In comparison, NASA developed and flew three X-15 prototypes with similar capabilities for a cost of $300 million in 60's dollars (which incidentally was considered a cheap program).
You've got good points. But you're being unfair on this one. Even the Rutan notes that the X-15's capabilities far outstrip Spaceship One. That, and X-15 provided some of the basic building blocks in aero and astronomics on which Spaceship One could be built. Furthermore, Spaceship One enjoyed numerous high-performance off-the-shelf materials that didn't exist during the X-15's time. Comparing the two provides some interesting historical perspective. But the two programs are apples and oranges.
Re:interesting but it's not really true
on
Murphy's Law Rules NASA
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I'm still trying to figure out why the Apollo formula of contractors with Nasa oversight doesn't seem to work anymore.
Take a look at Chapter 5 of the CAIB Report. You might be especially interested in Section 5.3 - "An Agency Trying To Do Too Much With Too Little." And since you're comparing Apollo era NASA with today's program, look at diagrams 5.3-1 and 5.3-3. In short, the Apollo program enjoyed considerably more funding.
The problem with errors is that detecting all errors all the time is absolutely impossible.
This is the thinking that provided an opportunity for the Japanese to become economic giants.
Granted - it didn't start that way. Early Japanese production methods were error-prone to say the least. Then an American statistician named Dr. W. Edwards Deming taught a post-war reconstruction Japan how to improve quality. Ironically, Deming developed these ideas to improve production of military products.
Several decades later, US industries began catching on.
This is hindsite at its best, and is the classic comment by beareaucrats who have no concept of what cutting edge design is about. F1 race cars, Racing Sailboats, Nuclear Reactors - NO design is failsafe, and NO design is foolproof.
But this isn't about design. It's about implementation. In each of the examples, the failure occurred because of incorrect assembly of key components.
Having said that - there IS an issue of design brought up by the article. That is, the design of a system should not allow for catastrophic configuration. In several examples, failure occurred when sensors (accelerometers) were installed backwards. Those devices should have been designed with some sort of keying system that only allows installation in the intended configuration. Heck - one of the accelerometers' configuration could only be determined after x-raying the device!
So many times, people get sensitive about OS issues being posted, but they LOVE to post all of the MS ones.
The only times I can think of this being true is when the discussion involves disclosure practices. There are issues with how long vulnerabilities are known, how they are reported, when they are acted on, etc. I've seen proponents of at least two policy schools-of-thought which can lead to conflicting opinions as to how such matters should be handled. This is even more confused by the nature of organizations like Microsoft and Open Source projects. It'll certainly create a confusing message if you're focused on distilling it all to a "Microsoft vs. OSS" opinion.
Another issue I've noticed is Microsoft proponents listing OSS vulnerabilities without regard for what they're posting. A brief analysis of these posts often come up with duplicates and examples of apples-to-oranges comparisons.
Otherwise, I don't notice anyone getting upset about OSS vulnerabilities being posted.
I tend to use tabs and windows as being related to a subject. For example, I'll have a window with Slashdot and associated articles and links from articles. Meanwhile I'm working on something and need to do some research. New window. First tab is google. Associated tabs then are links from google searches (and with Tabbrowser Extensions, I can then color-code, group, group-bookmark, etc. those tabs). Then once I'm done with that subject, I simply kill or move that window (I tend to have a number of browser windows "rolled up" at any given time).
What's got me confused about VNC is no adoption of encryption for the standard protocol. Why not? Why must I tunnel VNC over SSH? Not that I can't. But encryption seems to be an obvious next step. And it doesn't seem to be taken (other than some one-off proprietary implementations).
Ok, but it has to be AT LEAST as good as IE (It isn't yet, far to many HTML rendering errors, crashing with FF web site hosted plugins etc).
That's your experience. Mine is quite different. I use Firefox almost exclusively with few issues (namely the Slashdot oddity and a couple intranet "web applications" that need IE). And you're apparently either ignoring or discounting my observations of others switching to Firefox. I suggest that Firefox is a lot more ready than you perceive it to be.
Incidently - careful of what extensions you install. It's software. And like much software, not all of those extensions are at the same level of stability or play nicely together. Though I must admit that I haven't had any issues - but have noted when one extension author warns to avoid their extension if you use a certain other that doesn't coexist well.
Firefox will only get a single shot with most users. If they download Firefox and have any problems with it at all they will go back to IE and never consider Firefox again.
Nothing is ever completely ready. If you want to wait for absolute perfection, you'll never make it in to the world.
Furthermore, technology doesn't have to be 100% to become widely adopted. If you look through the relatively short history of IT alone, you'll find plenty of examples where something not quite perfected became widely adopted and examples of elegant technologies never gaining a foothold.
The questions Firefox advocates have to ponder is if Firefox is Good Enough and is IE (not to MS bash, but that's the competition) market / mind share showing cracks. I believe the answer to both is 'yes'. YMMV.
Firefox is still gaining ground against IE. It may be better to wait a little longer and let Firefox muture a bit more before trying to convert the general masses with this type of advertising campaign.
Experience is subjective. But I'm seeing Firefox more often these days. My household uses Firefox when they would refuse to fire up the old Mozilla even after I installed it. I see Firefox on more and more desktops... even those who are fairly strong Microsoft fans. And I've over-heard conversations among non-techies where Firefox was recommended several times.
None of this is earth-shattering. And it doesn't eliminate the bugs and issues facing Firefox. But it does show an adoption rate that I just didn't see with the old Mozilla. And that implies that Firefox is getting something right that neither Mozilla or IE did or does.
Firefox has a chance to take it's shot right now. It might be a risk. But there are indications that the time is right. And if it doesn't take its shot now, when it has its chance and standards are still mostly open and adhered to, it may not have that chance in the future.
It's the proportion of the market that uses Windows that's going down, if only so slightly yet, as many people switch to Linux. The profits, however, are made on the total number of copies sold, not the market share.
Then why do so many people care about market share?
Microsoft's profits on per-unit sales of Windows is debatable. Keep in mind how fluid pricing is for large customers. Also keep in mind what came to light about OEM pricing from "Windows Refund Day" and Microsoft's court battles. The sale of Windows isn't important.
What is important is the USE of Windows. Microsoft needs a (somewhat) homogenous platform that they control. This enables them to push their techical agenda (which in itself isn't a bad thing). Doing this not only enables them to develop technology on their own terms, but it helps ensure its THEIR products being deployed. But it's not the per-unit sale of enterprise applications either. It's licensing. Enter the CAL (Client Access License). A server application that might cost a few thousand may end up generating millions in user licensing.
The key to that money is becoming the gatekeeper. Once one is in such a position, every user is a nominal fee. And those fees add up. If you look at Microsoft's new businesses... from the Xbox to.Net / Passport to DRM... it's all about being the gatekeeper. And to do that, you need people to use your gate.
That means that the message from the virus scanner is completely and utterly worthless to the reciptient (i.e. the "sender" of the virus email). That makes it "junk" or "spam" in my book.
A good point. However, from what I understand, this message is generated by the MTA and not the virus scrubber. So exactly what are you suggesting?
Maybe MTAs shouldn't alert the sender that the address they used doesn't exist (user no longer has an account, mistyped address, etc.)? That works for this situation. But it hurts legitimate users who mistyped an address or are trying to contact someone who's moved to a different provider, etc.
Maybe all MTAs should scan all incoming email before acting on bounces, etc. That assumes that the MTA does have a virus (and perhapses spam) scrubber available. For one reason or another, not everyone does. Secondly, that would also mean spending additional cycles processing email that'll never be delivered anyway - resources spent on an activity that has no benefit to your network or users.
If Links or Lynxs are vulnerable, it's not like their lack of integration in a shell of choice means they're going to be prevented from that vulnerability.
No - but I can uninstall or disable Links or Lynxs. Can you cleanly remove or disable the "web enabled" part of Windows' shell?
I like fwbuilder. It provides a fairly advanced interface but also has some nice wizards to get a basic firewall / NAT platform going. And you can migrate your general firewall configuration between platforms (want to migrate from a Linux box to an OpenBSD firewall? Recompile your ruleset and install on the new box). Though... I have to admit... most of what I like about it would likely be lost on a neophyte.
You may find Linux is a little harder to keep updated though when you do need to update something (free editions generally do not include urpmi, yum, etc update utilities that will do it for you for free).
It's interesthing that you suggest SuSE Personal Edition... then go on to suggest that it may be difficult to upgrade "free editions". My SuSE Personal Edition install gets no-cost updates fine. A previous install of Fedora had no-cost update sources. And, of course, distros like Debian are all about free (in more ways than one). And all of these provide the normal weatlth of tools to include the clicky-clicky kind.
Either you're thinking of something different, or your data is out of date.
Fair enough point. However, keep in mind that Apple would be doing OEM deals too. Heck - they sell iPods via HP.
Another reason Microsoft doesn't worry is that the desktop is part of selling everything else. A ubiquitous platform, whether it was licensed properly or not, helps shore up sales in other areas. Especially Enterprise software where the REAL money is in licensing (CALs).
Right. So forget Windows. Let's talk the latest pixel-pushing eye candy dangling at your twitching fingers. The gaming industry is likely to feel "piracy" more. But it's still rolling along strong.
To be more specific, they're against software taht can't be incorporated into their software and then resold with impunity.
Yet Microsoft includes GNU/GPL utilities incorporated within their Services For Unix product that has been both sold and given away over the years. With impunity.
Slashdot Mirror
You've got good points. But you're being unfair on this one. Even the Rutan notes that the X-15's capabilities far outstrip Spaceship One. That, and X-15 provided some of the basic building blocks in aero and astronomics on which Spaceship One could be built. Furthermore, Spaceship One enjoyed numerous high-performance off-the-shelf materials that didn't exist during the X-15's time. Comparing the two provides some interesting historical perspective. But the two programs are apples and oranges.
Take a look at Chapter 5 of the CAIB Report. You might be especially interested in Section 5.3 - "An Agency Trying To Do Too Much With Too Little." And since you're comparing Apollo era NASA with today's program, look at diagrams 5.3-1 and 5.3-3. In short, the Apollo program enjoyed considerably more funding.
This is the thinking that provided an opportunity for the Japanese to become economic giants.
Granted - it didn't start that way. Early Japanese production methods were error-prone to say the least. Then an American statistician named Dr. W. Edwards Deming taught a post-war reconstruction Japan how to improve quality. Ironically, Deming developed these ideas to improve production of military products.
Several decades later, US industries began catching on.
But this isn't about design. It's about implementation. In each of the examples, the failure occurred because of incorrect assembly of key components.
Having said that - there IS an issue of design brought up by the article. That is, the design of a system should not allow for catastrophic configuration. In several examples, failure occurred when sensors (accelerometers) were installed backwards. Those devices should have been designed with some sort of keying system that only allows installation in the intended configuration. Heck - one of the accelerometers' configuration could only be determined after x-raying the device!
You would think an article that outlines several failed autopilot systems might indicate a fundimental flaw in that thought process.
Mother Earth Mother Board is an interesting read too.
The only times I can think of this being true is when the discussion involves disclosure practices. There are issues with how long vulnerabilities are known, how they are reported, when they are acted on, etc. I've seen proponents of at least two policy schools-of-thought which can lead to conflicting opinions as to how such matters should be handled. This is even more confused by the nature of organizations like Microsoft and Open Source projects. It'll certainly create a confusing message if you're focused on distilling it all to a "Microsoft vs. OSS" opinion.
Another issue I've noticed is Microsoft proponents listing OSS vulnerabilities without regard for what they're posting. A brief analysis of these posts often come up with duplicates and examples of apples-to-oranges comparisons.
Otherwise, I don't notice anyone getting upset about OSS vulnerabilities being posted.
I tend to use tabs and windows as being related to a subject. For example, I'll have a window with Slashdot and associated articles and links from articles. Meanwhile I'm working on something and need to do some research. New window. First tab is google. Associated tabs then are links from google searches (and with Tabbrowser Extensions, I can then color-code, group, group-bookmark, etc. those tabs). Then once I'm done with that subject, I simply kill or move that window (I tend to have a number of browser windows "rolled up" at any given time).
What's got me confused about VNC is no adoption of encryption for the standard protocol. Why not? Why must I tunnel VNC over SSH? Not that I can't. But encryption seems to be an obvious next step. And it doesn't seem to be taken (other than some one-off proprietary implementations).
That's your experience. Mine is quite different. I use Firefox almost exclusively with few issues (namely the Slashdot oddity and a couple intranet "web applications" that need IE). And you're apparently either ignoring or discounting my observations of others switching to Firefox. I suggest that Firefox is a lot more ready than you perceive it to be.
Incidently - careful of what extensions you install. It's software. And like much software, not all of those extensions are at the same level of stability or play nicely together. Though I must admit that I haven't had any issues - but have noted when one extension author warns to avoid their extension if you use a certain other that doesn't coexist well.
Nothing is ever completely ready. If you want to wait for absolute perfection, you'll never make it in to the world.
Furthermore, technology doesn't have to be 100% to become widely adopted. If you look through the relatively short history of IT alone, you'll find plenty of examples where something not quite perfected became widely adopted and examples of elegant technologies never gaining a foothold.
The questions Firefox advocates have to ponder is if Firefox is Good Enough and is IE (not to MS bash, but that's the competition) market / mind share showing cracks. I believe the answer to both is 'yes'. YMMV.
Experience is subjective. But I'm seeing Firefox more often these days. My household uses Firefox when they would refuse to fire up the old Mozilla even after I installed it. I see Firefox on more and more desktops... even those who are fairly strong Microsoft fans. And I've over-heard conversations among non-techies where Firefox was recommended several times.
None of this is earth-shattering. And it doesn't eliminate the bugs and issues facing Firefox. But it does show an adoption rate that I just didn't see with the old Mozilla. And that implies that Firefox is getting something right that neither Mozilla or IE did or does.
Firefox has a chance to take it's shot right now. It might be a risk. But there are indications that the time is right. And if it doesn't take its shot now, when it has its chance and standards are still mostly open and adhered to, it may not have that chance in the future.
Then why do so many people care about market share?
Microsoft's profits on per-unit sales of Windows is debatable. Keep in mind how fluid pricing is for large customers. Also keep in mind what came to light about OEM pricing from "Windows Refund Day" and Microsoft's court battles. The sale of Windows isn't important.
What is important is the USE of Windows. Microsoft needs a (somewhat) homogenous platform that they control. This enables them to push their techical agenda (which in itself isn't a bad thing). Doing this not only enables them to develop technology on their own terms, but it helps ensure its THEIR products being deployed. But it's not the per-unit sale of enterprise applications either. It's licensing. Enter the CAL (Client Access License). A server application that might cost a few thousand may end up generating millions in user licensing.
The key to that money is becoming the gatekeeper. Once one is in such a position, every user is a nominal fee. And those fees add up. If you look at Microsoft's new businesses... from the Xbox to
What is Microsoft's current P/E ratio? And what would happen to those billions of dollars if Microsoft's growth went flat?
Fair enough. And I agree. But it seems to be as insightful as stating that the sky is often blue or sugar is usually sweet.
So what you're really saying is "I don't like paying taxes... to anyone."
A good point. However, from what I understand, this message is generated by the MTA and not the virus scrubber. So exactly what are you suggesting?
Maybe MTAs shouldn't alert the sender that the address they used doesn't exist (user no longer has an account, mistyped address, etc.)? That works for this situation. But it hurts legitimate users who mistyped an address or are trying to contact someone who's moved to a different provider, etc.
Maybe all MTAs should scan all incoming email before acting on bounces, etc. That assumes that the MTA does have a virus (and perhapses spam) scrubber available. For one reason or another, not everyone does. Secondly, that would also mean spending additional cycles processing email that'll never be delivered anyway - resources spent on an activity that has no benefit to your network or users.
So when is Microsoft going to embed Word in to Windows?
No - but I can uninstall or disable Links or Lynxs. Can you cleanly remove or disable the "web enabled" part of Windows' shell?
I like fwbuilder. It provides a fairly advanced interface but also has some nice wizards to get a basic firewall / NAT platform going. And you can migrate your general firewall configuration between platforms (want to migrate from a Linux box to an OpenBSD firewall? Recompile your ruleset and install on the new box). Though... I have to admit... most of what I like about it would likely be lost on a neophyte.
5. Provides "value added" to "preferred customer" support contracts who get alerts and full details in advance.
It's interesthing that you suggest SuSE Personal Edition... then go on to suggest that it may be difficult to upgrade "free editions". My SuSE Personal Edition install gets no-cost updates fine. A previous install of Fedora had no-cost update sources. And, of course, distros like Debian are all about free (in more ways than one). And all of these provide the normal weatlth of tools to include the clicky-clicky kind.
Either you're thinking of something different, or your data is out of date.
Fair enough point. However, keep in mind that Apple would be doing OEM deals too. Heck - they sell iPods via HP.
Another reason Microsoft doesn't worry is that the desktop is part of selling everything else. A ubiquitous platform, whether it was licensed properly or not, helps shore up sales in other areas. Especially Enterprise software where the REAL money is in licensing (CALs).
Right. So forget Windows. Let's talk the latest pixel-pushing eye candy dangling at your twitching fingers. The gaming industry is likely to feel "piracy" more. But it's still rolling along strong.
No kidding? Huh. I wonder why Windows isn't "pirated like wildfire" too. Oh... yeah.. it is. And it doesn't matter.
Or, like so much other Open Source software, you could package a build and contribute it back to the PHP project.
Yet Microsoft includes GNU/GPL utilities incorporated within their Services For Unix product that has been both sold and given away over the years. With impunity.