And the fun part of the Microsoft Academic Alliance program is that the software is actually distributed by servers ON CAMPUS - not from the company running the program for Microsoft or Microsoft itself.
So it essentially costs Microsoft NOTHING to brainwash students into using MS products except whatever it may be paying the company to put up a chintzy Web site and handle the college email authentication scripts.
Not really. I think his point is that if there was no copyright, people would hand out their so-called "IP" without NEEDING to have a GPL REQUIRE it.
This may or may not be the case, but it's irrelevant because it's not going to happen until OSS can demonstrate once and for all that the free market is the only market - everything else is coercion.
By that time, we Transhumans are going to deal the cards anyway...
I agree with you to some extent - but my point and that of other respondents to your post is that such arguments aren't going to go anywhere even if they should.
The issue is how do you economically and technically and politically replace non-free software in schools with OSS software.
It can be done economically and technically - I'm not sure it can be done politically.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
First, the existing package is being "supported" by SCT by just about nobody as far as I can tell - which is why we're paying for the consultantcy.
Secondly, the consultantcy supporting the package has one employee who shows up a couple days a week, and another who shows up once a month or so to check in with her. We of course have an overworked DBA running the system, and a variety of IT personnel hanging around the edges. Even so, the Student side of the system that supports Admissions and Registration gets virtually no support except from my boss who used to be Applications Manager until they booted him sideways because he criticized the operation too much. When he retires in the fall, the Student side will be left high and dry. I was being groomed to take over his position (at least partly and not at his salary), but under the pretext of "no money" (while we pay the consultantcy $195,000 to "finish the Banner 6 conversion") I can't get hired.
For this (and possibly whatever they might be doing at their home offices, details I'm not familiar with), we pay $195,000. Oh, yes, and they always recommend not changing "baseline" in any significant way.
So, yes, such a package could be "supported" (if you mean bug fixes) internally by one person, maybe two. Enhancements and modifications would be ongoing and would require more people, probably, depending on how the system was designed from the standpoint of end-user empowerment in ad hoc report writing, etc. Whether this would be done inhouse or via contract is a separate issue.
It's entirely dependent on the technology used to implement the system. Banner uses Oracle Forms (now running via a Web interface than natively) and the Oracle DBMS, as well as a hodge-podge of ProCOBOL, ProC, PL/SQL, shell scripts and who knows what else. Very poor documentation from a system standpoint (they have table diagrams where blocks representing tables are in touch with nothing else on the page...) despite having a ton of manuals for the system. The user interface has obviously been translated from some old mainframe terminal system into Oracle forms and hence to the Web. It's pathetic compared to any modern GUI interface.
As for an employee costing $200K, you must work at Harvard. Granted our counseling staff seem to make out well, and my boss makes good money, not to mention various Deans, Vice-Chancellors, etc., a new system could be built by me for much less than that over two years on a contract basis - I'd happily work for two years for $100K to replace the system. Support could be done by the existing ITS staff, not to mention tons of savvy student interns if the college wanted to go that way.
No, your problem is you think in terms of overblown inhouse projects that are run more for political reasons than technical ones and run by incompetent idiots to boot.
Except there are more unpatched root vulnerabilities on Windows than Linux. Do I know which ones? No - because they haven't been discovered yet. But based on MS history, they will be. Far fewer will be found on Linux and they will be patched quicker.
And your suggestion that there are no hooks into system space is just plain stupid. Currently patched systems do not count - it's the future holes that count.
Conflating concepts from several parts of a post indicates a certain degree of, well, stupidity.
My point was to illustrate that schools have to upgrade just as much or more so than corporations do in order to teach current material.
Corporations CAN refuse to do so, but if they DO upgrade every time an OS comes out, they essentially do not control their upgrade schedule. The vendor does.
Anybody well-read in industry news knows that Microsoft offered companies a higher license price because Longhorn was supposed to be out by now. Since it isn't, MS has had to sweeten the pot somewhat. The companies that paid the higher price are pissed because they paid for something they didn't get - a new OS on a regular schedule. Which, besides, favors the vendor more than it does the corporation - unless the corporation NEEDS the new OS to be competitive.
Schools have less flexibility if they want to teach current OS topics (although I will admit that Windows 2003 came out in 2003 but CCSF didn't have a 2003 course until this (or maybe last) semester. Still, that's a pretty quick response for an academic institution.) The point is, the school has no choice - they HAVE to upgrade or be irrelevant to industry - and a community college district can't afford to be irrelevant to local industry.
"re-engineering is only a win if provides a substiantial advantage in some tangible "business' (rather than technical) way. Many companies run 30-40 year old proprietary code on very expensive & now obscure leased IBM machines, but the code does it's job well and has never needed to be re-engineered."
But it will be - sooner or later. Or the organization goes out of business.
And this applies only to deliberately obtuse organizations. Any organization with a concept of being competitive is going to enhance its systems sooner rather than later.
Or are all those articles in the trade press by companies who are trying to use the latest stuff so much puffery?
It is PRECISELY the business requirements that require re-engineering. I said nothing about technical desires. And that applies to educational establishments as well - although politically it is a different story.
City College of San Francisco is sitting around moaning about how they have no money - the head of the Registration Department complains she can't hire a 20-hour-a-week person to help out while the College plans to spend scores of thousands of dollars on a workflow product, and spends at least $300K/year on Banner.
Yet he makes a point about how anybody can contact him.
Their editorial email address is working today, so I just sent a nice email to their editorial department pointing out that his brilliant interview has caused Sys-Con to be hated more than ever now.
Right - his "forceful denial" that was actually published could be ripped to pieces in five minutes by a retarded attorney.
Most of it can easily be described as a further hatchet job on OSS and PJ in particular, and as SCO-directed bullshit to boot, given that he's using the same "OSS supporters are wacko nutjobs who use DoS tactics" crap that Laura DiDio AND MoG used.
If somebody supoenas his email, I suspect we'd find some interesting stuff.
If he's the best Sys-Con can trot out, the Board of Directors need to find a new guy. Maybe Darl would be interested...
I'm not sure there WAS any "attack". Did anybody hear about such a thing before this interview? Especially since he claims it was the "biggest DoS attack" ANY media company has suffered?
It sounds to me like this guy was claiming such in order to use the same "OSS people are wackos" claim that Laura DiDio AND MoG used.
Which is very suspicious. It tends to make me think he's part and parcel of the same SCO-loving crew since he uses the exact same tactics.
Reminds me of the cartoon where the guy says, "I'm not waiting for my identity to be stolen. I'm selling it on eBay."
But you're selling yourself cheap! Look how much those "journalists" got for selling Bush's health plan! Scores of thousands! Go for the big bucks! Start writing articles claiming Linus is gay! That Linux is actually written by Red Chinese hackers! That Linus is a "foreign terrorist" - worse, a Communist! (Oh, wait, Bill already said that...)
Remember, the bigger the bullshit, the bigger the payoff!
Since GrokLaw's function is to cover the SCO case from the legal angle, saying that it's credibility is diminished by any other issue is a red herring and misleading.
Saying that PJ "threw the first punch" by analyzing and refuting MoG's bullshit is just plain stupid.
Finally, if an anonymous person is attacking me, sure, I'd want to know who it is - if it actually mattered to my safety or revenue. Which, however, does not mean I would publish a bunch of personal details which have NOTHING TO DO with the arguments said person was using (unless the person were like, oh, Jeff Gannon, who purports to be a "family values Republican" while actually acting as a gay escort IN the White House - in which case, the charge of hypocrisy might be validly based on those personal details.)
Because, moron, MS DID fund SCO's bullshit lawsuit, albeit in a roundabout way (which is exactly the way these things are done.)
And given that Darl McBride has made a point of attacking PJ and suggesting she was "not who she seems to be", and given that O'Gara had access to SCo documents unseen by anybody else, it is hardly beyond the realm of possibility that she is indeed an SCO shill and either on direct or indirect orders or on her own decided to pull this stunt.
"Our mission is to support the Open Source community by giving them the strongest voice and sharing information about their accomplishments in a truthful and positive way. We also strive to cover the shortcomings or problems we see with Linux and Open Source from an objective point of view."
NONE of which has anything to do with Maureen O'Gara who is an SCO shill and a deliberate opponent of OSS.
More importantly, Sys-Con is run by an asshole who is now attacking OSS people as criminal wackos who caused his company to go down "for three days" from a DoS attack.
Meanwhile he has not explained how it is that some OSS companies were NOT AWARE that their ads were being run on LBN, let alone next to anti-OSS articles from O'Gara. I suspect some probing will find this guy is inflating his advertising hits by running ads on his sites without the knowledge of his advertisers.
Slashdot Mirror
"The five finalists may be required to become involved in further publicity or advertising."
REQUIRED??!!
Or what? "We'll beat your ass, boy, and send you to Guantanamo!"
GATES HEIL!
GATES HEIL!
GATES HEIL!
(Limp-wristed salute from Bill)
Can you see Steve Ballmer as Goering? I knew you could...
And the fun part of the Microsoft Academic Alliance program is that the software is actually distributed by servers ON CAMPUS - not from the company running the program for Microsoft or Microsoft itself.
So it essentially costs Microsoft NOTHING to brainwash students into using MS products except whatever it may be paying the company to put up a chintzy Web site and handle the college email authentication scripts.
Not really. I think his point is that if there was no copyright, people would hand out their so-called "IP" without NEEDING to have a GPL REQUIRE it.
This may or may not be the case, but it's irrelevant because it's not going to happen until OSS can demonstrate once and for all that the free market is the only market - everything else is coercion.
By that time, we Transhumans are going to deal the cards anyway...
Is this a fake MS site?
You mean it's REAL?
Bwahahahahahahahah!!!
Now we know Microsoft's problem! Somebody up there is on CRACK! Maybe everybody!
Next, Gates will heading up the "Just Say No!" campaign with Pat Nixon!
I agree with you to some extent - but my point and that of other respondents to your post is that such arguments aren't going to go anywhere even if they should.
The issue is how do you economically and technically and politically replace non-free software in schools with OSS software.
It can be done economically and technically - I'm not sure it can be done politically.
I know perfectly well they were developed with the support of companies or other organizations such as the Apache Foundation.
My point is that there are FREE OSS workflow packages already being used in production by companies worldwide vrs ones that cost $250K to buy.
What part of that didn't you grasp?
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
First, the existing package is being "supported" by SCT by just about nobody as far as I can tell - which is why we're paying for the consultantcy.
Secondly, the consultantcy supporting the package has one employee who shows up a couple days a week, and another who shows up once a month or so to check in with her. We of course have an overworked DBA running the system, and a variety of IT personnel hanging around the edges. Even so, the Student side of the system that supports Admissions and Registration gets virtually no support except from my boss who used to be Applications Manager until they booted him sideways because he criticized the operation too much. When he retires in the fall, the Student side will be left high and dry. I was being groomed to take over his position (at least partly and not at his salary), but under the pretext of "no money" (while we pay the consultantcy $195,000 to "finish the Banner 6 conversion") I can't get hired.
For this (and possibly whatever they might be doing at their home offices, details I'm not familiar with), we pay $195,000. Oh, yes, and they always recommend not changing "baseline" in any significant way.
So, yes, such a package could be "supported" (if you mean bug fixes) internally by one person, maybe two. Enhancements and modifications would be ongoing and would require more people, probably, depending on how the system was designed from the standpoint of end-user empowerment in ad hoc report writing, etc. Whether this would be done inhouse or via contract is a separate issue.
It's entirely dependent on the technology used to implement the system. Banner uses Oracle Forms (now running via a Web interface than natively) and the Oracle DBMS, as well as a hodge-podge of ProCOBOL, ProC, PL/SQL, shell scripts and who knows what else. Very poor documentation from a system standpoint (they have table diagrams where blocks representing tables are in touch with nothing else on the page...) despite having a ton of manuals for the system. The user interface has obviously been translated from some old mainframe terminal system into Oracle forms and hence to the Web. It's pathetic compared to any modern GUI interface.
As for an employee costing $200K, you must work at Harvard. Granted our counseling staff seem to make out well, and my boss makes good money, not to mention various Deans, Vice-Chancellors, etc., a new system could be built by me for much less than that over two years on a contract basis - I'd happily work for two years for $100K to replace the system. Support could be done by the existing ITS staff, not to mention tons of savvy student interns if the college wanted to go that way.
No, your problem is you think in terms of overblown inhouse projects that are run more for political reasons than technical ones and run by incompetent idiots to boot.
Okay, I'll play your game.
You have some evidence to disprove my assertions?
Thought not.
Windows troll.
Except there are more unpatched root vulnerabilities on Windows than Linux. Do I know which ones? No - because they haven't been discovered yet. But based on MS history, they will be. Far fewer will be found on Linux and they will be patched quicker.
And your suggestion that there are no hooks into system space is just plain stupid. Currently patched systems do not count - it's the future holes that count.
Troll.
Really - given that most Web sites are running MySQL and PHP (if not Python), your point is hard to grasp.
Possibly because it isn't a point, merely a troll.
So you won't be offended if I say, fuck off, troll.
You have a problem with English, right?
Or conceptual processing?
Conflating concepts from several parts of a post indicates a certain degree of, well, stupidity.
My point was to illustrate that schools have to upgrade just as much or more so than corporations do in order to teach current material.
Corporations CAN refuse to do so, but if they DO upgrade every time an OS comes out, they essentially do not control their upgrade schedule. The vendor does.
Anybody well-read in industry news knows that Microsoft offered companies a higher license price because Longhorn was supposed to be out by now. Since it isn't, MS has had to sweeten the pot somewhat. The companies that paid the higher price are pissed because they paid for something they didn't get - a new OS on a regular schedule. Which, besides, favors the vendor more than it does the corporation - unless the corporation NEEDS the new OS to be competitive.
Schools have less flexibility if they want to teach current OS topics (although I will admit that Windows 2003 came out in 2003 but CCSF didn't have a 2003 course until this (or maybe last) semester. Still, that's a pretty quick response for an academic institution.) The point is, the school has no choice - they HAVE to upgrade or be irrelevant to industry - and a community college district can't afford to be irrelevant to local industry.
Nobody said anything about hiring a bunch of programmers to write anything.
And how does it help schools to piss away money on expensive software when they could be running OSS software for the cost of administration?
As I said above, "What's wrong with this picture?"
Claiming an organization cannot afford re-engineering is completely incorrect. The truth is the opposite - they cannot afford NOT to re-engineer.
HOW they do it is another question - for which there are answers if you think about it without a predisposition to dismiss it.
"re-engineering is only a win if provides a substiantial advantage in some tangible "business' (rather than technical) way. Many companies run 30-40 year old proprietary code on very expensive & now obscure leased IBM machines, but the code does it's job well and has never needed to be re-engineered."
But it will be - sooner or later. Or the organization goes out of business.
And this applies only to deliberately obtuse organizations. Any organization with a concept of being competitive is going to enhance its systems sooner rather than later.
Or are all those articles in the trade press by companies who are trying to use the latest stuff so much puffery?
It is PRECISELY the business requirements that require re-engineering. I said nothing about technical desires. And that applies to educational establishments as well - although politically it is a different story.
City College of San Francisco is sitting around moaning about how they have no money - the head of the Registration Department complains she can't hire a 20-hour-a-week person to help out while the College plans to spend scores of thousands of dollars on a workflow product, and spends at least $300K/year on Banner.
What's wrong with this picture?
My point stands.
Yet he makes a point about how anybody can contact him.
Their editorial email address is working today, so I just sent a nice email to their editorial department pointing out that his brilliant interview has caused Sys-Con to be hated more than ever now.
Right - his "forceful denial" that was actually published could be ripped to pieces in five minutes by a retarded attorney.
Most of it can easily be described as a further hatchet job on OSS and PJ in particular, and as SCO-directed bullshit to boot, given that he's using the same "OSS supporters are wacko nutjobs who use DoS tactics" crap that Laura DiDio AND MoG used.
If somebody supoenas his email, I suspect we'd find some interesting stuff.
If he's the best Sys-Con can trot out, the Board of Directors need to find a new guy. Maybe Darl would be interested...
I'm not sure there WAS any "attack". Did anybody hear about such a thing before this interview? Especially since he claims it was the "biggest DoS attack" ANY media company has suffered?
It sounds to me like this guy was claiming such in order to use the same "OSS people are wackos" claim that Laura DiDio AND MoG used.
Which is very suspicious. It tends to make me think he's part and parcel of the same SCO-loving crew since he uses the exact same tactics.
Wouuldn't matter if you DID find the editorial email address.
It doesn't work - bombs with an error message in both IE and FireFox. ALL their email links do the same.
Seems like the "world's leading iMedia company" can't handle using a mailto: properly.
"Common confusion -- capitalists are about free enterprise, not freedom of the press (necessarily)."
Common confusion - free market advocates are about free enterprise. Capitalists are about owning the state and monopolies.
Reminds me of the cartoon where the guy says, "I'm not waiting for my identity to be stolen. I'm selling it on eBay."
But you're selling yourself cheap! Look how much those "journalists" got for selling Bush's health plan! Scores of thousands! Go for the big bucks! Start writing articles claiming Linus is gay! That Linux is actually written by Red Chinese hackers! That Linus is a "foreign terrorist" - worse, a Communist! (Oh, wait, Bill already said that...)
Remember, the bigger the bullshit, the bigger the payoff!
YOU COULD BE PRESIDENT SOME DAY!
Since GrokLaw's function is to cover the SCO case from the legal angle, saying that it's credibility is diminished by any other issue is a red herring and misleading.
Saying that PJ "threw the first punch" by analyzing and refuting MoG's bullshit is just plain stupid.
Finally, if an anonymous person is attacking me, sure, I'd want to know who it is - if it actually mattered to my safety or revenue. Which, however, does not mean I would publish a bunch of personal details which have NOTHING TO DO with the arguments said person was using (unless the person were like, oh, Jeff Gannon, who purports to be a "family values Republican" while actually acting as a gay escort IN the White House - in which case, the charge of hypocrisy might be validly based on those personal details.)
In other words, you're a moron.
Because, moron, MS DID fund SCO's bullshit lawsuit, albeit in a roundabout way (which is exactly the way these things are done.)
And given that Darl McBride has made a point of attacking PJ and suggesting she was "not who she seems to be", and given that O'Gara had access to SCo documents unseen by anybody else, it is hardly beyond the realm of possibility that she is indeed an SCO shill and either on direct or indirect orders or on her own decided to pull this stunt.
Which makes you an innocent moron...
I'll bet you click on spam, too...
You're an idiot.
440 Eddy Street, #424, San Francisco, California
Come on down.
Moron.
"Our mission is to support the Open Source community by giving them the strongest voice and sharing information about their accomplishments in a truthful and positive way. We also strive to cover the shortcomings or problems we see with Linux and Open Source from an objective point of view."
NONE of which has anything to do with Maureen O'Gara who is an SCO shill and a deliberate opponent of OSS.
More importantly, Sys-Con is run by an asshole who is now attacking OSS people as criminal wackos who caused his company to go down "for three days" from a DoS attack.
Meanwhile he has not explained how it is that some OSS companies were NOT AWARE that their ads were being run on LBN, let alone next to anti-OSS articles from O'Gara. I suspect some probing will find this guy is inflating his advertising hits by running ads on his sites without the knowledge of his advertisers.
Right - just try your scenario.
See you in a year (or two) after your ass has been fudge-packed by your cellie at the state joint or county jail you will be occupying.
IANAL either - but you're very ANAL.
There are plenty of criminal codes that will be used against you for "waltzing" anywhere you aren't wanted.