There is no way any country or any legislative body is going to pass legislation that will make it so that it will be legal to run only one operating system.
They can require certain things of operating systems just like they have certain requirements of cars, (e.g. every automobile must have a license plate, and catalytic converters need to be installed on every engine), but there is no way that they can make it a felony to use any other operating system other than Windows.
It's how filesystem corruption happens, when something causes the data to be written incorrectly, somewhere along the line.
If Microsoft is telling the truth about the end result of a business choosing their products is security and TCO equal to or better than Linux - the bottom line, so to speak - what a business will actually experience - then I fully support an individual's right to choose whichever software platform they think is best for themselves or for their business.
But if what happens here is that some data gets fed to potential customers, and those potential customers choose to choose Windows, and then five years later they realize that their TCO and their security was not what they thought it would be - the bottom line, that is - then the customers will realize that the data they were fed was wrong, and Microsoft will lose customers.
So in a sense, this is an experiment that will take perhaps a decade. If this information is not suitable or not of the accuracy and appropriateness necessary to help businesses make informed decisions about security and TCO -- the bottom line, the end result for the business -- then while Microsoft might make a sale today, the word of mouth and customer experiences in the future will do significant damage to Microsoft's reputation.
You see how so many people already don't take them seriously and how everyone makes fun of this already. If those folks are correct, which as it has been pointed out, the studies are comparing apples and oranges, then this situation is only going to get worse, and the computer illiterate will begin to not trust Microsoft.
So while it might be easy to fool a computer illiterate person once, it is going to be next to physically impossible to re-gain that person's trust once that trust has been lost. And if you think about it, I don't see how we can expect there to be only one major OS vendor in the world anyway. Maybe when computers were a new thing, when computers were just a new-fangled toy, but as computers become a part of our lives, and as computers become something similar to cars, something that we use every day and something that is a serious part of our everyday lives, I just don't see how we can move forward, given this widespread adoption of computers, with having only one proprietary OS vendor dominant. It's simply unrealistic.
It appears that MS is, unbeknownst to itself, laying the groundwork for a massive alienation of its own customer base. The way that they can prevent this, or at least mitigate it, is to tell the truth. But what IS the truth, and can they even say it?
The subscription to software upgrades, the way I see it, should essentially cover the cost of running a massive server with all the binary packages on it, and the cost for the bandwidth associated with it. That's my opinion, anyway. I think that you could, in a way, actually offer a service in this kind of way, much like a web host offers web hosting services - a fast, subscription-based service, that ensures that your binaries will always be available to you for a reasonable cost. I realize that there are many places you can get them free, but that doesn't mean that there should be any rule against doing something like this.
Support should be a seperate thing - the more support you need, the more support you pay for; or something like that. Forums are an excellent idea.
I think that people are used to Windows to some extent, particularly in the somewhat nasty way that if it doesn't work, then it doesn't work and they just accept that it doesn't work becuase if you're using Windows and it doesn't work then it just doesn't work. If you are using Linux and it doesn't work then it's because Linux sucks and it's not as good as Windows. It's much harder for Linux to have something not work. Shockwave is one thing I ran into that doesn't work on Linux, for instance. It just doesn't exist, and it's closed source, but still... Shockwave on Linux doesn't work.
The idea that I can take Windows 98 SE, for instance, and 4 or 5 years later install Firefox or Open Office and other things, this is something that might be somewhat difficult for Linux right now, because the apps are constanly being improved, and the development is constantly in motion. How do you get people to upgrade the necessary things so that they can stay current?
Personally, I think that Linux, BSD, and for that matter any Unix OS are very high quality and advanced, in a technical sense, and the concept of them being free of charge sort of misses the whole point. It's better. You should be willing to pay at least some money for it if you don't do it yourself, because it's very advanced in a technical sense. You don't have to keep buying new computers. That Pentium II that you bought 5 years ago is just fine - all you need is a "software mechanic", literally.
Linux may not be for everyone, if people want what they are used to - but it's sometimes hard for people to open their eyes and see that what they are used to 1) costs them lost of money; 2) has them getting rid of old hardware 3) has them in denial when things don't work.
I don't see that there is just any way around the dependency problems that people encounter when they try to install new software on an existing Linux install that is 4 years old. I think that upgrading, and keeping current is probably the biggest challenge if Linux is going to compete with Windows head-to-head, and is going to be easy to use for massive amounts of people - this is really a thing that needs to be overcome. This is one of the biggest hurdles, anyway. Things are so much smoother and better when everything is up to date, but many people just want to install and forget about it, until they need to install new software, which they prefer to have a wizard walk them through it, and not have to mess around with dependencies.
I use both Debian testing (Sarge) and Gentoo 2004.0, just recently installed (two different machines)
It's frustrating, because I have to choose one or the other; I like them both so much.
The thing I like about Gentoo is that it is much easier (some folks actually recommend) to keep current "piecemeal", which would be better for dialup. You can update one package at a time, or, more precisely, one package and its dependencies at a time.
Debian is sort of easiest (in my experience) to upgrade all at once, which, depending on the last time you upgraded your system, might require some serious downloading of stuff. There are many benefits, especially if you just want to do it and get it over with, to upgrading all at once, but this whole process is made significantly faster and easier if you have a fast connection.
I think Debian Sarge and Gentoo are both excellent, but if I had to use dial-up, I would be tempted to go with Gentoo because the upgrades are easier to do package by package, and I could just run an update to a package in the background every now and then. The command-line nature of emerge and the --pretend switch are extremely helpful in picking and choosing exactly what you want to update, port by port. And the forums, and the installation instructions are just downright wonderful.
By making this a partisan issue,(i.e. republicans=proprietary; democrats=open source), such as this Mr. Brown is doing, the user base of Microsoft products is effectivly going to get split in half.
In the long run, these types of policial actions will cause Microsoft to lose a significant, perhaps even 50%, of its user base. This is very very bad news not for Linux, but for Microsoft.
One cannot help but get the feeling that these individuals are out to destroy Linux, but because they are not computer scientists, and don't understand very much about computers, and because the audience of this document are not computer scientists, but politicians who are not computer scientists, the effect that the authors appear to be looking for (i.e. destroying Linux) is actually going to destroy Microsoft.
This is very very very bad for Microsoft. Very very bad for Microsoft. Why is Ken Brown so adamant about destroying and dividing the Microsoft user base?
not really necessary with any BSD or Linux unless there is a new kernel, so save for power outages, uptime can be weeks, months, or even years.
moving data and applications
It's fun to use different package management systems that different operating systems have - it's interesting to install the same application several different ways on several different computers. It's also fun to see which distribution has more current applications (out of curiousity). Another thing that I have never understood, for instance, is the relative obscurity of routers that have a serial port for an external dial-up modem. How cool is that? You don't even need broadband to hook up all of your machines to a 100Mbit Lan! Why didn't people think of home networking, ssh, and ftp (sftp) before broadband became so popular? If you don't want to "run" a traditional ftp server, there is this Net-FTPServer which is written entirely in Perl, you can just start it up whenever you need to transfer files; just in case you don't want an ftp server starting up every time you boot up... Between ftp servers that are easy as a couple of clicks to install in many distributions, and the Perl ftp server that can be started up whenever you like, and tar/gzip/bzip2 utilities to help store away those pesky collections of files that you won't be using anymore, not to mention having a backup copy of your home directory on another computer (who doesn't have at least two computers by now?). Why throw them out?
upgrading to the latest version
FreeBSD has a nice utility called portupgrade - I just used it to bring an OS that I installed well over two years ago (Oct 2001) up to date with all of the latest, greatest software. Of course there is the buildworld utility for the base system itself, but the two put together bring your system up to date, current, as if you had just installed everything (provided you use the ports system, which is one of the coolest things about FreeBSD). Apt for Debian, portage for Gentoo, these I have also worked with and they are also excellent ways to stay current. You do kind of need broadband though. At least, it helps. Gentoo can be upgraded piecemeal, and the last thing I want to do is compile for 7-8 hours Open Office every time there is an incremental upgrade, so with dial-up, you can just skip the big apps and only do those once in a while. It's not like you constantly need to upgrade OpenOffice anyway. But with Debian's apt, for instance, using a pre-compiled binary of Ooo, and a broadband connection, you can literally do this several times a month. Silly, but it is pretty cool to have all the latest software, and it's really not that difficult to stay current. What makes it hard to stay current is when you install a bunch of stuff that you don't need and don't use because you "might want to try it out someday", or because you feel like your computer is going to be better in some way if you have some ungodly number of applications on it. Pick a distribution, realize that that distribution has a method for automating the installation of new software and the upgrading of existing software on your hard drive, realize that the software that you need is more than likely there, available, when you need it - just a hop, skip, and jump away - so don't install anything that you don't need now, and aren't using today. If you discover that you need something a week from now, you can download it then. Don't download stuff you don't need, it just means that you have that much more stuff to keep upgrading all the time. Only install what you absolutely need. Don't install web servers, ftp servers, etc... if you aren't going to be using them - it's so easy to install them, it's too tempting; but if you don't need them, why bother?
synchronizing internet bookmarks
I don't know if it's really the best idea to have all of the bookmarks in the browser all the time - there can be so many - I have been telling myself that I am going to write a perl script to strip them out of my bookmarks
In context, that's what they are saying, whether they realize it or not (and no doubt they imagine that they are impressing folks with their positions of power).
THEIR hardware. Sun, Microsoft. Those are two companies. So to say "hardware will be free" is taken out of context (and let's see how they feel about other things being taken out of context). The context is GOING to be "OUR hardware comes free with the software".
There is nothing wrong with offering services, your vision of services; offering innovations that your firm has put together to deliver a stronger value proposition to the consumer (or whatever) - of course that's fine. But to say that everyone is going to follow your lead, when that is obviously not going to be the case shows a remarkable ignorance of the market, and incredible corporate pressure on the market researchers to deliver rosy research.
By using the money to have the outcomes look favorable to themselves, these corporations are actually crippling themselves, because they are no longer looking at reality, but they are buying statistics and facts that the people whom they are paying to do the research think that they want to see.
Again, there is nothing wrong with offering hardware for free, or as part of the software licensing agreements, save for potentially environmental issues. I, for instance, have a Pentium 2 at 300 Mhz that runs FreeBSD 4.9 just fine, and although it's not my "main" computer, it works just fine, and it's fully functional, not in a landfill somewhere. So aside from the recycling of computer parts, which is actually a good thing, if any company wants to offer a "hardware for free" deal, why not? It's probably not going to be very popular idea unless you can somehow force or coerce people into the deal. How can some of the largest computer firms in the world not realize that the sales pitches are going to get a lot more difficult as computers become something that we take for granted, and as millions of individuals experience constant, daily frustration with viruses and other software inadequacies that amongst other things, create financial and human resource burdens on the end-user? Perhaps they pay researchers millions of dollars to produce research that says otherwise?
It seems that some of these folks somehow think that the rest of the world will follow what they do, even though they completely refuse to follow, much less pay attention, to the rest of the world.
Just recently it became known that Intel had reverse-engineered an AMD chip, This is a sign of progress - it's a sign that anyone who wants to put in an honest day's work, that anyone who wants to succeed, can. It just shows how far AMD has come, and how strong of an organization it is. This is a good thing; it's a wonderful, powerful success story, and having your chip reverse-engineered by Intel is actually, in a sense, probably quite an honor.
The truth is something I think most of us can see, but I won't repeat it here, maybe it's better to just let it play out.
How about bash? It is a programming language, and most of us use it every day. It also shows you why command lines don't actually suck that bad.
It's probably not the easiest thing, no programing language is, but there is not all that much weird logic stuff (you can skip some of it) and you can also apply what you learn immediately to speed up your day-to-day stuff.
But you haven't installed Linux for her yet have you?
I recommend that you install Linux or some BSD on her computer and then teach her how to program shell scripts in bash.
Right now, there is some little bit of a disarray, with online degrees, people returning for online degrees later in life and so forth.
No, I don't think that there is enough talk about plagiarism, I think that a lot of people have no idea what it is. See, now that there is online checking, everybody talks about it. Five years ago, it wasn't a really big deal, it was just "don't copy other people's work", which of course, you would never do. The internet is a new thing, and copying off the internet is an instinctual thing, because the internet has not really been defined to the level that "other people's papers" or "books at the library" have been.
I think the individual has a point, and I do think that this is all just that it fits into a formula (i.e. our software says you are a plagiarist) as opposed to something that is a pattern of laziness.
Obviously, what he did was wrong, no doubt, but expelling and individual from the university is going too far; it's not fair. Of course, in the spirit of competition, it's fair, but this is a transition phase right now, and these services are a new thing. In the future, everyone knows about plagiarism, but five years ago it wasn't that big a deal.
If you are willing to pay someone to find criminals or "plagiarists", they will find lots of plagiarists. If you are willing to pay someone to criticize you, you will find someone to criticize you. There is always someone who will find something wrong and egregious, ESPECIALLY if you pay them to. These services are being PAID to find plagiarists, of course they are going to find plagiarists.
I think that it's gone too far when there is financial incentive to find plagiarists.
I think that right about now would be a good time to have some "new" thing. The new new wave, or whatever. The industry goes in cycles. Things get really dull, really boring, and then something happens, something new, exciting, and cool.
The new thing that happens really has to be new, exciting, and cool, not just marketed to be that way or whatever.
I think the difference today, as opposed to previously, is that not only does the new thing need to have a style, an approach to life, an attitude, etc..., not only does it have to be creative, exciting, innovative, and so forth, it also has to be innovative, creative, and "thinking outside the box" when it comes to how to get itself out to large numbers of people.
The old way of going through the record labels, finding that one "cool" person who is willing to give something different a try, finding that one cool label, or whatever - that isn't going to work anymore, most of those folks have probably been laid off.
So the media (or methods), the way you get the music out needs as much innovation as the music and genre itself. Perhaps iTunes has what it takes to do this; but until everyone owns an mp3 player or an Ipod, this might make it difficult.
And then there is the question of whether or not there really is such a thing as "talent". Is there any ONE person, whose "talent" is so far above and beyond all of the other hard-working, struggling artists that this person deserves to be placed on a pedestal like that?
It would probably take a 300-page book to explain everything I am going at here, but the relevant part to this discussion is that there needs to be "talent" at navigating this uncertain present and future with regards to "media" (i.e. CD, DVD, download, etc...). Without competent talent to navigate that, we are not going to see any more Hendrixes. But then again, that's another 300 page book.
The long and the short of it is that being an artist is very difficult if that's what you want to do. Maybe we won't have any more pop artists like we did in the past; maybe those times are over. Hendrix didn't need to die; Bon Scott didn't need to die; all of these folks didn't really need to do all of that cocaine and heroin and everything else; we know better now. We now know that cigarettes aren't all that cool anymore.
It's over. And judging from how the artists have been treated, and how "talent" is essentially being "punished" for being so talented, this might very well be a good thing. It's disturbing to see how talented people are treated by the record labels. You would think that in a free society such as America, this kind of nonsense would not be taking place. First and foremost is to respect yourself and those around you, and it seems to me that if one were to spread any message to millions and millions of people around the world it would be exactly that message - repect yourself and those around you.
Maybe the message that the world needs now is not one of style and popularity, but of self-respect and respect for other fellow human beings. Diversity and equality, education, not ignorance. So in a way, the shallowness of the nonsense is not altogether a bad thing, provided there is something else to occupy people's attention; something intelligent and interesting for people to absorb their minds in once they realize how shallow their "idols" really are.
There are a few individuals in the world, who are "talented". Then there are a few more individuals who understand talent enough to realize that it is a rare thing, and they respect this rare thing. (might I add that they also think that they are incredibly cool for realizing something that they think that only they themselves have the capacity to see...) But for the most part, a lot of the consumers don't really get this. There is so much "boilerplate" (i.e. dancing women, teenage heartbreak, fancy cars, spiky hair and guitars) that you will present a similar image to the world whether or not you are talented or not. The talent has
"the" IE users would stop going to the website..."
yes, that's true. Let's define "the". Is it 50%, 60%, 70% or 100% of the 90%+ overall internet users using IE? Probably not 100% of the 90%+ overall, but a significant percentage, yes - they would just stop going to that website. Absolutely.
But again, if you told the IE users that it was 50%, or 20%, or 30% of the people stopped going to the website, and the remainder upgraded to a different browser, or if people were under the impression that upgrading your browser is a good thing to do (which it is, actually), they just might believe you. In which case they would be doing themselves, and the development process of everything other than IE a favor. I don't know that an individual user of a website is completely cognisant of the statistics surrounding browser usage to the point where they would demand that all sites conform to IE; of course, many would (do) - no doubt about it - but I think that some individuals might be tempted to at least try to use a different browser "just to try it out" or something.
What percentage would stop using the website? Certainly not 100%, certainly not 0%. It's somewhere inbetween. Slowly, over time, people might realize that there are other options.
I think this is a good thing, and I personally would have nothing against anyone if they chose to use IE. Nor would I advocate lying about the statistics in order to achieve personal agendas. It's just important that there are choices, and that people are aware of the fact that there are choices. There is room in the world for more than one software company, there is room in the world for more than one web browser software program. It's all in the mind; it's all about how you think about it.
The interesting thing to think about is what percentage of the people using IE realize that 95% of the people are using IE?
If, say, for instance, a certain popular webpage stopped working as well on the non-longhorn IE, would people switch?
This might happen, actually. The statistics show that 90+% are using IE, but if you said it was 20%, what % of those 90%+ would believe you and not know the difference? Certainly not 0%!
Monoculture refers to the practice of growing one crop in the same location year after year, as opposed to the backyard garden, where a garden might contain tomatoes, lettuce, cucumbers, zucchini, etc..., all grown in different corners of the garden from one year to the next. Monoculture has nothing to do with DNA. It simply refers to the practice of the giant factory farms growing one crop (e.g. potatoes) over hundreds of acres - year after year after year.
It's not necessarily that GMO makes monoculture worse, it's what monoculture does to the soil. The soil acts like an immune system for the plants, provided that you aren't just growing one plant in the same place year after year after year; the pests and weeds get accustomed; the natural resistance of the soil and the monoculture plants goes down; it's all about the soil. The problems that are created because of the destruction of the quality of the soil when you monoculture any plant for any length of time leaves the farmers "vulnerable" to the chemical solutions offered by the chemical companies. They would never need those solutions if they didn't monoculture in the first place.
But it's so engrained in the society, this is the way the big farms do things, that it's really hard to change. It's the quality of the soil, that's what counts. Monoculture messes up the quality of the soil, which leaves many farmers looking for chemical solutions (which messes up the soil even more), and an opportunity for companies like Monsanto to come in with GMO crops is created. Monstano is answering a need in the marketplace that is created by the drive to monoculture crops. If there weren't farmers who wanted to monoculture, Monsanto would have to look for a different line of work; but seeing as how monoculture is prominent everywhere, Monstano is going to be rather busy.
I was under the impression that this guy was definitely not an organic or non-GMO farmer; and that he did in fact use Roundup from time to time, as necessary. I don't doubt that there are many farmers who would find Roundup resistance to be something desirable, as it allows one to use that particular pesticide on a need-based regimen, as opposed to a preventative-based regimen, dumping loads of pesticides on the weeds at a point in time where there is no canola growing. In a twisted sense, that's good for the environment, you can hold off using Roundup until it is just absolutely necessary to kill some weeds and not worry about killing off your crops when you do that. But if there is insufficient evidence, then so much for that theory.
The only good thing that might come out of this is that the extent of the spread of GMO's is going to be known, by Monsanto, for financial and legal reasons. If not Monsanto so they can sue, then it should be the govt. or some other official agency, so that the extent of the spread of GMOs is known. It is still considered a dangerous technology, and no doubt a powerful one. Also, a completely unnecessary one, other than for making money for the big companies (just like most pharmaceuticals are unnecessary, and pharmaceutical company profits are almost entirely enabled via patents). GMO companies know that patents allow them to recoup their R&D, just like pharmaceutical companies.
In any case, there should be a database of some kind, or something that functions like a database, a registry, if you will, of farmers who are growing GMOs, so that this is known. If Monsanto is willing to do it, as they obviously are, for financial and legal reasons, at least that's somebody doing it.
For corn, for instance, I understand that the testing kits for GMOs are relatively inexpensive (approx $10-20 US) - and non-GMO products, especially organic products, will get you, as a farmer, a premium at market. If you do the organic farming right, also, you will have increased yields per acre and a better profit margin. Chemicals are expensive.
One solution is to grow organic, non-GMO crops, test them extensively, and then sue your neighbors if their crops contaminate yours. It's one way to deal with the issue. Turn the tables. If you contaminate my organic, non-GMO crops with your GMOs, then I sue your butt. That might provide some sort of incentive there.
You have to have faith, really - it's a crazy world out there. But the thing that I always thought was interesting about this case was that some of the lower courts felt, and re-affirmed twice that the farmer knew that he was saving seeds that had displayed significant Roundup resistance. Again, this frees up the pesticide schedules, and saves you from having to do preventative pesticide applications. Of course, crop rotation and other methods are far more effective, but this area of Canada has hundreds of acres of canola monocultures going on. A lot of these farmers apparently grow canola, and only canola, and have done so for generations. In any case, this is a bad idea, it's bad for the soil - you need to grow lots of different crops, a variety of crops, for crop rotation and other non-chemical methods of pest control to work.
Monoculture farmers put themselves at risk to begin with by engaging in the enviornentally destructive practice of monoculture. Thjs weakens the environment and allows companies like Monsanto to capitalize on the problems inherent in sustaining a monoculture of a certain type of crop.
I hate to say this, but it's true. A good co-worker friend of mine is a paranoid schizophrenic. To make a long story short, I asked him if he had ever not taken his meds, or gotten sick of taking them, and he told me a story of what happened a week or two after he once decided he was sick of taking his meds and decided he wasn't going to take them anymore - how he crawled out of his window in his underwear and ran down at top speed to the nearest ER because "they" were coming to "get him".
So that's the important thing - you can fool yourself into thinking that not taking your meds might be OK, or that it's really not necessary, but the truth be told, the meds tend to really, really help, even though your rational mind objects to having to take them all the time.
It's very tempting not to take them, but just take them. Nothing good will come of it if you stop taking them.
Diet might help; improving your diet might help; work with your doctor to improve your diet; but don't stop taking the meds. Exercise might help; work with your doctor to improve your diet and exercise regimen; but don't stop taking your meds. It's mentally difficult to resign to taking these meds indefinitely, especially with the side effects, but the best thing you can do is just to keep taking them. I cannot emphasize this enough.
Yes, it sucks. It sucks royal. But just take them, they make it better. Not perfect, but better. Better than what happens if you don't take them.
Nothing wrong with hiring the unqualified. Actually, hiring based on "the smile" or some other non-technically related thing is smart. Nothing wrong with that at all. Problem starts when they keep leaving, right? Anyway; theory is different from practice, so that's probably where it all breaks down.
The idea is to create a work environment where people want to stay; if my boss called me a mushroom, or said that I "brighten up the room" or whatever, I would be like "forget you, you jerk." Or "dregs" - a human being... a "dreg"? Dude!!! Isn't it obvious why you can't hang on to your employees? Geez!!!
The main focus, really, and this may be hard to deal with, is job satistfaction. Job satisfaction is the secret - this is what improves customer service satisfaction ratings; this is what improves (lowers) turnover rates. With happier customers, happier employees, and lower turnover rates, you know what happens? Profit margins improve. Get your budget right here.
Try a little respect and human understanding. You can't treat your employees like mushrooms, dregs, or flower arrangements and expect them to feel wanted (which they are, actually, because I am sure that most people have lower turnover rates as a goal).
The fact that you can't keep your employees around means that 1) your business could be achieving a healthier profit margin than it is; 2) your employees could be more satisfied with their work environment; 3) your customers could be happier with the customer service they recieve.
It seems to me that your goal is not "to attract the best help desk people in the field". Your goal is obviously some politically motivated sense of the American dream. I guess that's fine, but I wouldn't try to characterize it as magnamosity or having a large heart. Running a successful help desk is about one thing (more or less): attracting and keeping the best tech support help desk people in the world. Maybe I, once I twist my mind, might decide to one day dig a hole with my Made in America shovel and invite "W" over to stand around and chuckle at the sheer brilliance of the whole thing. (just kidding)
There are probably hundreds of individuals out there who are trying to run training centers but are failing abysmally at it; you are trying to run a help desk, but are, via what could be called a "happy accident", running a highly efficient and successful training center!
Silly as this may sound, I think that you need to open up a training center. You could really make a great difference in the world by doing those kinds of things that you are really passionate about.
They shouldn't be allowed to ask for a cease and desist, or something like that. Holding a patent for the purposes of preventing anyone from using it serves no purpose.
The SCO thing happened and it seemed like that there was really nowhere to go to really get the information on the case. Basically, it's one case, one company, and we know enough at this point to be comfortable in realizing that the risks are basically limited to frivolous lawsuits (or were), and that there are millions of dollars available for anyone that becomes the innocent victim of a frivolous lawsuit. So basically, it sucks, but it's OK. It's the type of situation where remaining calm is of utmost importance. Yes, you are at risk if you use Linux, but at risk of what, and it might not necessarily cost you your business, you will have people to help you out if you need it, and life is full of risks anyway. Not to justify these underhanded legal tactics, just to say that what's really important is to "chill out", while keeping your eyes open. Outrage is not your friend in uncertain times. Peace of mind, the ability to relax, the ability to remain calm, think on your feet, etc... that's what will make the difference. Instead of reacting to idiots who incorrectly think that they know all about computers because they know how to point and click, remaining calm and being able to entertain their completely incorrect fantasies will get you (and Linux, I might add) much further than creating walls and burning bridges. Now is the time to shine with your calm, relaxed approach. That's my opinion, anyway. Life is full of risks, and in order to make the right decisions you need to be somewhat "chill". If you "freak out", you are more likely to execute poorly planned strategies and make bad decisions.
So with Groklaw, it is in part because the claims are SO outrageous and absurd, even funny, yet for some people quite serious legal problems, this is why that approach has worked. Just like the previous poster said. What concerns me now is this: what is fair and balanced? Is there any benefit to presenting both points of view?
What Groklaw has been doing recently is simply presenting anything and everything that is negative and incorrectly and unjustly critical of Linux. While this type of approach was certainly necessary, and entirely entertaining, even downright hilarious when the SCO claims first came out, it's not really necessary now, because we know the details, and we know that there wasn't REALLY anything misappropriated with Linux. I think that SCO has, in effect, cried wolf, and that now very few people will ever believe that Linux could possibly infringe. So it is important to stay alert, no doubt about that.
Reading Groklaw at this point is not what it used to be. It used to be that you needed more information about the SCO case, and didn't know where to look. It used to be rather amusing to read all those absurd press releases. Definitely entertaining. At this point in time, many of us realize that Linux is sometimes going to be attacked by those who don't know anything about computers, and we are all well aware of the absurdity of these individuals who don't really know what they are talking about while refusing to listen.
So, looking at it from a PURELY objective point of view, you have a website that takes anything and everything that is anti-Linux and re-publishes it and gets it "out there". So in a superficial sense, if you don't really look deeper, and see that Groklaw is disputing, or breaking down these anti-Linux articles and authors, what you have a website that presents to the world every anti-Linux article known to humankind. To maintain this "breaking down" momentum, to maintain the critical momentum necessary to justify what essentially amounts to giving a secondary platform to these anti-Linux authors and organizations is the balance that I am concerned about.
That's the thing that gets me. It's a choice. Number one, you can gloss over the headlines, which basically tend to be either voluminous legal documentation or empassioned reviews of anti-Linux articles, which tend to suck you in; or you can really understand WHY the headlines are posted, and you can really
Suing freedom of speech
on
Groklaw Turns One
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Sure, the American justice system may have its flaws, but I doubt that the prosecution in the OJ case went to court saying "We're going to try to put this innocent man in jail so that we can look good and get a promotion". Well, maybe one or two of them were characterized a having had a similar attitude, but it's not like they didn't have a case, and it's not like they didn't have any evidence.
The problem SCO is going to have is that they underestimated "free software", because they didn't really know ENOUGH about "free software". The people bringing the suit aren't computer scientists, and the analysts claiming that SCO "might have something" aren't computer scientists either. The only chance that they have of winning is if the justice system fails; it's not Linux that's being questioned; it's the US justice system that's being questioned; it's the US justice system that's being sued.
Furthemore, I think many of us now realize that you can't really sue Linux, because "free software" is everyone, because "free software" is freedom of speech; it's not a company like Microsoft that you can sue. All over the world, people aren't going to stop using Linux, and if SCO is going to get anywhere, they are going to have to win many court cases, and they are going to have to show the same evidence in each case, evidence that, with almost complete certainty, it can be said, does not exist.
Now... to be fair, I imagine that it would be possible to turn SCO around; look at what Lee Iacocca did with Chrysler - it's possible, but with four patent lawsuits from IBM hanging over your head, a Red Hat lawsuit, and numerous GPL violations to boot, this is going to be difficult, so in their case, there is, let's say, a grave danger of "Live by the sword, die by the sword", happening. Unlike some people, I don't really wish any harm to SCO, because it's not SCO's fault - SCO is a business, and I would never wish financial disaster on any business. That's unethical. It's PEOPLE who work at that business that have encountered misinformation. Misinformation about Linux, misinformation about Unix, misinformation about "free software". It's basically, if I were to boil it down to a simple statement, it's that these lawsuits against Linux are being brought by individuals who aren't computer scientists.
I remember that there was a case in the US where a man sued "the devil". He claimed the devil had caused him to commit all these sins and hurt his loved ones and that he was taking the devil to court because he wanted to bring him to justice. The reason that the case was thrown out was because the court did not know where to send the devil's subpeona to. So similarly, with Linux, the question is how do you subpeona free speech? Where does free speech live? What is free speech's address? Many would say America. See? But basically, it's freedom of speech that is giving all of these proprietary software companies headaches. And suing freedom of speech is, in a strange but opposite way, like suing the devil.
after reading about stuff like this, I feel empowered and justified to never have any kind of unjust run-in with any less-than-ethical coworker or supervisor looking to gain by hurting others and putting them in unjust situations.
the ability to talk your way out of anything, ESPECIALLY when you actually haven't done anything wrong, but are being used as a scapegoat or a target to help someone else look good, or say, for instance, in a situation where you may be eventually threatening you manager's job or competing with someone for a promotion; things like that.
It's very refreshing and empowering to realize that any pressure that you feel is probably there because you are putting it on yourself, or are in some way contributing to placing yourself in a position where you are allowing others to place pressure on you.
It's really about what's right and what's wrong; and the right thing to do is to do good work, to be effective and to do things right; to respect yourself and those around you. Seeing through other's motives, or ignoring their confused senses of right and wrong in order to protect that respect, and to protect that sense of right and wrong, enabling yourself to continue to do good work for the right reasons, and to avoid pressures and lies and half-truths that represent a generic methodology or philosophy that many employees could care less about working or not working, these are the right things to do.
It seems that you really need a kind of social engineering in order to continue respecting yourself and those around you. That's the most important thing, to respect those around you. This social engineering comes across as respect, actually... the whole idea of being smooth under pressure. Applying that to a situation where a manager may be looking for a reaction from you, applying that to a situation where you, as an employee, may not feel quite so respectful, really just shows that remaining courteous and respectful will basically allow you to get away with anything (especially if that something is nothing), so in that sense, remaining courteous and respectful even when you are in a situation where there is an unjust attempt to elicit a negative response, using social engineering will allow you to remain respectful towards yourself and respectful to those around you. You can use it for bad, but you can also use it against bad, for good. On top of everything else, the unjust individuals will never know what happened to them, which is, in a sense, a way of bringing those who have not realized the importance of respecting of others to a type of silent justice.
Leadbelly sang "Gallows Pole", the song that Led Zeppelin covered; basically, true story - a long time ago here in the US, you could buy your way out of a death sentence, a hanging. If you didn't have any money, or if your mother, or your brother, didn't bring you some silver, or bring you some gold, there was nothing to keep you from the gallows pole. It's a true story, and people love the blues. Hey, man this story gives me the blues. Right on.
I think that what this is all about is just basically learning the customs of America, as illogical and backwards as they may seem. Get "in the know", and you will know what you can do and what you can do, even if you went to another country people would think that you are weird.
That's the way it is.
Point being, there is a way you can stay out of trouble if you try. It's not that hard.
GNU/Linux could sort of be considered a Unix "clone", so to speak, and it is very closely related to BSD. Hanging very close to something that already has existed since 1969, the problems might occur in newer, additional functionality.
A patent would not just affect one person, so the whole thing about not being able to afford to litigate when there are millions of people around the globe that would also be paying license fees doesn't really get down to the heart of the matter.
This is why I think that it's good to have larger organizations involved, at least to some extent; even though a small organization might get hit up or targeted, larger organizations will be affected; this will act as a natural deterrent, discouraging the "targeting the weak" strategy.
Open source is for everyone, so everyone gets to defend it. Right? So if you attack open source, you attack everyone. Not a very good idea, if you asked me. I'm not saying it won't happen, but I do think that there are some people who like being paranoid; and there are some people who are just determined to smell that veritable blue cheese on their moustache, being convinced that the entire world smells very awful for some reason.
Is there really anything that can be done about the problem? Perhaps there is, but I know for a fact that there will be people who will make the whole thing seem a lot worse than it really is, there will be people who will exaggerate and point fingers for political purposes. I think that a lot of the percieved problem is coming from the very people who are proclaiming that there is a problem.
We need to look at what can be done, and then do it. POSIX compliance is a good thing. Complying with the Open Group's specs are a good thing. Stick with the tried and true, don't get too fancy. Cooperation, cooperation and faith are the most important things. Keep a positive attitude, and do everything you can to prevent, and solve the problem. I don't see how whining, moaning, complaining, or pontificating are going to do anything to make the situation any better. Speaking of which...
There are options, or settings, that you can do for ext3, the default is slower, but it saves your data. Ext3 not only journals metadata, like XFS, etc... but it also journals data, which is the only filesystem that does that, if I understand this correctly.
"data=writeback" mode does no data journaling, only metadata journaling, and you would probably see better performance here. Although, you could lose data in the event of a power outage (no fun). Same thing applies to XFS, JFS - you could lose data because only metadata is being journaled, not real data.
"data=ordered" mode - inbetween, still no data journalling, but there are provisions that make it less likely to lose data in the case of a power problem. It has something to do with the way it journals the metadata and the way the filesystem interacts with the disk that makes is a little slower than data=writeback but also a little more secure than data=writeback if you get a power outage.
"data=journal" mode - this journals data and metadata, and with the exception of a few situations, is the slowest. The least likely to lose your data, but also much slower.
I am assuming, or at least it looks like, these tests were run with the default data=journal - so to be fair, they should have been run in data=writeback, or maybe even all three modes. Again, all you have to is specify in/etc/fstab and reboot, no big deal.
It would probably be better to compare the ext3 in data=writeback mode.
In this scenario, if you are the buyer (person x) and the seller (person y) screws you over - here is what I understand, or at least I have seen many people explaining this on the internet:
You have to make a commitment to PayPal to use their protection, not your credit card's protection. You have to go through PayPal's dispute resolution (or whatever they call it), through their 800 numbers and emailing them. You can't (well you can, but many folks have stated that they have had problems with collection agencies when they have done that without working with PayPal first...) charge back the item on your credit card. Or, in other words, you should never have to charge back your credit card when you use PayPal. PayPal will take care of any complaints you have for you, and according to some customers, their word is final in this matter. So you shouldn't plan on using any protection that you have with your credit card company when you use PayPal. This is my understanding, anyway. I am not saying that PayPal's complaint resolution system doesn't work, but my point is that it's there and when you use PayPal that is what you have to use first, not your credit card protection. Some people have stated that in effect, you are essentially waiving any protections that you have with your CC company when you use PayPal, because PayPal has their own complaint resolution system.
By using PayPal, you are making a commitment to them, that you will use their complaint resolution, which, obviously, works for many folks, but sometimes, apparently, has disastrous results to the sellers, from individuals who claim they never recieved things that they actually did, or individuals who claim that they didn't recieve what they expected. But then again, the credit card companies don't have the most wonderful setup for merchants either; the merchants might very well still be out the merchandise, not to mention being out the money from a stolen card, etc... Sellers carry a lot of risk, both with PayPal, and with the credit card companies as well.
Also, there are now all these "Ebay hacks" and "get rich selling stuff on Ebay" how-tos everywhere. So obviously, a lot of what you are seeing on there now is not really a "good" deal - it's someone trying to get rich.
I think there are some niches where Ebay can really do excellent things, and where it will always be useful, but trying to move it into the mainstream, I think, is the wrong idea.
Could you imagine having feedback like that about yourself from every job you ever had, from every supervisor who ever didn't like you or treat you fair? Having to resolve any difference that you have with someone in two lines of text? I think it's a bubble that's going to burst, as more and more people try to use it to get rich, instead of using it in a more positive way, as a way to exchange things in a fair marketplace setting, a way to bring people together that have things to share with one another, interesting things, unusual things, things that you can't get anywhere else. I think Ebay should try to return to its roots, so to speak, because it's a great idea that can really bring people together. I don't think that it's a way to "get rich", I don't think that it should be used in that way. I also think it might be a good idea to make sure sellers state whether or not something is drop ship or 3rd party item they don't personally own, etc... I think the zero inventory concept is a bad idea to begin with, and it's probably even a worse idea when it's an auction.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no way any country or any legislative body is going to pass legislation that will make it so that it will be legal to run only one operating system.
They can require certain things of operating systems just like they have certain requirements of cars, (e.g. every automobile must have a license plate, and catalytic converters need to be installed on every engine), but there is no way that they can make it a felony to use any other operating system other than Windows.
That is just simply not going to happen.
It's how filesystem corruption happens, when something causes the data to be written incorrectly, somewhere along the line.
If Microsoft is telling the truth about the end result of a business choosing their products is security and TCO equal to or better than Linux - the bottom line, so to speak - what a business will actually experience - then I fully support an individual's right to choose whichever software platform they think is best for themselves or for their business.
But if what happens here is that some data gets fed to potential customers, and those potential customers choose to choose Windows, and then five years later they realize that their TCO and their security was not what they thought it would be - the bottom line, that is - then the customers will realize that the data they were fed was wrong, and Microsoft will lose customers.
So in a sense, this is an experiment that will take perhaps a decade. If this information is not suitable or not of the accuracy and appropriateness necessary to help businesses make informed decisions about security and TCO -- the bottom line, the end result for the business -- then while Microsoft might make a sale today, the word of mouth and customer experiences in the future will do significant damage to Microsoft's reputation.
You see how so many people already don't take them seriously and how everyone makes fun of this already. If those folks are correct, which as it has been pointed out, the studies are comparing apples and oranges, then this situation is only going to get worse, and the computer illiterate will begin to not trust Microsoft.
So while it might be easy to fool a computer illiterate person once, it is going to be next to physically impossible to re-gain that person's trust once that trust has been lost. And if you think about it, I don't see how we can expect there to be only one major OS vendor in the world anyway. Maybe when computers were a new thing, when computers were just a new-fangled toy, but as computers become a part of our lives, and as computers become something similar to cars, something that we use every day and something that is a serious part of our everyday lives, I just don't see how we can move forward, given this widespread adoption of computers, with having only one proprietary OS vendor dominant. It's simply unrealistic.
It appears that MS is, unbeknownst to itself, laying the groundwork for a massive alienation of its own customer base. The way that they can prevent this, or at least mitigate it, is to tell the truth. But what IS the truth, and can they even say it?
The subscription to software upgrades, the way I see it, should essentially cover the cost of running a massive server with all the binary packages on it, and the cost for the bandwidth associated with it. That's my opinion, anyway. I think that you could, in a way, actually offer a service in this kind of way, much like a web host offers web hosting services - a fast, subscription-based service, that ensures that your binaries will always be available to you for a reasonable cost. I realize that there are many places you can get them free, but that doesn't mean that there should be any rule against doing something like this.
Support should be a seperate thing - the more support you need, the more support you pay for; or something like that. Forums are an excellent idea.
I think that people are used to Windows to some extent, particularly in the somewhat nasty way that if it doesn't work, then it doesn't work and they just accept that it doesn't work becuase if you're using Windows and it doesn't work then it just doesn't work. If you are using Linux and it doesn't work then it's because Linux sucks and it's not as good as Windows. It's much harder for Linux to have something not work. Shockwave is one thing I ran into that doesn't work on Linux, for instance. It just doesn't exist, and it's closed source, but still... Shockwave on Linux doesn't work.
The idea that I can take Windows 98 SE, for instance, and 4 or 5 years later install Firefox or Open Office and other things, this is something that might be somewhat difficult for Linux right now, because the apps are constanly being improved, and the development is constantly in motion. How do you get people to upgrade the necessary things so that they can stay current?
Personally, I think that Linux, BSD, and for that matter any Unix OS are very high quality and advanced, in a technical sense, and the concept of them being free of charge sort of misses the whole point. It's better. You should be willing to pay at least some money for it if you don't do it yourself, because it's very advanced in a technical sense. You don't have to keep buying new computers. That Pentium II that you bought 5 years ago is just fine - all you need is a "software mechanic", literally.
Linux may not be for everyone, if people want what they are used to - but it's sometimes hard for people to open their eyes and see that what they are used to 1) costs them lost of money; 2) has them getting rid of old hardware 3) has them in denial when things don't work.
I don't see that there is just any way around the dependency problems that people encounter when they try to install new software on an existing Linux install that is 4 years old. I think that upgrading, and keeping current is probably the biggest challenge if Linux is going to compete with Windows head-to-head, and is going to be easy to use for massive amounts of people - this is really a thing that needs to be overcome. This is one of the biggest hurdles, anyway. Things are so much smoother and better when everything is up to date, but many people just want to install and forget about it, until they need to install new software, which they prefer to have a wizard walk them through it, and not have to mess around with dependencies.
I use both Debian testing (Sarge) and Gentoo 2004.0, just recently installed (two different machines)
It's frustrating, because I have to choose one or the other; I like them both so much.
The thing I like about Gentoo is that it is much easier (some folks actually recommend) to keep current "piecemeal", which would be better for dialup. You can update one package at a time, or, more precisely, one package and its dependencies at a time.
Debian is sort of easiest (in my experience) to upgrade all at once, which, depending on the last time you upgraded your system, might require some serious downloading of stuff. There are many benefits, especially if you just want to do it and get it over with, to upgrading all at once, but this whole process is made significantly faster and easier if you have a fast connection.
I think Debian Sarge and Gentoo are both excellent, but if I had to use dial-up, I would be tempted to go with Gentoo because the upgrades are easier to do package by package, and I could just run an update to a package in the background every now and then. The command-line nature of emerge and the --pretend switch are extremely helpful in picking and choosing exactly what you want to update, port by port. And the forums, and the installation instructions are just downright wonderful.
By making this a partisan issue,(i.e. republicans=proprietary; democrats=open source), such as this Mr. Brown is doing, the user base of Microsoft products is effectivly going to get split in half.
In the long run, these types of policial actions will cause Microsoft to lose a significant, perhaps even 50%, of its user base. This is very very bad news not for Linux, but for Microsoft.
One cannot help but get the feeling that these individuals are out to destroy Linux, but because they are not computer scientists, and don't understand very much about computers, and because the audience of this document are not computer scientists, but politicians who are not computer scientists, the effect that the authors appear to be looking for (i.e. destroying Linux) is actually going to destroy Microsoft.
This is very very very bad for Microsoft. Very very bad for Microsoft. Why is Ken Brown so adamant about destroying and dividing the Microsoft user base?
rebooting
not really necessary with any BSD or Linux unless there is a new kernel, so save for power outages, uptime can be weeks, months, or even years.
moving data and applications
It's fun to use different package management systems that different operating systems have - it's interesting to install the same application several different ways on several different computers. It's also fun to see which distribution has more current applications (out of curiousity). Another thing that I have never understood, for instance, is the relative obscurity of routers that have a serial port for an external dial-up modem. How cool is that? You don't even need broadband to hook up all of your machines to a 100Mbit Lan! Why didn't people think of home networking, ssh, and ftp (sftp) before broadband became so popular? If you don't want to "run" a traditional ftp server, there is this Net-FTPServer which is written entirely in Perl, you can just start it up whenever you need to transfer files; just in case you don't want an ftp server starting up every time you boot up... Between ftp servers that are easy as a couple of clicks to install in many distributions, and the Perl ftp server that can be started up whenever you like, and tar/gzip/bzip2 utilities to help store away those pesky collections of files that you won't be using anymore, not to mention having a backup copy of your home directory on another computer (who doesn't have at least two computers by now?). Why throw them out?
upgrading to the latest version
FreeBSD has a nice utility called portupgrade - I just used it to bring an OS that I installed well over two years ago (Oct 2001) up to date with all of the latest, greatest software. Of course there is the buildworld utility for the base system itself, but the two put together bring your system up to date, current, as if you had just installed everything (provided you use the ports system, which is one of the coolest things about FreeBSD). Apt for Debian, portage for Gentoo, these I have also worked with and they are also excellent ways to stay current. You do kind of need broadband though. At least, it helps. Gentoo can be upgraded piecemeal, and the last thing I want to do is compile for 7-8 hours Open Office every time there is an incremental upgrade, so with dial-up, you can just skip the big apps and only do those once in a while. It's not like you constantly need to upgrade OpenOffice anyway. But with Debian's apt, for instance, using a pre-compiled binary of Ooo, and a broadband connection, you can literally do this several times a month. Silly, but it is pretty cool to have all the latest software, and it's really not that difficult to stay current. What makes it hard to stay current is when you install a bunch of stuff that you don't need and don't use because you "might want to try it out someday", or because you feel like your computer is going to be better in some way if you have some ungodly number of applications on it. Pick a distribution, realize that that distribution has a method for automating the installation of new software and the upgrading of existing software on your hard drive, realize that the software that you need is more than likely there, available, when you need it - just a hop, skip, and jump away - so don't install anything that you don't need now, and aren't using today. If you discover that you need something a week from now, you can download it then. Don't download stuff you don't need, it just means that you have that much more stuff to keep upgrading all the time. Only install what you absolutely need. Don't install web servers, ftp servers, etc... if you aren't going to be using them - it's so easy to install them, it's too tempting; but if you don't need them, why bother?
synchronizing internet bookmarks
I don't know if it's really the best idea to have all of the bookmarks in the browser all the time - there can be so many - I have been telling myself that I am going to write a perl script to strip them out of my bookmarks
In context, that's what they are saying, whether they realize it or not (and no doubt they imagine that they are impressing folks with their positions of power).
THEIR hardware. Sun, Microsoft. Those are two companies. So to say "hardware will be free" is taken out of context (and let's see how they feel about other things being taken out of context). The context is GOING to be "OUR hardware comes free with the software".
There is nothing wrong with offering services, your vision of services; offering innovations that your firm has put together to deliver a stronger value proposition to the consumer (or whatever) - of course that's fine. But to say that everyone is going to follow your lead, when that is obviously not going to be the case shows a remarkable ignorance of the market, and incredible corporate pressure on the market researchers to deliver rosy research.
By using the money to have the outcomes look favorable to themselves, these corporations are actually crippling themselves, because they are no longer looking at reality, but they are buying statistics and facts that the people whom they are paying to do the research think that they want to see.
Again, there is nothing wrong with offering hardware for free, or as part of the software licensing agreements, save for potentially environmental issues. I, for instance, have a Pentium 2 at 300 Mhz that runs FreeBSD 4.9 just fine, and although it's not my "main" computer, it works just fine, and it's fully functional, not in a landfill somewhere. So aside from the recycling of computer parts, which is actually a good thing, if any company wants to offer a "hardware for free" deal, why not? It's probably not going to be very popular idea unless you can somehow force or coerce people into the deal. How can some of the largest computer firms in the world not realize that the sales pitches are going to get a lot more difficult as computers become something that we take for granted, and as millions of individuals experience constant, daily frustration with viruses and other software inadequacies that amongst other things, create financial and human resource burdens on the end-user? Perhaps they pay researchers millions of dollars to produce research that says otherwise?
It seems that some of these folks somehow think that the rest of the world will follow what they do, even though they completely refuse to follow, much less pay attention, to the rest of the world.
Just recently it became known that Intel had reverse-engineered an AMD chip, This is a sign of progress - it's a sign that anyone who wants to put in an honest day's work, that anyone who wants to succeed, can. It just shows how far AMD has come, and how strong of an organization it is. This is a good thing; it's a wonderful, powerful success story, and having your chip reverse-engineered by Intel is actually, in a sense, probably quite an honor.
The truth is something I think most of us can see, but I won't repeat it here, maybe it's better to just let it play out.
How about bash? It is a programming language, and most of us use it every day. It also shows you why command lines don't actually suck that bad.
It's probably not the easiest thing, no programing language is, but there is not all that much weird logic stuff (you can skip some of it) and you can also apply what you learn immediately to speed up your day-to-day stuff.
But you haven't installed Linux for her yet have you?
I recommend that you install Linux or some BSD on her computer and then teach her how to program shell scripts in bash.
Right now, there is some little bit of a disarray, with online degrees, people returning for online degrees later in life and so forth.
No, I don't think that there is enough talk about plagiarism, I think that a lot of people have no idea what it is. See, now that there is online checking, everybody talks about it. Five years ago, it wasn't a really big deal, it was just "don't copy other people's work", which of course, you would never do. The internet is a new thing, and copying off the internet is an instinctual thing, because the internet has not really been defined to the level that "other people's papers" or "books at the library" have been.
I think the individual has a point, and I do think that this is all just that it fits into a formula (i.e. our software says you are a plagiarist) as opposed to something that is a pattern of laziness.
Obviously, what he did was wrong, no doubt, but expelling and individual from the university is going too far; it's not fair. Of course, in the spirit of competition, it's fair, but this is a transition phase right now, and these services are a new thing. In the future, everyone knows about plagiarism, but five years ago it wasn't that big a deal.
If you are willing to pay someone to find criminals or "plagiarists", they will find lots of plagiarists. If you are willing to pay someone to criticize you, you will find someone to criticize you. There is always someone who will find something wrong and egregious, ESPECIALLY if you pay them to. These services are being PAID to find plagiarists, of course they are going to find plagiarists.
I think that it's gone too far when there is financial incentive to find plagiarists.
I think that right about now would be a good time to have some "new" thing. The new new wave, or whatever. The industry goes in cycles. Things get really dull, really boring, and then something happens, something new, exciting, and cool.
The new thing that happens really has to be new, exciting, and cool, not just marketed to be that way or whatever.
I think the difference today, as opposed to previously, is that not only does the new thing need to have a style, an approach to life, an attitude, etc..., not only does it have to be creative, exciting, innovative, and so forth, it also has to be innovative, creative, and "thinking outside the box" when it comes to how to get itself out to large numbers of people.
The old way of going through the record labels, finding that one "cool" person who is willing to give something different a try, finding that one cool label, or whatever - that isn't going to work anymore, most of those folks have probably been laid off.
So the media (or methods), the way you get the music out needs as much innovation as the music and genre itself. Perhaps iTunes has what it takes to do this; but until everyone owns an mp3 player or an Ipod, this might make it difficult.
And then there is the question of whether or not there really is such a thing as "talent". Is there any ONE person, whose "talent" is so far above and beyond all of the other hard-working, struggling artists that this person deserves to be placed on a pedestal like that?
It would probably take a 300-page book to explain everything I am going at here, but the relevant part to this discussion is that there needs to be "talent" at navigating this uncertain present and future with regards to "media" (i.e. CD, DVD, download, etc...). Without competent talent to navigate that, we are not going to see any more Hendrixes. But then again, that's another 300 page book.
The long and the short of it is that being an artist is very difficult if that's what you want to do. Maybe we won't have any more pop artists like we did in the past; maybe those times are over. Hendrix didn't need to die; Bon Scott didn't need to die; all of these folks didn't really need to do all of that cocaine and heroin and everything else; we know better now. We now know that cigarettes aren't all that cool anymore.
It's over. And judging from how the artists have been treated, and how "talent" is essentially being "punished" for being so talented, this might very well be a good thing. It's disturbing to see how talented people are treated by the record labels. You would think that in a free society such as America, this kind of nonsense would not be taking place. First and foremost is to respect yourself and those around you, and it seems to me that if one were to spread any message to millions and millions of people around the world it would be exactly that message - repect yourself and those around you.
Maybe the message that the world needs now is not one of style and popularity, but of self-respect and respect for other fellow human beings. Diversity and equality, education, not ignorance. So in a way, the shallowness of the nonsense is not altogether a bad thing, provided there is something else to occupy people's attention; something intelligent and interesting for people to absorb their minds in once they realize how shallow their "idols" really are.
There are a few individuals in the world, who are "talented". Then there are a few more individuals who understand talent enough to realize that it is a rare thing, and they respect this rare thing. (might I add that they also think that they are incredibly cool for realizing something that they think that only they themselves have the capacity to see...) But for the most part, a lot of the consumers don't really get this. There is so much "boilerplate" (i.e. dancing women, teenage heartbreak, fancy cars, spiky hair and guitars) that you will present a similar image to the world whether or not you are talented or not. The talent has
yes, that's true. Let's define "the". Is it 50%, 60%, 70% or 100% of the 90%+ overall internet users using IE? Probably not 100% of the 90%+ overall, but a significant percentage, yes - they would just stop going to that website. Absolutely.
But again, if you told the IE users that it was 50%, or 20%, or 30% of the people stopped going to the website, and the remainder upgraded to a different browser, or if people were under the impression that upgrading your browser is a good thing to do (which it is, actually), they just might believe you. In which case they would be doing themselves, and the development process of everything other than IE a favor. I don't know that an individual user of a website is completely cognisant of the statistics surrounding browser usage to the point where they would demand that all sites conform to IE; of course, many would (do) - no doubt about it - but I think that some individuals might be tempted to at least try to use a different browser "just to try it out" or something.
What percentage would stop using the website? Certainly not 100%, certainly not 0%. It's somewhere inbetween. Slowly, over time, people might realize that there are other options.
I think this is a good thing, and I personally would have nothing against anyone if they chose to use IE. Nor would I advocate lying about the statistics in order to achieve personal agendas. It's just important that there are choices, and that people are aware of the fact that there are choices. There is room in the world for more than one software company, there is room in the world for more than one web browser software program. It's all in the mind; it's all about how you think about it.
The interesting thing to think about is what percentage of the people using IE realize that 95% of the people are using IE?
If, say, for instance, a certain popular webpage stopped working as well on the non-longhorn IE, would people switch?
This might happen, actually. The statistics show that 90+% are using IE, but if you said it was 20%, what % of those 90%+ would believe you and not know the difference? Certainly not 0%!
Monoculture refers to the practice of growing one crop in the same location year after year, as opposed to the backyard garden, where a garden might contain tomatoes, lettuce, cucumbers, zucchini, etc..., all grown in different corners of the garden from one year to the next. Monoculture has nothing to do with DNA. It simply refers to the practice of the giant factory farms growing one crop (e.g. potatoes) over hundreds of acres - year after year after year.
It's not necessarily that GMO makes monoculture worse, it's what monoculture does to the soil. The soil acts like an immune system for the plants, provided that you aren't just growing one plant in the same place year after year after year; the pests and weeds get accustomed; the natural resistance of the soil and the monoculture plants goes down; it's all about the soil. The problems that are created because of the destruction of the quality of the soil when you monoculture any plant for any length of time leaves the farmers "vulnerable" to the chemical solutions offered by the chemical companies. They would never need those solutions if they didn't monoculture in the first place.
But it's so engrained in the society, this is the way the big farms do things, that it's really hard to change. It's the quality of the soil, that's what counts. Monoculture messes up the quality of the soil, which leaves many farmers looking for chemical solutions (which messes up the soil even more), and an opportunity for companies like Monsanto to come in with GMO crops is created. Monstano is answering a need in the marketplace that is created by the drive to monoculture crops. If there weren't farmers who wanted to monoculture, Monsanto would have to look for a different line of work; but seeing as how monoculture is prominent everywhere, Monstano is going to be rather busy.
I was under the impression that this guy was definitely not an organic or non-GMO farmer; and that he did in fact use Roundup from time to time, as necessary. I don't doubt that there are many farmers who would find Roundup resistance to be something desirable, as it allows one to use that particular pesticide on a need-based regimen, as opposed to a preventative-based regimen, dumping loads of pesticides on the weeds at a point in time where there is no canola growing. In a twisted sense, that's good for the environment, you can hold off using Roundup until it is just absolutely necessary to kill some weeds and not worry about killing off your crops when you do that. But if there is insufficient evidence, then so much for that theory.
The only good thing that might come out of this is that the extent of the spread of GMO's is going to be known, by Monsanto, for financial and legal reasons. If not Monsanto so they can sue, then it should be the govt. or some other official agency, so that the extent of the spread of GMOs is known. It is still considered a dangerous technology, and no doubt a powerful one. Also, a completely unnecessary one, other than for making money for the big companies (just like most pharmaceuticals are unnecessary, and pharmaceutical company profits are almost entirely enabled via patents). GMO companies know that patents allow them to recoup their R&D, just like pharmaceutical companies.
In any case, there should be a database of some kind, or something that functions like a database, a registry, if you will, of farmers who are growing GMOs, so that this is known. If Monsanto is willing to do it, as they obviously are, for financial and legal reasons, at least that's somebody doing it.
For corn, for instance, I understand that the testing kits for GMOs are relatively inexpensive (approx $10-20 US) - and non-GMO products, especially organic products, will get you, as a farmer, a premium at market. If you do the organic farming right, also, you will have increased yields per acre and a better profit margin. Chemicals are expensive.
One solution is to grow organic, non-GMO crops, test them extensively, and then sue your neighbors if their crops contaminate yours. It's one way to deal with the issue. Turn the tables. If you contaminate my organic, non-GMO crops with your GMOs, then I sue your butt. That might provide some sort of incentive there.
You have to have faith, really - it's a crazy world out there. But the thing that I always thought was interesting about this case was that some of the lower courts felt, and re-affirmed twice that the farmer knew that he was saving seeds that had displayed significant Roundup resistance. Again, this frees up the pesticide schedules, and saves you from having to do preventative pesticide applications. Of course, crop rotation and other methods are far more effective, but this area of Canada has hundreds of acres of canola monocultures going on. A lot of these farmers apparently grow canola, and only canola, and have done so for generations. In any case, this is a bad idea, it's bad for the soil - you need to grow lots of different crops, a variety of crops, for crop rotation and other non-chemical methods of pest control to work.
Monoculture farmers put themselves at risk to begin with by engaging in the enviornentally destructive practice of monoculture. Thjs weakens the environment and allows companies like Monsanto to capitalize on the problems inherent in sustaining a monoculture of a certain type of crop.
I hate to say this, but it's true. A good co-worker friend of mine is a paranoid schizophrenic. To make a long story short, I asked him if he had ever not taken his meds, or gotten sick of taking them, and he told me a story of what happened a week or two after he once decided he was sick of taking his meds and decided he wasn't going to take them anymore - how he crawled out of his window in his underwear and ran down at top speed to the nearest ER because "they" were coming to "get him".
So that's the important thing - you can fool yourself into thinking that not taking your meds might be OK, or that it's really not necessary, but the truth be told, the meds tend to really, really help, even though your rational mind objects to having to take them all the time.
It's very tempting not to take them, but just take them. Nothing good will come of it if you stop taking them.
Diet might help; improving your diet might help; work with your doctor to improve your diet; but don't stop taking the meds. Exercise might help; work with your doctor to improve your diet and exercise regimen; but don't stop taking your meds. It's mentally difficult to resign to taking these meds indefinitely, especially with the side effects, but the best thing you can do is just to keep taking them. I cannot emphasize this enough.
Yes, it sucks. It sucks royal. But just take them, they make it better. Not perfect, but better. Better than what happens if you don't take them.
Nothing wrong with hiring the unqualified. Actually, hiring based on "the smile" or some other non-technically related thing is smart. Nothing wrong with that at all. Problem starts when they keep leaving, right? Anyway; theory is different from practice, so that's probably where it all breaks down.
The idea is to create a work environment where people want to stay; if my boss called me a mushroom, or said that I "brighten up the room" or whatever, I would be like "forget you, you jerk." Or "dregs" - a human being... a "dreg"? Dude!!! Isn't it obvious why you can't hang on to your employees? Geez!!!
The main focus, really, and this may be hard to deal with, is job satistfaction. Job satisfaction is the secret - this is what improves customer service satisfaction ratings; this is what improves (lowers) turnover rates. With happier customers, happier employees, and lower turnover rates, you know what happens? Profit margins improve. Get your budget right here.
Try a little respect and human understanding. You can't treat your employees like mushrooms, dregs, or flower arrangements and expect them to feel wanted (which they are, actually, because I am sure that most people have lower turnover rates as a goal).
The fact that you can't keep your employees around means that 1) your business could be achieving a healthier profit margin than it is; 2) your employees could be more satisfied with their work environment; 3) your customers could be happier with the customer service they recieve.
It seems to me that your goal is not "to attract the best help desk people in the field". Your goal is obviously some politically motivated sense of the American dream. I guess that's fine, but I wouldn't try to characterize it as magnamosity or having a large heart. Running a successful help desk is about one thing (more or less): attracting and keeping the best tech support help desk people in the world. Maybe I, once I twist my mind, might decide to one day dig a hole with my Made in America shovel and invite "W" over to stand around and chuckle at the sheer brilliance of the whole thing. (just kidding)
There are probably hundreds of individuals out there who are trying to run training centers but are failing abysmally at it; you are trying to run a help desk, but are, via what could be called a "happy accident", running a highly efficient and successful training center!
Silly as this may sound, I think that you need to open up a training center. You could really make a great difference in the world by doing those kinds of things that you are really passionate about.
They shouldn't be allowed to ask for a cease and desist, or something like that. Holding a patent for the purposes of preventing anyone from using it serves no purpose.
The SCO thing happened and it seemed like that there was really nowhere to go to really get the information on the case. Basically, it's one case, one company, and we know enough at this point to be comfortable in realizing that the risks are basically limited to frivolous lawsuits (or were), and that there are millions of dollars available for anyone that becomes the innocent victim of a frivolous lawsuit. So basically, it sucks, but it's OK. It's the type of situation where remaining calm is of utmost importance. Yes, you are at risk if you use Linux, but at risk of what, and it might not necessarily cost you your business, you will have people to help you out if you need it, and life is full of risks anyway. Not to justify these underhanded legal tactics, just to say that what's really important is to "chill out", while keeping your eyes open. Outrage is not your friend in uncertain times. Peace of mind, the ability to relax, the ability to remain calm, think on your feet, etc... that's what will make the difference. Instead of reacting to idiots who incorrectly think that they know all about computers because they know how to point and click, remaining calm and being able to entertain their completely incorrect fantasies will get you (and Linux, I might add) much further than creating walls and burning bridges. Now is the time to shine with your calm, relaxed approach. That's my opinion, anyway. Life is full of risks, and in order to make the right decisions you need to be somewhat "chill". If you "freak out", you are more likely to execute poorly planned strategies and make bad decisions.
So with Groklaw, it is in part because the claims are SO outrageous and absurd, even funny, yet for some people quite serious legal problems, this is why that approach has worked. Just like the previous poster said. What concerns me now is this: what is fair and balanced? Is there any benefit to presenting both points of view?
What Groklaw has been doing recently is simply presenting anything and everything that is negative and incorrectly and unjustly critical of Linux. While this type of approach was certainly necessary, and entirely entertaining, even downright hilarious when the SCO claims first came out, it's not really necessary now, because we know the details, and we know that there wasn't REALLY anything misappropriated with Linux. I think that SCO has, in effect, cried wolf, and that now very few people will ever believe that Linux could possibly infringe. So it is important to stay alert, no doubt about that.
Reading Groklaw at this point is not what it used to be. It used to be that you needed more information about the SCO case, and didn't know where to look. It used to be rather amusing to read all those absurd press releases. Definitely entertaining. At this point in time, many of us realize that Linux is sometimes going to be attacked by those who don't know anything about computers, and we are all well aware of the absurdity of these individuals who don't really know what they are talking about while refusing to listen.
So, looking at it from a PURELY objective point of view, you have a website that takes anything and everything that is anti-Linux and re-publishes it and gets it "out there". So in a superficial sense, if you don't really look deeper, and see that Groklaw is disputing, or breaking down these anti-Linux articles and authors, what you have a website that presents to the world every anti-Linux article known to humankind. To maintain this "breaking down" momentum, to maintain the critical momentum necessary to justify what essentially amounts to giving a secondary platform to these anti-Linux authors and organizations is the balance that I am concerned about.
That's the thing that gets me. It's a choice. Number one, you can gloss over the headlines, which basically tend to be either voluminous legal documentation or empassioned reviews of anti-Linux articles, which tend to suck you in; or you can really understand WHY the headlines are posted, and you can really
Sure, the American justice system may have its flaws, but I doubt that the prosecution in the OJ case went to court saying "We're going to try to put this innocent man in jail so that we can look good and get a promotion". Well, maybe one or two of them were characterized a having had a similar attitude, but it's not like they didn't have a case, and it's not like they didn't have any evidence.
The problem SCO is going to have is that they underestimated "free software", because they didn't really know ENOUGH about "free software". The people bringing the suit aren't computer scientists, and the analysts claiming that SCO "might have something" aren't computer scientists either. The only chance that they have of winning is if the justice system fails; it's not Linux that's being questioned; it's the US justice system that's being questioned; it's the US justice system that's being sued.
Furthemore, I think many of us now realize that you can't really sue Linux, because "free software" is everyone, because "free software" is freedom of speech; it's not a company like Microsoft that you can sue. All over the world, people aren't going to stop using Linux, and if SCO is going to get anywhere, they are going to have to win many court cases, and they are going to have to show the same evidence in each case, evidence that, with almost complete certainty, it can be said, does not exist.
Now... to be fair, I imagine that it would be possible to turn SCO around; look at what Lee Iacocca did with Chrysler - it's possible, but with four patent lawsuits from IBM hanging over your head, a Red Hat lawsuit, and numerous GPL violations to boot, this is going to be difficult, so in their case, there is, let's say, a grave danger of "Live by the sword, die by the sword", happening. Unlike some people, I don't really wish any harm to SCO, because it's not SCO's fault - SCO is a business, and I would never wish financial disaster on any business. That's unethical. It's PEOPLE who work at that business that have encountered misinformation. Misinformation about Linux, misinformation about Unix, misinformation about "free software". It's basically, if I were to boil it down to a simple statement, it's that these lawsuits against Linux are being brought by individuals who aren't computer scientists.
I remember that there was a case in the US where a man sued "the devil". He claimed the devil had caused him to commit all these sins and hurt his loved ones and that he was taking the devil to court because he wanted to bring him to justice. The reason that the case was thrown out was because the court did not know where to send the devil's subpeona to. So similarly, with Linux, the question is how do you subpeona free speech? Where does free speech live? What is free speech's address? Many would say America. See? But basically, it's freedom of speech that is giving all of these proprietary software companies headaches. And suing freedom of speech is, in a strange but opposite way, like suing the devil.
after reading about stuff like this, I feel empowered and justified to never have any kind of unjust run-in with any less-than-ethical coworker or supervisor looking to gain by hurting others and putting them in unjust situations.
the ability to talk your way out of anything, ESPECIALLY when you actually haven't done anything wrong, but are being used as a scapegoat or a target to help someone else look good, or say, for instance, in a situation where you may be eventually threatening you manager's job or competing with someone for a promotion; things like that.
It's very refreshing and empowering to realize that any pressure that you feel is probably there because you are putting it on yourself, or are in some way contributing to placing yourself in a position where you are allowing others to place pressure on you.
It's really about what's right and what's wrong; and the right thing to do is to do good work, to be effective and to do things right; to respect yourself and those around you. Seeing through other's motives, or ignoring their confused senses of right and wrong in order to protect that respect, and to protect that sense of right and wrong, enabling yourself to continue to do good work for the right reasons, and to avoid pressures and lies and half-truths that represent a generic methodology or philosophy that many employees could care less about working or not working, these are the right things to do.
It seems that you really need a kind of social engineering in order to continue respecting yourself and those around you. That's the most important thing, to respect those around you. This social engineering comes across as respect, actually... the whole idea of being smooth under pressure. Applying that to a situation where a manager may be looking for a reaction from you, applying that to a situation where you, as an employee, may not feel quite so respectful, really just shows that remaining courteous and respectful will basically allow you to get away with anything (especially if that something is nothing), so in that sense, remaining courteous and respectful even when you are in a situation where there is an unjust attempt to elicit a negative response, using social engineering will allow you to remain respectful towards yourself and respectful to those around you. You can use it for bad, but you can also use it against bad, for good. On top of everything else, the unjust individuals will never know what happened to them, which is, in a sense, a way of bringing those who have not realized the importance of respecting of others to a type of silent justice.
Leadbelly sang "Gallows Pole", the song that Led Zeppelin covered; basically, true story - a long time ago here in the US, you could buy your way out of a death sentence, a hanging. If you didn't have any money, or if your mother, or your brother, didn't bring you some silver, or bring you some gold, there was nothing to keep you from the gallows pole. It's a true story, and people love the blues. Hey, man this story gives me the blues. Right on.
I think that what this is all about is just basically learning the customs of America, as illogical and backwards as they may seem. Get "in the know", and you will know what you can do and what you can do, even if you went to another country people would think that you are weird.
That's the way it is.
Point being, there is a way you can stay out of trouble if you try. It's not that hard.
GNU/Linux could sort of be considered a Unix "clone", so to speak, and it is very closely related to BSD. Hanging very close to something that already has existed since 1969, the problems might occur in newer, additional functionality.
A patent would not just affect one person, so the whole thing about not being able to afford to litigate when there are millions of people around the globe that would also be paying license fees doesn't really get down to the heart of the matter.
This is why I think that it's good to have larger organizations involved, at least to some extent; even though a small organization might get hit up or targeted, larger organizations will be affected; this will act as a natural deterrent, discouraging the "targeting the weak" strategy.
Open source is for everyone, so everyone gets to defend it. Right? So if you attack open source, you attack everyone. Not a very good idea, if you asked me. I'm not saying it won't happen, but I do think that there are some people who like being paranoid; and there are some people who are just determined to smell that veritable blue cheese on their moustache, being convinced that the entire world smells very awful for some reason.
Is there really anything that can be done about the problem? Perhaps there is, but I know for a fact that there will be people who will make the whole thing seem a lot worse than it really is, there will be people who will exaggerate and point fingers for political purposes. I think that a lot of the percieved problem is coming from the very people who are proclaiming that there is a problem.
We need to look at what can be done, and then do it. POSIX compliance is a good thing. Complying with the Open Group's specs are a good thing. Stick with the tried and true, don't get too fancy. Cooperation, cooperation and faith are the most important things. Keep a positive attitude, and do everything you can to prevent, and solve the problem. I don't see how whining, moaning, complaining, or pontificating are going to do anything to make the situation any better. Speaking of which...
There are options, or settings, that you can do for ext3, the default is slower, but it saves your data. Ext3 not only journals metadata, like XFS, etc... but it also journals data, which is the only filesystem that does that, if I understand this correctly.
/etc/fstab and reboot, no big deal.
"data=writeback" mode does no data journaling, only metadata journaling, and you would probably see better performance here. Although, you could lose data in the event of a power outage (no fun). Same thing applies to XFS, JFS - you could lose data because only metadata is being journaled, not real data.
"data=ordered" mode - inbetween, still no data journalling, but there are provisions that make it less likely to lose data in the case of a power problem. It has something to do with the way it journals the metadata and the way the filesystem interacts with the disk that makes is a little slower than data=writeback but also a little more secure than data=writeback if you get a power outage.
"data=journal" mode - this journals data and metadata, and with the exception of a few situations, is the slowest. The least likely to lose your data, but also much slower.
I am assuming, or at least it looks like, these tests were run with the default data=journal - so to be fair, they should have been run in data=writeback, or maybe even all three modes. Again, all you have to is specify in
It would probably be better to compare the ext3 in data=writeback mode.
See there is a step that you have to take here...
In this scenario, if you are the buyer (person x) and the seller (person y) screws you over - here is what I understand, or at least I have seen many people explaining this on the internet:
You have to make a commitment to PayPal to use their protection, not your credit card's protection. You have to go through PayPal's dispute resolution (or whatever they call it), through their 800 numbers and emailing them. You can't (well you can, but many folks have stated that they have had problems with collection agencies when they have done that without working with PayPal first...) charge back the item on your credit card. Or, in other words, you should never have to charge back your credit card when you use PayPal. PayPal will take care of any complaints you have for you, and according to some customers, their word is final in this matter. So you shouldn't plan on using any protection that you have with your credit card company when you use PayPal. This is my understanding, anyway. I am not saying that PayPal's complaint resolution system doesn't work, but my point is that it's there and when you use PayPal that is what you have to use first, not your credit card protection. Some people have stated that in effect, you are essentially waiving any protections that you have with your CC company when you use PayPal, because PayPal has their own complaint resolution system.
By using PayPal, you are making a commitment to them, that you will use their complaint resolution, which, obviously, works for many folks, but sometimes, apparently, has disastrous results to the sellers, from individuals who claim they never recieved things that they actually did, or individuals who claim that they didn't recieve what they expected. But then again, the credit card companies don't have the most wonderful setup for merchants either; the merchants might very well still be out the merchandise, not to mention being out the money from a stolen card, etc... Sellers carry a lot of risk, both with PayPal, and with the credit card companies as well.
Also, there are now all these "Ebay hacks" and "get rich selling stuff on Ebay" how-tos everywhere. So obviously, a lot of what you are seeing on there now is not really a "good" deal - it's someone trying to get rich.
I think there are some niches where Ebay can really do excellent things, and where it will always be useful, but trying to move it into the mainstream, I think, is the wrong idea.
Could you imagine having feedback like that about yourself from every job you ever had, from every supervisor who ever didn't like you or treat you fair? Having to resolve any difference that you have with someone in two lines of text? I think it's a bubble that's going to burst, as more and more people try to use it to get rich, instead of using it in a more positive way, as a way to exchange things in a fair marketplace setting, a way to bring people together that have things to share with one another, interesting things, unusual things, things that you can't get anywhere else. I think Ebay should try to return to its roots, so to speak, because it's a great idea that can really bring people together. I don't think that it's a way to "get rich", I don't think that it should be used in that way. I also think it might be a good idea to make sure sellers state whether or not something is drop ship or 3rd party item they don't personally own, etc... I think the zero inventory concept is a bad idea to begin with, and it's probably even a worse idea when it's an auction.