...were not allies, as they clearly sided with Saddam and made it quite clear that they wanted to keep his regime propped up.
Pure semantic wrangling over the term ally. Also, this discussion isn't about the war in Iraq, it's about how one shouldn't just throw their power around to get whatever they want just because they can.
If you'd like to discuss my particular reason for opposing the war in Iraq (which has nothing to do with not wanting to get rid of Hussein and everything to do with the backhanded way the administration went about drumming up the support) go post in my journal.
Allow me to wander a minute: Is it just me, or is there a whole new slew of AC trolls - Bush supporters? I wouldn't be suspect of them being trolls if it wasn't that they just take arbitrary comments and say basically "yay! Bush and his administration rocks!" without actually commenting on WHY they feel that way? They're apparently just trolling people who disagree with Bush. Or is this not new?
Anyway, back to the subject:
When it comes to international relations dude, that is what works.
No, it doesn't. You're obviously as clueless about MODERN international relations as it gets (just like our illustrious Leader). We are treading water in Iraq and if we don't get any help soon we're likely going to drown. Guess why? Because we went to war against another country against our powerful allies' wills. Now, they don't want anything to with us. The smaller, weaker countries are pricking us to death with needles by not helping us after we snubbed them.
Welcome to the real world, kid. You can't just swing your fists around to get your way. It just doesn't work like that and you, and the imbecilic post-baby-boomers in this country who feel that we're somehow a privileged elite in world history are finding that out the hard way.
We do whatever the hell we want and if you don't like it, tough.
Soooo... your theory is that the biggest dog should always get its way? Soooo... you're an anarchist (and, to all the idiot anarchists out there: shut up - I'm well aware that you are so ridiculously stupid that you think that anarchy would work in any other fashion)?
Following your line of reasoning, I should hunt you down, beat the snot out of you, take your car, family, house, and all other worldy posessions as mine.
Why? Because unless you're significantly stronger or faster, more alert, and/or better armed than the average person I see day to day in this country, I'm willing to bet that I can and it would make my life better if I did. Bettering my life is certainly in my interests. If you don't like it: tough.
I love people like you because you think you'll always be the biggest bully and that justifies your position that you're entitled to whatever you want at other people's expense (such as how the U.S. abuses other countries through some of its policy).
Grow up. Odds are beyond good that I could beat you like a crippled dog if we went mono-a-mono on the street - that doesn't mean I should or I'll always be in that position. Never assume that you're on top of the pile and never abuse your position if you happen to find that you are for the moment. The tables can turn in a heartbeat, and if all you did was abuse your strength while you had it, you can expect the same treatment from your former victims when you lose it. If you need a self-serving reason to do it (because you apparently are a pathetic, selfish bastard who never outgrew the "gimme" phase of childhood - much like our current regime): it's certainly more to your advantage to ensure your long term survival than your short term comfort.
Are you lying if you don't know the truth but think you're telling it?
Think about it... how often do you tell the boss the truth about an issue? Did you ever try? If you have the average PHB, you'll get the emptiest zombie-like stare you'll ever see in your life.
I imagine they in the know at Microsoft (the programmers and engineers and whatnot) tell the boss(es) what the boss(es) want to hear, not the truth. Who knows... he might actually believe what he's saying.
Then again, maybe their "statistical sample" was the fastest ever Microsoft fix against the slowest ever Linux patch.
Are you suggesting that there's such thing as a sober marketer? My experiences with marketing suggest otherwise.... and I've generally felt the only way to get away from those unpleasant experiences was for me to get stoned...
Related reading is a little sparse on this story, but I think these two links under the "related links" section should bring you up to speed (although the reading in the second is undoubtedly dry...):
I'm not trying to be smart, but that's like sarcastically saying "Next time I'll bone up on the rules of baseball before I play a baseball game" after you're thrown out for trying to run straight to 2nd base...
This case has been around for years and Bernstein is a well known figure in the field of crypto research. If it was something that interested you enough to enter the story, you should have either already known about it or gone and looked up the history of the case. Google's for research, Slashdot's for current news.
So I think the article sends the right message to business people:
Correction: It could have sent the right message to people. Unfortunately, Mr. Lyons sees no value in understanding what "free" in "free software" really means. His consistently uninformed, slanted, and frequently infammatory jabs indicate this to be true.
In addition, Forbes is intentionally spreading this misinformation because it jives with what a large number of techless managers (a large part of its following) already think and feel: I don't understand the proprietary stuff we're using now, but if I keep forking over wads of cash, we should be safe. I don't feel comfortable not forking over wads of cash to this OSS thing because I don't want to take the time to understand this new business model to reassure myself that it's okay.
If Mr. Lyons would simply present facts, then it would be ok. I certainly don't think that the GPL is good in every situation and, as a result, I don't GPL ALL of my code. However, Mr. Lyons has painted the FSF as some sinister, shadowy organization just waiting to jump out of an alley and club you on the head. This is certainly a better description of the BSA which the author mentions all of no times. In fact, while the FSF may go overboard in its zealous beliefs from time to time, they're a sedated lamb compared to the predatory BSA.
Have you read every word of every copyright or EULA for every program you have ever used?
Do you read the comment banner for every.c file in the free software you just downloaded and ran?
You can probably get away with it if you are not selling products like routers.
Absolutely not. But then... if companies like Linksys are going to base an entire product line on someone else's codebase, they need to do that. In today's addle-brained "market" where companies that produce no discernable service or good can sustain themselves entirely on filing lawsuits (PanIP, SCO), I would never be so stupid as to use an unknown code chunk I just found lying around without knowing exactly where it came from and how I was allowed to use it.
The GPL is certainly no magical silver bullet to solve every problem, but it isn't some dark, infectious disease waiting to hurt your bottom line. Just like any other tool at a company's disposal, it has to be carefully considered in context. If it doesn't fit your needs you don't use it - very simple. You (as in Forbes - not you) can't just toe the line that Mr Lyons does: The GPL is Evil because I don't care to understand it and companies like Linksys and Cisco bungle things up and get themselves in trouble.
The article "Linux's Hit Men" is in particularly poor taste - particularly the highly unprofessional "comrade" jab at the end - and is badly misinformed.
I have to wonder: what are the writer's views on organizations such as the BSA? The BSA employs S.W.A.T. style tactics to "raid" organizations and ensure compliance with convoluted, difficult to understand EULAs. They slap egregious fines on companies for minor mistakes that result in non-compliance with Draconian licensing schemes. They have attacked companies' pockets hard to make "examples" of them. They have even been known to show up on a company's doorstep with armed law enforcement officials to perform their audits.
I see none of this from the FSF.
Instead, I see an organization that is applying reasonable pressure to ensure voluntary compliance with a clear, concise, and up-front license that companies have agreed to. When this fails, the FSF is capable of flexing legal muscle to ensure that companies do not break these agreements.
If a developer chooses to release the fruits of his or her labor for free, why does Forbes feel that this individual should not have the benefit of asking the people who take advantage of this free base to comply with a clear set of guidelines for using and distributing it? If companies such as Linksys do not wish to agree to these terms, they should not expect to be allowed to reap the rewards of using someone else's hard work for free. They are free to do their own development or find an alternative - they are by no means bound to the GPL before they choose to use any GPL'ed software.
Like any other model, Open Source is not perfect. However, when it comes to cases such as this, I'd rather deal with the FSF's very reasonable demands for resolution rather than the BSA's unbelievable fines and lawsuits any day.
That's easy. Just buy one and cancel it right away. I did the same thing to my Verizon telephone account - cancelled it in indignation, that is. As you can see, they've been badly wounded by it. Last legs and all that - you just watch.
Yea, but they make it out to be a bad thing. Unreadable, 10-page long EULAs from Microsoft, Oracle, etc. are "Good Things". Somehow, the GPL, which is much clearer and easier to understand, IMHO, is a "Bad Thing" just because stupid people don't read it.
I guess the right to enforce your license only applies to big gigadollar corps.
I really don't understand the insistence on making things work with/like Microsoft's comparable offerings when Microsoft has made it so clear that it doesn't want to play with the other kids in the playground. If Microsoft is shady and might sucker punch you, don't play with them, it's that simple. It would be NICE to have compatibility and portability, but if they won't bite, screw them - go head to head instead, they're not offering anything innovative or interesting in the forseebale future (ooooooh... more plahdoh-y UIs... whoopee).
Anyone who is stupid enough to migrate to Mono on the "goodwill" of Microsoft deserves to lose their job. If you want to use Linux and need that type of framework, get some Java developers and shut the hell up.
Let's see here....NET is not innovative, revolutionary, or even interesting or particularly useful. It DOES however have lots of nice advertising and plenty of marketing hype. Gee, at least it has SOMETHING that Java doesn't. Sooooo... basically...the idea here is to poke Microsoft until it wakes up and bites your damn head off when you could have just stayed away and used Java to do THE SAME DAMN THING?
Sorry, but while Mono and it's ilk may be interesting from a technical standpoint, there's no good business case for it (or.NET, really, unless you're in one of those idiotic "Microsoft-only" houses where noone can conceive that Microsoft may have good AND bad offerings just like any other company). Move to Mono and get bitch-slapped by Microsoft? Too bad. Go upgrade your IQ a few points and stop whining. You could have used the Java framework and had portability and Linux and Windows and been just fine. Taking a huge risk on Mono for a small gain when you could have taken almost no risk on Java for the exact same gain just proves you're stupid.
Except in 1986 Starscream didn't step on you or fry you with lasers while you watched corny Saturday morning cartoons and ate packaged sugar in milk for breakfast.
While Linux certainly does, in some respects, hold more of the share of scientific computing than some other OSes, I think what it really implies is that Linux has become a neat buzzword that clueless journalists use to sound smart.
If you're a Linux fan, don't complain though, PHBs looooove vacuous buzzwords that they find in articles and trade journals. It's how technology moves in the business world.
Re:Keep putting it off. Please !
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 1
Access 97 works just fine as a cutesy little desktop database for the people here who want to make pretty reports out of small bits of data. However, many of them use Access 2000 at home because they made more recent purcahses. The difference in the Jet engine between the two makes it nigh impossible to make them interoperable. Why should I run around and upgrade everyone's copy of Office just because Microsoft's engineers (or PHBs, or whoever is to blame) are too stupid to make their own products interoperable? The only "benefit" to be gained would be that I don't have to sit and explain every couple of weeks that even though both programs are Access, they can't necessarily read each other's files. I'd have to scratch and claw for the budget to do it, then, I'd have to spend a hell of a lot of time actually doing it. And THEN we'd STILL have interoperability problems for awhile.
The point is that the farther Microsoft goes with "upgrades" the less compelling reasons they provide to actually follow the upgrade path. So, to make sure people keep buying more from them, they just break interoperability to force migrations. How would you feel if they came out with a new kind of gasoline tomorrow that requires you to buy a new car and stopped selling the current kind? It would be OK if there was a very good reason for it (e.g. leaded vs. unleaded), but, otherwise, it's just plain mean.
No benefit == no upgrade. If Microsoft can't offer something that compels people to upgrade voluntarily, they should be back at the drawing board, not trying to force people to the bargaining table by making their lives harder.
And I'd wager the suits considering switching to Samba also expect more.
What, you mean the suits who get all of their "technical" information by clicking the ads that come up in articles like this? AHHHH AHAHAHAHAHAH! *sniff* Sorry... you're funny!
Alright, I'm just pulling your leg - that's the first thing that hit me too. What good does it do me to hear some guy saying "Nyah nyah, we're better!" without seeing both the data AND the complete configurations that each system was tested under. I want to (and do) believe Samba whooped Microsoft that bad, but I also want to know how... if there's one thing you need to learn quickly in IT, it's to never trust benchmarks until you've confirmed them on your own.
I think you have it backwards. People keep telling me that if I don't like this whole "pre-emptive" attitude that our new Evil Overlords have, that I should leave the country. Which is it now?
You all realize, I assume, that if this sort of bullshit continues, you will be unable to make ANY purchase without the risk of being sued.
The combination of not making them label DRM-ed garbage and suing everyone who tries to use anything they own outside of the company's narrowly-allowed set of criteria means that anyone at all is always at risk for being sued even if they think they don't own anything that's DRM-ed.
I can respect that Microsoft wants to make money, and they're good at doing it, but in all the wrong ways. There's been a good bit of suggestion that Microsoft kept it off to keep support costs down from clueless dolts who can't figure out how to punch holes in a firewall to use what they want. It's not that the customer was right, it's that they didn't want to hear from the whiny customer and ICF is an "all or nothing" deal.
Making things easier for the end user should NOT be the primary concern until security and stability are taken care of. If these people want to learn how to run servers, then let them learn some basic networking. It's not really that hard to do basic config on a firewall. I have no sympathy for people who can't read one or two pages out of a manual. IF.... IIIIFFFF there is a way to make all of this a very simple process, then by all means - go for it. I'm all for letting regular people who don't want to get bogged down in technical details use things like servers and p2p etc. But, hey, if it comes at the cost of security - especially if that has the potential to affect others like this issue does, too frickin' bad. If you want a Counterstrike server, learn how to use a damn firewall or shut up and leave ICF on.
As for the HP thing.. well, that's because HP is stupid, apparently. If I were him I'd just stay away from HP if it's going to download and install crap blindly. Mind you, unlike this HP "feature" (it's not a bug...), I wouldn't be real pleased if they just turned it on blindly and didn't tell the consumer about it. Put it in the Welcome guide or whatnot and if the end user skips the guide, well, too bad. Guess they should've been a little more patient with the handholding if they're not going to learn to use their system.
This stuff actually works pretty well if you let it, the problem is mostly a particular large software vender that thinks normal users should have email clients that can execute programs or scripts. Thats just a bad idea.
Excellent point - I meant to tie that in with my original argument, but forgot in my rambling rant.
Anyway, the.exe extension is just meta information about the file, same as the 'x' attribute in linux. The difference is just in if that meta info is sent with the file.
This is exactly my problem, though. The meta-information on files should be held by the filesystem, not tied to the file. The filename should be arbitrary and each filesystem should be responsible for containing the meta-information on the files that are placed in it. Not only does this boost interoperability (because any given file is just that: an arbitrary collection of bits on a disk), it enhances security. I suppose it could hinder performance and would be annoying to have to tell the filesystem what each file is when you add it to the fs, but that's just tough beans - give the option to contain meta-data with a file and let people sow their own seeds of destruction if they enable it. If you think about it, that's sort of how Linux works now (not that Linux doesn't have its own problems with default installs).
Generally, I'm a big fan of not letting people do much of anything by default if it could hurt them (obviously, almost anything can hurt you, so within reason) but letting them choose to do it explicitly with dire warnings about it. That way, clueful people can enable potentially dangerous things and clueless people who do it anyway can be blamed for being idiots. Right now, if someone runs an exe that says "cute_little_puppy_dog.mpg.exe", they may be naive.. but hey... the system (and mail client) let them do it. Although, I have to wonder how many stupid people would still save executable files to their disks and run them anyway even if the client couldn't do it for them?
A close family member's Windows 2000 box was 0wn3d within days of getting broadband
That's a problem at a level the ISP should be blind to. I think the question is: "Why did this person have a business-based OS running on a home box?" Ok, so, if they needed Win2k, they should know how to administer it. If not, they should have XP Home. Home should be where all the port-blocking occurs by default.
Putting the burden on the ISP is fixing the wrong problem. The ISP should be able to remain blissfully unaware of security at the customer level. The system should either be hardened and limited by default so that home users can't hurt themselves and have to learn the technology to use it, or it should be made brilliantly clear that if you're going to use this system, you'd better understand the risks associated with doing so.
My own anecdote is in order. I want to use Windows on the 'net so I'm setting up a Linux proxy for it. I'm accepting the responsibility for making sure that I don't hurt myself with my Linux system. Unfortunately, I'm doing that because my gaming rig - the Windows box, despite being billed as a "Home" system, doesn't seem to take ANY responsibility for not letting me get hurt. What's the problem again? I have to understand networking technology to set up a proxy server so my Windows box that's supposedly aimed at people who don't want to know technology doesn't hurt me because I don't know networking. THAT'S the problem, and it's not the ISP's responsibility to take care of it.
But it's NOT generally trustworthy, it's just stupid. It's also "convenient", that's why they used it to begin with - simplify things for the average user who doesn't want to take a lousy 5 minutes to understand the difference between what makes a file executable (or, even worse: what the difference is between an executable and plain file).
The problem with the file extension mechanism is that it's used in conjunction with a filesystem that pretty much knows "you're an administrator" or "you're someone else". Since most people have to run in administrator mode most of the time (yet another Stupid Windows Problem), it says "yup - you're an admin and this file ends in.exe so BAM! Run it!" and then all hell breaks loose. Having to explicitly identify a file as executable and being able to specify who and what (filesystem-wise) can execute things is critical. Just saying that something can execute just because of its name is dumb but oh so convenient.
By including the pamphlet in the box, Gateway is then possibly opened to suits because of the hard link between Gateway and updating AV software.
That may be how the idiot PHBs at these places think, but I don't buy it at all. Computer Maker A puts pamphlets into the box to tell people how not to hurt themselves while using their PC, but that doesn't open them to lawsuits from some idiot who hurts themself? What if I'm tugging blindly at cords and pull the monitor down on my head? Can I sue Computer Maker A because their pamphlet didn't warn me not to pull on cords that were attached to various components?
They don't put them in because it would cost them a precious bit of money to do so and it would also cut down on some of the garbage they shove in the box as peripheral, paid advertising, that's all. It's a simple matter of "What the customer doesn't know won't hurt them" attitude, except what they don't tell the customer WILL hurt them.
The mention of support problems doesn't hold either because they include 3rd party A/V software on a regular basis. Why doesn't that cause a support problem? If I'm the typical clueless (PC-wise) home user and I, like most typical clueless users don't RTFM, I would probably assume that if it came with the PC, it was either Computer Maker A's or Microsoft's responsibility to support this "Norton AntiVirus Thingy" that I have.
They don't do it that way because they're managed by lazy morons in management looking to keep costs cut to get big bonuses, not because they have a good reason... just like most management decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
Pure semantic wrangling over the term ally. Also, this discussion isn't about the war in Iraq, it's about how one shouldn't just throw their power around to get whatever they want just because they can.
If you'd like to discuss my particular reason for opposing the war in Iraq (which has nothing to do with not wanting to get rid of Hussein and everything to do with the backhanded way the administration went about drumming up the support) go post in my journal.
Allow me to wander a minute: Is it just me, or is there a whole new slew of AC trolls - Bush supporters? I wouldn't be suspect of them being trolls if it wasn't that they just take arbitrary comments and say basically "yay! Bush and his administration rocks!" without actually commenting on WHY they feel that way? They're apparently just trolling people who disagree with Bush. Or is this not new?
Anyway, back to the subject:
When it comes to international relations dude, that is what works.
No, it doesn't. You're obviously as clueless about MODERN international relations as it gets (just like our illustrious Leader). We are treading water in Iraq and if we don't get any help soon we're likely going to drown. Guess why? Because we went to war against another country against our powerful allies' wills. Now, they don't want anything to with us. The smaller, weaker countries are pricking us to death with needles by not helping us after we snubbed them.
Welcome to the real world, kid. You can't just swing your fists around to get your way. It just doesn't work like that and you, and the imbecilic post-baby-boomers in this country who feel that we're somehow a privileged elite in world history are finding that out the hard way.
We do whatever the hell we want and if you don't like it, tough.
Soooo... your theory is that the biggest dog should always get its way? Soooo... you're an anarchist (and, to all the idiot anarchists out there: shut up - I'm well aware that you are so ridiculously stupid that you think that anarchy would work in any other fashion)?
Following your line of reasoning, I should hunt you down, beat the snot out of you, take your car, family, house, and all other worldy posessions as mine.
Why? Because unless you're significantly stronger or faster, more alert, and/or better armed than the average person I see day to day in this country, I'm willing to bet that I can and it would make my life better if I did. Bettering my life is certainly in my interests. If you don't like it: tough.
I love people like you because you think you'll always be the biggest bully and that justifies your position that you're entitled to whatever you want at other people's expense (such as how the U.S. abuses other countries through some of its policy).
Grow up. Odds are beyond good that I could beat you like a crippled dog if we went mono-a-mono on the street - that doesn't mean I should or I'll always be in that position. Never assume that you're on top of the pile and never abuse your position if you happen to find that you are for the moment. The tables can turn in a heartbeat, and if all you did was abuse your strength while you had it, you can expect the same treatment from your former victims when you lose it. If you need a self-serving reason to do it (because you apparently are a pathetic, selfish bastard who never outgrew the "gimme" phase of childhood - much like our current regime): it's certainly more to your advantage to ensure your long term survival than your short term comfort.
Are you lying if you don't know the truth but think you're telling it?
Think about it... how often do you tell the boss the truth about an issue? Did you ever try? If you have the average PHB, you'll get the emptiest zombie-like stare you'll ever see in your life.
I imagine they in the know at Microsoft (the programmers and engineers and whatnot) tell the boss(es) what the boss(es) want to hear, not the truth. Who knows... he might actually believe what he's saying.
Then again, maybe their "statistical sample" was the fastest ever Microsoft fix against the slowest ever Linux patch.
Marketing? I think he is just stoned.
Are you suggesting that there's such thing as a sober marketer? My experiences with marketing suggest otherwise.... and I've generally felt the only way to get away from those unpleasant experiences was for me to get stoned...
Related reading is a little sparse on this story, but I think these two links under the "related links" section should bring you up to speed (although the reading in the second is undoubtedly dry...):
Dan has a more complete archive than the EFF's at: http://export.cr.yp.to/
I'm not trying to be smart, but that's like sarcastically saying "Next time I'll bone up on the rules of baseball before I play a baseball game" after you're thrown out for trying to run straight to 2nd base...
This case has been around for years and Bernstein is a well known figure in the field of crypto research. If it was something that interested you enough to enter the story, you should have either already known about it or gone and looked up the history of the case. Google's for research, Slashdot's for current news.
So I think the article sends the right message to business people:
Correction: It could have sent the right message to people. Unfortunately, Mr. Lyons sees no value in understanding what "free" in "free software" really means. His consistently uninformed, slanted, and frequently infammatory jabs indicate this to be true.
In addition, Forbes is intentionally spreading this misinformation because it jives with what a large number of techless managers (a large part of its following) already think and feel: I don't understand the proprietary stuff we're using now, but if I keep forking over wads of cash, we should be safe. I don't feel comfortable not forking over wads of cash to this OSS thing because I don't want to take the time to understand this new business model to reassure myself that it's okay.
If Mr. Lyons would simply present facts, then it would be ok. I certainly don't think that the GPL is good in every situation and, as a result, I don't GPL ALL of my code. However, Mr. Lyons has painted the FSF as some sinister, shadowy organization just waiting to jump out of an alley and club you on the head. This is certainly a better description of the BSA which the author mentions all of no times. In fact, while the FSF may go overboard in its zealous beliefs from time to time, they're a sedated lamb compared to the predatory BSA.
Have you read every word of every copyright or EULA for every program you have ever used? .c file in the free software you just downloaded and ran?
Do you read the comment banner for every
You can probably get away with it if you are not selling products like routers.
Absolutely not. But then... if companies like Linksys are going to base an entire product line on someone else's codebase, they need to do that. In today's addle-brained "market" where companies that produce no discernable service or good can sustain themselves entirely on filing lawsuits (PanIP, SCO), I would never be so stupid as to use an unknown code chunk I just found lying around without knowing exactly where it came from and how I was allowed to use it.
The GPL is certainly no magical silver bullet to solve every problem, but it isn't some dark, infectious disease waiting to hurt your bottom line. Just like any other tool at a company's disposal, it has to be carefully considered in context. If it doesn't fit your needs you don't use it - very simple. You (as in Forbes - not you) can't just toe the line that Mr Lyons does: The GPL is Evil because I don't care to understand it and companies like Linksys and Cisco bungle things up and get themselves in trouble.
I took a different approach (criticism welcome):
That's easy. Just buy one and cancel it right away. I did the same thing to my Verizon telephone account - cancelled it in indignation, that is. As you can see, they've been badly wounded by it. Last legs and all that - you just watch.
Yea, but they make it out to be a bad thing. Unreadable, 10-page long EULAs from Microsoft, Oracle, etc. are "Good Things". Somehow, the GPL, which is much clearer and easier to understand, IMHO, is a "Bad Thing" just because stupid people don't read it.
I guess the right to enforce your license only applies to big gigadollar corps.
Exactly. Thank you.
I really don't understand the insistence on making things work with/like Microsoft's comparable offerings when Microsoft has made it so clear that it doesn't want to play with the other kids in the playground. If Microsoft is shady and might sucker punch you, don't play with them, it's that simple. It would be NICE to have compatibility and portability, but if they won't bite, screw them - go head to head instead, they're not offering anything innovative or interesting in the forseebale future (ooooooh... more plahdoh-y UIs... whoopee).
Anyone who is stupid enough to migrate to Mono on the "goodwill" of Microsoft deserves to lose their job. If you want to use Linux and need that type of framework, get some Java developers and shut the hell up.
Let's see here... .NET is not innovative, revolutionary, or even interesting or particularly useful. It DOES however have lots of nice advertising and plenty of marketing hype. Gee, at least it has SOMETHING that Java doesn't. Sooooo... basically...the idea here is to poke Microsoft until it wakes up and bites your damn head off when you could have just stayed away and used Java to do THE SAME DAMN THING?
Sorry, but while Mono and it's ilk may be interesting from a technical standpoint, there's no good business case for it (or .NET, really, unless you're in one of those idiotic "Microsoft-only" houses where noone can conceive that Microsoft may have good AND bad offerings just like any other company). Move to Mono and get bitch-slapped by Microsoft? Too bad. Go upgrade your IQ a few points and stop whining. You could have used the Java framework and had portability and Linux and Windows and been just fine. Taking a huge risk on Mono for a small gain when you could have taken almost no risk on Java for the exact same gain just proves you're stupid.
Perl zealots to figure out the Perl insults and it will be complete.
Name it fuckyou.pl and run it.
Not nearly as complicated or smart as it looks... in fact.. the whole bit shift thing is just lame... but hey, give me a break - it's late.
Except in 1986 Starscream didn't step on you or fry you with lasers while you watched corny Saturday morning cartoons and ate packaged sugar in milk for breakfast.
The future is so cool!
While Linux certainly does, in some respects, hold more of the share of scientific computing than some other OSes, I think what it really implies is that Linux has become a neat buzzword that clueless journalists use to sound smart.
If you're a Linux fan, don't complain though, PHBs looooove vacuous buzzwords that they find in articles and trade journals. It's how technology moves in the business world.
Access 97 works just fine as a cutesy little desktop database for the people here who want to make pretty reports out of small bits of data. However, many of them use Access 2000 at home because they made more recent purcahses. The difference in the Jet engine between the two makes it nigh impossible to make them interoperable. Why should I run around and upgrade everyone's copy of Office just because Microsoft's engineers (or PHBs, or whoever is to blame) are too stupid to make their own products interoperable? The only "benefit" to be gained would be that I don't have to sit and explain every couple of weeks that even though both programs are Access, they can't necessarily read each other's files. I'd have to scratch and claw for the budget to do it, then, I'd have to spend a hell of a lot of time actually doing it. And THEN we'd STILL have interoperability problems for awhile.
The point is that the farther Microsoft goes with "upgrades" the less compelling reasons they provide to actually follow the upgrade path. So, to make sure people keep buying more from them, they just break interoperability to force migrations. How would you feel if they came out with a new kind of gasoline tomorrow that requires you to buy a new car and stopped selling the current kind? It would be OK if there was a very good reason for it (e.g. leaded vs. unleaded), but, otherwise, it's just plain mean.
No benefit == no upgrade. If Microsoft can't offer something that compels people to upgrade voluntarily, they should be back at the drawing board, not trying to force people to the bargaining table by making their lives harder.
And I'd wager the suits considering switching to Samba also expect more.
What, you mean the suits who get all of their "technical" information by clicking the ads that come up in articles like this? AHHHH AHAHAHAHAHAH! *sniff* Sorry... you're funny!
Alright, I'm just pulling your leg - that's the first thing that hit me too. What good does it do me to hear some guy saying "Nyah nyah, we're better!" without seeing both the data AND the complete configurations that each system was tested under. I want to (and do) believe Samba whooped Microsoft that bad, but I also want to know how... if there's one thing you need to learn quickly in IT, it's to never trust benchmarks until you've confirmed them on your own.
I think you have it backwards. People keep telling me that if I don't like this whole "pre-emptive" attitude that our new Evil Overlords have, that I should leave the country. Which is it now?
How ironic that you just welcomed our new Defense Contract Management Agency overlords... weirdo.
You all realize, I assume, that if this sort of bullshit continues, you will be unable to make ANY purchase without the risk of being sued.
The combination of not making them label DRM-ed garbage and suing everyone who tries to use anything they own outside of the company's narrowly-allowed set of criteria means that anyone at all is always at risk for being sued even if they think they don't own anything that's DRM-ed.
What a frightful New World...
That's a load of hogwash, if I may say so.
I can respect that Microsoft wants to make money, and they're good at doing it, but in all the wrong ways. There's been a good bit of suggestion that Microsoft kept it off to keep support costs down from clueless dolts who can't figure out how to punch holes in a firewall to use what they want. It's not that the customer was right, it's that they didn't want to hear from the whiny customer and ICF is an "all or nothing" deal.
Making things easier for the end user should NOT be the primary concern until security and stability are taken care of. If these people want to learn how to run servers, then let them learn some basic networking. It's not really that hard to do basic config on a firewall. I have no sympathy for people who can't read one or two pages out of a manual. IF.... IIIIFFFF there is a way to make all of this a very simple process, then by all means - go for it. I'm all for letting regular people who don't want to get bogged down in technical details use things like servers and p2p etc. But, hey, if it comes at the cost of security - especially if that has the potential to affect others like this issue does, too frickin' bad. If you want a Counterstrike server, learn how to use a damn firewall or shut up and leave ICF on.
As for the HP thing.. well, that's because HP is stupid, apparently. If I were him I'd just stay away from HP if it's going to download and install crap blindly. Mind you, unlike this HP "feature" (it's not a bug...), I wouldn't be real pleased if they just turned it on blindly and didn't tell the consumer about it. Put it in the Welcome guide or whatnot and if the end user skips the guide, well, too bad. Guess they should've been a little more patient with the handholding if they're not going to learn to use their system.
This stuff actually works pretty well if you let it, the problem is mostly a particular large software vender that thinks normal users should have email clients that can execute programs or scripts. Thats just a bad idea.
Excellent point - I meant to tie that in with my original argument, but forgot in my rambling rant.
Anyway, the .exe extension is just meta information about the file, same as the 'x' attribute in linux. The difference is just in if that meta info is sent with the file.
This is exactly my problem, though. The meta-information on files should be held by the filesystem, not tied to the file. The filename should be arbitrary and each filesystem should be responsible for containing the meta-information on the files that are placed in it. Not only does this boost interoperability (because any given file is just that: an arbitrary collection of bits on a disk), it enhances security. I suppose it could hinder performance and would be annoying to have to tell the filesystem what each file is when you add it to the fs, but that's just tough beans - give the option to contain meta-data with a file and let people sow their own seeds of destruction if they enable it. If you think about it, that's sort of how Linux works now (not that Linux doesn't have its own problems with default installs).
Generally, I'm a big fan of not letting people do much of anything by default if it could hurt them (obviously, almost anything can hurt you, so within reason) but letting them choose to do it explicitly with dire warnings about it. That way, clueful people can enable potentially dangerous things and clueless people who do it anyway can be blamed for being idiots. Right now, if someone runs an exe that says "cute_little_puppy_dog.mpg.exe", they may be naive.. but hey... the system (and mail client) let them do it. Although, I have to wonder how many stupid people would still save executable files to their disks and run them anyway even if the client couldn't do it for them?
A close family member's Windows 2000 box was 0wn3d within days of getting broadband
That's a problem at a level the ISP should be blind to. I think the question is: "Why did this person have a business-based OS running on a home box?" Ok, so, if they needed Win2k, they should know how to administer it. If not, they should have XP Home. Home should be where all the port-blocking occurs by default.
Putting the burden on the ISP is fixing the wrong problem. The ISP should be able to remain blissfully unaware of security at the customer level. The system should either be hardened and limited by default so that home users can't hurt themselves and have to learn the technology to use it, or it should be made brilliantly clear that if you're going to use this system, you'd better understand the risks associated with doing so.
My own anecdote is in order. I want to use Windows on the 'net so I'm setting up a Linux proxy for it. I'm accepting the responsibility for making sure that I don't hurt myself with my Linux system. Unfortunately, I'm doing that because my gaming rig - the Windows box, despite being billed as a "Home" system, doesn't seem to take ANY responsibility for not letting me get hurt. What's the problem again? I have to understand networking technology to set up a proxy server so my Windows box that's supposedly aimed at people who don't want to know technology doesn't hurt me because I don't know networking. THAT'S the problem, and it's not the ISP's responsibility to take care of it.
But it's NOT generally trustworthy, it's just stupid. It's also "convenient", that's why they used it to begin with - simplify things for the average user who doesn't want to take a lousy 5 minutes to understand the difference between what makes a file executable (or, even worse: what the difference is between an executable and plain file).
The problem with the file extension mechanism is that it's used in conjunction with a filesystem that pretty much knows "you're an administrator" or "you're someone else". Since most people have to run in administrator mode most of the time (yet another Stupid Windows Problem), it says "yup - you're an admin and this file ends in .exe so BAM! Run it!" and then all hell breaks loose. Having to explicitly identify a file as executable and being able to specify who and what (filesystem-wise) can execute things is critical. Just saying that something can execute just because of its name is dumb but oh so convenient.
By including the pamphlet in the box, Gateway is then possibly opened to suits because of the hard link between Gateway and updating AV software.
That may be how the idiot PHBs at these places think, but I don't buy it at all. Computer Maker A puts pamphlets into the box to tell people how not to hurt themselves while using their PC, but that doesn't open them to lawsuits from some idiot who hurts themself? What if I'm tugging blindly at cords and pull the monitor down on my head? Can I sue Computer Maker A because their pamphlet didn't warn me not to pull on cords that were attached to various components?
They don't put them in because it would cost them a precious bit of money to do so and it would also cut down on some of the garbage they shove in the box as peripheral, paid advertising, that's all. It's a simple matter of "What the customer doesn't know won't hurt them" attitude, except what they don't tell the customer WILL hurt them.
The mention of support problems doesn't hold either because they include 3rd party A/V software on a regular basis. Why doesn't that cause a support problem? If I'm the typical clueless (PC-wise) home user and I, like most typical clueless users don't RTFM, I would probably assume that if it came with the PC, it was either Computer Maker A's or Microsoft's responsibility to support this "Norton AntiVirus Thingy" that I have.
They don't do it that way because they're managed by lazy morons in management looking to keep costs cut to get big bonuses, not because they have a good reason... just like most management decisions.