I'm sending this email out to you about the The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Public Law 105-304 (1998), added a new Chapter 12 to title 17 United States Code.
This Act by Congress needs to be dramatically altered to ensure that the fair use rights given to US citizens under the Constitution are better protected, and to ensure that everyone in America has the right to innovate and participate fairly in commerce.
Without going through the complete details of the the entire act, fundamentally, this law was passed by congress in response to the increasing concern by various traditional broadcast and media corporations that the limit license provided by copyright is becoming harder to protect in the digital environment. The trouble with the act is that it has no respect for the constitutional balance between the rights of holders of copyright licenses and the rights both free speech and property of people who consume information. And of course we are all consumers of information.
As Law Professor Yochai Benkler of NYU, an expert of Inforamation Law, was quoted as saying, "If the judge finds for the plaintiff (in a case involving the DMCA in NY), and the decision isn't knocked down on appeal it will create an environment that's closed like nothing we've ever seen before....Say you want to criticize the liberal leanings of Hollywood, or criticize the sexist movie of this or that, You need to be able to quote little pieces of the movie. You can do that under the copyright law, because that's fair use, but using DVDs lawfully as the [film association] reads the law, you can't do that. This really extinguishes user privilege to an unprecedented degree."
(For more information see :http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0018/howe.sh tml)
The DMCA, as it is currently written and interpreted by the Federal District Court of NY, under Judge Lewis Kaplan, (See the transcript at http://www.2600.org/news/2000/0121-files/0121-tr ans.html ) is being interpreted so strictly as to undermine the protections that were written into it for the protecting reversing engineering and fair use. The law states that if a copyrighted material is available in digital format (and what is not going to be available in digital format in the future), that an electronic access device can be used to regulate access to that material in order to protect piracy of the material.
The trouble with the law is largely 3 fold:
A - The law tramples fair use and property rights. B - The law is stifling invocation. C - The Law is stifling free speech and is a direct threat to the kind of discourse necessary for a free society.
In the first case, up until now, the Supreme Court has drawn a line between the limited rights of a copyright holder to material, and the protections of speech and property of owners of the actual media in which material is publish on. For example, an owner of a record is allowed to copy music to cassette tape for personal use. The owner of a book has the right to quote parts of the book, as I did here, even to photocopy it for a personal archive or a report. The DMCA prevents these activity when the printed text or the audio tract is on a DMCA protected digital format. As an example, in the case of the new DVD media, the purchase of the DVD does not give the owner of the disk the right to use it as they see fit. For example, they may be only be allowed to view the disk on a computer running Microsoft Windows, or a computer using a specifically permitted software or other authorized device. This arraignment places a choke hold on what information can and can not be viewed and removes freedom of choice and fair use. You can not copy any segment of the information, anotate it, or print it out. As things are currently, for example, a standard American DVD can not legally be seen on the Linux Operation System, the second largest operating system in current use in the US. In response to not being able to view DVD's on Linux, Linux developers create a program to access the DVD for viewing. The developers posted the program on the internet. In response, the Movie industry brought suit in NY and in California. Judge Katz in NY has said in his ruling that EVEN UNDER THE CONDITION that the program was developed for use under Linux, and was protected under the reverse engineering clause of the DMCA, that this would not protect the developer of the program from arrest, or the web masters who post the program on the internet from prosecution under the DMCA.
As it is, the developer is a 16 year old boy and both the boy and his father were arrested in Norway, where they live. If he lived in America, the boy would be considered a felon under the DMCA.
In the second case, if Judge Katz ruling is to stand, and if congress does not strengthen the rights of developers to reverse engineer DMCA hardware and software for inter-operability with new hardware and software, then the impact on the US economy will be devastating. The Linux operating system, for example, was created by a graduate student who had an open platform in the IBM Personal Computer clone. Without the ability have this open platform, the Linux operation system, in addition to nearly every other internet based piece of software, could never have come into existence. The DMCA is a dagger at the heart of Linux, and other new technologies like it, and to the internet itself. If any part of the PC which is copyrighted (which is almost the entire platform), the DMCA today would prevent the exploration of the hardware and the firmware, and more to the point, would make the new technology illegal just for accessing the computers insides without pre-authorization by the copyright holders of the technology.
In short, under today's legal system, thanks to the DMCA, the internet itself, which is larging driving today's economy, would never have come into existence because the protocols which run the networking would be protected and closed through means of DMCA devices.
In the third case, the DMCA is stifling free speech today, and will have an increasing devastating effect on free speech in the future. The news outlet at http://slashdot.org has received notice for Microsoft Corp. to remove information posted on the web site in discussing Microsoft business proactice, because they claim, not that the information itself was copyrighted, but because it was protected under the DMCA. The copyright itself would not have given Microsoft protection because the material was being discussed in the context of a of a conversation of it's unfair business practices. So they needed to evoke the DMCA. Microsoft by passed the fair use doctrine which protects individuals and news media by invoking the DMCA. (see http://nylug.org/list-archives/NYLUG-TALK/2000-0 5/msg00159.html for a copy of the Letter sent by Microsoft the the publisher of slashdot) This threat is larger than the recent spat with between Time-Warner and Disney over channel seven/WABC. In that case, the NY Times has ardently come out in support of protecting the freedom of the speech by the press. In this case, there would no longer BE ANY PRESS accept for news disseminated through approved channels under DMCA protection. Both creators and consumers of information would be censored through the control of access to the public.
Barring any potential perceived monetary risk which media companies think up, and especially in light that no evidence exists that digital media has costed companies a single penny from copyright infringement, I must ask that the Congressman take the lead in protecting individual property and fair use rights, freedom to innovate and share in our prosperity, and the freedom of speech. This is the trinity of a great and free society. Congress is empowered to protect and enhance these activities. But Congress has stumbled because it seems to lack a real understanding of the issues, and how technology works.
I want you to lobby and to present a bill to repeal the DMCA, or at least, pass an amendment reaffirming the rights of every individual, in relationship to copyrighted and exchanged information, to their historical guarantees which have, until now, served this great nation so well.
________________________________ Other Sourses of Information:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/safire/05 0400safi.html http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0018/howe.sht ml http://slashdot.org Must Read-->http://noframes.linuxjournal.com/articles/c urrents/016.html
Sorry Becoming a MS Certified tech gives you employement until W2001 and at the cost of $10,000. Learning Linux is cost free and gives the student computer skills which will make him/her employable for decades. Simply, comercial OS's are designed from the ground up in shackle the user and the technologist. Linux and Free OS's are designed from the ground up to enable the user and the technologist. It's impossible to outgrow Linux. Even Fortran programmers understand basic programming technique which carries over to over languages in Platform. A Fortran programmer with A linux PC can take these skills and learn Perl.... A M$ drone can only go back for another 10 grand of training in 2 years when MS forces a new platform. Ruben http://www.mrbrklyn.com
Creative Labs Linux compatible DVD player and software is NO LONGER on the market. The Linux stuff from Creative was a joint effort with interested developers. Creative Labs told me point blank at the Linux Expo in NYC that they are holding up release of NEW DVD Software for their current offering BECAUSE of the Lawsuits brought by the Motion Picture industry.
THUS, not only is the DMCA preventing the distribution of DeCss, but they also KILLED Creatives plans for bringing out DVD for Linux.
There is no currently available DVD for Linux....if that was the only point.
They also killed off much of Broadcast2000, a great video editing package for Linux. So the issue is not just to have Software of a DVD player, but that it be open sourced
Ruben I Safir
Re:CNN has a report on this.
on
Protesting DMCA
·
· Score: 1
It's simply not true that there is a DVD comercially available to Linux at this time. There WAS one from Creative, as the above URL points out, but the hardware is an older version of Creatives DVD Device and is no longer available. At the Linux Expo in NYC, Creative made clear that they were delayed in bringing out NEW drivers for Linux because of the Law suites against DeCss.
On another note, it's none of the Movies industries BUSINESS if I want to pay for a comercial DVD driver or not which is Closed Sourced. Once I by the DVD disk, it's mine - not THEIRS. There statement that we're too cheap to buy the non-existing vaperware DVD players implies that unless we're willing to purchase a DVD player that gives a kickback to the Motion Picture industry thart it's us who is morally bankrupt. The truth is that it is THEM who are morally bankrupt for insisting that we pay a kickback to them above and beyound the cost of the product to use it after I made a legal purchase.
It's incorrect that when some creates music, that it is released to the world as a privlege. All human creative endevors are part of as collective culture - AS A RIGHT
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Public Law 105-304 (1998)
In light of the passage of Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Public Law 105-304 (1998)
the Copyright office is now going to have to determine rules for the application of the new law which will impact the daily lives of all US citizens. In an effort to protect the holders of the limited privileges of Copyrighted Cultural artifact, Congress has tried to create a legal basis for the use of technology to help the granted rights to Copyright holders. This is an admirable undertaking by the Congress in that it assures reasonable control of original authors to profit financially from the Cultural Artifacts which they created.
However, Congress and the Courts have consistently upheld the principle of "fair use". In fact, the US Constitution was so concerned about the obvious conflict of interest of public discourse, political freedom, and the effort to give creators limited exclusive licenses to Cultural Artifacts of their creation as a measure of fairness for their efforts at enriching our shared cultural inheritance, that they included the right of Congress in inhibit free speech by issuing limited Copyright and Patents protections into the Constitution.
Furthermore, the courts have tried to uphold the balance of these conflicting interest by applying the legal concept of "fair use" as outlined in several court cases including the now famous cases following the advent of inexpensive video tape recording and playback technology. Congress further attempted to define the natural the rights of individuals to usage of Copyrighted material with USC 1201(a)(3) as noted in the Notice of calls for comments of the DMCA in the Federal Register.
The question needs to be answered if Congress, in passing the DMCA, actually intended to alter the balance of the rights of individuals to use legally obtained Copyrighted Cultural Artifacts, and those who own the limited licenses under Copyright Law to those Artifacts. Nothing I've read in the Act, as passed, seem to indicate that Congress intended to make any change in the status quo in this regard. Further, it would be a question for the Courts to decide if Congress actually has the power to infringe upon the individual rights of people further than the Constitution explicitly allowed by extending any legal device which impairs "Fair Use" Doctrine.
It seems that if the Copyright Office or other Federal Agency chooses to strictly enforce many of the segments of the DMCA as it is written, that the effective outcome of these ruling would be adding questionable restrictions on individual liberty, and even threaten the foundation of an open society, upon which the basis of our Democratic form of Government relies.
Specific examples of this include rules which would make the dissemination of information which encourages the "Fair Use" of any copyrighted material, protected with the use for a DMCA inspired technology or not, such as the elimination sharing Computer code which makes legally obtained media possible to read on devices or software other than those disseminated or approved by the holder of a Copyright. Individuals should have the explicit right to reverse engineer, and to make the information available for how it was done, for the purpose of using a legally obtained media on non-commercial operating system of hardware Computer platform. It Copyright Office should also make it clear that the use of DMCA covered devices or software does not give the Copyright owner the right to dictate how, where or when the user can view the legally obtain media, or other Copyrighted material. To do otherwise, the Copyright Office would be allowing the Copyright holder, usually a large multinational corporations, undue influence on the free access of information which our society depends on.
Key areas that warrant specific protection would be Copyrighted granted Cultural Artifacts such as the BIOS of a computer which might make it impossible to run an Operating System other than an Operating System which the holder of the Copyright BIOS makes a prearranged agreement. For example, if my PC have an encrytped BOIS's which needs to be decrypted for the computer boot, and only Microsoft is given encryption keys to read the copyrighted BIOS, it would impossible for any other OS vendor to create an Operating System for that hardware, even though the purchasers of the Hardware is the holder of the license to use the Copyrighted BIOS, and should have a choice to use any Operating System that they choose to create or obtain which is compatible with the hardware. A strict interpretation of the DMCA, in this case, can destroy the Open Source Software project, and remove the Linux Operating System Kernel from the Desktop PC.
And the same holds true for all kinds of peripheral hardware devices. If the key to access encrytped media is not bundled directly with the media, and developers and prevented from reverse engineering devices, writing decrypting algorithms, publishing them for public access, then CDROM's can become useless for anyone not using the commercial system of the copyright holders choice. Hard Drives, DVD media players , sound devices, electronic newspapers, school text books and any other devices yet to be invented are threatened to be freely accessible even after legal purchase or a license to use a Copyrighted media.
The Copyright Office needs to be clear that reverse engineering and publication of the results of such efforts for the purpose of innovating new technology to be interoperatable with readers of such media is not illegal. And further, the same rights are granted for the purpose of developing new devices to read the media, and to even permit the usage of old devices not designed to read the media to be create.
The announcement that the Federal Government wants to regulate prescription sales over the Internet is hardly uprising. One of the unholiest and most monopolistic industries, and one of biggest lobbies in Washington has finally started to flex it's political muscle. Considering the track record of the American Pharmaceutic industry, I doubt there is anything the common man can do about the upcoming regulation of prescription drug sales over the net in the US.
The Pharmaceutical business, as it is composed today, has 3 basic branches. There is the manufacturing branch, the dispensing branch, and the third party payment branch. I spent large parts of my career in all three branches. On proper inspection of the workings of the drug business in the US, most people can see that it's one of the most corrupt businesses in the US. They abuse of patents in a way which makes the computer business seem soft in comparison.
Drug Regulation in the US started in 1906 with the Federal Pure Food and Drug Act in response to the growing problem, as rightfully recognized by Teddy Roservelt administration, of problems with food purity and and medical quackery. In these early years, a number of small pharmacist, mostly around the NYC area, started to bring industrial production to the compounding and creation of Pharmaceutical products. Among these small businesses emerged some of the biggest world-wide corporations today, including familiar names like Merk on Canal street, Pfizer and Squib in Brooklyn.
In 1938, several people died do to an antibiotic being distributed using what amounts to anti-freeze being used as a suspending agent. So the government responded by increasing safety regulation. All new drugs in industrial production needed to be submitted to the Food and Drug Authority for approval. Generally, this has been a good thing. But the Federal Government had not yet mandated a prescription for drug sales. Of course, the new regulations did not end the deaths that are secondary to bring new drugs to market on global scales, and again the Law was strengthened after the Thalidomide deaths in the 1960's. The new law was called the Harris-Kefauver amendment. It required efficacy studies as part of the New Drug Application. And even this did not end the potentential for deaths do to new drugs as Eli Lilly killed off a few folks with a release of a standard Aspirin like drug, not long after.
While this assortment of regulation was being applied to the manufacturing and marketing of drug, increasing regulation was also being brought to bare on the dispensing end of the business. 2 aspects of drug dispensing was coming under regulation. First, the dispensing of habit forming and addicting drugs started to become regulated with the implementation of Controlled substances (like Morphine, Cocaine and THC). These laws have accumulated to the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and the Controlled Substances Act of the same year. They essentially established a schedule of drugs C ontrol 1 through Control V and are under the jusidiction of the Drug Enforcement Agency. These controlled substances are either illegal to distribute, like Heromin, or highly regulated and inventoried from raw material to distribution to the patient.
What was most important was the general dispensing of a non controlled drug to the patient. Up until 1951, it was legal for a Pharmacist to dispense a drug upon request as they saw fit. But with the decline in Pharmaceutical compound and the threat of drug sales going completely over the counter by the growing presence of supermarkets and such, Humphrey, who had a relative who was a pharmacist, decided it was in the best interest of the Pharmacy professional to have a law prohibiting the dispensing of most drugs accept upon the presentation of a prescription of a doctor. This is the law which prevents you from walking into Kmart and buying Viagra.
The problem that has occurred in the industry is two fold. First of all, American Pharmaceutic Companies have badly abused their patents. There was for a time a gentlemen agreement among the Pharmaceutical manufacturers to not compete with each other by producing a drug developed by one another company. They artificially inflated the cost of drugs whose patents expired decades ago. Eventually, there was a consumer backlash, which finally brought about the creation of todays generic drug industry. But years of monopolistic activity (sound familiar) left these companies very wealthy and they lobbied repeatedly for extension of patents on drugs which really have passed their 17 year patent. For example, Park Davis had a drug called Lopid which was brought to market to treat live threatening conditions which involved high triglyceride counts. Park Davis did not do extensive research into the agents other benefits. It didn't sell well. But then Merk came out with a drug a new drug to fight cholesterol called Mevacor. It was huge sellers, despite it's potential side effects, and interest grew in the Park Davis drug, Lopid. The problem for Park Davis was that their patent was expiring. They spend millions of dollars petitioning the government to extend it's patents.
And this is not an isolated case. Pharmaceutical manufactures hold huge sway in Washington. Drug prices have gone through the roof and no one cares because the insurance companies are picking up the bill. Drug companies waste billions of dollars a year bring useless agents to market to replace drugs going out of their exclussive domain. Merk even had the nerve to fire 3000 workers in response to the Clinton's administrations threat to bring prices under control with regulation in the early 1990's. A week after the announced layoffs, Hilary kept Drug Price controls out of her healthcare bill. The Clinton's heard the threat loud and clear.
As a result of all this, the manufactures have developed a 2 tier price structure. A drug may cost your local pharmacist 100 dollars for 30 tables. They then make a deal with the insurance company to give them a 30% rebate. But the cash customer pays full price. On top of this, the insurance companies discover the poor pharmacist is completely helpless to effect pricing. So that drug which cost the Pharmacy $100 dead net, he has to sell to HIP for $101.50, and then HIP get's a rebate. Then, the majority of the repeat drug business, like heart and blood pressure medicine, is farmed out to Mail Order prescription services. These huge houses reduce the profession of Pharmacy, which is a Doctoral degree in the US today, to standing at the end of an assembly line checking prefilled prescriptions, 400 or more a day. And yet, drug errors increasingly plague the medical system as everyone is trying to fill as many drug orders as possible in the littlest time possible, mail prescriptions to patients they never see of get to consult with.
This current system is no better or worse than selling drugs through the Internet. Merk went out and brought the largest mail order prescription house in the US. Companies like Retailed want to prevent small pharmacies from dispensing drugs over the Internet because it's a cheap and effective way for small professionals to get back in the game. And the Feds are looking for a test case to regulate the Internet. Don't be fooled. This is bad news for everyone. Drugs already cost 3 times more in the US than overseas and most countries don't even require a prescription for dispensing. All that medical knowledge by your pharmacist is being wasted and not leveraged for the patients benefit.
As an active member in the Linux community for a while now, I looked at the Bazaar as a success for a number of reasons.
First of all, this may have been the first time that the NYC Linux and Free Software groups were able to participate in a convention of this sort locally. New Yorkers have a different take on open source than in the rest of the country. It was surreal for the Open Source expo to be on top of the e-business expo, looking down on the best the business world had to offer. I spent most of the three days talking and learning about networking, computer technology, and internet business, with a core of the brightest developers available today. I spent time manning our both at LXNY with my friend Mike Smith, trying to explain why open source software was the computing technology of tomorrow. I got some good old skepticism from business people working in the NYC IT scene, but I think we represented the Open Source argument well. Then I spent much time in the Apache Course and the SAMBA course, both of which I was immediately able to put to use. I got to here RMS talk. I think after listening to him, he deserves much of the criticism he has come to get. Crossing RMS with an Israeli Immigrant whose sole interest in software is to gain the freedom to feed his family and establish himself in the land of opportunity of ours was a unique duality of perspective.
On the middle day, I enjoyed spending time with many of my Linux friends at FAO Schwartz. But before going, we held our normal meeting at IBM and heard about the development of the Jike Java compiler at IBM by the developer. HE was very impressed with Slashdot and has a great story about Rob's use of the IBM logo. It was great to see the entire NYC community in action. The expo also allowed for the kick off of the new Linux Newbies SIG in NYC, which took place in one of the expo rooms. So the show galvanized us to a large degree.
It also trickled down to my Perl course that I teach at the New School in the Village. Many of the students attended and wanted to hear about things as they happened at the Bazaar. Over all, the show had great impact.
And consider this. After 3 draining days of learning, teaching and networking with the best and the brightest of the open source movement, I then had the pleasure to spend a half hour at the e-commerce so. When I walked in, I was immediately greeted by a tall women with a Television covering her head, dancing and giving away tee-shirts. Well.... what can I say. The three days spent with the Linux folks was a bit more useful. Isn't that how we should measure success?
All this discussion of new features of IE is missing the point. Microsoft broke the law in forcing IE on the public. The giving away of Internet Explorer at no cost, in of itself, is an act prohibited by a Monopoly by the Sherman Anti-Trust act. Everyone who has ever taken a single Business course knows this. The selling of a product at a loss for the purpose of bankrupting an competing firm who could not match the loses, and to force them out of business, is the very definition of an ilegal business practice.
The further thrusting of the Browser on the public through forced installation with the Windows, AOL, etc, is further illegal activity.
The Web Browsing Software is for Browsing the Web. Linux really has nothing to worry about. IE is a trememndous securiy risk. IBM, Oracle and others are using JAVA to make sure that their applications are cross platform. Linux and Unix have FAR MORE POWERFUL interface for integrated networking applications. This application is the X windowing system. With tk ported to windows, and with Java available, anyone with any insite will use X tools and Broadway Joe to deliver apps over the Net. Netscape only needs to work as a browser. As a Browser it is more secure, does a better job of downloading pages and graphics, and has LESS bugs than IE in these core usages.
BTW - MS has provided a nice place to let your views be known to you Elected officials on these issues.
See:
http://legislators.com/
My sample letter went like this:
I have watched the monopolistic manuvers of Microsfot for many years now. It's obvious that they are breaking the Sherman Anti-Trust act routinely. They have no intention of ever competeing fairly in the market. They released Internet Explorer at no charge, robbing Netscape of fairly earned revenues and forced it on the public against it's will. Now it has integrated it into the propriety office suite software and is threatening the Internets ability to remain a standardized communication device.
Do anything you can to break up Microsoft today.
http://legislators.com/cgi-bin/ms_compose.pl?dir =innovate&stmailaddress4=NY197&stmailaddre ss5=NY142&stmailaddress6=NY005&stmailaddress7=NY17 9&stmailaddress8=NY024&mailaddress0=ny11 &mailaddress1=ny09&mailaddress2=nysr&mailaddress3= nyjr&message=&comptype=fedstate&_state=n y
Actually, At NYU we have tested both system out extensively. Netscape is actually more stable than IE, has a smaller foot print, is more secure.
Without the ability to force feed it's browser, it still holds a whopping 41 percent of the market. The integration of IE into Windows is a danger to the local network, and IE simply has more bugs.
The damn thing can't even handle simple smooth graphics loading on large Web Pages. It screws up form inputs, it cause General Protection Faults. It just really is inferior.
The purpose of a web browser is to surf the net. Once it is integrated, it becomes in secure and buggy.
If you want integration, forget the browser, USE X WINDOWS
Miscosfot doesn't have X. So what choice do they have besides integrating IE into the desktop.
Actually, At NYu we have tested both system out extenssively. Netscape is actually more stable than IE, has a smaller foot print, is more secure.
Without the ability to force feed it's browser, it still holds a whopping 41 percent of the market. The integration of IE into Windows is a danger to the local network, and IE simply has more bugs.
The damn thing can't even handle simple smooth graphics loading on large Web Pages. It screws up form inputs, it cause General Protection Faults. It just really is inferior.
The purpose of a web browser is to surf the net. Once it is integrated, it becomes in secure and buggy.
If you want integration, forget the browser, USE X WINDOWS
Miscosfot doesn't have X. So what choice do they have besides integrating IE into the desktop.
I used to swap spit with you on Compuserve going back before the internet was really popular. I'm a little suprised to see see a plug for a graphic novel pushed here, but hey - WHY NOT! I should have expected it. There hasn't been a great many well done releases in Comics in a few years. Maybe we can get Chakin (ie: Ruben Flagg) and Gonzales to post stuff around this zone as well!
Looking forward to you new work. Plug Linux in it;)
I used to swap spit with you on Compuserve going back before the internet was really popular. I a little suprised to see see a plug for a graphic novel pushed here, but hey - WHY NOT. I should have expected it. There hasn't been a great many well done releases in Comics in a few years. Maybe we can get CHakin (ie: Ruben Flagg) and Gonzales to post stuff around this zone as well!
Looking forward to you new work. Plug Linux in it;)
Whenever one reads a report such as those produced by Gartner ( the company which can not tell the difference between crude oil and information systems by their own admission) it's important to read the actual report in it's complete details to garner any useful information. Serious IT professionals should just skip past the assay of a report, which is essentialy the opinion of the individual writing the article. IT managers get PAID to formulate an informed opinion. The value of these reports is not the conclussion, but the raw information and report of features and problems that the report creates.
Frankly, mature managers, may they be Health Care managers reading a report on new drug therapy which is sponsered by a major drug company, or IT managers reading a report on an OS sponsored by a Microsoft endowment, realize that any reprt or research is an attempt to frame data to someones personal agenda. What is left of value in the report is a criticle look to see if that data contained within it seems valid or if it's quakery.
Unfortunately, there are for too many IT Managers unwilling to do their jobs correcly, or to look fully at the research. BTW - there are far to many Health Care Providers, Researcher, and Governement Beuracrats that suffer the same problem. How do you think we got into this Microsoft mess in the first place?
In the end, I really don't care. Nothing can make me run over to use NT for any of our webservers because NT has shown to be unstable in my real time life. In addition, it is actually much easier for Linux to be optimized for large scale static web page services, if that's what I chose to do. I can simply turn off most of my other services and keep everything going on Linux.
I've known for a while that NT can out perform Linux up until the point it gets real load. This is a failing on NT's part, not an asset. NT doesn't scale it's resources well and just dies when any particular process overloads it's memory and CPU.
Also - the test on PC week are more about Apache than Linux. Apache does not nativily thread, and uses multiprocessing. Frankly, the Apache way of doing things is more stable and makes it easier to create a stable server. Once real web development is done on the site, and Database servers are added to Web Servers for dynamic internet paging, Apache/modperl, and embperl FAR FAR outstrips NT in stablility, speed, and development resources.
Added to that the development enviorment is free and perl modules are souce code viewable, this makes a far better platform to develope for a business platform. Companies can focus on web development instead of hardware/software expenses.
Any company which buy's into the idea that it is better to pay for MS based propitory web development kits instead of conventional programming skills is on the upgrade escalator and will never see the "cost of ownership" saving that are being promised. Since NT is so unconventional in it's development enviorment, and propriatory at that, one can only expect to be lead around in circles with constantly increasing costs.
When commited to any Unix platform - especially Linux - with standard Apache, Perl, Java and C tools, your company becomes part of the ongoing development and improvement of software development, not just a bystander awaiting to be fed the next lastest and greatest thing. We've been using Apache since mid 1995 and have seen steady advancement in Apache, Perl and Linux for 5 years now. Without this development, there would be NO ISS or NT tcp capability at ALL.
In essense, we have not only made OUR bed, but the one Microsoft is hard at work to sell as well.
In the end, I really don't care. Nothing can make me run over to use NT for any of our webservers because NT has shown to be unstable in my real time life. In addition, it is actually much easier for Linux to be optimized for large scale static web page services, if that's what I chose to do. I can simply turn off most of my other services and keep everything going on Linux.
I've known for a while that NT can out perform Linux up until the point it gets real load. This is a failing on NT's part, not an asset. NT doesn't scale it's resources well and just dies when any particular process overloads it's memory and CPU.
Also - the test on PC week are more about Apache than Linux. Apache does not nativily thread, and uses multiprocessing. Frankly, the Apache way of doing things is more stable and makes it easier to create a stable server. Once real web development is done on the site, and Database servers are added to Web Servers for dynamic internet paging, Apache/modperl, and embperl FAR FAR outstrips NT in stablility, speed, and development resources.
Added to that the development enviorment is free and perl modules are souce code viewable, this makes a far better platform to develope for a business platform. Companies can focus on web development instead of hardware/software expenses.
Any company which buy's into the idea that it is better to pay for MS based propitory web development kits instead of conventional programming skills is on the upgrade escalator and will never see the "cost of ownership" saving that are being promised. Since NT is so unconventional in it's development enviorment, and propriatory at that, one can only expect to be lead around in circles with constantly increasing costs.
When commited to any Unix platform - especially Linux - with standard Apache, Perl, Java and C tools, your company becomes part of the ongoing development and improvement of software development, not just a bystander awaiting to be fed the next lastest and greatest thing. We've been using Apache since mid 1995 and have seen steady advancement in Apache, Perl and Linux for 5 years now. Without this development, there would be NO ISS or NT tcp capability at ALL.
It's so fustrating when in the computer world legal standards are brought to bare on it from other businesses which have no application in computing.
In computing, software and hardware designers intentionally remove copyrighted product from the market to introduce NEW and often worse product.
Games are one example of this. Talking about protecting the copyright of a game that can NOT be purchased at any price, and runs on OLD equiptment not available at any price, is unfair business practice. In my mind, there is no eithical issues of distributing ROMS for games which have had support ABANDONED for over a decade. If companies and authers from ATARI, Coleco, and TI and others are so hot and heavey about their copyright because wares rom pirating is so big, then LET THEM REDISTRIBUTE the games for the use of emulaters. THere is no reason for the emulator coders and the software venders to be at each others throats.
In fact, this presents an oppurtunity to these game authers and companies to profit on a stockpile of copyrighted material. If they want to make the roms available, then they have an issue with the warez addicts. If not, then they are blowing smoke.....
I feel like I'm reading the confessions of Sabrina the Teen-aged witch. Why is so much web space being given to this. Anyone who can load Widows can certainly load any of the latest Linux distrubtions and fairly standard hardware. They just stick the disk in and answer a few questions. This guy spent three paragraphs describing his detailed experience of opening a box.
Slashdot Mirror
Greeting Congressman Weiner and Mathew:
h tml)
r ans.html ) is being
0 5/msg00159.html for a
5 0400safi.html t ml c urrents/016.html
I'm sending this email out to you about the The Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, Public Law 105-304 (1998), added a new Chapter 12 to
title 17 United States Code.
This Act by Congress needs to be dramatically altered to ensure that the
fair use rights given to US citizens under the Constitution are better
protected, and to ensure that everyone in America has the right to
innovate and participate fairly in commerce.
Without going through the complete details of the the entire act,
fundamentally, this law was passed by congress in response to the
increasing concern by various traditional broadcast and media
corporations that the limit license provided by copyright is becoming
harder to protect in the digital environment. The trouble with the act
is that it has no respect for the constitutional balance between the
rights of holders of copyright licenses and the rights both free speech
and property of people who consume information. And of course we are
all consumers of information.
As Law Professor Yochai Benkler of NYU, an expert of Inforamation Law,
was quoted as saying, "If the judge finds for the plaintiff (in a case
involving the DMCA in NY), and the decision isn't knocked down on appeal
it will create an environment that's closed like nothing we've ever seen
before....Say you want to criticize the liberal leanings of Hollywood,
or criticize the sexist movie of this or that, You need to be able to
quote little pieces of the movie. You can do that under the copyright
law, because that's fair use, but using DVDs lawfully as the [film
association] reads the law, you can't do that. This really extinguishes
user privilege to an unprecedented degree."
(For more information see
:http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0018/howe.s
The DMCA, as it is currently written and interpreted by the Federal
District Court of NY, under Judge Lewis Kaplan, (See the transcript at
http://www.2600.org/news/2000/0121-files/0121-t
interpreted so strictly as to undermine the protections that were
written into it for the protecting reversing engineering and fair use.
The law states that if a copyrighted material is available in digital
format (and what is not going to be available in digital format in the
future), that an electronic access device can be used to regulate access
to that material in order to protect piracy of the material.
The trouble with the law is largely 3 fold:
A - The law tramples fair use and property rights.
B - The law is stifling invocation.
C - The Law is stifling free speech and is a direct threat to the kind
of discourse necessary for a free society.
In the first case, up until now, the Supreme Court has drawn a line
between the limited rights of a copyright holder to material, and the
protections of speech and property of owners of the actual media in
which material is publish on. For example, an owner of a record is
allowed to copy music to cassette tape for personal use. The owner of a
book has the right to quote parts of the book, as I did here, even to
photocopy it for a personal archive or a report. The DMCA prevents
these activity when the printed text or the audio tract is on a DMCA
protected digital format. As an example, in the case of the new DVD
media, the purchase of the DVD does not give the owner of the disk the
right to use it as they see fit. For example, they may be only be
allowed to view the disk on a computer running Microsoft Windows, or a
computer using a specifically permitted software or other authorized
device. This arraignment places a choke hold on what information can
and can not be viewed and removes freedom of choice and fair use. You
can not copy any segment of the information, anotate it, or print it
out. As things are currently, for example, a standard American DVD can
not legally be seen on the Linux Operation
System, the second largest operating system in current use in the
US. In response to not being able to view DVD's on Linux, Linux
developers create a program to access the DVD for viewing. The
developers posted the program on the internet. In response, the Movie
industry brought suit in NY and in California. Judge Katz in NY has
said in his ruling that EVEN UNDER THE CONDITION that the program was
developed for use under Linux, and was protected under the reverse
engineering clause of the DMCA, that this would not protect the
developer of the program from arrest, or the web masters who post the
program on the internet from prosecution under the DMCA.
As it is, the developer is a 16 year old boy and both the boy and his
father were arrested in Norway, where they live. If he lived in
America, the boy would be considered a felon under the DMCA.
In the second case, if Judge Katz ruling is to stand, and if congress
does not strengthen the rights of developers to reverse engineer DMCA
hardware and software for inter-operability with new hardware and
software, then the impact on the US economy will be devastating. The
Linux operating system, for example, was created by a graduate student
who had an open platform in the IBM Personal Computer clone. Without
the ability have this open platform, the Linux operation system, in
addition to nearly every other internet based piece of software, could
never have come into existence. The DMCA is a dagger at the heart of
Linux, and other new technologies like it, and to the internet itself.
If any part of the PC which is copyrighted (which is almost the entire
platform), the DMCA today would prevent the exploration of the hardware
and the firmware, and more to the point, would make the new technology
illegal just for accessing the computers insides without
pre-authorization by the copyright holders of the technology.
In short, under today's legal system, thanks to the DMCA, the internet
itself, which is larging driving today's economy, would never have come
into existence because the protocols which run the networking would be
protected and closed through means of DMCA devices.
In the third case, the DMCA is stifling free speech today, and will have
an increasing devastating effect on free speech in the future. The news
outlet at http://slashdot.org has received notice for Microsoft Corp. to
remove information posted on the web site in discussing Microsoft
business proactice, because they claim, not that the information itself
was copyrighted, but because it was protected under the DMCA. The
copyright itself would not have given Microsoft protection because the
material was being discussed in the context of a of a conversation of
it's unfair business practices. So they needed to evoke the DMCA.
Microsoft by passed the fair use doctrine which protects individuals and
news media by invoking the DMCA. (see
http://nylug.org/list-archives/NYLUG-TALK/2000-
copy of the Letter sent by Microsoft the the publisher of slashdot)
This threat is larger than the recent spat with between Time-Warner and
Disney over channel seven/WABC. In that case, the NY Times has ardently
come out in support of protecting the freedom of the speech by the
press. In this case, there would no longer BE ANY PRESS accept for news
disseminated through approved channels under DMCA protection. Both
creators and consumers of information would be censored through the
control of access to the public.
Barring any potential perceived monetary risk which media companies
think up, and especially in light that no evidence exists that digital
media has costed companies a single penny from copyright infringement, I
must ask that the Congressman take the lead in protecting individual
property and fair use rights, freedom to innovate and share in our
prosperity, and the freedom of speech. This is the trinity of a great
and free society. Congress is empowered to protect and enhance these
activities. But Congress has stumbled because it seems to lack a real
understanding of the issues, and how technology works.
I want you to lobby and to present a bill to repeal the DMCA, or at
least, pass an amendment reaffirming the rights of every individual, in
relationship to copyrighted and exchanged information, to their
historical guarantees which have, until now, served this great nation so
well.
________________________________
Other Sourses of Information:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/safire/0
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0018/howe.sh
http://slashdot.org
Must Read-->http://noframes.linuxjournal.com/articles/
--
Ruben I Safir
ruben@sruben.dental.nyu.edu
ruben@wynn.noSppam.com
Perl Notes:
http://www.wynn.com/jewish/perl_course
http://www.brooklynonline.com
Manager of Intranet Development NYU College of Dentistry
Resume: http://www.wynn.com/jewish/resume.html
It's a troll because it says that only MS software is educational. It's a straight trolling actually.
Ruben
Sorry Becoming a MS Certified tech gives you employement until W2001 and at the cost of $10,000. Learning Linux is cost free and gives the student computer skills which will make him/her employable for decades. Simply, comercial OS's are designed from the ground up in shackle the user and the technologist. Linux and Free OS's are designed from the ground up to enable the user and the technologist. It's impossible to outgrow Linux. Even Fortran programmers understand basic programming technique which carries over to over languages in Platform. A Fortran programmer with A linux PC can take these skills and learn Perl.... A M$ drone can only go back for another 10 grand of training in 2 years when MS forces a new platform. Ruben http://www.mrbrklyn.com
Wired was completely Wrong in the article when it said that Linux now has DVD. You still can not buy Linux DVD off the shell.
Chances are, as rapidly as Linux changes, without an open source solution, there never WILL be a Linux DVD closed sourced solution.
What happens when the 2.4 Kernel comes out. Video4Linux is Kernel level programs.
Creative Labs Linux compatible DVD player and software is NO LONGER on the market. The Linux stuff from Creative was a joint effort with interested developers. Creative Labs told me point blank at the Linux Expo in NYC that they are holding up release of NEW DVD Software for their current offering BECAUSE of the Lawsuits brought by the Motion Picture industry.
THUS, not only is the DMCA preventing the distribution of DeCss, but they also KILLED Creatives plans for bringing out DVD for Linux.
There is no currently available DVD for Linux....if that was the only point.
They also killed off much of Broadcast2000, a great video editing package for Linux. So the issue is not just to have Software of a DVD player, but that it be open sourced
Ruben I Safir
It's simply not true that there is a DVD comercially available to Linux at this time. There WAS one from Creative, as the above URL points out, but the hardware is an older version of Creatives DVD Device and is no longer available. At the Linux Expo in NYC, Creative made clear that they were delayed in bringing out NEW drivers for Linux because of the Law suites against DeCss.
On another note, it's none of the Movies industries BUSINESS if I want to pay for a comercial DVD driver or not which is Closed Sourced. Once I by the DVD disk, it's mine - not THEIRS. There statement that we're too cheap to buy the non-existing vaperware DVD players implies that unless we're willing to purchase a DVD player that gives a kickback to the Motion Picture industry thart it's us who is morally bankrupt. The truth is that it is THEM who are morally bankrupt for insisting that we pay a kickback to them above and beyound the cost of the product to use it after I made a legal purchase.
In a word, they are extortionist.
It's incorrect that when some creates music, that it is released to the world as a privlege. All human creative endevors are part of as collective culture - AS A RIGHT
These comments here are worthless. They need to be made at the Copyright Office.
Comments On
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Public Law 105-304 (1998)
In light of the passage of Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Public Law
105-304 (1998)
the Copyright office is now going to have to determine rules for the
application of the new law which will impact the daily lives of all US
citizens. In an effort to protect the holders of the limited
privileges of Copyrighted Cultural artifact, Congress has tried to
create a legal basis for the use of technology to help the granted
rights to Copyright holders. This is an admirable undertaking by the
Congress in that it assures reasonable control of original authors to
profit financially from the Cultural Artifacts which they created.
However, Congress and the Courts have consistently upheld the principle
of "fair use". In fact, the US Constitution was so concerned about the
obvious conflict of interest of public discourse, political freedom,
and the effort to give creators limited exclusive licenses to Cultural
Artifacts of their creation as a measure of fairness for their efforts
at enriching our shared cultural inheritance, that they included the
right of Congress in inhibit free speech by issuing limited Copyright
and Patents protections into the Constitution.
Furthermore, the courts have tried to uphold the balance of these
conflicting interest by applying the legal concept of "fair use" as
outlined in several court cases including the now famous cases
following the advent of inexpensive video tape recording and playback
technology. Congress further attempted to define the natural the
rights of individuals to usage of Copyrighted material with USC
1201(a)(3) as noted in the Notice of calls for comments of the DMCA in
the Federal Register.
The question needs to be answered if Congress, in passing the DMCA,
actually intended to alter the balance of the rights of individuals to
use legally obtained Copyrighted Cultural Artifacts, and those who own
the limited licenses under Copyright Law to those Artifacts. Nothing
I've read in the Act, as passed, seem to indicate that Congress
intended to make any change in the status quo in this regard.
Further, it would be a question for the Courts to decide if Congress
actually has the power to infringe upon the individual rights of people
further than the Constitution explicitly allowed by extending any legal
device which impairs "Fair Use" Doctrine.
It seems that if the Copyright Office or other Federal Agency chooses
to strictly enforce many of the segments of the DMCA as it is written,
that the effective outcome of these ruling would be adding questionable
restrictions on individual liberty, and even threaten the foundation of
an open society, upon which the basis of our Democratic form of
Government relies.
Specific examples of this include rules which would make the
dissemination of information which encourages the "Fair Use" of any
copyrighted material, protected with the use for a DMCA inspired
technology or not, such as the elimination sharing Computer code which
makes legally obtained media possible to read on devices or software
other than those disseminated or approved by the holder of a Copyright.
Individuals should have the explicit right to reverse engineer, and to
make the information available for how it was done, for the purpose of
using a legally obtained media on non-commercial operating system of
hardware Computer platform. It Copyright Office should also make it
clear that the use of DMCA covered devices or software does not give
the Copyright owner the right to dictate how, where or when the user
can view the legally obtain media, or other Copyrighted material. To
do otherwise, the Copyright Office would be allowing the Copyright
holder, usually a large multinational corporations, undue influence on
the free access of information which our society depends on.
Key areas that warrant specific protection would be Copyrighted granted
Cultural Artifacts such as the BIOS of a computer which might make it
impossible to run an Operating System other than an Operating System
which the holder of the Copyright BIOS makes a prearranged agreement.
For example, if my PC have an encrytped BOIS's which needs to be
decrypted for the computer boot, and only Microsoft is given encryption
keys to read the copyrighted BIOS, it would impossible for any other OS
vendor to create an Operating System for that hardware, even though the
purchasers of the Hardware is the holder of the license to use the
Copyrighted BIOS, and should have a choice to use any Operating System
that they choose to create or obtain which is compatible with the
hardware. A strict interpretation of the DMCA, in this case, can
destroy the Open Source Software project, and remove the Linux
Operating System Kernel from the Desktop PC.
And the same holds true for all kinds of peripheral hardware devices.
If the key to access encrytped media is not bundled directly with the
media, and developers and prevented from reverse engineering devices,
writing decrypting algorithms, publishing them for public access,
then CDROM's can become useless for anyone not using the commercial
system of the copyright holders choice. Hard Drives, DVD media
players , sound devices, electronic newspapers, school text books and
any other devices yet to be invented are threatened to be freely
accessible even after legal purchase or a license to use a Copyrighted
media.
The Copyright Office needs to be clear that reverse engineering and
publication of the results of such efforts for the purpose of
innovating new technology to be interoperatable with readers of such
media is not illegal. And further, the same rights are granted for the
purpose of developing new devices to read the media, and to even permit
the usage of old devices not designed to read the media to be create.
Ruben I Saifr
The announcement that the Federal Government wants to regulate prescription sales over the Internet is hardly uprising. One of the unholiest and most monopolistic industries, and one of biggest lobbies in Washington has finally started to flex it's political muscle. Considering the track record of the American Pharmaceutic industry, I doubt there is anything the common man can do about the upcoming regulation of prescription drug sales over the net in the US.
The Pharmaceutical business, as it is composed today, has 3 basic branches. There is the manufacturing branch, the dispensing branch, and the third party payment branch. I spent large parts of my career in all three branches. On proper inspection of the workings of the drug business in the US, most people can see that it's one of the most corrupt businesses in the US. They abuse of patents in a way which makes the computer business seem soft in comparison.
Drug Regulation in the US started in 1906 with the Federal Pure Food and Drug Act in response to the growing problem, as rightfully recognized by Teddy Roservelt administration, of problems with food purity and and medical quackery. In these early years, a number of small pharmacist, mostly around the NYC area, started to bring industrial production to the compounding and creation of Pharmaceutical products. Among these small businesses emerged some of the biggest world-wide corporations today, including familiar names like Merk on Canal street, Pfizer and Squib in Brooklyn.
In 1938, several people died do to an antibiotic being distributed using what amounts to anti-freeze being used as a suspending agent. So the government responded by increasing safety regulation. All new drugs in industrial production needed to be submitted to the Food and Drug Authority for approval. Generally, this has been a good thing. But the Federal Government had not yet mandated a prescription for drug sales. Of course, the new regulations did not end the deaths that are secondary to bring new drugs to market on global scales, and again the Law was strengthened after the Thalidomide deaths in the 1960's. The new law was called the Harris-Kefauver amendment. It required efficacy studies as part of the New Drug Application. And even this did not end the potentential for deaths do to new drugs as Eli Lilly killed off a few folks with a release of a standard Aspirin like drug, not long after.
While this assortment of regulation was being applied to the manufacturing and marketing of drug, increasing regulation was also being brought to bare on the dispensing end of the business. 2 aspects of drug dispensing was coming under regulation. First, the dispensing of habit forming and addicting drugs started to become regulated with the implementation of Controlled substances (like Morphine, Cocaine and THC). These laws have accumulated to the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and the Controlled Substances Act of the same year. They essentially established a schedule of drugs C ontrol 1 through Control V and are under the jusidiction of the Drug Enforcement Agency. These controlled substances are either illegal to distribute, like Heromin, or highly regulated and inventoried from raw material to distribution to the patient.
What was most important was the general dispensing of a non controlled drug to the patient. Up until 1951, it was legal for a Pharmacist to dispense a drug upon request as they saw fit. But with the decline in Pharmaceutical compound and the threat of drug sales going completely over the counter by the growing presence of supermarkets and such, Humphrey, who had a relative who was a pharmacist, decided it was in the best interest of the Pharmacy professional to have a law prohibiting the dispensing of most drugs accept upon the presentation of a prescription of a doctor. This is the law which prevents you from walking into Kmart and buying Viagra.
The problem that has occurred in the industry is two fold. First of all, American Pharmaceutic Companies have badly abused their patents. There was for a time a gentlemen agreement among the Pharmaceutical manufacturers to not compete with each other by producing a drug developed by one another company. They artificially inflated the cost of drugs whose patents expired decades ago. Eventually, there was a consumer backlash, which finally brought about the creation of todays generic drug industry. But years of monopolistic activity (sound familiar) left these companies very wealthy and they lobbied repeatedly for extension of patents on drugs which really have passed their 17 year patent. For example, Park Davis had a drug called Lopid which was brought to market to treat live threatening conditions which involved high triglyceride counts. Park Davis did not do extensive research into the agents other benefits. It didn't sell well. But then Merk came out with a drug a new drug to fight cholesterol called Mevacor. It was huge sellers, despite it's potential side effects, and interest grew in the Park Davis drug, Lopid. The problem for Park Davis was that their patent was expiring. They spend millions of dollars petitioning the government to extend it's patents.
And this is not an isolated case. Pharmaceutical manufactures hold huge sway in Washington. Drug prices have gone through the roof and no one cares because the insurance companies are picking up the bill. Drug companies waste billions of dollars a year bring useless agents to market to replace drugs going out of their exclussive domain. Merk even had the nerve to fire 3000 workers in response to the Clinton's administrations threat to bring prices under control with regulation in the early 1990's. A week after the announced layoffs, Hilary kept Drug Price controls out of her healthcare bill. The Clinton's heard the threat loud and clear.
As a result of all this, the manufactures have developed a 2 tier price structure. A drug may cost your local pharmacist 100 dollars for 30 tables. They then make a deal with the insurance company to give them a 30% rebate. But the cash customer pays full price. On top of this, the insurance companies discover the poor pharmacist is completely helpless to effect pricing. So that drug which cost the Pharmacy $100 dead net, he has to sell to HIP for $101.50, and then HIP get's a rebate. Then, the majority of the repeat drug business, like heart and blood pressure medicine, is farmed out to Mail Order prescription services. These huge houses reduce the profession of Pharmacy, which is a Doctoral degree in the US today, to standing at the end of an assembly line checking prefilled prescriptions, 400 or more a day. And yet, drug errors increasingly plague the medical system as everyone is trying to fill as many drug orders as possible in the littlest time possible, mail prescriptions to patients they never see of get to consult with.
This current system is no better or worse than selling drugs through the Internet. Merk went out and brought the largest mail order prescription house in the US. Companies like Retailed want to prevent small pharmacies from dispensing drugs over the Internet because it's a cheap and effective way for small professionals to get back in the game. And the Feds are looking for a test case to regulate the Internet. Don't be fooled. This is bad news for everyone. Drugs already cost 3 times more in the US than overseas and most countries don't even require a prescription for dispensing. All that medical knowledge by your pharmacist is being wasted and not leveraged for the patients benefit.
As an active member in the Linux community for a while now, I looked at the Bazaar as a success for a number of reasons.
.... what can I say. The three days spent with the Linux folks was a bit more useful. Isn't
First of all, this may have been the first time that the NYC Linux and Free Software groups were able to participate
in a convention of this sort locally. New Yorkers have a different take on open source than in the rest of the country.
It was surreal for the Open Source expo to be on top of the e-business expo, looking down on the best the business
world had to offer. I spent most of the three days talking and learning about networking, computer technology,
and internet business, with a core of the brightest developers available today. I spent time manning our both at
LXNY with my friend Mike Smith, trying to explain why open source software was the computing technology of
tomorrow. I got some good old skepticism from business people working in the NYC IT scene, but I think we
represented the Open Source argument well. Then I spent much time in the Apache Course and the SAMBA
course, both of which I was immediately able to put to use. I got to here RMS talk. I think after listening to him,
he deserves much of the criticism he has come to get. Crossing RMS with an Israeli Immigrant whose sole
interest in software is to gain the freedom to feed his family and establish himself in the land of opportunity
of ours was a unique duality of perspective.
On the middle day, I enjoyed spending time with many of my Linux friends at FAO Schwartz. But before
going, we held our normal meeting at IBM and heard about the development of the Jike Java compiler
at IBM by the developer. HE was very impressed with Slashdot and has a great story about Rob's use
of the IBM logo. It was great to see the entire NYC community in action. The expo also allowed for the
kick off of the new Linux Newbies SIG in NYC, which took place in one of the expo rooms. So the
show galvanized us to a large degree.
It also trickled down to my Perl course that I teach at the New School in the Village. Many of the
students attended and wanted to hear about things as they happened at the Bazaar. Over all, the show
had great impact.
And consider this. After 3 draining days of learning, teaching and networking with the best and the brightest
of the open source movement, I then had the pleasure to spend a half hour at the e-commerce so. When I walked
in, I was immediately greeted by a tall women with a Television covering her head, dancing and giving away
tee-shirts. Well
that how we should measure success?
All this discussion of new features of IE is missing the point. Microsoft broke the law in forcing IE on the public. The giving away of Internet Explorer at no cost, in of itself, is an act prohibited by a Monopoly by the Sherman Anti-Trust act. Everyone who has ever taken a single Business course knows this. The selling of a product at a loss for the purpose of bankrupting an competing firm who could not match the loses, and to force them out of business, is the very definition of an ilegal business practice.
r =innovate&stmailaddress4=NY197&stmailaddre ss5=NY142&stmailaddress6=NY005&stmailaddress7=NY17 9&stmailaddress8=NY024&mailaddress0=ny11 &mailaddress1=ny09&mailaddress2=nysr&mailaddress3= nyjr&message=&comptype=fedstate&_state=n y
The further thrusting of the Browser on the public through forced installation with the Windows, AOL, etc, is further illegal activity.
The Web Browsing Software is for Browsing the Web. Linux really has nothing to worry about. IE is a trememndous securiy risk. IBM, Oracle and others are using JAVA to make sure that their applications are cross platform. Linux and Unix have FAR MORE POWERFUL interface for integrated networking applications. This application is the X windowing system. With tk ported to windows, and with Java available, anyone with any insite will use X tools and Broadway Joe to deliver apps over the Net. Netscape only needs to work as a browser. As a Browser it is more secure, does a better job of downloading pages and graphics, and has LESS bugs than IE in these core usages.
BTW - MS has provided a nice place to let your views be known to you Elected officials on these issues.
See:
http://legislators.com/
My sample letter went like this:
I have watched the monopolistic manuvers of Microsfot for many years now. It's obvious that they are breaking the Sherman Anti-Trust act routinely. They have no intention of ever competeing fairly in the market. They released Internet Explorer at no charge, robbing Netscape of fairly earned revenues and forced it on the public against it's will. Now it has integrated it into the propriety office suite software and is threatening the Internets ability to remain a standardized communication device.
Do anything you can to break up Microsoft today.
http://legislators.com/cgi-bin/ms_compose.pl?di
Actually, At NYU we have tested both system out extensively. Netscape is actually more stable than IE, has a smaller foot print, is more secure.
Without the ability to force feed it's browser, it still holds a whopping 41 percent of the market. The integration of IE into Windows is a danger to the local network, and IE simply has more bugs.
The damn thing can't even handle simple smooth graphics loading on large Web Pages. It screws up form inputs, it cause General Protection Faults. It just really is inferior.
The purpose of a web browser is to surf the net. Once it is integrated, it becomes in secure and buggy.
If you want integration, forget the browser, USE X WINDOWS
Miscosfot doesn't have X. So what choice do they have besides integrating IE into the desktop.
Ruben I Safir
Actually, At NYu we have tested both system out extenssively. Netscape is actually more stable than IE, has a smaller foot print, is more secure.
Without the ability to force feed it's browser, it still holds a whopping 41 percent of the market. The integration of IE into Windows is a danger to the local network, and IE simply has more bugs.
The damn thing can't even handle simple smooth graphics loading on large Web Pages. It screws up form inputs, it cause General Protection Faults. It just really is inferior.
The purpose of a web browser is to surf the net. Once it is integrated, it becomes in secure and buggy.
If you want integration, forget the browser, USE X WINDOWS
Miscosfot doesn't have X. So what choice do they have besides integrating IE into the desktop.
Ruben I Safir
Gee Neil:
;)
I used to swap spit with you on Compuserve going back before the internet was really popular. I'm a little suprised to see see a plug for a graphic novel pushed here, but hey - WHY NOT! I should have expected it. There hasn't been a great many well done releases in Comics in a few years. Maybe we can get Chakin (ie: Ruben Flagg) and Gonzales to post stuff around this zone as well!
Looking forward to you new work. Plug Linux in it
Gee Neil:
;)
I used to swap spit with you on Compuserve going back before the internet was really popular. I a little suprised to see see a plug for a graphic novel pushed here, but hey - WHY NOT. I should have expected it. There hasn't been a great many well done releases in Comics in a few years. Maybe we can get CHakin (ie: Ruben Flagg) and Gonzales to post stuff around this zone as well!
Looking forward to you new work. Plug Linux in it
Hhhh - Linux has never been hard to install or configure compared to Windows.
It's been getting harder as Automatic GUI wammy stuff is being built into the intallation. Average slackware install is just minutes.
Ruben
Gartner
( the company which can not tell the difference between crude oil and information systems by their own admission)
it's important to read the actual report in it's complete details to
garner any useful information. Serious IT professionals should just skip past the assay of a report, which is essentialy the opinion of the individual writing the article. IT managers get PAID to formulate an informed opinion. The value of these reports is not
the conclussion, but the raw information and report of features and problems that the report creates.
Frankly, mature managers, may they be Health Care managers reading a report on new drug therapy which is sponsered by a major drug
company, or IT managers reading a report on an OS sponsored by a Microsoft endowment, realize that any reprt or research is an attempt to frame data to someones personal agenda. What is left of value in the report is a criticle look to see
if that data contained within it seems valid or if it's quakery.
Unfortunately, there are for too many IT Managers unwilling to do their jobs correcly, or to look fully at the research. BTW - there are far to many Health Care Providers, Researcher, and Governement Beuracrats that suffer the same problem. How do you think we got into
this Microsoft mess in the first place?
http://www.brooklynonline.com
http://intranet.dental.nyu.edu
Whatever.....
In the end, I really don't care. Nothing can make me run over to use NT for any of our webservers because NT has shown to be unstable in my real time life. In addition, it is actually much easier for Linux to be optimized for large scale static web page services, if that's what I chose to do. I can simply turn off most of my other services and keep everything going on Linux.
I've known for a while that NT can out perform Linux up until the point it gets real load. This is a failing on NT's part, not an asset. NT doesn't scale it's resources well and just dies when any particular process overloads it's memory and CPU.
Also - the test on PC week are more about Apache than Linux. Apache does not nativily thread, and uses multiprocessing. Frankly, the Apache way of doing things is more stable and makes it easier to create a stable server. Once real web development is done on the site, and Database servers are added to Web Servers for dynamic internet paging, Apache/modperl, and embperl FAR FAR outstrips NT in stablility, speed, and development resources.
Added to that the development enviorment is free and perl modules are souce code viewable, this makes a far better platform to develope for a business platform. Companies can focus on web development instead of hardware/software expenses.
Any company which buy's into the idea that it is better to pay for MS based propitory web development kits instead of conventional programming skills is on the upgrade escalator and will never see the "cost of ownership" saving that are being promised. Since NT is so unconventional in it's development enviorment, and propriatory at that, one can only expect to be lead around in circles with constantly increasing costs.
When commited to any Unix platform - especially Linux - with standard Apache, Perl, Java and C tools, your company becomes part of the ongoing
development and improvement of software development, not just a bystander awaiting to be fed the next lastest and greatest thing. We've been using Apache since mid 1995 and have seen steady advancement in Apache, Perl and Linux for 5 years now. Without this development, there would be NO ISS or NT tcp capability at ALL.
In essense, we have not only made OUR bed, but the one Microsoft is hard at work to sell as well.
Whatever.....
In the end, I really don't care. Nothing can make me run over to use NT for any of our webservers because NT has shown to be unstable in my real time life. In addition, it is actually much easier for Linux to be optimized for large scale static web page services, if that's what I chose to do. I can simply turn off most of my other services and keep everything going on Linux.
I've known for a while that NT can out perform Linux up until the point it gets real load. This is a failing on NT's part, not an asset. NT doesn't scale it's resources well and just dies when any particular process overloads it's memory and CPU.
Also - the test on PC week are more about Apache than Linux. Apache does not nativily thread, and uses multiprocessing. Frankly, the Apache way of doing things is more stable and makes it easier to create a stable server. Once real web development is done on the site, and Database servers are added to Web Servers for dynamic internet paging, Apache/modperl, and embperl FAR FAR outstrips NT in stablility, speed, and development resources.
Added to that the development enviorment is free and perl modules are souce code viewable, this makes a far better platform to develope for a business platform. Companies can focus on web development instead of hardware/software expenses.
Any company which buy's into the idea that it is better to pay for MS based propitory web development kits instead of conventional programming skills is on the upgrade escalator and will never see the "cost of ownership" saving that are being promised. Since NT is so unconventional in it's development enviorment, and propriatory at that, one can only expect to be lead around in circles with constantly increasing costs.
When commited to any Unix platform - especially Linux - with standard Apache, Perl, Java and C tools, your company becomes part of the ongoing
development and improvement of software development, not just a bystander awaiting to be fed the next lastest and greatest thing. We've been using Apache since mid 1995 and have seen steady advancement in Apache, Perl and Linux for 5 years now. Without this development, there would be NO ISS or NT tcp capability at ALL.
It's so fustrating when in the computer world legal standards are brought to bare on it from other businesses which have no application in computing.
In computing, software and hardware designers intentionally remove copyrighted product from the market to introduce NEW and often worse product.
Games are one example of this. Talking about protecting the copyright of a game that can NOT be purchased at any price, and runs on OLD equiptment not available at any price, is unfair business practice. In my mind, there is no eithical issues of distributing ROMS for games which have had support ABANDONED for over a decade. If companies and authers from ATARI, Coleco, and TI and others are so hot and heavey about their copyright because wares rom pirating is so big, then LET THEM REDISTRIBUTE the games for the use of emulaters. THere is no reason for the emulator coders and the software venders to be at each others throats.
In fact, this presents an oppurtunity to these game authers and companies to profit on a stockpile of copyrighted material. If they want to make the roms available, then they have an issue with the warez addicts. If not, then they are blowing smoke.....
unethical smoke at that......
Ruben
I feel like I'm reading the confessions of Sabrina the Teen-aged witch. Why is so much web space being given to this. Anyone who can load Widows can certainly load any of the latest Linux distrubtions and fairly standard hardware. They just stick the disk in and answer a few questions. This guy spent three paragraphs describing his detailed experience of opening a box.
Ruben