Excuse me... are you so nieve to think that Woz or any other person, company or government would not want to use it for personal gain, or that it's design is not completely explained?
Our privacy is being tested by technology like this.
Sure, its sounds like a great convenience, but what happens when it becomes a "social standard"? It amazes me how people are so willing to give up their rights in the name of technology or economic growth.
Once you understand that training is the GI's main concern (and hopefully your's), you will begin to see that the next issue is security and reliability. If you are an M$ user or admin you can think back to how many times you've had to reboot because of a virus or a stupid lock-up. Its a scarey thought to think that our national security on all military platforms (ie: ships, tanks, MISSLES) cross paths with an M$ box. That not only worries me, be gets me very TICKED OFF because of the lack of reasoning with our military commanders. Its a bunch of crap that Mr. Gates and his propaganda machine can insinuate that using M$ will save money. HOW IN THE HECK IS THIS TRUE? Hmmm, lets create an industry that serves only one company because of the selfish rules they enforce. Heres the proposition... I will create incomplete and unreliable software and charge taxpayers license fees on a yearly basis to continue development on a product that will never be delivered as promised. Once I have the government contract I now sell my source code to China and Russia... who knows where it goes from there (kinda like the nukes lost during the Soviet break-up). You people need to wake up and realize that having M$ on every computer in the world makes M$ the world leader, not fiscally, but rather like a school yard geek-turned-bully. How many times have you heard the saying "Knowledge is POWER." Well, theres your answer, thats what the real issue is here. You are an ignorant ass to think that some idiot in Redmond wont want to add a 'little something' to a program which allows leaks national security. Maybe you should spend a few years in combat to get a better perspective on combat readiness and national security while your butt is on the line, FOOL.
Its true that the average GI can get things done quicker with an M$ OS, but that is on his home PC. While at work though, its about following a SOP (Standard Operating Proceedure) which renders this whole issue MUTE. All you military folk out there should speak up on this. I see so much crap about the fears of having a GI running a computer through a bash prompt... DUH, wake up, do you actually think that Uncle Sam would train everyone on the finer details of *nix? DUH!!! Its about a front-end app that the GI will be working with which means moving a mouse around, plugging in data, just like you would with an app like Excel, or even a Web browser. ITS NOT ABOUT THE OS, its about training.
Its amazing how in just a few replies the majority of you crush a simple idea. Not too many foward thinkers here. I could envision a completely private network over wireless, or any other medium. ISP's have been doing it for years. I was an ISP for a few years, not too much of a challenger. It looks like a natural evolution for this topic... who would have thought there would have been so much fuss over things like the Instant Messenger between M$ and AOL. Its not much different. Its more about the community, not the all-mighty dollar. All of you who are home-town Linux evangelist's and all you hackers and mod'ers aught to put your heads together and come up with a 'real service' based on products that share your vision. These people that want to talk about bandwidth limits and spammers are just trying to look important... not the type of people who are very creative. It could upset me enough to look at putting 'tried and true' projects together for just such a network. Look at some things here... LRP, Bluetooth, and all the cheap hardware that we have now. Why should we continue to be screwed by the TelCo's? Its a free world, shake things up a bit.
Just take this argument into two simple arena's: server and desktop. I've worked on NT 4.0 (seems the most stable) for about 5 years now. I got tired of dealing with the licensing issues, so I moved into RHL 8.0... what a life saver. I have had some Unix background, but to get 8.0 running was not that complicated. I dont have to worry about what server has what licenses, update crashes... you know, the headaches that follow MS every where it goes. But, when you consider how easy 98 and 2k ran as a desktop system... they dominate. In the server field, MS imitate's in a market that is best left to tools like WebMin and PHP-Nuke. Why pay for tools that cost a fortune when you can use tried-and-true open source sofware that has such a broad range of immediate support (ie:/. forums).
Outstanding points to make to the ignorant masses, both Linux and M$ communities.
What I tend to see these days are techs and engineers who have lost the zeal of understanding the underlying reasons (and solutions) for hardware and software issues. We have been trained to "upgrade" the problem. Remember those days when you first started tinkering around, the days when you were categorized as "s/he's dangerous"? You were learning and understanding. Just because you get older doesnt mean technology is slowing down.
Look at it this way... you have the blind M$ tech who is given an ambiguious blue screen or red 'X' in a message box which leaves no other course of action but to reboot, reboot, reboot... and if that doesnt work, reboot again. If all else fails, upgrade. This is not a solution, its a work-around for a problem that will someday be given a different description. No wonder why M$ is what they are today... dont fix the problem, give it a new name. It all boils down to respect for the consumer.
There comes a point though when accountablility should rest upon management. Just as a software developer is held accountable for their design or coding flaws, so should the IT/IS/CTO be held accountable for loss of production. If you know that something will fail with a high degree of certainty, why continue to use it? Did the masses go out and continue to buy tires that they knew could cause physical and fiscal harm not only to themselves, but those close and dear to them, not to mention passer-by's? How is the act of purchasing predictably unreliable OS's/NOS's any different?
Use the right tools for the right job. Sure, you most likely will be more cost effective as a small business to use software that can keep you focused on what you do best, but once demand goes beyond capability (both litterally and those relating to licensing) your attention should turn to software that can grow with you. It amazes me how employees and consultants boast the benefits of M$ NT family of software knowing that the cost out-weights its usefullness. Downtime speaks louder than words
Look at your options and make intelligent decisions based on a track record that does not fall short of what your customers expect of you, not convenience.
Your points are valid and I argue those same points almost every day with those whom have been asimilated, but lets not forget the real reason why this thread is alive and well... Its because M$ decided to move into the server environment using a GUI that any monkey can become familiar with. They create an infinitely complex and limited NOS that grows because it is familiar, and to some extent you can justify that.
There are two problems with this:
1. After the whole cosmos is familiar with how a mouse functions, it becomes clear that you instantly have 'experts' who say "It works on a desktop, lets put it on a server". Ooops, we dont have a NOS, let quickly put one together before the market is out of reach. Now you have someone familiar with a mouse administering a NOS that is clearly not ready for a production environment and a business model that only supports the vendor. How managers can justify this is beyond me. The culprit here is the term compatibility, it is being used in a context of a GUI, not the function. How can a tech preach the benefits of a system that requires a reboot when a service locks up? A typical tech's response to any M$ issue is "Did you reboot"? Get real...
2. Now that you have a half-baked NOS running half-baked services, you find out that every hacker in the world is now developing "virus's" looking for their 5 minutes of fame, setting the IT industry on its ear and at the same time feeding the M$ monster and affiliates (ie: Symantec). If it wasnt for the malicious intent of a hacker, I would applaud each one for exploiting the incompetance of those who worship false Gods.
If you are serious about security, stability and compatibility, put your money where your mouth is and support vendors who share those ideas. Dont throw your money at a machine that forces you to upgrade your software and licensing. Wake up and realize that you are only paying for a RC-xx or Beta that never lives up to its promises, its an illusion. What you are really paying for is a pipe dream and headaches.
The best example of this is M$'s new commercial, you know the one, we are saving millions by moving our PDC's into a Forest.".... ya that one. I would love to develop software that is so inflated from the get-go, and later explain how cost effective it will be to bring old symptoms into a new light. Developers and engineers should be more responsible than that.
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse me... are you so nieve to think that Woz or any other person, company or government would not want to use it for personal gain, or that it's design is not completely explained?
Our privacy is being tested by technology like this.
Sure, its sounds like a great convenience, but what happens when it becomes a "social standard"? It amazes me how people are so willing to give up their rights in the name of technology or economic growth.
What does this have to do with the artice?
Once you understand that training is the GI's main concern (and hopefully your's), you will
begin to see that the next issue is security and reliability. If you are an M$ user or admin
you can think back to how many times you've had to reboot because of a virus or a stupid lock-up.
Its a scarey thought to think that our national security on all military platforms (ie: ships,
tanks, MISSLES) cross paths with an M$ box. That not only worries me, be gets me very TICKED OFF
because of the lack of reasoning with our military commanders. Its a bunch of crap that Mr. Gates
and his propaganda machine can insinuate that using M$ will save money. HOW IN THE HECK IS THIS TRUE?
Hmmm, lets create an industry that serves only one company because of the selfish rules they
enforce. Heres the proposition... I will create incomplete and unreliable software and charge taxpayers license fees on a yearly basis to continue development on a product that will never be delivered as promised. Once I have the government contract I now sell my source code to China and Russia... who knows where it goes from there (kinda like the nukes lost during the Soviet break-up). You people need to wake up and realize that having M$ on every computer in the world makes M$ the world leader, not fiscally, but rather like a school yard geek-turned-bully. How many times have you heard the saying "Knowledge is POWER." Well, theres your answer, thats what the real issue is here. You are an ignorant ass to think that some idiot in Redmond wont want to add a 'little something' to a program which allows leaks national security. Maybe you should spend a few years in combat to get a better perspective on combat readiness and national security while your butt is on the line, FOOL.
Its true that the average GI can get things done quicker with an M$ OS, but that is on his home PC. While at work though, its about following a SOP (Standard Operating Proceedure) which renders this whole issue MUTE. All you military folk out there should speak up on this. I see so much crap about the fears of having a GI running a computer through a bash prompt... DUH, wake up, do you actually think that Uncle Sam would train everyone on the finer details of *nix? DUH!!! Its about a front-end app that the GI will be working with which means moving a mouse around, plugging in data, just like you would with an app like Excel, or even a Web browser. ITS NOT ABOUT THE OS, its about training.
Amen. I couldnt agree more.
Its amazing how in just a few replies the majority of you crush a simple idea. Not too many foward thinkers here. I could envision a completely private network over wireless, or any other medium. ISP's have been doing it for years. I was an ISP for a few years, not too much of a challenger. It looks like a natural evolution for this topic... who would have thought there would have been so much fuss over things like the Instant Messenger between M$ and AOL. Its not much different. Its more about the community, not the all-mighty dollar. All of you who are home-town Linux evangelist's and all you hackers and mod'ers aught to put your heads together and come up with a 'real service' based on products that share your vision. These people that want to talk about bandwidth limits and spammers are just trying to look important... not the type of people who are very creative. It could upset me enough to look at putting 'tried and true' projects together for just such a network. Look at some things here... LRP, Bluetooth, and all the cheap hardware that we have now. Why should we continue to be screwed by the TelCo's? Its a free world, shake things up a bit.
Just take this argument into two simple arena's: server and desktop. I've worked on NT 4.0 (seems the most stable) for about 5 years now. I got tired of dealing with the licensing issues, so I moved into RHL 8.0... what a life saver. I have had some Unix background, but to get 8.0 running was not that complicated. I dont have to worry about what server has what licenses, update crashes... you know, the headaches that follow MS every where it goes. But, when you consider how easy 98 and 2k ran as a desktop system... they dominate. In the server field, MS imitate's in a market that is best left to tools like WebMin and PHP-Nuke. Why pay for tools that cost a fortune when you can use tried-and-true open source sofware that has such a broad range of immediate support (ie: /. forums).
What I tend to see these days are techs and engineers who have lost the zeal of understanding the underlying reasons (and solutions) for hardware and software issues. We have been trained to "upgrade" the problem. Remember those days when you first started tinkering around, the days when you were categorized as "s/he's dangerous"? You were learning and understanding. Just because you get older doesnt mean technology is slowing down.
Look at it this way... you have the blind M$ tech who is given an ambiguious blue screen or red 'X' in a message box which leaves no other course of action but to reboot, reboot, reboot... and if that doesnt work, reboot again. If all else fails, upgrade. This is not a solution, its a work-around for a problem that will someday be given a different description. No wonder why M$ is what they are today... dont fix the problem, give it a new name. It all boils down to respect for the consumer.
There comes a point though when accountablility should rest upon management. Just as a software developer is held accountable for their design or coding flaws, so should the IT/IS/CTO be held accountable for loss of production. If you know that something will fail with a high degree of certainty, why continue to use it? Did the masses go out and continue to buy tires that they knew could cause physical and fiscal harm not only to themselves, but those close and dear to them, not to mention passer-by's? How is the act of purchasing predictably unreliable OS's/NOS's any different?
Use the right tools for the right job. Sure, you most likely will be more cost effective as a small business to use software that can keep you focused on what you do best, but once demand goes beyond capability (both litterally and those relating to licensing) your attention should turn to software that can grow with you. It amazes me how employees and consultants boast the benefits of M$ NT family of software knowing that the cost out-weights its usefullness. Downtime speaks louder than words
Look at your options and make intelligent decisions based on a track record that does not fall short of what your customers expect of you, not convenience.
Your points are valid and I argue those same points almost every day with those whom have been asimilated, but lets not forget the real reason why this thread is alive and well... Its because M$ decided to move into the server environment using a GUI that any monkey can become familiar with. They create an infinitely complex and limited NOS that grows because it is familiar, and to some extent you can justify that.
There are two problems with this:
1. After the whole cosmos is familiar with how a mouse functions, it becomes clear that you instantly have 'experts' who say "It works on a desktop, lets put it on a server". Ooops, we dont have a NOS, let quickly put one together before the market is out of reach. Now you have someone familiar with a mouse administering a NOS that is clearly not ready for a production environment and a business model that only supports the vendor. How managers can justify this is beyond me. The culprit here is the term compatibility, it is being used in a context of a GUI, not the function. How can a tech preach the benefits of a system that requires a reboot when a service locks up? A typical tech's response to any M$ issue is "Did you reboot"? Get real...
2. Now that you have a half-baked NOS running half-baked services, you find out that every hacker in the world is now developing "virus's" looking for their 5 minutes of fame, setting the IT industry on its ear and at the same time feeding the M$ monster and affiliates (ie: Symantec). If it wasnt for the malicious intent of a hacker, I would applaud each one for exploiting the incompetance of those who worship false Gods.
If you are serious about security, stability and compatibility, put your money where your mouth is and support vendors who share those ideas. Dont throw your money at a machine that forces you to upgrade your software and licensing. Wake up and realize that you are only paying for a RC-xx or Beta that never lives up to its promises, its an illusion. What you are really paying for is a pipe dream and headaches.
The best example of this is M$'s new commercial, you know the one, we are saving millions by moving our PDC's into a Forest.".... ya that one. I would love to develop software that is so inflated from the get-go, and later explain how cost effective it will be to bring old symptoms into a new light. Developers and engineers should be more responsible than that.