This foyer may look like the entrance to the Control headquarters from an episode of Get Smart, but this is the front door of the Taser plant. The corporation has plenty of reasons for high security. It recently launched an online warehouse for digital evidence, so keeping trespassers out is a top priority.
Looking at the image, my impression is that this is more about appearances than real security. It's all about looking high-tech and security oriented.
Pot calling the kettle black? Almost any app you see in the Linux land is either a clone of a proprietary app or a clone of a clone (and so on).
It would be the pot calling the kettle black if people in Linux land were claiming to be the sole source of "innovation". When you see Microsoft being taken to task over "innovation", it is because Microsoft has used the concept as a cornerstone to their marketing to include attack campaigns against their competitors (including Linux and OSS in general). The reality of the situation is that everyone copies everyone's innovations. No single source is the fount from which innovation springs.
That all sounds very reasonable. And if I didn't have personal knowledge of what its like dealing with Enterprise IT providers that partner with your company, I might think what you've described is The Truth. However, I know that running Linux in a Microsoft dominated industry is troublesome. Most of my work involves Unix systems, so a Linux desktop is mostly feasible. But we have to be really careful when looking at purchasing tech unless it comes with a Windows trojan horse. No - not malware. Rather, some "appliance" is really a Windows Server or a particular pieces of hardware requires Windows to run it's management client. I have to keep a Windows partition available to VMWare because of legacy purchasing mistakes. And as much as that annoys me, it is the reality we all live in.
Yes - there are times when Microsoft makes the better option. And there are some examples of Microsoft products in our environment that make sense. But a large percentage of Microsoft architecture that I see in my environment involves very little choice.
Headline: Microsoft puts Windows source code into public domain!
When that happens, let me know. Until then, let's put that strawman away.
Gosh golly - where do you think Slashdot gets the idea that Microsoft might use patents as a weapon? Certainly not from anything Microsoft's leaders have said. I mean, it's not like there's a history. This is just irrational hatred for a successful company competing "the old fashioned way." Its got nothing to do with reaping what you sow.
I see you excel at making snide comments and applying armchair psychology. Yet your writing would probably make many of those English teachers you're busy mocking simply cringe.
I agree that there are simply bad teachers. I remember some of them. I've had to deal with one or two now that I'm a parent. But it's an awful broad brush you're using to paint everyone a "bad teacher" simply because they might not be good with IT.
Cry me a river. If a teacher can't figure out how to connect something like that themselves, they're probably a lousy teacher. Lack of curiosity shows in traits such as "I don't know how to do this, so someone has to show me." It's not rocket science. Then again, these people probably need the warning that comes with their blender "do not stick fingers in blades while running." - and they think "Why would I take a blender while jobbong?"
Not everyone is perfectly fluent in every aspect of modern society. Technology often has little quirks that are trivial to manage by the trained / experienced mind. But average users will often overlook those things that experience shows are key to solving these quirks. Teachers may not make good IT workers but then, IT workers may not be good auto mechanics.
I am often in a similar position as the original poster; helping folks make sense / use of tech new to them. I've got the experience and, less objectively, the knack of understanding IT gear and software and helping average folks get around those odd quirks that make a new tool useless. But I would make a poor English teacher. I like the literature aspect but have never done well with the basic mechanics of grammar. I'm a pretty horrid speller as well.
You might want to consider this while feeling all smug and superior during your next session of "jobbong."
There's been reports that botnet herders value Linux systems as command-and-control hosts for botnets. Supposedly, they offer a lot of stability once one is able to find and compromise a vulnerable Linux host. Though that's a far cry from being an easy target for automated attack.
So what? Linux vendors would do exactly the same thing. Who is to say which OS is safer for example? It entirely depends on what metric you use to measure it. If for example you look at number of "hacker" style compromises then Linux is the worse but if we're looking at automatic spyware infection then obviously Windows is almost the only OS in that category.
Sure - you can cherry pick and fence your metrics to make any point seem reasonable. But that doesn't mean one shouldn't be interested in the rigging it took to make an argument stand up.
I don't blame Microsoft for selling their products. That is what a software company SHOULD do. The only reason these are "stories" is because people [incorrectly] feel Linux is a community effort and that any attack on Linux is an attack on this community. But when you look at the people who donate MOST Linux code you'll quickly discover that Linux is about as community as Windows is...
So really this is just a slam at the Linux Vendors who have the cash to answer it...
By all means - sell the product. Use marketing. But consumers should be aware of what liberties that marketing is taking to make the sale. That's why these stories are interesting. When a big advertising campaign is underway against your interests, it is wise to be aware of it and prepare to deal with the memes it is pushing.
Linux is, in fact, a community effort. When you look at the reports on who contributes, you'll note that there is no single gatekeeper. There is a large group of individuals who are not associated with any corporate interest. And there are some major corporate interests. And all of them contribute to the community that develops Linux code. I'd be interested in seeing information that shows Windows development works the same way.
An attack on Linux is an attack on the community. Our industry lives and dies on market share - or at least perceived market share. When a technology is perceived as having critical mass, it will get more support from the various developers and hardware manufacturers. Mircrosoft has long understood this and much of their marketing is about attacking opposing platforms and boosting the image of theirs. Any success in this means that the Linux community will run in to more difficulties getting support. And that affects everyone using Linux - whether you have a personal or monetary interest.
When the Segway was finally unveiled, the disappointment pretty much killed off any widescale distribution of the device (along with crazy city ordinances).
I thought it was the $6K price tag. I've driven the i2 around a bit and really enjoyed it. But I can't justify the cost of getting one (and I'm not in the right area for one anyway).
Show me an admin job where you *can't* do damage when you leave. You can always do damage when you leave if you're intelligent enough. What kind of damage is determined by the situation.
It's not that someone with privileged access can't do damage. It's a question whether simply leaving is affecting business so much that it becomes non-functional.
All true, but the important thing about OSS is really this: The actual possibility for many eyeballs exists.
No assumptions or predictions about the quality of the hypothetical eyeballs need to be entertained.
Depends on the context. If you're talking about theory, then I'd agree. If you're using this as a practical concept, then you've got to start digging in to the details.
Of course - I sort of meandered off topic with that phrase. I had intended to match up something that would go with the OP's claim of an OSS tenant. But now that I think about it, I really should have pointed out that the "multitude of random attacks" thing is usually in counter to claims that OSS hasn't been tested like it's proprietary counterparts.
"The Mythical Man Month" deals with keeping software projects on schedule. It notes that adding developers to a project will not speed up development and, in fact, will slow it down. I'm not sure this is the same thing.
The "...all bugs are shallow" phrase comes from The Cathedral and the Bazaar and is an informal summery of the following:
8. Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix obvious to someone.
It's not necessarily saying one puts large numbers of developers on bug hunts and implementing fixes. Simply auditing code could be part of this process (or pen-testing, beta-testing, etc.).
As for why companies don't do this? Because being "bug free" isn't as important as other considerations. Heck, some companies ship code with known bugs. Schedules (development, marketing, sales, etc.), development costs, feature sets, etc. tend to push software release as much, if not more, than bug counts. Even OSS pundits preach "release early, release often"; from the very same document that claims we can achieve a point where "all bugs are shallow."
Again - this isn't about India. India isn't even making these things. They come from Russia. Where else will Russia sell them? And who else will implement similar technology?
Yes - I'm sure India will be very happy with the tech and it'll give them a nice leg-up against others in the region (until others buy matching technology, maybe even from Russia). But the OP is talking state-of-the-art. Not India's politics.
Do you think the world will see serious war against major powers in the near future? When was the last time we had real out-and-out dog fights? Gulf War I? I keep thinking that the future of warfare is basically going to be these anti-terrorism wars, where global powers are fighting villagers getting financed by someone.
Major powers sell military hardware to their allies, to include smaller states. While the major world powers themselves may or may not be operating the equipment, their equipment will be pitted against others'.
Secondly, wars by proxy can escalate. And occasionally, you'll have world powers committing military resources to support their proxy allies. So while there may be a lot more lower-tech fighting, that doesn't preclude larger scale battles.
The Cold War did not eliminate Vietnam, the (numerous) Arab-Israeli Wars, The Gulf War, etc. While we no longer have this dread of an imminent WWIII, that doesn't mean the face of war is guaranteed to look any certain way.
In the paragraph you quoted, there is no mention of India. It says "makes maneuverability irrelevant." India isn't the only ones looking at this sort of capability.
How about the individual? You know, the type that parrots around here against the patent system (or at the very least, software patents), and screaming how they use Pirate Bay to protest them? How about the individuals who demand our government buy price-controlled medicine from Canada to deny the organization who discovered it the fruits of their labor, and the ability to recoup their investment?
Because there was never a software industry before software patents. And copyright infringement is all about patents. And nobody's ever made any money off a medication without a patent.
Slashdot Mirror
The borked link should have pointed to:
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1345.html
Very true. I've seen similar stuff lining an anechoic chamber at JSC.
This foyer may look like the entrance to the Control headquarters from an episode of Get Smart, but this is the front door of the Taser plant. The corporation has plenty of reasons for high security. It recently launched an online warehouse for digital evidence, so keeping trespassers out is a top priority.
Looking at the image, my impression is that this is more about appearances than real security. It's all about looking high-tech and security oriented.
I invite anyone who claims pudding is a pollutant to sit in $240 of it for 10 minutes. Aaawww yeah.
Pot calling the kettle black? Almost any app you see in the Linux land is either a clone of a proprietary app or a clone of a clone (and so on).
It would be the pot calling the kettle black if people in Linux land were claiming to be the sole source of "innovation". When you see Microsoft being taken to task over "innovation", it is because Microsoft has used the concept as a cornerstone to their marketing to include attack campaigns against their competitors (including Linux and OSS in general). The reality of the situation is that everyone copies everyone's innovations. No single source is the fount from which innovation springs.
And when you shut down your BBS, that was the end of that. There was never another zoo until now.
That price should also keep it out of reach of casual hackers (or crackers!)
Because surely they don't have access to this sort of thing already.
That all sounds very reasonable. And if I didn't have personal knowledge of what its like dealing with Enterprise IT providers that partner with your company, I might think what you've described is The Truth. However, I know that running Linux in a Microsoft dominated industry is troublesome. Most of my work involves Unix systems, so a Linux desktop is mostly feasible. But we have to be really careful when looking at purchasing tech unless it comes with a Windows trojan horse. No - not malware. Rather, some "appliance" is really a Windows Server or a particular pieces of hardware requires Windows to run it's management client. I have to keep a Windows partition available to VMWare because of legacy purchasing mistakes. And as much as that annoys me, it is the reality we all live in.
Yes - there are times when Microsoft makes the better option. And there are some examples of Microsoft products in our environment that make sense. But a large percentage of Microsoft architecture that I see in my environment involves very little choice.
Headline: Microsoft puts Windows source code into public domain!
When that happens, let me know. Until then, let's put that strawman away.
Gosh golly - where do you think Slashdot gets the idea that Microsoft might use patents as a weapon? Certainly not from anything Microsoft's leaders have said. I mean, it's not like there's a history. This is just irrational hatred for a successful company competing "the old fashioned way." Its got nothing to do with reaping what you sow.
I see you excel at making snide comments and applying armchair psychology. Yet your writing would probably make many of those English teachers you're busy mocking simply cringe.
I agree that there are simply bad teachers. I remember some of them. I've had to deal with one or two now that I'm a parent. But it's an awful broad brush you're using to paint everyone a "bad teacher" simply because they might not be good with IT.
Cry me a river. If a teacher can't figure out how to connect something like that themselves, they're probably a lousy teacher. Lack of curiosity shows in traits such as "I don't know how to do this, so someone has to show me." It's not rocket science. Then again, these people probably need the warning that comes with their blender "do not stick fingers in blades while running." - and they think "Why would I take a blender while jobbong?"
Not everyone is perfectly fluent in every aspect of modern society. Technology often has little quirks that are trivial to manage by the trained / experienced mind. But average users will often overlook those things that experience shows are key to solving these quirks. Teachers may not make good IT workers but then, IT workers may not be good auto mechanics.
I am often in a similar position as the original poster; helping folks make sense / use of tech new to them. I've got the experience and, less objectively, the knack of understanding IT gear and software and helping average folks get around those odd quirks that make a new tool useless. But I would make a poor English teacher. I like the literature aspect but have never done well with the basic mechanics of grammar. I'm a pretty horrid speller as well.
You might want to consider this while feeling all smug and superior during your next session of "jobbong."
And they have your photograph on file.
Ahhh. Reverse delivery! I should have known.
There's been reports that botnet herders value Linux systems as command-and-control hosts for botnets. Supposedly, they offer a lot of stability once one is able to find and compromise a vulnerable Linux host. Though that's a far cry from being an easy target for automated attack.
So what?
Linux vendors would do exactly the same thing. Who is to say which OS is safer for example? It entirely depends on what metric you use to measure it. If for example you look at number of "hacker" style compromises then Linux is the worse but if we're looking at automatic spyware infection then obviously Windows is almost the only OS in that category.
Sure - you can cherry pick and fence your metrics to make any point seem reasonable. But that doesn't mean one shouldn't be interested in the rigging it took to make an argument stand up.
I don't blame Microsoft for selling their products. That is what a software company SHOULD do. The only reason these are "stories" is because people [incorrectly] feel Linux is a community effort and that any attack on Linux is an attack on this community. But when you look at the people who donate MOST Linux code you'll quickly discover that Linux is about as community as Windows is...
So really this is just a slam at the Linux Vendors who have the cash to answer it...
By all means - sell the product. Use marketing. But consumers should be aware of what liberties that marketing is taking to make the sale. That's why these stories are interesting. When a big advertising campaign is underway against your interests, it is wise to be aware of it and prepare to deal with the memes it is pushing.
Linux is, in fact, a community effort. When you look at the reports on who contributes, you'll note that there is no single gatekeeper. There is a large group of individuals who are not associated with any corporate interest. And there are some major corporate interests. And all of them contribute to the community that develops Linux code. I'd be interested in seeing information that shows Windows development works the same way.
An attack on Linux is an attack on the community. Our industry lives and dies on market share - or at least perceived market share. When a technology is perceived as having critical mass, it will get more support from the various developers and hardware manufacturers. Mircrosoft has long understood this and much of their marketing is about attacking opposing platforms and boosting the image of theirs. Any success in this means that the Linux community will run in to more difficulties getting support. And that affects everyone using Linux - whether you have a personal or monetary interest.
Amazon has given us all a great gift: a real-world object lesson on why DRM is anti-consumer.
When the Segway was finally unveiled, the disappointment pretty much killed off any widescale distribution of the device (along with crazy city ordinances).
I thought it was the $6K price tag. I've driven the i2 around a bit and really enjoyed it. But I can't justify the cost of getting one (and I'm not in the right area for one anyway).
If your business can be taken out of action by an administrator leaving, then you have serious business process problems.
What's interesting about this case is that the business practices was apparently one of the things Childs bitched about - for years.
Show me an admin job where you *can't* do damage when you leave. You can always do damage when you leave if you're intelligent enough. What kind of damage is determined by the situation.
It's not that someone with privileged access can't do damage. It's a question whether simply leaving is affecting business so much that it becomes non-functional.
All true, but the important thing about OSS is really this: The actual possibility for many eyeballs exists.
No assumptions or predictions about the quality of the hypothetical eyeballs need to be entertained.
Depends on the context. If you're talking about theory, then I'd agree. If you're using this as a practical concept, then you've got to start digging in to the details.
Of course - I sort of meandered off topic with that phrase. I had intended to match up something that would go with the OP's claim of an OSS tenant. But now that I think about it, I really should have pointed out that the "multitude of random attacks" thing is usually in counter to claims that OSS hasn't been tested like it's proprietary counterparts.
"The Mythical Man Month" deals with keeping software projects on schedule. It notes that adding developers to a project will not speed up development and, in fact, will slow it down. I'm not sure this is the same thing.
The "...all bugs are shallow" phrase comes from The Cathedral and the Bazaar and is an informal summery of the following:
8. Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix obvious to someone.
It's not necessarily saying one puts large numbers of developers on bug hunts and implementing fixes. Simply auditing code could be part of this process (or pen-testing, beta-testing, etc.).
As for why companies don't do this? Because being "bug free" isn't as important as other considerations. Heck, some companies ship code with known bugs. Schedules (development, marketing, sales, etc.), development costs, feature sets, etc. tend to push software release as much, if not more, than bug counts. Even OSS pundits preach "release early, release often"; from the very same document that claims we can achieve a point where "all bugs are shallow."
Again - this isn't about India. India isn't even making these things. They come from Russia. Where else will Russia sell them? And who else will implement similar technology?
Yes - I'm sure India will be very happy with the tech and it'll give them a nice leg-up against others in the region (until others buy matching technology, maybe even from Russia). But the OP is talking state-of-the-art. Not India's politics.
Do you think the world will see serious war against major powers in the near future? When was the last time we had real out-and-out dog fights? Gulf War I? I keep thinking that the future of warfare is basically going to be these anti-terrorism wars, where global powers are fighting villagers getting financed by someone.
Major powers sell military hardware to their allies, to include smaller states. While the major world powers themselves may or may not be operating the equipment, their equipment will be pitted against others'.
Secondly, wars by proxy can escalate. And occasionally, you'll have world powers committing military resources to support their proxy allies. So while there may be a lot more lower-tech fighting, that doesn't preclude larger scale battles.
The Cold War did not eliminate Vietnam, the (numerous) Arab-Israeli Wars, The Gulf War, etc. While we no longer have this dread of an imminent WWIII, that doesn't mean the face of war is guaranteed to look any certain way.
In the paragraph you quoted, there is no mention of India. It says "makes maneuverability irrelevant." India isn't the only ones looking at this sort of capability.
How about the individual? You know, the type that parrots around here against the patent system (or at the very least, software patents), and screaming how they use Pirate Bay to protest them? How about the individuals who demand our government buy price-controlled medicine from Canada to deny the organization who discovered it the fruits of their labor, and the ability to recoup their investment?
Because there was never a software industry before software patents. And copyright infringement is all about patents. And nobody's ever made any money off a medication without a patent.