If the Windows machines were on a network I would be concerned...
One of the systems is attached to a CD jukebox and a document scanner, hardcopy documents are scanned, and archived to CD, the system works perfect, and doesn't need to be connected to a network.
Another system is our voicemail system, again no need to connect it to a network. I am going to be replacing this system soon, but not because the VM runs Windows, but because the phones, and cards for the system are too expensive and becoming really hard to find, so I will be migrating to an Asterisk system later this year.
NT4 is already EOL, but that doesn't mean it still doesn't serve a purpose.
If a system was designed and setup on ANY OS and is working fine, why upgrade? So you can pay some vendor for a newer version of the same OS, which may cause your currently stable system to become unstable, no thanks.
I have a wide range of systems I support that are EOL, Solaris 2.5, RH 7.2, NT 3.5, NT 4, they all do very specfic tasks, and they do them 24/7 without any OS problems (HW does fail occasionally).
IANAL, but I would assume IF the act of writing a specification from disassembled/debugged code was ruled illegal in court, and Company A used that "illegal" specfication to build a product, Company A is still at fault. Even if Company B offered some sort of indemnity, they are out of business.
I have always been told, by corporate lawyers, that this is not legal and they could not defend the practice in court. That said corporate lawyers are notoriously conservative (lazy perhaps), and maybe they wanted an easier case to defend.
Number 3 is reverse engineering, as long as some sort of code disassembler is not used to actually look at the code used to implement said functionality. Otherwise it is no longer "clean" and NOT reverse engineered, but copied.
"First of all, you are mistaken: it could well be, that Larry is the one who lacks integrity - for instance"
Could be, but Linus seems to just him, so that's good enough for me.
"Secondly, logic would suggest that, even if OSDL did give their word, it is still possible that Tridge didn't - and one can not reasonably expect to be bound to another persons' promise, when you never agreed to it."
The question, that no one has answered yet, is does Tridge work for OSDL? If he does then hopefully OSDL got his assurance that he would not work on this, before they promised BitMover that he wouldn't. If they didn't get his assurance or he doesn't work for them, then that would be negligent on their part for negotiating a truce that they couldn't guarantee on their end. Seems unlikely that an organization would set themselves up for the fallout from this.
It is also possible that such a truce never existed and McVoy is lying about the whole thing. I doubt this is true since neither OSDL or Linus has disputed this.
It has been my experience, that in these situations, the "truth" lies somewhere between all the stories.
"If I disasemble your code to find out how you did something and then make my own version that is probably a clear case of reverse engineering."
This is NOT reverse engineering, because you disassembled the original product into source, and looked at said source, you are no longer "clean".
Reverse engineering implies that you only use a binary implementation of a product and build a product that works like it, based solely on inputs and outputs from the binary product.
From the article: "We did get a verbal promise from OSDL that Tridge had discontinued his work and would not begin again as long as we were trying to work things out."
Does Tridge work for OSDL? Not clear, but the point is that OSDL gave their word, so they either had an agreement with Tridge, which means he did break it, or OSDL is not being truthful, either way it casts OSDL/Tridge as lacking integrity.
I agree with you about reverse-engineering, but it isn't clear from the article what McVoy means when he uses the term. Reading the article in more detail, it would seem that McVoy is using "reverse-engineering" in the wrong sense, he is suggesting that Tridge more or less looked at BitMover's code and copied it, that is clearly NOT reverse-engineering, and I would tend to agree with McVoy (if true) that it is wrong. From the article:
"Larry has a very clear moral standpoint: "You can compete with me, but you can't do so by riding on my coat-tails. Solve the problems on your own, and compete _honestly_. Don't compete by looking at my solution."
True reverse-engineering would mean a "clean room" implementation of something, by not looking at the original code and either using network scanners or "behaviour analysis" to build a similar product, which McVoy seems fine with:
"Larry is perfectly fine with somebody writing a free replacement"
"On the other hand, I see plenty that is ugly about BitMover trying to impose the terms of their license on a guy who apparently didn't even use their software to build a free replacement for it."
The only person that says he didn't use BitMover's SW is "Tridge" himself, and his integrity is already in question, because as the grandparent said, he didn't honor a "cease fire".
While I agree that "due process" may not have been violated, he certainly didn't need to be hand cuffed to a pole while the "expert" verfied if a crime had been committed!!! Seems like an over zealous cop(s) to me.
Yeah and if early computer operators and system programmers had observed airport ground crews (earplugs), they might be able to hear a little better today...
He is talking about disk packs that used to be used on mini and mainframe computers in the 70's and 80's. These were fairly large (14"?) magnetic platters (much bigger versions of modern HD "platters"), were "stacked" on a spindle (very much like modern HDs), but were typically removable, and were placed in a washing machine sized device.
Here is the server software, and it runs on Linux, but unfortunately they don't make a software client (not too surprised since Sun IS a hardware company, even though they try to be a software company). This is the part of the solution that never made economic sense, since the HW clients are pretty expensive, compared to PC's.
Just run a session manager on your X11 server and you have a user session. I haven't done this for a while, but I used to run a CDE session all the time. I haven't tried this with Gnome or KDE, but I don't see why it shouldn't work.
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
on
The DotCom Crash Revisited
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It was really an adjustment.
If you look at the fundamentals of all the stocks you listed, with the exception of RedBack, they are pretty much where they should be now, based on P/E and EPS. JNPR still has a slightly high P/E, so there still may be some downward pressure in that stock.
Most investors, that understand the markets, knew that an adjustment was coming, it was just a matter of when. During the "boom" all regard for the fundamentals of a company were thrown out the window, and the valuations of a company's stock were outragious. Juniper, the company, was NEVER worth close to $245/share.
So while people got burned, and they may call it a "crash", most investors call it a correction or adjustment.
Unfortuantely Ebay isn't the bargin it used to be, and it was never as good as the usenet auction days.
You don't have to work too hard to find good deals though. We found high-end (the cherry panel stuff) Herman Miller cubes for 10% of what they originally sold for. Low mileage IIIsi and 4Si printers for $50/each, IMO still the best printers HP ever made.
What I did was get hooked in with the local "tech refresh" companies. These companies go into larger corps and upgrade all their old equipment, with new, and then sell the old stuff on Ebay. I give them a list of stuff I need, when they get it, they give me a call. This really helps with the big stuff (printers, servers, etc) because that stuff costs as much to ship as you usually pay for it. Often times the deal these companies cut is they get the old stuff for free, for just hauling it away, so they have plenty of room to deal.
"The VC will want to know you're paying for the best management you can get"
Many VC are smarter than that, they know money doesn't buy the BEST management. Look no further than HP, WorldCom, Enron, Qwest, etc for example.
"If you waste time saving small change, forget it"
Sure putting road blocks up to all spending will cause problems, but putting butts in $1000 chairs doesn't make sense either.
"If you ask for just a few million, forget it"
Funny, the startup I work for asked for $3.5M and had VC jumping all over us. The VC market has changed since the dot bomb days, VC are tired of seeing their money spent on Hummers and pinball machines, they want to see a plan where their money is spent building a solid product and a customer base.
"The immediate purpose of the "innovation" argument is not to impress customers, but to persuade lawmakers and regulators not to pursue anti-trust actions."
I agree that's why companies like MS use the term innovative, I was responding to the parents comment:
"Just think, MS would have to admit to everyone publically that they don't innovate anymore, whch is what everyone on/. already knew, but there would be value in the average CIO / CEO and consumer knowing/hearing about this as well. Hmmm?"
which implies that customers are swayed by MS being innovative.
Again I don't see this as a MS only problem, Cisco, Oracle and CA claim they are innovative as well, and I haven't seen anything innovative come from any of them lately.
More so, what is innovative? Everyone has a different opinion about what innovation is, which I suspect would make it hard to prove false advertising.
Even if they admitted that they are no longer innovative (or never were) I don't see this causing people to change their mind about using MS products. If you took a poll about why people use MS products, I suspect: "because they are innovative" would be well down the list...
"MS is not innovating but just acquiring the competition"
This can be said for many large tech companies. Cisco, Oracle, CA, etc. At some point companies become so large that they become incapable or slow at innovation, and must acquire smaller innovative companies to keep up.
Slashdot Mirror
If the Windows machines were on a network I would be concerned...
One of the systems is attached to a CD jukebox and a document scanner, hardcopy documents are scanned, and archived to CD, the system works perfect, and doesn't need to be connected to a network.
Another system is our voicemail system, again no need to connect it to a network. I am going to be replacing this system soon, but not because the VM runs Windows, but because the phones, and cards for the system are too expensive and becoming really hard to find, so I will be migrating to an Asterisk system later this year.
NT4 is already EOL, but that doesn't mean it still doesn't serve a purpose.
If a system was designed and setup on ANY OS and is working fine, why upgrade? So you can pay some vendor for a newer version of the same OS, which may cause your currently stable system to become unstable, no thanks.
I have a wide range of systems I support that are EOL, Solaris 2.5, RH 7.2, NT 3.5, NT 4, they all do very specfic tasks, and they do them 24/7 without any OS problems (HW does fail occasionally).
EOL doesn't mean End of Useful Life.
IANAL, but I would assume IF the act of writing a specification from disassembled/debugged code was ruled illegal in court, and Company A used that "illegal" specfication to build a product, Company A is still at fault. Even if Company B offered some sort of indemnity, they are out of business.
I have always been told, by corporate lawyers, that this is not legal and they could not defend the practice in court. That said corporate lawyers are notoriously conservative (lazy perhaps), and maybe they wanted an easier case to defend.
Number 3 is reverse engineering, as long as some sort of code disassembler is not used to actually look at the code used to implement said functionality. Otherwise it is no longer "clean" and NOT reverse engineered, but copied.
"First of all, you are mistaken: it could well be, that Larry is the one who lacks integrity - for instance"
Could be, but Linus seems to just him, so that's good enough for me.
"Secondly, logic would suggest that, even if OSDL did give their word, it is still possible that Tridge didn't - and one can not reasonably expect to be bound to another persons' promise, when you never agreed to it."
The question, that no one has answered yet, is does Tridge work for OSDL? If he does then hopefully OSDL got his assurance that he would not work on this, before they promised BitMover that he wouldn't. If they didn't get his assurance or he doesn't work for them, then that would be negligent on their part for negotiating a truce that they couldn't guarantee on their end. Seems unlikely that an organization would set themselves up for the fallout from this.
It is also possible that such a truce never existed and McVoy is lying about the whole thing. I doubt this is true since neither OSDL or Linus has disputed this.
It has been my experience, that in these situations, the "truth" lies somewhere between all the stories.
"If I disasemble your code to find out how you did something and then make my own version that is probably a clear case of reverse engineering."
This is NOT reverse engineering, because you disassembled the original product into source, and looked at said source, you are no longer "clean".
Reverse engineering implies that you only use a binary implementation of a product and build a product that works like it, based solely on inputs and outputs from the binary product.
From the article:
"We did get a verbal promise from OSDL that Tridge had discontinued his work and would not begin again as long as we were trying to work things out."
Does Tridge work for OSDL? Not clear, but the point is that OSDL gave their word, so they either had an agreement with Tridge, which means he did break it, or OSDL is not being truthful, either way it casts OSDL/Tridge as lacking integrity.
I agree with you about reverse-engineering, but it isn't clear from the article what McVoy means when he uses the term. Reading the article in more detail, it would seem that McVoy is using "reverse-engineering" in the wrong sense, he is suggesting that Tridge more or less looked at BitMover's code and copied it, that is clearly NOT reverse-engineering, and I would tend to agree with McVoy (if true) that it is wrong. From the article:
"Larry has a very clear moral standpoint: "You can compete with me, but you can't do so by riding on my coat-tails. Solve the problems on your own, and compete _honestly_. Don't compete by looking at my solution."
True reverse-engineering would mean a "clean room" implementation of something, by not looking at the original code and either using network scanners or "behaviour analysis" to build a similar product, which McVoy seems fine with:
"Larry is perfectly fine with somebody writing a free replacement"
"On the other hand, I see plenty that is ugly about BitMover trying to impose the terms of their license on a guy who apparently didn't even use their software to build a free replacement for it."
The only person that says he didn't use BitMover's SW is "Tridge" himself, and his integrity is already in question, because as the grandparent said, he didn't honor a "cease fire".
While I agree that "due process" may not have been violated, he certainly didn't need to be hand cuffed to a pole while the "expert" verfied if a crime had been committed!!! Seems like an over zealous cop(s) to me.
Yeah and if early computer operators and system programmers had observed airport ground crews (earplugs), they might be able to hear a little better today...
He is talking about disk packs that used to be used on mini and mainframe computers in the 70's and 80's. These were fairly large (14"?) magnetic platters (much bigger versions of modern HD "platters"), were "stacked" on a spindle (very much like modern HDs), but were typically removable, and were placed in a washing machine sized device.
Great movie, unfortunately most everything he has done since then has been down hill, IMO...
Here is the server software, and it runs on Linux, but unfortunately they don't make a software client (not too surprised since Sun IS a hardware company, even though they try to be a software company). This is the part of the solution that never made economic sense, since the HW clients are pretty expensive, compared to PC's.
Yeah that was brought up in another thread, which is a problem...
Is Sun still pumping their Java thin clients? That had session disconnect/reconnect ability. It wasn't free, but it seemed to be a pretty nice setup.
Just run a session manager on your X11 server and you have a user session. I haven't done this for a while, but I used to run a CDE session all the time. I haven't tried this with Gnome or KDE, but I don't see why it shouldn't work.
It was really an adjustment.
If you look at the fundamentals of all the stocks you listed, with the exception of RedBack, they are pretty much where they should be now, based on P/E and EPS. JNPR still has a slightly high P/E, so there still may be some downward pressure in that stock.
Most investors, that understand the markets, knew that an adjustment was coming, it was just a matter of when. During the "boom" all regard for the fundamentals of a company were thrown out the window, and the valuations of a company's stock were outragious. Juniper, the company, was NEVER worth close to $245/share.
So while people got burned, and they may call it a "crash", most investors call it a correction or adjustment.
Unfortuantely Ebay isn't the bargin it used to be, and it was never as good as the usenet auction days.
You don't have to work too hard to find good deals though. We found high-end (the cherry panel stuff) Herman Miller cubes for 10% of what they originally sold for. Low mileage IIIsi and 4Si printers for $50/each, IMO still the best printers HP ever made.
What I did was get hooked in with the local "tech refresh" companies. These companies go into larger corps and upgrade all their old equipment, with new, and then sell the old stuff on Ebay. I give them a list of stuff I need, when they get it, they give me a call. This really helps with the big stuff (printers, servers, etc) because that stuff costs as much to ship as you usually pay for it. Often times the deal these companies cut is they get the old stuff for free, for just hauling it away, so they have plenty of room to deal.
Which I would take over 6.75% + state income tax here in Ohio.
"The VC will want to know you're paying for the
best management you can get"
Many VC are smarter than that, they know money doesn't buy the BEST management. Look no further than HP, WorldCom, Enron, Qwest, etc for example.
"If you waste time saving small change, forget it"
Sure putting road blocks up to all spending will cause problems, but putting butts in $1000 chairs doesn't make sense either.
"If you ask for just a few million, forget it"
Funny, the startup I work for asked for $3.5M and had VC jumping all over us. The VC market has changed since the dot bomb days, VC are tired of seeing their money spent on Hummers and pinball machines, they want to see a plan where their money is spent building a solid product and a customer base.
"The immediate purpose of the "innovation" argument is not to impress customers, but to persuade lawmakers and regulators not to pursue anti-trust actions."
/. already knew, but there would be value in the average CIO / CEO and consumer knowing/hearing about this as well. Hmmm?"
I agree that's why companies like MS use the term innovative, I was responding to the parents comment:
"Just think, MS would have to admit to everyone publically that they don't innovate anymore, whch is what everyone on
which implies that customers are swayed by MS being innovative.
Again I don't see this as a MS only problem, Cisco, Oracle and CA claim they are innovative as well, and I haven't seen anything innovative come from any of them lately.
More so, what is innovative? Everyone has a different opinion about what innovation is, which I suspect would make it hard to prove false advertising.
Even if they admitted that they are no longer innovative (or never were) I don't see this causing people to change their mind about using MS products. If you took a poll about why people use MS products, I suspect: "because they are innovative" would be well down the list...
"MS is not innovating but just acquiring the competition"
This can be said for many large tech companies. Cisco, Oracle, CA, etc. At some point companies become so large that they become incapable or slow at innovation, and must acquire smaller innovative companies to keep up.
According to the chart, they found a 69 year old female that plays MMORPGs!
/. too?!
I wonder if she reads
It's more about what I'm used to. The project I work on is 95% Java.
;)
Plus blue is my favorite color, so purple isn't too bad.