First, it's NOT on the Top 500 list, goddammit! Will you ever stop repeating that lie?
Second, it is under testing (not even in production).
(Third - not as relevant but still - why is a driver release still news? Topspin et al have been offering infinband drivers for Linux for a while; who wants
I don't understand - what difference does it makes if you know "right away" or 89 minutes later? She's already called 911, for Christ.
And if you're so extremely concerned that a disaster could happen during those 90 minutes, just don't go to the theater. Or leave the place of viewing twice during a 90 minute movie (say, about 30 and about 60 min into the movie) to check your voice mail. Or go to the theater with the babysitter and leave your wife at home to take care of the kids (now that's thinking!).
My point is, "emergency" is a lame excuse and lamers always find a reason. There are so many ways to avoid using a phone in the theatre.
From my perspective, I don't care who needs to get or make a call and why - I think the price of the ticket I pay should warrant proper viewing and listening environment. People who cannot avoid disturbing other people should avoid going to theaters or shouldn't be allowed into theaters (or their cell phones should be jammed).
If there's no better alternative to alerting config files after 20 years and gazillion of dollars invested in software development, isn't it time to pause and contemplate what went wrong?
How about this - I don't want to know about any *.conf at all - I just want to get on the Internet, securely.
I think that's how it should be - self-maintaining and self-tuning systems. Alas, we're still in the 80's, but this time with a cuter GUI.
This is what pisses me off about the way the current computing works - it's been, what, 20 years that computing has been commoditized and we are still fscking around with things like these.
And of course it's not only this (actually I'm very interested in this because I'm currently using announcement-type postings and a PHP-based forum software instead of dedicated FAQ pages). What has been annoying me since 1992 is that back then I used to screw around with Windows 3.1 config files (remember WinSock/dial-up?) and today's software is not much different - yeah, we have Apt and Yum, but even so I still have to "vi/etc/somefile.conf" at least once a day.
So I ask: what is going on? And I answer: something is very wrong! Will we ever move to the next level? Will we ever have self-documenting software?
And look at these geniuses - http://www.phpmyfaq.de/ - they have no link to their own FAQ on their front page..:-)
>Just as a proof of concept on a cluster older machines are an inexpensive option
It sounds like you've got too much time on your hands and are looking for ways to kill it.
a) There's nothing to prove - MPI/PVM just works. If the software supports it, then it will work.
b) If you want to practice installation - Ma, I know how to install a Beowulf cluster! - (waste of time, since there's no skill* in that any more), just do it on your desktop using free trial version of VMWare GSX and Fedora ISOs or whatever. You don't even have to burn CDs.
c) If you really need a cluster to compute something, you'll buy the fastest machines you can afford, why would you buy Via to save money and then compute at a speed lower than single CPU Opteron system? Unless you want to call yourself clustering expert, that is.
* Nowadays one can get a complete MPI-ready software kit that includes automatic installation/deployment for couple hundred dollars. That's for those who want to focus on creative work and computing instead of screwing around and reading how-to docs.
Sometimes I wonder about this kind of people... Successful authors of commercial software are more likely to be able to afford (re)investing some money for projects like this. If MS was open source, Allen probably wouldn't get so rich and be less able to invest in myriad of cutting-edge stuff like this. Which makes me think of Google which obviously negates this idea... But then I think of ambigous part of GPL which allows people like Google to run ASP-style apps on modified GPL software which they are not obliged to open-source (for example, Google's modifications to Linux packages including kernel, etc.) So maybe they're not an exception, after all... They'd be poorer if they had to open-source improvements to Linux scalability they performed.
I wonder if someone has done a **wholistic** comparison of free vs commercial software and their impact on the economy (I'm interested in unbiased analysis, of course). For example, in short term, commercial software makes the government be able collect more sales tax, but then end users are able to afford less if average cost is higher than for OSS software/services. Long term, end users can be more efficient if they pay less money for the equivalent features (_if_ we assume the features and the TCO are the same), but commercial software vendors can reinvest more in R&D and supposedly create software that justifies the (higher) price...
> Bundling RedHat or SuSE would cost precisely zero dollars.
NO!
My guess is that bundling commercial distros costs about 30% of the retail price.
> I can't imagine Microsoft making any version of windows which cost that.
At this moment I can't either, because that'd mean they're stupid (as obviously they can charge the current prices which are higher). On the other hand, Microsoft develops (or buys) code for their OS, SuSE and Red Hat don't, so I think pricing for both commercial Linux and Windows is about reasonable.
>>Isn't it? Well, I should say isn't it when you know 99% of all customers will install a pirated copy of Windows?
>Whoa. That is a huge assumption. What about people who already own a copy, and just want a new computer? Should they be forced to purchase yet another OS? The key word here is "forced".
If you call this "forced", then yes, they are. I doubt, though, that this is logical by the token that they "already have one". If you already have a mobile phone number, if you want another one it doesn't matter that you already have one - you have to buy another one, although it's just a 30 second job for the phone company. You might get a symbolic discount, though (but then again, nobody registers their copy of Windows so Microsoft can't do that with end users). Windows is licensed that way, so I don't call this forced. To me, customers would be "forced" if they wanted to buy a computer and it'd be impossible to buy one without Windows bundled with it. I think their licensing is logical - Windows is OS - serves the purpose of interfacing the user to the underlying hardware; they wrote it, they license it in proportion to number of computers you use it on (for large accounts there's this new licensing which is quite flexible). I also think licensing for commercial Linux support (as the software itself is largely GPL) is reasonable.
>Why is it any of the reseller's business what the consumer does?
I said morally it could be wrong, but legally it's not unless they directly or indirect assisted end users in installing pirated software.
>The resellers should be given the FAIR option of bundling Windows or not.
The article says talks about Linux bundling, so I assume they have a fair option of bundling any OS. Especially resellers who can resell boxes from any OEM so they can resell systems from Windows-only OEMs alongside systems from other OEMs (such as Apple). Or you can resell Linux and Windows on same hardware, depending on customer choice (Dell, IBM, HP, etc.).
>Microsoft says that you have to have a fully licensed copy of Windows for every computer you own. To me, and many others, that is stupid.
Well, it's not stupid just because someone doesn't like it. Another way to go about it - you don't like it, you don't use it. People don't like many things, but that doesn't entitle them to violate others' rights.
Look at SuSE and Red Hat licensing - you have to pay a yearly subscription for **each** box that gets automatic updates from their servers and they just package free software. For Windows XP, you pay about US$70 for an OEM license and so far OS updates have been free; if you break down that amount over four years, that's US$17.5/year. Compare that with cost of subscription of a commercial Linux distribution (desktop edition). Hell, you can't even use it for four years because distributions don't maintain the desktop edition for over 24 months. Many people complain that commercial enterprise Linux is expensive; the same kind of people complain about Windows. What do you tell them? Do you call Red Hat Enterprise Linux licensing stupid or you point to them they can use Debian, or they can download RPMs from one server and install on other servers (the packages that allow that)?
> Do you remember the story where Microsoft's license agreement with schools charged them a license fee for every computer - regardless of if it had Windows on it or not. That is stupid.
Yes, that example is, but the article we discuss talks about OEM licensing. I am not defending all (or any) stupid decisions of theirs, I'm saying that there's enough choice - BSD, Linux, OS X, etc - those who don't like it can use something else and as far as value for money goes, I think OEM-bundled Windows XP is not bad.
I deliberately used commercial Linux distros in examples above. I am, of course, aware of Gentoo, Debian, etc. but average home user can't be expected to operate those.
What's the big deal? Imagine - they're trying to make money. They busted Oracle in California two years ago, others haven't been busted big time yet. What the hell does the author expect - to see IBM's sales reps running around explaining customers how to buy white boxes, install Debian Linux and save the government a pretty penny?
Isn't it? Well, I should say isn't it when you know 99% of all customers will install a pirated copy of Windows? In a way that is similar to selling guns without checking buyers' background. Sorry, I didn't know! Of course, resellers and h/w makers are not supposed to engage in anti-piracy activities on behalf of Microsoft, it's just that they're knowingly aiding end users who have no attention of buying licensed software. That is a bit sneaky.
>Shouldn't resellers be able to do whatever they want? Isn't the opposite - forcing resellers to install Windows - a much worse scenario?
Yes, they should be allowed to do whatever they want, but in a way they're condoning piracy so it's not exactly a noble thing to do - if you see someone being mugged, turn your head away.
Why is installing Windows a much worse scenario? Especially with the new low-cost Windows, I think it's well worth the money - it works with all/most h/w out there, it's self-maintaining, requires virtually no skills, it's well documented and lets h/w makers concentrate on manufacturing, marketing or whatever makes most profit. Note that I'm not saying Windows is better or that they shouldn't bundle Linux too. My point is simply that there's nothing wrong with bundling Windows - as you say, they should be able to do whatever they want (as long as it's legal).
>Linux simply points out the ridiculous nature of Microsoft's licensing model.
I don't understand.
Bundling SuSe or Red Hat Linux probably costs the same as this el-cheapo Windows. Yeah, you don't pay for the software, you can make copies, etc., but the truth is most people don't give a damn. They just want to get to Yahoo, read email and browse pr0n, all one needs is to download OpenOffice and Firefox for Windows and there he goes! Microsoft may as well next year make that licensing fee become "subscription fee" and then what? Will you still call the model ridiculous?
I have heard it first hand from resellers and h/w makers in Asia Pacific - "we bundle Linux just so that MS leaves us alone and it's up to the end users to get their copy of Windows".
In some places shipping systems (assembled computers) without OS is either disallowed or frowned upon by MS and/or anti-piracy watchdogs, so bundling Linux is a nice excuse to avoid pre-installing Windows....
>That's why Google has the option to leave the links but mark them (for the sake of convenience) or just leave them as dead and inconvenient. But they didn't take that option.
Someone mentioned an option of displaying a note saying "Because of the PRC government's censorship, you may not be able to actually reach some sites". Or even more extensive/frequent caching of "sensitive" sites so that users can easily get them from Google cache.
>the VT cluster has been upgraded to the new and yet unreleased duel 2.3 GHz Xserves with ECC memory. last month was their first live month and they were testing it out by running stuff for the military.
"upgraded", "live", "testing it" - which one is it? What the fuck does that mean - is it ready or not? It's live but it's still under testing? How can it be? It's the tests first, then going live. And if they're done with it, why don't they publish another (higher, if the upgrade worked) benchmark? If they haven't finished upgrading it or if it's running slower than the benchmark they published last year, the last result means nothing. Not to mention that MPI-style clusters can be upgraded rack-by-rack or even node-by-node - if they're ripping it all apart, they haven't set it up properly in the first place!
The same is with this IBM's announcement - the god damned thing is in a fucking lab - it will be a year or so before it's actually implemented. By the time when they actually go online, there well may be some faster cluster online. Just another piece of PR bullshit.
>Guatamala has the worst literacy rate, shortest life expectancy, lowest GNP. And the biggest army. >Costa Rica has best literacy rate, longest life span and best GNP per capita. Costa Rica has NO ARMY.
Yeah, the U.S. has a huge army, high literacy rate, long life span and high per-capita GNP.
That's not the point - Google violates principles that they explicitly claim to cherish. "Honesty Our communications with our users should be appropriately clear and truthful. Our reputation as a company our users can trust is among our most valuable assets, and it is up to all of us to make sure that we nourish that reputation." http://www.google.ca/corp_gov/conduc t.html#1
As far as I know, Yahoo, for example, never said anything about not being evil, so whatever they did in respect to Chinese censorship, would be more or less okay. Google, on the other hand, they're just full of shit.
I have two boxes at home, and the Linux box I suspect is not exactly a power-saver. The Windows box is better, but one can definitively tell the difference on the electricity bill (between now and before I had these boxen).
When you think of it, everyone hates to wait, but just a little bit of patience and you don't need a killer CPU. Plus you waste less energy.
If I was only sure VIA chipset-based boards were reliable and stable, I'd seriously consider buying one of those little fanless, power-saving things they make.
> Technically, if their motto is based on respecting the principles expressed in the page you pointed at, then "not doing evil" involves "VII. Obeying the Law".
So two years ago in Iraq, it would have been OK for Google to block pro-democracy sites, filter out UN resolutions on Iraq and give Saddam's thugs snooping rights to Gmail accounts of Iraqi dissidents. Splendid!
Why don't they instead just say fuckit, we went public and now we have to do what we have to do and remove that motto from their Website so that we don't have to discuss that here. That motto is pointless now.
(I'm not saying the war was just or anything about that, so don't trash me for pro- or anti- stance 'cause there is none)
Slashdot Mirror
First, it's NOT on the Top 500 list, goddammit!
Will you ever stop repeating that lie?
Second, it is under testing (not even in production).
(Third - not as relevant but still - why is a driver release still news? Topspin et al have been offering infinband drivers for Linux for a while; who wants
Who are you kidding - GbE vs. Infiniband?
Performance differs by an **order of magnitude**
10GbE vs. Infiniband - maybe, but even so - Infiniband is cheaper and has lower latency.
I don't understand - what difference does it makes if you know "right away" or 89 minutes later?
She's already called 911, for Christ.
And if you're so extremely concerned that a disaster could happen during those 90 minutes, just don't go to the theater.
Or leave the place of viewing twice during a 90 minute movie (say, about 30 and about 60 min into the movie) to check your voice mail.
Or go to the theater with the babysitter and leave your wife at home to take care of the kids (now that's thinking!).
My point is, "emergency" is a lame excuse and lamers always find a reason. There are so many ways to avoid using a phone in the theatre.
From my perspective, I don't care who needs to get or make a call and why - I think the price of the ticket I pay should warrant proper viewing and listening environment.
People who cannot avoid disturbing other people should avoid going to theaters or shouldn't be allowed into theaters (or their cell phones should be jammed).
Oh, so Acrobat Reader too has been in violation of your rights for a while!
Why don't you and the "security risk" crowd block the site so that it does not violate your rights and continue posing "security risk"?
> Can you think of a better alternative?
If there's no better alternative to alerting config files after 20 years and gazillion of dollars invested in software development, isn't it time to pause and contemplate what went wrong?
How about this - I don't want to know about any *.conf at all - I just want to get on the Internet, securely.
I think that's how it should be - self-maintaining and self-tuning systems. Alas, we're still in the 80's, but this time with a cuter GUI.
This is what pisses me off about the way the current computing works - it's been, what, 20 years that computing has been commoditized and we are still fscking around with things like these.
/etc/somefile.conf" at least once a day.
:-)
And of course it's not only this (actually I'm very interested in this because I'm currently using announcement-type postings and a PHP-based forum software instead of dedicated FAQ pages).
What has been annoying me since 1992 is that back then I used to screw around with Windows 3.1 config files (remember WinSock/dial-up?) and today's software is not much different - yeah, we have Apt and Yum, but even so I still have to "vi
So I ask: what is going on? And I answer: something is very wrong!
Will we ever move to the next level?
Will we ever have self-documenting software?
And look at these geniuses - http://www.phpmyfaq.de/ - they have no link to their own FAQ on their front page..
>Just as a proof of concept on a cluster older machines are an inexpensive option
It sounds like you've got too much time on your hands and are looking for ways to kill it.
a) There's nothing to prove - MPI/PVM just works.
If the software supports it, then it will work.
b) If you want to practice installation - Ma, I know how to install a Beowulf cluster! - (waste of time, since there's no skill* in that any more), just do it on your desktop using free trial version of VMWare GSX and Fedora ISOs or whatever. You don't even have to burn CDs.
c) If you really need a cluster to compute something, you'll buy the fastest machines you can afford, why would you buy Via to save money and then compute at a speed lower than single CPU Opteron system? Unless you want to call yourself clustering expert, that is.
* Nowadays one can get a complete MPI-ready software kit that includes automatic installation/deployment for couple hundred dollars. That's for those who want to focus on creative work and computing instead of screwing around and reading how-to docs.
> Can they really think that giving out features and then charging for them later will really work? It's simply absurb.
Can you really think that giving something for nothing would really work (for Google)? It's absurd.
> Cray HPC-enhanced Linux, Kernel version 2.4.21
I wonder what that means - Red Hat EL 3.0 with enhancements, or their own thing..
Interconnect - I wonder how their proprietary interconnect compares to IB..
File system - ext3? No cluster file system?
Sometimes I wonder about this kind of people... Successful authors of commercial software are more likely to be able to afford (re)investing some money for projects like this.
If MS was open source, Allen probably wouldn't get so rich and be less able to invest in myriad of cutting-edge stuff like this. Which makes me think of Google which obviously negates this idea...
But then I think of ambigous part of GPL which allows people like Google to run ASP-style apps on modified GPL software which they are not obliged to open-source (for example, Google's modifications to Linux packages including kernel, etc.) So maybe they're not an exception, after all... They'd be poorer if they had to open-source improvements to Linux scalability they performed.
I wonder if someone has done a **wholistic** comparison of free vs commercial software and their impact on the economy (I'm interested in unbiased analysis, of course).
For example, in short term, commercial software makes the government be able collect more sales tax, but then end users are able to afford less if average cost is higher than for OSS software/services.
Long term, end users can be more efficient if they pay less money for the equivalent features (_if_ we assume the features and the TCO are the same), but commercial software vendors can reinvest more in R&D and supposedly create software that justifies the (higher) price...
>The main reason why I used altavista for so long was actually because I didn't manage to spell google right.
;-)
Have you heard of bookmarks or autocomplete?
By the way, I never used Altavista because it reminded me too much of Asta La Vista, I had difficulties remembering which one was the right one.
>I think clusty.com is better, but now makes me think of unclean prostitutes.
And Google makes me think of clean prostitutes!
> Bundling RedHat or SuSE would cost precisely zero dollars.
NO!
My guess is that bundling commercial distros costs about 30% of the retail price.
> I can't imagine Microsoft making any version of windows which cost that.
At this moment I can't either, because that'd mean they're stupid (as obviously they can charge the current prices which are higher).
On the other hand, Microsoft develops (or buys) code for their OS, SuSE and Red Hat don't, so I think pricing for both commercial Linux and Windows is about reasonable.
>>Isn't it? Well, I should say isn't it when you know 99% of all customers will install a pirated copy of Windows?
>Whoa. That is a huge assumption. What about people who already own a copy, and just want a new computer? Should they be forced to purchase yet another OS? The key word here is "forced".
If you call this "forced", then yes, they are.
I doubt, though, that this is logical by the token that they "already have one". If you already have a mobile phone number, if you want another one it doesn't matter that you already have one - you have to buy another one, although it's just a 30 second job for the phone company.
You might get a symbolic discount, though (but then again, nobody registers their copy of Windows so Microsoft can't do that with end users).
Windows is licensed that way, so I don't call this forced. To me, customers would be "forced" if they wanted to buy a computer and it'd be impossible to buy one without Windows bundled with it.
I think their licensing is logical - Windows is OS - serves the purpose of interfacing the user to the underlying hardware; they wrote it, they license it in proportion to number of computers you use it on (for large accounts there's this new licensing which is quite flexible).
I also think licensing for commercial Linux support (as the software itself is largely GPL) is reasonable.
>Why is it any of the reseller's business what the consumer does?
I said morally it could be wrong, but legally it's not unless they directly or indirect assisted end users in installing pirated software.
>The resellers should be given the FAIR option of bundling Windows or not.
The article says talks about Linux bundling, so I assume they have a fair option of bundling any OS.
Especially resellers who can resell boxes from any OEM so they can resell systems from Windows-only OEMs alongside systems from other OEMs (such as Apple).
Or you can resell Linux and Windows on same hardware, depending on customer choice (Dell, IBM, HP, etc.).
>Microsoft says that you have to have a fully licensed copy of Windows for every computer you own. To me, and many others, that is stupid.
Well, it's not stupid just because someone doesn't like it. Another way to go about it - you don't like it, you don't use it. People don't like many things, but that doesn't entitle them to violate others' rights.
Look at SuSE and Red Hat licensing - you have to pay a yearly subscription for **each** box that gets automatic updates from their servers and they just package free software.
For Windows XP, you pay about US$70 for an OEM license and so far OS updates have been free; if you break down that amount over four years, that's US$17.5/year. Compare that with cost of subscription of a commercial Linux distribution (desktop edition). Hell, you can't even use it for four years because distributions don't maintain the desktop edition for over 24 months.
Many people complain that commercial enterprise Linux is expensive; the same kind of people complain about Windows.
What do you tell them? Do you call Red Hat Enterprise Linux licensing stupid or you point to them they can use Debian, or they can download RPMs from one server and install on other servers (the packages that allow that)?
> Do you remember the story where Microsoft's license agreement with schools charged them a license fee for every computer - regardless of if it had Windows on it or not. That is stupid.
Yes, that example is, but the article we discuss talks about OEM licensing. I am not defending all (or any) stupid decisions of theirs, I'm saying that there's enough choice - BSD, Linux, OS X, etc - those who don't like it can use something else and as far as value for money goes, I think OEM-bundled Windows XP is not bad.
I deliberately used commercial Linux distros in examples above. I am, of course, aware of Gentoo, Debian, etc. but average home user can't be expected to operate those.
>The cover has Gates in a gorilla suit.
Tells a lot about their objective approach!
What's the big deal? Imagine - they're trying to make money.
They busted Oracle in California two years ago, others haven't been busted big time yet.
What the hell does the author expect - to see IBM's sales reps running around explaining customers how to buy white boxes, install Debian Linux and save the government a pretty penny?
Fucking nonsense.
>You make it sound like this is something sneaky.
Isn't it? Well, I should say isn't it when you know 99% of all customers will install a pirated copy of Windows?
In a way that is similar to selling guns without checking buyers' background. Sorry, I didn't know!
Of course, resellers and h/w makers are not supposed to engage in anti-piracy activities on behalf of Microsoft, it's just that they're knowingly aiding end users who have no attention of buying licensed software.
That is a bit sneaky.
>Shouldn't resellers be able to do whatever they want? Isn't the opposite - forcing resellers to install Windows - a much worse scenario?
Yes, they should be allowed to do whatever they want, but in a way they're condoning piracy so it's not exactly a noble thing to do - if you see someone being mugged, turn your head away.
Why is installing Windows a much worse scenario?
Especially with the new low-cost Windows, I think it's well worth the money - it works with all/most h/w out there, it's self-maintaining, requires virtually no skills, it's well documented and lets h/w makers concentrate on manufacturing, marketing or whatever makes most profit.
Note that I'm not saying Windows is better or that they shouldn't bundle Linux too. My point is simply that there's nothing wrong with bundling Windows - as you say, they should be able to do whatever they want (as long as it's legal).
>Linux simply points out the ridiculous nature of Microsoft's licensing model.
I don't understand.
Bundling SuSe or Red Hat Linux probably costs the same as this el-cheapo Windows. Yeah, you don't pay for the software, you can make copies, etc., but the truth is most people don't give a damn. They just want to get to Yahoo, read email and browse pr0n, all one needs is to download OpenOffice and Firefox for Windows and there he goes!
Microsoft may as well next year make that licensing fee become "subscription fee" and then what? Will you still call the model ridiculous?
Big deal - that's been known since 2000.
I have heard it first hand from resellers and h/w makers in Asia Pacific - "we bundle Linux just so that MS leaves us alone and it's up to the end users to get their copy of Windows".
In some places shipping systems (assembled computers) without OS is either disallowed or frowned upon by MS and/or anti-piracy watchdogs, so bundling Linux is a nice excuse to avoid pre-installing Windows....
Thanks.
Here's another one:
http://www.tcf.vt.edu/
From the page:
=============
System X Upgrade:
*
Assembly - Completed!
*
System Stablization - In Progress
*
Benchmarking - In Progress
>That's why Google has the option to leave the links but mark them (for the sake of convenience) or just leave them as dead and inconvenient. But they didn't take that option.
Someone mentioned an option of displaying a note saying "Because of the PRC government's censorship, you may not be able to actually reach some sites". Or even more extensive/frequent caching of "sensitive" sites so that users can easily get them from Google cache.
>the VT cluster has been upgraded to the new and yet unreleased duel 2.3 GHz Xserves with ECC memory. last month was their first live month and they were testing it out by running stuff for the military.
"upgraded", "live", "testing it" - which one is it? What the fuck does that mean - is it ready or not? It's live but it's still under testing? How can it be? It's the tests first, then going live.
And if they're done with it, why don't they publish another (higher, if the upgrade worked) benchmark?
If they haven't finished upgrading it or if it's running slower than the benchmark they published last year, the last result means nothing.
Not to mention that MPI-style clusters can be upgraded rack-by-rack or even node-by-node - if they're ripping it all apart, they haven't set it up properly in the first place!
The same is with this IBM's announcement - the god damned thing is in a fucking lab - it will be a year or so before it's actually implemented. By the time when they actually go online, there well may be some faster cluster online.
Just another piece of PR bullshit.
>Guatamala has the worst literacy rate, shortest life expectancy, lowest GNP. And the biggest army.
>Costa Rica has best literacy rate, longest life span and best GNP per capita. Costa Rica has NO ARMY.
Yeah, the U.S. has a huge army, high literacy rate, long life span and high per-capita GNP.
So?
That's not the point - Google violates principles that they explicitly claim to cherish.c t.html#1
"Honesty
Our communications with our users should be appropriately clear and truthful. Our reputation as a company our users can trust is among our most valuable assets, and it is up to all of us to make sure that we nourish that reputation."
http://www.google.ca/corp_gov/condu
As far as I know, Yahoo, for example, never said anything about not being evil, so whatever they did in respect to Chinese censorship, would be more or less okay.
Google, on the other hand, they're just full of shit.
I was thinking about that the other day too.
I have two boxes at home, and the Linux box I suspect is not exactly a power-saver. The Windows box is better, but one can definitively tell the difference on the electricity bill (between now and before I had these boxen).
When you think of it, everyone hates to wait, but just a little bit of patience and you don't need a killer CPU. Plus you waste less energy.
If I was only sure VIA chipset-based boards were reliable and stable, I'd seriously consider buying one of those little fanless, power-saving things they make.
Yeah, you do that.
Most sysadmins have other things to do that work on promoting a protocol for no special reason.
> Technically, if their motto is based on respecting the principles expressed in the page you pointed at, then "not doing evil" involves "VII. Obeying the Law".
So two years ago in Iraq, it would have been OK for Google to block pro-democracy sites, filter out UN resolutions on Iraq and give Saddam's thugs snooping rights to Gmail accounts of Iraqi dissidents. Splendid!
Why don't they instead just say fuckit, we went public and now we have to do what we have to do and remove that motto from their Website so that we don't have to discuss that here.
That motto is pointless now.
(I'm not saying the war was just or anything about that, so don't trash me for pro- or anti- stance 'cause there is none)