First thing's first. Paying jobs. Americans/Canadians/Europeans have the luxury of taking a chance and coding up Open Source for the morality of it. But in other places, food on the table comes first. Closed software puts food on the table -easier-.
Exactly. Because all the jobs for writing that proprietary code are created in the developing country in question. By using a proprietary software package, you are esentially paying coders in your own developing tech job market.
Oh. Wait. No. Most of this development happens off-shore. If your countrymen are being hired to code for these projects, they had to emegrate first to do it - further weaking your own tech market.
Maybe people are starting to wonder whether it's going to cost them more in the long run or something...
Or maybe officials have better things to do than get hastled by lobyists pushing the existing status quo (namely the so-called CCAGW and Initiative for Software Choice).
Linux should stand on its own merit as should any commercial software.
...which would be fine if that's how things really worked. But it doesn't always happen that way. I've witnessed a commercial software jihad in a government environment before. "Merit" becomes an amazingly subjective term up to quite a range of interpretation.
I agree. Government policies that close doors to competition are bad. Linux might work in some situations, but not in others. There are plenty of good software packages out there to use, and plenty of specific packages for government, that wont exist in OSS until someone is paid (gobs of cash) to write them.
But what exactly is the (proposed?) law? Does it say "all funding must be spent on Linux"? I've yet to see anything substantial. Instead we have to scrape around hearsay. So let's start digging.
Massachusetts, the lone holdout state still suing Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) for antitrust violations, will become the first state to adopt a broad-based strategy of moving its computer systems toward open standards, including Linux, the rival operating system to Microsoft's Windows.
Note the use of the term "open standards, including Linux." It is the reporter's own analysis that links that phrase to "nonproprietary software".
It wasn't easy to find additional references to this activity. Oddly enough, the only other reference came from the Initiative for Software Choice (a lobbying group with dubious intent). The Group published a talking paper document in response news of Masachussets' initiative. It begins with:
On Thursday, September 25, 2003 Massachusetts CIO Peter Quinn announced the state's "Freeware Initiative" - an effort requiring that all IT expenditures in 2004 and 2005 be made on open source/Linux software/platforms if possible.
Once again, we lack a direct quote. But it does mention Linux. And it includes the phrase "if possible".
Again - this is all scant evidence to make a judgment. But then, not even the critics are providing specifics. So its hard to tell exactly what we're dealing with.
One thing that seems to be coming out is that this Initiative is not demanding Linux. It may be mentioning it as an example. And it seems to be aimed at favoring the Open Source. But there is an implication that the intent is to enforce open standards. And there seems to be a possibility where a developer can make their case for a proprietary software package using its own proprietary standard being the best, or even only, option.
Actually, disparaging the President is an offense under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), or at least it was in the 1980s.
It depends on what you are. The relevant portion of the UCMJ is Article 88, enacted in 1950. It reads:
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
It might be worth noteing that previous to 1950, much of the same restrictions existed for all levels of the military. Now it is only applied to commissioned officers. And even then, the law is not entirely clear in how it can be applied. But in general, if you are a commissioned officer in the US military you would be wise to be very specific... and respectful... in your criticism. The few times Article 88 has been invoked has involved rather conservative interpretations of existing guidelines on application of the law.
I am in the millitary, if I were to say that "G. Bush is a moron" I can go to jail. I do not say that, it is just an example. He maybe a little gungho though:)
I spent 8 years in the USAF. I completely disagree with that statement.
It might be worth stressing that US military members do give up many of the rights they have sworn to protect. They becomes something other than a US citizen. But they do have certain rights and duties.
You, as a member of the US military, are not allowed to attend political events or make political comments in uniform. Doing so would imply an official position of the US military. But you are (or at least should be - I certainly was through my career) encouraged to take part in the political process. That includes being involved in legal political activity, holding a personal opinion of our political leaders, and voting - be it for or against a sitting president.
Go ahead. Hold the opinion that Bush is a moron. Devote some of your off duty time to campaign against his office. Get up in front of people and state your opinion without rank or tittle.
But he is still Commander in Chief and you will follow all lawfull orders coming from his office.
One final comment - just because you are in the military, it does not excuse you from the duty of having your own mind. I'm not sure what branch you are in but in my training the concept of a lawfull order was stressed again and again. One is required and duty bound to review all orders given by superiors and ensure that they are, in fact, lawfull orders. In short, one is responsible for one's own actions.
I had a few superiors in my military career that seemed to forget this concept. They took every utterance of a political leader on CNN as both as binding as an order and a personal guide to their own opinions. These are the ones I most fear. Thankfully they were few and far between.
Several years ago, someone posted an interesting observation on this site:
Your employer owns your job. You own your career.
Don't confuse the two. The days of corporate loyalty are long gone. Even very popular and successful business leaders of large and successful companies can not guarentee a job.
I view my employment as a mercenary contract. My loyalty is linked to my compensation. Don't get me wrong... I am loyal to my employer. But I don't do things for free.
Not that I would dispute the accuracy or honesty of someone who makes a living from such activites as spamming and (apparently) dealing coke... but...
Ya suppose all this money Eddy likes to gush about in interviews comes from an activity other than spamming? Wouldn't spamming make a great way to launder income. Its already a shady, though not entirely illegal business. It wouldn't be too odd to have a customer base that's a litle difficult to trace. And it would explain a solid income without any apparent labor, contacts, or business partners.
(not that this little conspiracy theory has plenty of holes - but hey, that's not the fun of it)
I agree with the initial statement that Apache itself doesn't always indicate Linux. However, I'm rather curious as to how many Apache installations are running on Windows servers. It is certainly possible. But I would suspect the combination is rather rare.
Apache installations are just, if not more, likely to indicate some Unix style environment. In public facing server farms, that tends to mean Linux, BSD, or Solaris.
Like Windows, an apache server could mean other Unixes also. Heck - I maintain an apache server on a legacy DEC Alpha platform. But its not public-facing and I would have to believe rather uncommon.
Now - as to the ease of use of Linux... to each their own. If Win2K is your comfort level, great. I personally find Linux very easy to use. In fact, I tend to have more trouble getting things done with Windows - but that has more to do with my experience with one platform over the other. Except for those instances where Windows just can't do what I need it to do (without seeking 3rd party software at least).
Spam isn't hated because it is targetted advertising; precisely the opposite - SPAM is hated because it is untargetted. That is, people get spam for things that they would never buy.
I disagree. Spam is a problem because if left unchecked, it will soon make a very important communications system worthless.
For example, I'm in the market for computer components right now. I'm spec'ing out an intel-based desktop I'll be putting togeather. That doesn't mean I will be happy to see my inbox flooded with email from every parts supplier and white-box screwdriver shop with an email account and a website on the net.
Sure - I get email from a few stores that I have done business with or have requested price updates, notifications of specials, etc. But I have requested this mail. It generates a small amount of traffic - hardly inundating my inbox and making it near useless as a method for contacting me and communications. And since this traffic comes from a small group of reputable dealers, I could quickly eliminate or hide this traffic with an appropriate request or filter.
Spam is as much about the traffic as it is the content.
I'll second that. It seems, given that the experiments work and the proper variables are defined beforehand, this is the type of thing that makes said "Spam" less spam-like!
The only way spam is going to be "less spam-like" is if it doesn't hit my mail queue to begin with.
Did anybody RTFA? What does this have to do with spam?
You might want to RTFA again. Look carefully for the following excerpts in sequence:
...Kowalick turned the Taguchi Method to advertising, with the goal of significantly raising the response rate for ad campaigns.
...
That was where his longtime friend Mario Fantoni, a former marketing executive for Oracle and management-consultant executive at AT Kearney, entered the picture.
...
In their original tests, they designed the Taguchi experiments by hand and conducted them using direct e-mail (yes, spam) with the result that the response rate grew by more than 22 times while the cost of advertising to achieve this result dropped by a factor of six.
Sure - the method has lots of uses, general marketing being a rather recent focus. Cringley specifically mentions eBay adds - or more specifically, an automated service for eBay marketers. That's not spam.
But tell me you don't see some scummy spammer reading this book, perking up over the bit about experiments with spamming, and then applying their new-found technique towards creating a "guerilla marketing" spam kit and associated spam campaign to fleece other scummy spammers (and the occasional clueless business owner).
Another thing it does right is allow the customer some ownership over the digital product they are purchasing.
You mean it MANAGES the customer's DIGITAL RIGHTS...?
Perhapse I should have stressed the word "some". And I should have added qualifiers such as "tiny amount". The difference with iTunes is that you can stop paying Apple and can still use the bits that you've downloaded. And you can burn those bits on to a more permament medium - and then RIP those bits at one's leasure.
Sure. There's still DRM (which has nothing to do with customer's rights). But it is the least restrictive.
Gee, that sounds easy! A sure-fire business plan! I'm surprised you haven't started something like this up yourself!
Oh, but first could you define what "large library", "inexpensive", and "decent quality" mean? It's kind of important.
Yea. It should be a no-brainer. But the kicker is the RIAA and their represented companies. "Inexpensive" and "decent quality" are variable and easy to adjust according to what attacts the market ($.99 seems to be a good starting point although I've heard one producer mention $.20/track, and both AAC and MP3 have the capability to offer enough quality to attract followers). But getting a library of music large enough to hit all the mainstream and niche interests out there is the difficulty. Just ask those who are already in the business and unable to license from those who the RIAA represent. As I stated:
Granted, the likes of the RIAA will resist this business model. And so they'll continue to create a market for the likes of Kazaa.
There was also a post to the Bugtraq list on this subject from Alfred Huger (Senior Director Engineering, Symantec Security Response). The post states that the quote in question is a misquote. And it claims:
Symantec fully supports information sharing on threats and vulnerabilities and believes it is an important tool for consumers and IT professionals to gain a measure of early warning of potential attacks.
Which is nice. Except I had just happened to stumble on this whole proceeding on CSPAN the week before. I was kind of half-listening to the proceedings until I heard the Symantec chief mention, almost as an aside, that future laws should include the sharing of information and tools. That got my attention. And the Wired article rings true with my reaction to what I saw and heard.
Now - its possible that both I and the Wired reporter didn't hear what we throught we heard. So I've been looking for a transcript or recording of the hearings on an infrequent basis. So far, no luck. Does any body have any suggestions on where we can dig up Schwarz's exact words?
Apple's ITUNES might be the most succsessful service of its kind but what is your comparison base? PressPlay? Ha!
And that is part of the whole point. Other services have come before and after iTunes. They have been plagued with issues - some of which involve ownership of bits and DRM. The fact that iTunes doesn't have much to compare to isn't just a fluke of nature. The success of iTunes is largely due to the failure in its competition to provide what people want - and iTunes ability to come close enough.
And how succsessful has ITunes been - 2million downloads the first week, but up until now they've only had about 13 million downloads - it trickled off REAL fast after the newness wore off.
Imagine what would have happened if iTunes had used a cross-platform format such as mp3 or Ogg Vorbis. They would have had a compelling service that could have competed with not only other pay services, but with the likes of Kazaa and their ilk. And they would have had a much larger market with the ability to avoid market saturation at such a quick pace (remember their current offering is tightly linked to a minor desktop market share).
And surely Microsoft has done nothing to earn animosity and distrust. It must be more of that jealosy of success we keep hearing about.
But we love Apple's iTunes $.99 a song deal, and most of us intellies are probably yearning for such a service for windows/linux. well guess what - that requires DRM. Would such a service somehow lower functionality??
Exactly why does this service require DRM? How would a lack of DRM lower functionality? If anything, iTunes has the least DRM restrictive format of all the offerings. Another thing it does right is allow the customer some ownership over the digital product they are purchasing. This all leads to numerous loopholes to circumventing what little DRM exists.
Yet the service is the most successful of its kind. Odd considering how much more DRM "functionality" consumers could get with other, and even longer established, services.
I see people in/. begging for a legal and legit music distribution one second and then cursing D/RM the next... you cant have it both ways.
Look at the history of online music service. The first service able to deliver a large library of inexpensive tracks on demand with decent quality and no restrictions will eclipse anything else in the industry. Granted, the likes of the RIAA will resist this business model. And so they'll continue to create a market for the likes of Kazaa.
Great link. Linus isn't a blind Microsoft hater himself. But that doesn't mean he likes Microsoft either. The same with DRM. From the linked email:
And like the software patent issue, I also don't necessarily like DRM myself, but I still ended up feeling the same: I'm an "Oppenheimer", and I refuse to play politics with Linux, and I think you can use Linux for whatever you want to - which very much includes things I don't necessarily personally approve of.
And there you go. Linus may not like DRM, but he doesn't see a reason to stop anyone from working it in to Linux.
Most of Redhats revenue comes from selling per-seat licenses of the "Linux enterprise linux", not services or support.
What do you think RedHat Enterprise Linux is? It might help to compare it to other distros. Heck - compare it to RedHats own standard distro. Look at the differences.
Enterprise Linux includes an update architecture. Not only are the latest software projects and packages stuffed in to handy RPMs, but the license also involves an on-site update server for your enterprise. The update server pulls its updates and your RedHat Linux systems get their updates from your own update server. As an aside, some software will only be available in RPM packages if you have a Enterprise license (although source will still be available at no cost).
Enterprise Linux is also a slower-paced distribution aimed at providing a stable target for commercial development. Part of that is staying a bit more constant on libraries and other system internals. Part of it will also be coordinating with third party developers to ensure that their product works and they are comfortable with the target platform. Want something from Oracle or Veritas for Linux? Most likely they'll only support your purchase if you deploy on RedHat Enterprise Linux.
That's not to say you can't do a lot of this stuff yourself. You can build your own RPMs of the specialty "Enterprise" software. You can download all the other RPMs. Use apt-rpm. Set up your own repositories and/or cache packages. You can get the latest offering from Oracle or Veritas and get it running on your own Linux distro of choice without their help. In short, you can do it yourself.
And there you have it. Do it yourself. Or have RedHat do it as a part of their Enterprise product line.
Damned good point. All too often critics of WinNT overlook some of the more interesting engineering that went in to it.
But design isn't everything. Implementation counts for a lot. And this is where the WinNT is worthy of criticism.
Sure - the foundation of WinNT involved far more considerations for security than Unix did at its inception (a nod to VMS here). But then, Microsoft has hardly remained steadfast on security. They have removed some pieces and outright circumvented others. They have implemented additional architecture where security is an obvious afterthought.
But your point still stands - even as we criticize WinNT's flaws, we should still be willing to consider what was done correctly. And, indeed, some consideration has been given (witness the work to implement ACL's in *nix environments - even if that functionality doesn't appear to be too popular).
Bull. There are indeed cases where vulnerabilities and exploit code are held from public disclosure during the "responsible disclosure" process. Many of the more current announcements out of Microsoft fall under this process.
It might also be interesting to note that in the current environment, certain groups (usually large corps and gov't bodies) get announcements well in advance of the public. And there has been a couple cases when public disclosure of a vulnerability was sped up by a leak of the semi-private announcement.
Then there are times when disclosure of a vulnerability comes on the heals of a known exploit "in the wild".
Sure - the big worms tend to take advantage of vulnerabilities well after they become publicly known; weeks, if not months after the fact.
But worms are not the only "problem" code to be found.
Errr. What I meant was be prepared to have a simular experience as the parent post described. Understanding what the heck that job description means can be its own challenge. Unless you enlisted under "general". Then the job description will probably be pretty straight forward. But then there's also a good chance your next four years is going to involve the phrase "do you want fries too", "does this take unleaded", or "please turn in to the parking lot... badging office is the first door on your left."
Its amazing how simular certain aspects of a culture can be. So much of this writeup could be used to describe my own USAF career (almost a decade past). The odd thing is that I was an Electronic Warfare techie - electronics maintenance on radar analyzing and jamming systems. Microwave transceivers. And the occasional flar/chaff dispenser. Entirely not IT (although I did end up with the additional duty of my shop's CSO).
Sometimes it's rather odd how simular things are in that environment.
Oh - and I would have done it all again too. It was a hard choice to get out (although I still think it was right one). I owe a lot to my experience in the Air Force. Much of my ability to deal with people and situations come from my old military training and experience.
Highly recommended - but know what you're getting in to. When you enlist... and you take a technical career (have that guarenteed before you sign anything)... be prepared to live what was described to you.
1 a : marked by ease and informality : NONCHALANT b : showing little forethought or preparation : OFFHAND <glib answers> c : lacking depth and substance : SUPERFICIAL <glib solutions to knotty problems>
Of course, I could spell "response" better. I could have also avoided the whole "10K" thing. Guess that preview button has a purpose after all.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Because all the jobs for writing that proprietary code are created in the developing country in question. By using a proprietary software package, you are esentially paying coders in your own developing tech job market.
Oh. Wait. No. Most of this development happens off-shore. If your countrymen are being hired to code for these projects, they had to emegrate first to do it - further weaking your own tech market.
Or maybe officials have better things to do than get hastled by lobyists pushing the existing status quo (namely the so-called CCAGW and Initiative for Software Choice).
But what exactly is the (proposed?) law? Does it say "all funding must be spent on Linux"? I've yet to see anything substantial. Instead we have to scrape around hearsay. So let's start digging.
The original Slashdot article links to a rather fact-light article. It states:
Note the use of the term "open standards, including Linux." It is the reporter's own analysis that links that phrase to "nonproprietary software".
It wasn't easy to find additional references to this activity. Oddly enough, the only other reference came from the Initiative for Software Choice (a lobbying group with dubious intent). The Group published a talking paper document in response news of Masachussets' initiative. It begins with:
Once again, we lack a direct quote. But it does mention Linux. And it includes the phrase "if possible".
Again - this is all scant evidence to make a judgment. But then, not even the critics are providing specifics. So its hard to tell exactly what we're dealing with.
One thing that seems to be coming out is that this Initiative is not demanding Linux. It may be mentioning it as an example. And it seems to be aimed at favoring the Open Source. But there is an implication that the intent is to enforce open standards. And there seems to be a possibility where a developer can make their case for a proprietary software package using its own proprietary standard being the best, or even only, option.
Yep. And, in fact, the training I mentioned specifically talked about the Nuremberg Trials.
It depends on what you are. The relevant portion of the UCMJ is Article 88, enacted in 1950. It reads:
It might be worth noteing that previous to 1950, much of the same restrictions existed for all levels of the military. Now it is only applied to commissioned officers. And even then, the law is not entirely clear in how it can be applied. But in general, if you are a commissioned officer in the US military you would be wise to be very specific... and respectful... in your criticism. The few times Article 88 has been invoked has involved rather conservative interpretations of existing guidelines on application of the law.
I spent 8 years in the USAF. I completely disagree with that statement.
It might be worth stressing that US military members do give up many of the rights they have sworn to protect. They becomes something other than a US citizen. But they do have certain rights and duties.
You, as a member of the US military, are not allowed to attend political events or make political comments in uniform. Doing so would imply an official position of the US military. But you are (or at least should be - I certainly was through my career) encouraged to take part in the political process. That includes being involved in legal political activity, holding a personal opinion of our political leaders, and voting - be it for or against a sitting president.
Go ahead. Hold the opinion that Bush is a moron. Devote some of your off duty time to campaign against his office. Get up in front of people and state your opinion without rank or tittle.
But he is still Commander in Chief and you will follow all lawfull orders coming from his office.
One final comment - just because you are in the military, it does not excuse you from the duty of having your own mind. I'm not sure what branch you are in but in my training the concept of a lawfull order was stressed again and again. One is required and duty bound to review all orders given by superiors and ensure that they are, in fact, lawfull orders. In short, one is responsible for one's own actions.
I had a few superiors in my military career that seemed to forget this concept. They took every utterance of a political leader on CNN as both as binding as an order and a personal guide to their own opinions. These are the ones I most fear. Thankfully they were few and far between.
Don't confuse the two. The days of corporate loyalty are long gone. Even very popular and successful business leaders of large and successful companies can not guarentee a job.
I view my employment as a mercenary contract. My loyalty is linked to my compensation. Don't get me wrong... I am loyal to my employer. But I don't do things for free.
Not that I would dispute the accuracy or honesty of someone who makes a living from such activites as spamming and (apparently) dealing coke... but...
Ya suppose all this money Eddy likes to gush about in interviews comes from an activity other than spamming? Wouldn't spamming make a great way to launder income. Its already a shady, though not entirely illegal business. It wouldn't be too odd to have a customer base that's a litle difficult to trace. And it would explain a solid income without any apparent labor, contacts, or business partners.
(not that this little conspiracy theory has plenty of holes - but hey, that's not the fun of it)
I agree with the initial statement that Apache itself doesn't always indicate Linux. However, I'm rather curious as to how many Apache installations are running on Windows servers. It is certainly possible. But I would suspect the combination is rather rare.
Apache installations are just, if not more, likely to indicate some Unix style environment. In public facing server farms, that tends to mean Linux, BSD, or Solaris.
Like Windows, an apache server could mean other Unixes also. Heck - I maintain an apache server on a legacy DEC Alpha platform. But its not public-facing and I would have to believe rather uncommon.
Now - as to the ease of use of Linux... to each their own. If Win2K is your comfort level, great. I personally find Linux very easy to use. In fact, I tend to have more trouble getting things done with Windows - but that has more to do with my experience with one platform over the other. Except for those instances where Windows just can't do what I need it to do (without seeking 3rd party software at least).
I disagree. Spam is a problem because if left unchecked, it will soon make a very important communications system worthless.
For example, I'm in the market for computer components right now. I'm spec'ing out an intel-based desktop I'll be putting togeather. That doesn't mean I will be happy to see my inbox flooded with email from every parts supplier and white-box screwdriver shop with an email account and a website on the net.
Sure - I get email from a few stores that I have done business with or have requested price updates, notifications of specials, etc. But I have requested this mail. It generates a small amount of traffic - hardly inundating my inbox and making it near useless as a method for contacting me and communications. And since this traffic comes from a small group of reputable dealers, I could quickly eliminate or hide this traffic with an appropriate request or filter.
Spam is as much about the traffic as it is the content.
The only way spam is going to be "less spam-like" is if it doesn't hit my mail queue to begin with.
You might want to RTFA again. Look carefully for the following excerpts in sequence:
Sure - the method has lots of uses, general marketing being a rather recent focus. Cringley specifically mentions eBay adds - or more specifically, an automated service for eBay marketers. That's not spam.
But tell me you don't see some scummy spammer reading this book, perking up over the bit about experiments with spamming, and then applying their new-found technique towards creating a "guerilla marketing" spam kit and associated spam campaign to fleece other scummy spammers (and the occasional clueless business owner).
Perhapse I should have stressed the word "some". And I should have added qualifiers such as "tiny amount". The difference with iTunes is that you can stop paying Apple and can still use the bits that you've downloaded. And you can burn those bits on to a more permament medium - and then RIP those bits at one's leasure.
Sure. There's still DRM (which has nothing to do with customer's rights). But it is the least restrictive.
Yea. It should be a no-brainer. But the kicker is the RIAA and their represented companies. "Inexpensive" and "decent quality" are variable and easy to adjust according to what attacts the market ($.99 seems to be a good starting point although I've heard one producer mention $.20/track, and both AAC and MP3 have the capability to offer enough quality to attract followers). But getting a library of music large enough to hit all the mainstream and niche interests out there is the difficulty. Just ask those who are already in the business and unable to license from those who the RIAA represent. As I stated:
Which is nice. Except I had just happened to stumble on this whole proceeding on CSPAN the week before. I was kind of half-listening to the proceedings until I heard the Symantec chief mention, almost as an aside, that future laws should include the sharing of information and tools. That got my attention. And the Wired article rings true with my reaction to what I saw and heard.
Now - its possible that both I and the Wired reporter didn't hear what we throught we heard. So I've been looking for a transcript or recording of the hearings on an infrequent basis. So far, no luck. Does any body have any suggestions on where we can dig up Schwarz's exact words?
And that is part of the whole point. Other services have come before and after iTunes. They have been plagued with issues - some of which involve ownership of bits and DRM. The fact that iTunes doesn't have much to compare to isn't just a fluke of nature. The success of iTunes is largely due to the failure in its competition to provide what people want - and iTunes ability to come close enough.
Imagine what would have happened if iTunes had used a cross-platform format such as mp3 or Ogg Vorbis. They would have had a compelling service that could have competed with not only other pay services, but with the likes of Kazaa and their ilk. And they would have had a much larger market with the ability to avoid market saturation at such a quick pace (remember their current offering is tightly linked to a minor desktop market share).
And surely Microsoft has done nothing to earn animosity and distrust. It must be more of that jealosy of success we keep hearing about.
Exactly why does this service require DRM? How would a lack of DRM lower functionality? If anything, iTunes has the least DRM restrictive format of all the offerings. Another thing it does right is allow the customer some ownership over the digital product they are purchasing. This all leads to numerous loopholes to circumventing what little DRM exists.
Yet the service is the most successful of its kind. Odd considering how much more DRM "functionality" consumers could get with other, and even longer established, services.
Look at the history of online music service. The first service able to deliver a large library of inexpensive tracks on demand with decent quality and no restrictions will eclipse anything else in the industry. Granted, the likes of the RIAA will resist this business model. And so they'll continue to create a market for the likes of Kazaa.
And there you go. Linus may not like DRM, but he doesn't see a reason to stop anyone from working it in to Linux.
Hardly a ringing endorsement for DRM.
What do you think RedHat Enterprise Linux is? It might help to compare it to other distros. Heck - compare it to RedHats own standard distro. Look at the differences.
Enterprise Linux includes an update architecture. Not only are the latest software projects and packages stuffed in to handy RPMs, but the license also involves an on-site update server for your enterprise. The update server pulls its updates and your RedHat Linux systems get their updates from your own update server. As an aside, some software will only be available in RPM packages if you have a Enterprise license (although source will still be available at no cost).
Enterprise Linux is also a slower-paced distribution aimed at providing a stable target for commercial development. Part of that is staying a bit more constant on libraries and other system internals. Part of it will also be coordinating with third party developers to ensure that their product works and they are comfortable with the target platform. Want something from Oracle or Veritas for Linux? Most likely they'll only support your purchase if you deploy on RedHat Enterprise Linux.
That's not to say you can't do a lot of this stuff yourself. You can build your own RPMs of the specialty "Enterprise" software. You can download all the other RPMs. Use apt-rpm. Set up your own repositories and/or cache packages. You can get the latest offering from Oracle or Veritas and get it running on your own Linux distro of choice without their help. In short, you can do it yourself.
And there you have it. Do it yourself. Or have RedHat do it as a part of their Enterprise product line.
Redhat Enterprise Linux is a service.
Damned good point. All too often critics of WinNT overlook some of the more interesting engineering that went in to it.
But design isn't everything. Implementation counts for a lot. And this is where the WinNT is worthy of criticism.
Sure - the foundation of WinNT involved far more considerations for security than Unix did at its inception (a nod to VMS here). But then, Microsoft has hardly remained steadfast on security. They have removed some pieces and outright circumvented others. They have implemented additional architecture where security is an obvious afterthought.
But your point still stands - even as we criticize WinNT's flaws, we should still be willing to consider what was done correctly. And, indeed, some consideration has been given (witness the work to implement ACL's in *nix environments - even if that functionality doesn't appear to be too popular).
Bull. There are indeed cases where vulnerabilities and exploit code are held from public disclosure during the "responsible disclosure" process. Many of the more current announcements out of Microsoft fall under this process.
It might also be interesting to note that in the current environment, certain groups (usually large corps and gov't bodies) get announcements well in advance of the public. And there has been a couple cases when public disclosure of a vulnerability was sped up by a leak of the semi-private announcement.
Then there are times when disclosure of a vulnerability comes on the heals of a known exploit "in the wild".
Sure - the big worms tend to take advantage of vulnerabilities well after they become publicly known; weeks, if not months after the fact.
But worms are not the only "problem" code to be found.
Errr. What I meant was be prepared to have a simular experience as the parent post described. Understanding what the heck that job description means can be its own challenge. Unless you enlisted under "general". Then the job description will probably be pretty straight forward. But then there's also a good chance your next four years is going to involve the phrase "do you want fries too", "does this take unleaded", or "please turn in to the parking lot... badging office is the first door on your left."
Its amazing how simular certain aspects of a culture can be. So much of this writeup could be used to describe my own USAF career (almost a decade past). The odd thing is that I was an Electronic Warfare techie - electronics maintenance on radar analyzing and jamming systems. Microwave transceivers. And the occasional flar/chaff dispenser. Entirely not IT (although I did end up with the additional duty of my shop's CSO).
Sometimes it's rather odd how simular things are in that environment.
Oh - and I would have done it all again too. It was a hard choice to get out (although I still think it was right one). I owe a lot to my experience in the Air Force. Much of my ability to deal with people and situations come from my old military training and experience.
Highly recommended - but know what you're getting in to. When you enlist... and you take a technical career (have that guarenteed before you sign anything)... be prepared to live what was described to you.
Errr. 10Q not 10K. Guess I'm too used to K's instead of Q's (muscle memory is a bitch).