I can see one drawback about working from home: The ability to be "at work" so quickly, you wind up working extra hours without compensation. If someone's an engineer, or programmer, and there's some problem that needs immediate attention, it's easier, and maybe too easy, to pad down to the office, flip on the computer, and put in a few extra hours in addition to your regular time. Then, when the regular "start time" rolls around, your still expected to be there, since you have the "ease" of telecommuting.
I did engineering for a company that had remote access. It wasn't unusual for people to work all day (8 hours), then go home and put in a few extra hours, to fix problems they couldn't during the day.
With telecommuting, I can see management wondering why employees can't work their full hours, and when the employee says: "I was up all night fixing XYZ" management responds:"Yea, but your working from home, you don't have to commute, so you should be available at regular hours too, since you've got it so easy."
'My point is that decreasing the tendency of the kernel to swap stuff out is wrong. You really don't want hundreds of megabytes of BloatyApp's untouched memory floating about in the machine. Get it out on the disk, use the memory for something useful.
This point is useful, but only if free RAM is at a premium. For the most part, on servers, there will be sufficient RAM to support the on board applications, and the amount of free RAM remaining will be able to handle the variable load of a standard workday, if the server has been sized properly ahead of time.
On desktops, however, where the number and type of apps can vary much more widely, the need for free RAM is much higher. However, pushing all apps off to swap space as a default to keep as much RAM as possible free isn't necessarily an effective solution, since the OS will spend much more time performing swap operations that it necessarily should.
Perhaps a better solution might be an application where certian portions could be swapped off earlier, as they are less used, or not even loaded at all, while maintaining the core of the application in RAM, with "hooks" to the swapped out areas, to let the OS know that swap procedures are required. If the app could tell the os "I probably won't need functions c.d & e, so go ahead and put them in the swap file", it might lead to a good balance of swapping and performance.
I don't know how, by definition, you could will youself not to have the capacity to learn something. Either you can learn, our you can't.
There may be other mitigating factors that prevent people from learning, however, which was more my point. A physician may have the capacity to learn; however, their use of computers, in comparison to a programmer, is a lot less, and therefore, their desire to learn is less. Much in the same way I hope their desire to learn newer medical techniques is greater than mine, since I'm not a physician, and they are.
In one of the earliest Sherlock Holmes stories, Sir Authur Conan Doyle wrote "I consider my mind an attic, and I do not want it overfilled with useless remnants of information I will not find usefull." I believe that most people operate under a similar principle. The average PC user doesn't want to clutter their "attic" with information on how Linux works, since they won't use the information enough to make it worth remebering. That's what I meant when I said the wanted to be ignorant.
Re:The REAL security problem in '04
on
Gates on Winsecurity
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Interesting points, wonder why you got modded down?
I'd like to add to what you've said and point out that there is a difference between stupidity and ignorance. Stupidity is not being able to learn somethiing. Ignorance is not knowing something, but it doesn't exclude the capacity to learn. Most people, when it compes to the intracacies of the PC, are ignorant, rather than stupid. And they want to be.
For example, I don't want to know the specifics of which particular gasket a mechanic's going to tighten (or loosen) when he reapirs my car, I just want to get to work. I could, if I chose, get materials on automotive mechanics, find out this information, and be knowlegable, rather than ignorant, and even possibly do the repairs myself; but I have no need to know this stuff, so I remain ignorant.
IMHO, This has been one of the fundamental failings of understanding of the Open Source movement, as they try and move from the hobbyist to the mainstream. Doctors, lawyers, and other professionals have too much to worry about in their own fields to concern themselves with makefiles, mount points, and other intracacies of Linux. And, quite frankly, a large number of people simply don't care to learn this stuff, any more than I care to know exactly what happens when I turn the ley in my car to get to work. I just want the engine to start, and use my fundamental driving skills to get to work, or home or to the bar, or wherever.
Does this ignorance mean that I can't drive as well as someone who knows the full workings of an automobile? Certainly it does, however, there are indicators and saftey features in the car itself to protect me from my own ignorance.
This is part of what Microsoft has realized. They realize that people want to know nothing about how their machines work, they just want them to work. That's why their now working on protecting the ignorant user, rather bothering with attempting to educate them. For these users, it's better to put the govenor on the engine, the automated seat belt, and the airbags rather than trying to teach them to use a turn signal when they change lanes.
If Linux is going to embace the mainstream, they are going to have to embrace this ignorant user. Linux is going to need to be so simple that people aren't going to fear it anymore as a more complicated (albeit better performing, more stable and more secure) system than Windows. They're just going to put the cd in the computer, and drive away.
I'm an idiot, your a karma whore. Kinda takes away from the conversation here, doesn't it?
They got 86 million. From Baystar, not microsoft. More likely, he's saying microsft referred them to vc firms, which gave them money, which is the "microsoft brought in". Also, the 3-5 million doesn't say anything about Microsoft. The corp dev, marketing & field dollars are what SCO would spend it on, not the MS areas they're getting it from. they want to get vc firms to back them for the 3-5 million in these fields. I really don't see MS, even with it's size, having millions to throw to SCO through different divisions.
As for your second quote:
They want to do small aquisitions. That means get some small vc funding amounts. The less you get, the less scruitiny from the vc firm. The "Microsoft wants to use Baystar like entities to help us get more money" line doesn't say anywhere that Microsoft's giving money to sco. They're helping SCO, yes. They're helping them get in the door at the VC firms. Saying '"like" entities to get us more money' doesn't say "Microsoft's given money to a bunch of VC firms to funnel it to us so we can stomp out Linux".
Which brings up the important question: Does Microsoft give money to Baystar? If that was shown in the memo, or elsewhere, I'll gladly say, yes, Microsoft's funneling money to SCO. But without that part of the euqation, all this is, is MS helping SCO get VC funding. Microsoft may be using SCO as a front to keep Linux in question, yes, maybe. But, they may also be doing this so they can get access to SCO lisencing, source code, or a million other reasons. But I'm not seeing "Microsoft gave these guys millions, now their giving us millions, quid pro quo."
maybe I'm just skeptical of BOTH sides, but if microsoft wanted to do this, why do all the VC shenanigans? They could drop 100 million on sco without blinking, and without all the middlemen.
p.s. Found it interesting that the lawyer who sent this is in M&A...that usually means auqisitions. As in buying companies. Is sco looking at open source companies with a thought to purchase? It would explain why they suddenly need the vc money...hhmm.
This doesn't look like "microsoft paid sco to fund their anti-linux efforts" as ESR would have you believe through his notes. More realisticly, here's what the memo is saying:
1. The lawyer guy, who's sending it is documenting the percent rates he's going to charge for various deals (billed separately, percents of deals as fees).
2. NOWEHERE in the document does it say "hit microsoft up for money" or anything even VAGUELY similar. The deals are ALL through VC firms, or parts of firms. Microsoft "bringing in" 86 mill through Baystar referrs to the fact that Microsoft referred sco to baystar, not that they money went microsoft -> baystar -> sco. The other deals are with the VC firms, NOT WITH MICROSOFT. The small aquisitions are getting VC funding, the amounts are small to prevent the VC firm's greater scruitiny (and possibly sec filings, but that's a different matter).
The intro & specifications for this are available here. The SFU (anyone else wanna add a T there somewhere?:-)) hompage is here. However, it appears that the free download hasn't been made available yet on the page.
FYI - if you read the FAQ here , you'll see that in order to see the proof, you have to sign an NDA agreement. Here's the chunk from the FAQ:
15. Is SCO willing to show any examples of source-code violations to Linux users?
SCO has been showing examples of direct line-by-line copying of UNIX code into Linux to hundreds of industry analysts, reporters, customers, partners, and industry influencers since June of this year. To view this code, interested parties have had to sign a non-disclosure agreement verifying that they would keep this code in confidence. SCO continues to identify and show this code to parties willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
16. Why does SCO require an NDA to be signed to view evidence of UNIX System IP in Linux? Showing proof of UNIX System V IP in Linux requires SCO to disclose UNIX System source code. SCO is obligated to protect this source code, both to preserve its value to SCO and its shareholders, as well as to prevent devaluation of the source code that it has licensed (at considerable expense) to many customers. Thus SCO will not exhibit UNIX System source code to anyone except under protection of an NDA or a UNIX System source code license. The NDA only applies to the UNIX System source code; it doesn't restrict the disclosure of other materials and information presented in the IP discussion.
So, basically you can't rebutt the claim since you can't see the source...and you can't see the source until you can't rebutt the claim (via NDA). Has anyone contacted the ghost of Joseph Heller about this?
I wonder if this is a real appempt to lisence the technology, or just MicroSoft's attempt to (finally) get rid of the FAT file system, as they've been trying to do with Windows 3.1, 95, 98, etc... Maybe planned obsolesence isn't working, so legal action will?
Perhaps it's the difference between "individual" and "employee of British buisness", you can't get spammed on your personal e-mail accounts, but your buisness account is fair game....Although, how are they going to tell the difference?
I don't think they're waiting until "all hope is lost". I do think, however, that they're going to continue with the lawsuits & status quo until they find a way to make a closed distribution system that they can control.
If I'm reading this right..the webcasters have to PAY ~200 US a year (3 min song avg.) to the recording industry to play their music?
So why aren't radio stations paying this? They use RIAA "protected" material all the time. Is there a diference between broadcasting on the 'net & broadcasting over the radio (from a legal standpoint, that is)? I can get input from a radio station wired into my PC & record it...does that mean I'm pirating music? Or the fact that I bypassed all the storage media to get that music the real issue here?
*begin sarcasm* Or is that "lisence fee" covered in the payola they get from the music industry to push the latest "pop-phenom"..??*end sarcasm* sarcasm
I realize this may be slightly off-topic, but could someone from/. get that IT department to possibly field a few questions? Such as how they planned & executed the move, the size of the installed base, etc...I'd really like to see how they got that move made so fast.
Nope, it's for everyone, 'cause I had one a few years ago (don't ask), and I never worked for MS...but I still have my certificate! Signed by Bill Gates himself! Made me feel so special inside.... Basically, I answered a bunch of questions on some newsgroup or another,and one day, BLAM! there was the certificate, a (discounted, but not free) subscription to technet, some pretty pictures that I could put on my buisness cards, and a whole 5 page legal thing about how I could never talk about what I got from them, and...oh wait. Oh damn. oops, gotta run!
Take a situation a few years down the road. Filesharing is now ubiquitous, so any song I want to hear, I do. I collect the songs from filesharing that I want to hear, burn them to my (IPod, Nomad, whatever) to listen to in the car, on the road, etc. I subscribe to mailing lists relevant to the music genres I like, so new artists who want to get heard post information about their music, including costs, to which I drop a PayPal donation if I like the song. No music industry, just artist to listener directly.
So, my question is, where does Britney Spears(tm) fit in all this? See, the way I see it, it's not so much the music that being shared that's the problem, it's the fact that using filesharing tools takes the audience away from the normal marketing channels (the record house, the radio, MTV, etc.), and then they stop doing things like buying mass-marketed material generated by music conglomerates for a specific demographic, as defined my market research and focus groups....
*ahem*, sorry, off on a slight rant there. What I meant to ask was, with the popularity of filesharing removing the audience from main stream market exposure, how do you, as a publicist, see the music industry integrating itself into the filesharing arena to market their materials? If at all?
You know what, the more I read the article, the less I agree with the original purpouse of that bill, as I read it from that article. If I read it correctly, the bill would mandate that state agencies that didn't use open source would be required to explain why they didn't. That, IMHO, seems a little stilted towards the "use open-source or else" camp.
How about, instead, a bill that requires:
All software choices made by state agencies include open source software as a possibility
The results of any state run tests be made available for public review & opinion prior to the adoption of the software being tested
This way, instead of the "or else" tone of the original bill, you get a more "let's level the playing field, and open the books to the paying public". That might get your legislators more amenable to passing that kind of bill.
Actually, this ine sounds like one of his shorts I read that went like this: Guy wakes up with no memory of the last two years. He has no memory 'cause the company he worked for wiped it out so he couldn't talk to the government/competitors about what he worked on.
When the protagonist gets his paycheck, instead of getting money, he gets a set of unusual items (half a poker chip, a coin, some wire), which he find out, as the movie (oops, I meant STORY) goes on, he can use to find out what he was doing (the poker chip gets him into a club to hide from pursuers, the wire lets him hotwire a car, etc).
Ultimately, he winds up finding out that the company was making a "time scoop" to see into and pull items out of the future. He used this, before his memory was wiped, to gather the items he sent to himself in the present.
Ok, then if they can't review it, how do they KNOW they can't review it? You're not allowed to read a message, when the instructions telling you not to read it are in the message?
I get the feeling Joe Heller is in heaven laughing at us right now....
Slashdot Mirror
I can see one drawback about working from home: The ability to be "at work" so quickly, you wind up working extra hours without compensation.
If someone's an engineer, or programmer, and there's some problem that needs immediate attention, it's easier, and maybe too easy, to pad down to the office, flip on the computer, and put in a few extra hours in addition to your regular time. Then, when the regular "start time" rolls around, your still expected to be there, since you have the "ease" of telecommuting.
I did engineering for a company that had remote access. It wasn't unusual for people to work all day (8 hours), then go home and put in a few extra hours, to fix problems they couldn't during the day.
With telecommuting, I can see management wondering why employees can't work their full hours, and when the employee says: "I was up all night fixing XYZ" management responds:"Yea, but your working from home, you don't have to commute, so you should be available at regular hours too, since you've got it so easy."
Because it's better to have a running machine as a spam slave, than simply destroy it.
http://www.myfreesoftware.com
It's older stuff, but you can grab all the titles you want and only pay for shipping & a 6 dollar "service fee"
This point is useful, but only if free RAM is at a premium. For the most part, on servers, there will be sufficient RAM to support the on board applications, and the amount of free RAM remaining will be able to handle the variable load of a standard workday, if the server has been sized properly ahead of time.
On desktops, however, where the number and type of apps can vary much more widely, the need for free RAM is much higher. However, pushing all apps off to swap space as a default to keep as much RAM as possible free isn't necessarily an effective solution, since the OS will spend much more time performing swap operations that it necessarily should.
Perhaps a better solution might be an application where certian portions could be swapped off earlier, as they are less used, or not even loaded at all, while maintaining the core of the application in RAM, with "hooks" to the swapped out areas, to let the OS know that swap procedures are required. If the app could tell the os "I probably won't need functions c.d & e, so go ahead and put them in the swap file", it might lead to a good balance of swapping and performance.
Depends if you can pay an "IT reasearch firm" to put their name on your marketing material or not.
BTW, here's the report....if you have 900 USD to get it:
The Forrester Report
I don't know how, by definition, you could will youself not to have the capacity to learn something. Either you can learn, our you can't.
There may be other mitigating factors that prevent people from learning, however, which was more my point. A physician may have the capacity to learn; however, their use of computers, in comparison to a programmer, is a lot less, and therefore, their desire to learn is less. Much in the same way I hope their desire to learn newer medical techniques is greater than mine, since I'm not a physician, and they are.
In one of the earliest Sherlock Holmes stories, Sir Authur Conan Doyle wrote "I consider my mind an attic, and I do not want it overfilled with useless remnants of information I will not find usefull." I believe that most people operate under a similar principle. The average PC user doesn't want to clutter their "attic" with information on how Linux works, since they won't use the information enough to make it worth remebering. That's what I meant when I said the wanted to be ignorant.
Interesting points, wonder why you got modded down?
I'd like to add to what you've said and point out that there is a difference between stupidity and ignorance. Stupidity is not being able to learn somethiing. Ignorance is not knowing something, but it doesn't exclude the capacity to learn. Most people, when it compes to the intracacies of the PC, are ignorant, rather than stupid. And they want to be.
For example, I don't want to know the specifics of which particular gasket a mechanic's going to tighten (or loosen) when he reapirs my car, I just want to get to work. I could, if I chose, get materials on automotive mechanics, find out this information, and be knowlegable, rather than ignorant, and even possibly do the repairs myself; but I have no need to know this stuff, so I remain ignorant.
IMHO, This has been one of the fundamental failings of understanding of the Open Source movement, as they try and move from the hobbyist to the mainstream. Doctors, lawyers, and other professionals have too much to worry about in their own fields to concern themselves with makefiles, mount points, and other intracacies of Linux. And, quite frankly, a large number of people simply don't care to learn this stuff, any more than I care to know exactly what happens when I turn the ley in my car to get to work. I just want the engine to start, and use my fundamental driving skills to get to work, or home or to the bar, or wherever.
Does this ignorance mean that I can't drive as well as someone who knows the full workings of an automobile? Certainly it does, however, there are indicators and saftey features in the car itself to protect me from my own ignorance.
This is part of what Microsoft has realized. They realize that people want to know nothing about how their machines work, they just want them to work. That's why their now working on protecting the ignorant user, rather bothering with attempting to educate them. For these users, it's better to put the govenor on the engine, the automated seat belt, and the airbags rather than trying to teach them to use a turn signal when they change lanes.
If Linux is going to embace the mainstream, they are going to have to embrace this ignorant user. Linux is going to need to be so simple that people aren't going to fear it anymore as a more complicated (albeit better performing, more stable and more secure) system than Windows. They're just going to put the cd in the computer, and drive away.
I'm an idiot, your a karma whore. Kinda takes away from the conversation here, doesn't it?
They got 86 million. From Baystar, not microsoft. More likely, he's saying microsft referred them to vc firms, which gave them money, which is the "microsoft brought in". Also, the 3-5 million doesn't say anything about Microsoft. The corp dev, marketing & field dollars are what SCO would spend it on, not the MS areas they're getting it from. they want to get vc firms to back them for the 3-5 million in these fields. I really don't see MS, even with it's size, having millions to throw to SCO through different divisions.
As for your second quote:
They want to do small aquisitions. That means get some small vc funding amounts. The less you get, the less scruitiny from the vc firm. The "Microsoft wants to use Baystar like entities to help us get more money" line doesn't say anywhere that Microsoft's giving money to sco. They're helping SCO, yes. They're helping them get in the door at the VC firms. Saying '"like" entities to get us more money' doesn't say "Microsoft's given money to a bunch of VC firms to funnel it to us so we can stomp out Linux".
Which brings up the important question: Does Microsoft give money to Baystar? If that was shown in the memo, or elsewhere, I'll gladly say, yes, Microsoft's funneling money to SCO. But without that part of the euqation, all this is, is MS helping SCO get VC funding. Microsoft may be using SCO as a front to keep Linux in question, yes, maybe. But, they may also be doing this so they can get access to SCO lisencing, source code, or a million other reasons. But I'm not seeing "Microsoft gave these guys millions, now their giving us millions, quid pro quo."
maybe I'm just skeptical of BOTH sides, but if microsoft wanted to do this, why do all the VC shenanigans? They could drop 100 million on sco without blinking, and without all the middlemen.
p.s. Found it interesting that the lawyer who sent this is in M&A...that usually means auqisitions. As in buying companies. Is sco looking at open source companies with a thought to purchase? It would explain why they suddenly need the vc money...hhmm.
This doesn't look like "microsoft paid sco to fund their anti-linux efforts" as ESR would have you believe through his notes. More realisticly, here's what the memo is saying:
1. The lawyer guy, who's sending it is documenting the percent rates he's going to charge for various deals (billed separately, percents of deals as fees).
2. NOWEHERE in the document does it say "hit microsoft up for money" or anything even VAGUELY similar. The deals are ALL through VC firms, or parts of firms. Microsoft "bringing in" 86 mill through Baystar referrs to the fact that Microsoft referred sco to baystar, not that they money went microsoft -> baystar -> sco. The other deals are with the VC firms, NOT WITH MICROSOFT. The small aquisitions are getting VC funding, the amounts are small to prevent the VC firm's greater scruitiny (and possibly sec filings, but that's a different matter).
If your interested:
:-)) hompage is here. However, it appears that the free download hasn't been made available yet on the page.
The intro & specifications for this are available here. The SFU (anyone else wanna add a T there somewhere?
So, basically you can't rebutt the claim since you can't see the source...and you can't see the source until you can't rebutt the claim (via NDA).
Has anyone contacted the ghost of Joseph Heller about this?
If the CRL is no longer working, does this mean that my revoked certificates are still going to work?
I wonder if this is a real appempt to lisence the technology, or just MicroSoft's attempt to (finally) get rid of the FAT file system, as they've been trying to do with Windows 3.1, 95, 98, etc...
Maybe planned obsolesence isn't working, so legal action will?
Perhaps it's the difference between "individual" and "employee of British buisness", you can't get spammed on your personal e-mail accounts, but your buisness account is fair game....Although, how are they going to tell the difference?
...and all I got was a $5 off coupon.
$650,000 in court fees, huh? Guess we know who the lawyers were fighting for.
I don't think they're waiting until "all hope is lost". I do think, however, that they're going to continue with the lawsuits & status quo until they find a way to make a closed distribution system that they can control.
If I'm reading this right..the webcasters have to PAY ~200 US a year (3 min song avg.) to the recording industry to play their music?
So why aren't radio stations paying this? They use RIAA "protected" material all the time. Is there a diference between broadcasting on the 'net & broadcasting over the radio (from a legal standpoint, that is)? I can get input from a radio station wired into my PC & record it...does that mean I'm pirating music? Or the fact that I bypassed all the storage media to get that music the real issue here?
*begin sarcasm* Or is that "lisence fee" covered in the payola they get from the music industry to push the latest "pop-phenom"..??*end sarcasm* sarcasm
A pretty decent piece at the Detroit Free Press with an example: here shows exactly why there's due process for these things.
I realize this may be slightly off-topic, but could someone from /. get that IT department to possibly field a few questions? Such as how they planned & executed the move, the size of the installed base, etc...I'd really like to see how they got that move made so fast.
Nope, it's for everyone, 'cause I had one a few years ago (don't ask), and I never worked for MS...but I still have my certificate! Signed by Bill Gates himself! Made me feel so special inside....
Basically, I answered a bunch of questions on some newsgroup or another,and one day, BLAM! there was the certificate, a (discounted, but not free) subscription to technet, some pretty pictures that I could put on my buisness cards, and a whole 5 page legal thing about how I could never talk about what I got from them, and...oh wait. Oh damn. oops, gotta run!
Yes, you can get a shiny certificate, suitable for framing!
Ok, here's my question:
Take a situation a few years down the road. Filesharing is now ubiquitous, so any song I want to hear, I do. I collect the songs from filesharing that I want to hear, burn them to my (IPod, Nomad, whatever) to listen to in the car, on the road, etc. I subscribe to mailing lists relevant to the music genres I like, so new artists who want to get heard post information about their music, including costs, to which I drop a PayPal donation if I like the song. No music industry, just artist to listener directly.
So, my question is, where does Britney Spears(tm) fit in all this? See, the way I see it, it's not so much the music that being shared that's the problem, it's the fact that using filesharing tools takes the audience away from the normal marketing channels (the record house, the radio, MTV, etc.), and then they stop doing things like buying mass-marketed material generated by music conglomerates for a specific demographic, as defined my market research and focus groups....
*ahem*, sorry, off on a slight rant there. What I meant to ask was, with the popularity of filesharing removing the audience from main stream market exposure, how do you, as a publicist, see the music industry integrating itself into the filesharing arena to market their materials? If at all?
How about, instead, a bill that requires:
This way, instead of the "or else" tone of the original bill, you get a more "let's level the playing field, and open the books to the paying public". That might get your legislators more amenable to passing that kind of bill.
Just a thought..
Actually, this ine sounds like one of his shorts I read that went like this: Guy wakes up with no memory of the last two years. He has no memory 'cause the company he worked for wiped it out so he couldn't talk to the government/competitors about what he worked on.
When the protagonist gets his paycheck, instead of getting money, he gets a set of unusual items (half a poker chip, a coin, some wire), which he find out, as the movie (oops, I meant STORY) goes on, he can use to find out what he was doing (the poker chip gets him into a club to hide from pursuers, the wire lets him hotwire a car, etc).
Ultimately, he winds up finding out that the company was making a "time scoop" to see into and pull items out of the future. He used this, before his memory was wiped, to gather the items he sent to himself in the present.
Ok, then if they can't review it, how do they KNOW they can't review it? You're not allowed to read a message, when the instructions telling you not to read it are in the message?
I get the feeling Joe Heller is in heaven laughing at us right now....