(note to moderators: I'll repost this comment until you stop moderating it down)
Doesn't this just SCREAM for a "flamebait" tag?:)
Welcome to the real world. It's populated by lots of generally cool, intelligent people. It's also chock-full of people with malicious intent. That's why we have people who make it their profession to protect those who hire them.
The dynamics are the same online as offline. Most people already know this. Perhapse its new to you? In any case, either produce some Good Ideas on how to fix the situation or take your sabre-rattling elsewhere. On the off chance that this is humor... work on your delivery.
(note to moderators: aren't these kinds of notes simply missing the point?)
I have always wondered why Government agencies have whole-heartedly adopted NT in spite of the obvious security holes. Surely, such an OS is a threat to National Security.
...and NT will be used worldwide if PHB's see Government departments all using NT.
That's a nice idea, but there's a simpler explaination. The Government IT budgets are controlled, in the most part, by PHBs. What sells to Corporate PHBs, also works for Government PHBs.
just graduated from HS in June and am seriouly thinking about enlisting in the U.S. Navy. My area of interests is UNIX/Linux/BSD security, administration, and coding.
Good luck. Unless the branch of service you're interested in has an opening in the exact field you're interested in, don't exect to do it. Assuming you DO find an opening, do NOT enlist unless you've been guarenteed that position on papper. Recruiters will play bait-and-switch and they will lie.
Having said that... it doesn't mean you can't find interesting, rewarding jobs in the military. You might even get to do what you want to do. But your happiness in your job involves a combination of carefull planning and luck (and maybe a willingness to accept your second or third choice of careers).
Whatever you do, don't go in under an "open enlistment" (that is - no specified career field / position).
Bob Metcalfe can keep is palms and his crappy Winmodems and his FUD to himself. I will never buy anything from any company associated with this asshole.
Would you be happier to know that Bob Metcalfe hasn't had anything to do with 3COM for years? In fact, he's quite bitter about it. Seems that he was forcefully ousted from the company he founded.
Granted... all this has nothing to do with the legal standings and product offerings of 3COM. And it has nothing, really, to do with your misguided rant. All we're doing is confusing the issue with facts, right?
I kind of brushed on this in a previous post. Allow me to re-hash the main points...
It's not your father's Beta. The term 'beta' has been dilluted, if not completely nullfied, by current industry actions. Commercial software these days never actually stops being developed. The progect just gets published and sold (sorry, 'licenced') to consumers; even with known "issues" (read: bugs). As a consumer, you hope that the software house you purchase products from is willing and able to put out fixes for these bugs at a, hopefully not-so, later time. Microsoft does it. Netscape does it. It's standard practice. Now, in a more development-centric environment (where Marketing doesn't control the progect) such as your favorite Open Source progect... "Beta" might actually mean "there's known bugs here that we want to fix before we say it is 'ready'".
Breathe in... release. Microsoft's W2k progect is now in its final stages. They've released a "release candidate" to their testing public. I would hope this means they're pretty sure they are close to a finnished product. Baring any suprises the massive amount of testers might find... its close to a done product. MS says this product is stable. Shouldn't it be?
It's my party... This is Microsoft's show. They're the ones who went for the publicity stunt. Let's not forget that MS, for the most part, are greatly skilled at PR. So if they didn't think W2K was ready... if they suspected that it was still buggy and 'beta'... why did they pull a stunt to bring attention to this fact? And, again, if they knew it was unstable why do they not simply state that the product is 'beta'?
...and I can configure as I want to. An even better point is that Microsoft controlled the configuration of this test. They picked the hardware. They picked the software (including access to the world's best information source in the world on how to tweak a W2K installation- themselves). This was not some unskilled admin setting up a shaky configuration on obscure hardware. If MS, with their resources, can't keep W2K stable... who can?
I said it before - MS tried to pull a quick publicity stunt and got stung by it. Badly. "Beta" hardly explains this one away.
At first I got a chuckle out of this. Of course, I find lots of things funny even if they're not supposed to be. So on the odd chance that this WASN'T a humor piece....
Do remember that this is _beta software_, coming from microsoft, a company that considers beta "software not ready for release". As opposed to the linux community, where everyone uses beta.
Over the years, I've becomme convinced that in software industry terms, "beta" simply means "we haven't started selling this version yet". All software is in development, or "beta", even after it is released to the store shelves. The only difference is semantics.
I'm pretty sure MS has put out their "release candidate" of W2K now. If so, they should be pretty darned close to "stable" as its going to be. Furthermore, lets remember that this is a Microsoft installation on Microsoft picked equipment. This is not some untraned admin trying to install W2K on some obscure hardware. If Microsoft themselves are unable to put out a stable test case, what does that say about W2K? This comes to the second point...
They should be excused for the technology not being ready to fully go up on the internet, especially since they technically aren't done writing it yet.
If MS' technology is not ready to be publically viewed "up on the internet", why are they launching an obvious publicity stunt on it?! This shows a serious lack of judgement.
Granted, this all might be just bad luck for Microsoft. But "unstable beta software" and "thunderstorms" hardly explain it away.
MS set up a nice little publicity snare and promptly stuck their foot in it. Expect the Marketing department to roll in and declare that they're not twisting in the air by their foot, but are actually flying.
OK. Let's take a look at reasons the flames aren't fortcoming (beside your insinuation of MS bias)...
Of course, the Linux guys didn't make their web page incompatible with Netscape (or include unnecessary Javascript anyhow)...
This may seem like a minor point, but it actually points to a chief complaint towards MS; "Our way or no way". The promise of Java is cross-platform compatability; MS' implementation breaks this. A good web site can be handles by a multitude of browsers and platforms - even MS' own corporate site runs fine with Netscape. Yet, here it breaks. Did MS do this on purpose? Their past history certainly implies this is possible.
...look at how shoddy the crack.linuxppc.org webpage is.
Do Linux users expect less of themselves? Do they not mind sloppy work? Does this make them feel more comfortable? The LinuxPPC site is definitely not designed to appeal to anyone in a "commercial" sense--is this why it's acceptible?
Oh well. I just think it's interesting how much our biases get in the way of logical thought.
Actually, I would point out that the web page makes perfect sense. The idea of this "counter-challenge" is NOT glitzy publicity. The machine is there to be attacked - not to hand out online brochures. The marginal page is functional... even humorous ("If you get in, please submit a better webpage than this:)"). I hardly see how additional flash would make a TECHNICAL challege more legitimate.
Imagine if the Windows guys had posted IP addresses on the main page.
Now, here you've made a good point. And apparently, others have made it too since the page has removed the "log". I agree. Posting these IPs is trouble and MS would definately get flamed hard for it.
In the final analysis, you have to ask yourself what are the motivations here? The belief is that MS is pulling a shallow publicity stunt (and none too origional at that). No matter what the outcome, MS will turn it into brochure fodder for PHB's. In the meantime, issues such as MS' responce times to discovered security holes are not dealt with.
The LinuxPPC guys are responding to MS' publicity stunt with a copycat stunt. They've done it in good humor. And they've done this in a way that appeals to other tech-minded people. If anything, its less dubious bait-and-switch and more lampooning. Will they get glitzy brochure fodder out of it? I don't know. Ask their marketing department.
That illustrates what tends to be the problem with the Open Source community, they'll produce the stuff that they personally want, but other things tend to be ignored.
I disagree that this behavior is a fault. This behavior provides solid tools designed with the user in mind. This is opposed to the phrase "we develop with the customer in mind" meaning "marketing came up with some neat ideas they think will enable us to sell more product."
Too often the commercial development world is being pushed by marketing rather than sound technical design. Granted, this implys that a company is listening to its customers. But often this actually leads to shoddy development. Even Microsoft insiders have complained that bug tracking and design have been sacrificed by last-minute implementations requested by the progect's Marketing department.
Furthermore, it all depends on who is the one with the "itch". If it is someone wanting a "cooler" MP3 player (or front end to mpeg123) then that's what gets coded. But if it is a corporate interest that has a specific goal, THAT is what will also get developed. Word Perfect being ported to Linux is obviously an attempt to gain marketshare that has been savaged by Microsoft Word. Likewise, RedHat is not funding development for GNOME because the dart hit "GNOME" by random; RedHat needs a solid desktop environment to expand their market.
But this is all software. Many of the issues you listed were hardware related. And there we run into a completely different animal.
Microsoft does not develop drivers for specific hardware. If I'm wrong on that, please feel free to educate me. However, the understanding I have is that if XYZ Hardware wants their newest product offering to be profitable, they develop the driver for Microsoft Windows and offer it to Microsoft to be included in their distribution of the OS. Updates to the driver are published on media and offered for download.
How those devices work is often a highly guarded secret. They are proprietary to say the least. And so if anyone is going to write drivers for an OS, its more than likely going to be the manufactorer and nobody else. Kudos to those who manage to black-box closed devices and get them to work under Linux.
Developers willing to code for hardware devices will not solve this. Its the manufactorer's attitudes that will have to change. They're going to have to see economic incentive to support additional OS' (like Linux). For my part, I only buy devices that will work with Linux (and consequently tend to advise less-technical friends to buy those devices I know and like). I've even gone so far as to email a company saying "I like your product, but since I couldn't find it on any Linux compatability listing I will be buying your competitor's offering, which is listed, instead."
The whole issue depends on economy of scale. As more parties become interested in Linux, the OS will do more. That's why I want to see it become popular. If Linux fails to acheive that popularity, I doubt it will be at the hands of its developers.
...you will see what the US government is really concerned with--tracking ordinary people to sell their information to the corporations who are really holding the strings.
To paraphrase the saying: Don't apply deceitfull motives to what can be explained with laziness.
The US Government, and their agencies such as the FBI, have a job to do. They'd prefer it if they could do that job in an effective manner as easy as possible.
By the nature of these tasks, some jobs are easier to do when liberties and freedoms are sacrificed. The leaders of the agencies, in their belief of a rightious cause, will call for those small sacrifices. They know what they need to do their job and they trust their agency to use the power vested in them correctly.
This is as it should be. Agencies SHOULD do what they can to be effective. However, the goals of the Governmental machine do not always coincide with those of a free society. That society should always be wary of how "efficient" a Government and its agencies get.
The conflict between society and its Government is the abuse of power given to said Government. Though leaders may feel that their agency deserves the power it seeks and won't abuse its authority, history has shown otherwise. Someone, somewhere in a beuocracy will abuse the power they are given. Take a look at the IRS (from employees illeagaly searching celebrity files, calous disreguard for citizens' financial lives, to charges of revenge seeking). The trick is to allow the agency in question just enough power to be effective without providing it so much power that the inevitable abuse will be too damaging.
Do Corporate interests have an effect on Government? Certainly. And quite often its not in the interest of a free society. However, in this case, I think the charge of Corporate incentive is off base. A power play IS involved; but it is beurocratic, not corporate, dynamics causing it.
Every idea either has some value, or it doesn't. If it has value, it can be exploited for cash.
So the question then is if all this research is ultimately worth cash on the barrelhead... who's raking it in?
NASA does, in fact, bennefit from their own work. But its indirect.
Goverment employed engineers (as opposed to engineers working under contract from, for example, Boeing or Lockheed/Martin) can keep commercial rights to their inventions. NASA will even help them patent it. Granted, NASA gets free use of the design. But if there is commercial exploitation to be made on it - the engineer can get a piece of it.
So why does NASA "give away" innovation?
It's a perk. NASA doesn't pay top dollar salaries. Sure, the retirement bennefits are great. But if you're a talented engineer, why devote your life to lower pay if you can strike out on your own and ride the success of your invention? With this perk, you can do both. Engineers profit from their work, and NASA gets to keep talented Engineers.
Re:legal if the license allows it
on
UCITA is passed
·
· Score: 1
Courts have upheld EULAs and such, except in cases where it's necessary to violate copyrights in order to create interoperable software.
Really? It was my understanding that no court precidents have been set to uphold EULAs. Is this a misconception? Did I miss something recently?
The first is a bunch of slack-jawed, and suitably awed, Suits mulling around a sparkling sign reading "Rob's Open Source Mystery Tour". Suddenly, Rob appears in a Willy Wonka style; decked in a tophat and particularly bright, strangely cut suite. With a wave of his cane, and perhapse a few sparkles for effect, the tour into the wild and magical world of Open Source begins. No chemical augmentation is required, as most Suits are "on drugs" already.
Second image...
Rob pulling a rickshaw cart with the words "Open Source Tour" on the sides. The cart is filled with Suits ooooh-ing and aaawwww-ing at the exotic, wonderous sites of the LinuxWolrd Expo floor as they pass by. Occasionally, Rob calls back to point out some point of interest.
"On the right, you see the Linux Care booth. You'll notice in the advertisement, the girl is covering her butt with a Debian box.."
"Ohhhh!"
"Ahhhh!"
It might not be as fun as a tophat and cane, but there's a possiblity of better tips.
In short, I wouldn't take the article seriously. Its a wry view of the PR game, if anything. Heck... the author even mentioned that he couldn't see Rob actually doing tours (though, he was apparently all too willing to take advantage of the possibility).
After the aggrivation of his article, I hope Andrew Leonard tips well.
Nonetheless, PR will regroup. Controlling information is an art that simply needs to catch up with the digital age.
Indeed.
The Internet is going to change the PR industry. Those who can't adapt will eventually fade. But don't expect this to happen to the industry as a whole. These are creative, intelligent folks who specialize in manipulation. They're going to figure it out and how to make the best of it.
I believe those who deal in hype are just beginning to really appreciate the power of the Internet. while "grass roots" efforts increase the danger of bad press, it also allows for an amazingly swift channel to spread propaganda. FUD anyone?
What about DIVX? There is a strong belief that not only did corporate interests use the Internet to advertise their offering, they manipulated it by creating false "fan generated" web sites in support of DIVX. If this is true... it was a blatent attempt to generate "grass roots" hype and support for their offering (one that was already experiencing a good deal of critisism on the net). Of course, DIVX failed to gain enough of a market to survive. Was the Internet boon or bane to their effort?
Hollywood lives on hype. Spinmeisters can make or break a movie. Enter the Internet. Once again, there are charges of false "fan generated" sites actually created by corporate interests to hype movies. Likewise, some wonder how many "fan" messages on public forumns are really the work of online spin doctors. American Pie and Blair Witch comes were mentioned in recent accusations (though, Blair Witch has also used the Internet to legitimately extend the "reality" of the movie experience).
Of course, nobody is probably more aware of Internet PR than George Lucas himself. Star Wars hype has naturally manifested on the net. I doupt Lucas Films has had to artificially generate any of it. However, not all the hype has been positive. Interviews with George Lucas indicates that he is troubled by some of what he sees said about Star Wars on the net. In turn, his comments are picked appart post-by-post (on Slashdot, even). Its an environment custom made for PR handlers and spin doctors.
OK. So sure... let the PR flakies push their spin. We'll catch it and tear it to shreds. That's what Web Journals like Slashdot is all about. Right?
That works for our community. But the mainstream is being funneled in to "portals" like The Go Network. Its broadcast business as usual on the Net. Sure... once in awhile somone in the mass market culture will get clued in to an alternative site. But most of them will stay in comfy waters. The PR business has circled those waters for years and are quite familiar with it.
One last comment. Before we feel too superior with our hype-resistant selves... lets look back to April 1st (or, more specifically, the couple of weeks leading up to it). Sure, there are a few mitigating circumstances. But there was also some hints pointing to the fact that something wasn't quite right. How many picked up on it? Judging from the angry responses... too many were caught unawares by hype.
The Internet won't end the PR business, just how the game is played.
I would really like to see some public opinion polls to influence the design of Linux. This is called running a business...
Yea! We can get some customer focus groups. We can get some marketing folks to input on it. Then, with those results, we can design a window manager based on cute cartoon "avatars" who advise you how to do tasks. We'll give it a catchy name... "bAWb" ( b-something Avatar Windowing b-something... Marketing can iron it out).
OK. To be fair - you're right. MS knows how to manipulate a market. Their ultimate power is their Marketing. So certainly, if "Open Source" is the Big Thing of the day... they're going to use it as a tool to further their own gains.
Of course... then there's Linux. As a true "child" of Open Source, Linux isn't about marketing. It's about praticality; solid design and usefull tools. Marketing departments involved with Linux companies worry about how to leverage what already exists - not what should be developed. Public opinion works its way into Linux via pubic forumns ("You know what would be really usefull/cool? Having X do X.." "Say! You're right. I've got the inclination to code that... tell me more...").
Does Linux need improvement? Certainly. That's a big part of what Open Source is - constant improvement. Will "hot buttons" get pressed? If there is a true user need - yes. And as that "user need" becomes defined by business interests willing to pay open source coders for development as much as a group's idea of what is "cool", it will happen faster. But even then, development will be resitant to "lock in" strategies and products called "bAWb".
this is a very good point, but as the internet is shifting away from a techy-geek only medium and going main stream, I'm not sure if this strategy can hold up against the test of time.
Ahhh. But this is why Communicator comes packaged with AIM. The less savvy "we're not sure about this computing stuff, so we'll just use what comes on our computer" crowd will use AIM. It enables those users to talk to their AOL friends and builds AOL's brand. Incidently, it fits in with the AIM demographic.
Meanwhile, those who are savvy and/or deturmined to go a different route will pick up ICQ and use that.
AOL gets what they want both ways - and that's eyeballs.
Now... in the grander scheme... I don't think this arangement can continue. There's already AIM and ICQ clones (by even MS!). The protocols will eventually become comoditized... or an open standard will come into play that everyone will eventually follow.
The best AOL can hope for is to keep their initial installation base intact. And, again, they do that by not giving folks a reason to abandon their brand.
But even wierder still is the fact the AOL has left AIM and ICQ together side by side, and opted NOT TO put the two together. I really don't understand why one company should have two versions of the same type of aplication, really stupid.
Not at all. Its all about marketing, mind share, and brand image.
AOL had instant messaging for their internal network for a long time. Along comes this unknown startup called Mirabilis with their ICQ - and a grassroots following. AOL opens up their customer base to the internet in general with AIM.
What you ended up with was two very distinct marketing groups.
AIM consisted mostly of AOL customers and beginner computer users.
Meanwhile, ICQ's grass-roots support had created a more technically aware userbase. In addition, there was a considerable install base outside the US.
AOL wanted access to this demographic, so they purchased it. ICQ provided them with something AIM wasn't getting for them.
But there was a problem with this; AOL's stigma. AOL is not viewed kindly in technical circles. Many technically minded people want nothing to do with AOL. AOL would have to tread lightly lest all the eyeballs their purchase was supposed to bring them bail out. In fact, ICQ lost a percentage of users on the purchase announcement alone.
If AOL treated ICQ with a heavy hand, they would have destroyed the ICQ brand. This would probably include combining AIM and ICQ. Destroy the brand, you've destroyed user loyalty, and you've lost your users. As it is, AOL has played the ICQ card carefully to maintain its value.
Now... whether they're developing the product properly is an entirely different matter...
In my stint in the USAF, we used something very simular to these for secure data transfer (the data transfer bit used STU-III units). The difference between those pictured and what I remember was the drive area was covered by two swinging "doors". I'm thinking what is pictured is an earlier model.
These things were HEAVY. Obviously designed with more rugged services in mind (seemed more USA than USAF). They had wire mesh shielding along all contact poits (top of case, the aforementioned doors, etc). The idea is to direct all errant signal to ground instead of inadvertantly broadcasting them to whoever might be able to listen.
They were also woefully behind the times - when 486DX4s were going against the first Pentiums, we had a 386. They worked fine for their task. But man, were they slow.
I wouldn't be suprised t find out that these puppies are military surplus.
I've had a few lengthy chats with folks at SWBell concerning my own, eventually failed, ADSL installation. One tidbit to come out of all this concerned how they were rationing service.
For example, the least expensive service involves getting one single dynamic IP address. There is currently nothing in place to stop you from checking out multiple IP adresses. In fact, people are doing that right now. And SWBell is completely aware of it and are tracking it. The guy I talked to said they're not doing anything about it right now (beyond monitoring), but likely will in the future.
A friend of mine who just got ADSL from SWBell is also getting very speedy transfers - in excess of the advertised top speed for the service he bought. I can't help to think that these two situations are linked and after the intial roll-out time is done (SWBell is still frantically running around and trying to get all this to work) they'll begin to limit service closer to what they've in fact sold to their customers.
I'm just posting to say anyone's opinions on GTE vs. SWBell, adsl, nol.net, or whatever would be greatly appreciated.
A friend of mine has ADSL service through SWBell (the loop) and SWBell.net (data/ISP) and raves about it.
I tried to get it and after a 2month wait for the install date (my date was 1 day ahead of my friend's) found out that, in fact, my neighborhood couldn't get it. Something about too many T1 and ISDN customers on that segment. I was very disappointed.
The whole ADSL thing is under some debate. You can dig up some tidbits about it, and houston service, in houston.internet.providers.
I was just thinking this over at dinner and it dawned on me that there is the issue of RF energy causing cancer.
I believe the devices in question include radar guns (police were resting the 'gun' in their laps and consequently developing very... personal... cancer) and I seem to remember something about compact cell phones (where the transmitter is close to the head - btw, some cell phone units are capable of puting out more power but are restricted by Federal regulations).
The characteristics seem to be comparitively low powered devices held close to the body over an extended period of time.
Of course, there's a great deal of debate on these issues. I don't believe there are any conclusive studies pointing to why this happens (and even the findings that something DOES happen is under debate). But as thing aspect of RF damage comes more to light, it might be worth both mention and consideration.
I'm sure anyone who knows more about this than myself (wasn't there a/. post?) will oblige with a followup post.;)
They used to break into buildings and pull off amazing 'hacks'. Mostly by college kids.
Kind of.
As has been noted before... the term origionated at MIT sometime in the 60s. It always refered to a group of college kids who didn't always code.
According the book Hackers, this first came about in the model railroad club. There were the art side of the club that did the models, landscapes, etc... then there was the technies who did all the wiring and switching (even using a retired phone switch to handle the system). Their wiring systems were very complex and when someone pulled off something new, it was called a "hack".
This group soon found themselves gaining access to a newly installed University computer. Their technical facination drew them to it and soon they were "hacking" code.
It might be interesting to mention that this group also "hacked" buildings. Quite often, the resources the group was interested in were placed behind locked doors. Members of the group became very good at studying and picking locks - as well as coming up with other ways to circumvent obsticles.
In this light, its easy to see that "hacking" became primarily a code activity... but other things were also "hacked". Aspects of security were thrown in as this new wave of enthusiasts saught ways around barriers put up by a controlling regime (with a completely different view towards computing resources).
Jump forward a decade or two. The 80's. The movie Wargames. The term "hacker" comes from a relatively closed, unoticed "society" (that had been slowly 'spreading' from its origins at MIT) and is thrust into the general public's vocabulary. Unfortuneatly, the only aspect of the word to make this transition is "one who circumvents computer security".
Jump another decade. Now that information technology is not only vital to business, but fast becoming a strong aspect of popular culture... the entire computer culture is less closed. The media pays more attention. Computer security becomes a bigger concern and the word "hacker" as "introduced" to us in the 80s is in wide use. Unfortunately, all the old aspects of the word are lost as "hackers" become increasingly defined by vandals with increasingly malicious intent, little real computing knowledge, and even less justification for their actions.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't this just SCREAM for a "flamebait" tag? :)
Welcome to the real world. It's populated by lots of generally cool, intelligent people. It's also chock-full of people with malicious intent. That's why we have people who make it their profession to protect those who hire them.
The dynamics are the same online as offline. Most people already know this. Perhapse its new to you? In any case, either produce some Good Ideas on how to fix the situation or take your sabre-rattling elsewhere. On the off chance that this is humor... work on your delivery.
(note to moderators: aren't these kinds of notes simply missing the point?)
That's a nice idea, but there's a simpler explaination. The Government IT budgets are controlled, in the most part, by PHBs. What sells to Corporate PHBs, also works for Government PHBs.
Good luck. Unless the branch of service you're interested in has an opening in the exact field you're interested in, don't exect to do it. Assuming you DO find an opening, do NOT enlist unless you've been guarenteed that position on papper. Recruiters will play bait-and-switch and they will lie.
Having said that... it doesn't mean you can't find interesting, rewarding jobs in the military. You might even get to do what you want to do. But your happiness in your job involves a combination of carefull planning and luck (and maybe a willingness to accept your second or third choice of careers).
Whatever you do, don't go in under an "open enlistment" (that is - no specified career field / position).
Again... good luck.
Would you be happier to know that Bob Metcalfe hasn't had anything to do with 3COM for years? In fact, he's quite bitter about it. Seems that he was forcefully ousted from the company he founded.
Granted... all this has nothing to do with the legal standings and product offerings of 3COM. And it has nothing, really, to do with your misguided rant. All we're doing is confusing the issue with facts, right?
I laughed. Then I got a chuckle out of the replies. Then I pondered over the likelyhood of someone taking your post seriously... and agreeing.
Thought-provoking humor. Good stuff.
It's not your father's Beta.
The term 'beta' has been dilluted, if not completely nullfied, by current industry actions. Commercial software these days never actually stops being developed. The progect just gets published and sold (sorry, 'licenced') to consumers; even with known "issues" (read: bugs). As a consumer, you hope that the software house you purchase products from is willing and able to put out fixes for these bugs at a, hopefully not-so, later time. Microsoft does it. Netscape does it. It's standard practice. Now, in a more development-centric environment (where Marketing doesn't control the progect) such as your favorite Open Source progect... "Beta" might actually mean "there's known bugs here that we want to fix before we say it is 'ready'".
Breathe in... release.
Microsoft's W2k progect is now in its final stages. They've released a "release candidate" to their testing public. I would hope this means they're pretty sure they are close to a finnished product. Baring any suprises the massive amount of testers might find... its close to a done product. MS says this product is stable. Shouldn't it be?
It's my party...
This is Microsoft's show. They're the ones who went for the publicity stunt. Let's not forget that MS, for the most part, are greatly skilled at PR. So if they didn't think W2K was ready... if they suspected that it was still buggy and 'beta'... why did they pull a stunt to bring attention to this fact? And, again, if they knew it was unstable why do they not simply state that the product is 'beta'?
An even better point is that Microsoft controlled the configuration of this test. They picked the hardware. They picked the software (including access to the world's best information source in the world on how to tweak a W2K installation- themselves). This was not some unskilled admin setting up a shaky configuration on obscure hardware. If MS, with their resources, can't keep W2K stable... who can?
I said it before - MS tried to pull a quick publicity stunt and got stung by it. Badly. "Beta" hardly explains this one away.
I think this just puts a modern spin on what fire-and-brimstone preachers have been saying for decades... God is the ultimate hacker. Phear G0D!
MS better get something in the rules about "acts of god" real quick - I'd expect floods or locusts next. ;)
Over the years, I've becomme convinced that in software industry terms, "beta" simply means "we haven't started selling this version yet". All software is in development, or "beta", even after it is released to the store shelves. The only difference is semantics.
I'm pretty sure MS has put out their "release candidate" of W2K now. If so, they should be pretty darned close to "stable" as its going to be. Furthermore, lets remember that this is a Microsoft installation on Microsoft picked equipment. This is not some untraned admin trying to install W2K on some obscure hardware. If Microsoft themselves are unable to put out a stable test case, what does that say about W2K? This comes to the second point...
If MS' technology is not ready to be publically viewed "up on the internet", why are they launching an obvious publicity stunt on it?! This shows a serious lack of judgement.
Granted, this all might be just bad luck for Microsoft. But "unstable beta software" and "thunderstorms" hardly explain it away.
MS set up a nice little publicity snare and promptly stuck their foot in it. Expect the Marketing department to roll in and declare that they're not twisting in the air by their foot, but are actually flying.
This may seem like a minor point, but it actually points to a chief complaint towards MS; "Our way or no way". The promise of Java is cross-platform compatability; MS' implementation breaks this. A good web site can be handles by a multitude of browsers and platforms - even MS' own corporate site runs fine with Netscape. Yet, here it breaks. Did MS do this on purpose? Their past history certainly implies this is possible.
Actually, I would point out that the web page makes perfect sense. The idea of this "counter-challenge" is NOT glitzy publicity. The machine is there to be attacked - not to hand out online brochures. The marginal page is functional... even humorous ("If you get in, please submit a better webpage than thisNow, here you've made a good point. And apparently, others have made it too since the page has removed the "log". I agree. Posting these IPs is trouble and MS would definately get flamed hard for it.
In the final analysis, you have to ask yourself what are the motivations here? The belief is that MS is pulling a shallow publicity stunt (and none too origional at that). No matter what the outcome, MS will turn it into brochure fodder for PHB's. In the meantime, issues such as MS' responce times to discovered security holes are not dealt with.
The LinuxPPC guys are responding to MS' publicity stunt with a copycat stunt. They've done it in good humor. And they've done this in a way that appeals to other tech-minded people. If anything, its less dubious bait-and-switch and more lampooning. Will they get glitzy brochure fodder out of it? I don't know. Ask their marketing department.
I disagree that this behavior is a fault. This behavior provides solid tools designed with the user in mind. This is opposed to the phrase "we develop with the customer in mind" meaning "marketing came up with some neat ideas they think will enable us to sell more product."
Too often the commercial development world is being pushed by marketing rather than sound technical design. Granted, this implys that a company is listening to its customers. But often this actually leads to shoddy development. Even Microsoft insiders have complained that bug tracking and design have been sacrificed by last-minute implementations requested by the progect's Marketing department.
Furthermore, it all depends on who is the one with the "itch". If it is someone wanting a "cooler" MP3 player (or front end to mpeg123) then that's what gets coded. But if it is a corporate interest that has a specific goal, THAT is what will also get developed. Word Perfect being ported to Linux is obviously an attempt to gain marketshare that has been savaged by Microsoft Word. Likewise, RedHat is not funding development for GNOME because the dart hit "GNOME" by random; RedHat needs a solid desktop environment to expand their market.
But this is all software. Many of the issues you listed were hardware related. And there we run into a completely different animal.
Microsoft does not develop drivers for specific hardware. If I'm wrong on that, please feel free to educate me. However, the understanding I have is that if XYZ Hardware wants their newest product offering to be profitable, they develop the driver for Microsoft Windows and offer it to Microsoft to be included in their distribution of the OS. Updates to the driver are published on media and offered for download.
How those devices work is often a highly guarded secret. They are proprietary to say the least. And so if anyone is going to write drivers for an OS, its more than likely going to be the manufactorer and nobody else. Kudos to those who manage to black-box closed devices and get them to work under Linux.
Developers willing to code for hardware devices will not solve this. Its the manufactorer's attitudes that will have to change. They're going to have to see economic incentive to support additional OS' (like Linux). For my part, I only buy devices that will work with Linux (and consequently tend to advise less-technical friends to buy those devices I know and like). I've even gone so far as to email a company saying "I like your product, but since I couldn't find it on any Linux compatability listing I will be buying your competitor's offering, which is listed, instead."
The whole issue depends on economy of scale. As more parties become interested in Linux, the OS will do more. That's why I want to see it become popular. If Linux fails to acheive that popularity, I doubt it will be at the hands of its developers.
To paraphrase the saying: Don't apply deceitfull motives to what can be explained with laziness.
The US Government, and their agencies such as the FBI, have a job to do. They'd prefer it if they could do that job in an effective manner as easy as possible.
By the nature of these tasks, some jobs are easier to do when liberties and freedoms are sacrificed. The leaders of the agencies, in their belief of a rightious cause, will call for those small sacrifices. They know what they need to do their job and they trust their agency to use the power vested in them correctly.
This is as it should be. Agencies SHOULD do what they can to be effective. However, the goals of the Governmental machine do not always coincide with those of a free society. That society should always be wary of how "efficient" a Government and its agencies get.
The conflict between society and its Government is the abuse of power given to said Government. Though leaders may feel that their agency deserves the power it seeks and won't abuse its authority, history has shown otherwise. Someone, somewhere in a beuocracy will abuse the power they are given. Take a look at the IRS (from employees illeagaly searching celebrity files, calous disreguard for citizens' financial lives, to charges of revenge seeking). The trick is to allow the agency in question just enough power to be effective without providing it so much power that the inevitable abuse will be too damaging.
Do Corporate interests have an effect on Government? Certainly. And quite often its not in the interest of a free society. However, in this case, I think the charge of Corporate incentive is off base. A power play IS involved; but it is beurocratic, not corporate, dynamics causing it.
So the question then is if all this research is ultimately worth cash on the barrelhead... who's raking it in?
NASA does, in fact, bennefit from their own work. But its indirect.
Goverment employed engineers (as opposed to engineers working under contract from, for example, Boeing or Lockheed/Martin) can keep commercial rights to their inventions. NASA will even help them patent it. Granted, NASA gets free use of the design. But if there is commercial exploitation to be made on it - the engineer can get a piece of it.
So why does NASA "give away" innovation?
It's a perk. NASA doesn't pay top dollar salaries. Sure, the retirement bennefits are great. But if you're a talented engineer, why devote your life to lower pay if you can strike out on your own and ride the success of your invention? With this perk, you can do both. Engineers profit from their work, and NASA gets to keep talented Engineers.
Really? It was my understanding that no court precidents have been set to uphold EULAs. Is this a misconception? Did I miss something recently?
I'm going to have to copy and paste THAT. Where's my .sig file?
Hopefully the post still retains its "insight" when viewed with a less... enchanced... mind. :)
The first is a bunch of slack-jawed, and suitably awed, Suits mulling around a sparkling sign reading "Rob's Open Source Mystery Tour". Suddenly, Rob appears in a Willy Wonka style; decked in a tophat and particularly bright, strangely cut suite. With a wave of his cane, and perhapse a few sparkles for effect, the tour into the wild and magical world of Open Source begins. No chemical augmentation is required, as most Suits are "on drugs" already.
Second image...
Rob pulling a rickshaw cart with the words "Open Source Tour" on the sides. The cart is filled with Suits ooooh-ing and aaawwww-ing at the exotic, wonderous sites of the LinuxWolrd Expo floor as they pass by. Occasionally, Rob calls back to point out some point of interest.
"On the right, you see the Linux Care booth. You'll notice in the advertisement, the girl is covering her butt with a Debian box.."
"Ohhhh!"
"Ahhhh!"
It might not be as fun as a tophat and cane, but there's a possiblity of better tips.
In short, I wouldn't take the article seriously. Its a wry view of the PR game, if anything. Heck... the author even mentioned that he couldn't see Rob actually doing tours (though, he was apparently all too willing to take advantage of the possibility).
After the aggrivation of his article, I hope Andrew Leonard tips well.
Indeed.
The Internet is going to change the PR industry. Those who can't adapt will eventually fade. But don't expect this to happen to the industry as a whole. These are creative, intelligent folks who specialize in manipulation. They're going to figure it out and how to make the best of it.
I believe those who deal in hype are just beginning to really appreciate the power of the Internet. while "grass roots" efforts increase the danger of bad press, it also allows for an amazingly swift channel to spread propaganda. FUD anyone?
What about DIVX? There is a strong belief that not only did corporate interests use the Internet to advertise their offering, they manipulated it by creating false "fan generated" web sites in support of DIVX. If this is true... it was a blatent attempt to generate "grass roots" hype and support for their offering (one that was already experiencing a good deal of critisism on the net). Of course, DIVX failed to gain enough of a market to survive. Was the Internet boon or bane to their effort?
Hollywood lives on hype. Spinmeisters can make or break a movie. Enter the Internet. Once again, there are charges of false "fan generated" sites actually created by corporate interests to hype movies. Likewise, some wonder how many "fan" messages on public forumns are really the work of online spin doctors. American Pie and Blair Witch comes were mentioned in recent accusations (though, Blair Witch has also used the Internet to legitimately extend the "reality" of the movie experience).
Of course, nobody is probably more aware of Internet PR than George Lucas himself. Star Wars hype has naturally manifested on the net. I doupt Lucas Films has had to artificially generate any of it. However, not all the hype has been positive. Interviews with George Lucas indicates that he is troubled by some of what he sees said about Star Wars on the net. In turn, his comments are picked appart post-by-post (on Slashdot, even). Its an environment custom made for PR handlers and spin doctors.
OK. So sure... let the PR flakies push their spin. We'll catch it and tear it to shreds. That's what Web Journals like Slashdot is all about. Right?
That works for our community. But the mainstream is being funneled in to "portals" like The Go Network. Its broadcast business as usual on the Net. Sure... once in awhile somone in the mass market culture will get clued in to an alternative site. But most of them will stay in comfy waters. The PR business has circled those waters for years and are quite familiar with it.
One last comment. Before we feel too superior with our hype-resistant selves... lets look back to April 1st (or, more specifically, the couple of weeks leading up to it). Sure, there are a few mitigating circumstances. But there was also some hints pointing to the fact that something wasn't quite right. How many picked up on it? Judging from the angry responses... too many were caught unawares by hype.
The Internet won't end the PR business, just how the game is played.
Yea! We can get some customer focus groups. We can get some marketing folks to input on it. Then, with those results, we can design a window manager based on cute cartoon "avatars" who advise you how to do tasks. We'll give it a catchy name... "bAWb" ( b-something Avatar Windowing b-something... Marketing can iron it out).
OK. To be fair - you're right. MS knows how to manipulate a market. Their ultimate power is their Marketing. So certainly, if "Open Source" is the Big Thing of the day... they're going to use it as a tool to further their own gains.
Of course... then there's Linux. As a true "child" of Open Source, Linux isn't about marketing. It's about praticality; solid design and usefull tools. Marketing departments involved with Linux companies worry about how to leverage what already exists - not what should be developed. Public opinion works its way into Linux via pubic forumns ("You know what would be really usefull/cool? Having X do X.." "Say! You're right. I've got the inclination to code that... tell me more...").
Does Linux need improvement? Certainly. That's a big part of what Open Source is - constant improvement. Will "hot buttons" get pressed? If there is a true user need - yes. And as that "user need" becomes defined by business interests willing to pay open source coders for development as much as a group's idea of what is "cool", it will happen faster. But even then, development will be resitant to "lock in" strategies and products called "bAWb".
Ahhh. But this is why Communicator comes packaged with AIM. The less savvy "we're not sure about this computing stuff, so we'll just use what comes on our computer" crowd will use AIM. It enables those users to talk to their AOL friends and builds AOL's brand. Incidently, it fits in with the AIM demographic.
Meanwhile, those who are savvy and/or deturmined to go a different route will pick up ICQ and use that.
AOL gets what they want both ways - and that's eyeballs.
Now... in the grander scheme... I don't think this arangement can continue. There's already AIM and ICQ clones (by even MS!). The protocols will eventually become comoditized... or an open standard will come into play that everyone will eventually follow.
The best AOL can hope for is to keep their initial installation base intact. And, again, they do that by not giving folks a reason to abandon their brand.
Not at all. Its all about marketing, mind share, and brand image.
AOL had instant messaging for their internal network for a long time. Along comes this unknown startup called Mirabilis with their ICQ - and a grassroots following. AOL opens up their customer base to the internet in general with AIM.
What you ended up with was two very distinct marketing groups.
AIM consisted mostly of AOL customers and beginner computer users.
Meanwhile, ICQ's grass-roots support had created a more technically aware userbase. In addition, there was a considerable install base outside the US.
AOL wanted access to this demographic, so they purchased it. ICQ provided them with something AIM wasn't getting for them.
But there was a problem with this; AOL's stigma. AOL is not viewed kindly in technical circles. Many technically minded people want nothing to do with AOL. AOL would have to tread lightly lest all the eyeballs their purchase was supposed to bring them bail out. In fact, ICQ lost a percentage of users on the purchase announcement alone.
If AOL treated ICQ with a heavy hand, they would have destroyed the ICQ brand. This would probably include combining AIM and ICQ. Destroy the brand, you've destroyed user loyalty, and you've lost your users. As it is, AOL has played the ICQ card carefully to maintain its value.
Now... whether they're developing the product properly is an entirely different matter...
In my stint in the USAF, we used something very simular to these for secure data transfer (the data transfer bit used STU-III units). The difference between those pictured and what I remember was the drive area was covered by two swinging "doors". I'm thinking what is pictured is an earlier model.
These things were HEAVY. Obviously designed with more rugged services in mind (seemed more USA than USAF). They had wire mesh shielding along all contact poits (top of case, the aforementioned doors, etc). The idea is to direct all errant signal to ground instead of inadvertantly broadcasting them to whoever might be able to listen.
They were also woefully behind the times - when 486DX4s were going against the first Pentiums, we had a 386. They worked fine for their task. But man, were they slow.
I wouldn't be suprised t find out that these puppies are military surplus.
For example, the least expensive service involves getting one single dynamic IP address. There is currently nothing in place to stop you from checking out multiple IP adresses. In fact, people are doing that right now. And SWBell is completely aware of it and are tracking it. The guy I talked to said they're not doing anything about it right now (beyond monitoring), but likely will in the future.
A friend of mine who just got ADSL from SWBell is also getting very speedy transfers - in excess of the advertised top speed for the service he bought. I can't help to think that these two situations are linked and after the intial roll-out time is done (SWBell is still frantically running around and trying to get all this to work) they'll begin to limit service closer to what they've in fact sold to their customers.
A friend of mine has ADSL service through SWBell (the loop) and SWBell.net (data/ISP) and raves about it.
I tried to get it and after a 2month wait for the install date (my date was 1 day ahead of my friend's) found out that, in fact, my neighborhood couldn't get it. Something about too many T1 and ISDN customers on that segment. I was very disappointed.
The whole ADSL thing is under some debate. You can dig up some tidbits about it, and houston service, in houston.internet.providers.
I believe the devices in question include radar guns (police were resting the 'gun' in their laps and consequently developing very... personal... cancer) and I seem to remember something about compact cell phones (where the transmitter is close to the head - btw, some cell phone units are capable of puting out more power but are restricted by Federal regulations).
The characteristics seem to be comparitively low powered devices held close to the body over an extended period of time.
Of course, there's a great deal of debate on these issues. I don't believe there are any conclusive studies pointing to why this happens (and even the findings that something DOES happen is under debate). But as thing aspect of RF damage comes more to light, it might be worth both mention and consideration.
I'm sure anyone who knows more about this than myself (wasn't there a /. post?) will oblige with a followup post. ;)
Kind of.
As has been noted before... the term origionated at MIT sometime in the 60s. It always refered to a group of college kids who didn't always code.
According the book Hackers, this first came about in the model railroad club. There were the art side of the club that did the models, landscapes, etc... then there was the technies who did all the wiring and switching (even using a retired phone switch to handle the system). Their wiring systems were very complex and when someone pulled off something new, it was called a "hack".
This group soon found themselves gaining access to a newly installed University computer. Their technical facination drew them to it and soon they were "hacking" code.
It might be interesting to mention that this group also "hacked" buildings. Quite often, the resources the group was interested in were placed behind locked doors. Members of the group became very good at studying and picking locks - as well as coming up with other ways to circumvent obsticles.
In this light, its easy to see that "hacking" became primarily a code activity... but other things were also "hacked". Aspects of security were thrown in as this new wave of enthusiasts saught ways around barriers put up by a controlling regime (with a completely different view towards computing resources).
Jump forward a decade or two. The 80's. The movie Wargames. The term "hacker" comes from a relatively closed, unoticed "society" (that had been slowly 'spreading' from its origins at MIT) and is thrust into the general public's vocabulary. Unfortuneatly, the only aspect of the word to make this transition is "one who circumvents computer security".
Jump another decade. Now that information technology is not only vital to business, but fast becoming a strong aspect of popular culture... the entire computer culture is less closed. The media pays more attention. Computer security becomes a bigger concern and the word "hacker" as "introduced" to us in the 80s is in wide use. Unfortunately, all the old aspects of the word are lost as "hackers" become increasingly defined by vandals with increasingly malicious intent, little real computing knowledge, and even less justification for their actions.
Maxheadroom, here we come...!