I'm only a few years younger that you, with young kids not yet at this phase, and I very much agree with the sentiment expessed here. My parents were very much a contrast here, my mother a free thinking artist type who really talked to us and found out who we were (are) and encouraged us to really think for ourselves. My father on the other hand was a cop, and could be very controlling. It didn't effect us that much, although every one of my sisters moved out of the house on or about their 18th birthdays (I went off to school the next fall, so I was pretty much gone too). Dad still doesn't get it, and probably thinks mom "turned us against him", which is something she would never do.
As long as you are using the analogy of internet addressing, why not go the extra step and get rid of the numbers completely? I know, it is a bit more complicated to key in and alpha-numeric address into the small keypad of a phone, but this has to be the way things will go eventually.
BTW, I've never used the email address supplied by my ISP, nor any free email hosting. In my case, the email is hosted with my web-hosting, and it doesn't really cost me anything because this is being shared virtual host-wise with a close contact. The bottom line is that I own the domain for any email address I use (for myself, and of course my employer would own the domain for work email addresses).
I think it is very important that as a master/PhD student you get familiar with corporate research and business.
I'm not sure why you think I'm a student. Actually, I'm a software engineer with a background in both development and system administration (20+ years). Right now, I'm thinking about trying to get a PhD, in part because I very dissatisfied with what is available in the corporate America. Without getting into all the details around this decision, the bottom line is that I claim that the current system, both commercial and academic are not structured well to promote the kind of innovation that our future requires.
Partly, but often more important is the uncertainty about whether there are patents out there that you may infringe on. Even if you try to do a proper search, it might be a patent that is in the process and not yet public. This is part of why software patents are so bad. Because it isn't alway a cut and dried issue as to what situations the patent might apply, knowledge of existing patents can actually work against you when you attempt to argue that your use does not infringe. Also, since the patent might not stick, companies are less willing to disclose the technology even if they hold a patent. This is clearly backwards since one of the declared justifications for patents is to disseminate the technology.
That's why I am so happy that there is a research exception in the patent law of my country (research is not infringing)
The US patent law also has such an exception, but a recent/. story pointed to a case where this has been seriously eroded. If you didn't read it, the upshot is that the court decided that University research is (can be?) considered outside that provision. If I can read between the lines, this is at least in part due to the commercialization of a lot of University research. Some University administrations are making patents as important (or moreso) as papers and citations for advancement and tenure. It's all a very bad trend and needs to be reversed.
The article emphasises the effects for SME's. Correct, since the represent a very large part (majority) of the economy. According to the article, they suffer from the current system. But you may be surprised on how many SME's can make things very annoying for large companies and collect quite some amounts of money. You may read the other aricle here on/. on how Sony got sued.
Sometimes I hate TLAs. SME is Small/Medium Enterprises? I think it was this paper that kept using IDC, or something like that and I think it referred to the industrial controls market, but I couldn't be sure or easily find it defined.
Yes, sometimes the little guy wins, but more often he doesn't even start because of the risks. Not to pick on you for your chosen profession, but it is important the patent law doesn't get blindly expanded even when it damages the overall economy and potential for growth. It is possible
that it might work better the just chuck the whole system in favor of one where most technology is developed collaboratively with funding provided in a different way. Yes, inventors need to be paid, but the way they are paid should not limit follow on innovation.
I agree completely with this. I have an artist friend who uses Windows, and I'd like to get him started with Linux, but it isn't really ready for someone like him to use, particularly without a little systems help. The truth is, Windows isn't really ready for that either, unless you want to run an insecure system, you should have systems help. Apple is probably better in this dimension, but still not perfect. Computers are still pretty crufty, but they are getting better.
The real question is whether Linux' problems are systemic like MS and security bugs. I don't really think so, and I think a lot of people are trying to make a difference here. Your right about the complexity of the problem, and it isn't helped that most current Linux users are more interested in getting the latest and greatest variety of tools and are willing and able to do a little investigation to make something work or select the best of several options. This actually makes things progress faster to the point that mortals can run it on their own.
I don't think it is clear yet whether IBM is really going to use its patent inventory for or against Open/Free Source. I would expect them to wield them effectively against MS the same way we all hope they will smack down SCO and their ridiculous patent mining efforts, but neither will it surprise me if their IP departments turn against Linux and/or other OS projects when it suits them.
They are clearly an interesting case as they were against software and business method patents originally, but they have also gathered a large mass of such patents since then (well, I'm not sure if they have gathered business method patents as yet, and they may have apposed this more than the software patents). For them, Linux is probably just a cheap way to get software for their services and hardware, with the side benefit of possibly damagine MS.
The press release is completely consistent with what the paper says about the EPO and their resistance to any outside influence. I can't point to the exact statements in the paper, but it is clear about both the EPO and the USPTO being incredibly resistant to even proper policy making authority. They seem to think they are the masters of this turf, and that nobody can tell them what to do. The press release is quite chilling about the way even the patent examiners themselves can be told to just shut up and keep approving patents whether or not you have the proper resources to critically evaluate them.
That's what I get paid for. The examiner gets paid for not allowing patents that do not meet the requirments of the EPC.
IANAL (still 9 months to go)
You're being criptic about exactly what work you do and are preparing for. I hope you take the initiative to actually learn about the broader implications of patent policy, and don't become as self-serving as the rest of this system already is. If you are working on the industry side of this, then you need to make the effort to understand all of the commercial implications of widening the scope of patents and resist the urge to help clients in monopolistic power grabs. If you work on the government side, you must strive to apply the proper regulatory principles, and not simple work to expand the teritory under control of your agency.
If you haven't already, read this entire paper (the firstmonday one, not just the link I supplied) and let the critical points sink in.
Or there abouts. I was working in the north suburbs at the time, so it didn't effect us, but a few years later I worked in the Board of Trade building. The bottom line is that the building was totally closed down for an extended period of time. The Chicago Board of Trade (I think they actually own and control the building) pulled up generators on the street to run their systems, but none of the tenants could get any power. The story I got from the company I eventually worked for was that they were able to get in for one day to get their systems and data out, and set up the machines at a new site. I'd bet that many companies were not able to move their equipment, and lost a lot of money that way. After all, the trading went on. I imagine that companies would find a way to keep trading even if their systems were unavailable (i.e. temporary arangements to enter trades through another company's systems).
As to what your organization should do, that depends. How much do you have to spend? Disaster Recovery is a big subject, and there are a lot of choices to make. I could help, but I'd have to charge you.
One of the main (and most disturbing) points being made in the paper is that most of this shift has been within the patent issuing bodies with just a little help (in the US) from the courts. These bodies are largely immune to economic arguments and legislative policy setting, and business doesn't really set the agenda either. Businesses are somewhat separated from the process by patent experts (in-house or through trade and industry associations), and the process continues blindly without any real input from the outside.
Businesses can take back control of this if it is important enough to them, because they ultimately control the purse strings on the experts, but a critical mass of business leaders has to understand the economic arguments and get behind changing things.
Imagine if Djkstra patented his algroithms? Imagine if all the sort algorithms had been patented?
Exactly right. In fact the article quote Gates saying that if this type of patent were possible in the past, the industry would be at a standstill, but he doesn't continue this quote as Lessig does in this presentation where he (Gates) indicates his plan to do exactly that with our future. If you don't think he plans to use this to attempt to destroy Linux at some point, I've got a bridge to sell you.
If you had read the article, you would know that there is mounting economic evidence that this uncontrolled growth in what can be patented can be very damaging to economies. In particular software patents don't work well at all, and just create a lot of confusion for companies trying to make products. It won't be a surprise to/.ers that patents, particularly software and business method patents, are often used by unproductive companies that don't even have products on the market to hold-up productive companies for cash. Further, they give a big advantage to large organizations to keep out upstart competitors.
Algorithms are essentially ideas, and ideas are neither patentable nor do they qualify for copyright. A particular expression of an idea can be copyrighted, and its use in a process can be patentable, but ideas are not, at least in principle. The idea that you can patent a naturally occuring pattern (i.e. a gene or genes) is ridiculous. It might be ok to give a patent on say a genetic test for a particular condition, but it seems to me that there isn't much invention beyond the basic science (idea) that links the gene and the condition.
The truth is (as explained in this very good paper) that the patent authorities in both the US and Europe have bent over backwards to extend the scope of patents. The paper lays out how patent professionals keep pushing this, sometimes in spite of any attempt of anyone outside their circle to attempt to set policy, even lawmakers. Check this out for an indication of just how out of control the EPO is. They make money from handing out these patents whether it is good for the rest of us or not, and there is little effective control on any of it.
No, I don't think it would be an easy question to hedge on, and I think most people would respond honestly. He also points out some of the survey questions that show that these are not all Linux zealots, just a bunch of pragmatic developers.
As far as jumping from Windows to Linux, I think it depends on what you are doing. If it's something with a lot of system interaction, then no, but in my experience only a minority of developers ever get that deep into system stuff, and many barely have a clue about such things. Also, just because someone was recently doing primarily Windows development, doesn't mean they don't have five to ten years of UNIX before that.
It is a study of Linux users, but it was not qualified they way you suggest. It is not a survey of Linux only users or developers. If that isn't clear to you, you didn't read any of the interview or other information about this. There certainly could be more questions about whether the survey sample is representative of the class (developers who use Linux sometimes), which is going to be hard to do anyway. I see no reason to doubt that they at least got a good cross section of the class, even if it isn't perfectly representative.
It certainly shows that there is movement from Windows to Linux, and that withing the limitations of the survey that this movement is larger than the move from other UNIX to Linux. I find this significant, and so do a lot of other people.
They even republished this Ted Nelson classic. The original was one of those books that seemed to get legs at any opportunity. I have no idea what happenned to my original. Too bad they didn't do the new version in the same oversized format.
Is a time honored practice for devices that need to stand up to a lot of abuse. A guitar player friend of mine swore by his Mesa Boggie amp, claiming that part of their manufacturing was dropping the amps and then fixing anything that broke and repeating until nothing breaks anymore. Sure, you might put a few dents or scratches on it (probably before putting the final finish coverring on), but it is much less likely to need servicing for any reason. Any marginal parts are broken and replaced before you get the unit.
If I have to hand out some sort of token to each person who can send me email, then the problem is solved without exchanging any fees. Certainly, this could work, but it is likely to be more cumbersome than most people want to put up with.
SPAM filtering is certainly one answer that can probably be made to work very well for most people in most situations, but we are also aware of the many problems with this. Either you set it up and maintain it yourself, or you rely on your ISP (ala AOL's filtering discussed here) or software vendor and you probably lose a lot of control.
Clearly, there is also a role for law enforcement as well, and they don't seem to be even trying at this point. In any case, this is really the approach for the worst offenders; nobody should have to deal with unsolicited, explicite emails and this should an a minimum be criminal, and actively pursued and prosecuted. More can be done from this angle (required notice that it is advertisement, for example).
There are some very serious and deep points here. In my view, we are still in the early experimental phase of community-based development, and I am very interested in attempts to understand and illuminate the organizational structures and principles involved. It indeed quite remarkable the way the most successful OS projects organize themselves without any central control or guidance. I have a conjecture that this isn't so much a happy accident as a direct consequence of self-organization of complex systems, but that would be a divergence from the main point.
Your central point that OS projects can and do use all the Software Engineering concepts and tools that they can productively use is a good one. Projects with good leadership and good community involvement probably also have good working methodologies and tools appropriate to manage the information loads involved. Linus is very successful precisely because his process is a good fit for the problem space and it manages to involve a very wide group of developers and effectively harness their input.
From the story about XFree86 forking and such, it is clear that they are struggling from the lack of good process and tools. It will be interesting to see what direction those events take. I like to think events like this prove again the value of Free Source because no disfunctional group can effectively stop progress. I'm sure some progress is delayed by this, but not stopped. I would hope that with a big important project like this, the delay would be minimal and new leadership will emerge in the process.
It's nice that you and your company see nothing wrong with writing enterprise applications in a non-portable language, but it doesn't make it a good engineering decision. The biggest weakness is that you are using a proprietary language and environment, so the system is likely going to need to be rewritten in a more portable technology within 5-10 years, if not sooner.
And if you think MS is too entrenched to worry about them going away, just take a look at IBM. They used to own the industry, now they are just a big player; no longer the trend-setter. Even if MS manages to adapt, VB is unlikely to be a stable platform that can be relied on to run your
enterprise apps without continually adapting to the changes they make.
Did you here about the polish terrorists that hijacked a blimp? It bounced off (insert your favorite target here)...
The funnier part of this was the polish guy in the group sheepishly pretending to admit his involvement. I might have been made this into a generic 'ethnic' joke, but the sense of humor of taking 'credit' for this made it even funnier. My grandparents came from a long line of French Canadians families with a few Belgians mixed in, and he was half Belgian, so everyone (including him) would convert these to Belgian jokes for his benefit.
The links with the story didn't have much info, but Google provides this one http://www.serialattachedscsi.com/ that has a technical slide presentation (PDF) that give more detail. It seems that the main 'compatibility' at the start will be identical cabling specs. They expect that mid-range host adapters would have both protocols, but PC chipsets would probably be SATA only and you would need a separate SAS HBA. It wouldn't surprise me if dual protocol PC chipsets arive at some point.
One detail is that SAS is now point to point, just like SATA, and not a bus, but they also indicate that there would be boxes to split a single connection to a bunch of devices, sort of like network hubs. The protocol addresses 128 devices. It isn't clear whether a hub could have SATA devices hooked to it, or if that would require 1 serial channel per device from the host adapter. That is what I understood to be the case for SATA (need one port for each device, no hubs or sharing). The most important protocol difference should be that SAS is still multipoint, even if the connections are point-to-point, so both hosts and adapters need to arbitrate for the bus, while SATA hosts adapters just send out commands and data and wait for the drive to respond on the reverse channel.
It wouldn't surprise me if devices eventually just supported both protocols, and maybe even auto-sensed the type of adapter on the other end. By the time these interfaces get common, I expect the cost differences to be negligible, so It begs the question of why SATA would survive. Because the cost differences are going to be sunk into the chipset designs with almost no marginal cost differences, both system and drive makers will probably save more by reducing the size of their product lines by having one product for both.
You're confused. Just because there is a common consensus in a community does not mean there is any type of collective control being exhibited. The Open/Free Source community is characterized by independent thought and a wide variety of opinions, just like the general employee population at Sun, no doubt. In contrast, there is a great deal of cultural similarity in the upper management of larger company, and you don't get invited to join if you don't share their worldview. Besides, he introduced the 'Borg' analogy, and I just went with it, and I think most people understood what we were talking about. The views of Sun as represented in the story here is not a representation democratic or otherwise of the rank and file employees, which is where the diversity is. Further, it is the result of the management group think that I'm talking about here that leads them to make such boneheaded statements.
Never having worked there, I don't know about this, but from the outside it often seems that the borgish types are in control. I'm sure you are right that there are a large number of opinions, but the real question is what is the opinion of the people who determine the direction for the future. If it is just the lawyers and PR types, then they should be more aware of how this is percieved in the community. I really don't think that anyone is confused about whether Solaris could be included in this, and even so, this could have been stated without mentioning any review of Linux' role at Sun.
The point is that this looks like FUD, and the PR folks should know how it come across. It looks like Sun is backing away from Linux, if only temporarily, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of the high placed "Solaris bigots" took this as an opportunity to make a political move against some of the Linux forces. Whether or not this is, in fact, the case, it only does harm to Sun's image to make this announcement this way. If they want to fix this, they should make at least a guarded statement of support for Linux, or they will lose a lot of cred in the community.
Similarly, they would be a lot better off if they made Java a lot more open (in terms of the specification and certification processes in particular). Languages and interfaces are not property and to the extent that they are treated that way, the value is reduced. It's just another way they appear Borg-like rather than penguin-like. The effects of all of this are very long-term, so it is hard for the control types to understand how and why it works.
It's not a simple matter of "not sticking up", but in fact actively spreading FUD. They would have been much better off to just remain silent, even if there is some truth to the idea that they are reviewing their Linux strategy. Looks to me like they wasted no time in putting a negative spin on Linux based on this.
I also think you would be surprised at the number of people, myself included, who have been involved in the purchase of many Sun systems in the past that find their response offensive. It still might not tip all purchasing decisions, but it certainly erodes their good-will with a lot of people who would otherwise have only good things to say about Sun.
Because of the FUD factor involved in actually suggesting that SCO suing IBM is going to be more than a bump in the road. If they actually cared about Linux and their customers who are or may want to use it, they would make clear statements about the lack of merrit in SCO's legal actions. "But we still have Solaris" is a bit too self-serving to stand up to a smell test. Not the kind of commitment that I want to have in my systems vendor. It certainly tips my sentiments toward IBM and away from Sun when I make recomendations.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm only a few years younger that you, with young kids not yet at this phase, and I very much agree with the sentiment expessed here. My parents were very much a contrast here, my mother a free thinking artist type who really talked to us and found out who we were (are) and encouraged us to really think for ourselves. My father on the other hand was a cop, and could be very controlling. It didn't effect us that much, although every one of my sisters moved out of the house on or about their 18th birthdays (I went off to school the next fall, so I was pretty much gone too). Dad still doesn't get it, and probably thinks mom "turned us against him", which is something she would never do.
BTW, I've never used the email address supplied by my ISP, nor any free email hosting. In my case, the email is hosted with my web-hosting, and it doesn't really cost me anything because this is being shared virtual host-wise with a close contact. The bottom line is that I own the domain for any email address I use (for myself, and of course my employer would own the domain for work email addresses).
I'm not sure why you think I'm a student. Actually, I'm a software engineer with a background in both development and system administration (20+ years). Right now, I'm thinking about trying to get a PhD, in part because I very dissatisfied with what is available in the corporate America. Without getting into all the details around this decision, the bottom line is that I claim that the current system, both commercial and academic are not structured well to promote the kind of innovation that our future requires.
Partly, but often more important is the uncertainty about whether there are patents out there that you may infringe on. Even if you try to do a proper search, it might be a patent that is in the process and not yet public. This is part of why software patents are so bad. Because it isn't alway a cut and dried issue as to what situations the patent might apply, knowledge of existing patents can actually work against you when you attempt to argue that your use does not infringe. Also, since the patent might not stick, companies are less willing to disclose the technology even if they hold a patent. This is clearly backwards since one of the declared justifications for patents is to disseminate the technology.
That's why I am so happy that there is a research exception in the patent law of my country (research is not infringing)
The US patent law also has such an exception, but a recent /. story pointed to a case where this has been seriously eroded. If you didn't read it, the upshot is that the court decided that University research is (can be?) considered outside that provision. If I can read between the lines, this is at least in part due to the commercialization of a lot of University research. Some University administrations are making patents as important (or moreso) as papers and citations for advancement and tenure. It's all a very bad trend and needs to be reversed.
Sometimes I hate TLAs. SME is Small/Medium Enterprises? I think it was this paper that kept using IDC, or something like that and I think it referred to the industrial controls market, but I couldn't be sure or easily find it defined.
Yes, sometimes the little guy wins, but more often he doesn't even start because of the risks. Not to pick on you for your chosen profession, but it is important the patent law doesn't get blindly expanded even when it damages the overall economy and potential for growth. It is possible that it might work better the just chuck the whole system in favor of one where most technology is developed collaboratively with funding provided in a different way. Yes, inventors need to be paid, but the way they are paid should not limit follow on innovation.
The real question is whether Linux' problems are systemic like MS and security bugs. I don't really think so, and I think a lot of people are trying to make a difference here. Your right about the complexity of the problem, and it isn't helped that most current Linux users are more interested in getting the latest and greatest variety of tools and are willing and able to do a little investigation to make something work or select the best of several options. This actually makes things progress faster to the point that mortals can run it on their own.
They are clearly an interesting case as they were against software and business method patents originally, but they have also gathered a large mass of such patents since then (well, I'm not sure if they have gathered business method patents as yet, and they may have apposed this more than the software patents). For them, Linux is probably just a cheap way to get software for their services and hardware, with the side benefit of possibly damagine MS.
That's what I get paid for. The examiner gets paid for not allowing patents that do not meet the requirments of the EPC.
IANAL (still 9 months to go)
You're being criptic about exactly what work you do and are preparing for. I hope you take the initiative to actually learn about the broader implications of patent policy, and don't become as self-serving as the rest of this system already is. If you are working on the industry side of this, then you need to make the effort to understand all of the commercial implications of widening the scope of patents and resist the urge to help clients in monopolistic power grabs. If you work on the government side, you must strive to apply the proper regulatory principles, and not simple work to expand the teritory under control of your agency.
If you haven't already, read this entire paper (the firstmonday one, not just the link I supplied) and let the critical points sink in.
As to what your organization should do, that depends. How much do you have to spend? Disaster Recovery is a big subject, and there are a lot of choices to make. I could help, but I'd have to charge you.
Businesses can take back control of this if it is important enough to them, because they ultimately control the purse strings on the experts, but a critical mass of business leaders has to understand the economic arguments and get behind changing things.
Exactly right. In fact the article quote Gates saying that if this type of patent were possible in the past, the industry would be at a standstill, but he doesn't continue this quote as Lessig does in this presentation where he (Gates) indicates his plan to do exactly that with our future. If you don't think he plans to use this to attempt to destroy Linux at some point, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Algorithms are essentially ideas, and ideas are neither patentable nor do they qualify for copyright. A particular expression of an idea can be copyrighted, and its use in a process can be patentable, but ideas are not, at least in principle. The idea that you can patent a naturally occuring pattern (i.e. a gene or genes) is ridiculous. It might be ok to give a patent on say a genetic test for a particular condition, but it seems to me that there isn't much invention beyond the basic science (idea) that links the gene and the condition.
The truth is (as explained in this very good paper) that the patent authorities in both the US and Europe have bent over backwards to extend the scope of patents. The paper lays out how patent professionals keep pushing this, sometimes in spite of any attempt of anyone outside their circle to attempt to set policy, even lawmakers. Check this out for an indication of just how out of control the EPO is. They make money from handing out these patents whether it is good for the rest of us or not, and there is little effective control on any of it.
As far as jumping from Windows to Linux, I think it depends on what you are doing. If it's something with a lot of system interaction, then no, but in my experience only a minority of developers ever get that deep into system stuff, and many barely have a clue about such things. Also, just because someone was recently doing primarily Windows development, doesn't mean they don't have five to ten years of UNIX before that.
It certainly shows that there is movement from Windows to Linux, and that withing the limitations of the survey that this movement is larger than the move from other UNIX to Linux. I find this significant, and so do a lot of other people.
They even republished this Ted Nelson classic. The original was one of those books that seemed to get legs at any opportunity. I have no idea what happenned to my original. Too bad they didn't do the new version in the same oversized format.
Is a time honored practice for devices that need to stand up to a lot of abuse. A guitar player friend of mine swore by his Mesa Boggie amp, claiming that part of their manufacturing was dropping the amps and then fixing anything that broke and repeating until nothing breaks anymore. Sure, you might put a few dents or scratches on it (probably before putting the final finish coverring on), but it is much less likely to need servicing for any reason. Any marginal parts are broken and replaced before you get the unit.
SPAM filtering is certainly one answer that can probably be made to work very well for most people in most situations, but we are also aware of the many problems with this. Either you set it up and maintain it yourself, or you rely on your ISP (ala AOL's filtering discussed here) or software vendor and you probably lose a lot of control.
Clearly, there is also a role for law enforcement as well, and they don't seem to be even trying at this point. In any case, this is really the approach for the worst offenders; nobody should have to deal with unsolicited, explicite emails and this should an a minimum be criminal, and actively pursued and prosecuted. More can be done from this angle (required notice that it is advertisement, for example).
Your central point that OS projects can and do use all the Software Engineering concepts and tools that they can productively use is a good one. Projects with good leadership and good community involvement probably also have good working methodologies and tools appropriate to manage the information loads involved. Linus is very successful precisely because his process is a good fit for the problem space and it manages to involve a very wide group of developers and effectively harness their input.
From the story about XFree86 forking and such, it is clear that they are struggling from the lack of good process and tools. It will be interesting to see what direction those events take. I like to think events like this prove again the value of Free Source because no disfunctional group can effectively stop progress. I'm sure some progress is delayed by this, but not stopped. I would hope that with a big important project like this, the delay would be minimal and new leadership will emerge in the process.
And if you think MS is too entrenched to worry about them going away, just take a look at IBM. They used to own the industry, now they are just a big player; no longer the trend-setter. Even if MS manages to adapt, VB is unlikely to be a stable platform that can be relied on to run your enterprise apps without continually adapting to the changes they make.
Did you here about the polish terrorists that hijacked a blimp? It bounced off (insert your favorite target here) ...
The funnier part of this was the polish guy in the group sheepishly pretending to admit his involvement. I might have been made this into a generic 'ethnic' joke, but the sense of humor of taking 'credit' for this made it even funnier. My grandparents came from a long line of French Canadians families with a few Belgians mixed in, and he was half Belgian, so everyone (including him) would convert these to Belgian jokes for his benefit.
One detail is that SAS is now point to point, just like SATA, and not a bus, but they also indicate that there would be boxes to split a single connection to a bunch of devices, sort of like network hubs. The protocol addresses 128 devices. It isn't clear whether a hub could have SATA devices hooked to it, or if that would require 1 serial channel per device from the host adapter. That is what I understood to be the case for SATA (need one port for each device, no hubs or sharing). The most important protocol difference should be that SAS is still multipoint, even if the connections are point-to-point, so both hosts and adapters need to arbitrate for the bus, while SATA hosts adapters just send out commands and data and wait for the drive to respond on the reverse channel.
It wouldn't surprise me if devices eventually just supported both protocols, and maybe even auto-sensed the type of adapter on the other end. By the time these interfaces get common, I expect the cost differences to be negligible, so It begs the question of why SATA would survive. Because the cost differences are going to be sunk into the chipset designs with almost no marginal cost differences, both system and drive makers will probably save more by reducing the size of their product lines by having one product for both.
You're confused. Just because there is a common consensus in a community does not mean there is any type of collective control being exhibited. The Open/Free Source community is characterized by independent thought and a wide variety of opinions, just like the general employee population at Sun, no doubt. In contrast, there is a great deal of cultural similarity in the upper management of larger company, and you don't get invited to join if you don't share their worldview. Besides, he introduced the 'Borg' analogy, and I just went with it, and I think most people understood what we were talking about. The views of Sun as represented in the story here is not a representation democratic or otherwise of the rank and file employees, which is where the diversity is. Further, it is the result of the management group think that I'm talking about here that leads them to make such boneheaded statements.
The point is that this looks like FUD, and the PR folks should know how it come across. It looks like Sun is backing away from Linux, if only temporarily, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of the high placed "Solaris bigots" took this as an opportunity to make a political move against some of the Linux forces. Whether or not this is, in fact, the case, it only does harm to Sun's image to make this announcement this way. If they want to fix this, they should make at least a guarded statement of support for Linux, or they will lose a lot of cred in the community.
Similarly, they would be a lot better off if they made Java a lot more open (in terms of the specification and certification processes in particular). Languages and interfaces are not property and to the extent that they are treated that way, the value is reduced. It's just another way they appear Borg-like rather than penguin-like. The effects of all of this are very long-term, so it is hard for the control types to understand how and why it works.
I also think you would be surprised at the number of people, myself included, who have been involved in the purchase of many Sun systems in the past that find their response offensive. It still might not tip all purchasing decisions, but it certainly erodes their good-will with a lot of people who would otherwise have only good things to say about Sun.
Because of the FUD factor involved in actually suggesting that SCO suing IBM is going to be more than a bump in the road. If they actually cared about Linux and their customers who are or may want to use it, they would make clear statements about the lack of merrit in SCO's legal actions. "But we still have Solaris" is a bit too self-serving to stand up to a smell test. Not the kind of commitment that I want to have in my systems vendor. It certainly tips my sentiments toward IBM and away from Sun when I make recomendations.