While the parent of your message was not correct (I don't think?), 27% of all servers today ship with Linux. And that doesn't include those that are being converted from Unix / Windows that were already owned.
The poster you were responding to is stating that it is inconsistent to take the position that one technology that has both positive and negative aspects should be allowed to exist, while another technology that also has both positive and negative aspects should not be allowed to exist.
I can understand that much, but just because something isn't black and white doesn't mean it isn't mostly white or mostly black. There are different shades of grey.
And calling Slashdotters hipocrites because they disagree with one issue and agree with another is not only a *very* general relation between the two, it's complete retarded. Any matter of opinion can fit that definition.
I try not to take pop shots at people and concentrate on their arguments, but I will this time. How in the hell did you of all people get a base score of 2?
Here it is, point by point.
--- ...how one day you people rail against the RIAA's attempts to shut down P2P, claiming that P2P has other uses than intellectual property theft.
Why, yes, it does. For instance, sharing free music and providing better methods for downloading certain types of files, such as those hosted on fileplanet.com, which is notoriously slow. P2P technologies, as they are developed, will also help the internet in general as medium-end computers become powerful enough to run servers. Mainframes are no longer needed, nor are high powered server clusters for many tasks. P2P is here to stay in at least some of the market, and in the future, it might take over much more. Developing it and letting it continue without DDOS attacks from some techno-weenie at the RIAA is a Good Thing (TM).
--- On the very same day, and quite often in the same thread, you can argue that Palladium is "evil" and it must die,
What this has to do with the RIAA and P2P has escaped me.
--- regardless of the other uses of the technology to secure systems against unauthorized software such as viruses, worms and trojans.
Microsoft will stop this by only allowing "authorized programs" to run. User authorization is pointless -- besides bugs (fairly attributable to Microsoft holes) and some poor "features", this is how things work now: the user must choose to run the code.
However, if the user does not authorize it, someone else must. If you care to claim that Microsoft isn't going to be that body, I'd love to hear a feasible argument. If Microsoft controls this, that gives them control over your entire computer regarding what you can and can not do. They have proven in the past that they'll abuse power to push people out of their market. No reason to assume they won't now.
If someone else gets it, the point still stands that that is too much power in the hands of one entity. Feel free to move to China if you prefer this scheme, I don't think many of us will mind.
--- You have absolutely no concept what Palladium is
Well, frankly, nobody knows exactly, Microsoft won't tell us much about it. But what they have said can be put through logical analysis, and the results are Not Good, including what I posted above.
--- Either make up your mind of STFU. Enough of the hypocrisy.
Again, can you enlighten us all how arguing against vigilante DDOS and cracking attacks on private networks relates to condemning a system that will wrench control of a user's computer from them?
--- OSS doesn't make sense in the reseller market (the one Microsoft is in)
As said previously, why spend millions making software when it's out there for free. If Microsoft makes the best product in the world and sells it for $300 with the source under an open source license, someone will just take the code, maybe modify it a bit, and derive their own product, presumably selling it for less.
--- Example is Red Hat. No, they're just under being profitable
From Red Hat's website: "In an increasingly difficult IT environment, Red Hat delivered a profit and generated positive cash flows for the first time," commented Matthew Szulik, President and CEO of Red Hat.
I conceed, I was a touch out of date.
--- but they aren't catering to the large market
From Entrepreneur.com: "Linux was the primary OS for 27 percent of the server operating market at the end of last year"
Again, I'm a little out of date, but 27% is not the kind of market share that Microsoft has (41% from the same website). I phrased "catering to the large market" incorrectly, but I think you get the point.
--- I should also add that it's estimated that over 70% of development occurs in-house and not for resale.
From opensource.org: --- Programming will collapse if software has no market value
Very unlikely. Code written for resale is only the tip of the programming iceberg. It used to be said that 85% of all the code in the world was written in-house at banks and insurance companies. This is probably no longer the case... but most estimates put the proportion of all code written in-house at companies other than software vendors at over 75%. ----
I know, I know, don't feed the trolls, but I figured that someone asked for links, I might as well offer them for those who show a real interest (and don't have their heads up their asses).
OSS doesn't make sense in the reseller market (the one Microsoft is in), but it makes sense in the support market. Example is Red Hat. No, they're just under being profitable, but they aren't catering to the large market, now are they?
I should also add that it's estimated that over 70% of development occurs in-house and not for resale. I can attest to that, that's my job.
>> MS: Many, many Visual Basic coders. MS dug its >>own grave with Visual Basic. Very low barrier to >>entry, very difficult to scale above a certain >>height
Very true, but how else are you going to get someone with a philosophy degree to program? The same fool would be out of his element on Linux.
Last I checked, folks with philosophy (and other) degrees don't make up squat of the programmer market. Developing a programming language for non-programmers and then pushing it to the top is about as dumb as it gets....they do have some things going for them
I slightly disagree. While this is very true to a point, some folks just want to save money. I'm talking about businesses. They've had problems with expensive windows gear and horrible licensing, and they try Linux. It works better, and costs less, after a few weeks of getting used to it. Linux now ships on over 25% of all servers sold today (in the US? Forgot statistic).
This trend is spreading to the desktop market. Many companies, including mine, are looking at free and cheap Office solutions. Eventually, people will get tired of subscribing to use XP on 2,000 office workstations and just migrate to Linux.
Then the phenomenon comes into play where regular users take Linux home with them.
The market is going to change. In my estimation, Linux will be running on 40% of all servers and 5-20% of all desktops within the next 2 years. Before you debate me, realize how far Linux has come in the last two years: from developer-only to user friendly. Ximian, Red Hat and others are now pushing with more force towards the desktop than Linux has seen before, IMO.
Of course, this is all speculation, and I could be wrong. Notice sig:
Red Hat Linux 7.3 + Ximian GNOME = computer my mother can use. She doesn't do a thing besides email, web, Yahoo! and AIM. She's not what you'd call computer literate, although she's not a moron by any means.
She loves it.
Give it a shot before you say it's not hard to use. I am a technical user (programmer by trade), but I wasn't a new user too long ago (7 years). IMO, [RH] Linux is as easy to install and use as any Windows OS.
Since Microsoft uses their own character set, whenever I read an email sent from Outlook, often I get block characters where -- should be. Here you can find some other problem characters.
I was just assuming he wrote this with Word or something and I was seeing ? instead of -- and the like, since I'm on Linux and using a standard character set.
I was referencing the times in the Soviet Union in which to go on a trip, you had to put in a request to the local police, get approved, let them know when you left and check in with the local police when you arive.
This was heard from an old english teacher of mine who took a trip to Russia as part of a "teacher exchange" thing. This was derived from a conversation with a Russian who was amazed at the freedoms we have in the U.S.
There are more people willing to kill you just for being born where you born than you can imagine
Amazing. So, if there are all these terrorists on every corner, why haven't I heard about anyone blowing themselves up in a theatre in the US? It's not like it's difficult to make some TNT and walk into a movie theatre.
As for point 1), I was under the impression from the beginning that Palladium was a hardware spec as well. I've read that nobody is sure if Palladium is supposed to work with the TCPA or in lieu of it. Anyway...
--- 2) Linux folks haven't been able to control Microsoft in the least before -- just work around them, and provide an attractive alternative. What's new about not being able to tell Microsoft what to do?
Nothing, but the difference is that Microsoft is taking more control over users' computers. In the past, they introduced file incompatibilities and made changes to SMB, etc. Now, they have the power to do a lot more, such as restricting communications with "non-secure" computers. I won't speculate on exactly what or how, that's another discussion, but the point stands. Microsoft will stoop to low levels to push folks out, and if Palladium is widely accepted, I doubt they won't abuse it.
I have a large pile of oggs that I ripped from CDs that I own. If I wanted to move these files to a new computer under Palladium I would be SOL.
True, but people have delt with Windows crashing for years. Maybe this is something they'll just accept? I have a guess: Linux will win. But -- who knows.
--- As for authentication and security benefits, with Palladium you leave yourself totally dependendent on one vendor (Microsoft).
True, but this is what some folks seem to want. They have one company that they can point their finger at and say, "It's your fault, fix it." I hear this argument all the time. I think it's rediculous just because Microsoft often doesn't fix these problems that come up, but that's the reason I'm given when I ask employees of certain companies why they don't use Linux: "There is no one person to go to or blame," which isn't exactly true, either... *ramble ramble*
Back on topic...
--- Intel's customers don't really care about security.
From what I see, yes and no. Everyone today seems to be afraid of the "hackers" and viruses who/that will get into their computer and destroy everything and cause the sky to fall. When Microsoft says, "Folks, we mean it, look at our specs, we're doing something about this - we'll solve your problems," I'm sure some folks will buy it. They don't really care, but they accept "security" as a buzz-word, chalk points up for Microsoft, and move on. Most folks don't seem to care.
---
I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate. Personally, I think Linux is screaming its warcry, "Freeeedom!!" and starting its charge to the desktop world. I'm just concerned because major headaches and changes haven't stopped people from using Windows in the past. Then again, the only other viable alternatives were OS/2 and Mac that I recall, but that's another discussion.
I can certainly see that point, but consider this:
I'm not entirely certain on the facts of Palladium (is anyone?), but from what I can see Microsoft doing now and talking about, it seems that you'll be able to rips things and such, but that those files won't play natively on someone else's computer (natively = without a hack).
Some folks that I talk to also think that sharing music is, depending on how often you listen to it / whether you buy the CD afterwards, stealing. Some folks will put up with it.
Even past the scope of that issue, there are also other benefits of Palladium as far as authentication and security. The idea of secured computing appeals to many people. In my mind, this might sell, and I think that's why AMD is on board - they don't want to have to admit that they can't offer the "unsurpassed security" that Intel can. Note the quotes, heh...
I said high up, not an engineer. Let's put it this way, he's very high up in the sales team, and although I will say that I typically hate marketing/sales folks, this guy is no typical sales guy. He knows his stuff.
As far as Palladium not causing problems:
1) I wasn't aware that Palladium would be "disableable." Link, please? I would be interested to know...
2) Microsoft controls ~95% of the desktop market. Palladium gives them a lot of control over one's system. They've proven time and time again their will to stoop low to push out competition. I won't go past that, but you can't tell me we should be care-free about this. We can control our systems, but what about all the other desktops out there?
Aye, but from all I can see, Intel's goal was to provide a method of tracking and of authentication. The benefits (authentication) didn't cover the downside (being tracked).
In this case, Microsoft is doing a lot more than just authentication.
Just like if we don't buy Windows, nobody will use it, right? Microsoft will just go out of business?
That's why they run ~95% of the desktop market.
Look around! That libertarian "vote with your money" argument doesn't work often in the real world, simply because most folks are not intellectuals. Most folks don't care.
Just because we're not required to use it doesn't mean it won't do anything. When Microsoft controls 95% of the desktop market, and they're regulating those desktops, that gives them a lot of power. And they've proven that they'll stoop low to push out competition.
I won't go any further than that, it would be speculation, but don't tell me that because we're not forced into buying it that it doesn't affect us.
That also doesn't take into account the wonderful people in Congress who are looking at the TCPA as law.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't they say code red hit 25,000 in the first day?
I'm all up for being fair, but move on folks, there really is nothing to see here.
While the parent of your message was not correct (I don't think?), 27% of all servers today ship with Linux. And that doesn't include those that are being converted from Unix / Windows that were already owned.
10%? *bzzt* Try again.
The poster you were responding to is stating that it is inconsistent to take the position that one technology that has both positive and negative aspects should be allowed to exist, while another technology that also has both positive and negative aspects should not be allowed to exist.
I can understand that much, but just because something isn't black and white doesn't mean it isn't mostly white or mostly black. There are different shades of grey.
And calling Slashdotters hipocrites because they disagree with one issue and agree with another is not only a *very* general relation between the two, it's complete retarded. Any matter of opinion can fit that definition.
I try not to take pop shots at people and concentrate on their arguments, but I will this time. How in the hell did you of all people get a base score of 2?
...how one day you people rail against the RIAA's attempts to shut down P2P, claiming that P2P has other uses than intellectual property theft.
Here it is, point by point.
---
Why, yes, it does. For instance, sharing free music and providing better methods for downloading certain types of files, such as those hosted on fileplanet.com, which is notoriously slow. P2P technologies, as they are developed, will also help the internet in general as medium-end computers become powerful enough to run servers. Mainframes are no longer needed, nor are high powered server clusters for many tasks. P2P is here to stay in at least some of the market, and in the future, it might take over much more. Developing it and letting it continue without DDOS attacks from some techno-weenie at the RIAA is a Good Thing (TM).
---
On the very same day, and quite often in the same thread, you can argue that Palladium is "evil" and it must die,
What this has to do with the RIAA and P2P has escaped me.
---
regardless of the other uses of the technology to secure systems against unauthorized software such as viruses, worms and trojans.
Microsoft will stop this by only allowing "authorized programs" to run. User authorization is pointless -- besides bugs (fairly attributable to Microsoft holes) and some poor "features", this is how things work now: the user must choose to run the code.
However, if the user does not authorize it, someone else must. If you care to claim that Microsoft isn't going to be that body, I'd love to hear a feasible argument. If Microsoft controls this, that gives them control over your entire computer regarding what you can and can not do. They have proven in the past that they'll abuse power to push people out of their market. No reason to assume they won't now.
If someone else gets it, the point still stands that that is too much power in the hands of one entity. Feel free to move to China if you prefer this scheme, I don't think many of us will mind.
---
You have absolutely no concept what Palladium is
Well, frankly, nobody knows exactly, Microsoft won't tell us much about it. But what they have said can be put through logical analysis, and the results are Not Good, including what I posted above.
---
Either make up your mind of STFU. Enough of the hypocrisy.
Again, can you enlighten us all how arguing against vigilante DDOS and cracking attacks on private networks relates to condemning a system that will wrench control of a user's computer from them?
Well, I'm pretty happy with my nested logins, although I rarely use them.
command: gdmflexiserver --xnest
A new desktop login in a window. Multiple desktops. *sigh* Linux puts Windows to such shame.
An exercise for the AC...
... but most estimates put the proportion of all code written in-house at companies other than software vendors at over 75%.
Here are my points:
---
OSS doesn't make sense in the reseller market (the one Microsoft is in)
As said previously, why spend millions making software when it's out there for free. If Microsoft makes the best product in the world and sells it for $300 with the source under an open source license, someone will just take the code, maybe modify it a bit, and derive their own product, presumably selling it for less.
---
but it makes sense in the support market.
Read.
---
Example is Red Hat. No, they're just under being profitable
From Red Hat's website:
"In an increasingly difficult IT environment, Red Hat delivered a profit and generated positive cash flows for the first time," commented Matthew Szulik, President and CEO of Red Hat.
I conceed, I was a touch out of date.
---
but they aren't catering to the large market
From Entrepreneur.com:
"Linux was the primary OS for 27 percent of the server operating market at the end of last year"
Again, I'm a little out of date, but 27% is not the kind of market share that Microsoft has (41% from the same website). I phrased "catering to the large market" incorrectly, but I think you get the point.
---
I should also add that it's estimated that over 70% of development occurs in-house and not for resale.
From opensource.org:
---
Programming will collapse if software has no market value
Very unlikely. Code written for resale is only the tip of the programming iceberg. It used to be said that 85% of all the code in the world was written in-house at banks and insurance companies. This is probably no longer the case
----
I know, I know, don't feed the trolls, but I figured that someone asked for links, I might as well offer them for those who show a real interest (and don't have their heads up their asses).
OSS doesn't make sense in the reseller market (the one Microsoft is in), but it makes sense in the support market. Example is Red Hat. No, they're just under being profitable, but they aren't catering to the large market, now are they?
I should also add that it's estimated that over 70% of development occurs in-house and not for resale. I can attest to that, that's my job.
>> MS: Many, many Visual Basic coders. MS dug its
...they do have some things going for them
>>own grave with Visual Basic. Very low barrier to
>>entry, very difficult to scale above a certain
>>height
Very true, but how else are you going to get someone with a philosophy degree to program? The same fool would be out of his element on Linux.
Last I checked, folks with philosophy (and other) degrees don't make up squat of the programmer market. Developing a programming language for non-programmers and then pushing it to the top is about as dumb as it gets.
With comparison to Linux? What might those be?
I slightly disagree. While this is very true to a point, some folks just want to save money. I'm talking about businesses. They've had problems with expensive windows gear and horrible licensing, and they try Linux. It works better, and costs less, after a few weeks of getting used to it. Linux now ships on over 25% of all servers sold today (in the US? Forgot statistic).
This trend is spreading to the desktop market. Many companies, including mine, are looking at free and cheap Office solutions. Eventually, people will get tired of subscribing to use XP on 2,000 office workstations and just migrate to Linux.
Then the phenomenon comes into play where regular users take Linux home with them.
The market is going to change. In my estimation, Linux will be running on 40% of all servers and 5-20% of all desktops within the next 2 years. Before you debate me, realize how far Linux has come in the last two years: from developer-only to user friendly. Ximian, Red Hat and others are now pushing with more force towards the desktop than Linux has seen before, IMO.
Of course, this is all speculation, and I could be wrong. Notice sig:
"It is only a matter of time before rogue black-hat hacker elements..."
You forgot to add "terrorist" to the list.
That's what we have distros and configurations for.
"What type of user are you?"
"Advanced."
"Ok! All wizards and easy-screens set to non-default."
Get Gentoo and stay ahead of the game. =P
Said it before, say it again, blah-di-blah:
Red Hat Linux 7.3 + Ximian GNOME = computer my mother can use. She doesn't do a thing besides email, web, Yahoo! and AIM. She's not what you'd call computer literate, although she's not a moron by any means.
She loves it.
Give it a shot before you say it's not hard to use. I am a technical user (programmer by trade), but I wasn't a new user too long ago (7 years). IMO, [RH] Linux is as easy to install and use as any Windows OS.
I give 50% of what I'm worth away.
My standard of living goes down.
Billy gives 50% of what he's worth away.
He might have to settle for a destroyer for Christmas this year instead of an aircraft carrier.
All you anal-retentive trolls keep away from the reply button. I'll say it here, I didn't check my math.
Point still stands, though.
I thought they would render fine in IE....
Since Microsoft uses their own character set, whenever I read an email sent from Outlook, often I get block characters where -- should be. Here you can find some other problem characters.
I was just assuming he wrote this with Word or something and I was seeing ? instead of -- and the like, since I'm on Linux and using a standard character set.
Go figure?
I should add:
I was referencing the times in the Soviet Union in which to go on a trip, you had to put in a request to the local police, get approved, let them know when you left and check in with the local police when you arive.
This was heard from an old english teacher of mine who took a trip to Russia as part of a "teacher exchange" thing. This was derived from a conversation with a Russian who was amazed at the freedoms we have in the U.S.
The roadways are still free.
Just you wait. Heh.
I can smell this country becoming more communist every day.
I'm only half-way kidding.
There are more people willing to kill you just for being born where you born than you can imagine
Amazing. So, if there are all these terrorists on every corner, why haven't I heard about anyone blowing themselves up in a theatre in the US? It's not like it's difficult to make some TNT and walk into a movie theatre.
As for point 1), I was under the impression from the beginning that Palladium was a hardware spec as well. I've read that nobody is sure if Palladium is supposed to work with the TCPA or in lieu of it. Anyway...
---
2) Linux folks haven't been able to control Microsoft in the least before -- just work around them, and provide an attractive alternative. What's new about not being able to tell Microsoft what to do?
Nothing, but the difference is that Microsoft is taking more control over users' computers. In the past, they introduced file incompatibilities and made changes to SMB, etc. Now, they have the power to do a lot more, such as restricting communications with "non-secure" computers. I won't speculate on exactly what or how, that's another discussion, but the point stands. Microsoft will stoop to low levels to push folks out, and if Palladium is widely accepted, I doubt they won't abuse it.
I have a large pile of oggs that I ripped from CDs that I own. If I wanted to move these files to a new computer under Palladium I would be SOL.
True, but people have delt with Windows crashing for years. Maybe this is something they'll just accept? I have a guess: Linux will win. But -- who knows.
---
As for authentication and security benefits, with Palladium you leave yourself totally dependendent on one vendor (Microsoft).
True, but this is what some folks seem to want. They have one company that they can point their finger at and say, "It's your fault, fix it." I hear this argument all the time. I think it's rediculous just because Microsoft often doesn't fix these problems that come up, but that's the reason I'm given when I ask employees of certain companies why they don't use Linux: "There is no one person to go to or blame," which isn't exactly true, either... *ramble ramble*
Back on topic...
---
Intel's customers don't really care about security.
From what I see, yes and no. Everyone today seems to be afraid of the "hackers" and viruses who/that will get into their computer and destroy everything and cause the sky to fall. When Microsoft says, "Folks, we mean it, look at our specs, we're doing something about this - we'll solve your problems," I'm sure some folks will buy it. They don't really care, but they accept "security" as a buzz-word, chalk points up for Microsoft, and move on. Most folks don't seem to care.
---
I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate. Personally, I think Linux is screaming its warcry, "Freeeedom!!" and starting its charge to the desktop world. I'm just concerned because major headaches and changes haven't stopped people from using Windows in the past. Then again, the only other viable alternatives were OS/2 and Mac that I recall, but that's another discussion.
Eh... I guess it does help to read the entire article.
Sorry.
I can certainly see that point, but consider this:
I'm not entirely certain on the facts of Palladium (is anyone?), but from what I can see Microsoft doing now and talking about, it seems that you'll be able to rips things and such, but that those files won't play natively on someone else's computer (natively = without a hack).
Some folks that I talk to also think that sharing music is, depending on how often you listen to it / whether you buy the CD afterwards, stealing. Some folks will put up with it.
Even past the scope of that issue, there are also other benefits of Palladium as far as authentication and security. The idea of secured computing appeals to many people. In my mind, this might sell, and I think that's why AMD is on board - they don't want to have to admit that they can't offer the "unsurpassed security" that Intel can. Note the quotes, heh...
And the personal feelings of some engineer
I said high up, not an engineer. Let's put it this way, he's very high up in the sales team, and although I will say that I typically hate marketing/sales folks, this guy is no typical sales guy. He knows his stuff.
As far as Palladium not causing problems:
1) I wasn't aware that Palladium would be "disableable." Link, please? I would be interested to know...
2) Microsoft controls ~95% of the desktop market. Palladium gives them a lot of control over one's system. They've proven time and time again their will to stoop low to push out competition. I won't go past that, but you can't tell me we should be care-free about this. We can control our systems, but what about all the other desktops out there?
Aye, but from all I can see, Intel's goal was to provide a method of tracking and of authentication. The benefits (authentication) didn't cover the downside (being tracked).
In this case, Microsoft is doing a lot more than just authentication.
Just like if we don't buy Windows, nobody will use it, right? Microsoft will just go out of business?
That's why they run ~95% of the desktop market.
Look around! That libertarian "vote with your money" argument doesn't work often in the real world, simply because most folks are not intellectuals. Most folks don't care.
Damn, how you never cease to amaze me, Knox. =)
Just because we're not required to use it doesn't mean it won't do anything. When Microsoft controls 95% of the desktop market, and they're regulating those desktops, that gives them a lot of power. And they've proven that they'll stoop low to push out competition.
I won't go any further than that, it would be speculation, but don't tell me that because we're not forced into buying it that it doesn't affect us.
That also doesn't take into account the wonderful people in Congress who are looking at the TCPA as law.