Slightly off-topic: How ironic (or fitting) that the source for the archive you quote from is Ashland University, a bastion of conservative Christian ideology right here in the heartland, and that the Ashbrook Center there is named after Rep. John Ashbrook, a conservative Republican who ran against Richard Nixon for the 1972 presidential nomination because he thought him to be too liberal! This is very interesting to me, because I wonder if conservatives like Ashbrook would support the Patriot Act like the Christian right do-- they seem to be allied to Bushie like they are joined to him at the hip. The Patriot Act seems awfully Nixonian to me.
As for the topic at hand, don't forget that the end of the 10th Amendment says "to the people". This last of the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights, you could say, forms a bookend with the preamble of the Constitution, which begins with WE THE PEOPLE. What if the towns or states who passed their anti-Patriot Act resolutions said, "we are doing this on behalf of the people"?
This might not pass muster, but the lodging of a court case by an individual, if the government is forced to allow someone detained under the Patriot Act to get legal counsel, just might have a chance.
Remember that the Supreme Court essentially put Bushie in office, led by the three black-shirted, er, robed justices (Scalia, Rehnquist, and Clarence Tom). They ended the Florida recount and effectively appointed him "winner" of the 2000 election. There is a distinctly political tinge to some of the court's decisions, and I would not be surprised to see them uphold the Patriot Act, to please Der Fuhrer. He wants the right to run the "guvmint" as he sees fit, and civil liberties be damned. This is why it is so important for the Senate to keep Bushie's judicial appointments bottled up-- he wants to pack the courts with like-minded people.
As you can probably tell from my URL, my ISP is CoreComm. They are also my telco (I'm too far away from the CO for "real" DSL), as I still have dialup. They have been my telco/ISP for three years now, and my monthly charges are still about $15 a month less than what I was paying for Sum Bitchin' Communications (aka SBC) and Prodigy at the time.
The service from CoreComm has been pretty good (one day of outage over the past three years); a while back they added a spam filtering service that does a good job of catching spam and redirecting it out of my inbox. If you are looking for a new telco and they serve your area, you might check them out.
My biggest problem has been with MCI Worldcom, which was my former long distance carrier. Those assholes kept trying to bill me for service I did not have with them; as late as last summer they were trying to bill me for monthly service, even though CoreComm is my long distance company. After screaming at a couple of customer service reps, they finally closed my account. If financial shenanigans don't sink MCI Worldcom, bad service will.
It seems like a more sensible solution for the South African government would be to extract a 10% discount on MS licenses (quite possible in the current environment) and plow that savings into supporting open source development for the government or whatever. "Taxing" Microsoft and putting the receipts into OSS would be a major faux pas and would be used by MS as a huge propaganda vehicle in other countries, as in Stevie Ballmer crying, "Waaaaah, Linux is unfair! Waaaaah!" I don't think that open source needs this right now.
From Plamodon's site:
The mission of Technical Evangelism at Microsoft is:
To accelerate the creation of a critical mass of leveraged support for a platform until it gains unstoppable momentum.
As you point out, it will take a "critical mass" of user base and server base running non-Windows OSs, and the war will almost be over. Microsoft is failing to move into new markets-- and they risk being driven off the server side. I sense that the momentum keeps building for Linux and open source, and I feel that it is unstoppable. SCO can't stop it, IBM can't stop it (even if they wanted to), the U.S. government can't stop it, and most of all, Microsoft can't stop it.
I try to tell people about open source products whenever I can, even if I only move them over to Mozilla or OpenOffice on their old Windows boxes. This is how the open source crusade will be won: one user or organization at a time. They will be ready for desktop Linux when the time comes, but if open source wins on the server side for now, that will be a start.
I think about the only thing that governments can do is mandate that ISPs provide adequate spam filtering, as the Internet is global and government control of internet traffic stops at national borders. The solution that my ISP has worked out seems to be effective; the spam is filtered, and a lot less seems to hit my inbox folder. I can report messages that are spam for me, and it gets added to my spam filter.
The one I find interesting is the Gates connection to BSA.
Last year, just before Microsoft rolled out Licensing 6.0, the BSA ran an ad campaign on radio stations in my city admonishing listeners who ran businesses to make sure that there was no software piracy in their enterprise. This was exactly the same time Microsoft was sending letters to businesses in the area to confirm with the Beast exactly how many licenses they owned. This was the last chance for enterprises to get into compliance, as follow-up audits on some businesses were about to be conducted.
I interpreted the ad campaign as basically saying "the sheriff in town (MS) will soon be kicking butt and taking names". Plus, I heard about the connection between MS and the BSA well before this time. Nothing about the BSA's activities surprises me, and everything they do should be viewed in light of the fact that MS is their most prominent member.
DeVry was my second degree, a way for me to get into IT.
Of course, I exaggerate a little bit, but just to make my point because we seem to be a little OBLIVIOUS to what's really going on in this country. I wouldn't want to wake up some day and wonder, "What happened to our freedom?"
Sorry you got caught in a flame war, but that's the breaks.
The 'freedoms' of this country allow for these "Nazi Christians" (as you imply) the freedom of speech to be pro-Israel, and try to do these things, just as they allow for any other sort of speech. Or so the theory goes.
The freedom that Hitler and the Nazis had to protest and create trouble in Germany also allowed them to gain notice. The absence of a diligent citizenry who refused to turn away from the Nazi message of hate (which was couched in "love for the Fatherland") led to Hitler taking power. I see some parallels with the Bush regime, in that a lot of efforts at "Homeland Security" are aimed at people who are demonized as "outsiders" (I believe the German word is auslander). I respect the Christian rightists' ability to speak their mind, but it takes discernment to know what is really being said sometimes. Then again, if you have been paying attention to what Jerry Falwell has been saying since 9/11, I think he is far more representative of the Christian rightist POV than most people would like to admit.
Those of us who have recently been in school (the last 4 years or so) and have had interaction with these "Nazi Christians" are fully aware of the outright freedom violantions that are perpetrated against them in the name of "religious freedom"
This is totally wrong. Students of whatever religion are allowed to pray in school. What is not allowed is an adult- or student-led prayer of an official assembly of students. The Christian rightists have made it clear time and again that they want a "Christian" prayer to be recited at official assemblies of students, under the fictitious notion that the United States was founded as a "Christian nation". We were in fact, founded as a secluar nation, out of an acknowledgement of the diverse religious beliefs of Americans then living. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause was adopted as a response to the fact that some of the states in the new union had official churches, and compelled the worship of the populace in these churches.
As far as it [prohibiting flag burning] being 'idolatry', there's a difference between worship of an image (such as the flag), and respect for an image (such as the flag) that stands for the ideals and mores of your country.
I feel that raising an American flag from being a mere flag to being an object that can't be destroyed as a form of protest (such as when you think the actions of your government doesn't "stand for the ideals and mores of your country") raises that object up to the status of an idol. While I wouldn't engage in flag burning, some people may feel that this is an appropriate form of protest and it is not for me or anyone else to say that they can't do that. Nobody is getting hurt.
I see that you also forgot to mention that these "Nazi Christians" are often strong supporters of the right to have firearms. Intersting, since it was the Nazi party that licensed and eventually revoked all firearms from Germany under Hitler's rule.
Only time will tell if Bush, Ashcroft, and Co. see this as the next expedient to "Homeland Security".
you might just make a good liberal someday.
I acknowledge that I am a liberal, and a liberal Christian at that. I am not ashamed. I happen to beleive in freedom for people, instead of freedom for corporations and elites. If you want to make me wear a scarlet letter L and herd me off to the camps, call Homeland Security: I'm sure they can trace my IP address.
I think what nurb meant is that we are slouching toward a fascistic state, and I think under the Nazional Republican Party, it's a defininte possibility. Consider:
George W. Bush is essentially appointed President by the Supreme Court after tampering with the voter rolls in Florida ( courtesy of brother Jebuzon) disqualifies many minorities who would not have voted for him and brings us to the brink of constitutional crisis
The Nazional Republicans in Congress pass the USA Patriot Act, allowing non-citizens, and in some cases, U.S. citizens (i.e., Jose Padilla) to be detained indefinitely as enemy combatants, and be tried in Military courts instead of civilian courts
Attorney General (and I use that term loosely) John Ashcroft wants even more egregious restrictions on the civil liberties of Americans with an enhancement and extension of the Patriot Act
Despite the noises being made about being even handed toward Israel and the Palestinians, the regime's blatant pro-Israeli tilt is the most outward manifestation of the influence of Christian rightists in the Bush government, whose aim otherwise is to destroy individual freedom in this country in the name of "Jesus Christ": among other things, banning abortion, forcing their version of Christian prayer into public schools, and trying to outlaw the burning of the American flag as a form of protest(truly, idolatry if there ever was).
TIA fits into the pattern. The Nazional Republican inclination to turn over social welfare and other non-military, non-"Homeland Security" programs to the private sector, as you accurately describe, also fits into the pattern of a fascistic ideology: all of the economic and political power concentrated into the hands of an elite few. Information on the citizenry is the key to control. I think Sterling's scenario where the "KGB" apparatus would be used by various branches of the Nazional Republican Party against each other is his fond hope. To take a page from Reichsfuhrer Bush, VOTE FOR REGIME CHANGE IN 2004. This makes a damn good bumper sticker slogan.
Yeah, take the AM spectrum. Then, right-wing mental masturbators would have nothing to do in their spare time. Unfortunately, big media conglomerates like the Clearly Right Wing-- er, Clear Channel Network have way too much influence over the FCC, and Michael Powell and Co. just gave them another generous gift-- er, ruling, the other day, which allows them to buy as many damn stations as they want. Plus newspapers, too. A lot of the Clearly Right Wing stations are on AM, and apparently they still make money. Must be all the Preperation H ads.
From the IW story: "My impression is that [SCO's claim] is credible," says Laura DiDio, a Yankee Group analyst who was shown the evidence by SCO Group earlier this week. "It appears to be the same" code.
[slightly off-topic here] This is a day where I've had it up to here with analysts. Analysts are like the cyst on my back: they are normally a nuisance that you don't pay much attention to, except when they get puffed up and have to be lanced. In other news, a so-called security analyst at mi2g has pronounced that last month, there were more cyberattacks against Linux than against Windows, without giving any f*cking proof. And he was widely quoted in the media. Apparently making stuff up passes for credible analysis. [end slightly off-topic rant]
I find it patently ridiculous that a IT web site would be quoting a non-programmer industry analyst who has examined source code (for what? the kernel? gcc? Tux Racer?) and makes a pronouncement that "it appears to be the same code". This analyst doesn't know kernel panic from clusterf*ck, and she says "it appears to be the same code".
Maybe this is a reason not to document one's code with comments, especially if it's proprietary. The old saw is, there's only one reason not to document code or to use obscure variable names: job security. Maybe SCO believes this, and wishes that System V developers had done such a sh*tass job that neither IBM or anyone else would have attempted to copy "their" code.
These issues have nothing to do with political party. To a great extent, they have to do with integrity-- how much is one willing to stand up to monied interests (i.e., the RIAA and the MPAA), or serve them? There are Republicans like Sam Brownback and Rep. Tom Davis who get it, and there are Democrats like Joe Lieberman (aka Sen. Microsoft), Fritz Hollings, and Reps. Adam Smith and Howard Berman who don't. They prefer to speak for those who bankroll their campaigns.
Brownback's bill sounds like a good starting point, especially the provision that allows the FTC to ban certain DRM schemes. But it doesn't address the real problem with the DMCA, that the copyright terms are much too long, and violates the Constitution's express language of "for a limited time". Copyright was established to encourage innovation and creativity, not to be an income security arrangement for large corporations.
From the Infoworld story: C&W has been on the retreat in the U.S. since September 2002...
Maybe longer than that. It so happens that C&W was my first ISP, known as CWIX. About four years ago, though, they decided to get out of the ISP business and my account got sold to Prodigy. CWIX was a decent ISP, whereas Prodigy blew. The strong may survive, but it doesn't mean they provide better service.
Why would I want a monthly service fee on my PDA? (Like the one you have on your cell phone)
Unless you are a high-caste hacker, I don't imagine you can get free cellular service on your PDA-- maybe you have a tin can and a string plugged into your serial port?
Yeah, they're free if you want to sell your soul to the Devil of Hell by buying Visual Studio.NET. Seriously, though, who uses a Pocket PC or any other device for more than schedule, a contact list, and email? Oh, yeah, and web browsing, too-- all of which I can do with my wireless phone.
Palm and Handspring could learn something from this: that there is a convergence of portable devices, and that the real opportunity could be around the corner with wireless networks of one kind or another.
On a more serious note, it is because of spyware, malware, and everything else it brings on that I do not have Kazaa on my machines and never will. I have a small biz client who wanted to get a popular CD burning program. She went to a local computer store and was advised by an employee there that she could download it on the Internet with Kazaa. When she told me this I warned her about Kazaa, and repeated the famous first dictum on free stuff: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch". Needless to say, she bought the CD burning software, as she doesn't want her kids to be exposed to massive numbers of porn popup ads.
[*sarcasm*]I'm sure everyone believes that. But even if it isn't true, Microsoft could be "licensing" SCO to uphold their own position on intellectual property, which is that you must obtain a license and pay for everything. It fits in perfectly with their business model, and should hardly come as a surprise: we always knew where they stood. That this could be a little "down payment" on what they hope to get out of the litigation against IBM is a bonus.
Maybe they shoulda just called it "BS"-- sounds like the next thing beyond VB. Just think of how "MS BS" would roll off your tongue so naturally. Except, of course, that this is what a lot of us think of what comes out of Redmond, all the time...
I won't tell you how old I actually am, but I am pushing middle-aged. Forgive my vanity.;) Anyhow, IT represents a second career for me, having worked in the retail biz for 14 1/2 years. I went back to school for my degree in IT (my second degree; my first was in economics) in the summer of 2000. So, the "dot-com" bubble had burst/was about to burst, and the IT bubble was shortly behind. I didn't pursue IT because I wanted to "make some dough", I did it because I genuinely enjoyed programming (HTML was how I got hooked!).
What I have discovered along the way is that I am good at this stuff. I have always had a knack for learning things, and I think my orientation in this way fits right in with the needs of the profession. Plus, my first career helped me to understand the practical needs of the business world for technology. It is a background that has served me well in my second career.
I stayed in my first career until last June. By that time, I had been working for five months on a contract to write software for a small non-profit organization. Obviously, one project didn't keep me busy full-time, but it was valuable experience. I also did basic hardware/software/networking for other clients of mine who are small businesses. On the software contract, we started with five developers, and I am the only one left.
Two days ago, I landed a second contract with a consultancy to do more programming. To me, it feels like the lean times-- and the last year has been lean, overall-- might be over. My age hasn't been a consideration, as my skillset is still relatively new, and I intend to keep it that way. My sense is that if you really love this field, there will be work, sooner or later. But I think that you also need to have the educational investment, and invest time in training on emerging stuff (Linux, etc.) to have a shot at staying in IT. As the economists say, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch".
the question being asked is quite relevant. I think the answer is, the way that software companies did business in the Nineties is essentially dead, except for Microsoft's model of "upgrade and reap"...or is that "upgrade and rape"? But the fact is, enterprises can probably get along with the infrastructure that they have now, and not change much over the next few years.
So this is potentially gloomy for the likes of Oracle, but what it means for the rest of the business is less clear. What is clear is that open source has been the cause of some of the reduction in revenue for proprietary vendors over the past couple of years. Why invest a hefty chunk of change in software when the return on your investment is potentially not that great, when you can get a comparable open source package for essentially nothing or a very low cost? In addition, open source projects deliver on new versions and bug fixes in a time span that's generally shorter than proprietary vendors.
For those of us who are developers, it may mean that the tide continues to be low for a little while, until there is a technology compelling enough to be adopted that will move innovation forward. For the time being, we may well be in a period where projects are focused on maintaining or upgrading current applications, instead of building something truly new.
"It's a bit of fun, and it allows younger age groups access to our key services, like Hotmail and MSN Messenger in a fun and interactive way," Whittingham said.
Uh, OK, bud, if you say so.
BTW, how would you share the fact that you're using La Facilite over IM? Plop, Plop, Fizz, Fizz?
Slashdot Mirror
Slightly off-topic: How ironic (or fitting) that the source for the archive you quote from is Ashland University, a bastion of conservative Christian ideology right here in the heartland, and that the Ashbrook Center there is named after Rep. John Ashbrook, a conservative Republican who ran against Richard Nixon for the 1972 presidential nomination because he thought him to be too liberal! This is very interesting to me, because I wonder if conservatives like Ashbrook would support the Patriot Act like the Christian right do-- they seem to be allied to Bushie like they are joined to him at the hip. The Patriot Act seems awfully Nixonian to me.
As for the topic at hand, don't forget that the end of the 10th Amendment says "to the people". This last of the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights, you could say, forms a bookend with the preamble of the Constitution, which begins with WE THE PEOPLE. What if the towns or states who passed their anti-Patriot Act resolutions said, "we are doing this on behalf of the people"?
This might not pass muster, but the lodging of a court case by an individual, if the government is forced to allow someone detained under the Patriot Act to get legal counsel, just might have a chance.
Remember that the Supreme Court essentially put Bushie in office, led by the three black-shirted, er, robed justices (Scalia, Rehnquist, and Clarence Tom). They ended the Florida recount and effectively appointed him "winner" of the 2000 election. There is a distinctly political tinge to some of the court's decisions, and I would not be surprised to see them uphold the Patriot Act, to please Der Fuhrer. He wants the right to run the "guvmint" as he sees fit, and civil liberties be damned. This is why it is so important for the Senate to keep Bushie's judicial appointments bottled up-- he wants to pack the courts with like-minded people.
As you can probably tell from my URL, my ISP is CoreComm. They are also my telco (I'm too far away from the CO for "real" DSL), as I still have dialup. They have been my telco/ISP for three years now, and my monthly charges are still about $15 a month less than what I was paying for Sum Bitchin' Communications (aka SBC) and Prodigy at the time.
The service from CoreComm has been pretty good (one day of outage over the past three years); a while back they added a spam filtering service that does a good job of catching spam and redirecting it out of my inbox. If you are looking for a new telco and they serve your area, you might check them out.
My biggest problem has been with MCI Worldcom, which was my former long distance carrier. Those assholes kept trying to bill me for service I did not have with them; as late as last summer they were trying to bill me for monthly service, even though CoreComm is my long distance company. After screaming at a couple of customer service reps, they finally closed my account. If financial shenanigans don't sink MCI Worldcom, bad service will.
It seems like a more sensible solution for the South African government would be to extract a 10% discount on MS licenses (quite possible in the current environment) and plow that savings into supporting open source development for the government or whatever. "Taxing" Microsoft and putting the receipts into OSS would be a major faux pas and would be used by MS as a huge propaganda vehicle in other countries, as in Stevie Ballmer crying, "Waaaaah, Linux is unfair! Waaaaah!" I don't think that open source needs this right now.
As you point out, it will take a "critical mass" of user base and server base running non-Windows OSs, and the war will almost be over. Microsoft is failing to move into new markets-- and they risk being driven off the server side. I sense that the momentum keeps building for Linux and open source, and I feel that it is unstoppable. SCO can't stop it, IBM can't stop it (even if they wanted to), the U.S. government can't stop it, and most of all, Microsoft can't stop it.
I try to tell people about open source products whenever I can, even if I only move them over to Mozilla or OpenOffice on their old Windows boxes. This is how the open source crusade will be won: one user or organization at a time. They will be ready for desktop Linux when the time comes, but if open source wins on the server side for now, that will be a start.
I think about the only thing that governments can do is mandate that ISPs provide adequate spam filtering, as the Internet is global and government control of internet traffic stops at national borders. The solution that my ISP has worked out seems to be effective; the spam is filtered, and a lot less seems to hit my inbox folder. I can report messages that are spam for me, and it gets added to my spam filter.
The one I find interesting is the Gates connection to BSA.
Last year, just before Microsoft rolled out Licensing 6.0, the BSA ran an ad campaign on radio stations in my city admonishing listeners who ran businesses to make sure that there was no software piracy in their enterprise. This was exactly the same time Microsoft was sending letters to businesses in the area to confirm with the Beast exactly how many licenses they owned. This was the last chance for enterprises to get into compliance, as follow-up audits on some businesses were about to be conducted.
I interpreted the ad campaign as basically saying "the sheriff in town (MS) will soon be kicking butt and taking names". Plus, I heard about the connection between MS and the BSA well before this time. Nothing about the BSA's activities surprises me, and everything they do should be viewed in light of the fact that MS is their most prominent member.
DeVry was my second degree, a way for me to get into IT.
Of course, I exaggerate a little bit, but just to make my point because we seem to be a little OBLIVIOUS to what's really going on in this country. I wouldn't want to wake up some day and wonder, "What happened to our freedom?"
Sorry you got caught in a flame war, but that's the breaks.
To respond to your comments...
The 'freedoms' of this country allow for these "Nazi Christians" (as you imply) the freedom of speech to be pro-Israel, and try to do these things, just as they allow for any other sort of speech. Or so the theory goes.
The freedom that Hitler and the Nazis had to protest and create trouble in Germany also allowed them to gain notice. The absence of a diligent citizenry who refused to turn away from the Nazi message of hate (which was couched in "love for the Fatherland") led to Hitler taking power. I see some parallels with the Bush regime, in that a lot of efforts at "Homeland Security" are aimed at people who are demonized as "outsiders" (I believe the German word is auslander). I respect the Christian rightists' ability to speak their mind, but it takes discernment to know what is really being said sometimes. Then again, if you have been paying attention to what Jerry Falwell has been saying since 9/11, I think he is far more representative of the Christian rightist POV than most people would like to admit.
Those of us who have recently been in school (the last 4 years or so) and have had interaction with these "Nazi Christians" are fully aware of the outright freedom violantions that are perpetrated against them in the name of "religious freedom"
This is totally wrong. Students of whatever religion are allowed to pray in school. What is not allowed is an adult- or student-led prayer of an official assembly of students. The Christian rightists have made it clear time and again that they want a "Christian" prayer to be recited at official assemblies of students, under the fictitious notion that the United States was founded as a "Christian nation". We were in fact, founded as a secluar nation, out of an acknowledgement of the diverse religious beliefs of Americans then living. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause was adopted as a response to the fact that some of the states in the new union had official churches, and compelled the worship of the populace in these churches.
As far as it [prohibiting flag burning] being 'idolatry', there's a difference between worship of an image (such as the flag), and respect for an image (such as the flag) that stands for the ideals and mores of your country.
I feel that raising an American flag from being a mere flag to being an object that can't be destroyed as a form of protest (such as when you think the actions of your government doesn't "stand for the ideals and mores of your country") raises that object up to the status of an idol. While I wouldn't engage in flag burning, some people may feel that this is an appropriate form of protest and it is not for me or anyone else to say that they can't do that. Nobody is getting hurt .
I see that you also forgot to mention that these "Nazi Christians" are often strong supporters of the right to have firearms. Intersting, since it was the Nazi party that licensed and eventually revoked all firearms from Germany under Hitler's rule.
Only time will tell if Bush, Ashcroft, and Co. see this as the next expedient to "Homeland Security".
you might just make a good liberal someday.
I acknowledge that I am a liberal, and a liberal Christian at that. I am not ashamed. I happen to beleive in freedom for people, instead of freedom for corporations and elites. If you want to make me wear a scarlet letter L and herd me off to the camps, call Homeland Security: I'm sure they can trace my IP address.
I think what nurb meant is that we are slouching toward a fascistic state, and I think under the Nazional Republican Party, it's a defininte possibility. Consider:
TIA fits into the pattern. The Nazional Republican inclination to turn over social welfare and other non-military, non-"Homeland Security" programs to the private sector, as you accurately describe, also fits into the pattern of a fascistic ideology: all of the economic and political power concentrated into the hands of an elite few. Information on the citizenry is the key to control. I think Sterling's scenario where the "KGB" apparatus would be used by various branches of the Nazional Republican Party against each other is his fond hope. To take a page from Reichsfuhrer Bush, VOTE FOR REGIME CHANGE IN 2004. This makes a damn good bumper sticker slogan.
Yeah, take the AM spectrum. Then, right-wing mental masturbators would have nothing to do in their spare time. Unfortunately, big media conglomerates like the Clearly Right Wing-- er, Clear Channel Network have way too much influence over the FCC, and Michael Powell and Co. just gave them another generous gift-- er, ruling, the other day, which allows them to buy as many damn stations as they want. Plus newspapers, too. A lot of the Clearly Right Wing stations are on AM, and apparently they still make money. Must be all the Preperation H ads.
From the IW story:
"My impression is that [SCO's claim] is credible," says Laura DiDio, a Yankee Group analyst who was shown the evidence by SCO Group earlier this week. "It appears to be the same" code.
[slightly off-topic here] This is a day where I've had it up to here with analysts. Analysts are like the cyst on my back: they are normally a nuisance that you don't pay much attention to, except when they get puffed up and have to be lanced. In other news, a so-called security analyst at mi2g has pronounced that last month, there were more cyberattacks against Linux than against Windows, without giving any f*cking proof. And he was widely quoted in the media. Apparently making stuff up passes for credible analysis. [end slightly off-topic rant]
I find it patently ridiculous that a IT web site would be quoting a non-programmer industry analyst who has examined source code (for what? the kernel? gcc? Tux Racer?) and makes a pronouncement that "it appears to be the same code". This analyst doesn't know kernel panic from clusterf*ck, and she says "it appears to be the same code".
Maybe this is a reason not to document one's code with comments, especially if it's proprietary. The old saw is, there's only one reason not to document code or to use obscure variable names: job security. Maybe SCO believes this, and wishes that System V developers had done such a sh*tass job that neither IBM or anyone else would have attempted to copy "their" code.
[cranial smoke dissipates]
These issues have nothing to do with political party. To a great extent, they have to do with integrity-- how much is one willing to stand up to monied interests (i.e., the RIAA and the MPAA), or serve them? There are Republicans like Sam Brownback and Rep. Tom Davis who get it, and there are Democrats like Joe Lieberman (aka Sen. Microsoft), Fritz Hollings, and Reps. Adam Smith and Howard Berman who don't. They prefer to speak for those who bankroll their campaigns.
Brownback's bill sounds like a good starting point, especially the provision that allows the FTC to ban certain DRM schemes. But it doesn't address the real problem with the DMCA, that the copyright terms are much too long, and violates the Constitution's express language of "for a limited time". Copyright was established to encourage innovation and creativity, not to be an income security arrangement for large corporations.
From the Infoworld story:
C&W has been on the retreat in the U.S. since September 2002...
Maybe longer than that. It so happens that C&W was my first ISP, known as CWIX. About four years ago, though, they decided to get out of the ISP business and my account got sold to Prodigy. CWIX was a decent ISP, whereas Prodigy blew. The strong may survive, but it doesn't mean they provide better service.
Unless you are a high-caste hacker, I don't imagine you can get free cellular service on your PDA-- maybe you have a tin can and a string plugged into your serial port?
You don't take "no" for an answer, do you?
Yeah, they're free if you want to sell your soul to the Devil of Hell by buying Visual Studio.NET. Seriously, though, who uses a Pocket PC or any other device for more than schedule, a contact list, and email? Oh, yeah, and web browsing, too-- all of which I can do with my wireless phone.
Palm and Handspring could learn something from this: that there is a convergence of portable devices, and that the real opportunity could be around the corner with wireless networks of one kind or another.
Telecommunications: Soliciting via cell phone text messaging: Can it work?
Having just recently acquired a wireless phone, this is something I'll be looking for...
I guess calling it a license gives them a fig leaf.
On a more serious note, it is because of spyware, malware, and everything else it brings on that I do not have Kazaa on my machines and never will. I have a small biz client who wanted to get a popular CD burning program. She went to a local computer store and was advised by an employee there that she could download it on the Internet with Kazaa. When she told me this I warned her about Kazaa, and repeated the famous first dictum on free stuff: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch". Needless to say, she bought the CD burning software, as she doesn't want her kids to be exposed to massive numbers of porn popup ads.
[*sarcasm*]I'm sure everyone believes that. But even if it isn't true, Microsoft could be "licensing" SCO to uphold their own position on intellectual property, which is that you must obtain a license and pay for everything. It fits in perfectly with their business model, and should hardly come as a surprise: we always knew where they stood. That this could be a little "down payment" on what they hope to get out of the litigation against IBM is a bonus.
Maybe they shoulda just called it "BS"-- sounds like the next thing beyond VB. Just think of how "MS BS" would roll off your tongue so naturally. Except, of course, that this is what a lot of us think of what comes out of Redmond, all the time...
I won't tell you how old I actually am, but I am pushing middle-aged. Forgive my vanity. ;) Anyhow, IT represents a second career for me, having worked in the retail biz for 14 1/2 years. I went back to school for my degree in IT (my second degree; my first was in economics) in the summer of 2000. So, the "dot-com" bubble had burst/was about to burst, and the IT bubble was shortly behind. I didn't pursue IT because I wanted to "make some dough", I did it because I genuinely enjoyed programming (HTML was how I got hooked!).
What I have discovered along the way is that I am good at this stuff. I have always had a knack for learning things, and I think my orientation in this way fits right in with the needs of the profession. Plus, my first career helped me to understand the practical needs of the business world for technology. It is a background that has served me well in my second career.
I stayed in my first career until last June. By that time, I had been working for five months on a contract to write software for a small non-profit organization. Obviously, one project didn't keep me busy full-time, but it was valuable experience. I also did basic hardware/software/networking for other clients of mine who are small businesses. On the software contract, we started with five developers, and I am the only one left.
Two days ago, I landed a second contract with a consultancy to do more programming. To me, it feels like the lean times-- and the last year has been lean, overall-- might be over. My age hasn't been a consideration, as my skillset is still relatively new, and I intend to keep it that way. My sense is that if you really love this field, there will be work, sooner or later. But I think that you also need to have the educational investment, and invest time in training on emerging stuff (Linux, etc.) to have a shot at staying in IT. As the economists say, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch".
the question being asked is quite relevant. I think the answer is, the way that software companies did business in the Nineties is essentially dead, except for Microsoft's model of "upgrade and reap"...or is that "upgrade and rape"? But the fact is, enterprises can probably get along with the infrastructure that they have now, and not change much over the next few years.
So this is potentially gloomy for the likes of Oracle, but what it means for the rest of the business is less clear. What is clear is that open source has been the cause of some of the reduction in revenue for proprietary vendors over the past couple of years. Why invest a hefty chunk of change in software when the return on your investment is potentially not that great, when you can get a comparable open source package for essentially nothing or a very low cost? In addition, open source projects deliver on new versions and bug fixes in a time span that's generally shorter than proprietary vendors.
For those of us who are developers, it may mean that the tide continues to be low for a little while, until there is a technology compelling enough to be adopted that will move innovation forward. For the time being, we may well be in a period where projects are focused on maintaining or upgrading current applications, instead of building something truly new.
Uh, OK, bud, if you say so.
BTW, how would you share the fact that you're using La Facilite over IM? Plop, Plop, Fizz, Fizz?