Gates -- "In some cases -- mobile phones -- speech will be the primary input"
Does he think people use morse code to communicate on cell phones? The primary input is already speech. Jeez, what a maroon.
burnin
p.s. j/k, I understand what he means.
But it is kinda sad that his company pumps $6 billion US into R&D and the only advancements he talks about in his speech have resulted from someone elses R&D.
I don't know what the budget is for the research on implants for the physically impaired but I'll bet its no where near the MS R&D budget and yet they produce some rather astounding innovations and advancements in hardware, software, and medicine.
If you look at their product offerings they do have new releases of SCO OpenServer and SCO Unixware. Take a gander at some of their features:
Optional KDE desktop for modern look and feel OpenSSH and OpenSSL Includes Mozilla 1.7 Includes MySQL database (Community version) Includes Postgresql database CUPS has been added as an alternative to System V LP Gimp-print 4.2.5, foomatic 3.0.0-01, and ghostscript 7.05.6
Now if your a BSD or linux user you may be thinking "hmm, those look familiar" and you would be correct.
It seems that many of the new features in SCOs software offerings are actually open source software from those same people the SCO CEO says are dope smoking, thieving, pinko communists.
You haven't been paying much attention to the SCO plan...
McBride said during a press briefing at the inaugural Enterprise IT Week at cdXpo Conference here. "We have enough sorted out, but we are so focused on the [IBM litigation]. With our limited energies and what our guys are going through, we probably won't file any suits against BSD until sometime in the first half of next year." http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/3110981
So your precious Mac and BSD aren't safe from these clowns either. But then you likely don't really care since your just a cowardly troll.
If you want major then you should be looking at Pro/Engineer from PTC. I haven't used it but a student co-op I was supervising used it at the University of Utah and thought I would like it. It looks awesome, and expensive. http://www.ptc.com/go/wildfire/index.htm
The next logical choice would likely be Varicad. They have a demo version you can download and play with. I've used this and its not bad, about on the same level as AutoCAD. When I get around to buying a CAD application for linux this will likely be it. http://www.varicad.com/
Nothing more should need saying, but I've got a couple more minutes.;)
I'm sure at some point the use of open source software will be so ubiquitous as to make the result of hording, thieving, and conspiring by individuals and corporations ineffectual.
However, I still believe that we have not reached that cross roads yet. There are still a number of people and corporations who have the desire and the ability to plunder the hard work of those who produce the code and then conspire to both denegrate the open source offerings while profiting from that same well.
I like to call these entities the Robber Barons of the Information Age. They are filled with childish and immature emotions and characteristics. They see themselves as icons of a vast empire they built and they are justfied in their actions. Of course the truth is that no one man or even the entire clique of Robber Barons created the information age. In fact it has been the nameless and faceless masses of electronic/software engineers in the background producing all the fantastic hardware and software which makes the information age possible. These men who are supposed to be leaders instead have become filled with themselves. And it all comes down to human nature and the corruption of power.
The way I see it the GPL and the idea behind it is a tool that can be used to take back what has been stolen by the Robber Barons. Many of these same nameless masses who made the Barons are also producing open source code under the GPL and the GPL is poison to the thieving Barons, that is why they despise it to no end.
The GPL is a tool to help keep the Robber Barons human nature in check. I think the end result is that instead of having icons in the open source development circles there are leaders.
Anyhow, thats enough ranting for now.
burnin
p.s. Just a note on the mention of engineering. Not having a degree in engineering does not mean you are not an engineer and conversely having a degree in engineering does not make you an engineer. If you really want to know what an engineer is and determin if you are an engineer just look up the definition of engineer and engineering.
The long post really wasn't necessary as the title of your post says it all.
Its hard to say what you did wrong and why you had so many problems because your post is lacking any significant details.
Considering you are running WindowsME on one of those boxes I have to assume you are using the OS which came prepackaged and installed on the boxes. If that is the case then I would surely hope everything works without a hitch. Of course thats accepting all the short comings of the preinstalled software for what it is.
All I can tell you is that everyones mileage varies and do not assume that your inability to achieve acceptable mileage has anything to do with the true capabilities of the software. Its may be that you have much more ground to make up than the open source software you attempted to use.
And as for your question "Why on earth ANYONE would use Linux for a home system is a mystery.", I can give you my answer.
As a long time Windows user (1.1 through NT4) I became very dissatisfied with the product Microsoft was putting out. Contrary to the reality you are trying to portray Windows has its own hardware compatiblity nightmares and software defficiencies that present themselves when building a custom system, adding new or old hardware to an existing system, or installing additional software. As I endured my frustration I noticed that while Microsoft's products failed to make significant improvements the open source linux kernel and available software packages advanced at an astounding rate. Eventually the compatibility and capability of the open source offerings surpassed the Microsoft offerings and I eventually converted my entire home network to linux and have never looked back. To put it bluntly, it just works. And it works on:
1 Averatec 3250 Laptop 1 Toshiba Sattelite 1625 Laptop 1 Custom AMD64 dual head workstation 1 Custom mini-itx ogg player 1 Custom mini-itx firewall/router/wireless AP/dhcp/dns server 1 Custom mini-itx Atari floppy drive emulator 1 Custom mini-itx apache web server 1 Custom AMD Sempron postgresql server 1 Custom AMD Sempron quake3/unreal tournament 2004 server 1 Custom AMD Duron nfs root file/tftp pxe boot server 6 Custom AMD Sempron diskless, headless, pxe boot cluster nodes
So it appears that you and I have completely opposite experiences with the two software offerings. I guess you should just stick with your Microsoft install and I'll stick with my open source solutions. But I think its a mistake for you to try convincing others that linux and open source software just doesn't work because it may just be that you don't get it.
I tried the exploit with a W2k box that has IE Version 6.0.2800.1106CO with SP1 and several Q### patches installed and it produces the same result.
I see how this could be used as an exploit but is it really a bug? I have written code for a game website which used multiple windows with frames and the information in the frames came from two different web servers. Yeah, I know, it sounds like a web surfing nightmare, but fret not, it was an experiment. But my point is that this may not actually be a bug, and may be an issue to consider when creating a secure website. In other words, as others here have stated, don't use frames!;)
I can't speak for Ubuntu, but Fedora is designed to work in many applications. The install GUI allows you to choose from various workstation, server, and minimal installations. I don't normally use the GUI installer when building minimal boxes, I like to make a custom kickstart file in some cases, but all options are there.
I'm not sure there is an advantage per se, I always explain to people that all distros come from the same code source so its hard to say one is better than another. (that ought fan some flames;)
I can say that I use fedora extensively and find it to be very leading edge and yet functional. I use it in many incarnations from very minimal installs for firewalls, web servers, file servers, diskless cluster images, etc. all the way to my dual head desktop which I use for playing games, coding, image editing, etc. I am very satisfied with the Red Hat and Fedora releases to date.
I have a nephew who keeps jumping back and forth between debian and fedora whenever he has problems with either. I've never had the problems with fedora he has experienced but it may have to do with my familiarity with the distro. I did however try installing debian a couple months ago just to get an idea of what he was up to and it was not to my liking. It was going to take more tweaking and patching to get the box to an acceptable state than I had time for.
So IMO it comes down to trying out some distros and going with what you like. Just dismiss all the lame fanboy distro flaming.
Hmm, if EU countries wait 30 years to collect data and assess the viability of new methods then I'd say they don't need to be worried about the current OSS movement. I doubt much of the OSS developed today is going to compile and run on their Altairs, Apple IIs, and TRS-80s.
Seriously though, I don't think he was saying that the EU needs to dump all current infrastructure and replace it with OSS, he was trying to get across that it would be beneficial to the EU software industry if they did a better job of supporting OSS and not create laws that would impede it.
And if the deciding factor for EU policy is flat out arrogance, "...OSS is being accepted by the US government..." "...should set off alarm bells..." then I suppose they deserve what they end up with in the next 30 years, buying the majority of their software from US corporations. The irony is too much.
Perhaps the article is "loaded in such a way as to imply that working toward an open source future is a good thing" because in the opinion of the speaker it IS a good thing.
In case you haven't noticed open source is fairing quite well in business and in government.
There is no need to wait and do an assessment, there are plenty of case studies you can use for an assessment now.
And if you do check out some of the case studies please note that these are not developing nations benefiting from open source, they are governments and businesses with established IT infrastructures.
Although the article is slim on details of his speech I think he pointed out how governments in Europe are impeding open source and that is why he is proposing changes to provide support for open source.
"...Villasante said that barriers to open source adoption included the strong political lobbies of traditional businesses, weak political interest in open source..."
The closed source proprietary corporations are trying to use the government to force the market they want, what Villasante is proposing may create this "Free Market" you speak of.
I suggest you explain the concept of "letting the market take care of something for once" to the corporations not to the purveyors of open source.
In reading past the whining he is presenting an assessment of the EU's strength as a producer of software and presents abstracts of a possible solution.
"...We should decide whether we want a European software industry or not..."
He sees a dependancy of European nations on the software developement capabilities of other countries and he presents open source as a means to build a strong EU software industry.
"...barriers to open source adoption included the strong political lobbies of traditional businesses..."
He also alludes to the difficulties the political and legal process may create for open source in Europe. He is aware of the attempts by corporations, many from those same foreign countries they are dependent upon for software, lobbying for EU laws to stifle competition from open source or even close source developers in the EU.
Considering that many parts of linux are actually developed by people and companies from "the country that has maintained a remarkably schizophrenic attitude to Cuba" dont you think it may be possible that Cuba is switching to linux because it is a better solution when compared to the alternatives? You know, things like better TCO, better reliability, better security, better hardware support, and of coarse a better licensing scheme.
I'm sure there is a market out there for a cell phone based iPod killer, however, don't assume that what you want, or what Billy wants, is what the rest of us want.
I'm happy with my mp3/ogg player (iRiver iFP395) and my PDA (Palm Tungsten E). I have no interest what so ever in a cell phone with their over priced billing and crappy service. And with that opinion I'm sure you can easily conclude that I would have no interest in a cell phone that plays music.
There are many journalists and media sources who do not give in to the profit first mentality, i.e. democracynow.org, freespeech.org, pbs.org. Granted some of the messages from these outlets can be just as hair brained and off base as the paid shills, but they are out there none the less.
I will agree that for profit journalists and media bring in more cash for themselves and have the resources to make more noise and be in more peoples faces. However, the attention they get is not due to demand for their product no more than rubber neckers at a train wreck create a demand for more train wrecks.
And in case you haven't noticed, those same for profit journalists, media, and their corporate backers with deep pockets are funding a massive attack on the linux community because the community threatens their for profit revenue streams. The level of education and susceptibility of the community have little to do with the unethical actions of those who would attack the community.
burnin
(doh, forgot to post anonymously, maybe next time)
Agreed, however, these considerations are factored into the financial statements. Its possible they would not be included in the gross profit but they would definitely be included in the net. If you look at their financial statement you will see that net profit is significantly lower than gross so there is no magic bullet here for profitability. When it comes right down to it competition in the hardware industry is hardcore.
Gross is before other considerations, it varies depending on how accounting principles are applied but it is usually a good measure of how well your current products are doing.
Net profit will be smaller than gross and comes after deducting other expenses such as research and developement.
On the 2001 - 2002 financial statement for Gigabyte they factor in R&D expenses, general and selling expenses, interest expenses, taxes, and a few other items after the gross calculation. Basically what it comes down to is while the gross profit for the year was $94,639,000(USD) the actual net after these other expenses was only $54,813,000(USD).
With a little research I think you will find that you are wrong about the pricing of computer parts. If you were to look at individual offerings for a company you would find that some parts have high margins while others have low margins. But the overall effect of the mixed margins and the extreme pressure of competition in the hardware industry is resulting in very low margins.
Or to make it quick, in 2002 their overall gross profit margin was a mere 18%. $94,639,000(USD) / $498,739,000(USD) = 0.18975...
As a worker in the hardware industry I have the opportunity to see first hand the extreme pressure placed on workers to keep costs down all in the name of maintaining market share and sustainability. So you can imagine that when I hear some bozo from Microsoft telling the media that hardware manufacturers need to cut costs further because the cost of a PC with Windows is too expensive for the developing nations I look at the 80% profit margin at Microsoft and think that perhaps the solution is to dump the expensive Windows.
Anyhow, I'm starting to rant. I just wanted to point out that competition in the hardware industries is rather extreme and the result is very inexpensive components. In some cases they are inexpensive to the point at which sustainability of a business model becomes questionable.
But thats beside the point. What I find interesting is how the quote could be used either way. You see, it is quite possible that some may view the bestowal as being similar to sticking feathers up your butt.
IMO it is more likely that the actions of the individual which led to the bestowal is what made the person an engineer not the generosity of some accredited group. And that being the case it is possible that not every person who has become an engineer will be fortunate enough to be bestowed.
That being said I do believe that the title of Engineer is heavily over used and is diminished by its improper use.
I agree with you that there is currently not enough incentive for game developers to write for linux. However, I believe you misunderstand the statement which you quoted or perhaps you missed the first paragraph of the article which reads:
"It's 2005 and the Linux juggernaut shows no sign of slowing down. Everywhere you look, Linux seems to be gaining steam. Home users are finally finding that they can use a Linux distribution without learning esoteric text commands. Everyday Linux is becoming more user-friendly and accessible. In fact, distributions have matured to the point where they can be the only operating system on a home computer. Except for one thing - Gaming."
I think what the author is trying to get across is that over time the base of linux users will grow, as it is growing today, as the base grows the market for linux games will grow. Therefore, as the linux market grows there will be companies who see this market as an opportunity to make a profit. For businesses its all about ROI (Return On Investment). And considering that game development is happening even today on linux by developers large and small I think the only thing holding it back is the market size.
You did state your belief that linux gamers dual boot to play games on Windows therefore there will never be a linux market for games, but I thoroughly disagree with this, and as a linux gamer I can debunk your statement.
You see, I don't dual boot to Windows and I don't play games in Windows. Yes, my choices are limited, but I currently play Neverwinter Nights, I purchased the Windows version after bioware released the linux client, Unreal Tournament 2004, the shrinkwrap box includes AND advertises on the box the linux client along with the Windows client, Quake 3 Arena, for which I purchased the retail linux shrinkwrap version, and Spacetripper, I purchased online from Pom-Pom.
So I agree that current incentive for developers is very limited, however, I also agree with the article that the future of linux gaming is bright.
The IP extremists upon discovering that you made a chair would bring a posse to your door step, kick in the door, take the chair you made and all your tools for making chairs. They would then follow up by suing you to ensure you do not have the capital to buy more tools and build anymore chairs. They would then coerce the state to charge you with criminal activity and have to sentenced to a nice jail term. In the mean time the "original" chair maker will become wealthy and powerful as they have monopoly control over the chair market.
The public domain extremist would see that you had made a chair and then demand that you share your knowledge of making chairs so he too can make a chair. He will then share this knowledge with others who will make chairs too. You get to keep your chair and the ability to make more chairs but it will definitely limit you ability to become a chair monopoly with all these other people making chairs.
Neither extremist is right but the IP extremist will take much more from you than the public domain extremist.
Of course the flaw in both our arguements is that we are discussing a creation which is very difficult and expensive to reproduce. The "IP" which you produce and Gates wants to defend requires a very different mind set for discussion since the initial production is difficult but afterwards is very easy and inexpensive to reproduce. So I understand where you are headed with your arguement, I just think "IP" should be discussed as "IP" not as chairs.
I still feel that Linux would be a good bit cheaper, but we're talking big bucks both ways.
Perhaps the lack of detail in your arguement has given me the wrong impression, but it sure looks to me like you or bordering on soft fud. If I misrepresent your arguement then I appoligize.
You are likely refering to customization as rewriting kernel code or writing new code for inclusion in the kernel which would be expensive either way (I suspect much more expensive for Windows because you would be paying for more than just software development, MS would need their pound of flesh). However, the parent you replied to was talking about customizing the feature and capability set compiled into the kernel for a specific application.
The linux kernel source and development tools are designed with this flexibility in mind and for the majority of applications I suspect an end user would not require custom kernel coding but could run the kernel configuration and recompile with minimal to zero cost. If you go through a 2.6 kernel configuration you will find that compiling for a specific processor is only one of several hundred customizable features.
A linux kernel can be easily customized as a fully featured kernel for operation on a high powered workstation with a wide array of devices and services, to a highly specific and efficient server kernel for a specific service application such as web services, packet routing and filtering, file and application serving, etc., all the way down to a bare minimum kernel which will be served rapidly and efficiently over a network for a diskless distributed processing cluster node. Many of these easily accomplished tweaks in the linux kernel are trivial to accomplish but are not trivial in what they actually accomplish.
Although for some outrageous sum of money and signing of contracts and licenses to protect corporate "IP" I'm sure somebody could pull off the same customization of the NT kernel, however, I would still argue that the NT kernel was not designed for this type of customization and it is nowhere near as inexpensive or as simple as it is with the linux kernel.
Making custom NT kernels for any application is not trivial while custom linux kernels for most applications are trivial. There is no comparison between the two.
Aside from the disagreement I suspect nothing significant will come of this latest MS effort and it is more of an attempt to have their corporate fingers in every game. There has been lots of press lately about large linux clusters and I think MS just wants to be able to say "oh yeah, look me too".
I think the 2x arguement is pretty lame, any civilian casualties should be cause for alarm and immediate action.
However, did you actually read and understand the new scientist article which you are using as your evidence? Based on one statement made in the article it becomes obvious that it is a highly unreliable source of information for the civilian losses, I quote,
"It is, however, an estimate that is based on very different methodology from standard methodology for assessing causalities, namely on
the number of people reported to have been killed at the time,"
I'm assuming that standard methodology would be counting ACTUAL BODIES. These guys are making phone calls to 1000 households in Iraq and asking how many civilians have been killed. Hell, if you go by the Middle East media the US military has killed just about every woman and child in Iraq and not one terrorist, militant, or insurgent has recieved even a scratch, but just because they say its so doesn't make it so.
And I wouldn't be so quick to shout down the possible civilian casualties that occured every year that Saddam was in power. Perhaps you should go visit some of the mass graves and talk to the witnesses as others have done.
...institutions have the opportunity to modify the software to better align IT capabilities with business strategies.Software modification presents risks similar to self-developed code...
Umm, duh. And likewise for code that is developed by a proprietary vendor. You had better do your research and integration testing rather than believing the vendor knows what they are doing or you could end up with a system that fails and creates a disaster, i.e. hundreds of planes flying in close proximity with no ground control assisting.
The institution should carefully consider its technical and legal ability to modify and maintain the code, and ensure that controls are in place to protect against copyright and patent infringement.
Its a sad state of affairs when you have to question whether its legally acceptable to change the code that you use to run your business, but the flip side is that you should probably check the history of your vendor to see if they have been in any lawsuits because they have violated patents or copyrights. It seems I've read a few articles over the years where many of our favorite vendors have been accused of this same issue.
FOSS is often written to open standards and is generally more interoperable than proprietary software. However, the interoperability of FOSS programs may not be formally certified.
So the certification is more important than the actual interoperability of the software? I don't think I need to comment on the stupidity of this statement, it speaks for itself.
In the worst-case scenario, development of forked FOSS may be halted, or the technical direction may become so altered...
And likewise for proprietary code, the difference being that you do have an opportunity with the FOSS code to keep your business running on what works. With a proprietary vendor the fork means your stuck on the old system indefinitely or you pay up and move to their new platform, sounds like a familiar scenario.
...the indirect costs of FOSS may be higher than those associated with proprietary software if existing staff requires more training than would otherwise be necessary with a proprietary product.
I suppose this is possible, but perhaps there is some underlying issue in the IT support group such as a lack of a fundamental understanding of how the technology they are supporting works. Knowing how to click OK OK OK Next OK Reboot is not enough even to support a proprietary infrastructure.
...change management costs may be higher in a FOSS environment if the institution implements products lacking third-party vendor support...
Third party vendor support is nice to have, however, anyone who has ever used it knows that its not cheap. Just think about it, your paying the third party vendor so they can pay their staff and meet their profit margin goals. But in some cases its the best route.
Institutions using FOSS can end up with "dead-end software" if the development community abandons a product.
Umm, no, using proprietary solutions will put you at risk of being stuck with "dead-end software". Since you have the source code in a FOSS solution you have a choice to continue development.
Institutions should identify and consider the legal risks associated with the use of FOSS prior to deployment or development.Key legal risks include licensing, infringement, indemnification, and warranties.
And likewise with proprietary solutions. With FOSS becoming more popular and competing aggressively with proprietary solutions we will see the same legal shenanigans that have plagued the proprietary solutions for years.
Slashdot Mirror
Gates --
"In some cases -- mobile phones -- speech will be the primary input"
Does he think people use morse code to communicate on cell phones? The primary input is already speech. Jeez, what a maroon.
burnin
p.s. j/k, I understand what he means.
But it is kinda sad that his company pumps $6 billion US into R&D and the only advancements he talks about in his speech have resulted from someone elses R&D.
I don't know what the budget is for the research on implants for the physically impaired but I'll bet its no where near the MS R&D budget and yet they produce some rather astounding innovations and advancements in hardware, software, and medicine.
If you look at their product offerings they do have new releases of SCO OpenServer and SCO Unixware. Take a gander at some of their features:
Optional KDE desktop for modern look and feel
OpenSSH and OpenSSL
Includes Mozilla 1.7
Includes MySQL database (Community version)
Includes Postgresql database
CUPS has been added as an alternative to System V LP
Gimp-print 4.2.5, foomatic 3.0.0-01, and ghostscript 7.05.6
Now if your a BSD or linux user you may be thinking "hmm, those look familiar" and you would be correct.
It seems that many of the new features in SCOs software offerings are actually open source software from those same people the SCO CEO says are dope smoking, thieving, pinko communists.
burnin
You haven't been paying much attention to the SCO plan...
McBride said during a press briefing at the inaugural Enterprise IT Week at cdXpo Conference here. "We have enough sorted out, but we are so focused on the [IBM litigation]. With our limited energies and what our guys are going through, we probably won't file any suits against BSD until sometime in the first half of next year."
http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/3110981
So your precious Mac and BSD aren't safe from these clowns either. But then you likely don't really care since your just a cowardly troll.
burnin
If you want major then you should be looking at Pro/Engineer from PTC. I haven't used it but a student co-op I was supervising used it at the University of Utah and thought I would like it. It looks awesome, and expensive.
http://www.ptc.com/go/wildfire/index.htm
The next logical choice would likely be Varicad. They have a demo version you can download and play with. I've used this and its not bad, about on the same level as AutoCAD. When I get around to buying a CAD application for linux this will likely be it.
http://www.varicad.com/
And things are always changing. It may be worth a look to google around for current offerings. A good start would be here:
http://www.tech-edv.co.at/lunix/CADlinks.html
burnin
The answer to whether or not we still need the gpl:
r g/
;)
http://gpl-violations.org/http://gpl-violations.o
Nothing more should need saying, but I've got a couple more minutes.
I'm sure at some point the use of open source software will be so ubiquitous as to make the result of hording, thieving, and conspiring by individuals and corporations ineffectual.
However, I still believe that we have not reached that cross roads yet. There are still a number of people and corporations who have the desire and the ability to plunder the hard work of those who produce the code and then conspire to both denegrate the open source offerings while profiting from that same well.
I like to call these entities the Robber Barons of the Information Age. They are filled with childish and immature emotions and characteristics. They see themselves as icons of a vast empire they built and they are justfied in their actions. Of course the truth is that no one man or even the entire clique of Robber Barons created the information age. In fact it has been the nameless and faceless masses of electronic/software engineers in the background producing all the fantastic hardware and software which makes the information age possible. These men who are supposed to be leaders instead have become filled with themselves. And it all comes down to human nature and the corruption of power.
The way I see it the GPL and the idea behind it is a tool that can be used to take back what has been stolen by the Robber Barons. Many of these same nameless masses who made the Barons are also producing open source code under the GPL and the GPL is poison to the thieving Barons, that is why they despise it to no end.
The GPL is a tool to help keep the Robber Barons human nature in check. I think the end result is that instead of having icons in the open source development circles there are leaders.
Anyhow, thats enough ranting for now.
burnin
p.s. Just a note on the mention of engineering. Not having a degree in engineering does not mean you are not an engineer and conversely having a degree in engineering does not make you an engineer. If you really want to know what an engineer is and determin if you are an engineer just look up the definition of engineer and engineering.
The long post really wasn't necessary as the title of your post says it all.
Its hard to say what you did wrong and why you had so many problems because your post is lacking any significant details.
Considering you are running WindowsME on one of those boxes I have to assume you are using the OS which came prepackaged and installed on the boxes. If that is the case then I would surely hope everything works without a hitch. Of course thats accepting all the short comings of the preinstalled software for what it is.
All I can tell you is that everyones mileage varies and do not assume that your inability to achieve acceptable mileage has anything to do with the true capabilities of the software. Its may be that you have much more ground to make up than the open source software you attempted to use.
And as for your question "Why on earth ANYONE would use Linux for a home system is a mystery.", I can give you my answer.
As a long time Windows user (1.1 through NT4) I became very dissatisfied with the product Microsoft was putting out. Contrary to the reality you are trying to portray Windows has its own hardware compatiblity nightmares and software defficiencies that present themselves when building a custom system, adding new or old hardware to an existing system, or installing additional software. As I endured my frustration I noticed that while Microsoft's products failed to make significant improvements the open source linux kernel and available software packages advanced at an astounding rate. Eventually the compatibility and capability of the open source offerings surpassed the Microsoft offerings and I eventually converted my entire home network to linux and have never looked back. To put it bluntly, it just works. And it works on:
1 Averatec 3250 Laptop
1 Toshiba Sattelite 1625 Laptop
1 Custom AMD64 dual head workstation
1 Custom mini-itx ogg player
1 Custom mini-itx firewall/router/wireless AP/dhcp/dns server
1 Custom mini-itx Atari floppy drive emulator
1 Custom mini-itx apache web server
1 Custom AMD Sempron postgresql server
1 Custom AMD Sempron quake3/unreal tournament 2004 server
1 Custom AMD Duron nfs root file/tftp pxe boot server
6 Custom AMD Sempron diskless, headless, pxe boot cluster nodes
So it appears that you and I have completely opposite experiences with the two software offerings. I guess you should just stick with your Microsoft install and I'll stick with my open source solutions. But I think its a mistake for you to try convincing others that linux and open source software just doesn't work because it may just be that you don't get it.
burnin
Is this truely a bug?
;)
I tried the exploit with a W2k box that has IE Version 6.0.2800.1106CO with SP1 and several Q### patches installed and it produces the same result.
I see how this could be used as an exploit but is it really a bug? I have written code for a game website which used multiple windows with frames and the information in the frames came from two different web servers. Yeah, I know, it sounds like a web surfing nightmare, but fret not, it was an experiment. But my point is that this may not actually be a bug, and may be an issue to consider when creating a secure website. In other words, as others here have stated, don't use frames!
burnin
I can't speak for Ubuntu, but Fedora is designed to work in many applications. The install GUI allows you to choose from various workstation, server, and minimal installations. I don't normally use the GUI installer when building minimal boxes, I like to make a custom kickstart file in some cases, but all options are there.
burnin
I'm not sure there is an advantage per se, I always explain to people that all distros come from the same code source so its hard to say one is better than another. (that ought fan some flames ;)
I can say that I use fedora extensively and find it to be very leading edge and yet functional. I use it in many incarnations from very minimal installs for firewalls, web servers, file servers, diskless cluster images, etc. all the way to my dual head desktop which I use for playing games, coding, image editing, etc. I am very satisfied with the Red Hat and Fedora releases to date.
I have a nephew who keeps jumping back and forth between debian and fedora whenever he has problems with either. I've never had the problems with fedora he has experienced but it may have to do with my familiarity with the distro. I did however try installing debian a couple months ago just to get an idea of what he was up to and it was not to my liking. It was going to take more tweaking and patching to get the box to an acceptable state than I had time for.
So IMO it comes down to trying out some distros and going with what you like. Just dismiss all the lame fanboy distro flaming.
burnin
Hmm, if EU countries wait 30 years to collect data and assess the viability of new methods then I'd say they don't need to be worried about the current OSS movement. I doubt much of the OSS developed today is going to compile and run on their Altairs, Apple IIs, and TRS-80s.
They are probably too busy trying to locate parts just to keep their old equipment from the mid 70s running.
http://inventors.about.com/library/blcoindex.htm
Seriously though, I don't think he was saying that the EU needs to dump all current infrastructure and replace it with OSS, he was trying to get across that it would be beneficial to the EU software industry if they did a better job of supporting OSS and not create laws that would impede it.
And if the deciding factor for EU policy is flat out arrogance, "...OSS is being accepted by the US government..." "...should set off alarm bells..." then I suppose they deserve what they end up with in the next 30 years, buying the majority of their software from US corporations. The irony is too much.
burnin
Perhaps the article is "loaded in such a way as to imply that working toward an open source future is a good thing" because in the opinion of the speaker it IS a good thing.
X Sol_GovHome.html
In case you haven't noticed open source is fairing quite well in business and in government.
http://production.linux-mag.com/linuxsolutions/LN
There is no need to wait and do an assessment, there are plenty of case studies you can use for an assessment now.
And if you do check out some of the case studies please note that these are not developing nations benefiting from open source, they are governments and businesses with established IT infrastructures.
burnin
Although the article is slim on details of his speech I think he pointed out how governments in Europe are impeding open source and that is why he is proposing changes to provide support for open source.
"...Villasante said that barriers to open source adoption included the strong political lobbies of traditional businesses, weak political interest in open source..."
The closed source proprietary corporations are trying to use the government to force the market they want, what Villasante is proposing may create this "Free Market" you speak of.
I suggest you explain the concept of "letting the market take care of something for once" to the corporations not to the purveyors of open source.
burnin
Isn't whining mandatory for political figures?
In reading past the whining he is presenting an assessment of the EU's strength as a producer of software and presents abstracts of a possible solution.
"...We should decide whether we want a European software industry or not..."
He sees a dependancy of European nations on the software developement capabilities of other countries and he presents open source as a means to build a strong EU software industry.
"...barriers to open source adoption included the strong political lobbies of traditional businesses..."
He also alludes to the difficulties the political and legal process may create for open source in Europe. He is aware of the attempts by corporations, many from those same foreign countries they are dependent upon for software, lobbying for EU laws to stifle competition from open source or even close source developers in the EU.
burnin
Considering that many parts of linux are actually developed by people and companies from "the country that has maintained a remarkably schizophrenic attitude to Cuba" dont you think it may be possible that Cuba is switching to linux because it is a better solution when compared to the alternatives? You know, things like better TCO, better reliability, better security, better hardware support, and of coarse a better licensing scheme.
burnin
I'm sure there is a market out there for a cell phone based iPod killer, however, don't assume that what you want, or what Billy wants, is what the rest of us want.
I'm happy with my mp3/ogg player (iRiver iFP395) and my PDA (Palm Tungsten E). I have no interest what so ever in a cell phone with their over priced billing and crappy service. And with that opinion I'm sure you can easily conclude that I would have no interest in a cell phone that plays music.
burnin
There are many journalists and media sources who do not give in to the profit first mentality, i.e. democracynow.org, freespeech.org, pbs.org. Granted some of the messages from these outlets can be just as hair brained and off base as the paid shills, but they are out there none the less.
I will agree that for profit journalists and media bring in more cash for themselves and have the resources to make more noise and be in more peoples faces. However, the attention they get is not due to demand for their product no more than rubber neckers at a train wreck create a demand for more train wrecks.
And in case you haven't noticed, those same for profit journalists, media, and their corporate backers with deep pockets are funding a massive attack on the linux community because the community threatens their for profit revenue streams. The level of education and susceptibility of the community have little to do with the unethical actions of those who would attack the community.
burnin
(doh, forgot to post anonymously, maybe next time)
Agreed, however, these considerations are factored into the financial statements. Its possible they would not be included in the gross profit but they would definitely be included in the net. If you look at their financial statement you will see that net profit is significantly lower than gross so there is no magic bullet here for profitability. When it comes right down to it competition in the hardware industry is hardcore.
burnin
Gross is before other considerations, it varies depending on how accounting principles are applied but it is usually a good measure of how well your current products are doing.
Net profit will be smaller than gross and comes after deducting other expenses such as research and developement.
On the 2001 - 2002 financial statement for Gigabyte they factor in R&D expenses, general and selling expenses, interest expenses, taxes, and a few other items after the gross calculation. Basically what it comes down to is while the gross profit for the year was $94,639,000(USD) the actual net after these other expenses was only $54,813,000(USD).
burnin
With a little research I think you will find that you are wrong about the pricing of computer parts. If you were to look at individual offerings for a company you would find that some parts have high margins while others have low margins. But the overall effect of the mixed margins and the extreme pressure of competition in the hardware industry is resulting in very low margins.
1 _02.pdf
And for some facts to back it up, take a look at Gigabyte's 2001 - 2002 financial statement at http://www.gigabyte.de/Company/Stock/pdf/fs_09300
Or to make it quick, in 2002 their overall gross profit margin was a mere 18%. $94,639,000(USD) / $498,739,000(USD) = 0.18975...
As a worker in the hardware industry I have the opportunity to see first hand the extreme pressure placed on workers to keep costs down all in the name of maintaining market share and sustainability. So you can imagine that when I hear some bozo from Microsoft telling the media that hardware manufacturers need to cut costs further because the cost of a PC with Windows is too expensive for the developing nations I look at the 80% profit margin at Microsoft and think that perhaps the solution is to dump the expensive Windows.
Anyhow, I'm starting to rant. I just wanted to point out that competition in the hardware industries is rather extreme and the result is very inexpensive components. In some cases they are inexpensive to the point at which sustainability of a business model becomes questionable.
burnin
Actually it was "...feathers up your butt..."
But thats beside the point. What I find interesting is how the quote could be used either way. You see, it is quite possible that some may view the bestowal as being similar to sticking feathers up your butt.
IMO it is more likely that the actions of the individual which led to the bestowal is what made the person an engineer not the generosity of some accredited group. And that being the case it is possible that not every person who has become an engineer will be fortunate enough to be bestowed.
That being said I do believe that the title of Engineer is heavily over used and is diminished by its improper use.
burnin
I think what the author is trying to get across is that over time the base of linux users will grow, as it is growing today, as the base grows the market for linux games will grow. Therefore, as the linux market grows there will be companies who see this market as an opportunity to make a profit. For businesses its all about ROI (Return On Investment). And considering that game development is happening even today on linux by developers large and small I think the only thing holding it back is the market size.
You did state your belief that linux gamers dual boot to play games on Windows therefore there will never be a linux market for games, but I thoroughly disagree with this, and as a linux gamer I can debunk your statement.
You see, I don't dual boot to Windows and I don't play games in Windows. Yes, my choices are limited, but I currently play Neverwinter Nights, I purchased the Windows version after bioware released the linux client, Unreal Tournament 2004, the shrinkwrap box includes AND advertises on the box the linux client along with the Windows client, Quake 3 Arena, for which I purchased the retail linux shrinkwrap version, and Spacetripper, I purchased online from Pom-Pom.
So I agree that current incentive for developers is very limited, however, I also agree with the article that the future of linux gaming is bright.
burnin
Actually it would be more like this:
The IP extremists upon discovering that you made a chair would bring a posse to your door step, kick in the door, take the chair you made and all your tools for making chairs. They would then follow up by suing you to ensure you do not have the capital to buy more tools and build anymore chairs. They would then coerce the state to charge you with criminal activity and have to sentenced to a nice jail term. In the mean time the "original" chair maker will become wealthy and powerful as they have monopoly control over the chair market.
The public domain extremist would see that you had made a chair and then demand that you share your knowledge of making chairs so he too can make a chair. He will then share this knowledge with others who will make chairs too. You get to keep your chair and the ability to make more chairs but it will definitely limit you ability to become a chair monopoly with all these other people making chairs.
Neither extremist is right but the IP extremist will take much more from you than the public domain extremist.
Of course the flaw in both our arguements is that we are discussing a creation which is very difficult and expensive to reproduce. The "IP" which you produce and Gates wants to defend requires a very different mind set for discussion since the initial production is difficult but afterwards is very easy and inexpensive to reproduce. So I understand where you are headed with your arguement, I just think "IP" should be discussed as "IP" not as chairs.
burnin
Perhaps the lack of detail in your arguement has given me the wrong impression, but it sure looks to me like you or bordering on soft fud. If I misrepresent your arguement then I appoligize.
You are likely refering to customization as rewriting kernel code or writing new code for inclusion in the kernel which would be expensive either way (I suspect much more expensive for Windows because you would be paying for more than just software development, MS would need their pound of flesh). However, the parent you replied to was talking about customizing the feature and capability set compiled into the kernel for a specific application.
The linux kernel source and development tools are designed with this flexibility in mind and for the majority of applications I suspect an end user would not require custom kernel coding but could run the kernel configuration and recompile with minimal to zero cost. If you go through a 2.6 kernel configuration you will find that compiling for a specific processor is only one of several hundred customizable features.
A linux kernel can be easily customized as a fully featured kernel for operation on a high powered workstation with a wide array of devices and services, to a highly specific and efficient server kernel for a specific service application such as web services, packet routing and filtering, file and application serving, etc., all the way down to a bare minimum kernel which will be served rapidly and efficiently over a network for a diskless distributed processing cluster node. Many of these easily accomplished tweaks in the linux kernel are trivial to accomplish but are not trivial in what they actually accomplish.
Although for some outrageous sum of money and signing of contracts and licenses to protect corporate "IP" I'm sure somebody could pull off the same customization of the NT kernel, however, I would still argue that the NT kernel was not designed for this type of customization and it is nowhere near as inexpensive or as simple as it is with the linux kernel.
Making custom NT kernels for any application is not trivial while custom linux kernels for most applications are trivial. There is no comparison between the two.
Aside from the disagreement I suspect nothing significant will come of this latest MS effort and it is more of an attempt to have their corporate fingers in every game. There has been lots of press lately about large linux clusters and I think MS just wants to be able to say "oh yeah, look me too".
burnin
However, did you actually read and understand the new scientist article which you are using as your evidence? Based on one statement made in the article it becomes obvious that it is a highly unreliable source of information for the civilian losses, I quote,
I'm assuming that standard methodology would be counting ACTUAL BODIES. These guys are making phone calls to 1000 households in Iraq and asking how many civilians have been killed. Hell, if you go by the Middle East media the US military has killed just about every woman and child in Iraq and not one terrorist, militant, or insurgent has recieved even a scratch, but just because they say its so doesn't make it so.
And I wouldn't be so quick to shout down the possible civilian casualties that occured every year that Saddam was in power. Perhaps you should go visit some of the mass graves and talk to the witnesses as others have done.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.gr
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/corresponde
http://iafrica.com/news/worldnews/353139.htm
http://www.usaid.gov/press/mediaadvisories/2004/m
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/03/16/World/M
We can only hope that some day sanity will prevail and all reasoning for killing anyone will be lost.
burnin
Its a sad state of affairs when you have to question whether its legally acceptable to change the code that you use to run your business, but the flip side is that you should probably check the history of your vendor to see if they have been in any lawsuits because they have violated patents or copyrights. It seems I've read a few articles over the years where many of our favorite vendors have been accused of this same issue.
So the certification is more important than the actual interoperability of the software? I don't think I need to comment on the stupidity of this statement, it speaks for itself.
And likewise for proprietary code, the difference being that you do have an opportunity with the FOSS code to keep your business running on what works. With a proprietary vendor the fork means your stuck on the old system indefinitely or you pay up and move to their new platform, sounds like a familiar scenario.
I suppose this is possible, but perhaps there is some underlying issue in the IT support group such as a lack of a fundamental understanding of how the technology they are supporting works. Knowing how to click OK OK OK Next OK Reboot is not enough even to support a proprietary infrastructure.
Third party vendor support is nice to have, however, anyone who has ever used it knows that its not cheap. Just think about it, your paying the third party vendor so they can pay their staff and meet their profit margin goals. But in some cases its the best route.
Umm, no, using proprietary solutions will put you at risk of being stuck with "dead-end software". Since you have the source code in a FOSS solution you have a choice to continue development.
And likewise with proprietary solutions. With FOSS becoming more popular and competing aggressively with proprietary solutions we will see the same legal shenanigans that have plagued the proprietary solutions for years.
Wow, what a rant.
burnin