For the price of some of these packages, you can hire 2 developers (or more!) for a year
If they aren't even smart enough to choose software that does what they need (or at least to reject stuff that doesn't) you should probably be grateful they aren't running a project to create software that does all those things they don't quite understand! Or writing the specs for such a project. Or deciding which features to drop as the deadlines whoosh by.
Besides, they'll tell you they "need it now, not in a year" (which might be a fair point, especially if they picked a system that did the job).
I suspect there is a small core of functionality that we all use in any given package. After that, different kinds of users use different sets of extra functionality. Just because most people use less than 25% of a program's functionality doesn't mean they are all using the same 25%.
You mentioned version control in Word as a useless example. I know people who need and use version control, and for whom the enhanced "differences" display is a great advantage.
One man's bload is another man's vital feature. Which makes my ID more ironic than usual, I suppose...
Seems to me that if I was spending 100K plus on a software package (or system) I would test it first to make sure it fit my needs, as opposed to listening to a marketing drone...
I'm sure you would, and I certainly would. Unfortunately in the corporate world these decisions are too often made, for "non-technical reasons" [1] by people who lack this apparently simple insight. I've seen too many inappropriate purchases made, of over-priced, under-functional software and systems that looked like it did what the purchaser thought he wanted, but in real life failed to do what the company acutally needed. Or had prohibitive costs. Or...
And I don't believe that my experience is particularly unusual.
For a change, the politicians are prepared to listen - a Public Inquiry is a chance to make sensible suggestions, and reflect on what has and has not worked elsewhere.
There are a lot of "interesting" questions though...
What exactly is spam? bulk mail? automated mail? commercial mail? any or all of these? something else altogether?
Perhaps as useful: what is not SPAM? It would be A Bad Thing to restrict legitimate bulk mailing, like mailing lists and so forth.
Who should be targeted?
clueless amatuer spammers?
professional spammers, who make it a major business?
spammers who forge headers?
spammers who hijack relays? (is this easy to define?)
those supporting or providing services to spammers (ISPs, open relayers, "opt-in" mailing list suppliers, address-concealing and header forging software suppliers)?
those spidering for email addresses without consent, or those selling non-opt-in lists?
those hiring or procuring spammers?
anyone else?
What sort of penalties are appropriate? Can we extradite and imprison Mr Ralsky, or confiscate his assets? What about Johnny Clueless who wanted to tell his community about his new shop?
What are the risks and potential disadvantages?
loss of privacy, if strong authentication is required.
chilling effect on free speech (if spam is too broadly defined)? Fortuitously, the US Supreme Court's expansive interpretation of their constitution's free speech provisions aren't an issue in the UK, so "chilling" marketing isn't a problem.
lack of adoption of technical measures?
incompatability?
closed standards and patents, preventing open source implementations?
there must be more...
Should technical measures be focussed on preventing SPAM, or making it easier to identify spammers?
Should it be made harder to sue blacklist maintainers, and those who use blacklists to protect their service? Should there be obligations on blacklists to correct mistakes or recognise that problems have been fixed?
Can a bridging firewall support VPNs when, it doesn't actually have an external facing IP of it's own? Presumably it would have to create a virtual IP address and use that for the VPN?
That probably depends on the firewall. Can't speak for Sonicwall. But there will certainly need to be a public address somewhere on the firewall.
I know that in routing firewalls, VPNs have been set up to publicly addressed inside physical interfaces. I've heard reports of problems using virtual interfaces for this, with some makes/models/versions.
All firewalls I know of can behave "transparently" as you have described it - basically like a normal router, but also filtering undesired traffic.
There is no requirement for a Checkpoint/1 or Cisco PIX firewall, for example, to use private addresses on the inside, and translate them into public addresses on the way out. It's just a question of how you configure the system.
On the one hand, you could have your public addresses "on the inside of the firewall", with one address being the firewall's "inside" interface and the default route out to the internet for your servers - allowing for the network and broadcast addresss, that leaves 29 usable addresses for systems inside your firewall. You would probably use a private address for the outside interface, but you'd sort that out with your ISP. No address translation required. Like your sonicwall, perhaps?
On the other hand, you could configure your public addresses as a pool on the firewall, and have it translate them into private addresses on the way in (and public addresses on the way out). And you could have a 1:1 or a 1:Many mapping. But you don't HAVE TO do any of this.
On the third hand, you could split the 32 addresses, use Network Address Translation for some of them, and route the rest transparently through the firewall.
In any of these cases, you can also apply whatever rules you want to each of the addresses.
I hope this works better than trustworthy computing has done so far. It's going to need real commitment from the company to allow it to make a difference. It could even mean delays to product launches (or service packs), which some parts of M$ may not be so keen on (though after recent debacles, other parts of the company would probably like fewer, better, security fixes).
And I can't imaging their top coders rushing to join this team.
In the corporate market, Oracle is far from irrelevant. For users (however unnecessarily) nervous about Open Source support, or those who require the heavyweight features of a mature RDBMS (there are still some things that MySQL & PostgreSQL can't do), Oracle may well be an approriate choice.
Sure, not every DB user needs these features, but neither Sun nor Oracle have been going after the "every user" market. Although it looks like Sun may be broadening its appeal a little here...
The Free Software Foundation says that such a limit infringes a clause of the GPL:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement...
conditions are imposed on you...
that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License.
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
The example seems OK.
A limited licence that allows you to use patented algorithms to implement a standard does not prohibit anyone from writing or distributing code that implements the standard. So far so good.
But the limit would prohibit someone who received the code from modifying it to go beyond just implementing the standard.
And the GPL does grant that right to anyone who receives the code.
And it prevents you from denying the right to anyone who might receive the code.
But I'm not sure the GPL makes you responsible for guaranteeing that right to every third party -- it just prevents you from removing it yourself.
So maybe you can distribute the code after all, since it is not you who may (or may not) restrict recipients from carrying out their rights under the GPL.
You are no more responsible for patent owners' potential litigation against recipients than you are for any other independent factor that might prevent a recipient from modifying the source - like a lack of money, time, tools, or clues.
Patent owners' litigation against recipients is no more pertinent to a distributor than any other independent factor.
After all, there are lots of other laws that restrict the reuse and modification of GPL'd code (in spite of clauses of the GPL). You aren't allowed to use it for illegal purposes, for a start. And if that restriction (on the recipient) doesn't prevent you from distributing the code, then nor can patent restrictions (on the recipient) prevent distribution.
Moreover, code GPL'd in a software-patent-free jurisdiction could already be distributed to one where patents might prevent use or modification of the code -- and it's hardly the intent of the GPL to prevent distribution of code in Scandinavia, just because US laws may be a bit of a mess. Otherwise the GPL could be stymied by the existence of a single perverse jurisdiction anywhere in the world.
Of course you should probably talk to a lawyer if any of this matters to you. What do I know?
And in some jurisdictions this might degenerate into wrangling about the intent of those who used the GPL (and/or the intent of the GPL, which may not be the same thing). There are lots of ways this could go.
That's why the GPL's absolute purity seems a bit too fundamentalist for me, though I see its advantages too.
Actually in most countries a company does have a legal personality - that's how you can sue them when things go wrong (or lawyers get greedy). Or even if you get fired!
As to when you report a friend or colleague - if their actions cause extreme abuse to other people (especially children), that should be a less difficult decision.
Of course IANAL - which is why I can talk about ethics with a straight face:-)
"Tell your boss... why not let them embarass the company"
According to the employer's response, that's exactlty what happened in this case.
The two plaintiffs, who discovered the pornography, reported it to their supervisor, who in turn reported the felony to law school administrators. This was entirely consistent with the policy of Collegis...
What happened after that, and why, is less clear.
The problem with the other option - covering it up - could be that some children would continue to be abused.
Open Source in general can use all the (competent) help it can get - and Fujitsu seems to be contributing development resources. This will help the Red Hat distros in particular, but also linux in general.
And Fujitsu can only benefit from supplying servers that run a reliable and cost-effective O/S. Increasing their reliability factor can only be a good thing after the disk problems you mention.
Fujitsu's working with linux should increase the chance of getting linux-compatible hardware in their business-centred market (it's enterprise server, after all).
A side effect of this could well be to reduce the variability of hardware and drivers - if only because the lack of specific drivers makes linux less forgiving of random throwing together of components. They'll HAVE to try harder if they want it to work.
The September 11th attack made people feel more at risk, and raised their awareness of security in general. That extends to all areas of security - including network security.
It's also why so many unrelated, futile, and in some cases counterproductive "security" measures were adopted in the aftermath of the attack.
I still think that if severe cases of spamming attracted a prison sentence (rationalise it as hacking or large scale theft of computer services), and some of the victims were in Europe, then it should be a straightforward matter to extradite some of the spammers and lock them up, pour encourager les autres... Even the threat of prison might help.
Some countries limit extradition for acts that are not crimes there too, but local spammer-country law might not necessarily have to specify imprisonment as a penalty.
Of course I Am Not A Lawyer. Otherwise my code of ethics would prevent me from giving free legal opinions:-)
A central objection from Diffie & Rivest seems to be that under Palladium, Microsoft will own and control your ID - or at least what can interact securely with "your" secure Palladium device.
To understand why this is not a good thing, imagine if a commercial company had the monopoly of passport and driving license production, and were able to prevent you from using the ID they issued to verify who you were except in "microsoft approved" shops and venues (or countries).
IDs and trust systems should be standards based, not proprietary. They should be secure, and openly peer-reviewed or audited. And the ID should be under the control of the person being identified (or at least issued by a "neutral" government body, as passports are now).
But I've just started thinking about this... so I might change my mind some more. Would that make me a bad slashdotter?
Yeah - $2000, if I read the site correctly. That's the same as from the American Society of Anesthesiologists, and you're surely not suggesting she's part of some plot to chloroform the country:)
She may be in thrall to special interests (though not on that evidence) but then again, she may actually believe in the good stuff like pushing back the DMCA and so forth. As you sugested elsewhere, having one of the most technologically informed electorates in the country may help too... (After all, I can't think of anywhere else where a stand-up comic could make jokes about Avogadro's number!)
Politicians are people too, and there are some honest people around. Some of them may even be in politics!
Funny:) But this quote from the article suggests otherwise, if you agree with the analysis.
Walton wasn't giving the talk because he wanted the industry to quit trying. In fact, just the opposite: he expressed an inherent human need for community that goes unfulfilled in modern society, and how online games can fill that basic need while uniting people with similar interests.
However, he expressed his fears that the market is stagnating, and a series of poor product launches could make it even worse...
Slashdot Mirror
If they aren't even smart enough to choose software that does what they need (or at least to reject stuff that doesn't) you should probably be grateful they aren't running a project to create software that does all those things they don't quite understand! Or writing the specs for such a project. Or deciding which features to drop as the deadlines whoosh by.
Besides, they'll tell you they "need it now, not in a year" (which might be a fair point, especially if they picked a system that did the job).
I suspect there is a small core of functionality that we all use in any given package. After that, different kinds of users use different sets of extra functionality. Just because most people use less than 25% of a program's functionality doesn't mean they are all using the same 25%.
You mentioned version control in Word as a useless example. I know people who need and use version control, and for whom the enhanced "differences" display is a great advantage.
One man's bload is another man's vital feature. Which makes my ID more ironic than usual, I suppose...
I'm sure you would, and I certainly would. Unfortunately in the corporate world these decisions are too often made, for "non-technical reasons" [1] by people who lack this apparently simple insight. I've seen too many inappropriate purchases made, of over-priced, under-functional software and systems that looked like it did what the purchaser thought he wanted, but in real life failed to do what the company acutally needed. Or had prohibitive costs. Or...
And I don't believe that my experience is particularly unusual.
[1] don't ask :-(
After all, it's legislation that determines what courts decide -- even whether they throw out cases or not.
There are a lot of "interesting" questions though...
What exactly is spam? bulk mail? automated mail? commercial mail? any or all of these? something else altogether? Perhaps as useful: what is not SPAM? It would be A Bad Thing to restrict legitimate bulk mailing, like mailing lists and so forth.
Who should be targeted?
What sort of penalties are appropriate? Can we extradite and imprison Mr Ralsky, or confiscate his assets? What about Johnny Clueless who wanted to tell his community about his new shop?
What are the risks and potential disadvantages?
Should technical measures be focussed on preventing SPAM, or making it easier to identify spammers?
Should it be made harder to sue blacklist maintainers, and those who use blacklists to protect their service? Should there be obligations on blacklists to correct mistakes or recognise that problems have been fixed?
Perhaps that's enough to be getting on with.
What does the assembled wisdom of Slashdot think?
Isn't that what Dilbert is for?
That probably depends on the firewall. Can't speak for Sonicwall. But there will certainly need to be a public address somewhere on the firewall.
I know that in routing firewalls, VPNs have been set up to publicly addressed inside physical interfaces. I've heard reports of problems using virtual interfaces for this, with some makes/models/versions.
Bridging mode, well, I don't know.
There is no requirement for a Checkpoint/1 or Cisco PIX firewall, for example, to use private addresses on the inside, and translate them into public addresses on the way out. It's just a question of how you configure the system.
On the one hand, you could have your public addresses "on the inside of the firewall", with one address being the firewall's "inside" interface and the default route out to the internet for your servers - allowing for the network and broadcast addresss, that leaves 29 usable addresses for systems inside your firewall. You would probably use a private address for the outside interface, but you'd sort that out with your ISP. No address translation required. Like your sonicwall, perhaps?
On the other hand, you could configure your public addresses as a pool on the firewall, and have it translate them into private addresses on the way in (and public addresses on the way out). And you could have a 1:1 or a 1:Many mapping. But you don't HAVE TO do any of this.
On the third hand, you could split the 32 addresses, use Network Address Translation for some of them, and route the rest transparently through the firewall.
In any of these cases, you can also apply whatever rules you want to each of the addresses.
Or am I misunderstanding your question?
Have you ever tried winding down the windows?
And I can't imaging their top coders rushing to join this team.
Still, it could work...
Sure, not every DB user needs these features, but neither Sun nor Oracle have been going after the "every user" market. Although it looks like Sun may be broadening its appeal a little here...
If you can only distribute stuff to folk with compilers and the skill to use them, there is still a problem.
The proposed royalty free policy says that any royalty-free licence...
The Free Software Foundation says that such a limit infringes a clause of the GPL:
The example seems OK. A limited licence that allows you to use patented algorithms to implement a standard does not prohibit anyone from writing or distributing code that implements the standard. So far so good.But the limit would prohibit someone who received the code from modifying it to go beyond just implementing the standard. And the GPL does grant that right to anyone who receives the code. And it prevents you from denying the right to anyone who might receive the code.
But I'm not sure the GPL makes you responsible for guaranteeing that right to every third party -- it just prevents you from removing it yourself. So maybe you can distribute the code after all, since it is not you who may (or may not) restrict recipients from carrying out their rights under the GPL.
You are no more responsible for patent owners' potential litigation against recipients than you are for any other independent factor that might prevent a recipient from modifying the source - like a lack of money, time, tools, or clues. Patent owners' litigation against recipients is no more pertinent to a distributor than any other independent factor.
After all, there are lots of other laws that restrict the reuse and modification of GPL'd code (in spite of clauses of the GPL). You aren't allowed to use it for illegal purposes, for a start. And if that restriction (on the recipient) doesn't prevent you from distributing the code, then nor can patent restrictions (on the recipient) prevent distribution.
Moreover, code GPL'd in a software-patent-free jurisdiction could already be distributed to one where patents might prevent use or modification of the code -- and it's hardly the intent of the GPL to prevent distribution of code in Scandinavia, just because US laws may be a bit of a mess. Otherwise the GPL could be stymied by the existence of a single perverse jurisdiction anywhere in the world.
Of course you should probably talk to a lawyer if any of this matters to you. What do I know?
And in some jurisdictions this might degenerate into wrangling about the intent of those who used the GPL (and/or the intent of the GPL, which may not be the same thing). There are lots of ways this could go. That's why the GPL's absolute purity seems a bit too fundamentalist for me, though I see its advantages too.
Actually in most countries a company does have a legal personality - that's how you can sue them when things go wrong (or lawyers get greedy). Or even if you get fired!
As to when you report a friend or colleague - if their actions cause extreme abuse to other people (especially children), that should be a less difficult decision.
Of course IANAL - which is why I can talk about ethics with a straight face :-)
According to the employer's response, that's exactlty what happened in this case.
What happened after that, and why, is less clear.The problem with the other option - covering it up - could be that some children would continue to be abused.
Open Source in general can use all the (competent) help it can get - and Fujitsu seems to be contributing development resources. This will help the Red Hat distros in particular, but also linux in general.
And Fujitsu can only benefit from supplying servers that run a reliable and cost-effective O/S. Increasing their reliability factor can only be a good thing after the disk problems you mention.
A side effect of this could well be to reduce the variability of hardware and drivers - if only because the lack of specific drivers makes linux less forgiving of random throwing together of components. They'll HAVE to try harder if they want it to work.
It's also why so many unrelated, futile, and in some cases counterproductive "security" measures were adopted in the aftermath of the attack.
Some countries limit extradition for acts that are not crimes there too, but local spammer-country law might not necessarily have to specify imprisonment as a penalty.
Of course I Am Not A Lawyer. Otherwise my code of ethics would prevent me from giving free legal opinions :-)
To understand why this is not a good thing, imagine if a commercial company had the monopoly of passport and driving license production, and were able to prevent you from using the ID they issued to verify who you were except in "microsoft approved" shops and venues (or countries).
IDs and trust systems should be standards based, not proprietary. They should be secure, and openly peer-reviewed or audited. And the ID should be under the control of the person being identified (or at least issued by a "neutral" government body, as passports are now).
But I've just started thinking about this... so I might change my mind some more. Would that make me a bad slashdotter?
By using the alt tag alternative text, presumably...
Yeah - $2000, if I read the site correctly. That's the same as from the American Society of Anesthesiologists, and you're surely not suggesting she's part of some plot to chloroform the country :)
She may be in thrall to special interests (though not on that evidence) but then again, she may actually believe in the good stuff like pushing back the DMCA and so forth. As you sugested elsewhere, having one of the most technologically informed electorates in the country may help too... (After all, I can't think of anywhere else where a stand-up comic could make jokes about Avogadro's number!)
Politicians are people too, and there are some honest people around. Some of them may even be in politics!
-- P.
Say no to feeping creaturism
Except where void, or prohibited by law. Can cause dizziness or shortness of breath. May not be legal in all states. Your mileage may vary.
--
P. Users - can't live with them, not allowed to shoot them!"