There was also that whole where-to-dump-debters thing. That was working fine until the first colony had a revolution and they had to turn to another, more southern locale.
Not that we have any kind of prison overcrowding issue these days. Which leads on to ponder how well a population of drug-related offenders would do on the moon.
Oddly enough, all of those thousand geeks could tell you what a scroll is.
Sure. That's an object you can collect in your favorite online game and sell on eBay. It's really a collection of bits - virtual property. What this has to do with paper, I have no idea.:)
I'm probably the only one around here who wants to know how a distro functions for the purposes of doing usefull work. Reviews of the install process are pretty pointless, unless your interest is in cloning large numbers of X clients or servers.
A review of various tasks or whatnot sounds good. However, I'm willing to bet that anyone would find it hard to do such a review if they couldn't get the thing to install.
Well, that's where the IETF comes in. Most Internet standards (or other standards for that matter) have been proposed by companies; that doesn't make them bad.
The IETF community proposed work in this direction in the late 90's, however in 1997 Cisco informed them that they believed some of Cisco's patents covered the proposed IETF VRRP (Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol); on March 20, 1998 they went further and specifically named their HSRP "Hot Standby Router Protocol" patent. Reputedly, they were upset that IETF had not simply adopted the flawed HSRP protocol as the standard solution for this problem. Despite this legal pressure, the IETF community forged ahead and published VRRP as a standard even though there was a patent in the space. Why? There was much deliberation at all levels of the IETF, and unfortunately for all of us the politicians within eventually decided to allow patented technology in standards -- as long as the patented technology is licensed under RAND (Reasonable And Non Discriminatory) terms. As free software programmers, we therefore find ourselves in the position that these RAND standards must not be implemented by us, and we must deviate from the standard. We find all this rather Unreasonable and Discriminatory and we *will* design competing protocols. Some standards organization, eh?
For one thing, it's way harder to fight. It means they aren't fighting a competitor, they are fighting a paradigm shift. IBM may wave the Linux flag, but the real danger is that they are getting away from selling software and focusing on solving problems for businesses more cheaply.
There's another potential shift that threatens Microsoft... and it dove-tails rather nicely with this observation. It has to do with commodity markets.
Microsoft won because IBM lost. That is, IBM lost control of their microcomputer platform which began the commodity hardware market. And as businesses grew taking advantage of commodity hardware, they all turned to Microsoft to provide the OS. Microsoft rode that powerful wave with great success.
It is possible that the tide is turning. Now, the OS is in danger of becoming a commodity. And Microsoft doesn't relish the idea of being under that wave. It would mean a certain loss of control on the market. That makes financial success less of a given. But it also makes it harder for one to push one's own agenda and ideas.
This threat isn't simply a matter of sales either. It is also about perception. Consider this when Microsoft talks about licensing and the steps they take to ensure compliance. Also keep this concept in mind when Gates talks about free hardware.
The obvious advantage is eliminating "features" one doesn't need / want. I suggested Firefox to my wife and she loves it. But the extensions I use are not the same that she uses for her install. To each their own.
When she suggested it to her friend, we ended up with a small laundry list of extensions we like and would suggest. And then I realized - the Firefox that I've come to like is not the Firefox everyone else likes.
Just like any desktop environment I've ever used. If I spend a reasonable amount of time on any system, there are key applications that I must have. Applications that not everyone wants / needs. My desktop environment always looks and behaves very differently than others (how do people work with default environments anyway?).
Maybe this is a reflection of the whole "XUL is a platform" thing. In any case, it is boon and bane. It shows versitility. But it can be a bit daunting to the hapless friend who gets "try Firefox! Oh... and the Widget extension! Oh. And you've got to load up the FooBar too!..."
Think someone is still sore about Minix's destiny compared to Linux's?
Hardly - if you can believe what he says. For example:
The reason for my frequent "no" was that everyone was trying to turn MINIX into a production-quality UNIX system and I didn't want it to get so complicated that it would become useless for my purpose, namely, teaching it to students. I also expected that the niche for a free production-quality UNIX system would be filled by either GNU or Berkeley UNIX shortly, so I wasn't really aiming at that.
So why slam Linus? Because Linus did something he fundimentally disagrees with. The disagreement has been public and heated. Andy aludes to this today. But he also notes:
Some of you may find it odd that I am defending Linus here. After all, he and I had a fairly public "debate" some years back. My primary concern here is getting trying to get the truth out and not blame everything on some teenage girl from the back hills of West Virginia. Also, Linus and I are not "enemies" or anything like that. I met him once and he seemed like a nice friendly, smart guy. My only regret is that he didn't develop Linux based on the microkernel technology of MINIX.
So yes - he still feels the same way after all these years. He acknowledges this disagreement. And notes that it's nothing personal.
Why is it that whenever somebody mentions a flaw in open source, there are always a million slashbots that jump up to say "well, proprietary software's no better!" Pointing fingers makes you look like four-year-olds.
But CVS and Subversion have no need to write to a "system" file, so this protection can work fine. And indeed, every serious CVS server admin has done something like this.
Of course, anything that CVS or Subversion is able to write to would be data a patient attacker would like to modify.
Well, I don't know about that, but I do know that I did my taxes in Firefox with TurboTax online (under Windows, admittedly) and it worked fine, so I imagine that you could do that with Firefox under Linux.
It does. I used Firefox (or was it Firebird at the time?) on Linux to do my taxes last year. No problem. And the year before that, I used Galeon.
I've wondered aloud why Microsoft had pulled the rug out from underneath SCO, and now it's obvious. They're going to start using these idiots, and probably others, to spread the same stupid message.
This isn't the first time Microsoft has used these guys. They've been pushing Microsoft's agenda before SCO. And it makes strategic sense. Memes have a better chance of spreading if they are being introduced through more than one vector.
I've contacted Cisco on it and they're so excited they can't even get someone from law enforcement to come and talk to me about the information on the guy who sent it to me.
Of course, you're assuming you've provided something special. Something unique. Knowledge of code "in the wild" that Cisco's representatives don't already know about.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'forced incompatibilities'. Are you saying that it's impossible for two mac users to be 'compatible' without using Microsoft products? If not then that sounds like an option to me.
MS Word document. IE-only web site. There are plenty of ways of limiting a Mac user to Microsoft products (albeit fewer than on a Windows platform).
The rest of your argument seems to revolve around your inability to interoperate in a non-windows world, but as far as I can tell there's no technical or logistical reason (beyond the stubbornness of others) that this is so.
This is a rather large subject. Microsoft has a documented history of preditory pricing and licensing deals, setting non-standards, and "embrace and extend" tactics with truely open standards. These actions create incomatability by design (and vendor lock-in).
One good point you touched on is the stubborness of others. I would suggest it has more to do with education - or a lack thereof. As I stated, there are IT architects in my environment who have no concept of cross-compatability (or why anyone would care). Although I've found that over the years, this has been changing.
A further point is my "inability to interoperate in a non-windows world." Whether I'm using Windows or not shouldn't matter to anyone but Microsoft. And me, based on my own preference. I have no problem with Microsoft offering the best-of-class application or architecture for a given activity. I do mind it when I can no longer include other platforms in that activity because I've included a Microsoft solution.
My point is that if you wanted to go totally non-Microsoft then you could, you have the option, nobody's forcing you to use their products. Sure, it may be inconveient for you if you don't, but that's your problem/fault, not theirs.
The problem is, Microsoft causes issues where I can not go with another option. It isn't a matter of inconvenience. It is a matter of not being able to do things because Microsoft has created artificial barriers to interoperating with their solutions. And that leaves me with no real option.
well, your statement quoted above would seem to imply that a market that's not open would not provide options. given that there are options, your statement would seem to be saying that the market is open.
I find it kind of interesting that your first "option" involves Microsoft Windows XP. Take a look at the OS running on the HP workstations you spec'd out. Weren't we talking about options to Microsoft's products?
Your next example is the Apple Mac. That's close. At least a Mac platform has some Microsoft applications available - which helps Mac users dodge some of the forced incomparabilities introduced by such offerings as Microsoft Office. But it is far from a real option. I would love to have a Mac at work - they would even swap out my Win2K box if I wanted. However, I've seen the hassles other Mac users go through in that environment. They are faced with constant incomparabilities. The easiest fix has been shelling out additional funds for an emulated Windows environment. Hardly an option to Microsoft Windows.
The next suggested option is Sun. Running Sun's own flavor of Unix - Solaris 8. A fine OS. But hardly a suitable sub. My employer has provided me with a Solaris workstation. However, I still require the Win2K box to handle all the office automation and assorted other IT activities. I also did some experimentation with Kerberos compatability amoung Windows, Solaris, Linux and either a standard Kerberos server or Microsoft Active Directory. Surfice it to say, Microsoft has induced incomparabilities there too. Just some quick examples of why Sun is not really an option.
The final two "options" are Linux systems. Which is great - I like Linux. Use it all the time. But it suffers the exact same issues as Sun's Solaris (further highlighted during my previously mentioned Kerberos testing). And in many ways, Linux suffers the same problems MacOS suffers. I'd like to have a Linux box as my workstation at work (I use one at home). But, like the Mac, there are too many compatability issues for that to be a reality (short of emulating Windows again).
Part of the problem is that the IT architects for my current employer (of which I am one) do not consider multi-platform issues. It's not that one can not get things done when compatability is a key consideration - my previous employer (a technology company) did and is very successful at it. I would be tempted to blame my current IT architects and people like them for our current state of affairs. That is, if I ignored the fact that they heavily favor Microsoft solutions and deploy according to Microsoft - artificial incomparabilities and all.
And that doesn't leave me... or anybody else... with real options.
What you've done is provide a list of competitors while ignoring the issue of artificial barriers put in place by Microsoft. I'm missing your point. I hope you're not trying to imply that there is an open market since there are competitors.
We already know you can deface the earth by crashing a ship of hair dressers, telephone sanitizers, marketers, etc. on it. Though... I suppose that's more like a slow-spreading worm than defacement.
Yeah, right. just because it has 'unix' in the name doesn't mean it has anything to do with the GPL, GNU or open software at all.
You might want to check out another post I made in this thread. If you poke around enough, you'll eventually find that you can link directly to the GPL itself from Microsoft's servers.
Sure. GNU, GPL, Unix. All different things. But there is very much a relationship between the GPL, GNU, SFU, and Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
There was also that whole where-to-dump-debters thing. That was working fine until the first colony had a revolution and they had to turn to another, more southern locale.
Not that we have any kind of prison overcrowding issue these days. Which leads on to ponder how well a population of drug-related offenders would do on the moon.
Sure. That's an object you can collect in your favorite online game and sell on eBay. It's really a collection of bits - virtual property. What this has to do with paper, I have no idea.
After Leonard took Bill's job at Priceline, it was only fair for Bill to start poaching on Leonard's Star Trek cameo territory.
To appreciate a Star Trek show... one must forget that it is Star Trek. How Zen.
A review of various tasks or whatnot sounds good. However, I'm willing to bet that anyone would find it hard to do such a review if they couldn't get the thing to install.
From http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html:
There's another potential shift that threatens Microsoft... and it dove-tails rather nicely with this observation. It has to do with commodity markets.
Microsoft won because IBM lost. That is, IBM lost control of their microcomputer platform which began the commodity hardware market. And as businesses grew taking advantage of commodity hardware, they all turned to Microsoft to provide the OS. Microsoft rode that powerful wave with great success.
It is possible that the tide is turning. Now, the OS is in danger of becoming a commodity. And Microsoft doesn't relish the idea of being under that wave. It would mean a certain loss of control on the market. That makes financial success less of a given. But it also makes it harder for one to push one's own agenda and ideas.
This threat isn't simply a matter of sales either. It is also about perception. Consider this when Microsoft talks about licensing and the steps they take to ensure compliance. Also keep this concept in mind when Gates talks about free hardware.
Last time I noted this, some asshat quipped "GNU's Not Unix." So I provided a trail to follow and see Microsoft's use of GPL'd code for yourself.
The obvious advantage is eliminating "features" one doesn't need / want. I suggested Firefox to my wife and she loves it. But the extensions I use are not the same that she uses for her install. To each their own.
When she suggested it to her friend, we ended up with a small laundry list of extensions we like and would suggest. And then I realized - the Firefox that I've come to like is not the Firefox everyone else likes.
Just like any desktop environment I've ever used. If I spend a reasonable amount of time on any system, there are key applications that I must have. Applications that not everyone wants / needs. My desktop environment always looks and behaves very differently than others (how do people work with default environments anyway?).
Maybe this is a reflection of the whole "XUL is a platform" thing. In any case, it is boon and bane. It shows versitility. But it can be a bit daunting to the hapless friend who gets "try Firefox! Oh... and the Widget extension! Oh. And you've got to load up the FooBar too!..."
Hardly - if you can believe what he says. For example:
So why slam Linus? Because Linus did something he fundimentally disagrees with. The disagreement has been public and heated. Andy aludes to this today. But he also notes:
So yes - he still feels the same way after all these years. He acknowledges this disagreement. And notes that it's nothing personal.
Bitter of Linux's success? I don't see it.
Pot, kettle, black.
Yeah. I'm much more trusting of the million eyeballs being applied to my proprietary vendor's application.
Of course, anything that CVS or Subversion is able to write to would be data a patient attacker would like to modify.
Don't you do this already? If not, you're behind the curve. MS Fanboys are quick to post this and quick to mod it up.
It's a pitty it misses the point (not that there aren't Linux fanboys missing the point too).
I can't quite tell... are you condemning this practice or praising JBoss?
Dude. You were stoned. And watching "The Sound of Music".
Which simply establishes that you were in the right state of mind for a lawsuit simular to the Google one.
It does. I used Firefox (or was it Firebird at the time?) on Linux to do my taxes last year. No problem. And the year before that, I used Galeon.
This isn't the first time Microsoft has used these guys. They've been pushing Microsoft's agenda before SCO. And it makes strategic sense. Memes have a better chance of spreading if they are being introduced through more than one vector.
Bill Gates is not the father of the BSOD. BSOD's are not born. They are products of their environment.
Of course, you're assuming you've provided something special. Something unique. Knowledge of code "in the wild" that Cisco's representatives don't already know about.
MS Word document. IE-only web site. There are plenty of ways of limiting a Mac user to Microsoft products (albeit fewer than on a Windows platform).
This is a rather large subject. Microsoft has a documented history of preditory pricing and licensing deals, setting non-standards, and "embrace and extend" tactics with truely open standards. These actions create incomatability by design (and vendor lock-in).
One good point you touched on is the stubborness of others. I would suggest it has more to do with education - or a lack thereof. As I stated, there are IT architects in my environment who have no concept of cross-compatability (or why anyone would care). Although I've found that over the years, this has been changing.
A further point is my "inability to interoperate in a non-windows world." Whether I'm using Windows or not shouldn't matter to anyone but Microsoft. And me, based on my own preference. I have no problem with Microsoft offering the best-of-class application or architecture for a given activity. I do mind it when I can no longer include other platforms in that activity because I've included a Microsoft solution.
The problem is, Microsoft causes issues where I can not go with another option. It isn't a matter of inconvenience. It is a matter of not being able to do things because Microsoft has created artificial barriers to interoperating with their solutions. And that leaves me with no real option.
I find it kind of interesting that your first "option" involves Microsoft Windows XP. Take a look at the OS running on the HP workstations you spec'd out. Weren't we talking about options to Microsoft's products?
Your next example is the Apple Mac. That's close. At least a Mac platform has some Microsoft applications available - which helps Mac users dodge some of the forced incomparabilities introduced by such offerings as Microsoft Office. But it is far from a real option. I would love to have a Mac at work - they would even swap out my Win2K box if I wanted. However, I've seen the hassles other Mac users go through in that environment. They are faced with constant incomparabilities. The easiest fix has been shelling out additional funds for an emulated Windows environment. Hardly an option to Microsoft Windows.
The next suggested option is Sun. Running Sun's own flavor of Unix - Solaris 8. A fine OS. But hardly a suitable sub. My employer has provided me with a Solaris workstation. However, I still require the Win2K box to handle all the office automation and assorted other IT activities. I also did some experimentation with Kerberos compatability amoung Windows, Solaris, Linux and either a standard Kerberos server or Microsoft Active Directory. Surfice it to say, Microsoft has induced incomparabilities there too. Just some quick examples of why Sun is not really an option.
The final two "options" are Linux systems. Which is great - I like Linux. Use it all the time. But it suffers the exact same issues as Sun's Solaris (further highlighted during my previously mentioned Kerberos testing). And in many ways, Linux suffers the same problems MacOS suffers. I'd like to have a Linux box as my workstation at work (I use one at home). But, like the Mac, there are too many compatability issues for that to be a reality (short of emulating Windows again).
Part of the problem is that the IT architects for my current employer (of which I am one) do not consider multi-platform issues. It's not that one can not get things done when compatability is a key consideration - my previous employer (a technology company) did and is very successful at it. I would be tempted to blame my current IT architects and people like them for our current state of affairs. That is, if I ignored the fact that they heavily favor Microsoft solutions and deploy according to Microsoft - artificial incomparabilities and all.
And that doesn't leave me... or anybody else... with real options.
What you've done is provide a list of competitors while ignoring the issue of artificial barriers put in place by Microsoft. I'm missing your point. I hope you're not trying to imply that there is an open market since there are competitors.
We already know you can deface the earth by crashing a ship of hair dressers, telephone sanitizers, marketers, etc. on it. Though... I suppose that's more like a slow-spreading worm than defacement.
You might want to check out another post I made in this thread. If you poke around enough, you'll eventually find that you can link directly to the GPL itself from Microsoft's servers.
Sure. GNU, GPL, Unix. All different things. But there is very much a relationship between the GPL, GNU, SFU, and Microsoft.