You recently stated that Linux is not the right choice for a desktop OS right now. Not disagreeing with you, many people like myself choose Linux, specifically Red Hat offerings, by choice. I believe, personally, that Windows cannot be the answer for every question considered that Apple has intuitively created a UNIX based OS that is just as user-friendly. What, in your opinion, would it take to get Linux distributions as comfortable and easy to use compared with Microsoft solutions?
I don't know if Mr. Szulik would be able to sufficiently answer this question because of the sheer diversity of the business that Red Hat is in, but this is what he told us (employees and former employees of Red Hat). We [Red Hat employees] must eat [use] our own cookie [product - Red Hat Linux].
Most Red Hat employees choose to use Red Hat Linux as their primary solution because we wanted to promote our own product. While most of the Red Hat core development team can sufficiently do everything they could possibly want using Red Hat Linux and the vast amount of open source applications out there, the services side of Red Hat is a bit different. Keep in mind that services oriented employees always tried to show that Red Hat Linux can be a pluggable solution for any business where Windows is "required."
Despite popular belief and public misconception, Red Hat's sole purpose on the planet is no Linux. It's a company that wishes to become and remain profitable, and does so by attempting to keep its offerings diverse and flexible. They have all kinds of products and services that they offer to any potential customer, although the two biggest name products have been Red Hat Linux for the end-user (desktop product) and the enterprise (RHN).
Providing services to customers who may not use Red Hat Linux requires Red Hat engineers to be skilled on different platforms with different operating systems, to utilize tools and applications on different platforms with different operating systems.
So to run the whole business, products and services, Red Hat Linux isn't the only thing out there. Yes, you're going to find Windows licenses floating around at Red Hat, just like you'd find Apple licenses floating around at Microsoft.
Considering when Red Hat announced that they would be moving away from the Red Hat Linux boxed product to focus on WS and ES solutions for commerical businesses, Red Hat also announced the creation of the Fedora Core project for those users still interested in the spirit of the old Red Hat Linux boxed product.
Are you sick and tired of people forgetting that in the Fedora Project still exists the Red Hat Linux spirit and core - and continue to ask what they are supposed to use since Red Hat Linux no longer exists?
Hell, I bet you're even wondering where all these people who said they've been purchasing the Red Hat Linux box products are getting their copies of Red Hat Linux! If there were really so many, I'd imagine Red Hat would have concentrated solely on their end-user boxed product.
Because people are easy to be critical of Red Hat - no matter what decision they make. For one, Red Hat gives the community what it wants - a distribution based on the core of Red Hat, with the flexibility of adding third party applications in native RPM package format. More and more applications are being added to the Fedora development tree to give Red Hat users access to the vast potential package repositories out there.
I've noticed quite a few questions that have been answered and re-answered again and again on the Fedora mailing lists and the Fedora Project website. Please read the Fedora FAQ before asking Szulik a question thats been answered a thousand times already by people who actually know what the hell is going on with Fedora.
Let's play the math game with some arbitrary numbers.
N = number of jobs in 2003 X = number of jobs in 2050 X/2 = number of jobs (human) in 2050
If X = ( N * 2 ) then there is virtually no change in human employment. If X = ( N * J ) where J is greater than 2, then the number of jobs available to living, breathing humans will increase nominally.
"Jobs" is also an ambiguous term. For a software developer that makes $50K a year, McDonald's does not quantify as a job. So let's establish that a "job" is a fixed salary of $15K a year. A software developer consumes roughly 2.5 jobs a year at our established definition.
Here's a fact - there are more jobs (where job = $15K a year) available today than there was 50 years ago. This is because humanity is advancing, albeit in "concentrated" areas in the civilized world.
But with it comes revenue that is constantly being generated, consumed, and recycled. Were third world countries home to manufacturing facilities as they are now? No. It is a growing trend. Introduce a engine manufacturing facility in a "third world" country. The workers make $1K-$4K per year - sounds bad, but in their economy where the average family income is about $250, they are considered rich.
These "rich" people utilize the weak economy in their own country to bolster development, personal wealth, and benefit their community as a whole. Their country garners money from the new taxes generated and also the deal cut with the engine manufacturer. These third world countries slowly add to the job supply.
The rest of the industrialized world will work on replacing the $15K average salary for a job with jobs that pay more money, increasing the quality of the work performed. Research and development for emerging technologies will require more minds, more assistance, and more money - driving a company to not only hire and train the best, but to invest in new technologies to drive in more revenue to continue advancing their capabilities.
So what if we have a robot that will replace the cashier at McDonalds? Perhaps that individual will have instead been offered an internship with reasonable pay to study on actuators or hydraulic pumps or other technologies present in those robots.
I don't know if I believe the whole 50% of all jobs will be held by "robots" - I believe that a large amount of mundane (redundant, simple tasks) will indeed be handled by a computer (or another equivalent automated device). We have perfect examples today of such a feat (online shopping, ATMs, telco relay switchboard, etc...). I do believe, however, that with each advancement in the area of science and engineering will give birth to even better jobs as humans explore the different facets of a discovery.
I live near Huntsville, Alabama - where our wonderful Pathfinder mock-shuttle sits by I-565. You can view the shuttle from a very close distance by visiting the Space and Rocket Center. The external fuel tank is covered with the same foam that was in service for the Columbia.
Many visitors to the center will stand underneath the tank (toward the rear of the assembly) and throw coins into the foam (sort of like a wishing well). You can see the foam and the thousands of dents from coins with the naked eye, including quite a few coins that have managed to stick.
Many people wonder why the foam replaced the bright white paint of the fuel tanks of the extremely early flights (STS-01 and STS-02). All that paint weighs in at about 240 kilograms. While it doesn't seem much, it costs an extraordinary amount to get enough thrust to lift one pound of material into space, let alone about 110 pounds.
The aforementioned link is a good paper (from NASA) that explains the "lessons learned" approach to space flight.
The Challenger (as well as Columbia, and the newer vehicle that was being built - Discovery) had a flaw in the design of its O-ring that NASA itself knew could cause problems in flight. The design itself worked (proven by earlier flights of the shuttles). However, the design was not resilient to, as you said, external problems that were not properly thought up before-hand, such as massive fluctuations in temperatures (which led to the failure of the seal on the booster rocket).
A university student did an excellent case study on the Challenger incident, including the O-ring design "flaw," and what NASA did to improve upon the design.
If it were in NASA's tome of simulated problems, there would have been a way to make sure a rescue would have been possible. Even if we had to park the shuttle in orbit (or on the international space station) until a rescue could have been performed. It tires me to listen to the people that say "well, they would have run out of oxygen if they were not able to return immediately."
Fact: humans will never be able to calculate for every single variable in a system. It's just impossible. I completely agree with you. We will continue to develop better designs that will hopefully prevent further destruction and loss of life.
Your personal information would be handed to law enforcement in the event an alleged "crime" has been committed. If you sell items on eBay and don't screw over a bunch of people, then you're more than likely going to have your private information nested in the depths of their Oracle database.
If you sell your items, take the money, and refuse to ship - you've committed a crime! I would certainly hope that your ass would eventually be found in a cold jail cell thinking that an anonomous entity such as your "eBay account name" was sufficient protection for a livid buyer find out who you are.
Your personal information on eBay is not as private as one would believe. Upon creating your account you agree to eBay's Privacy Policy which is laid out in black and white. It states as follows: "In order to facilitate interaction among all eBay community members, our Site allows you limited access other users' contact and shipping information. As a seller you have access to the User ID, email address and other contact and shipping information of the buyer or winning bidder(s), and as a buyer or winning bidder you have access to the User ID, email address and other contact information of the seller." As a regular "eBayer", I have no problems with their policy as the idea behind my information being handed out to other eBayers (again, if they are the seller/winning bidder) is completely rational. eBay allows me to opt in or out of advertisements that may be targeted for me, but does not hand out my personal information with my name attached to it to people that are interested in it for the sake of it.
Theoretically: you sold me one of your pieces of junk through eBay for $150. I send payment with a money order. You send me absolutely nothing. I am going to be pissed and immediately request your personal information from eBay (since we've had a direct transaction).
If you didn't ship me the item, you're at fault for theft of my money. If you lied to eBay and did not provide a correct address and contact information, you are a fraud for selling on eBay, and your account would be shut down for violating the terms that you would have had to agree with to use the service.
Point? If you're an honest seller dealing with honest bidders (or vice versa), then your information is as safe as any other service on eBay, except that people that you do business with would get your personally identifiable information. If you're a crook, eBay's letting you know that it will make it as easy as possible for law enforcement to deliver their own goods right to your doorstep.
The release that is contained in Rawhide (check rpmfind.net) is based off a pre-release. A new RPM should be available quite soon with the final version (doesn't take very long for the mirrors to catch up).
What makes you think exempt organizations do not have my phone number already? The moment you sign up for your phone service, open a bank account, or anything that requires a phone number for contact - your phone number has been given out.
It's like... well... the Klez virus:) once your phone hits a list, it gets incorporated into the hive list. It's replicates and replicates until just about anyone who wants your phone number can have it.
I get plenty of phone calls from telemarketers and charity organizations. I cannot assume that the number of calls from charity organizations (not-for-profit) is going to go up drastically considering the already astounding number of calls I get right now.
I will however, enjoy cutting out the calls from companies trying to help me get out of debt, put vinyl siding on my brick house, or the other annoyances that the list will theoretically help to reduce.
Where in the world you decided I was chiding Microsoft's policy I have absolutely no clue. I was merely stating that there are two development strategies being compared. One company controls all of the code. One company is having to support code it has little control over. One company is supporting an operating system. One company is supporting an operating system and a whole host of applications.
It's also a valid point to bring in Red Hat's EOL cycle comparison with Microsoft's.
MICROSOFT HAS TO SUPPORT THE OPERATING SYSTEM.
RED HAT HAS TO SUPPORT THE DISTRIBUTION.
distribution != operating system
The point (again): if Microsoft had to support all of their products in a distribution, I would guess that their EOLC would be much shorter because the distribution changes more often as each major component of that particular distribution is upgraded.
Good grief - I was opting for one or the other. Merely stating that the classic "Windows OS == Linux distribution" argument is bullshit. If Windows works for you (and the vast majority of others) - then so be it. No harm, no foul.
Just as Windows != Red Hat Linux, Windows Update != Red Hat Network.
Most people believe that the Red Hat Network simply is the "up2date" portion of the distribution. There are well-designed host based and online utilities to allow you to manage a network of machines built upon Red Hat Linux for ease of updating, installation, and configuring without having to leave your desk. You can read about the Red Hat Network, and how it can be extremely beneficial to systems administrators and companies at a whole for a relatively modest fee.
Windows Update covers the operating system and does not cover Microsoft's other products (such as productivity, development, office, etc. applications). Each product has its own method of updating (whether automated or manual). The price of Windows do not include all of Microsoft's products. If you were to purchase all of Microsoft's products (at retail), you would spend a metric butt-ton more than just $200.
The package management part of Red Hat Network covers the entire distribution, including all the packages not a part of the "core" operating system. These packages offer multiple applications, development suites, etc. that are not featured with Windows. Red Hat Network can control many different machines in your group. Windows Update is limited to the machine it is being accessed from by the user at the machine at a given time.
Keep in mind that keeping with Red Hat's subscription-based Red Hat Network service does not entitle you to services only for that particular version of distribution. You can upgrade to the latest-and-greatest distribution (via the Red Hat Network) and still obtain support for a theoretically infinite life-cycle (so long as Red Hat stays afloat, and your subscription is current).
What exactly is the disadvantage that land-lines (which I would guess that 95% of the populace has ready-access to) would become less polluted with unsolicited phone calls? You mean that I will actually not be bothered every single time my cordless phone rings at me? You mean that when phone service becomes more popular thus stifling the rate-hikes necessary to sustain a telephone network causing prices to stabilize or gasp! drop a wee bit is a disadvantage?
Sheesh! I feel I need a reality check!
I can see that caller-ID would lose its shine for many customers. Of all the phone calls I receive (currently) about 7 out of 10 are unwanted calls. Out of those seven, they are either "out of area" calls or 1-800 numbers. I'll answer about three of those just to ask them to remove my number from their list.
I personally do not care that they have my email address. To not be interrupted four times while sitting at my table for dinner is priceless. Besides - what makes you guys think that the government has no clue what your email address is??
Their Privacy Policy states: "If you contact us via the Internet, we also collect your email address to confirm your registration request. We will store your email address in a secure manner, separate from your telephone number. We will not share your email address with telemarketers." That's good enough for me.
Some of us have been around the block a while and had the unique experience of having to maintain an installed base of NT computers (as well as Windows 3.x for Workgroups) before we had the next generation of Windows.
The move from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 was dramatic. It brought about an intuitive interface that is mimic'd today even in our two big open-source desktop applications (KDE and Gnome). So long Program Manager - hello Start Button!
System administrators all knew the gist of the "under-the-hood" elements of Windows 95. It was a 32-bit kernel with many ties to a 16-bit subsystem for compatibility with legacy Windows 3.x applications. It would still crash. It still didn't feel as good as Windows NT 3.51.
Many administrators would still have NT 3.51 chugging away at mundane tasks for services - email, file sharing, web hosting, etc. But their workstation was a Windows 95 box (that ran very well compared to the amount of memory NT 3.51 required just to get by). On that box they tinkered around with Windows 95 Plus! to get Pinball. They browsed the CD-ROM at the movies included, and eventually came across Hover.
But most of all, the Start Button and its placement won the hearts and minds of users abroad. No more MDI-based navigation in a single window. No more having to buy third-party utilities to drag things to the otherwise wasted "desktop". No more "bright white" dialog boxes. Easy to find applications with the menu interface. And...
Fatal exception 0X0E at 0028:FFFFFFFF (no module reference)
When would we get that wonderful desktop and its Start button but with the stability offered by NT 3.51?
Red Hat is a company that makes pretty much a drop in the bucket compared to Microsoft. Actually, it's more like a few molecules collecting at the bottom of a fifty-five gallon drum. Red Hat's source of revenue will inevitably shift more and more from their boxed product to OEM deals and services for their software.
Red Hat's end-of-life-cycle comes about for maintaining packages that were in the base installation of the product. However, their subscription package (primary service via RHN) allows customers to obtain newer versions of the package with the security fixes even above and beyond the end-of-life-cycle determined for that release. Red Hat will no longer be back-porting patches for expired packages. Instead, you will have to install the latest packages and dependencies. Is this necessarily bad?
You are also comparing apples and oranges. Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Workstation did not include an office suite, multiple web browsers, a compiler suite, (and so on and so forth). The complexity of Red Hat's (or any other Linux vendor) distribution makes it almost necessary to dedicate software developers to the strict task of back-porting patches for new versions of software for their old, and should-be-retired counterparts.
Recent versions of up2date (Red Hat Linux 9 and Red Hat Linux 8.0 errata) feature the --upgrade-to-release option which allows you to migrate your system to the most recent version of Red Hat Linux. I have used this switch on three systems now, and they have worked flawlessly. Red Hat's method of automated package management has come along way since the Red Hat Linux 7 era to the point where it, combined with its online counterpart, is an effective means of administering an installed base of workstations.
If companies opt for the subscription model (which the Red Hat Network provides much more than security updates and patches), they get something that goes above and beyond the end-of-life-cycle for the distribution as the Red Hat Network will ensure that the distribution is kept free of vulnerabilities and crippling problems. It is not to save money. It is to generate revenue and establish confidence in a system that works - relying on your users to install security patches on their workstations is asking for trouble.
The open source world moves faster than that of the closed source world quite simply because Microsoft does not have a new version of "Paint", "Wordpad", "Calculator", et. al. every couple months (even weeks!) As such, development is not to innovate and add new features - everything is kept relatively the same. Microsoft can get away with support a piece of software for years.
Have you given a thought as to how much a standard Linux distribution has changed in the past seven years?
Now, imagine if Microsoft had fourteen releases of Windows (NT-based) during the past seven years. Each release brought about new versions of basic included software. Also imagine if Microsoft included all of their basic compiler suites, Office, Visio, FoxPro, etc. with each release. Wow - what a cost; especially if Microsoft end-of-life-cycle dropped from seven years down to three years.
When (not if) Microsoft adopts the subscription model of software support and upgrades, the end-of-life-cycle will force companies to maintain their per-seat subscription/license to keep their systems free and clear of vulnerabilities and stability issues.
Microsoft, indeed, will discontinue actively patching NT4 [for free], but the knowledge of the problem will probably be reflected in Windows 2000 (and up) code. If someone were to ask Microsoft "What would it cost to fix this problem on our NT4 install-base?" The answer would not be "upgrade to Windows 2000"; it would more than likely be something like "$1000 for analysis, $25 per seat for the patch".
I would imagine that no business would pass an opportunity to make a quick buck.
From my experience in software purchases, when a government organization wishes to purchase licenses for software, they do so when the following criteria have been met:
1) Do we get training (if necessary)? 2) Do we get 24 hour support (if necessary)? 3) Do we get notified of any security problems as soon as they happened (if necessary)? 4) Will this integrate well into our current network and systems framework? 5) Is it compatible with our existing data files that we've been using for years now?
Although Red Hat and SuSE have been making headway into enterprise level products, they have been doing so targeting the server arena, not necessary the desktop arena. Both Red Hat and SuSE are adept at writing utilities to manage and configure their server products, but the end-user applications are not under the control of either of the companies. As such, it would be expensive for open source companies to take on the responsibility of training and integrating their own packages included with their own distributions as well as Microsoft integrates their own applications with their operating systems.
I am not advocating Microsoft's business practices. However, they do have an extraordinary business model of "we have the best to support the software most widely used in the industry". It works and has made their products a lucrative business for both government and private industry. The government's expenditure on Microsoft's licenses is small considering the amount of businesses (in private industry) that have purchased licenses (OS, applications, utilities, support, etc.) for their employee base. The government made Slashdot news because it is the government.
If, say, for instance the KDE folks would support their software by offering in-depth training, 100% compatibility with Microsoft products, and installation/troubleshooting support they would be a contender.
Most things in the government: it's not necessarily the price because often then not you get what you pay for. Convenience and saving time is worth the extra money for the powers that be. A new company that is dedicated to such type of desktop support to spearhead Linux into the arena where people are used to clicking the little "E" logo is definitely needed.
Since the Pentium 4's ratio is locked, Intel has to support three different CPUs for different FSB speeds (400MHz, 533MHz, and 800MHz). This is not uncommon nor does it appear to be drastically hurting sales (in fact, it really is not that much of a nightmare at all). I imagine Intel will be adding more frequencies as technologies allow.
AMD is just following suit, but eliminating one more path the CPU must take to access the memory. If it works for Intel, it'll work for AMD.
Are you going to tell me that you are going to knowingly leave your car unlocked so that a person can steal stuff our of it? C'mon - you're stretching the argument beyond reasonable limits in hopes of bringing a point into legitimacy.
If you leave you car unlocked with things in plain sight that got stolen - serves you right for not taking precautions.
If you leave your computer wide open with MP3s in plain sight that get downloaded (stolen) - serves you right for not being responsible when you get busted:: ESPECIALLY:: when you are told not to distribute the songs without consent from the copyright holders.
Absolutely! That's why things that can be reproduced as data (software or music) are lucrative products. The overall profit margin is near 100%.
Who on this planet would not want a profit margin of near 100%? If you say "me" then you're lying. The RIAA is just like everyone else (with the big exception of attempting to pass legislation to support their cash cow).
Disclaimers have been shot down in courts. For instance, old bulletin boards would contain a standard library disclaimer that this "software" would be available for a twenty-four hour period checkout. After the checkout expired, it was your responsibility to remove the software. It's flawed logic. One - you are not such a service (and as such, would be operating without a contract or license to distribute such a service). Two - such a service would be done knowing damn good and well the type of people who would be downloading software (or music) from your system probably do not own the CD.
It's simple why you cannot provide such a service. You do not own the rights to the software or music nor the content there-in. Therefore it is not up to you how it is distributed.
If you were to provide such a service, the RIAA would charge that you would have to provide a means of verifying the identity of each individual who accessed your service so that they, in turn, could audit the people of "fair use" to see if they were legitimate owners.
The RIAA would not be violating the law to download those files to verify if they are indeed illegally distributed material - they own the rights to most of the music one would listen to. You are simply licensing the rights to listen and enjoy the music that is contained on the CD you purchased. You are not purchasing the copyright or the ability to reproduce such works.
1) I own about two hundred CDs. If I lose twenty of them (due to an error on my part) is it legitimate to download those CDs to replace them?
2) To the same token is it okay to download a CD-key of Windows off the Internet if I misplaced mine?
3) Is it okay to snag a screwdriver to replace the one I left on the intake manifold and lost when I drove down the road?
It's all a matter of ethical interpretation. The answer to all the above is no - to the letter and spirit of the law. However, many people might feel Point 1 is legitimate. Some might lean to Point 2 - but I guarantee that most people would opt that Point 3 would be completely wrong.
Why? People have a real hard time distinguishing things that exist if they are not physically tangible. Software (or raw data) is so easy to trade and exchange because it consumers virtually no space. You can't touch it or feel it.
If it a screwdriver, however, then people can feel it and touch it. Which, for some psychological reason makes it more wrong than right.
Then, take in the fact that the reason most people obtain MP3s off a P2P network is not for honest reasons. It's for the reasons the RIAA fears the most: people don't want to give money for their product, and thus would steal it instead.
I'm not agreeing that the RIAA intentions are pure; I'm merely stating that nothing is wrong with their requests such that they obey and follow the laws as they are writ, instead of requesting the invention of new laws, provisions, and limitations to the consumers.
The RIAA is not going after people that copy their CDs for strictly backup purposes. In fact, you can copy your CD to a music CD-R legimitately as their is a government-sponsored "tax" levied on each music CD-R to benefit the recording industry and its artists. For more information click here.
Slashdot Mirror
Mr. Szulik,
You recently stated that Linux is not the right choice for a desktop OS right now. Not disagreeing with you, many people like myself choose Linux, specifically Red Hat offerings, by choice. I believe, personally, that Windows cannot be the answer for every question considered that Apple has intuitively created a UNIX based OS that is just as user-friendly. What, in your opinion, would it take to get Linux distributions as comfortable and easy to use compared with Microsoft solutions?
I don't know if Mr. Szulik would be able to sufficiently answer this question because of the sheer diversity of the business that Red Hat is in, but this is what he told us (employees and former employees of Red Hat). We [Red Hat employees] must eat [use] our own cookie [product - Red Hat Linux].
Most Red Hat employees choose to use Red Hat Linux as their primary solution because we wanted to promote our own product. While most of the Red Hat core development team can sufficiently do everything they could possibly want using Red Hat Linux and the vast amount of open source applications out there, the services side of Red Hat is a bit different. Keep in mind that services oriented employees always tried to show that Red Hat Linux can be a pluggable solution for any business where Windows is "required."
Despite popular belief and public misconception, Red Hat's sole purpose on the planet is no Linux. It's a company that wishes to become and remain profitable, and does so by attempting to keep its offerings diverse and flexible. They have all kinds of products and services that they offer to any potential customer, although the two biggest name products have been Red Hat Linux for the end-user (desktop product) and the enterprise (RHN).
Providing services to customers who may not use Red Hat Linux requires Red Hat engineers to be skilled on different platforms with different operating systems, to utilize tools and applications on different platforms with different operating systems.
So to run the whole business, products and services, Red Hat Linux isn't the only thing out there. Yes, you're going to find Windows licenses floating around at Red Hat, just like you'd find Apple licenses floating around at Microsoft.
Mr. Szulik,
Considering when Red Hat announced that they would be moving away from the Red Hat Linux boxed product to focus on WS and ES solutions for commerical businesses, Red Hat also announced the creation of the Fedora Core project for those users still interested in the spirit of the old Red Hat Linux boxed product.
Are you sick and tired of people forgetting that in the Fedora Project still exists the Red Hat Linux spirit and core - and continue to ask what they are supposed to use since Red Hat Linux no longer exists?
Hell, I bet you're even wondering where all these people who said they've been purchasing the Red Hat Linux box products are getting their copies of Red Hat Linux! If there were really so many, I'd imagine Red Hat would have concentrated solely on their end-user boxed product.
Because people are easy to be critical of Red Hat - no matter what decision they make. For one, Red Hat gives the community what it wants - a distribution based on the core of Red Hat, with the flexibility of adding third party applications in native RPM package format. More and more applications are being added to the Fedora development tree to give Red Hat users access to the vast potential package repositories out there.
I've noticed quite a few questions that have been answered and re-answered again and again on the Fedora mailing lists and the Fedora Project website. Please read the Fedora FAQ before asking Szulik a question thats been answered a thousand times already by people who actually know what the hell is going on with Fedora.
Let's play the math game with some arbitrary numbers.
N = number of jobs in 2003
X = number of jobs in 2050
X/2 = number of jobs (human) in 2050
If X = ( N * 2 ) then there is virtually no change in human employment. If X = ( N * J ) where J is greater than 2, then the number of jobs available to living, breathing humans will increase nominally.
"Jobs" is also an ambiguous term. For a software developer that makes $50K a year, McDonald's does not quantify as a job. So let's establish that a "job" is a fixed salary of $15K a year. A software developer consumes roughly 2.5 jobs a year at our established definition.
Here's a fact - there are more jobs (where job = $15K a year) available today than there was 50 years ago. This is because humanity is advancing, albeit in "concentrated" areas in the civilized world.
But with it comes revenue that is constantly being generated, consumed, and recycled. Were third world countries home to manufacturing facilities as they are now? No. It is a growing trend. Introduce a engine manufacturing facility in a "third world" country. The workers make $1K-$4K per year - sounds bad, but in their economy where the average family income is about $250, they are considered rich.
These "rich" people utilize the weak economy in their own country to bolster development, personal wealth, and benefit their community as a whole. Their country garners money from the new taxes generated and also the deal cut with the engine manufacturer. These third world countries slowly add to the job supply.
The rest of the industrialized world will work on replacing the $15K average salary for a job with jobs that pay more money, increasing the quality of the work performed. Research and development for emerging technologies will require more minds, more assistance, and more money - driving a company to not only hire and train the best, but to invest in new technologies to drive in more revenue to continue advancing their capabilities.
So what if we have a robot that will replace the cashier at McDonalds? Perhaps that individual will have instead been offered an internship with reasonable pay to study on actuators or hydraulic pumps or other technologies present in those robots.
I don't know if I believe the whole 50% of all jobs will be held by "robots" - I believe that a large amount of mundane (redundant, simple tasks) will indeed be handled by a computer (or another equivalent automated device). We have perfect examples today of such a feat (online shopping, ATMs, telco relay switchboard, etc...). I do believe, however, that with each advancement in the area of science and engineering will give birth to even better jobs as humans explore the different facets of a discovery.
Just my opinion...
I live near Huntsville, Alabama - where our wonderful Pathfinder mock-shuttle sits by I-565. You can view the shuttle from a very close distance by visiting the Space and Rocket Center. The external fuel tank is covered with the same foam that was in service for the Columbia.
Many visitors to the center will stand underneath the tank (toward the rear of the assembly) and throw coins into the foam (sort of like a wishing well). You can see the foam and the thousands of dents from coins with the naked eye, including quite a few coins that have managed to stick.
Many people wonder why the foam replaced the bright white paint of the fuel tanks of the extremely early flights (STS-01 and STS-02). All that paint weighs in at about 240 kilograms. While it doesn't seem much, it costs an extraordinary amount to get enough thrust to lift one pound of material into space, let alone about 110 pounds.
The aforementioned link is a good paper (from NASA) that explains the "lessons learned" approach to space flight.
The Challenger (as well as Columbia, and the newer vehicle that was being built - Discovery) had a flaw in the design of its O-ring that NASA itself knew could cause problems in flight. The design itself worked (proven by earlier flights of the shuttles). However, the design was not resilient to, as you said, external problems that were not properly thought up before-hand, such as massive fluctuations in temperatures (which led to the failure of the seal on the booster rocket).
A university student did an excellent case study on the Challenger incident, including the O-ring design "flaw," and what NASA did to improve upon the design.
If it were in NASA's tome of simulated problems, there would have been a way to make sure a rescue would have been possible. Even if we had to park the shuttle in orbit (or on the international space station) until a rescue could have been performed. It tires me to listen to the people that say "well, they would have run out of oxygen if they were not able to return immediately."
Fact: humans will never be able to calculate for every single variable in a system. It's just impossible. I completely agree with you. We will continue to develop better designs that will hopefully prevent further destruction and loss of life.
Your personal information would be handed to law enforcement in the event an alleged "crime" has been committed. If you sell items on eBay and don't screw over a bunch of people, then you're more than likely going to have your private information nested in the depths of their Oracle database.
If you sell your items, take the money, and refuse to ship - you've committed a crime! I would certainly hope that your ass would eventually be found in a cold jail cell thinking that an anonomous entity such as your "eBay account name" was sufficient protection for a livid buyer find out who you are.
Your personal information on eBay is not as private as one would believe. Upon creating your account you agree to eBay's Privacy Policy which is laid out in black and white. It states as follows: "In order to facilitate interaction among all eBay community members, our Site allows you limited access other users' contact and shipping information. As a seller you have access to the User ID, email address and other contact and shipping information of the buyer or winning bidder(s), and as a buyer or winning bidder you have access to the User ID, email address and other contact information of the seller." As a regular "eBayer", I have no problems with their policy as the idea behind my information being handed out to other eBayers (again, if they are the seller/winning bidder) is completely rational. eBay allows me to opt in or out of advertisements that may be targeted for me, but does not hand out my personal information with my name attached to it to people that are interested in it for the sake of it.
Theoretically: you sold me one of your pieces of junk through eBay for $150. I send payment with a money order. You send me absolutely nothing. I am going to be pissed and immediately request your personal information from eBay (since we've had a direct transaction).
If you didn't ship me the item, you're at fault for theft of my money. If you lied to eBay and did not provide a correct address and contact information, you are a fraud for selling on eBay, and your account would be shut down for violating the terms that you would have had to agree with to use the service.
Point? If you're an honest seller dealing with honest bidders (or vice versa), then your information is as safe as any other service on eBay, except that people that you do business with would get your personally identifiable information. If you're a crook, eBay's letting you know that it will make it as easy as possible for law enforcement to deliver their own goods right to your doorstep.
The release that is contained in Rawhide (check rpmfind.net) is based off a pre-release. A new RPM should be available quite soon with the final version (doesn't take very long for the mirrors to catch up).
What makes you think exempt organizations do not have my phone number already? The moment you sign up for your phone service, open a bank account, or anything that requires a phone number for contact - your phone number has been given out.
... well ... the Klez virus :) once your phone hits a list, it gets incorporated into the hive list. It's replicates and replicates until just about anyone who wants your phone number can have it.
It's like
I get plenty of phone calls from telemarketers and charity organizations. I cannot assume that the number of calls from charity organizations (not-for-profit) is going to go up drastically considering the already astounding number of calls I get right now.
I will however, enjoy cutting out the calls from companies trying to help me get out of debt, put vinyl siding on my brick house, or the other annoyances that the list will theoretically help to reduce.
Where in the world you decided I was chiding Microsoft's policy I have absolutely no clue. I was merely stating that there are two development strategies being compared. One company controls all of the code. One company is having to support code it has little control over. One company is supporting an operating system. One company is supporting an operating system and a whole host of applications.
It's also a valid point to bring in Red Hat's EOL cycle comparison with Microsoft's.
MICROSOFT HAS TO SUPPORT THE OPERATING SYSTEM.
RED HAT HAS TO SUPPORT THE DISTRIBUTION.
distribution != operating system
The point (again): if Microsoft had to support all of their products in a distribution, I would guess that their EOLC would be much shorter because the distribution changes more often as each major component of that particular distribution is upgraded.
Good grief - I was opting for one or the other. Merely stating that the classic "Windows OS == Linux distribution" argument is bullshit. If Windows works for you (and the vast majority of others) - then so be it. No harm, no foul.
Just as Windows != Red Hat Linux, Windows Update != Red Hat Network.
Most people believe that the Red Hat Network simply is the "up2date" portion of the distribution. There are well-designed host based and online utilities to allow you to manage a network of machines built upon Red Hat Linux for ease of updating, installation, and configuring without having to leave your desk. You can read about the Red Hat Network, and how it can be extremely beneficial to systems administrators and companies at a whole for a relatively modest fee.
Windows Update covers the operating system and does not cover Microsoft's other products (such as productivity, development, office, etc. applications). Each product has its own method of updating (whether automated or manual). The price of Windows do not include all of Microsoft's products. If you were to purchase all of Microsoft's products (at retail), you would spend a metric butt-ton more than just $200.
The package management part of Red Hat Network covers the entire distribution, including all the packages not a part of the "core" operating system. These packages offer multiple applications, development suites, etc. that are not featured with Windows. Red Hat Network can control many different machines in your group. Windows Update is limited to the machine it is being accessed from by the user at the machine at a given time.
Keep in mind that keeping with Red Hat's subscription-based Red Hat Network service does not entitle you to services only for that particular version of distribution. You can upgrade to the latest-and-greatest distribution (via the Red Hat Network) and still obtain support for a theoretically infinite life-cycle (so long as Red Hat stays afloat, and your subscription is current).
What exactly is the disadvantage that land-lines (which I would guess that 95% of the populace has ready-access to) would become less polluted with unsolicited phone calls? You mean that I will actually not be bothered every single time my cordless phone rings at me? You mean that when phone service becomes more popular thus stifling the rate-hikes necessary to sustain a telephone network causing prices to stabilize or gasp! drop a wee bit is a disadvantage?
Sheesh! I feel I need a reality check!
I can see that caller-ID would lose its shine for many customers. Of all the phone calls I receive (currently) about 7 out of 10 are unwanted calls. Out of those seven, they are either "out of area" calls or 1-800 numbers. I'll answer about three of those just to ask them to remove my number from their list.
I personally do not care that they have my email address. To not be interrupted four times while sitting at my table for dinner is priceless. Besides - what makes you guys think that the government has no clue what your email address is??
Their Privacy Policy states: "If you contact us via the Internet, we also collect your email address to confirm your registration request. We will store your email address in a secure manner, separate from your telephone number. We will not share your email address with telemarketers." That's good enough for me.
Some of us have been around the block a while and had the unique experience of having to maintain an installed base of NT computers (as well as Windows 3.x for Workgroups) before we had the next generation of Windows.
The move from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 was dramatic. It brought about an intuitive interface that is mimic'd today even in our two big open-source desktop applications (KDE and Gnome). So long Program Manager - hello Start Button!
System administrators all knew the gist of the "under-the-hood" elements of Windows 95. It was a 32-bit kernel with many ties to a 16-bit subsystem for compatibility with legacy Windows 3.x applications. It would still crash. It still didn't feel as good as Windows NT 3.51.
Many administrators would still have NT 3.51 chugging away at mundane tasks for services - email, file sharing, web hosting, etc. But their workstation was a Windows 95 box (that ran very well compared to the amount of memory NT 3.51 required just to get by). On that box they tinkered around with Windows 95 Plus! to get Pinball. They browsed the CD-ROM at the movies included, and eventually came across Hover.
But most of all, the Start Button and its placement won the hearts and minds of users abroad. No more MDI-based navigation in a single window. No more having to buy third-party utilities to drag things to the otherwise wasted "desktop". No more "bright white" dialog boxes. Easy to find applications with the menu interface. And...
Fatal exception 0X0E at 0028:FFFFFFFF (no module reference)
When would we get that wonderful desktop and its Start button but with the stability offered by NT 3.51?
NT 4.0.
Red Hat is a company that makes pretty much a drop in the bucket compared to Microsoft. Actually, it's more like a few molecules collecting at the bottom of a fifty-five gallon drum. Red Hat's source of revenue will inevitably shift more and more from their boxed product to OEM deals and services for their software.
Red Hat's end-of-life-cycle comes about for maintaining packages that were in the base installation of the product. However, their subscription package (primary service via RHN) allows customers to obtain newer versions of the package with the security fixes even above and beyond the end-of-life-cycle determined for that release. Red Hat will no longer be back-porting patches for expired packages. Instead, you will have to install the latest packages and dependencies. Is this necessarily bad?
You are also comparing apples and oranges. Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Workstation did not include an office suite, multiple web browsers, a compiler suite, (and so on and so forth). The complexity of Red Hat's (or any other Linux vendor) distribution makes it almost necessary to dedicate software developers to the strict task of back-porting patches for new versions of software for their old, and should-be-retired counterparts.
Recent versions of up2date (Red Hat Linux 9 and Red Hat Linux 8.0 errata) feature the --upgrade-to-release option which allows you to migrate your system to the most recent version of Red Hat Linux. I have used this switch on three systems now, and they have worked flawlessly. Red Hat's method of automated package management has come along way since the Red Hat Linux 7 era to the point where it, combined with its online counterpart, is an effective means of administering an installed base of workstations.
If companies opt for the subscription model (which the Red Hat Network provides much more than security updates and patches), they get something that goes above and beyond the end-of-life-cycle for the distribution as the Red Hat Network will ensure that the distribution is kept free of vulnerabilities and crippling problems. It is not to save money. It is to generate revenue and establish confidence in a system that works - relying on your users to install security patches on their workstations is asking for trouble.
The open source world moves faster than that of the closed source world quite simply because Microsoft does not have a new version of "Paint", "Wordpad", "Calculator", et. al. every couple months (even weeks!) As such, development is not to innovate and add new features - everything is kept relatively the same. Microsoft can get away with support a piece of software for years.
Have you given a thought as to how much a standard Linux distribution has changed in the past seven years?
Now, imagine if Microsoft had fourteen releases of Windows (NT-based) during the past seven years. Each release brought about new versions of basic included software. Also imagine if Microsoft included all of their basic compiler suites, Office, Visio, FoxPro, etc. with each release. Wow - what a cost; especially if Microsoft end-of-life-cycle dropped from seven years down to three years.
When (not if) Microsoft adopts the subscription model of software support and upgrades, the end-of-life-cycle will force companies to maintain their per-seat subscription/license to keep their systems free and clear of vulnerabilities and stability issues.
Microsoft, indeed, will discontinue actively patching NT4 [for free], but the knowledge of the problem will probably be reflected in Windows 2000 (and up) code. If someone were to ask Microsoft "What would it cost to fix this problem on our NT4 install-base?" The answer would not be "upgrade to Windows 2000"; it would more than likely be something like "$1000 for analysis, $25 per seat for the patch".
I would imagine that no business would pass an opportunity to make a quick buck.
From my experience in software purchases, when a government organization wishes to purchase licenses for software, they do so when the following criteria have been met:
1) Do we get training (if necessary)?
2) Do we get 24 hour support (if necessary)?
3) Do we get notified of any security problems as soon as they happened (if necessary)?
4) Will this integrate well into our current network and systems framework?
5) Is it compatible with our existing data files that we've been using for years now?
Although Red Hat and SuSE have been making headway into enterprise level products, they have been doing so targeting the server arena, not necessary the desktop arena. Both Red Hat and SuSE are adept at writing utilities to manage and configure their server products, but the end-user applications are not under the control of either of the companies. As such, it would be expensive for open source companies to take on the responsibility of training and integrating their own packages included with their own distributions as well as Microsoft integrates their own applications with their operating systems.
I am not advocating Microsoft's business practices. However, they do have an extraordinary business model of "we have the best to support the software most widely used in the industry". It works and has made their products a lucrative business for both government and private industry. The government's expenditure on Microsoft's licenses is small considering the amount of businesses (in private industry) that have purchased licenses (OS, applications, utilities, support, etc.) for their employee base. The government made Slashdot news because it is the government.
If, say, for instance the KDE folks would support their software by offering in-depth training, 100% compatibility with Microsoft products, and installation/troubleshooting support they would be a contender.
Most things in the government: it's not necessarily the price because often then not you get what you pay for. Convenience and saving time is worth the extra money for the powers that be. A new company that is dedicated to such type of desktop support to spearhead Linux into the arena where people are used to clicking the little "E" logo is definitely needed.
Since the Pentium 4's ratio is locked, Intel has to support three different CPUs for different FSB speeds (400MHz, 533MHz, and 800MHz). This is not uncommon nor does it appear to be drastically hurting sales (in fact, it really is not that much of a nightmare at all). I imagine Intel will be adding more frequencies as technologies allow.
AMD is just following suit, but eliminating one more path the CPU must take to access the memory. If it works for Intel, it'll work for AMD.
This is foolish?
:: ESPECIALLY :: when you are told not to distribute the songs without consent from the copyright holders.
Are you going to tell me that you are going to knowingly leave your car unlocked so that a person can steal stuff our of it? C'mon - you're stretching the argument beyond reasonable limits in hopes of bringing a point into legitimacy.
If you leave you car unlocked with things in plain sight that got stolen - serves you right for not taking precautions.
If you leave your computer wide open with MP3s in plain sight that get downloaded (stolen) - serves you right for not being responsible when you get busted
No more use for trolls. *sigh*
Absolutely! That's why things that can be reproduced as data (software or music) are lucrative products. The overall profit margin is near 100%.
Who on this planet would not want a profit margin of near 100%? If you say "me" then you're lying. The RIAA is just like everyone else (with the big exception of attempting to pass legislation to support their cash cow).
Disclaimers have been shot down in courts. For instance, old bulletin boards would contain a standard library disclaimer that this "software" would be available for a twenty-four hour period checkout. After the checkout expired, it was your responsibility to remove the software. It's flawed logic. One - you are not such a service (and as such, would be operating without a contract or license to distribute such a service). Two - such a service would be done knowing damn good and well the type of people who would be downloading software (or music) from your system probably do not own the CD.
It's simple why you cannot provide such a service. You do not own the rights to the software or music nor the content there-in . Therefore it is not up to you how it is distributed.
If you were to provide such a service, the RIAA would charge that you would have to provide a means of verifying the identity of each individual who accessed your service so that they, in turn, could audit the people of "fair use" to see if they were legitimate owners.
The RIAA would not be violating the law to download those files to verify if they are indeed illegally distributed material - they own the rights to most of the music one would listen to. You are simply licensing the rights to listen and enjoy the music that is contained on the CD you purchased. You are not purchasing the copyright or the ability to reproduce such works.
Look at it this way.
1) I own about two hundred CDs. If I lose twenty of them (due to an error on my part) is it legitimate to download those CDs to replace them?
2) To the same token is it okay to download a CD-key of Windows off the Internet if I misplaced mine?
3) Is it okay to snag a screwdriver to replace the one I left on the intake manifold and lost when I drove down the road?
It's all a matter of ethical interpretation. The answer to all the above is no - to the letter and spirit of the law. However, many people might feel Point 1 is legitimate. Some might lean to Point 2 - but I guarantee that most people would opt that Point 3 would be completely wrong.
Why? People have a real hard time distinguishing things that exist if they are not physically tangible. Software (or raw data) is so easy to trade and exchange because it consumers virtually no space. You can't touch it or feel it.
If it a screwdriver, however, then people can feel it and touch it. Which, for some psychological reason makes it more wrong than right.
Then, take in the fact that the reason most people obtain MP3s off a P2P network is not for honest reasons. It's for the reasons the RIAA fears the most: people don't want to give money for their product, and thus would steal it instead.
I'm not agreeing that the RIAA intentions are pure; I'm merely stating that nothing is wrong with their requests such that they obey and follow the laws as they are writ, instead of requesting the invention of new laws, provisions, and limitations to the consumers.
The RIAA is not going after people that copy their CDs for strictly backup purposes. In fact, you can copy your CD to a music CD-R legimitately as their is a government-sponsored "tax" levied on each music CD-R to benefit the recording industry and its artists. For more information click here.