobbyists who liked to hack.
You know what, I've said too much already--that article just really got my goat. I haven't seen too many articles that dumb in awhile. I thought the 'Will Linux conquer or will it die?' thing was done because people had realized how stupid it was.
Linux is here. Deal with it.
Remember that Linux has a better ip stack than most MS OS's, including 2k. Don't be surprised by your winbox outperforming them. If you want to test this, hook a winmachine up to your cable directly, and measure the results.
Also make sure that you're using a reliable way of testing bandwidth; your browser probably isn't he best way.