I can purchase a new PC, install CP/M and not have to pay the Microsoft tax or deal with "modern" OSes whose sole purpose is to use up CPU cycles so you have to upgrade you hardware every couple of years.
8. Spend all quarterly profits + and additional 80% on FOSS software support contracts, overpriced arrogant consultants w/ a political agenda, added development staff, smelly GNU/Hippie sys admins to realize that the solution you implemented doesn't work effectively. 9. Call M$ and beg for forgiveness and the latest copy of Windowss 2003.
All kidding aside, Linux migration is not for every company or every situation. It's been said before and will be said again. Hopefully this guide will help companies make the right decisions so we hear more and more about successful and lasting migrations and not failures.
No, actually you've cited text from the Wikipædia, a wicked parody of the source for all true knowledge, the Uncyclopedia. The Wikipædia was created by two Uncyclopedia vandals, Jimbo and un-Larry and should be disregarded . The Uncyclopedia was created by Oscar Wilde and inspired by Sophia. Hope that clears things up.
The market will demand this when it's an issue... right now it's not. Patches, support contracts, loss of reputation and other methods for dealing with software defects are in place and improving considering the demand for rapid product improvement. This requirement would effectively destroy the free software movement and would raise the barrier to entry into the software market so that only the larger companies could develop software, this would reduce the # of competitors and increase the risk of releasing buggy cutting edge software and would thereby reduce the amount of innovation in the industry. Software and IT, particularly in the consumer segment, are really still emergin markets. The mainstream WWW is what... 10 years old, maybe?
and a lot of bad ones. I am in total support of the free market, but have a government agency standardize on a technology is not limiting free markets, it's simply an organizational decision. Governments have done this for quite some time. They standardize on PCs, or Ethernet, or SQL or any number of other technologies. Mandating that a product do X is ok and doesn't inappropriately limit the market. Arguably this policy decision is being driven by polital and not technical factors, but that is still acceptable.
The author is 100% right on when he raises the concerns of increased costs, major implemention headaches, a reduction in the quality of the products. This is part of a major shift in technology. It's not abnormal. Mass. is gambling on the fact that they're political objectives and strategy to reduce a single vendor tie-in will payoff in the long run with increased competition, and better tools. Gambling is the right word here because they are going to have to pay serious premium to build new tools, integrate those tools, support those tools, and train their people on the new tools without any gaurantee that the market will respond in a significant way to justify the expense. I think in 18 to 24 months we will be hearing about major reductions in the scope of this initiative or a complete abandonment of the policy. The costs are gauranteeed, I don't think the politicians have the stomach to actually run that much risk for that much time for something that most people could care less about (even if there is real value).
Is the closed source code of Windows preventing us from actively defending our systems?
The right question is what is the vendor (Microsoft) doing about it. You purchased a product from a vendor, you should expect them to solve problems with that product or explain how to properly secure it, or just ignore the issue which says something about their product and commitment to support.
It must be leading to a secret plot for world domination by Microsoft... or the conclusion that you've fabricated a bunch of nonsense to jack up your karma.
I think sysadmins would respond very nicely to tips for increasing server availability. Let's say average tip is about 15%, and for simplicities sake we'll say that every hour of downtime costs about $10,000. Baseline service should be set either by an SLA or a measured baseline. For this we'll say 99% uptime per month. That allows for 7.2 hours of uncscheduled downtime in a month. So if the server is up for 100% of that time, then you'd want to tip your sysadmin about $10,800 per server (assuming the #s stay the same) for a month of great work.
I think Dell's operational model and manufacturing model are quite innovative... but their whole model is to be a technological follower and a operations innovator. They wait for a product to establish itself, and then duplicate it using an extremely efficient production process.
Walmart is the same way. They're not out to set trends in clothes or sell the latest high end products, their out to sell mainstream products that they can manufacture a ton of (or purchase in massive quantities) and sell them all low prices.
The original posts point was that Apple may suffer once their innovations have become established, then a competitor, like Dell, will simply copy them, sell to the growing market, and not have to pay all of the costs and accept the risk of establishing a new product/market.
This post has to be one of the dumbest I've ever read. Because Skype's protocol isn't public and e-Bay shares information (whatever the hell that means) there's supposed to be some specific concerns because the two are now joined? I can see either point standing on its own as a potentially interesting topic, but how does verifying whether or not a piece of software actually uses the encryption schemes it says it does and a corporate policy to share information (note that would be information that is not encrypted and intended to be shared) tie together?
Actually, if the Dell device had a lighter in it that would be a major plus. Maybe a toothpick and a small pair of scissors too. Now we're talking about convergance!
The issue here isn't that Mozilla the app is insecure, it's that the servers they run on weren't properly secured. Now wether that's due to poor system management or the underlying OS and software (probably FOSS) running the site will have to be determined. It's disconcerting that this could happen, but certainly isn't as sever as a vulnerability affecting hundreds of thousands of installed applications
Slashdot Mirror
is that the pack of lies that it is will be exposed once everyone begins reading the true truth found in the Uncyclopedia.
I can purchase a new PC, install CP/M and not have to pay the Microsoft tax or deal with "modern" OSes whose sole purpose is to use up CPU cycles so you have to upgrade you hardware every couple of years.
Consumers may not want them but Netflix might if the cost of manufacturing is less than cost of return shipping and processing.
8. Spend all quarterly profits + and additional 80% on FOSS software support contracts, overpriced arrogant consultants w/ a political agenda, added development staff, smelly GNU/Hippie sys admins to realize that the solution you implemented doesn't work effectively.
9. Call M$ and beg for forgiveness and the latest copy of Windowss 2003.
All kidding aside, Linux migration is not for every company or every situation. It's been said before and will be said again. Hopefully this guide will help companies make the right decisions so we hear more and more about successful and lasting migrations and not failures.
Some more information about Taiwan and China.
No, actually you've cited text from the Wikipædia, a wicked parody of the source for all true knowledge, the Uncyclopedia. The Wikipædia was created by two Uncyclopedia vandals, Jimbo and un-Larry and should be disregarded . The Uncyclopedia was created by Oscar Wilde and inspired by Sophia. Hope that clears things up.
That was the funniest thing I've read all day!
I thought that Gentoo was purchased by Microsoft during the whole Daniel Robbins debacle.
How soon will it be before Gentoo follows BSD down the path to total oblivion?
The market will demand this when it's an issue... right now it's not. Patches, support contracts, loss of reputation and other methods for dealing with software defects are in place and improving considering the demand for rapid product improvement. This requirement would effectively destroy the free software movement and would raise the barrier to entry into the software market so that only the larger companies could develop software, this would reduce the # of competitors and increase the risk of releasing buggy cutting edge software and would thereby reduce the amount of innovation in the industry. Software and IT, particularly in the consumer segment, are really still emergin markets. The mainstream WWW is what... 10 years old, maybe?
a member of congress is overheard asking another congresswoman, "Who is this guy and how much did he contribute to my campaign?"
and a lot of bad ones. I am in total support of the free market, but have a government agency standardize on a technology is not limiting free markets, it's simply an organizational decision. Governments have done this for quite some time. They standardize on PCs, or Ethernet, or SQL or any number of other technologies. Mandating that a product do X is ok and doesn't inappropriately limit the market. Arguably this policy decision is being driven by polital and not technical factors, but that is still acceptable.
The author is 100% right on when he raises the concerns of increased costs, major implemention headaches, a reduction in the quality of the products. This is part of a major shift in technology. It's not abnormal. Mass. is gambling on the fact that they're political objectives and strategy to reduce a single vendor tie-in will payoff in the long run with increased competition, and better tools. Gambling is the right word here because they are going to have to pay serious premium to build new tools, integrate those tools, support those tools, and train their people on the new tools without any gaurantee that the market will respond in a significant way to justify the expense. I think in 18 to 24 months we will be hearing about major reductions in the scope of this initiative or a complete abandonment of the policy. The costs are gauranteeed, I don't think the politicians have the stomach to actually run that much risk for that much time for something that most people could care less about (even if there is real value).
Is the closed source code of Windows preventing us from actively defending our systems?
The right question is what is the vendor (Microsoft) doing about it. You purchased a product from a vendor, you should expect them to solve problems with that product or explain how to properly secure it, or just ignore the issue which says something about their product and commitment to support.
I know we're beating this topic to death... but that $250 billion would have gone a long way towards Space Elevator research and construction!
where's this leading?
It must be leading to a secret plot for world domination by Microsoft... or the conclusion that you've fabricated a bunch of nonsense to jack up your karma.
What the he... oooohh mesmerizing.
I think sysadmins would respond very nicely to tips for increasing server availability. Let's say average tip is about 15%, and for simplicities sake we'll say that every hour of downtime costs about $10,000. Baseline service should be set either by an SLA or a measured baseline. For this we'll say 99% uptime per month. That allows for 7.2 hours of uncscheduled downtime in a month. So if the server is up for 100% of that time, then you'd want to tip your sysadmin about $10,800 per server (assuming the #s stay the same) for a month of great work.
is not fair to our artists
And what about their children... for goodness sakes man... think about THE CHILDREN!
I think Dell's operational model and manufacturing model are quite innovative... but their whole model is to be a technological follower and a operations innovator. They wait for a product to establish itself, and then duplicate it using an extremely efficient production process.
Walmart is the same way. They're not out to set trends in clothes or sell the latest high end products, their out to sell mainstream products that they can manufacture a ton of (or purchase in massive quantities) and sell them all low prices.
The original posts point was that Apple may suffer once their innovations have become established, then a competitor, like Dell, will simply copy them, sell to the growing market, and not have to pay all of the costs and accept the risk of establishing a new product/market.
Innovating firms have a tendency to be eaten up by firms who copy and then sell for a lower price.
-cough- Dell -cough-
Consumer electronics normally cost around the 30% of the retail price to physically build.
At what point in the product life cycle is this true and what competitive conditions must exist for this to occur?
This post has to be one of the dumbest I've ever read. Because Skype's protocol isn't public and e-Bay shares information (whatever the hell that means) there's supposed to be some specific concerns because the two are now joined? I can see either point standing on its own as a potentially interesting topic, but how does verifying whether or not a piece of software actually uses the encryption schemes it says it does and a corporate policy to share information (note that would be information that is not encrypted and intended to be shared) tie together?
Actually, if the Dell device had a lighter in it that would be a major plus. Maybe a toothpick and a small pair of scissors too. Now we're talking about convergance!
when they could be working on building the oribting tie-off platform for a space elevator?
The issue here isn't that Mozilla the app is insecure, it's that the servers they run on weren't properly secured. Now wether that's due to poor system management or the underlying OS and software (probably FOSS) running the site will have to be determined. It's disconcerting that this could happen, but certainly isn't as sever as a vulnerability affecting hundreds of thousands of installed applications