SCO does what no other vendor has ever done...
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Wow, after all the religious wars on slashdot over microsoft, linux, apple, star wars, diablo, etc, etc, we have finally found a topic that everyone agrees on -- SCO sucks.
Surely SCO must have some plants that can post some positive SCO-defending material here?!
A running joke on the SCOX yahoo investment board is that whenever some bad news comes out about SCO, SCOX stock goes up. It's uncanny. IBM announces counter-suit, stock goes up that day. RHAT announces suit, stock goes up. Code leaks and is debunked, stock goes up. Now this -- and today SCOX goes up almost 10%.
Ugh, illegal in some states? Sigh, I can hear traffic noises just fine with my buds in -- far better than some car with windows up, A/C on, and stereo blasting. I checked ama-cycle.org site and at least see my home state isn't included, but the one I drive through a lot (Maryland) is "one earphone only." -- ugh. And Pennsylvania is for "communication purposes only."
I do agree with your advice about inexperienced riders though. I have over 100,000 miles clocked in over 15 years, and I still wouldn't have it on in a turnpike situation. Only for back-roads riding -- for example, check out my latest journal entry!:)
Anyway, good thing I have long hair to hide the wires and the iPod is easily hidden!
How long does it go on a charge? I've used my first generation 10GB iPod on motorcyle trips that have lasted over 5 hours and still have 75% charge (indicated) on it. And it's light enough to sit in my shirt pocket comfortably. And the wired remote sits outside of my jacket where I can twiddle with it while riding quite effortlessly.
There's not been too many products I've ever been happier with.
I didn't recognize many of them, just Ali and Penny Marshall (TV star, old Laverne and Shirley show). I assume that's because I'm a literary zero most likely.
10, 20 years ago, analysts will look back and people will argue about exactly when in the first years of the 21st century that Microsoft peaked and then began their downward spiral.
Everywhere we are seeing seeds of discontent. The first anger Microsoft planted in its customers was when it got greedy and ended licensing that permitted you to own only as many copies of software that you actually had running. Then all of these recent "software assurance" changes have angered folks more. Companies and countries are starting to understand that they are locked in and have little choice and they are looking for ways to bail. And Microsoft's actions are starting to look more and more desperate starting to scramble to hold on to what they have. This story, the viral GPL fud, their financial backing of SCO, their desperate and failed attempts to move into other markets, etc, etc.
Oh, people will disagree with me, but where does Microsoft have left to go? Nowhere but down, and the stock market doesn't like any downward movement, even if the company *is* making billions.
And Microsoft better not disagree with this danger either, for their own good. Complacency is the first step toward irrelevance. But I honestly believe they know this is coming and are scared shitless. Gates isn't stupid.
according to the office resource kit, you can only push office updates via a GPO if you originally deployed the app through a GPO.
Deploying large apps through a GPO has proved unworkable for us because of impatient users waiting forever for that logon to install and physically power cycling the machine to "fix it" before its deployed (amongst other things).
Yeah, good point of course. I just wish Microsoft had easier methods of deploying patches. RHN works like a champ and handles OS, all apps and packages, and works for everything from bug fixes to security patches. I can pull up a simple web page and see status of all my boxes and apply errata to all, a subset, whatever, or subdivide boxes and delegate responsibility to department admins.
We run a SUS server for deploying hotfixes, which is nice, but doesn't permit per-machine control, config, and status like RHN. It also only works for OS critical updates, not "recommended updates." Then there's the Office issue. Doesn't work for that either.
Patching Ofifce at the desktop is a royal PITA.:-(
p.s. to be fair, RHN is a paid per-machine service while windows update and SUS are free (well, bundled into the cost of the OS). I just wish Microsoft would come out with a similar service and capability. Patch management is a mess in their world.
IBM was the last to enter the PC industry in 1981, so I don't see that as an example of adaption. Fortuantely for them, there were enough old-time IBM mainframe types around still that the PC took off on name-brand recognition and they lived on top of the pile until 1987 when they tried to halt the clone industry by tossing Microchannel machines onto the market and forever losing their dominance in the desktop machine world. (At least their introduction of the 3.5" disk helped kill the 5.25" floppy. True, HP, then Apple did it long before IBM, but when IBM did it, all the others quickly followed.)
Anything that increases productivity is a good thing. You want people to increase their standard of living. There is only so much wealth in the world to go around. You can either muck with the system to redistribute that wealth, or you can work to create more wealth so there is more to go around.
Increasing productivity increases wealth. Unfortunately, some people don't get it. For example, if you force redistribution of wealth to balance things out and screw it up by removing incentives to increase productivity, you often descrease productivity and hence destroy wealth.
Imagine back about 150 years ago when most of our society was agrarian. More than half of all labor went into producing food. Not a lot of luxuries back then. When automated farm equipment came out, a lot of farm hands lost their jobs. Was this a bad thing? Of course not. Because food became cheaper, jobs shifted to manufacturing where goods were produced to make people's lives easier, etc, etc...
When jobs shift to other countries, some wealth shifts there too. But usually the productivity gains are more than enough to offset the loss in wealth because there's more of it to go around. It also helps the lives of other people in other countries to improve. Is that such a bad thing? Having a billion people in this world just sitting around and not being productive is a horrible waste of the world's potential. They should be out there making cheap toys for Happy Meals damn it!
Beyond the economic benefits there are also other benefits. As each country's economy becomes dependent on others, they are less likely to take hostile action against each other (although introduce religion into the mix and all logic and sense goes out the window).
As was posted by someone else above, there are still opportunities in IT to increase productivity in workers in your native country. As I look around my job site now, I see a tremendous amount of time spent in desktop support issues. I think the current design of software and OSes really suck. Lack of security, viruses, software that, when installed, can negatively affect other software on a PC, user's mucking with and destroying settings on PCs, etc, etc. Too much time in IT is spent with desktop support issues, fixing software issues, supporting users and not finding ways to improve the business process and hence increase productivity all around. There's also a horrible lack in adequate training. There are software tools out there to help, but employees don't know how to use it. How many in management know how to use software to plan things using a project-planning program for example?
True, but capitalism would demand that at some point one of their competitors would figure out how to squeeze more productivity out of their employees who produce, and use process engineering to do it, and gain a competitive advantage.
I know in my own work place, and I can't stress this enough, I can look and identify a plethora of processes and issues that my team could help my site's employees become more productive at their jobs, but we don't because we're drowning in doing tech support for braindead software on buggy and security-deficient desktop software.
For example, our marketing department has employees who spend a few days taking a list of courses we offer and typing them into a page layout program to produce a brochure every month or so. Why not hack some code to pull that information out of our course database, format it, and produce the publication (or most of the grunt work of it) automatically, using some sort of style transformation. But I can't provide this service because my staff are too busy with the daily cost of supporting desktop PCs, despite my own efforts to streamline that. (And yes, I've bought it to management's attention that we spend most of our time chasing our own tails instead of working to improve employee productivity).
At some point, someone will have to "get it." Adapt or die.
Or they are just going to temporarily drive the stock price down so some of their friends can get in on the action cheap, then make some outrageous claim again to drive it back up.
Yeah, complete falsehood. You'd think people would learn to not run Microsoft OSes, but it doesn't happen!
It's just like a battered woman in an abusive relationship. No matter how many times her old man slaps the shit out of her, she keeps going back for more. Oh, he's going to change. He told me he was enrolled in a "trustworthy man" program. He's going to change, I know it. And then we'll live happily ever after.
It means that if I, as an admin of a mail site, choose to employ a spam filter for whatever reason, a spammer can't sue me if his spam doesn't get through.
If a customer doesn't want the ISP filtering spam out, most ISPs allow filters to be turned off. If not, they can go to another ISP.
As for businesses, they should be free to decide what kind of email gets delivered to their employees.
Yeah, that's right, blame the poor overworked admins. Maybe it was a PHB that refuses to devote the resources needed to do this. Maybe it's some administrator who insisted, over the objections of the network people, to open up a port to the contractors. Who knows?
I guess it's just easier to blame the poor grunt who gets stuck working an impossible job.
What the government can do and should do is pass a law that says the matter should be handled by the private sector, and affirm a mail system owner's right to decide what gets delivered, and also word it so third party services like spamcop are legal so they don't have to be threatened with legal actions.
Put an end forever to these bogus claims by spammers that their free speech is being interfered with, that businesses have to pay to provide means to deliver their crap, and that to do otherwise is to interfere with their business and all of their other bogus claims.
Amen. We are fully patched, our email gateway stops all this crap as it comes in, etc, etc. But we are being hammered. First, the messages are incoming and take up valuable pipe space. Then there is a slew of forgeries that appear from our domain, so we are getting automated virus notifications back from other sites that we are infected. We are hurting big time. Thank you oh unpatched masses...
Which reminds me, anyone who has that enabled on their mail gateway (notify sender or whatever) should be shot. Most of these are forged, so all your sender notification is doing is doubling the crap that is already flying around out there...
Why does this anti-worm have to seek out new hosts to infect? Can't it just sit and listen for an attack from an infected host, then grab the source IP and then go attack and clean that host?
If it did that, eventually it would self-kill all infected hosts until the few that remained can't find anyone else to infect.
Might make a good math exercise. As a host is cleaned and listens for attacks, it cleans other hosts, then those hosts also assume vigilante role. Eventually you'd have less and less infected hosts searching for victims and more and more former victims waiting to be found. I would expect the count of infected hosts to reach zero at some point, given that the method to find new hosts is random enough. Question is, how many events would have to occur to reach zero!
Slashdot Mirror
Surely SCO must have some plants that can post some positive SCO-defending material here?!
Insider Tearsheet for the week ending September 06, 2003
Even the insiders don't have faith in this crap. They are selling, not buying.
I mean, this is ridiculous, all it is is "insurance" plain and simple. Should be illegal.
I do agree with your advice about inexperienced riders though. I have over 100,000 miles clocked in over 15 years, and I still wouldn't have it on in a turnpike situation. Only for back-roads riding -- for example, check out my latest journal entry! :)
Anyway, good thing I have long hair to hide the wires and the iPod is easily hidden!
There's not been too many products I've ever been happier with.
I didn't recognize many of them, just Ali and Penny Marshall (TV star, old Laverne and Shirley show). I assume that's because I'm a literary zero most likely.
Pay particular attention to what Muhammed Ali says at the end? Is this a stab at SCO?
Everywhere we are seeing seeds of discontent. The first anger Microsoft planted in its customers was when it got greedy and ended licensing that permitted you to own only as many copies of software that you actually had running. Then all of these recent "software assurance" changes have angered folks more. Companies and countries are starting to understand that they are locked in and have little choice and they are looking for ways to bail. And Microsoft's actions are starting to look more and more desperate starting to scramble to hold on to what they have. This story, the viral GPL fud, their financial backing of SCO, their desperate and failed attempts to move into other markets, etc, etc.
Oh, people will disagree with me, but where does Microsoft have left to go? Nowhere but down, and the stock market doesn't like any downward movement, even if the company *is* making billions.
And Microsoft better not disagree with this danger either, for their own good. Complacency is the first step toward irrelevance. But I honestly believe they know this is coming and are scared shitless. Gates isn't stupid.
I wonder what they charge for that product, you know, the thing that is basically pam_krb5.
Deploying large apps through a GPO has proved unworkable for us because of impatient users waiting forever for that logon to install and physically power cycling the machine to "fix it" before its deployed (amongst other things).
We run a SUS server for deploying hotfixes, which is nice, but doesn't permit per-machine control, config, and status like RHN. It also only works for OS critical updates, not "recommended updates." Then there's the Office issue. Doesn't work for that either.
Patching Ofifce at the desktop is a royal PITA. :-(
p.s. to be fair, RHN is a paid per-machine service while windows update and SUS are free (well, bundled into the cost of the OS). I just wish Microsoft would come out with a similar service and capability. Patch management is a mess in their world.
IBM was the last to enter the PC industry in 1981, so I don't see that as an example of adaption. Fortuantely for them, there were enough old-time IBM mainframe types around still that the PC took off on name-brand recognition and they lived on top of the pile until 1987 when they tried to halt the clone industry by tossing Microchannel machines onto the market and forever losing their dominance in the desktop machine world. (At least their introduction of the 3.5" disk helped kill the 5.25" floppy. True, HP, then Apple did it long before IBM, but when IBM did it, all the others quickly followed.)
Increasing productivity increases wealth. Unfortunately, some people don't get it. For example, if you force redistribution of wealth to balance things out and screw it up by removing incentives to increase productivity, you often descrease productivity and hence destroy wealth.
Imagine back about 150 years ago when most of our society was agrarian. More than half of all labor went into producing food. Not a lot of luxuries back then. When automated farm equipment came out, a lot of farm hands lost their jobs. Was this a bad thing? Of course not. Because food became cheaper, jobs shifted to manufacturing where goods were produced to make people's lives easier, etc, etc...
When jobs shift to other countries, some wealth shifts there too. But usually the productivity gains are more than enough to offset the loss in wealth because there's more of it to go around. It also helps the lives of other people in other countries to improve. Is that such a bad thing? Having a billion people in this world just sitting around and not being productive is a horrible waste of the world's potential. They should be out there making cheap toys for Happy Meals damn it!
Beyond the economic benefits there are also other benefits. As each country's economy becomes dependent on others, they are less likely to take hostile action against each other (although introduce religion into the mix and all logic and sense goes out the window).
As was posted by someone else above, there are still opportunities in IT to increase productivity in workers in your native country. As I look around my job site now, I see a tremendous amount of time spent in desktop support issues. I think the current design of software and OSes really suck. Lack of security, viruses, software that, when installed, can negatively affect other software on a PC, user's mucking with and destroying settings on PCs, etc, etc. Too much time in IT is spent with desktop support issues, fixing software issues, supporting users and not finding ways to improve the business process and hence increase productivity all around. There's also a horrible lack in adequate training. There are software tools out there to help, but employees don't know how to use it. How many in management know how to use software to plan things using a project-planning program for example?
I know in my own work place, and I can't stress this enough, I can look and identify a plethora of processes and issues that my team could help my site's employees become more productive at their jobs, but we don't because we're drowning in doing tech support for braindead software on buggy and security-deficient desktop software.
For example, our marketing department has employees who spend a few days taking a list of courses we offer and typing them into a page layout program to produce a brochure every month or so. Why not hack some code to pull that information out of our course database, format it, and produce the publication (or most of the grunt work of it) automatically, using some sort of style transformation. But I can't provide this service because my staff are too busy with the daily cost of supporting desktop PCs, despite my own efforts to streamline that. (And yes, I've bought it to management's attention that we spend most of our time chasing our own tails instead of working to improve employee productivity).
At some point, someone will have to "get it." Adapt or die.
With this company, I'd believe anything...
It's just like a battered woman in an abusive relationship. No matter how many times her old man slaps the shit out of her, she keeps going back for more. Oh, he's going to change. He told me he was enrolled in a "trustworthy man" program. He's going to change, I know it. And then we'll live happily ever after.
AOL needs this law asap.
Yes, spammers sue at the drop of a hat. Do some google searches on spamcop and lawsuit for example.
If a customer doesn't want the ISP filtering spam out, most ISPs allow filters to be turned off. If not, they can go to another ISP.
As for businesses, they should be free to decide what kind of email gets delivered to their employees.
I guess it's just easier to blame the poor grunt who gets stuck working an impossible job.
Put an end forever to these bogus claims by spammers that their free speech is being interfered with, that businesses have to pay to provide means to deliver their crap, and that to do otherwise is to interfere with their business and all of their other bogus claims.
Which reminds me, anyone who has that enabled on their mail gateway (notify sender or whatever) should be shot. Most of these are forged, so all your sender notification is doing is doubling the crap that is already flying around out there...
Power to the people baby, yeah! :-)
If it did that, eventually it would self-kill all infected hosts until the few that remained can't find anyone else to infect.
Might make a good math exercise. As a host is cleaned and listens for attacks, it cleans other hosts, then those hosts also assume vigilante role. Eventually you'd have less and less infected hosts searching for victims and more and more former victims waiting to be found. I would expect the count of infected hosts to reach zero at some point, given that the method to find new hosts is random enough. Question is, how many events would have to occur to reach zero!