Funny, Steve is starting to sound like the BSD folks, except the BSD folks don't put quite the negative spin on things. I guess if he doesn't want the government supporting GNU license software because MS can't use it in their code, then they shouldn't support MS development because we can't use MS's code in ours. I guess the government will have to turn in to a BSD shop:)
The SNMP daemon I'm using (and every one I've seen) is written in C. The API to get this information is in C, and I need to access the information quickly and use the least amount of resrouces on the system, so C seems the obvious choice. Oh, and the data structures I'm working with are already defined in C in the systems header files.
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
The survey may be good, but the author hasn't got a clue. They claim 10-12 CD's would take up a 3 Gig disk. I get 10-12 disks worth of MP3's per CDR that I burn. Other incorrect information in this article makes me question the authors ability to properly research what they are talking about and leads to qustions of accuracy in the meat of the article.
On the other hand BMG had their hands in creating the survey, so it's nice to see that we can go *there*there* It's not just Napster fans trying to skew the facts!
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Who started, funded and build the Internet?
on
Legitimacy Of ICANN?
·
· Score: 1
The government has been running the internet forever. Remember, they originally funded and awarded the contracts to manage the internet. They continue to maintain control over its operation despite large portions of it being sold (remember when some networks were sold to MCI?)
Remember however, they can only control what everyone has access to, but not what private groups can make available to the people they want to.
What happens when I create a VPN, with my own TLD name servers and my own domains. People connect to it with a machine on the internet, but anything that connects to the VPN from the other side of their machine only sees what's in the private network, which can be anything I want.
Maybe it's time to take control of our own networks. --
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Re:ICANN might not be the best thing, but...
on
Legitimacy Of ICANN?
·
· Score: 2
Uhh, Al gore introduced the legislation that created NSFnet.
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Postel's probably turning in his grave. Granted, there are a lot more computers and networks on the internet, but looks what ICANN and Verisign are, and what Postel was. I miss the old days.
I think we have to understand that this is not a fight we are going to win. We have lost control of the internet. It is in the hands of the companies now. But now what?
I think it's time to look at alternatives to "The Internet." It is well within our means to simply use the Internet as a transport method and develop our own networks and interconnect them if we choose. Ok, so some of our ISP's don't want us VPNing, but we can switch ISP's usually.
The question is, is it time to walk away from the public, develop technology, and let the public come to us (again)? --
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Oh how we forget why people do things. FreeBSD was never created to generate market share. OpenBSD was not created for that reason anywhere. It was created because people wanted it. So long as there are enough people who want it and can develop it it will continue to be developed. That's all it really takes. Who cares if people use it or not? Thats MS's bag. It's about doing what you want to......It has something to do with freedom. --
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Did you forget how many UNIX vendors sold a TCP/IP stack? Did you forget where AT&T got their sockets from before they came out with TLI? Now you want to talk incompatable? Imagine if everyone did something as radical as TLI!
My point is that everyone has their reason for the license they use. Each has it's advantages. Respect the developers desicion to use the license of choice. I don't think that's much of a troll.
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
This sounds familiar. Imagine, if BSD had used a GPL type license then all the vendors would have had to write their own IP stack!
Each developer has their own agenda. I've got mine, which is to write software that other developers would like to use in their own code. Stallman has his, and the developer of this software has theirs. Respect the developers choice to support their own ideas
Let me clarify something here. I'm not looking for mean time between rootshells for a individual system, but for a type of system. For example, what's the mean time between exploits in BIND 8 in general, not your specific BIND 8 installation. The more general question really is, why don't we measure how often a product has flaws discovered. If I need to choose between RedHat and OpenBSD and security is my biggest concern I'm going to look at 4 years without a remote root exploit and chose OpenBSD, but what if I'm deciding against Solaris and HP-UX? What's the difference?
The reason I find this meaningful because it help measure work load. Am I going to take the machine down once a week to apply a patch, or once a year? The shorter the time between new exploits the more work I have to do to maintain it. --
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
I can't stress this enough, so it needs to be said again. READ ADVANCED PROGRAMMING IN THE UNIX ENVIRONMENT by Stevens, then read Unix Network Programming and TCP/IP Illustrated:)
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
The problem here is that the name Aimster refers to something associated with AIM. If they were talking about archery there wouldn't be the issue there is now. --
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Nah, it's mindless links with moderated comments! Or you could look at it as a topic presorted link collection service. Select the area of interest and find links! Fun for the entire family. --
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
There are those Open Source developers, like Richard Stallman, who would be insulted at the idea. You want to stay away from the crowd who thinks that all software should be free. On the other hand there are people like me who write software in their spare time, release what they do under the FreeBSD license, and just don't care what happens to it, as long as someone uses it (oh wait, no one uses my software anymore, even me!) In any case poeple like Linus, who developed their software not out of a need to have free software, but out of a desire to create software, and released it under an open source license because of a desire to share their personal work with the world are the people you are looking for. I often write closed source solutions.
In any case, we all need to eat, if your putting food on the table, someone's bound to eat it. Good luck
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
I switch back and forth between being a software engineer and a systems manager. Software engineering is an interesting job, but you probably want to make sure you don't get stuck being a code boy forever. The real fun comes in design and research for software development projects. Having a clue about security and the like will make you a bit more valueable.
On the other hand you can move in to Systems Management. It's kinda like systems admin but with a better title:) Reall though, find a job where you actually plan, design, and implement solutions, rather then just provide a platform for applications. --
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
I didn't mention ESR. I should give him more respect than I do, he did write some great software, but I'm not a big ESR fan.
I did mention Miguel (of Gnome fame).
Now, as far as Stallman is concerned, this guy can code. He's also a fanatic. He belives as strongly in his view of free software as Microsoft does in making money and he pushes it. The difference between Stallman and Microsoft is that Stallman is pushing hard for the community, and Microsoft is pushing hard for their license fees.
Linus? I've had a ton of respect for everything I've read that he has said. If anyone out there has a level head about everything it's him. He *did* write this thing called Linux, however he's busy working on something else for Transmeta and working on Linux in his free time. Come on now, building a cult? He's building processors and operating systems.
I could have named other names in the open source movement, but I stayed away from the BSD type guys as Mundie left them alone. I think the BSD types are the real cool ones. They just want people to be able to use their software. They are like the hippies trying to turn everyone on to acid. They just want to share with the world the little bit of joy they found! This is not to imply they are drug users.
I asked Larry Wall at a conference once what the comericalization (sp) of the opensource movement does for the average coder who just wants to write code. He gave me a great response. It creates patrons. All the opensource movement has done is to get a company like O'Reilly & Associates to pay him to do what he was doing already. He can now work full time making his software the best it can be. In return O'Reilly has a really great piece of software to sell books about and the best authors to write about them. Let's face it, your at the book store, you want to learn about perl, do you get a book by Wall, or one by ?
There are plenty of people in the opensource movement who are not trying to build a cult. They are writing good software, and software that's been around and will be around. Microsoft hasn't put out great code since (probably) the 4k BASIC interpreter (and I hear it *was* good code).
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
This guy makes my head hurt! The essential problem here is that the arguments for MS's business model and the arguments for GPL are based on totally different objectives. Let's look at the objectives of the principle people who create the software.
Bill Gates wants to make money
Richard Stallman, Linus, Miguel, and others want to make software.
Both groups are a success in that respect.
Is anyone trying to make money with GPL software? Yes, but those people are not in the business of selling software. They create distributions and sell them in order to drive other parts of their business. Development of GPL'ed software is not core to their business model. The perfect example of this is O'Reilly & Associates. They more or less pay for the development of Perl. Do they make money by selling Perl? Has *anyone* ever bought Perl from them? No. They sell books. they sell lots of books. They have a great selection of books on Perl, and they make money.
Now lets look at Microsoft. For Microsoft software is a tool to make money. They aren't in the business of making software. This is evidenced by the following quote from Mundie him self.
"When comparing the commercial software model to the open-source software model, look carefully at the business plans and licensing structures that form their foundations. This comparison leads to the conclusion that the commercial software model alone has the capacity for sustaining real economic growth. "
Somehow I don't think that Linus and Richard care about how their software directly affects "real economic growth." This quote does hilight an interesting issue. Microsoft cares about money.
Now, let's look at this from the perspective of the consumer. Do I want to use software developed by people who's primary concern is "real economic growth" or by people who's primary concern is writing good software. As a consumer I want the best software. My only concern for the producer of the software is their ability to continue to producing software. If the producer is a company then I should be somewhat concerned about their profitability, however if the producer of the software is not a company, but a community, then profitability is not the concern. Instead the ability of the community to sustain it's self is the issue. This is demonstrated in the early days of FreeBSD and Linux. Rumor has it that many people may have chosen to use Linux over FreeBSD because of issues with AT&T. The ability of the community to continue to produce was in question.
Let's look at the current state of the open source community. If RedHat, Caldera, SuSE close their doors and stop operating, will development and support for their products stop? No, development will continue by people who want choose to. How else did we get here in the first place. While the existance of these businesses may have accelerated the development of some software if these companies did not exist we would have created the software. The BSD variants have existed through all of this without either the strong revenues of Microsoft, or the hype (much of it deserved) and capital investment in to Linux.
This brings up an interesting point, what about the BSD license.
Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California
Is this from some piece of code in FreeBSD? Is this from the 4.4BSD tree? Nope, this is from the ftp program distributed with Microsoft Windows. In fact, many of their internet utilities include this copyright notice. Microsoft doesn't take issue with this license. One could presume because the BSD license allows them to exploit the software for financial gain. Now, most of the people who use the BSD license for their software really don't care. They are more interested in people using their software then who's profiting from it. The point here is to illustrate Microsoft's two faced talk. Are opensource models bad for business? It seems that their business has benifited from the BSD license. The "new" BSD license is considered compatable with the GNU license and is used by some in the open source community. Microsoft is not being completly honest.
So what is the point of the article, and the original that generated the response this is a response to? Fear. I belive that Microsoft wants to convince the public that GNU software is bad, that it's a bad idea to use it, and that it's bound to fail. They are trying not to loose customers. I hope they are failing
Remember folks, we can go up and look at coffee now, but the best time for a mars shot is 2016. The story gives a timeline of things that need to happen along the way to going to mars as well. Comparing these two projects side by side is like saying that getting the bugs out of Windows and getting the bugs out of FreeBSD is the same... --
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Sorry to burst your bubble, but your physical property and real estate are not yours either. The government has true ownership over everything. They own them through laws, which are enforce through LAWS (Large Automatic Weapon Systems). The government can take your home from you. They can take your car from you. They can freeze your assets and take them from you. There is very little you can do about it. There may be more people involved, but the only difference between a King and our government is the red tape.
Having said that, we have rights to property. We call them ours, but we don't actually own them. We are granted rights to them. This is what happens when you obtain a copyright. This is what happens when you patent something. This is what happens when you buy something from someone else. The rights to use the item are transfered. IP is no different than real estate. The government grants you rights to IP that you create. --
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
One interesting idea I've heard is to make it a crime to send an email with any false header information, then make it a standard to identify the type of email your sending (ie. personal email, an email to an existing customer, bulk mail spam). Then, if you can easily filter it, and if you lie about bing bulk mail spam your guilty. Make the punishment something like $1000 per incident to the person who it was sent to as a civil penalty wouldn't be a bad idea either:) --
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
This is an issue that needs to be addressed up front. Sell the security of your solutions up front and get the customer interested in it. If you can get interest from the customer in having a secure solution then they can make it an issue in taking bids. If your the only bidder who addresses this need you should win.
Now the fun part. How do you address it? I think you should be specific. In this case I would have sold the fact that the solution you were selling would protect the customer data from unintended exposure. On the other hand, what if you win the bid and fail in doing this? I don't think anyone intended to write bad code, but things happen. You need to work with a lawyer to understand the liability you might expose your self to and limit that as well.
Problem is the Alpha will blow the SPARC away, so if you want to benchmark Linux against Windows you would pick the Alpha. The only way I'd use the SPARC in that position is if I were going to try to run Linux on an E10k and/or the Ultra III replacement for it (haven't seen it yet, E10800? E18000?).
There are many different ways to look at it. You could ask if they get rights to call them selves UNIX from whoever owns that name now (last I recall it was sold to Novell by AT&T and I lost track after that, as I don't care to much). You could ask if it conforms to any of the definitions published for SYS V. I don't recall BSD publishing any specs the way AT&T and later Novell did (but does anyone care about SVR5?) You can ask if it conforms to device drivers and application programming interfaces. You could ask if it has the ability to run a UNIX shell and if most general UNIX software is ported to it (this is how I looked at Linux, the internals are different, but the user utils are there so it looks like UNIX).
On the other hand, you can ask if it really matters? Does it really matter if it's UNIX? I don't think so. The question should be, does it meet my requirements. If the system meets your requirements then use it, if not, don't!
Hehe, I'm busy cleaning up after one right now. At least this guy mirrored things, but the backups are a mess. Anyway, there's a difference between a systems admin and a systems manager. To many places hire systems admins who know the basics like setting up file systems and how to install the latest RedHat, when they need systems managers who know when to use RedHat on a PC and when to use Solaris on an E10k. Those managers get burned.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, Steve is starting to sound like the BSD folks, except the BSD folks don't put quite the negative spin on things. I guess if he doesn't want the government supporting GNU license software because MS can't use it in their code, then they shouldn't support MS development because we can't use MS's code in ours. I guess the government will have to turn in to a BSD shop :)
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
The SNMP daemon I'm using (and every one I've seen) is written in C. The API to get this information is in C, and I need to access the information quickly and use the least amount of resrouces on the system, so C seems the obvious choice. Oh, and the data structures I'm working with are already defined in C in the systems header files.
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
The survey may be good, but the author hasn't got a clue. They claim 10-12 CD's would take up a 3 Gig disk. I get 10-12 disks worth of MP3's per CDR that I burn. Other incorrect information in this article makes me question the authors ability to properly research what they are talking about and leads to qustions of accuracy in the meat of the article.
On the other hand BMG had their hands in creating the survey, so it's nice to see that we can go *there*there* It's not just Napster fans trying to skew the facts!
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
The government has been running the internet forever. Remember, they originally funded and awarded the contracts to manage the internet. They continue to maintain control over its operation despite large portions of it being sold (remember when some networks were sold to MCI?)
Remember however, they can only control what everyone has access to, but not what private groups can make available to the people they want to.
What happens when I create a VPN, with my own TLD name servers and my own domains. People connect to it with a machine on the internet, but anything that connects to the VPN from the other side of their machine only sees what's in the private network, which can be anything I want.
Maybe it's time to take control of our own networks.
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Uhh, Al gore introduced the legislation that created NSFnet.
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Postel's probably turning in his grave. Granted, there are a lot more computers and networks on the internet, but looks what ICANN and Verisign are, and what Postel was. I miss the old days.
I think we have to understand that this is not a fight we are going to win. We have lost control of the internet. It is in the hands of the companies now. But now what?
I think it's time to look at alternatives to "The Internet." It is well within our means to simply use the Internet as a transport method and develop our own networks and interconnect them if we choose. Ok, so some of our ISP's don't want us VPNing, but we can switch ISP's usually.
The question is, is it time to walk away from the public, develop technology, and let the public come to us (again)?
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Oh how we forget why people do things. FreeBSD was never created to generate market share. OpenBSD was not created for that reason anywhere. It was created because people wanted it. So long as there are enough people who want it and can develop it it will continue to be developed. That's all it really takes. Who cares if people use it or not? Thats MS's bag. It's about doing what you want to... ...It has something to do with freedom.
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
My post was a troll? Wow.
Did you forget how many UNIX vendors sold a TCP/IP stack? Did you forget where AT&T got their sockets from before they came out with TLI? Now you want to talk incompatable? Imagine if everyone did something as radical as TLI!
My point is that everyone has their reason for the license they use. Each has it's advantages. Respect the developers desicion to use the license of choice. I don't think that's much of a troll.
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
This sounds familiar. Imagine, if BSD had used a GPL type license then all the vendors would have had to write their own IP stack!
Each developer has their own agenda. I've got mine, which is to write software that other developers would like to use in their own code. Stallman has his, and the developer of this software has theirs. Respect the developers choice to support their own ideas
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Let me clarify something here. I'm not looking for mean time between rootshells for a individual system, but for a type of system. For example, what's the mean time between exploits in BIND 8 in general, not your specific BIND 8 installation. The more general question really is, why don't we measure how often a product has flaws discovered. If I need to choose between RedHat and OpenBSD and security is my biggest concern I'm going to look at 4 years without a remote root exploit and chose OpenBSD, but what if I'm deciding against Solaris and HP-UX? What's the difference?
The reason I find this meaningful because it help measure work load. Am I going to take the machine down once a week to apply a patch, or once a year? The shorter the time between new exploits the more work I have to do to maintain it.
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
I can't stress this enough, so it needs to be said again. READ ADVANCED PROGRAMMING IN THE UNIX ENVIRONMENT by Stevens, then read Unix Network Programming and TCP/IP Illustrated :)
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
The problem here is that the name Aimster refers to something associated with AIM. If they were talking about archery there wouldn't be the issue there is now.
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Nah, it's mindless links with moderated comments! Or you could look at it as a topic presorted link collection service. Select the area of interest and find links! Fun for the entire family.
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
There are those Open Source developers, like Richard Stallman, who would be insulted at the idea. You want to stay away from the crowd who thinks that all software should be free. On the other hand there are people like me who write software in their spare time, release what they do under the FreeBSD license, and just don't care what happens to it, as long as someone uses it (oh wait, no one uses my software anymore, even me!) In any case poeple like Linus, who developed their software not out of a need to have free software, but out of a desire to create software, and released it under an open source license because of a desire to share their personal work with the world are the people you are looking for. I often write closed source solutions.
In any case, we all need to eat, if your putting food on the table, someone's bound to eat it. Good luck
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
I switch back and forth between being a software engineer and a systems manager. Software engineering is an interesting job, but you probably want to make sure you don't get stuck being a code boy forever. The real fun comes in design and research for software development projects. Having a clue about security and the like will make you a bit more valueable.
:) Reall though, find a job where you actually plan, design, and implement solutions, rather then just provide a platform for applications.
On the other hand you can move in to Systems Management. It's kinda like systems admin but with a better title
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
I didn't mention ESR. I should give him more respect than I do, he did write some great software, but I'm not a big ESR fan. I did mention Miguel (of Gnome fame). Now, as far as Stallman is concerned, this guy can code. He's also a fanatic. He belives as strongly in his view of free software as Microsoft does in making money and he pushes it. The difference between Stallman and Microsoft is that Stallman is pushing hard for the community, and Microsoft is pushing hard for their license fees.
Linus? I've had a ton of respect for everything I've read that he has said. If anyone out there has a level head about everything it's him. He *did* write this thing called Linux, however he's busy working on something else for Transmeta and working on Linux in his free time. Come on now, building a cult? He's building processors and operating systems.
I could have named other names in the open source movement, but I stayed away from the BSD type guys as Mundie left them alone. I think the BSD types are the real cool ones. They just want people to be able to use their software. They are like the hippies trying to turn everyone on to acid. They just want to share with the world the little bit of joy they found! This is not to imply they are drug users.
I asked Larry Wall at a conference once what the comericalization (sp) of the opensource movement does for the average coder who just wants to write code. He gave me a great response. It creates patrons. All the opensource movement has done is to get a company like O'Reilly & Associates to pay him to do what he was doing already. He can now work full time making his software the best it can be. In return O'Reilly has a really great piece of software to sell books about and the best authors to write about them. Let's face it, your at the book store, you want to learn about perl, do you get a book by Wall, or one by ?
There are plenty of people in the opensource movement who are not trying to build a cult. They are writing good software, and software that's been around and will be around. Microsoft hasn't put out great code since (probably) the 4k BASIC interpreter (and I hear it *was* good code).
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
This guy makes my head hurt! The essential problem here is that the arguments for MS's business model and the arguments for GPL are based on totally different objectives. Let's look at the objectives of the principle people who create the software.
Bill Gates wants to make money
Richard Stallman, Linus, Miguel, and others want to make software.
Both groups are a success in that respect.
Is anyone trying to make money with GPL software? Yes, but those people are not in the business of selling software. They create distributions and sell them in order to drive other parts of their business. Development of GPL'ed software is not core to their business model. The perfect example of this is O'Reilly & Associates. They more or less pay for the development of Perl. Do they make money by selling Perl? Has *anyone* ever bought Perl from them? No. They sell books. they sell lots of books. They have a great selection of books on Perl, and they make money.
Now lets look at Microsoft. For Microsoft software is a tool to make money. They aren't in the business of making software. This is evidenced by the following quote from Mundie him self.
"When comparing the commercial software model to the open-source software model, look carefully at the business plans and licensing structures that form their foundations. This comparison leads to the conclusion that the commercial software model alone has the capacity for sustaining real economic growth. "
Somehow I don't think that Linus and Richard care about how their software directly affects "real economic growth." This quote does hilight an interesting issue. Microsoft cares about money.
Now, let's look at this from the perspective of the consumer. Do I want to use software developed by people who's primary concern is "real economic growth" or by people who's primary concern is writing good software. As a consumer I want the best software. My only concern for the producer of the software is their ability to continue to producing software. If the producer is a company then I should be somewhat concerned about their profitability, however if the producer of the software is not a company, but a community, then profitability is not the concern. Instead the ability of the community to sustain it's self is the issue. This is demonstrated in the early days of FreeBSD and Linux. Rumor has it that many people may have chosen to use Linux over FreeBSD because of issues with AT&T. The ability of the community to continue to produce was in question.
Let's look at the current state of the open source community. If RedHat, Caldera, SuSE close their doors and stop operating, will development and support for their products stop? No, development will continue by people who want choose to. How else did we get here in the first place. While the existance of these businesses may have accelerated the development of some software if these companies did not exist we would have created the software. The BSD variants have existed through all of this without either the strong revenues of Microsoft, or the hype (much of it deserved) and capital investment in to Linux.
This brings up an interesting point, what about the BSD license.
Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California
Is this from some piece of code in FreeBSD? Is this from the 4.4BSD tree? Nope, this is from the ftp program distributed with Microsoft Windows. In fact, many of their internet utilities include this copyright notice. Microsoft doesn't take issue with this license. One could presume because the BSD license allows them to exploit the software for financial gain. Now, most of the people who use the BSD license for their software really don't care. They are more interested in people using their software then who's profiting from it. The point here is to illustrate Microsoft's two faced talk. Are opensource models bad for business? It seems that their business has benifited from the BSD license. The "new" BSD license is considered compatable with the GNU license and is used by some in the open source community. Microsoft is not being completly honest.
So what is the point of the article, and the original that generated the response this is a response to? Fear. I belive that Microsoft wants to convince the public that GNU software is bad, that it's a bad idea to use it, and that it's bound to fail. They are trying not to loose customers. I hope they are failing
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Remember folks, we can go up and look at coffee now, but the best time for a mars shot is 2016. The story gives a timeline of things that need to happen along the way to going to mars as well. Comparing these two projects side by side is like saying that getting the bugs out of Windows and getting the bugs out of FreeBSD is the same...
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Sorry to burst your bubble, but your physical property and real estate are not yours either. The government has true ownership over everything. They own them through laws, which are enforce through LAWS (Large Automatic Weapon Systems). The government can take your home from you. They can take your car from you. They can freeze your assets and take them from you. There is very little you can do about it. There may be more people involved, but the only difference between a King and our government is the red tape.
Having said that, we have rights to property. We call them ours, but we don't actually own them. We are granted rights to them. This is what happens when you obtain a copyright. This is what happens when you patent something. This is what happens when you buy something from someone else. The rights to use the item are transfered. IP is no different than real estate. The government grants you rights to IP that you create.
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
One interesting idea I've heard is to make it a crime to send an email with any false header information, then make it a standard to identify the type of email your sending (ie. personal email, an email to an existing customer, bulk mail spam). Then, if you can easily filter it, and if you lie about bing bulk mail spam your guilty. Make the punishment something like $1000 per incident to the person who it was sent to as a civil penalty wouldn't be a bad idea either :)
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
This is an issue that needs to be addressed up front. Sell the security of your solutions up front and get the customer interested in it. If you can get interest from the customer in having a secure solution then they can make it an issue in taking bids. If your the only bidder who addresses this need you should win.
Now the fun part. How do you address it? I think you should be specific. In this case I would have sold the fact that the solution you were selling would protect the customer data from unintended exposure. On the other hand, what if you win the bid and fail in doing this? I don't think anyone intended to write bad code, but things happen. You need to work with a lawyer to understand the liability you might expose your self to and limit that as well.
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Problem is the Alpha will blow the SPARC away, so if you want to benchmark Linux against Windows you would pick the Alpha. The only way I'd use the SPARC in that position is if I were going to try to run Linux on an E10k and/or the Ultra III replacement for it (haven't seen it yet, E10800? E18000?).
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
There are many different ways to look at it. You could ask if they get rights to call them selves UNIX from whoever owns that name now (last I recall it was sold to Novell by AT&T and I lost track after that, as I don't care to much). You could ask if it conforms to any of the definitions published for SYS V. I don't recall BSD publishing any specs the way AT&T and later Novell did (but does anyone care about SVR5?) You can ask if it conforms to device drivers and application programming interfaces. You could ask if it has the ability to run a UNIX shell and if most general UNIX software is ported to it (this is how I looked at Linux, the internals are different, but the user utils are there so it looks like UNIX).
On the other hand, you can ask if it really matters? Does it really matter if it's UNIX? I don't think so. The question should be, does it meet my requirements. If the system meets your requirements then use it, if not, don't!
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Hehe, I'm busy cleaning up after one right now. At least this guy mirrored things, but the backups are a mess. Anyway, there's a difference between a systems admin and a systems manager. To many places hire systems admins who know the basics like setting up file systems and how to install the latest RedHat, when they need systems managers who know when to use RedHat on a PC and when to use Solaris on an E10k. Those managers get burned.
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Where am I gonig to work next?
Yet another Sun, HP, AIX (it's better than NT), or, (if it really gets bad) SCO shop. There's plenty of good UNIX work out there.
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect