"Do you know of a remote code vulnerability in the default install of IIS6? I know of one in the default install and a handful with ASP turned on."
And you say that is a good thing?! That goes to reinforce what people say about MCSEs. Anyway, vunerabilities don't just pop into existence when software gets older. It is the other way around, their number should go down with time.
"They need money, but that money has to be created in increasing amounts from debt. What, in essence, they need, is *more debt*, not *more money*."
No, the banking system can create only a finite amount of debt for each piece of (paper) money the government creates. It can't create debt backed only by debt because the regulations don't permit that. Also it is the government that says how much debt can be created this way.
"Creating debt can only be backed by other, existing, debt."
Again, there must be some amount of (paper) money backing all debt created by banks, that is by law. By the way, sorry, I did mistake debt by "debit", English is not my first language, and "debt" is too similar to portuguese "debito".
"The problem is, if you have to create debt to pay off debt, and each debt you create adds the overhead of interest, then the debt has no way of shrinking, except by foreclosing on the debt, at which point the person indebted to the bank loses, and the bank will probably start taking their possessions."
As I said, at some time the banks must create debt within themselves and give it to the real economy, otherwise, they'd be unable to buy anything. That new debt can be used to pay the old debt that the real economy has with the banks. Of course, the banks get more at the end than they had at the beginning, but they don't own the entire economy.
"If we're all in debt, and suddenly the debt stops, who's going to end up owning everything?"
Your concern here should be "If we are all in debt, and banks sudenly don't want anything that we produce anymore." If so the banks would own everything. If banks still want something you produce, they won't stop making debt, and they'll be the debitors of it.
"These statements declare that critical projects receiving more funding must be successful; projects that make people work better are critical; projects that make people work better are successful."
Yep, that goes by definition. Projects that make people work better and rely on it are both sucessfull and critical.
"And the wheels on the bus go round and round..."
Again, where is the loop?
Now, about things that aren't a tautology... Every time I see it, projects are prioritized both at their beginning and several times during their lifecycle. I seems our experiency differs a lot, but my opinion is that not rechecking those priorities and relying on the opinion of the sponsor to measure how critical a project is amounts to incompetence. Again, I don't see that happening a lot around me, but your experience may vary, and both our experiences are anedontal.
"Banks do not need 'money on hand' to create a loan."
Oh yes, they do. Have a look into the regulations, it is explicit there.
"For that matter, if you lower the price of milk by producing more of it, then all milk producers earn less, overall. Less is available to pay their workers, and thus, the milk industry loses in proportion to the amount of milk produced. Thus, the system creates no new value at all."
Wrong again, there is more milk. If the society doesn't want that extra milk, for any price, it will add no extra value. If society wants the extra milk, the sum of money paid to the milk producers will increase, just not linearly.
"But in a system founded on debt, the interest represents an amount that cannot exist."
At some time the bank (or its owner) will want some kind of real good. When that happens, the bank will create debit within itself and give it to you. That is the debit you'll use to pay the interest on your loan.
I am not taking it out of context, but wasn't that clear. I am saying that the reason those drivers don't work is because they are closed source. It's an inherent problem, closed drivers can't follow the development of open source kernels.
"and come one people, compromise isn't a bad word. If their binary drivers and they work.....then so what?"
So wat that binary drivers don't work. They may work on a specific version of the kernel, but you don't want to be forced into it (and why should everybody use Linux?). They may work on your specific platform, but it isn't good to be locked on a plataform (altought people are used to it), computer achitectures improve all the time. They also may stop to be distributed, anytime.
Some of your points are just due to bad luck choosing a distro or a specific software, some are specific to you, and, come on, the desktop environment problem is really a case of refusing to do something. Choose one, toss a coin if you want, making a selection isn't that hard.
"Graphics drivers. I installed Fedora about a year ago and installing their graphics drivers felt like I was hacking my own computer. Maybe that's part of the fun of Linux (heck, of course it is!), but for a wide base of consumers it's also part of the fear."
That is bad luck. Beginers should start with Ubuntu.
"Installing software. There's so many distro's of linux and seemingly packages built for individual flavors, installing new software "feels" risky, and running into package conflicts is a bit nasty. Do I trust the people who seem to build and redistribute packages on random websites? I don't know. There's a bit of a difference between commercial vendors and some guy with a popular FTP repository. I also downloaded and compiled some apps myself because I couldn't find packages for certain things for the version of Fedora I was using. Are regular consumers expected to do this?"
Again, bad luck. Start with Ubuntu.
"Accessing my Windows files was a bit of a PITA. I had to install an NTFS driver manually, which meant editing some conf files to auto-mount partitions. Again, that ought to have been automatic to make switching OS's easier. Maybe it's included in more recent distros?
Well, instaling an NTFS driver is much easier on Ubuntu. You'll still need to manualy mount it or edit configuration files, what is a PITA. That should be automatic (maybe it already is). But what do you really get from Windows?
"Back to the nVidia graphics drivers: I quickly discovered that something like gEdit was very simple to use, much like Notepad. Then I tried editing some conf files from the shell. With vi. Enough said."
Well, you should have used nano (or ed, since it's the standard - ok, newby, the ed part was a joke, don't try it). Again, bad luck. There should be clear somewhere that both vi and emacs are hard to learn, if you don't want to comit into them, use nano.
"I had a nice soundcard (Creative Audigy 2), and when I installed Linux some of it's advanced features were not working (e.g. CMSS), and the mixer application showed dozens of sliders to set the volume, some of which I couldn't even identify. Then there is the whole issue of using two separate sound architectures."
That is a problem. You may not be able to use all the features of your soundcard today either. When hardware manufacturers decide to destroy the usability of their product on Linux, there is nothing the developers can do. The good news is that there is no rational reason for that to happen (besides geting paid by Microsoft), so the problems gets smaler every day.
Also, the issue of two separate sound systems is what happens at transitions. At the Windows world, you get unsuported hardware, with Linux you get some solvable problems.
Most of the problems beginners face could be solved by a good, impartial, introduction. Linux is missing some document that points to them things like with what distro they should start, or what software they should try first, then how to get better informed about other distros and software, so they can choose. I'd advise you to start with Ubuntu, run Gnome and if ever necessary, stay away from both vi and emacs until you decide to learn them, use nano. Then, after you are used to Linux, you can try new software, distros and desktop environments easily. Still, stay away from vi and emacs unless your job requires that you write big amounts of text.
By the way, from that post you couldn't really tell that I use neither Ubuntu nor Gnome and like emacs a lot, could you?
C-level management (at least minimal competent ones) will say that a project is critical when they lose lots of money when it fails, or gain lots of money when it is sucessfull. They discover what project is critical based on data that is continualy updated by a controling subprocess. On IT, that almost always come from people relying on the created tool.
Also, C-level management usualy don't have personal involvement on a big number of projects and are normaly easy to convince when showed hard data. And, yes, I have some (not a lot tough) experience on project methodology.
"Your circular logic in the below quote was a wonder to behold;"
Now, can you please point what is circular on two independent definitions? Maybe you should read your logic books again.
"Oh, and just to make an assertion, I'd say that of actual implementations FOSS succeeds more than closed source, particularly in the long term."
Ok, just to clarify (did you read the thread?), that was part of the GP point. I didn't disagree with him on that. I saw no need to restate it.
Now, I don't have statistics on how FOSS is normaly more expensive at the short term. I don't collect them, since I have no use for data that broad. I use specific data to decide what tool best fit a need, and that tool is likely FOSS, but sometimes it gets hard to make a point, since things will be more expensive the following quarter.
"Open Source software is not only cheaper for the initial installation, it is also cheaper in the long run..."
The problem is that FOSS is rarely cheaper for the initial instalation. Unless you happen to be creating your IT infrastructure now (that means, you are a new company), and have no communication problems with partners, FOSS is actualy more expensive to implement.
Alied to a very step discount rate current CEOs show, that is the problem FOSS has to overcome.
"The article (which I did read) does claim a large percentage of the projects are "Critical" or "High Importance", but this does not mean, "These are the successful projects."
You don't seem to come from IT. IT projects only become "critial" or "hight importance" when they make people work better, so people start relying on them. Also, IT projects are declared sucessfull when they make people work better, so people start relying on them.
That is at EU. I think (not sure) they homogenized their law in a way that all involved parts are to blame, and you can sue any of them. If there is anything that makes one party not to blame, it can later sue the others to recouple the lost money.
At least, Brazil copyied them that way. Maybe we missinterpreted something:)
The stock price will only stay above 30 if Yahoo hapens to create value enough for that. The MS deal couldn't really change the long term value of the stock, even if it was accepted (unless they improved somehow the company and, only then, created some value).
Slashdot Mirror
Use Foxit.
I'd add that first registration is free.
Ok, now that is good.
SCSI disks on RAID 0 with backups are less so.
And you say that is a good thing?! That goes to reinforce what people say about MCSEs. Anyway, vunerabilities don't just pop into existence when software gets older. It is the other way around, their number should go down with time.
SP1!
No, the banking system can create only a finite amount of debt for each piece of (paper) money the government creates. It can't create debt backed only by debt because the regulations don't permit that. Also it is the government that says how much debt can be created this way.
Again, there must be some amount of (paper) money backing all debt created by banks, that is by law. By the way, sorry, I did mistake debt by "debit", English is not my first language, and "debt" is too similar to portuguese "debito".
As I said, at some time the banks must create debt within themselves and give it to the real economy, otherwise, they'd be unable to buy anything. That new debt can be used to pay the old debt that the real economy has with the banks. Of course, the banks get more at the end than they had at the beginning, but they don't own the entire economy.
Your concern here should be "If we are all in debt, and banks sudenly don't want anything that we produce anymore." If so the banks would own everything. If banks still want something you produce, they won't stop making debt, and they'll be the debitors of it.
Yep, that goes by definition. Projects that make people work better and rely on it are both sucessfull and critical.
Again, where is the loop?
Now, about things that aren't a tautology... Every time I see it, projects are prioritized both at their beginning and several times during their lifecycle. I seems our experiency differs a lot, but my opinion is that not rechecking those priorities and relying on the opinion of the sponsor to measure how critical a project is amounts to incompetence. Again, I don't see that happening a lot around me, but your experience may vary, and both our experiences are anedontal.
Oh yes, they do. Have a look into the regulations, it is explicit there.
Wrong again, there is more milk. If the society doesn't want that extra milk, for any price, it will add no extra value. If society wants the extra milk, the sum of money paid to the milk producers will increase, just not linearly.
At some time the bank (or its owner) will want some kind of real good. When that happens, the bank will create debit within itself and give it to you. That is the debit you'll use to pay the interest on your loan.
I am not taking it out of context, but wasn't that clear. I am saying that the reason those drivers don't work is because they are closed source. It's an inherent problem, closed drivers can't follow the development of open source kernels.
So wat that binary drivers don't work. They may work on a specific version of the kernel, but you don't want to be forced into it (and why should everybody use Linux?). They may work on your specific platform, but it isn't good to be locked on a plataform (altought people are used to it), computer achitectures improve all the time. They also may stop to be distributed, anytime.
So, get used to Hurd now.
An economic ressesion can easily help one making that choice.
Some of your points are just due to bad luck choosing a distro or a specific software, some are specific to you, and, come on, the desktop environment problem is really a case of refusing to do something. Choose one, toss a coin if you want, making a selection isn't that hard.
That is bad luck. Beginers should start with Ubuntu.
Again, bad luck. Start with Ubuntu.
Well, instaling an NTFS driver is much easier on Ubuntu. You'll still need to manualy mount it or edit configuration files, what is a PITA. That should be automatic (maybe it already is). But what do you really get from Windows?
Well, you should have used nano (or ed, since it's the standard - ok, newby, the ed part was a joke, don't try it). Again, bad luck. There should be clear somewhere that both vi and emacs are hard to learn, if you don't want to comit into them, use nano.
That is a problem. You may not be able to use all the features of your soundcard today either. When hardware manufacturers decide to destroy the usability of their product on Linux, there is nothing the developers can do. The good news is that there is no rational reason for that to happen (besides geting paid by Microsoft), so the problems gets smaler every day.
Also, the issue of two separate sound systems is what happens at transitions. At the Windows world, you get unsuported hardware, with Linux you get some solvable problems.
Most of the problems beginners face could be solved by a good, impartial, introduction. Linux is missing some document that points to them things like with what distro they should start, or what software they should try first, then how to get better informed about other distros and software, so they can choose. I'd advise you to start with Ubuntu, run Gnome and if ever necessary, stay away from both vi and emacs until you decide to learn them, use nano. Then, after you are used to Linux, you can try new software, distros and desktop environments easily. Still, stay away from vi and emacs unless your job requires that you write big amounts of text.
By the way, from that post you couldn't really tell that I use neither Ubuntu nor Gnome and like emacs a lot, could you?
C-level management (at least minimal competent ones) will say that a project is critical when they lose lots of money when it fails, or gain lots of money when it is sucessfull. They discover what project is critical based on data that is continualy updated by a controling subprocess. On IT, that almost always come from people relying on the created tool.
Also, C-level management usualy don't have personal involvement on a big number of projects and are normaly easy to convince when showed hard data. And, yes, I have some (not a lot tough) experience on project methodology.
Now, can you please point what is circular on two independent definitions? Maybe you should read your logic books again.
Ok, just to clarify (did you read the thread?), that was part of the GP point. I didn't disagree with him on that. I saw no need to restate it.
Now, I don't have statistics on how FOSS is normaly more expensive at the short term. I don't collect them, since I have no use for data that broad. I use specific data to decide what tool best fit a need, and that tool is likely FOSS, but sometimes it gets hard to make a point, since things will be more expensive the following quarter.
So, please, clarify. I guess you meant random, non-deterministic computers are a theoretical thing that can make decisions based on future happenings.
If so, we absolutely need faster computers to proceed.
The problem is that FOSS is rarely cheaper for the initial instalation. Unless you happen to be creating your IT infrastructure now (that means, you are a new company), and have no communication problems with partners, FOSS is actualy more expensive to implement.
Alied to a very step discount rate current CEOs show, that is the problem FOSS has to overcome.
You don't seem to come from IT. IT projects only become "critial" or "hight importance" when they make people work better, so people start relying on them. Also, IT projects are declared sucessfull when they make people work better, so people start relying on them.
I see how one could make that inference...
Oh, ok. Now I see how that could put people away :)
Wrong from the beginning. I was talking about consumer laws, not transit ones.
That is at EU. I think (not sure) they homogenized their law in a way that all involved parts are to blame, and you can sue any of them. If there is anything that makes one party not to blame, it can later sue the others to recouple the lost money.
At least, Brazil copyied them that way. Maybe we missinterpreted something :)
The stock price will only stay above 30 if Yahoo hapens to create value enough for that. The MS deal couldn't really change the long term value of the stock, even if it was accepted (unless they improved somehow the company and, only then, created some value).
Nothing for you to see here.