Actually we always tag the subject on spams and have them filter to a junk box. The point isn't that you never have to look at the spam, because you do, nothing is perfect. The point is that 90% of the time you can open your mailbox and look at just legitimate email and go back and sort the junk about once a week or month (depending on how much you get) just scanning through the subjects instead of reading them since it's a safe bet there isn't anything you want in there.
assuming the reference is valid (i'm too lazy to check). This sounds like something that would put unneeded overhead on valid mail as well as invalid. It sounds to me like it's something that nobody else would implement for technical reasons. By the time they sigh and give up, it will be too late.
Besides, knowing microsoft there is something additional they've built in that isn't in published specs.
I wouldn't count on it, think back to the microsoft netscape wars. MS didn't give a shit back then if you could only browse half the web. What makes you think they'll give a shit now?
"Oh wait, I forgot, open source magically confers technical superiority over mature closed-source products that incorporate tens/hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of engineering investment and refinement. Never mind that bit about real world results."
You realize that open source development encompasses literally MILLIONS of programmers and if the labor weren't free (and much of it IS commercially paid for) would constitute BILLIONS of dollars in investment? A sum oracle couldn't dream of paying out for coders.
Oracle and DB2 you at least can make an argument for, since they do scale to high end (whether or not they scale better to high end is a seperate issue). MS SQL Server however definately does not, if your claiming otherwise you've already admitted to ignorance of the subject your trying to debate.
Like any database MySQL needs to be tuned the system needs tuned and configuration needs tuned. An Oracle guru setting up MySQL in a high or even low volume environment IS NOT going to see better performance than he would with Oracle. However a MySQL guru setting up mysql on a platform he's familiar with is another story entirely.
The real reason is the admins are either oracle or db2 admins and arent going to fire themselves to be replaced by a mysql guru. And they also aren't going to put their balls in a vice grip ready to crush if the database hiccups. Mysql setup by a qualified administrator hasn't failed to scale in any environment it's been put in. I don't know what world you live in, but in my world you don't get better than never failed to perform.
If oracle and db2 never fail to perform, and mysql never fails to perform, calling one more solid than another is ridiculous. The difference is merely that with Oracle or DB2 you have the vendor to blame if there is a problem, you have accountability (e.g. the magical ability to shift your fuckups on someone else) whereas with mysql if it has a problem your the end of the chain in shift blame department.
Nah, numbers work with management. Explaining to them that deploying linux will save them more money over the next 5yrs than SCO has will help quite a bit. Further explaining that even if SCO did have a case, they don't have the funds to keep the case running on the multiple legal fronts they are getting hit on will also help.
If the case is settled quickly it will only be because SCO doesn't have one. If the case is dragged out, SCO can't afford to keep it up and will bankrupt itself trying to drop the suit... even then they are still stuck with the Redhat suit which they can't just drop and don't have the money to settle.
At this point, SCO's loss doesn't depend on the legal system, it depends on the financial system, and they don't have the money to win no matter what else happens.
winex isn't closed source, some of those games aren't even closed source. Commercial and closed source aren't the same thing. Data files aren't source code. If the game engine is open source and the data files aren't free, that doesn't make a game closed source.
And as I said, unless you count games;) I was really refering to applications, games are never NEEDED. Rather they are a mindless way to waste your life away. Moreso even than TV, which could actually contain content that provides knowledge.
"dropping standards compliance, something that runs counter to their profit model"
Yes, until/unless they achieve market dominance. Then they no longer have any reason to care about open standards. They will define their own standards.
Apple does NOT care you, they aren't interested in being nice to you. They have no feelings or obligation or morals in regard to how they treat you. They are just as happy to throw you in a ditch and piss on you as they are to open their standards.
Apple exists for one reason, to make money, without regard to people, morals or consequences. If they have the have the market dominance to get away with doing something that will increase their profits. They'll do it, no matter how many people it fucks over. No different than any other corporation.
less than a fraction of 1% of linux users. And recent code inspections have shown the open source sql db's to be cleaner implementations. The only reason people use oracle anymore is that they don't have the balls to use the open source solutions where they are using oracle. Not because the open source implementations would work.
You forget, every piece of software you purchase from them yields 95% profit. Granted they have very very hefty markup on the hardware as well, but that doesn't mean they are prepared to toss the software profits in the trash.
I think you need to reread the thread. I wasn't claiming you were locked into any number of OS with any architeture. I merely stated that Solaris on x86 doesn't really count as an x86 OS, since it doesn't run any actual x86 hardware;)
As for the OS lockdown, it comes down to this. The mac is closed up tighter than a drum and Apple does absolutely EVERYTHING they can to keep competitors out of their niche. They are far more aggressive about doing so than Microsoft.
If the Mac rather than x86 pc became the defacto system, apple wouldn't have to arrange agreements with anyone to suddenly kill off all other operating systems. They could nuke or alter the bios at will on all apple systems entirely by their own choice.
There would be no "if we can get a large enough marketshare in time". 90% of all apple computers out there could be running linux and it wouldn't stop or derail the change to eliminate linux from their systems.
That's true, keeping quiet helps con the customers into spending more money with apple by screwing them on the details. Yes yes, but this 2ghz system today because we are keeping our mouths shut about the 3ghz system we already have in back that will be the same price in 30mins.
Yeah, but pretty much all the interesting linux stuff is open source not closed.
There are like what, 3 closed source applications that could be useful to more than 3 people that are natively designed for linux?
Not to say that the open source stuff doesn't meet or beat the closed windows equivelents, just the opposite. But there isn't at present a whole lot of interesting closed stuff. Unless you count games.
Yes obviously, because 90% of desktop users not only are still struggling with the concept of right click and mouse and run as the equivelent of root users.
But they also became security experts qualified to evaluate whether or not their operating system is safe to be unleashing on public networks.
"requires an administrator to be an expert in the intricacies of the operating system and how components interact"
Yes, someone who is NOT an expert is hardly qualified to be an administrator now are they?
"Linux only provides access controls for files and directories. In contrast, every object in Windows NT, from files to operating system data structures, has an access control list and its use can be regulated as appropriate. Linux security is all-or-nothing. Administrators cannot delegate administrative privileges: a user who needs any administrative capability must be made a full administrator, which compromises best security practices. In contrast, Windows NT allows an administrator to delegate privileges at an exceptionally fine-grained level."
Are you on crack? EVERYTHING is a file or directory on a linux system. There ISN'T a registry to hack. The most powerful and popular solutions for all tasks on linux also have built in ACL's for fine tuning access. Not to mention iptables which is a one stop kernel level firewalling and routing solution with flexibility windows never dreamed of with even 3rd party tools.
There is only ONE full administrator on a linux system, root. Any other service and it's configuration files will be owned by a group, members of said group can administrate it. Since EVERYTHING including hardware devices is a file on linux you can fine grain control access to every piece of software and/or hardware you like on the system. By setting permissions on the correct file you can even deny a user the ability to move an icon on their linux desktop.
"Linux has not supported key security accreditation standards. Every member of the Windows NT family since Windows NT 3.5 has been evaluated at either a C2 level under the U.S. Government's evaluation process or at a C2-equivalent level under the British Government's ITSEC process. In contrast, no Linux products are listed on the U.S. Government's evaluated product list."
Government accredits are meaningless, microsoft had to hack minimal posix compliance into windows before they could bribe their way in. The only reason it was allowed at all was that windows was already being used widely (at least in the US, don't follow the brits) and it's VERY expensive to go through the process.
"Linux system administrators must spend huge amounts of time understanding the latest Linux bugs and determining what to do about them. This is made complex due to the fact that there isn't a central location for security issues to be reported and fixed. In contrast, Microsoft provides a single security repository for notification and fixes of security related issues."
And yet somehow with a single command line I have all the fixes for the bugs that were discovered this morning. And windows update only has the bugs that were discovered 3 months ago with a couple exceptions.
Except that neither sendmail nor apache are common enough to rock a significant portion of linux systems either.
Sendmail is for the most part replaced by Postfix and other varients. Apache... well, although quite a large portion of web servers run apache, a very small portion of linux systems are web servers.
"The DMCA was created in the spirit that new forms of electronic media were not safe from potential copyright violations, and the act did what it set out to do."
Except that existing copyright law already made copyright violations illegal whether on a fancy new media or not. The DMCA was never needed to begin with. Being on digital media doesn't invalidate copyright on material under the laws that have been around since 1976.
"Pointing fingers makes us feel good, but unless we propose alternatives and compromises, are we really doing anything but venting? Does anyone else have potential solutions/thoughts on how to resolve this issue?"
What compromise? This law never had a purpose to begin with except to enact additional restrictions on certain types of copyrighted media. Why on earth do people feel that every few years the same issues of corporate interest need to be raised again and that the people should "compromise" a little further. We compromised when we created copyright, we compromised again in 1976, they compromised DESPITE US in 2000. Exactly how far do you feel we should compromise before we draw the line and say we won't give another inch, in fact we are taking back a few we shouldn't have ever given in the first place?
If you start with harsh restrictions on a subject, then compromise, the end result is more harsh than what you had to start with EVERY time. Now you do it on the same subject every few years over and over again and you have a pattern that results in giving more and more ground until you look back and realize that there isn't anymore ground to give and their just making up new bullshit ways to screw you now.
Except that the refund shouldn't go to the one who filed the patent, it should go to the opposite party. That way it doesn't encourage people to file frivelous patents. (granted it's not much and would be far from profitable, it's the principle more than anything)
"I am convinced that there are different OS-es exactly because one can't perform in all the roles efficiently. If I was wrong on this one, today all computers would be running the same identical OS, but they aren't."
I'd counter that what is and what's best are not always the same thing. Your own logic supports my case better than yours since there are alot more computers currently running linux in all 3 of the major markets than BeOS, including the desktop.
I would also argue that although one size certainly fits all. The linux running on an embedded architecture is not neccesarily the same linux running IBM blue gene, nor is either same as the Linux running on my desktop.
They share common components only where there is not enough gain to justify differing components in the OS. In that way all 3 gain the benefits of joint development where they do share common components but at worst are better off than if they had to develop EVERY component individually.
I wasn't aiming to do his research for him. I was aiming at giving enough information that he could do it himself. Obviously he needed that since there is an ask slashdot on it.
Ask slashdot is about getting the feedback of a mass number of people to compensate for ignorance. NOT about that mass of people doing your shit work for you.
There are also plenty of function calls which are not documented. The function calls which are often documented (on MSDN and otherwise) incorrectly.
Compared to the other API's perhaps it is better documented. It's documented well enough to struggle through writting a win32 app with it, but it's hardly documented well enough to write a fully compatible implementation of the win32 api.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually we always tag the subject on spams and have them filter to a junk box. The point isn't that you never have to look at the spam, because you do, nothing is perfect. The point is that 90% of the time you can open your mailbox and look at just legitimate email and go back and sort the junk about once a week or month (depending on how much you get) just scanning through the subjects instead of reading them since it's a safe bet there isn't anything you want in there.
assuming the reference is valid (i'm too lazy to check). This sounds like something that would put unneeded overhead on valid mail as well as invalid. It sounds to me like it's something that nobody else would implement for technical reasons. By the time they sigh and give up, it will be too late.
Besides, knowing microsoft there is something additional they've built in that isn't in published specs.
If the mailserver can pre-calculate the keys and look them up in a table on the fly, then why can't the sender?
I wouldn't count on it, think back to the microsoft netscape wars. MS didn't give a shit back then if you could only browse half the web. What makes you think they'll give a shit now?
"Oh wait, I forgot, open source magically confers technical superiority over mature closed-source products that incorporate tens/hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of engineering investment and refinement. Never mind that bit about real world results."
You realize that open source development encompasses literally MILLIONS of programmers and if the labor weren't free (and much of it IS commercially paid for) would constitute BILLIONS of dollars in investment? A sum oracle couldn't dream of paying out for coders.
Oracle and DB2 you at least can make an argument for, since they do scale to high end (whether or not they scale better to high end is a seperate issue). MS SQL Server however definately does not, if your claiming otherwise you've already admitted to ignorance of the subject your trying to debate.
Like any database MySQL needs to be tuned the system needs tuned and configuration needs tuned. An Oracle guru setting up MySQL in a high or even low volume environment IS NOT going to see better performance than he would with Oracle. However a MySQL guru setting up mysql on a platform he's familiar with is another story entirely.
The real reason is the admins are either oracle or db2 admins and arent going to fire themselves to be replaced by a mysql guru. And they also aren't going to put their balls in a vice grip ready to crush if the database hiccups. Mysql setup by a qualified administrator hasn't failed to scale in any environment it's been put in. I don't know what world you live in, but in my world you don't get better than never failed to perform.
If oracle and db2 never fail to perform, and mysql never fails to perform, calling one more solid than another is ridiculous. The difference is merely that with Oracle or DB2 you have the vendor to blame if there is a problem, you have accountability (e.g. the magical ability to shift your fuckups on someone else) whereas with mysql if it has a problem your the end of the chain in shift blame department.
"how many hits does kernel.org get?"
Several hundred per second.
Nah, numbers work with management. Explaining to them that deploying linux will save them more money over the next 5yrs than SCO has will help quite a bit. Further explaining that even if SCO did have a case, they don't have the funds to keep the case running on the multiple legal fronts they are getting hit on will also help.
If the case is settled quickly it will only be because SCO doesn't have one. If the case is dragged out, SCO can't afford to keep it up and will bankrupt itself trying to drop the suit... even then they are still stuck with the Redhat suit which they can't just drop and don't have the money to settle.
At this point, SCO's loss doesn't depend on the legal system, it depends on the financial system, and they don't have the money to win no matter what else happens.
winex isn't closed source, some of those games aren't even closed source. Commercial and closed source aren't the same thing. Data files aren't source code. If the game engine is open source and the data files aren't free, that doesn't make a game closed source.
;) I was really refering to applications, games are never NEEDED. Rather they are a mindless way to waste your life away. Moreso even than TV, which could actually contain content that provides knowledge.
And as I said, unless you count games
"dropping standards compliance, something that runs counter to their profit model"
Yes, until/unless they achieve market dominance. Then they no longer have any reason to care about open standards. They will define their own standards.
Apple does NOT care you, they aren't interested in being nice to you. They have no feelings or obligation or morals in regard to how they treat you. They are just as happy to throw you in a ditch and piss on you as they are to open their standards.
Apple exists for one reason, to make money, without regard to people, morals or consequences. If they have the have the market dominance to get away with doing something that will increase their profits. They'll do it, no matter how many people it fucks over. No different than any other corporation.
less than a fraction of 1% of linux users. And recent code inspections have shown the open source sql db's to be cleaner implementations. The only reason people use oracle anymore is that they don't have the balls to use the open source solutions where they are using oracle. Not because the open source implementations would work.
You forget, every piece of software you purchase from them yields 95% profit. Granted they have very very hefty markup on the hardware as well, but that doesn't mean they are prepared to toss the software profits in the trash.
I think you need to reread the thread. I wasn't claiming you were locked into any number of OS with any architeture. I merely stated that Solaris on x86 doesn't really count as an x86 OS, since it doesn't run any actual x86 hardware ;)
As for the OS lockdown, it comes down to this. The mac is closed up tighter than a drum and Apple does absolutely EVERYTHING they can to keep competitors out of their niche. They are far more aggressive about doing so than Microsoft.
If the Mac rather than x86 pc became the defacto system, apple wouldn't have to arrange agreements with anyone to suddenly kill off all other operating systems. They could nuke or alter the bios at will on all apple systems entirely by their own choice.
There would be no "if we can get a large enough marketshare in time". 90% of all apple computers out there could be running linux and it wouldn't stop or derail the change to eliminate linux from their systems.
That's true, keeping quiet helps con the customers into spending more money with apple by screwing them on the details. Yes yes, but this 2ghz system today because we are keeping our mouths shut about the 3ghz system we already have in back that will be the same price in 30mins.
Yeah, but pretty much all the interesting linux stuff is open source not closed.
There are like what, 3 closed source applications that could be useful to more than 3 people that are natively designed for linux?
Not to say that the open source stuff doesn't meet or beat the closed windows equivelents, just the opposite. But there isn't at present a whole lot of interesting closed stuff. Unless you count games.
Solaris is great and all, but I seriously doubt you'll find many who are willing to call it an x86 OS.
Yes obviously, because 90% of desktop users not only are still struggling with the concept of right click and mouse and run as the equivelent of root users.
But they also became security experts qualified to evaluate whether or not their operating system is safe to be unleashing on public networks.
"requires an administrator to be an expert in the intricacies of the operating system and how components interact"
Yes, someone who is NOT an expert is hardly qualified to be an administrator now are they?
"Linux only provides access controls for files and directories. In contrast, every object in Windows NT, from files to operating system data structures, has an access control list and its use can be regulated as appropriate. Linux security is all-or-nothing. Administrators cannot delegate administrative privileges: a user who needs any administrative capability must be made a full administrator, which compromises best security practices. In contrast, Windows NT allows an administrator to delegate privileges at an exceptionally fine-grained level."
Are you on crack? EVERYTHING is a file or directory on a linux system. There ISN'T a registry to hack. The most powerful and popular solutions for all tasks on linux also have built in ACL's for fine tuning access. Not to mention iptables which is a one stop kernel level firewalling and routing solution with flexibility windows never dreamed of with even 3rd party tools.
There is only ONE full administrator on a linux system, root. Any other service and it's configuration files will be owned by a group, members of said group can administrate it. Since EVERYTHING including hardware devices is a file on linux you can fine grain control access to every piece of software and/or hardware you like on the system. By setting permissions on the correct file you can even deny a user the ability to move an icon on their linux desktop.
"Linux has not supported key security accreditation standards. Every member of the Windows NT family since Windows NT 3.5 has been evaluated at either a C2 level under the U.S. Government's evaluation process or at a C2-equivalent level under the British Government's ITSEC process. In contrast, no Linux products are listed on the U.S. Government's evaluated product list."
Government accredits are meaningless, microsoft had to hack minimal posix compliance into windows before they could bribe their way in. The only reason it was allowed at all was that windows was already being used widely (at least in the US, don't follow the brits) and it's VERY expensive to go through the process.
"Linux system administrators must spend huge amounts of time understanding the latest Linux bugs and determining what to do about them. This is made complex due to the fact that there isn't a central location for security issues to be reported and fixed. In contrast, Microsoft provides a single security repository for notification and fixes of security related issues."
And yet somehow with a single command line I have all the fixes for the bugs that were discovered this morning. And windows update only has the bugs that were discovered 3 months ago with a couple exceptions.
Except that neither sendmail nor apache are common enough to rock a significant portion of linux systems either.
Sendmail is for the most part replaced by Postfix and other varients. Apache... well, although quite a large portion of web servers run apache, a very small portion of linux systems are web servers.
"The DMCA was created in the spirit that new forms of electronic media were not safe from potential copyright violations, and the act did what it set out to do."
Except that existing copyright law already made copyright violations illegal whether on a fancy new media or not. The DMCA was never needed to begin with. Being on digital media doesn't invalidate copyright on material under the laws that have been around since 1976.
"Pointing fingers makes us feel good, but unless we propose alternatives and compromises, are we really doing anything but venting? Does anyone else have potential solutions/thoughts on how to resolve this issue?"
What compromise? This law never had a purpose to begin with except to enact additional restrictions on certain types of copyrighted media. Why on earth do people feel that every few years the same issues of corporate interest need to be raised again and that the people should "compromise" a little further. We compromised when we created copyright, we compromised again in 1976, they compromised DESPITE US in 2000. Exactly how far do you feel we should compromise before we draw the line and say we won't give another inch, in fact we are taking back a few we shouldn't have ever given in the first place?
If you start with harsh restrictions on a subject, then compromise, the end result is more harsh than what you had to start with EVERY time. Now you do it on the same subject every few years over and over again and you have a pattern that results in giving more and more ground until you look back and realize that there isn't anymore ground to give and their just making up new bullshit ways to screw you now.
But don't we already have solutions for this which are as fast or faster than email? I think they call them forums, or no it's newgroups that's it.
Except that the refund shouldn't go to the one who filed the patent, it should go to the opposite party. That way it doesn't encourage people to file frivelous patents. (granted it's not much and would be far from profitable, it's the principle more than anything)
You just made my friends list with that post.
"I am convinced that there are different OS-es exactly because one can't perform in all the roles efficiently. If I was wrong on this one, today all computers would be running the same identical OS, but they aren't."
I'd counter that what is and what's best are not always the same thing. Your own logic supports my case better than yours since there are alot more computers currently running linux in all 3 of the major markets than BeOS, including the desktop.
I would also argue that although one size certainly fits all. The linux running on an embedded architecture is not neccesarily the same linux running IBM blue gene, nor is either same as the Linux running on my desktop.
They share common components only where there is not enough gain to justify differing components in the OS. In that way all 3 gain the benefits of joint development where they do share common components but at worst are better off than if they had to develop EVERY component individually.
Yes, in fact I hear they have a 200 node beowulf cluster of TRS-80's and lots of $2000 terminals running off it.
I wasn't aiming to do his research for him. I was aiming at giving enough information that he could do it himself. Obviously he needed that since there is an ask slashdot on it.
Ask slashdot is about getting the feedback of a mass number of people to compensate for ignorance. NOT about that mass of people doing your shit work for you.
There are also plenty of function calls which are not documented. The function calls which are often documented (on MSDN and otherwise) incorrectly.
Compared to the other API's perhaps it is better documented. It's documented well enough to struggle through writting a win32 app with it, but it's hardly documented well enough to write a fully compatible implementation of the win32 api.