Go ahead and jot down an exception next to my name too. For me the gear has always been tools to a greater goal. The closest this has become to a desire to be "better" is the realization that said gear (especially when "resilience" came in to the picture) was pretty important in a PvP encounter.
Granted - that still makes folks like me and the parent part of a small minority (or a very quiet majority).
I would hazard to say that many party-thinking followers have a problem seeing beyond "us vs. them." I'd put the Republicans right in that boat along side the Democrats.
Having said that - I realize I'm pigeon-holing the two parties firmly in "them" territory. I'm just not sure what affiliation I'm associated with to make up "us."
EverQuest 2 player: What is this "WoW" of which you speak? Is it an in-game crafted item or fabled drop off a raid zone mob?
Cool. Someone who hasn't heard of WoW. Would you be interested in giving it a shot? I've been keen to get in on this recruit-a-friend deal but have had a hard time finding anyone that might be willing to play who's never heard of WoW before.
Finding someone who doesn't know about WoW has been tough. I mean... I tried looking under rocks and all the roly-poly bugs bubble-hearthed.
It's not that the concept is all that unlikely. Oddly enough, WinNT set a historical precedence for adoption and exploitation. Yet Linux / Unix has yet to pan out the same way.
What we've got to keep in mind is that Linux (and Unix variants) have been in this arena for some time. They have had exposure and faced scrutiny. In fact, the hay-day so far for Unix and Linux malware was probably around 2002 - 2004.
Whether that is the last chapter for Linux malware is yet to be seen. I would expect it isn't. Linux users must remember that it is no silver bullet. But history has shown that it appears to be fairly resilient.
Of course, this is a victory for the MBTA. They've managed to derail the conference presentation. Objective met.
We all know this will effectively bury the information. Bureaucrats understand that communication is impossible outside of face-to-face meetings. There's nothing that could possibly allow dissemination of this potentially damaging (read: embarassing) information now that the conference is over. Situation handled. Bullet dodged.
Re:Groklaw is an example of the power of open sour
on
Grokking SCO's Demise
·
· Score: 1
I've been unable to find anything that refers to Interix or SFU being a licensed port of System VR4. If anything, it seems to be making use of existing Posix subsystem and extending it to being... something useful. But I haven't found anything that implies any aspect of this comes from actual Unix pedigree (and Posix doesn't count). Do you have better insight / references to share?
For what it's worth... I think the tokens are a good step. They're probably better than the weak passwords and low-hanging-fruit desktops that make up the current environment. But people should understand their limitations and that they aren't invincible.
The people who believe that probably also believe that they're getting keyloggers from addons. Or that copy-and-pasting your credentials will defeat a keylogger. Or one of many other numerous ill-conceived notions.
There's never been any mystery in why Microsoft took out a license (the same reason Sun did), they both made use of SCO owned IP. Microsoft has it's Services for Unix that includes a fully licensed System V implementation running on Windows. I don't think there's anyone questioning whether or not SCO had the right to sell System V licenses.
Its not as simple as you make it sound. Microsoft bought a license (directly from AT&T) in the 1970's for Unix to develop Xenix. Or, more interestingly, Xenix is what Microsoft licensed to various other entities to port to their own platforms - one of which was SCO. It's possible the license Microsoft had at the time was transferred to SCO in the late 80s when MS sold Xenix to SCO. It's also possible Microsoft retained their license. The entity who can best answer this won't. Microsoft has avoided the question.
So what if they didn't retain that license? That's a clear case for getting a license from The SCO Group, right? Maybe not. Much of Services for Unix comes from BSD and GNU sources. What license was required for that?
That doesn't mean there's NOT a reason beyond feeding FUD. Unix itself is a fairly convoluted digital bloodline to follow. Xenix actually feeds back in to System VR4. Maybe Microsoft knows of some ugly patent bugaboo hiding out that the public isn't aware of. But it's not apparent. And that's why some people use words like "mystery" when trying to puzzle out what Microsoft got for their purchase price.
It does look suspicious. But the situation could certainly have come around without Microsoft directing it. Though - Microsoft definitely played a strong role.
Ransom Love has commented several times that Caldera had been working with a way to leverage their new SCO acquisition to better their Linux business. There had been some talk of using the Unix code to provide a better Linux (possibly including indemnity). But some time after Darl McBride takes the helm, Ransom Love is out (who then cashes out on news of the IBM suit). New leadership - new strategy time.
Around the same time, Microsoft has been talking about Linux and IP issues. It's labled as typical FUD. But what if it wasn't simply FUD but a public suggestion? An offered business strategy from Microsoft's tactical play book.
The SCO Group (formally Caldera) has been keen for a new play. Their old strategies have lost their charm. They were jilted by IBM. Their fortunes were tied to industries that have felt the sting of a sluggish economy. They hear Microsoft's words and something strikes a chord - "indemnity."
Suddenly things are going in very different directions. Microsoft even ponies up for a license. Exactly why is something of a mystery. Maybe it's insurance - Microsoft has toyed with enough Unix and GPL code that there could be easier to buy protection than wonder if something unexpected is coming their way. Maybe Microsoft is really pleased SOMEONE has finally picked up their suggestion and is keen to either support it with cash or lend an air of legitimacy - or both.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft wasn't unhappy about any aspect of this whole case. But I would expect more evidence to support the idea that they outright orchestrated it. Even if I wouldn't be shocked that such evidence is available to be uncovered.
Just to make it easy (and maybe spark a little thought):
They are roomy, well-lit and completely private -- for 15 minutes.
"People will be more likely to use them because they stay clean," said Susan Stoltzfus, a spokeswoman for Seattle Public Utilities.
But some are concerned that they might become shelter for drug abusers, dealers and prostitutes.
"The community will keep a watch out and make sure they don't become a haven for that kind of activity," Stoltzfus said.
"It is hard to make it foolproof, but you do what you can. If a particular unit is having a problem, we can adjust the time on the doors, we can make it shorter and give you less time."
So what went wrong? There's no real insight to the world of illicit drug use and sex. But on maintenance, the hind-sight article notes:
The city paid more than it planned to take care of the toilets. Workers had to clean the stalls after trash clogged the self-cleaning mechanism. Losing the toilets will save the city some $4.5 million on the remainder of its operating contract and in cleaning costs over the next several years.
So what we have, in fact, is the software being driven by the format. Or at least - the perception of how a format should be.
Granted - what this is really about is Microsoft trying some classic bait-and-switch. They want the friendly perception AND control over the format too.
And in reality, they don't have to, because formats are driven by the software that uses them, not the other way around. It's not like OO.org has 500 million installs. Who else is driving adoption of ODF?
By that line of thought, they don't have to get ISO accreditation for any format they wish to push. But they have. Why is that?
So there's no way in hell that they would have adopted ODF. And I don't think any of their customers would have wanted that at all.
I'm not so sure. Even those customers who are mandating ODF aren't omitting Word. I would think that, considering how prevalent the Office suite is (as you pointed out), at least some of Microsoft's customers would be plenty happy with Microsoft adopting ODF.
Such as people who claim that Apple has raised any sort of bar in technology. When has Apple ever innovated anything, or raised any bar? Apple is good at two things: dressing up other people's technology so it looks like Apple made it, and selling other people's technology once it looks like Apple made it.
I remember when peripheral makers were all ready to go with USB, but few wanted to dip their toes in to those waters. Sure - they were all chomping at the bit. But nobody wanted to produce the hardware and the associated drivers needed. You see - Windows97 was going to have drivers after all. Why bother until then?
Then comes the iMac. It insists on USB and nothing but USB for any and all peripherals. Oddly enough, there follows a sudden surge of USB devices with candy colored casings that were distinctive to the iMac.
Now... one has to stress that USB isn't Apple's tech (it's Intel's). And the industry was already really wanting to move forward with USB. Win98 finally hit the market and made USB devices truely mainstream - which fed Apple's market as well. So all things considered, the success of USB was likely due whether Apple existed or not.
But at the same time, credit where it is due, Apple is the one to set that bar and get everything moving in that direction. It's not a huge win. But the whole delay pattern around Windows and the explosion of the market due to Apple's actions makes an interesting study on how competition benefits the consumer. And Apple deserves a small slice of credit for that.
That's not to say I don't understand the idea of Apple taking (or at least being given) undue credit for tech. I find the iPod an excellent example. So many people see the iPod as the definition of an MP3 player. However, most/. readers probably know better. Indeed, I have to agree with CmdrTaco's initial reaction to the iPod as "lame" compared to other MP3 players that predated it. Apple shouldn't get credit for the general concept of the device.
But "lame" or not - the iPod is a slick little device. Apple's iTunes store is well (enough) packaged and has become a force in both consumer electronics and content industries - enough to force major content houses to adopt policies they don't particularly like. So SOME kind of credit is due there. It just gets misplaced.
Reading the tortured history of this case was a real eye-opener. I hadn't really thought about the lengths that some people will apparently go to steal from the community, lie to regulators, and engage in what must have been a very expensive legal fight.
You've got to wonder what the motivation is. Is there really that much money in model train software? Or is this someone who has money to throw at whatever they want?
Dig around a bit... and you find some interesting things.
It seems Katzer and his parnter have made a sizable donation to the University of Oregon in the tune of "$1.25 million for computer labs, software and a technology endowment fund." That's a nice chunk of change to throw around. Where does it come from?
It's interesting to note that Katzer shows up in a number of roles from software development to a model train store. I suspect ongoing concerns are something along the lines of his LinkedIn profile:
Matt Katzerâ(TM)s Summary
KAMIND Associates delivers Microsoft solutions for small business customers since 1998. We solve your IT problems with the following solutions â" eCommerce sites for samll business using Microsoft Commerce Servers, Microsoft Small Business Server and Microsoft Retail Management System (POS) Solutions for specialty retailers. As part of our service model, we work with customers to develop an integrated IT services plan that solves the customers need and results in long term bottom line savings.
That seems pretty straight forward. But there's some other oddities out there. Take this blog entry of a Microsoft manager for example:
Matt Katzer runs an ISV called KAM Industries. They build software for the REALLY big railroads - railroad yard automation, engine automation, that kind of thing. Software that makes really big, heavy stuff move when and where itâ(TM)s supposed to. Matt told me that they also do similar stuff for model railroads â" HO, N, and O-scale stuff. They can completely automate, and simulate very complex setups.
If that werenâ(TM)t cool enough, Matt has built all this on top of Microsoft technologies -.NET Framework, the Compact Framework, WMI (okay, not REALLY MS tech, but it counts), XML, Windows Server 2003, etc.
Eh, what? Is this more than model trains or was Katzer simply exaggerating to impress?
Side note is a comment on the blog:
Matt Katzer was my first manager at Intel and the reason that I moved out to Oregon to work for Intel.
Does it matter what the subject is? If something is presented as news, it is being presented as some aspect of fact. For example, let's say our news organization is doing a piece on the latest pop icon. They don't get to portray said pop icon driving away from a nightclub drunk because it makes for more entertaining news than the icon arriving at the nightclub sober, getting hammered, and being driven home in a cab. Even though such news is entertainment news, it is still news. It still is a presentation of fact. And that's the underlying issue.
Fact has always been a bit of a moving target. Perception alone can wreck havoc on our understanding of a situation. But we've also had a long history of deliberately altering that perception, or outright falsifying reports, to portray something as fact. In more recent times, there's been a lot of attention on eliminating the more blatant attempts at this practice. But we've also found ourself armed with tools that make these things easier and harder to detect. And so there's a tendency to get really punchy when any hint of falsification exists.
If the Olympics presentation is entertainment, then so be it. Call the spade a spade and we're done with it. But if you're going to present it as news, which NBC does as a part of NBC Sports, then you better be careful to stay well within the realm of fact.
Sure - money is the ultimate limiting factor. But I've been involved with enough government entities (local and federal) to see how malleable a budget can be. When something is important enough - money is often found.
Excuse me, are you serious? It's television, FFS! They edit, it's normal. Been going on since at least the 1950s.
This isn't the Dukes of Hazard or even Survivor. This is the Olympics. It's presented as news of the world's supposed ultimate sporting event.
Of course, the cynical among us will note that the psudo-intellectual wrappings of competition and the human condition are just dressing to sell the product. We know this really isn't news but entertainment and that the competition comes a distant third to politics and money. We can all sit around and posture about how we expect this kind of thing. But you don't get an award for being jaded.
Slashdot Mirror
Go ahead and jot down an exception next to my name too. For me the gear has always been tools to a greater goal. The closest this has become to a desire to be "better" is the realization that said gear (especially when "resilience" came in to the picture) was pretty important in a PvP encounter.
Granted - that still makes folks like me and the parent part of a small minority (or a very quiet majority).
I would hazard to say that many party-thinking followers have a problem seeing beyond "us vs. them." I'd put the Republicans right in that boat along side the Democrats.
Having said that - I realize I'm pigeon-holing the two parties firmly in "them" territory. I'm just not sure what affiliation I'm associated with to make up "us."
EverQuest 2 player: What is this "WoW" of which you speak? Is it an in-game crafted item or fabled drop off a raid zone mob?
Cool. Someone who hasn't heard of WoW. Would you be interested in giving it a shot? I've been keen to get in on this recruit-a-friend deal but have had a hard time finding anyone that might be willing to play who's never heard of WoW before.
Finding someone who doesn't know about WoW has been tough. I mean... I tried looking under rocks and all the roly-poly bugs bubble-hearthed.
I don't see what's wrong with a niche social networking site.
Besides the fact that it'll be niche, perhaps?
Niche works if the niche hasn't already been well-served.
Oh. Barrens chat.
(Throw in some sex and it's Goldshire).
Very interesting. Further reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
With the growing interest in Linux, I wonder if we'll see more parity of viruses between Windows and Linux.
This should sound familiar to most readers here. We've heard it before:
http://www.simson.net/clips/2000/2000.SecurityFocus.Linux_Viruses.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20000304004534/http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/2000/3/ns-12862.html
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2120227/honeymoon-linux-users
And the same general theme has even been fitted for the MacOS crowd:
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/mac%C2%AD-security/57811.html
It's not that the concept is all that unlikely. Oddly enough, WinNT set a historical precedence for adoption and exploitation. Yet Linux / Unix has yet to pan out the same way.
What we've got to keep in mind is that Linux (and Unix variants) have been in this arena for some time. They have had exposure and faced scrutiny. In fact, the hay-day so far for Unix and Linux malware was probably around 2002 - 2004.
Whether that is the last chapter for Linux malware is yet to be seen. I would expect it isn't. Linux users must remember that it is no silver bullet. But history has shown that it appears to be fairly resilient.
You're not thinking like a bureaucrat.
Of course, this is a victory for the MBTA. They've managed to derail the conference presentation. Objective met.
We all know this will effectively bury the information. Bureaucrats understand that communication is impossible outside of face-to-face meetings. There's nothing that could possibly allow dissemination of this potentially damaging (read: embarassing) information now that the conference is over. Situation handled. Bullet dodged.
I've been unable to find anything that refers to Interix or SFU being a licensed port of System VR4. If anything, it seems to be making use of existing Posix subsystem and extending it to being... something useful. But I haven't found anything that implies any aspect of this comes from actual Unix pedigree (and Posix doesn't count). Do you have better insight / references to share?
Hehe. Really? I probably read your posting.
For what it's worth... I think the tokens are a good step. They're probably better than the weak passwords and low-hanging-fruit desktops that make up the current environment. But people should understand their limitations and that they aren't invincible.
The people who believe that probably also believe that they're getting keyloggers from addons. Or that copy-and-pasting your credentials will defeat a keylogger. Or one of many other numerous ill-conceived notions.
But you make SCO Unix look REALLY bad.
.
.
.
(did that help?)
There's never been any mystery in why Microsoft took out a license (the same reason Sun did), they both made use of SCO owned IP. Microsoft has it's Services for Unix that includes a fully licensed System V implementation running on Windows. I don't think there's anyone questioning whether or not SCO had the right to sell System V licenses.
Its not as simple as you make it sound. Microsoft bought a license (directly from AT&T) in the 1970's for Unix to develop Xenix. Or, more interestingly, Xenix is what Microsoft licensed to various other entities to port to their own platforms - one of which was SCO. It's possible the license Microsoft had at the time was transferred to SCO in the late 80s when MS sold Xenix to SCO. It's also possible Microsoft retained their license. The entity who can best answer this won't. Microsoft has avoided the question.
So what if they didn't retain that license? That's a clear case for getting a license from The SCO Group, right? Maybe not. Much of Services for Unix comes from BSD and GNU sources. What license was required for that?
That doesn't mean there's NOT a reason beyond feeding FUD. Unix itself is a fairly convoluted digital bloodline to follow. Xenix actually feeds back in to System VR4. Maybe Microsoft knows of some ugly patent bugaboo hiding out that the public isn't aware of. But it's not apparent. And that's why some people use words like "mystery" when trying to puzzle out what Microsoft got for their purchase price.
It does look suspicious. But the situation could certainly have come around without Microsoft directing it. Though - Microsoft definitely played a strong role.
Ransom Love has commented several times that Caldera had been working with a way to leverage their new SCO acquisition to better their Linux business. There had been some talk of using the Unix code to provide a better Linux (possibly including indemnity). But some time after Darl McBride takes the helm, Ransom Love is out (who then cashes out on news of the IBM suit). New leadership - new strategy time.
Around the same time, Microsoft has been talking about Linux and IP issues. It's labled as typical FUD. But what if it wasn't simply FUD but a public suggestion? An offered business strategy from Microsoft's tactical play book.
The SCO Group (formally Caldera) has been keen for a new play. Their old strategies have lost their charm. They were jilted by IBM. Their fortunes were tied to industries that have felt the sting of a sluggish economy. They hear Microsoft's words and something strikes a chord - "indemnity."
Suddenly things are going in very different directions. Microsoft even ponies up for a license. Exactly why is something of a mystery. Maybe it's insurance - Microsoft has toyed with enough Unix and GPL code that there could be easier to buy protection than wonder if something unexpected is coming their way. Maybe Microsoft is really pleased SOMEONE has finally picked up their suggestion and is keen to either support it with cash or lend an air of legitimacy - or both.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft wasn't unhappy about any aspect of this whole case. But I would expect more evidence to support the idea that they outright orchestrated it. Even if I wouldn't be shocked that such evidence is available to be uncovered.
Just to make it easy (and maybe spark a little thought):
So what went wrong? There's no real insight to the world of illicit drug use and sex. But on maintenance, the hind-sight article notes:
So what we have, in fact, is the software being driven by the format. Or at least - the perception of how a format should be.
Granted - what this is really about is Microsoft trying some classic bait-and-switch. They want the friendly perception AND control over the format too.
And in reality, they don't have to, because formats are driven by the software that uses them, not the other way around. It's not like OO.org has 500 million installs. Who else is driving adoption of ODF?
By that line of thought, they don't have to get ISO accreditation for any format they wish to push. But they have. Why is that?
So there's no way in hell that they would have adopted ODF. And I don't think any of their customers would have wanted that at all.
I'm not so sure. Even those customers who are mandating ODF aren't omitting Word. I would think that, considering how prevalent the Office suite is (as you pointed out), at least some of Microsoft's customers would be plenty happy with Microsoft adopting ODF.
Such as people who claim that Apple has raised any sort of bar in technology. When has Apple ever innovated anything, or raised any bar? Apple is good at two things: dressing up other people's technology so it looks like Apple made it, and selling other people's technology once it looks like Apple made it.
I remember when peripheral makers were all ready to go with USB, but few wanted to dip their toes in to those waters. Sure - they were all chomping at the bit. But nobody wanted to produce the hardware and the associated drivers needed. You see - Windows97 was going to have drivers after all. Why bother until then?
Then comes the iMac. It insists on USB and nothing but USB for any and all peripherals. Oddly enough, there follows a sudden surge of USB devices with candy colored casings that were distinctive to the iMac.
Now... one has to stress that USB isn't Apple's tech (it's Intel's). And the industry was already really wanting to move forward with USB. Win98 finally hit the market and made USB devices truely mainstream - which fed Apple's market as well. So all things considered, the success of USB was likely due whether Apple existed or not.
But at the same time, credit where it is due, Apple is the one to set that bar and get everything moving in that direction. It's not a huge win. But the whole delay pattern around Windows and the explosion of the market due to Apple's actions makes an interesting study on how competition benefits the consumer. And Apple deserves a small slice of credit for that.
That's not to say I don't understand the idea of Apple taking (or at least being given) undue credit for tech. I find the iPod an excellent example. So many people see the iPod as the definition of an MP3 player. However, most /. readers probably know better. Indeed, I have to agree with CmdrTaco's initial reaction to the iPod as "lame" compared to other MP3 players that predated it. Apple shouldn't get credit for the general concept of the device.
But "lame" or not - the iPod is a slick little device. Apple's iTunes store is well (enough) packaged and has become a force in both consumer electronics and content industries - enough to force major content houses to adopt policies they don't particularly like. So SOME kind of credit is due there. It just gets misplaced.
Reading the tortured history of this case was a real eye-opener. I hadn't really thought about the lengths that some people will apparently go to steal from the community, lie to regulators, and engage in what must have been a very expensive legal fight.
You've got to wonder what the motivation is. Is there really that much money in model train software? Or is this someone who has money to throw at whatever they want?
Dig around a bit... and you find some interesting things.
It seems Katzer and his parnter have made a sizable donation to the University of Oregon in the tune of "$1.25 million for computer labs, software and a technology endowment fund." That's a nice chunk of change to throw around. Where does it come from?
It's interesting to note that Katzer shows up in a number of roles from software development to a model train store. I suspect ongoing concerns are something along the lines of his LinkedIn profile:
Matt Katzerâ(TM)s Summary
KAMIND Associates delivers Microsoft solutions for small business customers since 1998. We solve your IT problems with the following solutions â" eCommerce sites for samll business using Microsoft Commerce Servers, Microsoft Small Business Server and Microsoft Retail Management System (POS) Solutions for specialty retailers. As part of our service model, we work with customers to develop an integrated IT services plan that solves the customers need and results in long term bottom line savings.
That seems pretty straight forward. But there's some other oddities out there. Take this blog entry of a Microsoft manager for example:
Matt Katzer runs an ISV called KAM Industries. They build software for the REALLY big railroads - railroad yard automation, engine automation, that kind of thing. Software that makes really big, heavy stuff move when and where itâ(TM)s supposed to. Matt told me that they also do similar stuff for model railroads â" HO, N, and O-scale stuff. They can completely automate, and simulate very complex setups.
If that werenâ(TM)t cool enough, Matt has built all this on top of Microsoft technologies - .NET Framework, the Compact Framework, WMI (okay, not REALLY MS tech, but it counts), XML, Windows Server 2003, etc.
Eh, what? Is this more than model trains or was Katzer simply exaggerating to impress?
Side note is a comment on the blog:
Matt Katzer was my first manager at Intel and the reason that I moved out to Oregon to work for Intel.
...a spinning stadium?
And thus, it's still entertainment.
Does it matter what the subject is? If something is presented as news, it is being presented as some aspect of fact. For example, let's say our news organization is doing a piece on the latest pop icon. They don't get to portray said pop icon driving away from a nightclub drunk because it makes for more entertaining news than the icon arriving at the nightclub sober, getting hammered, and being driven home in a cab. Even though such news is entertainment news, it is still news. It still is a presentation of fact. And that's the underlying issue.
Fact has always been a bit of a moving target. Perception alone can wreck havoc on our understanding of a situation. But we've also had a long history of deliberately altering that perception, or outright falsifying reports, to portray something as fact. In more recent times, there's been a lot of attention on eliminating the more blatant attempts at this practice. But we've also found ourself armed with tools that make these things easier and harder to detect. And so there's a tendency to get really punchy when any hint of falsification exists.
If the Olympics presentation is entertainment, then so be it. Call the spade a spade and we're done with it. But if you're going to present it as news, which NBC does as a part of NBC Sports, then you better be careful to stay well within the realm of fact.
Sure - money is the ultimate limiting factor. But I've been involved with enough government entities (local and federal) to see how malleable a budget can be. When something is important enough - money is often found.
Excuse me, are you serious? It's television , FFS! They edit, it's normal. Been going on since at least the 1950s.
This isn't the Dukes of Hazard or even Survivor. This is the Olympics. It's presented as news of the world's supposed ultimate sporting event.
Of course, the cynical among us will note that the psudo-intellectual wrappings of competition and the human condition are just dressing to sell the product. We know this really isn't news but entertainment and that the competition comes a distant third to politics and money. We can all sit around and posture about how we expect this kind of thing. But you don't get an award for being jaded.