"I believe" is exactly the root of the issue. You are free to state your opinions up until the point where it might be actionable under hate speech laws, and need have no fear of reprisal. Saying, "I think this guy is a total piece of shit and I hope he dies" is fine, because you can stand up in court and say, "I'm anonymous coward, and I support this message."
Saying, on the other hand, "This person is guilty of x crime" when that person has been proven innocent in a court of law...That's a falsehood, and actionable.
And the test of truth happens in court, in front of a jury, which is why they're trying to find the people making the statements so that they can bring them into court and test their veracity.
I first used OO.org in 2002, which is before Firefox even existed as anything other than Mozilla bloatware. Since then OOO has managed to pull what, single digit marketshare? And since then Firefox has topped 20%!
Open Office has HAD a fricking decade. To have to have a government mandate to drive adoption for a FREE product? You think that's a good thing?
Every new release of OO I load it up, play with it, then never use it again. It's not that I love MS Office, it's that there are other OSS products that do a better job.
I've run it, and it doesn't. That you put them on the same page shows you've never run Exchange because Exchange is not about email.
I'll tell you what I tell everyone: you need to go use Exchange for a while. Sit behind some manager and watch them fuck with their goddamn calendars for a while. Watch how neatly the calendars integrate with the email. Watch how it integrates with Office for document collaboration.
There is no one product that handles all those features so well and so seamlessly.
All those features can be had from a half dozen different OSS apps, and when you've laboriously cobbled them together into a working whole and presented it to management, they will give you a look like you handed them a plate full of dogshit, and then they will give you a list of things that aren't as good.
And when you go back to your office you'll go over the list and you will grind your teeth because the fuckers are right. You will never convince people to ditch exchange until you can provide a product that is just as good.
I was more referring to the firewall aspect; struck me as funny. I once went to a property to do a security audit, and found that their firewall literally blocked EVERYTHING. No ports open at all inbound OR outbound. They paid for a broadband connection, but the individual computers were all on dialup, because they thought that's just how teh interwebs worked.
We run a secure proxy for OWA, sendmail proxy for DMZ'd email handling, a SAV gateway for virus scanning, and upstream of our internal systems we pay for Postini to handle spam and other virus stuff.
We run really anal rules on top of that. Haven't had any virus problems in a while.
Let me start by saying that I never want to see the words "bare" and "it professional" in the same sentence. Ew. Ew. Ewwwwwwwwwwww.
That being said, I'll acknowledge that Exchange is actually improving pretty dramatically between releases. Even 2k3 is so far ahead of earlier Exchange releases as to be almost unrecognizable. We run about 300 users on a pretty small hardware footprint, and, provided you run everything through an antivirus before you send it to the users, it all works with little supervision.
I used to spend time trying to ween people off of Exchange, but it's practically impossible. Nothing else on the market compares...Even the big commercial competitor Lotus is a joke compared to Exchange.
You can debate it all you like, but the simple fact that the free product has practically no marketshare compared to the product that costs 500 bucks a license is pretty fucking telling.
Firefox proves decisively that the superiour product will make strong gains even against an entrenched monopoly. That OO.org is still languishing in obscurity has more to do with it's flaws than some gigantic conspiracy of users who just can't think of anything better to do with their money.
Posting this sort of bullshit on Slashdot just comes off as being unbearably smug and condescending. Go take it to a windows forum or Expert Sexchange or wherever. Everyone here knows about Linux.
On top of that, like a lot of smug amateurs, you don't have any knowledge whereof you speak. Lack of Exchange is a deal breaker for a huge chunk of the business world.
Until there is a real Exchange/Outlook replacement that is available open source, people are never going to drop it, because, for them, the functionality outweighs the cost. Whining about viruses and crap is meaningless to them because they've been conditioned to expect viruses, and because the maintenance costs (and the blame for failures) are borne by the IT staff. Not management. Not users. Not microsoft.
Wow, you have a firewall that stops email from getting to a mail server! I gotta get me one of those...It would reduce my workload by 95%! Since I don't answer any of my phones, the only way people could contact me with problems would be by ambushing me on the way to the bathroom.
It would keep the CEO from ever contacting me, that's for sure. God knows he'd never be caught down here with people who do work.
Maybe their budget doesn't stretch so far as to be able to employ 1 guy to do nothing but manage a mail server.
Exchange is a big pain in the ass, and it doesn't scale very well. I hate it, and all I have to do with it is keep it from ever touching the web directly.
Like in this case, where they cite an unreputable publication?
What needs to happen is people need to understand how to evaluate a primary source. Newspapers can be a good primary source...if they're the organ of record (e.g. They originated the story after having talked explicitly with the human primary sources). You can't quote a newspaper article that was picked up from the AP wire, however. They change those.
I am forever astonished at the people who think something is fact just because it's written down.
We know the air traffic control computers weren't hacked...There hardly are any, which is in itself a problem.
But being sloppy with data is a bad sign in any organization. If you can't keep your secure data secure, then what other important things are you also letting slide?
Yea, but it loses the efficiency of scale. A bus only needs 1 engine, for this you need 1 engine for every 1 or 2 people. A bus would use the same amount of energy to stop and let 10 people off, as it would to stop and let 1 off.
Given a source of cheap clean energy, I can see these being cool. Otherwise, some larger system would be more efficient.
If it's corporate, just make them encrypt it using their key and a corporate master key. Then you can decrypt it using the master key if some boneheaded user loses their key. You should do this anyway to prevent some user from walking with all of their data, and to maintain SoX compliance.
Obviously this will increase the overhead, but frankly, encryption should be used sparingly anyway.
I see this all the time and it always makes me cringe.
If you treat all data the same, it is impossible to convince users to treat any data differently from any other, and they will all default to "Sloppy", and you won't care because you'll be certain that the encryption is going to save your ass.
It is a much much better idea to have a very distinct line between secure and insecure, so that people have that distinction hammered into their heads every time they touch secure data. Otherwise, someone is going to get sloppy with their private key, and you're going to get exploited and never see it coming.
The thing is, it's only pushing the work down a level, it's not that the work doesn't still have to be done. The "file" still has to be saved, the memory still has to be loaded and unloaded.
And it doesn't truly fix the problem of crashes and failed writes. If my program shits itself and dies before it's complete, how is that going to result in complete data? It may be complete up to the point where it died, but for many things that's not sufficient.
I still don't buy it. They're throwing an abstraction layer on top of a regular system and calling it something different, but all the underlying structures are the same.
Except they're not because you're basically forbidden direct access to any system resources! Any gains that you would traditionally expect to be able to make through use of C or assembly are right out the window, and that is acknowledged right up front.
Hardware abstraction is going to have a cost. All virtualization has a cost, and I'm not sure that this is the way to handle the problem. It seems more like a pipe dream than a practical application.
Yea, I'm there with you. Power failures are a problem for one reason and one reason alone: RAM I/O is faster than disk I/O. If disk I/O was faster, we wouldn't even need RAM...RAM would be useless because it has a huge disadvantage: its volatility.
Now Phantom wipes that problem out by "...storing its complete state on disk". Either this is bullshit, or this OS will have serious performance issues.
Then, then it starts talking about C vs Java. WTF is that about? Regardless of how cool the OS' underpinings are, you could write C for it with an OS-specific compiler. That's no different from the output of Java's intermediate compiler.
It's not like Java is outputting some sort of magical instructions that are different from the output of compiled C. The difference is that C doesn't abstract the hardware layer in the user code like Java does, and that Java is compiled to be interpreted on the fly by an intermediate virtual runtime environment. Get right down to the hardware and there isn't a lot of difference.
I'd want to see some real specifics that they could deliver anything resembling what they're promising, and frankly, I think that'll never happen.
Is it volatile? If it is, then no thanks. If it isn't then it must be written to disk, in which case it's simply a regular file with a spiffy interface. Does that interface take up memory? How does it handle locking conflicts? How does it handle paging?
FTFA it's more like a virtualization system that takes constant snapshots of the system states, and reverts to them if there is a power loss or a shutdown or whatever. Fine. Cool.
But TFA skips over (in true Register style) any possible downsides to that. I'm a typical geek. I have 20 things running at any given time. Over time, with a traditional software system, there are enough page faults that when I roll back around to something I opened yesterday, the performance is extremely slow while all the states are being loaded back into active memory (and the states of something I'll need in 5 more hours are being written to disk).
If I'm persisting my whole filesystem in that fashion, there are quickly going to be issues. If I'm not, then there is some bullshit in there somewhere. They may have a fancy file allocation table, they may have some fancy I/O tricks, but their stated abilities are frankly contradictory, because the state is not being maintained, it is simply being preserved, and the difference is only subtle linguistically.
In short, the Phantom OS sounds more like the Phantom game console than anything I'd want to run on my computer.
No. If anyone had a drug that slowed down the progression of HIV and had to be taken every day for years and years and years, they could make a billions of dollars.
A cure is just one dose. Hardly worth researching.
That is probably why we have the former, and not the latter.
If you target a big company or something, all you need is one person to be stupid, and that's not just probable, it's certain. That's why this stuff works.
The person may very well know they're legally parked, and so they'll take the logical next step: they'll contact the issuing body to complain, and look, they left the address of their handy website! And, look, they have a photo app, so I can see what bastard got a ticket, then stuck it on my car!
Depends on where you target your fliers. Put 'em around city hall, and you may be able to get some schmuck to compromise their internal network. Or a bank, or a big company, etc, etc.
That would be the big advantage of being able to geographically target your scam.
Actually, studies have shown that people who live high risk lifestyles cost the system less, because they tend to actually die as opposed to the granola and sprout-eating crowd who tend to linger interminably in assisted living.
Any argument about the cost to society from people with unhealthy habits is inherently flawed.
A) I agree with you about people disproving God through deduction. However I also think proving God through deduction is equally stupid. Neither side has any evidence, so the argument is meaningless masturbation.
B) Extraterrestrial life has one HUGE piece of evidence that God does not: us. If we exist, we have proof that life can exist. If life can exist, then the odds of life existing elsewhere are dramatically higher. There is no proof of any divinity ever existing, so in the God vs Aliens argument, aliens are much more plausible.
Slashdot Mirror
"I believe" is exactly the root of the issue. You are free to state your opinions up until the point where it might be actionable under hate speech laws, and need have no fear of reprisal. Saying, "I think this guy is a total piece of shit and I hope he dies" is fine, because you can stand up in court and say, "I'm anonymous coward, and I support this message."
Saying, on the other hand, "This person is guilty of x crime" when that person has been proven innocent in a court of law...That's a falsehood, and actionable.
It's not slander anyway, it's libel.
And the test of truth happens in court, in front of a jury, which is why they're trying to find the people making the statements so that they can bring them into court and test their veracity.
I first used OO.org in 2002, which is before Firefox even existed as anything other than Mozilla bloatware. Since then OOO has managed to pull what, single digit marketshare? And since then Firefox has topped 20%!
Open Office has HAD a fricking decade. To have to have a government mandate to drive adoption for a FREE product? You think that's a good thing?
Every new release of OO I load it up, play with it, then never use it again. It's not that I love MS Office, it's that there are other OSS products that do a better job.
I've run it, and it doesn't. That you put them on the same page shows you've never run Exchange because Exchange is not about email.
I'll tell you what I tell everyone: you need to go use Exchange for a while. Sit behind some manager and watch them fuck with their goddamn calendars for a while. Watch how neatly the calendars integrate with the email. Watch how it integrates with Office for document collaboration.
There is no one product that handles all those features so well and so seamlessly.
All those features can be had from a half dozen different OSS apps, and when you've laboriously cobbled them together into a working whole and presented it to management, they will give you a look like you handed them a plate full of dogshit, and then they will give you a list of things that aren't as good.
And when you go back to your office you'll go over the list and you will grind your teeth because the fuckers are right. You will never convince people to ditch exchange until you can provide a product that is just as good.
I was more referring to the firewall aspect; struck me as funny. I once went to a property to do a security audit, and found that their firewall literally blocked EVERYTHING. No ports open at all inbound OR outbound. They paid for a broadband connection, but the individual computers were all on dialup, because they thought that's just how teh interwebs worked.
We run a secure proxy for OWA, sendmail proxy for DMZ'd email handling, a SAV gateway for virus scanning, and upstream of our internal systems we pay for Postini to handle spam and other virus stuff.
We run really anal rules on top of that. Haven't had any virus problems in a while.
Let me start by saying that I never want to see the words "bare" and "it professional" in the same sentence. Ew. Ew. Ewwwwwwwwwwww.
That being said, I'll acknowledge that Exchange is actually improving pretty dramatically between releases. Even 2k3 is so far ahead of earlier Exchange releases as to be almost unrecognizable. We run about 300 users on a pretty small hardware footprint, and, provided you run everything through an antivirus before you send it to the users, it all works with little supervision.
I used to spend time trying to ween people off of Exchange, but it's practically impossible. Nothing else on the market compares...Even the big commercial competitor Lotus is a joke compared to Exchange.
You can debate it all you like, but the simple fact that the free product has practically no marketshare compared to the product that costs 500 bucks a license is pretty fucking telling.
Firefox proves decisively that the superiour product will make strong gains even against an entrenched monopoly. That OO.org is still languishing in obscurity has more to do with it's flaws than some gigantic conspiracy of users who just can't think of anything better to do with their money.
Posting this sort of bullshit on Slashdot just comes off as being unbearably smug and condescending. Go take it to a windows forum or Expert Sexchange or wherever. Everyone here knows about Linux.
On top of that, like a lot of smug amateurs, you don't have any knowledge whereof you speak. Lack of Exchange is a deal breaker for a huge chunk of the business world.
Until there is a real Exchange/Outlook replacement that is available open source, people are never going to drop it, because, for them, the functionality outweighs the cost. Whining about viruses and crap is meaningless to them because they've been conditioned to expect viruses, and because the maintenance costs (and the blame for failures) are borne by the IT staff. Not management. Not users. Not microsoft.
Wow, you have a firewall that stops email from getting to a mail server! I gotta get me one of those...It would reduce my workload by 95%! Since I don't answer any of my phones, the only way people could contact me with problems would be by ambushing me on the way to the bathroom.
It would keep the CEO from ever contacting me, that's for sure. God knows he'd never be caught down here with people who do work.
Maybe their budget doesn't stretch so far as to be able to employ 1 guy to do nothing but manage a mail server.
Exchange is a big pain in the ass, and it doesn't scale very well. I hate it, and all I have to do with it is keep it from ever touching the web directly.
Like in this case, where they cite an unreputable publication?
What needs to happen is people need to understand how to evaluate a primary source. Newspapers can be a good primary source...if they're the organ of record (e.g. They originated the story after having talked explicitly with the human primary sources). You can't quote a newspaper article that was picked up from the AP wire, however. They change those.
I am forever astonished at the people who think something is fact just because it's written down.
We know the air traffic control computers weren't hacked...There hardly are any, which is in itself a problem.
But being sloppy with data is a bad sign in any organization. If you can't keep your secure data secure, then what other important things are you also letting slide?
Yea, but it loses the efficiency of scale. A bus only needs 1 engine, for this you need 1 engine for every 1 or 2 people. A bus would use the same amount of energy to stop and let 10 people off, as it would to stop and let 1 off.
Given a source of cheap clean energy, I can see these being cool. Otherwise, some larger system would be more efficient.
If it's corporate, just make them encrypt it using their key and a corporate master key. Then you can decrypt it using the master key if some boneheaded user loses their key. You should do this anyway to prevent some user from walking with all of their data, and to maintain SoX compliance.
Obviously this will increase the overhead, but frankly, encryption should be used sparingly anyway.
I see this all the time and it always makes me cringe.
If you treat all data the same, it is impossible to convince users to treat any data differently from any other, and they will all default to "Sloppy", and you won't care because you'll be certain that the encryption is going to save your ass.
It is a much much better idea to have a very distinct line between secure and insecure, so that people have that distinction hammered into their heads every time they touch secure data. Otherwise, someone is going to get sloppy with their private key, and you're going to get exploited and never see it coming.
The thing is, it's only pushing the work down a level, it's not that the work doesn't still have to be done. The "file" still has to be saved, the memory still has to be loaded and unloaded.
And it doesn't truly fix the problem of crashes and failed writes. If my program shits itself and dies before it's complete, how is that going to result in complete data? It may be complete up to the point where it died, but for many things that's not sufficient.
I still don't buy it. They're throwing an abstraction layer on top of a regular system and calling it something different, but all the underlying structures are the same.
Except they're not because you're basically forbidden direct access to any system resources! Any gains that you would traditionally expect to be able to make through use of C or assembly are right out the window, and that is acknowledged right up front.
Hardware abstraction is going to have a cost. All virtualization has a cost, and I'm not sure that this is the way to handle the problem. It seems more like a pipe dream than a practical application.
Yea, I'm there with you. Power failures are a problem for one reason and one reason alone: RAM I/O is faster than disk I/O. If disk I/O was faster, we wouldn't even need RAM...RAM would be useless because it has a huge disadvantage: its volatility.
Now Phantom wipes that problem out by "...storing its complete state on disk". Either this is bullshit, or this OS will have serious performance issues.
Then, then it starts talking about C vs Java. WTF is that about? Regardless of how cool the OS' underpinings are, you could write C for it with an OS-specific compiler. That's no different from the output of Java's intermediate compiler.
It's not like Java is outputting some sort of magical instructions that are different from the output of compiled C. The difference is that C doesn't abstract the hardware layer in the user code like Java does, and that Java is compiled to be interpreted on the fly by an intermediate virtual runtime environment. Get right down to the hardware and there isn't a lot of difference.
I'd want to see some real specifics that they could deliver anything resembling what they're promising, and frankly, I think that'll never happen.
Yes, yes, very interesting.
Is it volatile? If it is, then no thanks. If it isn't then it must be written to disk, in which case it's simply a regular file with a spiffy interface. Does that interface take up memory? How does it handle locking conflicts? How does it handle paging?
FTFA it's more like a virtualization system that takes constant snapshots of the system states, and reverts to them if there is a power loss or a shutdown or whatever. Fine. Cool.
But TFA skips over (in true Register style) any possible downsides to that. I'm a typical geek. I have 20 things running at any given time. Over time, with a traditional software system, there are enough page faults that when I roll back around to something I opened yesterday, the performance is extremely slow while all the states are being loaded back into active memory (and the states of something I'll need in 5 more hours are being written to disk).
If I'm persisting my whole filesystem in that fashion, there are quickly going to be issues. If I'm not, then there is some bullshit in there somewhere. They may have a fancy file allocation table, they may have some fancy I/O tricks, but their stated abilities are frankly contradictory, because the state is not being maintained, it is simply being preserved, and the difference is only subtle linguistically.
In short, the Phantom OS sounds more like the Phantom game console than anything I'd want to run on my computer.
My boss.
=P
No. If anyone had a drug that slowed down the progression of HIV and had to be taken every day for years and years and years, they could make a billions of dollars.
A cure is just one dose. Hardly worth researching.
That is probably why we have the former, and not the latter.
If you target a big company or something, all you need is one person to be stupid, and that's not just probable, it's certain. That's why this stuff works.
The person may very well know they're legally parked, and so they'll take the logical next step: they'll contact the issuing body to complain, and look, they left the address of their handy website! And, look, they have a photo app, so I can see what bastard got a ticket, then stuck it on my car!
It's clever.
Depends on where you target your fliers. Put 'em around city hall, and you may be able to get some schmuck to compromise their internal network. Or a bank, or a big company, etc, etc.
That would be the big advantage of being able to geographically target your scam.
Actually, studies have shown that people who live high risk lifestyles cost the system less, because they tend to actually die as opposed to the granola and sprout-eating crowd who tend to linger interminably in assisted living.
Any argument about the cost to society from people with unhealthy habits is inherently flawed.
A) I agree with you about people disproving God through deduction. However I also think proving God through deduction is equally stupid. Neither side has any evidence, so the argument is meaningless masturbation.
B) Extraterrestrial life has one HUGE piece of evidence that God does not: us. If we exist, we have proof that life can exist. If life can exist, then the odds of life existing elsewhere are dramatically higher. There is no proof of any divinity ever existing, so in the God vs Aliens argument, aliens are much more plausible.