Many people will not upgrade, and many will by also ilegal hardware from countries that permmit non TC compilant ones (remember, people from US, there are other countries on the world).
I really don't believe that TC will spread. On the US (that is already rulled), DRM will spread, and people will start finding ways to break it. But even there, if TC legislation became true, we will start to see so much garbage sold as software that nobody (read, bug companies, with power) will complaint for too long. I not only speaking about bad OS, I'm talking about bad office applications (that hurt business) and bad experiencie on the web (much worse than we have now) to cite two. That is because the TC computers will probably allow you to run just one office application and browser, specified by the BIOS maker (and with very bad support for upgrades).
On a trusted plattaform, you would never can run a free software OS. That is because the OS should be signed by a corporation and alowed by the machine (BIOS) fabricant to run there.
Also, a trusted plattaform will not permit you to boot from a CD that was not allowed by the hardware maker. You could even get a way to run Linux there (making a deal with the hardware fabricant), but you loose the right to change the OS (so, it is not free anymore, at least for you).
But while you can get luck and retrieve the data from the HD (let's say the hardware permits you to backup your data, what is not trivial on a TC world), that can even be useless, because as soon as you re-image it, it can become incompatible with the old data. That is not specified this way, but the specification gives no warranty about the data compatibility also.
To answer your more general questoin: "What is TC?". TC is just a hardware that can identify itself and only run an allowed OS that gives you no chance of breaking DRM managing DRM data. It's all about data protection and identification (and also about destrying not allowed - read free - software, but nobody say that to the press).
Then again, there may be some major annoyances that they won't be able to remove for compatibility reasons, such as ActiveX (which as you know is responsible for much of the spyware problem). What people should do is get rid of features like that completely, so that IE can be a secure browser...
Bingo! No, Ms can't suppress IE growth. Contraly to what you say, most users switch because of security flaws. Not that the users know that, but most of the people that change today are told by someone that their spyware is due to IE - they should change to Firefox so, they change and spyware is gone.
People don't even know how to use tabbed brownsig or extensions before they use FF to became adepts
Firefox will not reach 90% marketshare while most of the people use Windows, with IE. Not all the people will change the browser.
But you are wrong when you apply the knowlege you have about closed software monopolies to free software ones, just remember that free software are made to be forked and heve its complete specification available.
Yes, computer are expensive here, and many people can't afford one. But everybody that can afford one of those can also afford downloading a free software from the net. I don't know any official data about the majority of the population, but I belive them have computers just at work.
The maing goal of using FOSS ont this project is to keep the price low, while satisfying the FOSS adepts that are a big part of the government people
I really didn't RTFA, but this MIT professor is just reinforcing the governemnt oppinion that was stablished a long time ago ad only M$ think that will change. Bazilian government started several years ago to make the change to FOSS. Anyway, it is good to reinforce that.
Firstly the whole thing of security is over rated. It is a corporate fudge factor, things are as secure as the apps that you use and you make your system.
That's because you use FOSS. One can't achieve an arbitrary level of security with closed software. Doesn't matter how hard he works, there is always a limit (that can be very high, but some times isn't).
Economics have several different definitions of "value". What people are willing to pay is one of them, what people gain with the thing is another one.
But your post is entirely missleading because there is no such thing as a not mathematical definition of value and there are several "laws" to describe the behaviour of the market, rational or not.
The best you can do is something like Mudflap, Purify, Cyclone, or Valgrind.
Yes, it is, but C has other strengths that make it worth.
Where do the "few percent overhead" come from? From comparing the performance of Pascal, Java, and Eiffel code compiled with safety on and off.
But all those languages face a performance hit compared with C even with safety off.
And you know what the real kicker is? Not only do C pointer semantics make it impossible to generate efficient runtime safety checks, they even inhibit important optimizations when no safety features are enabled. And because C programmers then have to jump through all sorts of hoops to achieve some kind of safety in the midst of this chaos, the software ends up being bloated, too.
One need that optimixation when have no control of his pointers. But a well written program on C can be as fast without the compiler optimization. Also, a good design can avoid the bloat without compromissing security and also generate optimizations for the places where safety can be off.
I'm getting sick of the fact that ignorant fools like you have been holding back progress in software systems for a quarter of a century.
I am design a very speed sensitive library. Which "modern" language do you recomend me? On what language can I keep my arrays at the stack, like I'm doing on C for better speed? And on what language I can create an entire (less powerfull but faster) memory management library to avoid a bottleneck like I did with C (C++ actualy)? Think twice before you call most of the people out there idiots. Obvoulsy there are programs that worth the pay-off of using an easier language, but before you ban C, try to realize that there are applications that doens't worth it. And since some of them are the compilers of your "modern" languages, don't see how supporting C delay their developpment.
And, before you try to arguee, I belive on the better tool for the job. That is why I currently have 4 projects, one in C++, one in Java, one in Perl (learning) and one in Bash script. I am not a blind C overload.
Can't it be used to screw up GPL'ed projects and small companies, who can't stand to defend a copyrighted work at justice and look for piracy of their work?
Yes, governmetn transition doesn't happen overnight. 2006 - 2007 is a very short time for that, you should increase that to 2007 - 2009 or something like that.
To cite a real case, Brazil started its transition in 2002. Today there has been no significant mode to Linux yet. Instead, almost al the public douments have been translated from M$ ofice to a more open format. A lot of time was spent discussing what is a 'open format' and generating policies. To make the long story short, 2 years after the decision, most of governments computers use Windows, but you have acces to the public services from a Linux computer.
Is the best thing to do now. The case is almost over, we should assume the "what doesn't kill us make we stronger" posture.
Let's face the facts, SCO become with an empty lawsuit to make some easy money, they deserve to be humiliated. Also, just blamming what happened will lead us nowere. We sould let people know that we survived because the code is clean, that we have allies and that we learned something and are better prepared for future problems
That is the best way of comment this case. That is the only way we can use that to make Linux more respectfull.
No, thy are grad student assistants of professors working over time:) Who share their work with the community. This discussion is becomming a bit longer than I expected, so, I will try to end that.
Communism is not only what Max described. It's a very old idea that is practiced on several quotidiane acts. A communist moviment wants simply that people share stuff with the community.
There is a very missleading way of thinking that fuses "comunism" with "Marx's Comunism" or even with "Marx's Socialism". Well, as I said above, Marx's one is just one in several possibilities. Marx's Socialism isn't even comunism, it's some kind of dictatorship that Marx (and, surpreendently, some other people) belived that would lead to an igualitarian society.
And your students, if they wheren't communist, they would keep their work for thenselves (not letting the teacher publish the patch). They have that right.
Finally, replying some comments that confuse communism and socialism, and think that OSS way of organizing stuff is against communist philosophy. Let me say that althoug socialism is tyranical, communism is anarchical (extreme laiser-faire), as OSS development. Communism don't need to conquer the entire world to happen, Marx's Communism do. And, for the people that read the second paragraph and though "But even neighbourhood associations fit that definition", yes, it does. See how this is an old and quotidiane thing?
OSS being a comunist model, all OSS developers are comunist in a sense. I don't know why US people are so scared about this word.
P.S. That revolution stuff you grow up listening isn't comunism, it's just a kind of it (and wat was implemented, wasn't even communism).
No, must publications have 3 reviwers, not 5 as you said. No, the middle man doesn't work hard to maintain the quality of the publication, they simply follow the oppinions of the reviewers, and don't even try to choose them in a way that they know the paper subject. Many times the reviewers don't have a clue about the paper.
Worse yet, on must of the conferences (journals not), the organizers, who deals with all those emaisl you say, don't get paid. They are just proffesors working extra time.
Yes, good luck for Microsoft, because replacing their API is one of the few good steps they are trying to make. But, as far as I know, POSIX API is a bit older than Win32, and survived several different kernels (not just a few).
Also, my old DOS games simply don't work on windows, althoug some of them now work on Linux. So think twice before you call for API stability. And remember, the alticle is about a few differences that make administrating all those system harder and cause some inconsistences on using the other programs (something that Win programs just don't care about, but is very important on Unix).
I haven't seen a linux distro that doesn't make you, or strongly advise you to create a normal user account as well as a root account.
I haven't seen either, but eople say that Lindows do that. But I have a very good news for you, that aparently is out of the linux world for a wile. Almost all the linux distros now make it very dificult to start X as root (the login screen does not permit taht). And the several GUI admin tools that are appearing ask for a password and sudo itself.
Someday, maybe, Microsoft also get it right. That would be a very good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
On my system:
KNotes, Klipper, KOrganizer, KGet, Kconq, KWrite, KEdit...
Many people will not upgrade, and many will by also ilegal hardware from countries that permmit non TC compilant ones (remember, people from US, there are other countries on the world).
I really don't believe that TC will spread. On the US (that is already rulled), DRM will spread, and people will start finding ways to break it. But even there, if TC legislation became true, we will start to see so much garbage sold as software that nobody (read, bug companies, with power) will complaint for too long. I not only speaking about bad OS, I'm talking about bad office applications (that hurt business) and bad experiencie on the web (much worse than we have now) to cite two. That is because the TC computers will probably allow you to run just one office application and browser, specified by the BIOS maker (and with very bad support for upgrades).
On a trusted plattaform, you would never can run a free software OS. That is because the OS should be signed by a corporation and alowed by the machine (BIOS) fabricant to run there.
Also, a trusted plattaform will not permit you to boot from a CD that was not allowed by the hardware maker. You could even get a way to run Linux there (making a deal with the hardware fabricant), but you loose the right to change the OS (so, it is not free anymore, at least for you).
But while you can get luck and retrieve the data from the HD (let's say the hardware permits you to backup your data, what is not trivial on a TC world), that can even be useless, because as soon as you re-image it, it can become incompatible with the old data. That is not specified this way, but the specification gives no warranty about the data compatibility also.
To answer your more general questoin: "What is TC?". TC is just a hardware that can identify itself and only run an allowed OS that gives you no chance of breaking DRM managing DRM data. It's all about data protection and identification (and also about destrying not allowed - read free - software, but nobody say that to the press).
Remember Tanhenbaum: "The best thng about standards is that there are so many to choose."
A paper about that was posted on /. some time ago.
Then again, there may be some major annoyances that they won't be able to remove for compatibility reasons, such as ActiveX (which as you know is responsible for much of the spyware problem). What people should do is get rid of features like that completely, so that IE can be a secure browser...
Bingo! No, Ms can't suppress IE growth. Contraly to what you say, most users switch because of security flaws. Not that the users know that, but most of the people that change today are told by someone that their spyware is due to IE - they should change to Firefox so, they change and spyware is gone.
People don't even know how to use tabbed brownsig or extensions before they use FF to became adepts
Firefox will not reach 90% marketshare while most of the people use Windows, with IE. Not all the people will change the browser.
But you are wrong when you apply the knowlege you have about closed software monopolies to free software ones, just remember that free software are made to be forked and heve its complete specification available.
Who modded parent insightful?
Please, people, parent is FUNNY. Or do you really think that this MIT professor said bulshit?
Yes, computer are expensive here, and many people can't afford one. But everybody that can afford one of those can also afford downloading a free software from the net. I don't know any official data about the majority of the population, but I belive them have computers just at work.
The maing goal of using FOSS ont this project is to keep the price low, while satisfying the FOSS adepts that are a big part of the government people
I really didn't RTFA, but this MIT professor is just reinforcing the governemnt oppinion that was stablished a long time ago ad only M$ think that will change. Bazilian government started several years ago to make the change to FOSS. Anyway, it is good to reinforce that.
As english names are so confusing, I stil prefer libre.
Firstly the whole thing of security is over rated. It is a corporate fudge factor, things are as secure as the apps that you use and you make your system.
That's because you use FOSS. One can't achieve an arbitrary level of security with closed software. Doesn't matter how hard he works, there is always a limit (that can be very high, but some times isn't).
Economics have several different definitions of "value". What people are willing to pay is one of them, what people gain with the thing is another one.
But your post is entirely missleading because there is no such thing as a not mathematical definition of value and there are several "laws" to describe the behaviour of the market, rational or not.
The best you can do is something like Mudflap, Purify, Cyclone, or Valgrind.
Yes, it is, but C has other strengths that make it worth.
Where do the "few percent overhead" come from? From comparing the performance of Pascal, Java, and Eiffel code compiled with safety on and off.
But all those languages face a performance hit compared with C even with safety off.
And you know what the real kicker is? Not only do C pointer semantics make it impossible to generate efficient runtime safety checks, they even inhibit important optimizations when no safety features are enabled. And because C programmers then have to jump through all sorts of hoops to achieve some kind of safety in the midst of this chaos, the software ends up being bloated, too.
One need that optimixation when have no control of his pointers. But a well written program on C can be as fast without the compiler optimization. Also, a good design can avoid the bloat without compromissing security and also generate optimizations for the places where safety can be off.
I'm getting sick of the fact that ignorant fools like you have been holding back progress in software systems for a quarter of a century.
I am design a very speed sensitive library. Which "modern" language do you recomend me? On what language can I keep my arrays at the stack, like I'm doing on C for better speed? And on what language I can create an entire (less powerfull but faster) memory management library to avoid a bottleneck like I did with C (C++ actualy)? Think twice before you call most of the people out there idiots. Obvoulsy there are programs that worth the pay-off of using an easier language, but before you ban C, try to realize that there are applications that doens't worth it. And since some of them are the compilers of your "modern" languages, don't see how supporting C delay their developpment.
And, before you try to arguee, I belive on the better tool for the job. That is why I currently have 4 projects, one in C++, one in Java, one in Perl (learning) and one in Bash script. I am not a blind C overload.
Can't it be used to screw up GPL'ed projects and small companies, who can't stand to defend a copyrighted work at justice and look for piracy of their work?
People alread know how to manage B* trees? Maybe I am not very up to date, bot a very short time ago, they didn't.
Yes, governmetn transition doesn't happen overnight. 2006 - 2007 is a very short time for that, you should increase that to 2007 - 2009 or something like that.
To cite a real case, Brazil started its transition in 2002. Today there has been no significant mode to Linux yet. Instead, almost al the public douments have been translated from M$ ofice to a more open format. A lot of time was spent discussing what is a 'open format' and generating policies. To make the long story short, 2 years after the decision, most of governments computers use Windows, but you have acces to the public services from a Linux computer.
Is the best thing to do now. The case is almost over, we should assume the "what doesn't kill us make we stronger" posture.
Let's face the facts, SCO become with an empty lawsuit to make some easy money, they deserve to be humiliated. Also, just blamming what happened will lead us nowere. We sould let people know that we survived because the code is clean, that we have allies and that we learned something and are better prepared for future problems
That is the best way of comment this case. That is the only way we can use that to make Linux more respectfull.
No, thy are grad student assistants of professors working over time:) Who share their work with the community. This discussion is becomming a bit longer than I expected, so, I will try to end that.
Communism is not only what Max described. It's a very old idea that is practiced on several quotidiane acts. A communist moviment wants simply that people share stuff with the community.
There is a very missleading way of thinking that fuses "comunism" with "Marx's Comunism" or even with "Marx's Socialism". Well, as I said above, Marx's one is just one in several possibilities. Marx's Socialism isn't even comunism, it's some kind of dictatorship that Marx (and, surpreendently, some other people) belived that would lead to an igualitarian society.
And your students, if they wheren't communist, they would keep their work for thenselves (not letting the teacher publish the patch). They have that right.
Finally, replying some comments that confuse communism and socialism, and think that OSS way of organizing stuff is against communist philosophy. Let me say that althoug socialism is tyranical, communism is anarchical (extreme laiser-faire), as OSS development. Communism don't need to conquer the entire world to happen, Marx's Communism do. And, for the people that read the second paragraph and though "But even neighbourhood associations fit that definition", yes, it does. See how this is an old and quotidiane thing?
Isn't you confusing "comunism" with "socialism"?
OSS being a comunist model, all OSS developers are comunist in a sense. I don't know why US people are so scared about this word.
P.S. That revolution stuff you grow up listening isn't comunism, it's just a kind of it (and wat was implemented, wasn't even communism).
No, must publications have 3 reviwers, not 5 as you said. No, the middle man doesn't work hard to maintain the quality of the publication, they simply follow the oppinions of the reviewers, and don't even try to choose them in a way that they know the paper subject. Many times the reviewers don't have a clue about the paper.
Worse yet, on must of the conferences (journals not), the organizers, who deals with all those emaisl you say, don't get paid. They are just proffesors working extra time.
Yes, good luck for Microsoft, because replacing their API is one of the few good steps they are trying to make. But, as far as I know, POSIX API is a bit older than Win32, and survived several different kernels (not just a few).
Also, my old DOS games simply don't work on windows, althoug some of them now work on Linux. So think twice before you call for API stability. And remember, the alticle is about a few differences that make administrating all those system harder and cause some inconsistences on using the other programs (something that Win programs just don't care about, but is very important on Unix).
I erally agree with you about the evolution by diferentiation... But, when did you see a featureset dropped in Linux?
But now is different, because now we have cell processors!
Oh, wait...
I haven't seen a linux distro that doesn't make you, or strongly advise you to create a normal user account as well as a root account.
I haven't seen either, but eople say that Lindows do that. But I have a very good news for you, that aparently is out of the linux world for a wile. Almost all the linux distros now make it very dificult to start X as root (the login screen does not permit taht). And the several GUI admin tools that are appearing ask for a password and sudo itself.
Someday, maybe, Microsoft also get it right. That would be a very good thing.