They changed from pro to neutral after being threatened with a boycott from a single pastor.
Just because one paranoid pro-gay publication claims that a single pastor threatened Microsoft to withdraw their position, that it MUST be true?!?! Could this possibly be the explanation?
Just as important, since when is it the business of a software development company to be pushing legislation on a social issue?!?! Should we now attack IBM, HP, Dell, GM, Walmart, Citicorp, etc. because they are not flaming supporters of pro-gay legislation which can then later bite them in the ass with civil suits?
I am looking at the posts, and it appears you are not alone in your retardation. Take comfort in that.
You're kidding right? If the BK system is so brittle that it cannot protect itself against a hostile client then it should not be hosting any source code.
Gee, if Linux/Microsoft is so brittle that it cannot protect itself from a hostile client, people shouldn't use it either.
What would he accomplish by forking Subversion and spending a year to get a workable replacement of BK? Isn't that equivalent to starting from scratch with GIT?
And who the HELL are you to be telling Torvalds how he should spend his time?
The problem is that the Communists focused on property rights (The needs of the collective supercede the rights of the individual, at least to the Lenin/Stalin point of view). Legal interpretation and philosophy on property rights doesn't appear to consume the thoughts of terrorists.
What really kills me is that while I loathe Ayn Rand's poser philosophy, it is really coming up in spades here with this F/OSS - Torvalds coup attempt.
Just an FYI for all you non-geek journalists reading Slashdot [...] Do not take comments on Slashdot seriously, especially if you see (Score:5, Funny). This would be a mistake.
Gee, with that attitude, we should treat anything Slashdot reports as a joke.
The problem is the weakness of the user moderation system. It made this post visible as a conspiracy theory, while I'm sure they would have preferred to use this instead.
I think Linus went to far with that, so also to do SAMBA was a "non respectable behaviour" to him? wtf without SAMBA I bet they would be a really, REALLY big amount of people (and companies) not using Linux these days.
Linus never said SAMBA was "non respectable" behavior. Linus said the BK client cloning was "non respectable" behavior. (Actually, what he said was that Tridgell's act to sabotage his agreement with McVoy WITH PROVIDING AN ALTERNATIVE was "non respectable" behavior.)
It's acceptable to shoot someone who is about to kill you, or harm someone nearby. Its not acceptable to shoot a gunholder at a range with no such intent. Reverse engineering is not good in every instance.
If he does not want to use it, then do not do it
But if Tridgell tramples on Linus's rights, that's okay, because he's well intended.
but do not flame the author for doing it, and tell that is not a respectable behaviour!
And you should not lie and misrepresent Linus's positions. When you do that, anything a person does can sound wrong or unreasonable.
Linus is a fool to get manipulated so easily by McVoy.
You're a fool for being so easily manipulated by F/OSS propagandists like Perens.
It is Linus' inability to distrust his "friend" that is making him say all these weird things.
There is nothing weird or inconsistent about the positions Linus has made concerning this tempest in a teapot. Ironic perhaps, but certainly not weird. Calling Linus's statements "weird" is merely you parrotting F/OSS propaganda
I'm sorry, Linus' actions are just plain hypocritical here. I can understand how he was pissed at losing a useful tool. I can't understand how he can promote McVoy at the expense of our freedoms, especially to reverse Engineer.
How is Linus being a hypocrite? He does not introduce himself as an official F/OSS spokesman. He never said proprietary software was intolerable that it never should be used in any circumstance.
I can't understand how he can promote McVoy at the expense of our freedoms, especially to reverse Engineer.
Because you're a Stalinist Communist. You are too mentally limited to listen to other points of view. Linus never attacked Tridgell's right to reverse-engineer. Torvalds attacked Tridgell's unilateral decision to scuttle the agreement he had with McVoy. I have the right to own a firearm (in the US). It doesn't mean I would be justified to conduct target practice at a shopping mall or woods near a highway. You are so concerned about your rights, you think nothing of abrogating Torvald's right to choose what software he wishes to use. Much like a Communist would.
He is NOT indespensible, thanks to the GPL.
Then fork, you loud-mouthed Communist.
With all due respect to him, I think it's one of his biggest blunders in the history of Linux.
Nope, I think his biggest blunder was prematurely releasing 2.4 before he had a stable memory manager. I think it really illustrated the amateur nature or limitations of Linux kernel development philosophy. And I'm not thrilled about many minor decisions he has made. But I equate Torvalds to Democracy. And I'll take him before you anytime, Communista.
No, methinks you aren't sufficiently ideologically conformant to harrass major Linus developers to ditch their jobs with corporate entities (RH, HP, etc.) in order to pursue the fork.
Does putting a server on the internet with no access restriction mechanism qualify you for legal protection against access?
From what I've seen from U.S. legal cases, it could be taken as illegal. From a civil litigation point of view, it is unauthorized use of a product Tridgell didn't purchase. But IANAL.
Lets hope Tridge didn't get himself in a legal mess by making that little speech.
It seems to show that he did not violate the letter of any agreement concerning using the bitkeeper client to reverse-engineer.
The problem is that he is still using the bitkeeper server to do reverse-engineering.
One thing I know, is if he hypothetically had purchased server & client package and then conducted reverse-engineering, the law would permit that activity.
I am not so sure about tinkering with a server accessible, off the internet, which he doesn't own. And then, there are those good ole U.S hacking laws (pre-Patriot) and Patriot act. I hope he cleared it with his lawyer.
Humanitarily speaking, since they are not actually in any country, who protects the rights of those 600 laboring software engineers? Does anyone have the authority to make sure that it's not (child) slave labor? No government agency can make sure that working conditions are safe and healthy.
The International Law of the Sea. But that only covers murder, maiming, kidnapping, etc. Don't think it would cover child labor laws. Basically, outside of territorial waters, any nation can be cowboy cop, but detainees are only subject to international law. And all nations are "bound" to international law. The problem is "Quis custodiet ipso custodes".
No, the U.S. considers the fishing, mineral, and sphere of influence within 100-150 nautical miles. U.S. LAW only applies to within 3 miles to shore. The only thing backing up this position is the 15 carrier taskgroups it can call upon. That's pretty much enough so that the U.N. doesn't want to make an issue of it.
First, let me point out that I am not an evangelist for thin client setup. I DO recognise they have a potential advantages for TCO, but the devil is in the mission requirements and the configuration.
Second, I am not completely sold on thin clients, but only because people insist on using microsoft products. If the microsoft based implementation is flawed, or has vulnerabilities that cannot be adequately addressed, then thin clients are not a viable technological base for your business. Having said that, I do not have any experience with large scale Microsoft/Citrix based configurations. Perhaps, as one poster alluded, those problems are in the past.
Now having said all of that...
1. A decent computer costs nowadays, what? A few hundred dollars? How much can you save on CPU and RAM anyway? A decent CPU is under 200$. (You don't need a 3.6 GHz P4EE on everyone's desk.) So you're gonna save... what? Maybe 100$ for the whole machine?.
The biggest cost now to any PC is the Microsoft operating system. This is a non-issue if you insist on OS vendor support (RHE, SuSE, IBM, Sun, whatever.)
The whole point with a thin client is that it reduces the cost to its bare necessities. TC does not require a harddrive or an operating system (license cost), that requires maintenance (employee cost).
So you're gonna save... what? Maybe 100$ for the whole machine?
$100 x 20,000 PCs. If you're a small office, $100 x 20 PCs. Either way, its savings. $100 x 80 PCs? $8K, plus $35-50K/yr for a salary.
With costs in the range of several tens of thousands per person per year, that kind of saving is a spit in the bucket. It's just not worth the loss of productivity and the learning curve.
And what is the productivity cost every time services are denied due to a virus? Or a harddrive dying? Why is there a high learning curve cost to maintenance staff? Because you hired people who have difficulty learning or need to pay for MSCE costs for them to be competent at their jobs? If you're talking about users, how difficult is it for them to click an icon?
Even assuming that all programs ran exactly as fast over a network (and they don't), and the server had enough computing power to not get stuffed when 100 people do some CPU-intensive batch processing at the same time (e.g., before the big meeting on Friday), etc, it's still a losing proposition. You only need 1-2 server crashes, or hard drive getting full, or whatnot, to turn that "profit" into a loss.
If you incorrectly implement TC/server workgroup, you will have those problems. If you have enough servers to support your users, will not have those problems. The server is not providing CPU services for each thin client. Again, its all about implementation.
You only need 1-2 server crashes, or hard drive getting full, or whatnot, to turn that "profit" into a loss.
Those costs exist in a standalone PC environment. If a harddrive gets full, that is because IT has an inadequate amount of disk storage, configured it to allow the situation to occur, and is not capable of monitoring problems on their servers. Don't blame incompetent staff for TC's shortcomings.
2. Precisely because salaries are high and operating costs are high, the way to go is to increase productivity, not to handicap everyone with piss-poor cheap tools. It's not even something IT speciffic.
The savings in TC is not the hardware, its in lower staff requirements. Less PC jockeys needed to maintain standalone PC's and their software. TC does not handicap productivity. A word processor is a word processor. How can I possibly be saving money when Microsoft is charging $300 USD per PC for Office?
E.g. if you have a construction company, the way to go is to
Why would anyone choose to cripple perfectly good PC's, especially if they have to pay for it?
Answer: Total Cost of Operation
If you have a screen, CPU, RAM, and a NIC, you will not be wasting time extensively debugging problems, running viruses scans on each machine, etc. Less points of hardware failure. The logical bugs can come from only one place, the server. Its a matter of competence to make sure your servers are redundant, reliable, virus and bug free.
You would probably avoid running a thin client on a full blown PC. You sort of add another point of failure. The other problem is that I haven't seen any Microsoft based platform that matches the concept seamlessly. Unlike *ahem* unix/linux....
I think the poster is looking for sorting techniques
Sort of. What I "think" I want is some form of bookmark management automation. The ability to quickly store a bookmark, with graphical indexing, rather than tries, and then to be able to retrieve it as quickly. And any other bonuses: Newer easier interface, spidering, replication/transaction mirroring.
Slashdot Mirror
The student has learned from his master. Stories like this , this , this, and this make more sense now.
How many people think this is an accurately researched and reported story?
If so, have you completed a college education? What is the name of that institution that would give you a bachelor's degree?
Just because one paranoid pro-gay publication claims that a single pastor threatened Microsoft to withdraw their position, that it MUST be true?!?! Could this possibly be the explanation?
Just as important, since when is it the business of a software development company to be pushing legislation on a social issue?!?! Should we now attack IBM, HP, Dell, GM, Walmart, Citicorp, etc. because they are not flaming supporters of pro-gay legislation which can then later bite them in the ass with civil suits?
I am looking at the posts, and it appears you are not alone in your retardation. Take comfort in that.
Gee, if Linux/Microsoft is so brittle that it cannot protect itself from a hostile client, people shouldn't use it either.
What would he accomplish by forking Subversion and spending a year to get a workable replacement of BK? Isn't that equivalent to starting from scratch with GIT?
And who the HELL are you to be telling Torvalds how he should spend his time?
Oh, and those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Ah, anyone who goes against the Communists are Fascists.
I guess that must include the U.S., Solidarnosc, and the population of the former Soviet Union.
lol.
The problem is that the Communists focused on property rights (The needs of the collective supercede the rights of the individual, at least to the Lenin/Stalin point of view). Legal interpretation and philosophy on property rights doesn't appear to consume the thoughts of terrorists.
What really kills me is that while I loathe Ayn Rand's poser philosophy, it is really coming up in spades here with this F/OSS - Torvalds coup attempt.
No, I'd say F/OSS advocate.
Gee, with that attitude, we should treat anything Slashdot reports as a joke.
The problem is the weakness of the user moderation system. It made this post visible as a conspiracy theory, while I'm sure they would have preferred to use this instead.
Linus never said SAMBA was "non respectable" behavior. Linus said the BK client cloning was "non respectable" behavior. (Actually, what he said was that Tridgell's act to sabotage his agreement with McVoy WITH PROVIDING AN ALTERNATIVE was "non respectable" behavior.)
It's acceptable to shoot someone who is about to kill you, or harm someone nearby. Its not acceptable to shoot a gunholder at a range with no such intent. Reverse engineering is not good in every instance.
But if Tridgell tramples on Linus's rights, that's okay, because he's well intended.
And you should not lie and misrepresent Linus's positions. When you do that, anything a person does can sound wrong or unreasonable.
You're a fool for being so easily manipulated by F/OSS propagandists like Perens.
There is nothing weird or inconsistent about the positions Linus has made concerning this tempest in a teapot. Ironic perhaps, but certainly not weird. Calling Linus's statements "weird" is merely you parrotting F/OSS propaganda
How is Linus being a hypocrite? He does not introduce himself as an official F/OSS spokesman. He never said proprietary software was intolerable that it never should be used in any circumstance.
Because you're a Stalinist Communist. You are too mentally limited to listen to other points of view. Linus never attacked Tridgell's right to reverse-engineer. Torvalds attacked Tridgell's unilateral decision to scuttle the agreement he had with McVoy. I have the right to own a firearm (in the US). It doesn't mean I would be justified to conduct target practice at a shopping mall or woods near a highway. You are so concerned about your rights, you think nothing of abrogating Torvald's right to choose what software he wishes to use. Much like a Communist would.
Then fork, you loud-mouthed Communist.
Nope, I think his biggest blunder was prematurely releasing 2.4 before he had a stable memory manager. I think it really illustrated the amateur nature or limitations of Linux kernel development philosophy. And I'm not thrilled about many minor decisions he has made. But I equate Torvalds to Democracy. And I'll take him before you anytime, Communista.
No, methinks you aren't sufficiently ideologically conformant to harrass major Linus developers to ditch their jobs with corporate entities (RH, HP, etc.) in order to pursue the fork.
From what I've seen from U.S. legal cases, it could be taken as illegal. From a civil litigation point of view, it is unauthorized use of a product Tridgell didn't purchase. But IANAL.
Lets hope Tridge didn't get himself in a legal mess by making that little speech.
It seems to show that he did not violate the letter of any agreement concerning using the bitkeeper client to reverse-engineer.
The problem is that he is still using the bitkeeper server to do reverse-engineering.
One thing I know, is if he hypothetically had purchased server & client package and then conducted reverse-engineering, the law would permit that activity.
I am not so sure about tinkering with a server accessible, off the internet, which he doesn't own. And then, there are those good ole U.S hacking laws (pre-Patriot) and Patriot act. I hope he cleared it with his lawyer.
Developers! *thunk* Developers! *thunk* Developers! BGates: RAM speed, Mr. Ballmer. *thunkthunkthunkthunk* DEVELOPERS!DEVELOPERS!DEVELOPERS!
And that was without a concentration of curry seasoned bean eaters.
I cringe just thinking about the stink...
The International Law of the Sea. But that only covers murder, maiming, kidnapping, etc. Don't think it would cover child labor laws. Basically, outside of territorial waters, any nation can be cowboy cop, but detainees are only subject to international law. And all nations are "bound" to international law. The problem is "Quis custodiet ipso custodes".
No, the U.S. considers the fishing, mineral, and sphere of influence within 100-150 nautical miles. U.S. LAW only applies to within 3 miles to shore. The only thing backing up this position is the 15 carrier taskgroups it can call upon. That's pretty much enough so that the U.N. doesn't want to make an issue of it.
...of a horde of unshowered, dropcloth wearing Indians chained to a deck with oars next to their keyboards...
(first post?)
First, let me point out that I am not an evangelist for thin client setup. I DO recognise they have a potential advantages for TCO, but the devil is in the mission requirements and the configuration.
Second, I am not completely sold on thin clients, but only because people insist on using microsoft products. If the microsoft based implementation is flawed, or has vulnerabilities that cannot be adequately addressed, then thin clients are not a viable technological base for your business. Having said that, I do not have any experience with large scale Microsoft/Citrix based configurations. Perhaps, as one poster alluded, those problems are in the past.
Now having said all of that...
The biggest cost now to any PC is the Microsoft operating system. This is a non-issue if you insist on OS vendor support (RHE, SuSE, IBM, Sun, whatever.)
The whole point with a thin client is that it reduces the cost to its bare necessities. TC does not require a harddrive or an operating system (license cost), that requires maintenance (employee cost).
$100 x 20,000 PCs. If you're a small office, $100 x 20 PCs. Either way, its savings. $100 x 80 PCs? $8K, plus $35-50K/yr for a salary.
And what is the productivity cost every time services are denied due to a virus? Or a harddrive dying? Why is there a high learning curve cost to maintenance staff? Because you hired people who have difficulty learning or need to pay for MSCE costs for them to be competent at their jobs? If you're talking about users, how difficult is it for them to click an icon?
If you incorrectly implement TC/server workgroup, you will have those problems. If you have enough servers to support your users, will not have those problems. The server is not providing CPU services for each thin client. Again, its all about implementation.
Those costs exist in a standalone PC environment. If a harddrive gets full, that is because IT has an inadequate amount of disk storage, configured it to allow the situation to occur, and is not capable of monitoring problems on their servers. Don't blame incompetent staff for TC's shortcomings.
The savings in TC is not the hardware, its in lower staff requirements. Less PC jockeys needed to maintain standalone PC's and their software. TC does not handicap productivity. A word processor is a word processor. How can I possibly be saving money when Microsoft is charging $300 USD per PC for Office?
Answer: Total Cost of Operation
If you have a screen, CPU, RAM, and a NIC, you will not be wasting time extensively debugging problems, running viruses scans on each machine, etc. Less points of hardware failure. The logical bugs can come from only one place, the server. Its a matter of competence to make sure your servers are redundant, reliable, virus and bug free.
You would probably avoid running a thin client on a full blown PC. You sort of add another point of failure. The other problem is that I haven't seen any Microsoft based platform that matches the concept seamlessly. Unlike *ahem* unix/linux....
Sort of. What I "think" I want is some form of bookmark management automation. The ability to quickly store a bookmark, with graphical indexing, rather than tries, and then to be able to retrieve it as quickly. And any other bonuses: Newer easier interface, spidering, replication/transaction mirroring.
Well, for uptime & transaction. Decimal precision uses much more nine's... ;)