The issue is that people are paying money to Google (Google Ads) to bring users to their Web site. Once it becomes easy to put another layer of (competitors') ads on the publisher's Web site, if the publisher can't opt out and if they want to keep competitors' ads from being prominently displayed on their own web site they will have to pay for ads one more time (and this is their own web site). To add insult to injury this time the "optimized" Google ad machine can ask for a significantly higher price than for the same ad placed on the Google Web site.
If there's no opt-out, the feature is bad deal for everyone buying ads from Google. Yes, they can switch to another ad spammer and make other changes, but that costs money and resources. Goo's constantly changing EULAs and short announcements don't help (again, this is done on purpose so that they can milk out more people for longer time). Hehe, good luck to all the suckers who do business with them.
>How dare an indexing company make it easier for consumers to view multiple sources for related queries to increase the revenue of their longstanding business model.
I would care if I paid the fuckers a fee to bring those customers to my web site.
Sure, the site: option has been around for a while but it's not been very prominent and/or easy to use.
A Google Ads customer now has to pay more more time to keep the competition off the site one more time.
A smart person can tell by now how this is going to work (see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/18/when_google_does_evil/). A comments which quotes an insider: "We know for a fact - because we know what happened at Overture - that when a quarter runs short, you turn the knob and more money comes in," Herring says. "That happens all the time at Overture, and I'm sure it happens at Google. Why wouldn't it? Like you said, it's a publicly traded company."
Yes, not a Google insider, but theirs being a very closed system do you actually believe that they already don't turn (or tune) the knob?
I'm fine with the feature since I don't advertise with Goo, I don't use Google at all (I use Scroogle.org and other sites) and I don't care what they do, but if I were a Google Ads customer I certainly wouldn't be happy about this and would be looking at other options.
>The idea behind encryption is that even Google shouldn't be able to read your data.
Riight, so this is the reason why you don't use Gmail...
And the whole fucking point is that they be able to read your data and show those stupid ads. Unless they count on the laziness factor - that 99.9% of people are too lazy or don't care - and allow encryption knowing that most folks won't use it anyway. This might happen as they'd score big PR points at a low cost.
The idea behind Gdrive is that people store their crap non-encrypted so whenever there's I/O to it (voice mail, Web office, searching thru your Google phone address book, etc.), they can create on-the-fly ads for you.
>I've seen a 5-10% performance hit with a Xen LVM'ed RAID-1 backend.
Well, someone else saw yet another different hit with a XYZ xyzVM'ed RAID-1 backend. The fact that you saw a single-digit hit doesn't mean that everyone will see the same hit.
>Exactly. Fault tolerance. if the physical server tanks, you move the image to another box.
Bzzzz! Wrong. There's nothing to move here - the OS and/or database remain on the shared storage, the OS can optionally be started on another box. (Apart from this, Oracle already has built-in RAC clustering which does not depend on 3rd party fail-over solutions for fault tolerance of database applications.)
> Do you want to withhold the sick population from cheaper drugs just because the current patent holder is too dumb to produce it cheaper? I personally do not.
Why would anyone invest in R&D, obtaining the patent and regulatory approvals if they don't intend to actually sell the drug to the sick population? Can you name some examples of pharmaceutical companies that patented something, got the approval and then did not want to sell the product (or license the patent)?
> Patents take away the need to innovate and thus they are bad.
Personally I think it's the opposite, but anyway - the cheaper manufacturer of yours can innovate right now and make money - they can patent whatever they want and license it royalty-free to any competitor out there. If they did that, how would current patent laws constrain their ability to innovate?
Someone comes up with something cool, Google copies the idea (Skype, PayPal, Facebook...) and several crappy releases ("betas") later they get it half-right and kill the other guy.
At least MS has ecosystem & partners, these guys are like the aliens from the movie Independence Day. Screw Goo.
Or your Roomba finds your hair, analyzes it on the spot, sends the result to your Google Health or whatever and Google lets you know you should more this or that. I am using it for search and email, but I'm not going to use any of those creepy services.
>For the support contracts. Would Oracle have the right to stop supplying me updates if I were to start providing Oracle support contracts.
You could provide Dave's Linux support contracts, you can't provide Oracle support contracts (the same applies to Oracle, which is why theirs is Unbreakable Linux). Companies out there already provides CentOS support contracts and Red Hat can't stop them either, as long as they don't use Red Hat's trademarks.
>Are people willing to pay twice for contradictory services? And what if Oracle's and Red Hat's upgrades differ? Will that void Red Hat's service contract?
>And in relation to RHEL and the GPL what's stopping anyone buying a single copy of Oracle Linux and repackage it and selling it with support contracts. Presumably if Larry doesn't allow this then Oracle is in breach of the license.
Why would anyone buy it from someone who resells it when it's free download?
That Unfakeable page is act of desperation... Red Hat spreading FUD about another open source product, how noble! And let's not forget how they sent that cease-and-desist letter for CentOS for stating they're based on RHEL...
Let's see what they have to say:
Q: Does Oracle's announcement include support for the Red Hat Application Stack, JBoss, Hibernate, Red Hat GFS, Red Hat Cluster Suite, Red Hat Directory Server, or Red Hat Certificate System? A: No. Oracle does not support any of these leading open source products. - Uhm, that doesn't matter.
The point is this: for any any Unbreakable Linux bug that is submitted to Oracle and can be duplicated on "golden" RHEL 4 system in Oracle's office (for which Oracle has valid support contract), Oracle can submit it to Red Hat Support as Red Hat bug and require quick fix. Then, as RH fixes it, they can fix it in their own Unbreakable Linux.
Q: Oracle says their Linux support includes the same hardware compatibility and certifications as Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Is this true? A: No. Oracle has stated they will make changes to the code independently of Red Hat. These changes will not be tested during Red Hat's hardware testing and certification process, and may cause unexpected behavior. Hence Red Hat hardware certifications are invalidated. -- Well, yes. They don't say that Red Hat h/w certs will be considered valid (actually, they don't care, to be exact) - as long as you've got one, they'll support your RH cert on their Unbreakable Linux. The same goes for ISVs. And Oracle isn't that stupid to screw things up so that they don't work.
Q: Oracle says they will provide the same updates as Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Can they do this? A: There are multiple requirements to building binary compatible software. One piece is the source code; another is the build and test environment. While Oracle may be able to take the source code at some point after a Red Hat update release, obviously their build and test environment will inherently be different than that for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. For similar reasons, there is no guarantee that the source code for the Red Hat Enterprise Linux update will work correctly when integrated into Oracle's modified Linux code base. -- Hah, this one is hilarious! So this is Red Hat's secret sauce - the unreproducible build environment. Are they trying to say that their build environment is different from what's available to everyone else (which wouldn't be too good for compatibility which they emphasize all the time)?
Q: Does Red Hat allow you to tailor your support level to your workload? A: Yes. Many customers match their Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscription level to their application SLA requirements. For example, customers may choose a Basic subscription for non-mission critical file and print servers, while selecting Premium subscriptions for database servers. Oracle does not allow this flexibility - their support policy reads: "If acquiring Enterprise Linux Premier Support, all of your Oracle supported systems must be supported with Enterprise Linux Premier Support." --- Nice try. On the other hand Oracle's Linux is free and updates only are $99/year. Match that, Red Hat! Basic support for RHEL Workstation is $279. As for Oracle DB servers - yes, you'd probably want to have premium Linux support for those. BTW, did RH mention that their support agreement requires that support must be purchased for all copies of OS used by the customer? Self-tuning SLAs can also be achieved by using CentOS (community and basic support), RHEL and UL.
Q: Can Oracle produce timely security updates to Red Hat Enterprise Linux as they stated? A: No. There will be a delay between the time a Red Hat Enterprise Linux update is issued, and the time the source code makes its way to Oracle. And there is no guarantee that the source code for the Red Hat Enterprise Linux update will work correctly when integrated into Oracle's Linux code base; this integration and test may take add
The fact that Oracle will compete with RH doesn't lower the probability of them fixing any problem with the OS, does it? It's not like they have to ask RH for advice on fixing an error.
They could as well submit any customer's bug for Unbreakable Linux that they can duplicate on their official & supported copy of RHEL to RH for fixing and it RH would have to do it for them.
- Use Adblock and CustomizeGoogle (removes all Google ads) to block ads on Firefox - Use the hosts file to block them on MSIE and Opera (a bit ugly but works)
This is ridiculuos. Why couldn't Microsoft make and sell security software?
Imagine Symantec suing Clam anti-virus developers because they're making GPL-ed anti-virus software for a GPL-ed OS (say, Clam used as Samba A-V scanner).
>A number of countries represented in Geneva, including Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up control, but it refused.
There you go! A bunch of dictatorships and the bureaucratic EU! WTF? I really hope the US won't be stupid and agree to any of their demands.
The last thing you in the U.S. need is giving the control to these deadbeats and still having to pay for their screwing around (just look at the UN).
First, as a citizen of a country that isn't involved in this dispute, I'd never agree to use a root DNS server hosted in a non-democratic country.
Second, I haven't been inconvenienced by the US' control of the Internet.
Third, look at their track record - the EU is a terrible place for managing anything, and the rest of the bunch have scummy and/or non-democratic governments. Screw all of them.
>Get a reliable network connection, just as you would do for your other utilities.
1) Solar panels are a reliable source of electricity. Same areas which offer good source of solar energy may not have any kind of telecommunication facilities.
2) "Reliable" network connection costs more than MS Office (a year)
Slashdot Mirror
To the bozo poster of this "news": have you been in a coma since late 20th century?
They've been making fake Asus motherboards for 10+ years.
You missed the point.
The issue is that people are paying money to Google (Google Ads) to bring users to their Web site.
Once it becomes easy to put another layer of (competitors') ads on the publisher's Web site, if the publisher can't opt out and if they want to keep competitors' ads from being prominently displayed on their own web site they will have to pay for ads one more time (and this is their own web site). To add insult to injury this time the "optimized" Google ad machine can ask for a significantly higher price than for the same ad placed on the Google Web site.
If there's no opt-out, the feature is bad deal for everyone buying ads from Google.
Yes, they can switch to another ad spammer and make other changes, but that costs money and resources. Goo's constantly changing EULAs and short announcements don't help (again, this is done on purpose so that they can milk out more people for longer time). Hehe, good luck to all the suckers who do business with them.
See no evil.
>How dare an indexing company make it easier for consumers to view multiple sources for related queries to increase the revenue of their longstanding business model.
I would care if I paid the fuckers a fee to bring those customers to my web site.
Sure, the site: option has been around for a while but it's not been very prominent and/or easy to use.
A Google Ads customer now has to pay more more time to keep the competition off the site one more time.
A smart person can tell by now how this is going to work (see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/18/when_google_does_evil/). A comments which quotes an insider:
"We know for a fact - because we know what happened at Overture - that when a quarter runs short, you turn the knob and more money comes in," Herring says. "That happens all the time at Overture, and I'm sure it happens at Google. Why wouldn't it? Like you said, it's a publicly traded company."
Yes, not a Google insider, but theirs being a very closed system do you actually believe that they already don't turn (or tune) the knob?
I'm fine with the feature since I don't advertise with Goo, I don't use Google at all (I use Scroogle.org and other sites) and I don't care what they do, but if I were a Google Ads customer I certainly wouldn't be happy about this and would be looking at other options.
This is great for China. Like with OSS they'll benefit from it without spending a dime or contributing back.
>The idea behind encryption is that even Google shouldn't be able to read your data.
Riight, so this is the reason why you don't use Gmail...
And the whole fucking point is that they be able to read your data and show those stupid ads.
Unless they count on the laziness factor - that 99.9% of people are too lazy or don't care - and allow encryption knowing that most folks won't use it anyway. This might happen as they'd score big PR points at a low cost.
The idea behind Gdrive is that people store their crap non-encrypted so whenever there's I/O to it (voice mail, Web office, searching thru your Google phone address book, etc.), they can create on-the-fly ads for you.
They could also drive off with your mobile data center.
What about physical security of such outfits?
>I've seen a 5-10% performance hit with a Xen LVM'ed RAID-1 backend.
Well, someone else saw yet another different hit with a XYZ xyzVM'ed RAID-1 backend.
The fact that you saw a single-digit hit doesn't mean that everyone will see the same hit.
>Exactly. Fault tolerance. if the physical server tanks, you move the image to another box.
Bzzzz! Wrong.
There's nothing to move here - the OS and/or database remain on the shared storage, the OS can optionally be started on another box.
(Apart from this, Oracle already has built-in RAC clustering which does not depend on 3rd party fail-over solutions for fault tolerance of database applications.)
> Do you want to withhold the sick population from cheaper drugs just because the current patent holder is too dumb to produce it cheaper? I personally do not.
Why would anyone invest in R&D, obtaining the patent and regulatory approvals if they don't intend to actually sell the drug to the sick population?
Can you name some examples of pharmaceutical companies that patented something, got the approval and then did not want to sell the product (or license the patent)?
> Patents take away the need to innovate and thus they are bad.
Personally I think it's the opposite, but anyway - the cheaper manufacturer of yours can innovate right now and make money - they can patent whatever they want and license it royalty-free to any competitor out there. If they did that, how would current patent laws constrain their ability to innovate?
Screw them and their betas.
Someone comes up with something cool, Google copies the idea (Skype, PayPal, Facebook...) and several crappy releases ("betas") later they get it half-right and kill the other guy.
At least MS has ecosystem & partners, these guys are like the aliens from the movie Independence Day. Screw Goo.
Or your Roomba finds your hair, analyzes it on the spot, sends the result to your Google Health or whatever and Google lets you know you should more this or that.
I am using it for search and email, but I'm not going to use any of those creepy services.
That's so sweet.
Now how about telling us something that matters, e.g. a few words about PJ?
>so the implication it is only copies purchased from RH.
Not really - free download of Oracle-(re)branded RHEL: http://edelivery.oracle.com/linux
>For the support contracts. Would Oracle have the right to stop supplying me updates if I were to start providing Oracle support contracts.
You could provide Dave's Linux support contracts, you can't provide Oracle support contracts (the same applies to Oracle, which is why theirs is Unbreakable Linux).
Companies out there already provides CentOS support contracts and Red Hat can't stop them either, as long as they don't use Red Hat's trademarks.
>Are people willing to pay twice for contradictory services? And what if Oracle's and Red Hat's upgrades differ? Will that void Red Hat's service contract?
Which part of Oracle Unbreakable Linux don't you understand?
Download is free, right here; http://edelivery.oracle.com/linux/
>And in relation to RHEL and the GPL what's stopping anyone buying a single copy of Oracle Linux and repackage it and selling it with support contracts. Presumably if Larry doesn't allow this then Oracle is in breach of the license.
Why would anyone buy it from someone who resells it when it's free download?
That Unfakeable page is act of desperation...
Red Hat spreading FUD about another open source product, how noble! And let's not forget how they sent that cease-and-desist letter for CentOS for stating they're based on RHEL...
Let's see what they have to say:
Q: Does Oracle's announcement include support for the Red Hat Application Stack, JBoss, Hibernate, Red Hat GFS, Red Hat Cluster Suite, Red Hat Directory Server, or Red Hat Certificate System?
A: No. Oracle does not support any of these leading open source products.
-
Uhm, that doesn't matter.
The point is this: for any any Unbreakable Linux bug that is submitted to Oracle and can be duplicated on "golden" RHEL 4 system in Oracle's office (for which Oracle has valid support contract), Oracle can submit it to Red Hat Support as Red Hat bug and require quick fix. Then, as RH fixes it, they can fix it in their own Unbreakable Linux.
Q: Oracle says their Linux support includes the same hardware compatibility and certifications as Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Is this true?
A: No. Oracle has stated they will make changes to the code independently of Red Hat. These changes will not be tested during Red Hat's hardware testing and certification process, and may cause unexpected behavior. Hence Red Hat hardware certifications are invalidated.
--
Well, yes. They don't say that Red Hat h/w certs will be considered valid (actually, they don't care, to be exact) - as long as you've got one, they'll support your RH cert on their Unbreakable Linux. The same goes for ISVs. And Oracle isn't that stupid to screw things up so that they don't work.
Q: Oracle says they will provide the same updates as Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Can they do this?
A: There are multiple requirements to building binary compatible software. One piece is the source code; another is the build and test environment. While Oracle may be able to take the source code at some point after a Red Hat update release, obviously their build and test environment will inherently be different than that for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. For similar reasons, there is no guarantee that the source code for the Red Hat Enterprise Linux update will work correctly when integrated into Oracle's modified Linux code base.
--
Hah, this one is hilarious! So this is Red Hat's secret sauce - the unreproducible build environment. Are they trying to say that their build environment is different from what's available to everyone else (which wouldn't be too good for compatibility which they emphasize all the time)?
Q: Does Red Hat allow you to tailor your support level to your workload?
A: Yes. Many customers match their Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscription level to their application SLA requirements. For example, customers may choose a Basic subscription for non-mission critical file and print servers, while selecting Premium subscriptions for database servers. Oracle does not allow this flexibility - their support policy reads: "If acquiring Enterprise Linux Premier Support, all of your Oracle supported systems must be supported with Enterprise Linux Premier Support."
---
Nice try. On the other hand Oracle's Linux is free and updates only are $99/year. Match that, Red Hat! Basic support for RHEL Workstation is $279.
As for Oracle DB servers - yes, you'd probably want to have premium Linux support for those.
BTW, did RH mention that their support agreement requires that support must be purchased for all copies of OS used by the customer?
Self-tuning SLAs can also be achieved by using CentOS (community and basic support), RHEL and UL.
Q: Can Oracle produce timely security updates to Red Hat Enterprise Linux as they stated?
A: No. There will be a delay between the time a Red Hat Enterprise Linux update is issued, and the time the source code makes its way to Oracle. And there is no guarantee that the source code for the Red Hat Enterprise Linux update will work correctly when integrated into Oracle's Linux code base; this integration and test may take add
The fact that Oracle will compete with RH doesn't lower the probability of them fixing any problem with the OS, does it? It's not like they have to ask RH for advice on fixing an error.
They could as well submit any customer's bug for Unbreakable Linux that they can duplicate on their official & supported copy of RHEL to RH for fixing and it RH would have to do it for them.
> It is stable enough for people to use as an every day email client.
There are many clients that are "stable enough" - why use this particular client?
Are such news newsworthy?
- Use Adblock and CustomizeGoogle (removes all Google ads) to block ads on Firefox
- Use the hosts file to block them on MSIE and Opera (a bit ugly but works)
AdBlock: www.mozilla.org > Products > Firefox > Extensions
CustomizeGoogle: http://www.customizegoogle.com/
The hosts file: http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
Nice comment.
/. readers a "favor". /. accounts should be terminated.
I also hate when people post whole articles from 3rd party Web sites to do
Those
Which one? Second? I'm not sure.
x .htm
Anyway, it's a good complementary read:
http://www.pbs.org/opb/einsteinswife/science/inde
This is ridiculuos. Why couldn't Microsoft make and sell security software?
Imagine Symantec suing Clam anti-virus developers because they're making GPL-ed anti-virus software for a GPL-ed OS (say, Clam used as Samba A-V scanner).
Fuck off, Sym.
From TFA:
>A number of countries represented in Geneva, including Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up control, but it refused.
There you go! A bunch of dictatorships and the bureaucratic EU!
WTF?
I really hope the US won't be stupid and agree to any of their demands.
The last thing you in the U.S. need is giving the control to these deadbeats and still having to pay for their screwing around (just look at the UN).
First, as a citizen of a country that isn't involved in this dispute, I'd never agree to use a root DNS server hosted in a non-democratic country.
Second, I haven't been inconvenienced by the US' control of the Internet.
Third, look at their track record - the EU is a terrible place for managing anything, and the rest of the bunch have scummy and/or non-democratic governments. Screw all of them.
>Get a reliable network connection, just as you would do for your other utilities.
1) Solar panels are a reliable source of electricity. Same areas which offer good source of solar energy may not have any kind of telecommunication facilities.
2) "Reliable" network connection costs more than MS Office (a year)