Bruce, I'd like to have your views on the topic of numerous Linux distros. I actually believe that "United we Fall, Divided we Stand" is true when it comes to surviving cash-rich monopolies. The only thing that needs to be common could be the kernel, the license.. and a few thought leaders, sharing similar philosophies. That way the focus could come back to "What the software can do" rather than "Which company or brand is good".
So many firms have merely pretended to be at war with Microsoft - only to cave in later and become partners - Novell and Linspire being recent cases. Have any significant no. of customers actually signed up with Linspire for patent protection? I don't think so.
Microsoft's Covenant to Customers (Linspire's customers it would seem - not Microsoft's) hardly makes compelling business sense to consider Linspire for the business desktop. Few home users would consider themselves vulnerable to patent lawsuits by Microsoft, if they used Linux.
So this announcement merely indicates that GPL3 has won, and Microsoft has been compelled to publicly qualify their pre-negotiated deals with business partners, and customers gain more from GPL3 than covenants from Microsoft.
Would be for Microsoft to simply open source the entire Windows kernel and everything else. Winning the security race is an impossible task these days - it means buying positive press, paying for scumbag hackers who have no scruples etc. etc. It's clear over the past decade that it is impossible to add security as an after-thought to a shoddy security model.
If MS releases everything else except a few secrets and binary drivers, these security researchers will find their entire industry crumbling down instantly, and users will have a genuinely secure experience - since they will now be able to examine exactly what hackers and trojans are up to.
Of course, Microsoft's own Live One Care and tech support will suddenly be over-staffed, but that would be a pleasant problem, wouldn't it?
But what if the original seller leaks it to someone else before a fix, and this new bloke tries to sell the same hack independently to Microsoft? Unless MS is telling others of what vulnerabilities and hacks they have already bought - which is unlikely if not impossible - this scheme will not work.
In fact it could make things much worse - people will now have direct financial incentive to cause havoc by exploiting unfixed vulnerabilities.
My thoughts exactly. Although, given Slashdot's tendency to sensationalise things (remember the JRE bug that could make everything vulnerable?) it could be a while before we can get to the truth of the matter.
The key qn. is:
Were these programs given elevated privileges in order for the Samsung device to work? OR The driver elevated privileges of programs unrelated to it's functioning.
If the latter is true, then Samsung needs to be conngratulated for highlighting the pitfalls of closed source drivers in Linux.
Your point is, Linux is good because only select people use it for select few apps. That's why Mac is good as well.
I suppose this is an example of a self-defeating prophecy: it's secure/stable, so use it! But if many use it, it's no longer secure/stable.
Not sure why I'm feeding a troll, but he never mentioned about Linux being good for a few apps. Linux (or the Unix multi-user security system) is good enough for the entire web, provided people who write apps do so in a transparent way. Doing things in closed-source proprietary drivers and calling the operating system useless is a bit disingenious - but something an MS shill or Apple fanboy would do.
Essentially they have lost the technical argument.
The ISO is supposed to be a technical organisation - a wtchdog for global interests and standards. If Microsoft's proposed format does not meet the technical requirements of a document standard, they must simply reject it, since it has been fast trcked.
"Let's just have both standards, and let people pick the one they want. Oh... did we mention that OXML will be the default in all of our products?"
Even if the ISO rejects the OOXML, Microsoft can still support both standards in it's Office application.
If OXML is the default format (in the dominant Office suite), people will view it as being the "serious" one and anything else as being "dumb."
Unlikely. If ODF is supported, then there will be applications (non-Microsoft, DRM-free, open source licensed) that will work very well with the format, and provide superior functionality and performance than MS Office. There are better choices to render HTML, CSS etc. on the Windows platform than the Internet Explorer, and millions use them everyday.
So the counterattack from those of us who would prefer a true standard (such as ODF) to become the default need to use ODF as much as possible, and encourage others to do the same
Redundant. The only utility from MS OFfice with OOXML will be creation and storage of documents. Which is anyway happening with the proprietary.doc formats. The Active Directory schema can be extended and enhanced, but how many firms are doing it? Nobody that I know of. The tools to manipulate, backup, restore and manage the Active Directroy are all proprietary, cumbersome and limited.
A format such as ODF will educate users what wonderful things can be done with a truly open format - like Google showed with it's email interface. The new applications will have negligible barrier for entry for new entrants, including those with Open Source licenses. Which is why Microsoft is fighting tooth and nail over this.
From TFA:
"We should expect the creation of new formats in the future as technology evolves, and, as has always been the case, users should be able to choose the formats that work best for them," reads the team's open letter this afternoon. "Microsoft has consistently supported choice, so it took no steps to hinder ISO/IEC's ratification of ODF 1.0 and supported ODF 1.0's addition to the American National Standards list. Microsoft will continue to support recognition of ODF 1.0 and other formats on such lists around the world as long as doing so in no way restricts choice among formats." Someone should tell Microsoft that both ODF and OOXML are supposed to be based around XML, short for eXtensible Markup Language. In short, both formats ought to be expandable and extendable without the need for breaking entire legacy applications built around earlier standards or versions of ODF or OOXML. It is Microsoft's behaviour to discontinue support for legacy formats / make such support quirky and clunky, as to make it meaningless / unusable.
The pledge to support 'ODF and other formats' is just a carrot - it's like.Net supporting all languages - but the basic idea of.Net wa to be a Java killer. Which will be the fate of other formats if OOXML is ratified by the ISO.
Besides, America is not the only country in the planet, so if the ISO is indeed the International Standards Organisation, it must not be influenced by a single commercial entity.
Open XML may be more attractive to those who want richer functionality, the ability to integrate business data into their documents by defining their own document schema, or a format that was designed to be backwards compatible with existing documents. The XML spec does not need permission from Microsoft in order to be extensible and adaptable, by changing default schemas - in fact, I think the ISO must request Microsoft to rename the format without using the words Open and XML simultaneously.
Why is a separate kernel needed for mobile devices? The beauty of the Linux is (was?) that the same kernel could run on everything from cellphones to supercomputers. Looks to me Intel wants to control the wireless device market with binary drivers talking to a separate proprietary kernel, licensed under GPL2.
If people are using MySQL in any sort of product or website that they intend to use for revenue generation, that makes them a commercial user. Heck, any use by a for-profit corporation should count as commercial use, and thus that corporation is a commercial user. I don't think even Microsoft uses this definition of a 'commercial user'. You are either an End User or a Value Added Reseller or Distributor; hence their EULA or End User License Agreements as opposed to the GPL. The EULA applies whether you use Microsoft software to make money OR play gmaes.
Atleast as far as Free Software is concerned, the GPL (and other Free licenses) do not concern themselves with the nature of end-use - whether they be commercial or not; infact the license kicks in only when there is distrbution involved, in which case it automatically implies the distributor is not an End User.
Those who use MySQL for their own projects are non-commercial users Here's where the disagreement is. That's an interesting claim, what's your argument to support it? Please state your argument that opposes my claim, and I'll see if I can defend my stance.
If there are no commercial users of free software, then why does MySQL exist, and who uses it? MySQL AB is not a commercial 'user' of Free Software - they are one of several commercial 'distributors' of Free Software. Those who use MySQL for their own projects are non-commercial users, those who bundle MySQL along with their 'software products and services' are again commercial distributors of Free Software like MySQL.
Companies like RedHat and Canonical are commercial 'Service Providers' and 'Value Added Distributors' for Free Software - they are not users.
I think Google and other SAAS companies might be described as "Commercial Users" - if and when they have a considerable impact on the desktop, a future version of the GPL might consider addressing them.... maybe GPL6.
I suggest the following: If you carefully stop talking, you can avoid saying anything stupid like that in the future. If you are careful enough while posting, you can avoid abusing others, and focus on the point you're debating instead.
What we need to do is simple: continue building world-class software. Continue to push for open standards. Make quality, useful, non-locked software and eventually, the marketplace will correct itself. That we've come this far is a testament to the power of the marketplace.
I was with you until this last bit of advice for future action. Building world-class software is not the solution - think Kerberos, think Netscape, think Samba. Nor is the conitnuing push for open standards... we have just seen how standards bodies are geting polluted by cash-rich firms. The market-place is not being allowed to correct itself, by shills and so-called business partners... besides share-holders who can only think on quarterly basis, and forget the larger issues involved.
We've come this far because of the GPL, and because in a panic, Linus chose to use the GPL. And now so-called 'commercial users' (there is no commerical user of Free Softwar - only commercial exploiters like Tivo, Apple, Novell and Microsoft) are cashing in on the Free Software movement. GPL3 is a well thought out move, and IBM has now promised not to use their patents against developers.
Now that there is enough critical mass behind the open source movement, I think we need to cash in and become more vocal about abuse of standards, patents and monopolies. The blog by Rob Weir is a step in the right direction. I for one, wouldn't mind a year of dupes on Slashdot, that highlights continuous abuse by commercial firms, of the standards processes.
One thing we need to remember is that there's no 'scientific' way of going about testing patches - which is what I pointed out in my original post. There is absolutely ZERO INFORMATION about what a patch will fix, until it gets released. The information from Microsoft merely states what it (attempts to) fix. In the absence of the source for the patches, users will have to guess what the impact will be - by checking every possible combination - and there are hundreds of things to check out.
How can someone even begin to assume that a patch for a Windows vulnerability will prevent uninstalling software? Sounds very far fetched to me - unless we are talking about millions of users.
There is a known workaround (re-run the installation of the application you want to uninstall - the vast majority of the time you will be propted to select from adding features, repairing features or uninstalling the application) It's a pretty trivial bug which doesn't affect any critical systems or features It doesn't affect that many systems - I'm running 3 Vista x64 systems and none of them have this problem You seem to know so much about this particular issue -- so probably you do tech support for Microsoft. But how would the average sysadmin go about acquiring the info. you just typed above? Which Microsoft certification will ensure that a properly qualified sysadmin has been chosen for the job of administering a Windows network?
Reading Slashdot and going through every response to every issue can be ery tedious - and counter-productive as well.
companies usually have a vetting process for any updates that are released and why no person should download an update for a week or more for these issues to be brought up and found/fixed. I keep automatic updates turned off ever since an update for Win2k corrupted my installation and forced a full re-install. I'm a bit confused here. Let's say I'm a sysadmin and I have a few 100 PCs in my network, 90% of them running some flavour of Windows - mostly Win2K and WinXP, 6 new Vista PCs for testing and the rest Linux. (actually I'm no longer a sysadmin but the rest of the above scenario applies in my firm).
Should we double-guess what Microsoft tells us in their tech notes, and manually check every single patch? Every patch Tuesday, we get about 8 patches on average, how can any end user co. be expected to test out all these on their production networks? How exactly can sysadmins go about checking all these patches themselves? Does it add to their 'experience' or job value? I don't think so, and the sysads can't be bothered to verify what Microsoft ought to know.
End result - we have a WSUS server which handles all the updates, and that server is set to automatic, sothe sysads get back to their task of configuring new PCs, setting up changed environments based on changing project needs etc.
A separate vetting process and a delay of a week is insane IMO - with zero day attacks and little info. to work on - sysadmins are better off doing Automatic Updates. The other problem here in India is that there is no direct support from Microsoft even for Corporates who are willing to pay - support issues get routed to some VAR, the engineers there know little better than the sysadmins, and often merely pretend to help out. In reality they couldn't be bothered less.
Poor Vista adoption will actually accentuate his problem I guess - the smaller userbase will mean lesser bugs reported until it's too late.
hypocrisy, hypocrite : "Hypocrisy is the act of condemning another person, where the stated basis for the criticism is the breach of a rule which also applies to the critic. Though hypocrisy is frequently invoked as an accusation in debates, a few theorists have studied the utility of hypocrisy, and in some cases have suggested that the conflicts manifested as hypocrisy are a necessary or even beneficial part of human behavior and society. "
RMS & co. created the GPL for furthering the cause of software freeedom. Linus Torvalds & co., of their own volition, and without any coercion, adopted the GPL v2. 15 years later, it is found that a few black sheep.. er: so-called commercial 'users' of GPL are acting against software freedom, and RMS & co. release a new version to prevent further erosion of software freedom.
Instead of engaging in a meaningful dialogue with the creators of GPL, Linus chooses to abuse them, and ignores their continued noble efforts. Thereby becoming the perfect example of a hypocrite.
Options: The following flags may be used with hypocrisy, or hypocrite:
-t tivo: The act of using the fruits of other's efforts, but acting against the spirit and intent of the creators.
-w windows: Calling the customer's desktop "My Computer", without actually providing ownership of the software for which customer has paid money. This option is deprecated with the "-v vista" option.
-l linus: The act of lecturing others while not believing them oneself or practising said virtu... ATZ - No carrier.
Looks like there's lots of experts from Microsoft on these boards everyday, posting 'mitigating factors' in response to even the slightest criticism.... okay, I've got a real important qn. for you:
Let's say I've got a 100 PCs running XP... every month, on average I think there's about 20MB or so of patches downloaded and installed. That would mean 240MB per year, or 1GB over 4 years. Now suppose a system goes broke, or a new one has just come in. Is there a simple way to install XP ALONG WITH these patches, in one go?
Maybe a separate Ask Slashdot qn. is in order, but I thought I'd rather ask now, seeing as we have another broken patch.
Oracle is very strongly getting behind open source as a platform to host it's applications both at the OS level and at the (java) application server level. Oracle makes it's money off of support rather than license fees (although those also cost an arm and a leg).
Oracle going open source? Colour me shocked, then! DB2, MS-SQL and Oracle are the only major closed source database blokes out there... and Oracle is the biggest of the bunch.
Some Oracle chap tried to speak about "Free Software" offerings from Oracle in a conference in Belfast... he was shouted down and asked to describe it as 'cost-less' instead. Oracle will get behind Open Source AFTER Duke Nukem gets released, AFTER hell freezes over, AFTER Ballmer stops distributing chairs. Not anytime soon.
So your position is that ultimately these companies need to completely open source all their current products, release all new products as F/OSS, and move over to the certification, consulting, and training for income model, or risk extinction? Companies have to be either entirely closed or entirely open? You can't mix-and-match based on market and product? I'll let IBM, Oracle, and Microsoft know they are ultimately doomed right away! F/OSS will overcome! Neither Oracle nor Microsoft seem to believe in the commercial prospects of Open source code. IBM have demonstrated in their support for the Linux kernel, and their defence in the SCO case, that they believe in Open Source being a big factor to their long term commercial success.
The threat of patents is only one of many risks facing open source developers, if it wants a major market share, IBM should take more similar steps - that is my position. I would not advocate a similar approach to enemies of Open Source like Oracle and Microsoft - if more companies like IBM adopt the Open source approach, the rest will be forgotten in less than a decade.
Please how explain how open source automatically translates to "mindshare". I don't really see the link, but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts behind that assertion.
I thought it was obvious. Why is Microsoft finding it difficult to retain "Devleopers, Developers and Developers"? Because their philosophy is Closed Source, and developers like to control their entire development environment - from the IDE to the compiler, to the authentication mechanism, the security model, the protocols, port numbers etc. Merely unencumbering a standard from patemts is only half the battle won - people will flock to an implementation of said standard that is patent unencumbered AND Open source at the same time.
Open sourcing a platform like Websphere or a collabarative suite like Lotus Notes will not be a commercial disaster, like the bloke who modded my original post 'Troll' seems to believe.
The standards should stand on their own. Open source products can embrace them regardless if commercial software remains closed.
The biggest and most commonly used 'product' to develop SOA-compliant applications is the JBoss stack - JBoss Enterprise Middleware Suite, JEMS for short. It is open source, and uses the Rosetta ESB for building SOA apps.
Despite it's open source nature, RedHat is making a pile of money on JBoss - from training, certifications, consulting, site implementations etc. In fact RedHat makes over a billion dollars a year, based purely on Open Source offerings. Commercial success and Open Source offerings aren't mutually exclusive - if IBM really believes in the Open Source philosophy, they ought to make their offerings Open Source, else they risk dwindling mindshare.... and unltimately marketshare as well.
The logical second step would be to Open Source their offerings, so developers can enhance them without fear. Will Lotus Notes on Linux be open sourced? What about Websphere? Mere lifting of patent threats on XML, SOAP etc. is only a half-hearted measure.
Still, it is quite a big step in the right direction though, kudos to IBM for that!
Slashdot Mirror
Bruce, I'd like to have your views on the topic of numerous Linux distros. I actually believe that "United we Fall, Divided we Stand" is true when it comes to surviving cash-rich monopolies. The only thing that needs to be common could be the kernel, the license.. and a few thought leaders, sharing similar philosophies. That way the focus could come back to "What the software can do" rather than "Which company or brand is good".
What do you think?
So many firms have merely pretended to be at war with Microsoft - only to cave in later and become partners - Novell and Linspire being recent cases. Have any significant no. of customers actually signed up with Linspire for patent protection? I don't think so.
Microsoft's Covenant to Customers (Linspire's customers it would seem - not Microsoft's) hardly makes compelling business sense to consider Linspire for the business desktop. Few home users would consider themselves vulnerable to patent lawsuits by Microsoft, if they used Linux.
So this announcement merely indicates that GPL3 has won, and Microsoft has been compelled to publicly qualify their pre-negotiated deals with business partners, and customers gain more from GPL3 than covenants from Microsoft.
Would be for Microsoft to simply open source the entire Windows kernel and everything else. Winning the security race is an impossible task these days - it means buying positive press, paying for scumbag hackers who have no scruples etc. etc. It's clear over the past decade that it is impossible to add security as an after-thought to a shoddy security model.
If MS releases everything else except a few secrets and binary drivers, these security researchers will find their entire industry crumbling down instantly, and users will have a genuinely secure experience - since they will now be able to examine exactly what hackers and trojans are up to.
Of course, Microsoft's own Live One Care and tech support will suddenly be over-staffed, but that would be a pleasant problem, wouldn't it?
But what if the original seller leaks it to someone else before a fix, and this new bloke tries to sell the same hack independently to Microsoft? Unless MS is telling others of what vulnerabilities and hacks they have already bought - which is unlikely if not impossible - this scheme will not work.
In fact it could make things much worse - people will now have direct financial incentive to cause havoc by exploiting unfixed vulnerabilities.
My thoughts exactly. Although, given Slashdot's tendency to sensationalise things (remember the JRE bug that could make everything vulnerable?) it could be a while before we can get to the truth of the matter.
The key qn. is:
Were these programs given elevated privileges in order for the Samsung device to work?
OR
The driver elevated privileges of programs unrelated to it's functioning.
If the latter is true, then Samsung needs to be conngratulated for highlighting the pitfalls of closed source drivers in Linux.
Your point is, Linux is good because only select people use it for select few apps. That's why Mac is good as well.
I suppose this is an example of a self-defeating prophecy: it's secure/stable, so use it! But if many use it, it's no longer secure/stable.
Not sure why I'm feeding a troll, but he never mentioned about Linux being good for a few apps. Linux (or the Unix multi-user security system) is good enough for the entire web, provided people who write apps do so in a transparent way. Doing things in closed-source proprietary drivers and calling the operating system useless is a bit disingenious - but something an MS shill or Apple fanboy would do.
Sorry, no, standards are the only tool.
:-)
We are talking about Microfsoft here, remember. Even chairs are very handy tools, it seems
Essentially they have lost the technical argument.
.doc formats. The Active Directory schema can be extended and enhanced, but how many firms are doing it? Nobody that I know of. The tools to manipulate, backup, restore and manage the Active Directroy are all proprietary, cumbersome and limited.
The ISO is supposed to be a technical organisation - a wtchdog for global interests and standards. If Microsoft's proposed format does not meet the technical requirements of a document standard, they must simply reject it, since it has been fast trcked.
"Let's just have both standards, and let people pick the one they want. Oh... did we mention that OXML will be the default in all of our products?"
Even if the ISO rejects the OOXML, Microsoft can still support both standards in it's Office application.
If OXML is the default format (in the dominant Office suite), people will view it as being the "serious" one and anything else as being "dumb."
Unlikely. If ODF is supported, then there will be applications (non-Microsoft, DRM-free, open source licensed) that will work very well with the format, and provide superior functionality and performance than MS Office. There are better choices to render HTML, CSS etc. on the Windows platform than the Internet Explorer, and millions use them everyday.
So the counterattack from those of us who would prefer a true standard (such as ODF) to become the default need to use ODF as much as possible, and encourage others to do the same
Redundant. The only utility from MS OFfice with OOXML will be creation and storage of documents. Which is anyway happening with the proprietary
A format such as ODF will educate users what wonderful things can be done with a truly open format - like Google showed with it's email interface. The new applications will have negligible barrier for entry for new entrants, including those with Open Source licenses. Which is why Microsoft is fighting tooth and nail over this.
The pledge to support 'ODF and other formats' is just a carrot - it's like
Besides, America is not the only country in the planet, so if the ISO is indeed the International Standards Organisation, it must not be influenced by a single commercial entity. Open XML may be more attractive to those who want richer functionality, the ability to integrate business data into their documents by defining their own document schema, or a format that was designed to be backwards compatible with existing documents. The XML spec does not need permission from Microsoft in order to be extensible and adaptable, by changing default schemas - in fact, I think the ISO must request Microsoft to rename the format without using the words Open and XML simultaneously.
Why is a separate kernel needed for mobile devices? The beauty of the Linux is (was?) that the same kernel could run on everything from cellphones to supercomputers. Looks to me Intel wants to control the wireless device market with binary drivers talking to a separate proprietary kernel, licensed under GPL2.
Atleast as far as Free Software is concerned, the GPL (and other Free licenses) do not concern themselves with the nature of end-use - whether they be commercial or not; infact the license kicks in only when there is distrbution involved, in which case it automatically implies the distributor is not an End User.
Companies like RedHat and Canonical are commercial 'Service Providers' and 'Value Added Distributors' for Free Software - they are not users.
I think Google and other SAAS companies might be described as "Commercial Users" - if and when they have a considerable impact on the desktop, a future version of the GPL might consider addressing them.... maybe GPL6. I suggest the following: If you carefully stop talking, you can avoid saying anything stupid like that in the future. If you are careful enough while posting, you can avoid abusing others, and focus on the point you're debating instead.
What we need to do is simple: continue building world-class software. Continue to push for open standards. Make quality, useful, non-locked software and eventually, the marketplace will correct itself. That we've come this far is a testament to the power of the marketplace.
I was with you until this last bit of advice for future action. Building world-class software is not the solution - think Kerberos, think Netscape, think Samba. Nor is the conitnuing push for open standards... we have just seen how standards bodies are geting polluted by cash-rich firms. The market-place is not being allowed to correct itself, by shills and so-called business partners... besides share-holders who can only think on quarterly basis, and forget the larger issues involved.
We've come this far because of the GPL, and because in a panic, Linus chose to use the GPL. And now so-called 'commercial users' (there is no commerical user of Free Softwar - only commercial exploiters like Tivo, Apple, Novell and Microsoft) are cashing in on the Free Software movement. GPL3 is a well thought out move, and IBM has now promised not to use their patents against developers.
Now that there is enough critical mass behind the open source movement, I think we need to cash in and become more vocal about abuse of standards, patents and monopolies. The blog by Rob Weir is a step in the right direction. I for one, wouldn't mind a year of dupes on Slashdot, that highlights continuous abuse by commercial firms, of the standards processes.
One thing we need to remember is that there's no 'scientific' way of going about testing patches - which is what I pointed out in my original post. There is absolutely ZERO INFORMATION about what a patch will fix, until it gets released. The information from Microsoft merely states what it (attempts to) fix. In the absence of the source for the patches, users will have to guess what the impact will be - by checking every possible combination - and there are hundreds of things to check out.
How can someone even begin to assume that a patch for a Windows vulnerability will prevent uninstalling software? Sounds very far fetched to me - unless we are talking about millions of users.
It's a pretty trivial bug which doesn't affect any critical systems or features
It doesn't affect that many systems - I'm running 3 Vista x64 systems and none of them have this problem You seem to know so much about this particular issue -- so probably you do tech support for Microsoft. But how would the average sysadmin go about acquiring the info. you just typed above? Which Microsoft certification will ensure that a properly qualified sysadmin has been chosen for the job of administering a Windows network?
Reading Slashdot and going through every response to every issue can be ery tedious - and counter-productive as well.
Should we double-guess what Microsoft tells us in their tech notes, and manually check every single patch? Every patch Tuesday, we get about 8 patches on average, how can any end user co. be expected to test out all these on their production networks? How exactly can sysadmins go about checking all these patches themselves? Does it add to their 'experience' or job value? I don't think so, and the sysads can't be bothered to verify what Microsoft ought to know.
End result - we have a WSUS server which handles all the updates, and that server is set to automatic, sothe sysads get back to their task of configuring new PCs, setting up changed environments based on changing project needs etc.
A separate vetting process and a delay of a week is insane IMO - with zero day attacks and little info. to work on - sysadmins are better off doing Automatic Updates. The other problem here in India is that there is no direct support from Microsoft even for Corporates who are willing to pay - support issues get routed to some VAR, the engineers there know little better than the sysadmins, and often merely pretend to help out. In reality they couldn't be bothered less.
Poor Vista adoption will actually accentuate his problem I guess - the smaller userbase will mean lesser bugs reported until it's too late.
If only the subject had left out the "4." "PHP End of Life." I'd cheer for that. I'd say good riddance to a braindead language.
Are you saying Microsoft is a braindead company for tying up with Zend to enhance PHP on Windows servers? Microsoft and Zend Technologies Announce Technical Collaboration to Improve Interoperability of PHP on the Windows Server Platform
hypocrisy, hypocrite : "Hypocrisy is the act of condemning another person, where the stated basis for the criticism is the breach of a rule which also applies to the critic. Though hypocrisy is frequently invoked as an accusation in debates, a few theorists have studied the utility of hypocrisy, and in some cases have suggested that the conflicts manifested as hypocrisy are a necessary or even beneficial part of human behavior and society. "
RMS & co. created the GPL for furthering the cause of software freeedom. Linus Torvalds & co., of their own volition, and without any coercion, adopted the GPL v2. 15 years later, it is found that a few black sheep.. er: so-called commercial 'users' of GPL are acting against software freedom, and RMS & co. release a new version to prevent further erosion of software freedom.
Instead of engaging in a meaningful dialogue with the creators of GPL, Linus chooses to abuse them, and ignores their continued noble efforts. Thereby becoming the perfect example of a hypocrite.
Options: The following flags may be used with hypocrisy, or hypocrite:
-t tivo: The act of using the fruits of other's efforts, but acting against the spirit and intent of the creators.
-w windows: Calling the customer's desktop "My Computer", without actually providing ownership of the software for which customer has paid money. This option is deprecated with the "-v vista" option.
-l linus: The act of lecturing others while not believing them oneself or practising said virtu... ATZ - No carrier.
Looks like there's lots of experts from Microsoft on these boards everyday, posting 'mitigating factors' in response to even the slightest criticism.... okay, I've got a real important qn. for you:
Let's say I've got a 100 PCs running XP... every month, on average I think there's about 20MB or so of patches downloaded and installed. That would mean 240MB per year, or 1GB over 4 years. Now suppose a system goes broke, or a new one has just come in. Is there a simple way to install XP ALONG WITH these patches, in one go?
Maybe a separate Ask Slashdot qn. is in order, but I thought I'd rather ask now, seeing as we have another broken patch.
Oracle is very strongly getting behind open source as a platform to host it's applications both at the OS level and at the (java) application server level. Oracle makes it's money off of support rather than license fees (although those also cost an arm and a leg).
Oracle going open source? Colour me shocked, then! DB2, MS-SQL and Oracle are the only major closed source database blokes out there... and Oracle is the biggest of the bunch.
Some Oracle chap tried to speak about "Free Software" offerings from Oracle in a conference in Belfast... he was shouted down and asked to describe it as 'cost-less' instead. Oracle will get behind Open Source AFTER Duke Nukem gets released, AFTER hell freezes over, AFTER Ballmer stops distributing chairs. Not anytime soon.
The threat of patents is only one of many risks facing open source developers, if it wants a major market share, IBM should take more similar steps - that is my position. I would not advocate a similar approach to enemies of Open Source like Oracle and Microsoft - if more companies like IBM adopt the Open source approach, the rest will be forgotten in less than a decade.
Please how explain how open source automatically translates to "mindshare". I don't really see the link, but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts behind that assertion.
I thought it was obvious. Why is Microsoft finding it difficult to retain "Devleopers, Developers and Developers"? Because their philosophy is Closed Source, and developers like to control their entire development environment - from the IDE to the compiler, to the authentication mechanism, the security model, the protocols, port numbers etc. Merely unencumbering a standard from patemts is only half the battle won - people will flock to an implementation of said standard that is patent unencumbered AND Open source at the same time.
Open sourcing a platform like Websphere or a collabarative suite like Lotus Notes will not be a commercial disaster, like the bloke who modded my original post 'Troll' seems to believe.
The standards should stand on their own. Open source products can embrace them regardless if commercial software remains closed.
The biggest and most commonly used 'product' to develop SOA-compliant applications is the JBoss stack - JBoss Enterprise Middleware Suite, JEMS for short. It is open source, and uses the Rosetta ESB for building SOA apps.
Despite it's open source nature, RedHat is making a pile of money on JBoss - from training, certifications, consulting, site implementations etc. In fact RedHat makes over a billion dollars a year, based purely on Open Source offerings. Commercial success and Open Source offerings aren't mutually exclusive - if IBM really believes in the Open Source philosophy, they ought to make their offerings Open Source, else they risk dwindling mindshare.... and unltimately marketshare as well.
The logical second step would be to Open Source their offerings, so developers can enhance them without fear. Will Lotus Notes on Linux be open sourced? What about Websphere? Mere lifting of patent threats on XML, SOAP etc. is only a half-hearted measure.
Still, it is quite a big step in the right direction though, kudos to IBM for that!