Unix isn't really a piece of intellectual property that you can assign a lawyer to and own in court. It's not a destination either, nor a product. It's a path, a journey. A Way. It's the Unix Way. Unix is more of a religion than anything else. You can't own a religion.
For ten or fifteen years Unix has been sidetracked by commercial interests that want to claim ownership of the Way because they see value in it; it has power and utility. They have all failed for the most part because they don't understand that to lock it up and deny it the vital dynamism of the community is to kill it.
GNU, and now Linux also, set the Unix Way free again. They adopted the religion, prosteletyzed it throughout the world and with new adherents drive it to transcendent new heights. But they only took the Way - not the bread, the work, the root or fruit of the elder Unix. That tree is poison now, and its fruit too.
As has probably been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Unix is a trademark of The Open Group and the list of current products that are granted the use of it are here.
I wasn't promising to outperform a lolcat. Lolcats might sometimes be percieved as funny. I've never been mistaken for a lolcat, and I'm not often mistaken for funny. This is serious business.
You're a fossil. Exchange is an email server and we're pretty much done with it given its foibles and incompatibilities. I design hardware solutions for 10K+ user environments, and frankly the users are tired of Microsoft's weak ass shit. It's not like it's rocket science. It's email. We've been doing email since the '80s. They should have figured it out by now. If they ain't yet, they ain't gonna.
You might have been right if there was some market that wasn't aware there is a Google. I doubt such a market exists. Faced with a device that can't find this known useful resource, the natural response would be to fix it. That's a reasonable reaction because the device itself without access to google is in fact broken. This objection just goes more to the part of my post that reads: "If the vendors get to be too much trouble, phone users can just load a proper version of Android and be done with them. "
You aim for the bullseye. That's the goal. Before you let the arrow go you accept that once it's loose it will hit what it hits. Sometimes it misses the target entirely when you're new. Sometimes it hits the blue ring or the red. When you're skilled you can be sure it will hit the yellow dot. But the faint blue plus scribed in the middle of the yellow dot? You can't even see it at 50 yards distance. You may as well expect to split an arrow that hit that spot. That's the Robin Hood level of archery. Legendary to the level of perhaps being impossible.
The iPad didn't just hit the center of the faint plus at the heart of the yellow spot. It did that and caught fire. It may as well have split an arrow to get there. Steve Jobs described the iPad as "magical" and I have to agree with him. The thing inspires adoration that defies reason. To merely hold it in public is to invite envy and respect. It could be an inert mockup and it could get you laid. I don't lean toward that sort of thing, but I'm still in awe of it. That's a lot of power to put in the hands of mortal men.
The purpose of a mandate for AV/AM bloatware is to require a platform that needs one. There is no better example of putting the cart before the horse. Yes, there are admins so stupid that they fall for this nonsense. My best guidance for dealing with an organization so stultified that this is Policy: flee.
More productive than a policy that requires heavy armor and cloaking devices for every employee: a policy that mandates not being a target in the first place. An example might be Google. Google will authorize your desktop use of Windows if you can defend your need for it and how your benefit to the organization supercedes their organizational security needs in a brief interview with the CIO.
Of course if the CIO is busy and your need is absolute the request for the interview might become cause for suspension until he was available for said interview, because the Policy "No Windows without CIO prior approval" is absolute too.
"Critical mass" is a term borrowed from nuclear physics, in which it means "a sufficient mass of fissionable material to sustain a chain reaction," in which a chain reaction is defined to be "a self-sustaining nuclear reaction yielding energy that causes further reactions of the same kind."
"Self-sustaining" is the key phrase in this definition. Once started, the nuclear reaction naturally reinvests its energy in perpetuating and growing the reaction. Once the point of criticality is reached, no additional external energy or intervention is required to maintain the reaction. - James Plamondon, Microsoft, 1/11/2000. From the Groklaw Comes Vs Microsoft Collection, exhibit 3096.
By the way, when somebody talks about "cannibalization" as if it's a bad thing, it's because the referenced platform has already reached this "critical mass" state. The petrification process has set in, and innovation is the "cannibalization" being stifled as a housekeeping cost of maintaining the monopoly for as long as possible. Once critical mass is reached progress is the only threat, and a small one because developing momentum is difficult from a static position. Cannibalization is an artful label to tag progress with to trigger a visceral defensive reaction from you, the audience. From the static state an innovator has to step entirely outside the field of action like Apple and Google did to build up enough forward motion to make a significant change.
If you're considering moderating this post informative, please bump the parent instead. I'm collecting +5s for my achievements, and subscriber and karma bonus points don't count.
Their enterprise solution is "buy this and try it, buy that and try it, buy this other thing and try it, if none of them work, sorry, we don't do enterprise support".
Erm... this is different from the Windows OS ecosystem in what way? How many different antivirus vendors are there for Windows? How many anti-malware, anti-spam, special-purpose firewall, intrusion detection appliance and on and on and on...
Compare and contrast that with OS-X, Linux and Android antivirus apps. For the most part these commercial offerrings aren't about securing your Mac, Linux, Android PC or server. They're about detecting and eliminating pass-thru attacks on the poor vulnerable Windows clients you might share information with.
If the Windows world is the homeland of security, why is securing it more than a $20B/yr industry? And why does it fail so hard at security even with all that, with malware infections detected outnumbering systems checked? This crud has gotten so bad they're embedding Windows Malware service application stacks in freaking network switch modules now. That is not what a network switch is for.
Every complex platform solution has vulnerabilities. But the Windows ecosystem is the only one where malware variants outnumber the population of Belize, where individual botnets take out whole countries with DDOS attacks, where malware is so disruptive it can prevent the peaceful development of nuclear energy. Ok, that last one was a bit of a troll.
In case you haven't noticed, enterprise client-server applications are moving to web apps. This transition should have happened a decade ago, but the Microsoft shops all had to fall into the IE/.NET/MS Java traps and then chew their leg off to escape before we all got with the "industry standard" plan. Now that we're all finally down with the W3C things will move right along.
In addition to the things it does natively, it's a thin client. It can do all those things and many more.
The iPads are already in use in business - uptake of this new tech in business has been remarkably swift, with almost all of the Fortune 100 having pilot projects under way or completed. You don't need sanction from Apple to use their products in any way you like. Thinking this way is a sickness. It's a tool. Use it in any way it works.
Your complaints equate to "it's not managed with Active Directory! It's toxic!" Guess what: businesses want to use it, so apps to secure it are already available because there's a market for that. If there's a market for it, there's an app for it. That's how we roll these days.
It doesn't have Windows. Since it doesn't have Windows, it can use a lightweight ARM processor. Since it uses an ARM processor and flash memory, it doesn't need a huge thick battery. Since it uses a lightweight touch-centric OS that's not Windows on ARM it's so naturally intuitive that small children can use it, and adults want to. Because it doesn't need ridiculously expensive engineered hardware tricks to work at all, it can be priced reasonably. Because these technologies came online just prior to launch and they put them together secretly they hit a sweet spot and caught everybody by surprise at just the right moment to launch an ecosystem that peaks just in time for Christmas. Brilliant design, planning, timing and flawless execution.
It's succeeding because it's the first tablet that doesn't completely suck.
The bill, if enacted, might have given the US government authorization to try. Once upon a time A bill was introduced in Indiana attempting to alter the value of pi.
Naturally any such censorship law would run afoul of the first amendment anyway, so a constitutional amendment would be required to make a credible attempt. And of course if enacted it would be as successful as attempting to control the distribution of alcohol or other harmful substances. It would do no more than breed contempt for law.
The bias of the Harvard Business Review is given away with the question "What's the endgame here?" The domination and ossification model we're used to - "embrace, extend, extinguish" has an endgame: the state where no more effort need be made toward progress because the domination of the market is self-reinforcing. James Plamondon called this "critical mass". This is rent-seeking behaviour, and participating in it is essentially self destructive from a customer point of view because it advances the plan toward the ossified end state. We desperately don't want an "endgame".
Google's game doesn't have an end state. Their game involves continually staying ahead of progress to catch the benefits, and continually driving progress to keep moving the goalposts so others can't achieve dominance because the market is too dynamic. It's better for us in the long run. It requires a great deal of courage and vision to come up with a plan like this, and excellent execution to keep it working. I hope it continues to work.
As the AC said above, no. It costs Google nothing if the Chinese telecoms put Baidu and their own app market on. It's not like it costs extra to develop that version they had nothing to do with. And the Chinese people will still have a computer in their pocket that can visit the Web. And where will they go on the web? To sites that carry Google ads. To YouTube and Gmail. And when they get tired of the poor search results with another provider, they'll just google from the browser.
If the vendors get to be too much trouble, phone users can just load a proper version of Android and be done with them.
And in the long run the vendor that provides the full Android experience with Google apps wins anyway.
In summary, the analysis in the fine articles is complete hogwash. It shows a lack of understanding about the situation. It assumes that Google wants to assert some control over the handset and that's not the case. Google doesn't want control, it just wants people to have more access to the Web so people can see their ads and use their services. Android can't be reengineered to shut Google out, so Google will be fine.
This is one of the things I love about Google. They engineer their businesses to profit from technological progress - faster Internet, mobile everywhere, open spectrum. Then they put their other efforts into driving that progress. Because they foresaw the progress they're driving they're best positioned to profit from it when it comes. Because we like progress, it endears us to them. Everybody wins. I like this model better than the domination and ossification model that was previously prevalent.
Look, Google can't use everybody's graphs. So they use their own graphs. They link to their finance sight and several of the most popular, because that's what people might be looking for. On Bing, there's one link: Bing Finance. On Yahoo search there's one link: Yahoo Finance. Google sites don't exist to the other search engines.
Personally when I search Google for a stock, what I'm looking for is the stock's Google Finance page. The way Google handles this is working fine for me.
If this is how hard you have to spin it to cast a dim eye at Google, they're doing great!
Y'all are bargaining in the wrong direction. For only 16 million a year I'd take the Microsoft CEO gig and I can guarantee a 20% stock price bump my first 90 days or it's free. That's an extra $44B in market cap in three months. Shucks, I wouldn't even have to show up to deliver that. I could deliver that in a drunken stupor on the set of Girls Gone Wild just because my name is not Steve. I could have a lot of fun screwing around while doing that. It's a hell of a deal at twice the price.
Oh I'd want the usual platinum parachute and stock options too - just because working for the Beast of Redmond is so unsavory and there isn't enough money to make me do it for more than a year. I'm sure I could convince them to get rid of me in 12 months or so.
As long as both platforms keep making their customers happy I don't see why they won't both continue to do well. If neither knocks the other to irrelevance it's not "dominant".
Apple does great holding the line on the "premium" phone, making lots of money for their shareholders. Android does great at providing a vast array of choices at varying levels of cost.
The concern with domination is that a dominant player will crush all opposition and bring progress to a halt to protect its monopoly. I don't see that happening with either of these players. The player in the field that plays that way is having a hard time getting his game on.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing good can come of this.
Unix isn't really a piece of intellectual property that you can assign a lawyer to and own in court. It's not a destination either, nor a product. It's a path, a journey. A Way. It's the Unix Way. Unix is more of a religion than anything else. You can't own a religion.
For ten or fifteen years Unix has been sidetracked by commercial interests that want to claim ownership of the Way because they see value in it; it has power and utility. They have all failed for the most part because they don't understand that to lock it up and deny it the vital dynamism of the community is to kill it.
GNU, and now Linux also, set the Unix Way free again. They adopted the religion, prosteletyzed it throughout the world and with new adherents drive it to transcendent new heights. But they only took the Way - not the bread, the work, the root or fruit of the elder Unix. That tree is poison now, and its fruit too.
iOS is not a Unix. The only Apple operating systems that are certified Unix are Leopard and Snow Leopard, both on Intel-based Macintosh computers.
As has probably been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Unix is a trademark of The Open Group and the list of current products that are granted the use of it are here.
It's a rather sad little list actually.
Since it did do well you were better off learning why it did than telling us why it should not have.
I wasn't promising to outperform a lolcat. Lolcats might sometimes be percieved as funny. I've never been mistaken for a lolcat, and I'm not often mistaken for funny. This is serious business.
You're a fossil. Exchange is an email server and we're pretty much done with it given its foibles and incompatibilities. I design hardware solutions for 10K+ user environments, and frankly the users are tired of Microsoft's weak ass shit. It's not like it's rocket science. It's email. We've been doing email since the '80s. They should have figured it out by now. If they ain't yet, they ain't gonna.
Yeah, sure. Making them implement the rules for their games, in Java, seems torment enough for their sins.
You might have been right if there was some market that wasn't aware there is a Google. I doubt such a market exists. Faced with a device that can't find this known useful resource, the natural response would be to fix it. That's a reasonable reaction because the device itself without access to google is in fact broken. This objection just goes more to the part of my post that reads: "If the vendors get to be too much trouble, phone users can just load a proper version of Android and be done with them. "
You aim for the bullseye. That's the goal. Before you let the arrow go you accept that once it's loose it will hit what it hits. Sometimes it misses the target entirely when you're new. Sometimes it hits the blue ring or the red. When you're skilled you can be sure it will hit the yellow dot. But the faint blue plus scribed in the middle of the yellow dot? You can't even see it at 50 yards distance. You may as well expect to split an arrow that hit that spot. That's the Robin Hood level of archery. Legendary to the level of perhaps being impossible.
The iPad didn't just hit the center of the faint plus at the heart of the yellow spot. It did that and caught fire. It may as well have split an arrow to get there. Steve Jobs described the iPad as "magical" and I have to agree with him. The thing inspires adoration that defies reason. To merely hold it in public is to invite envy and respect. It could be an inert mockup and it could get you laid. I don't lean toward that sort of thing, but I'm still in awe of it. That's a lot of power to put in the hands of mortal men.
The purpose of a mandate for AV/AM bloatware is to require a platform that needs one. There is no better example of putting the cart before the horse. Yes, there are admins so stupid that they fall for this nonsense. My best guidance for dealing with an organization so stultified that this is Policy: flee.
More productive than a policy that requires heavy armor and cloaking devices for every employee: a policy that mandates not being a target in the first place. An example might be Google. Google will authorize your desktop use of Windows if you can defend your need for it and how your benefit to the organization supercedes their organizational security needs in a brief interview with the CIO.
Of course if the CIO is busy and your need is absolute the request for the interview might become cause for suspension until he was available for said interview, because the Policy "No Windows without CIO prior approval" is absolute too.
Followup with link to and quote from the relevant source material:
"Critical mass" is a term borrowed from nuclear physics, in which it means "a sufficient mass of fissionable material to sustain a chain reaction," in which a chain reaction is defined to be "a self-sustaining nuclear reaction yielding energy that causes further reactions of the same kind."
"Self-sustaining" is the key phrase in this definition. Once started, the nuclear reaction naturally reinvests its energy in perpetuating and growing the reaction. Once the point of criticality is reached, no additional external energy or intervention is required to maintain the reaction. - James Plamondon, Microsoft, 1/11/2000. From the Groklaw Comes Vs Microsoft Collection, exhibit 3096.
By the way, when somebody talks about "cannibalization" as if it's a bad thing, it's because the referenced platform has already reached this "critical mass" state. The petrification process has set in, and innovation is the "cannibalization" being stifled as a housekeeping cost of maintaining the monopoly for as long as possible. Once critical mass is reached progress is the only threat, and a small one because developing momentum is difficult from a static position. Cannibalization is an artful label to tag progress with to trigger a visceral defensive reaction from you, the audience. From the static state an innovator has to step entirely outside the field of action like Apple and Google did to build up enough forward motion to make a significant change.
If you're considering moderating this post informative, please bump the parent instead. I'm collecting +5s for my achievements, and subscriber and karma bonus points don't count.
Their enterprise solution is "buy this and try it, buy that and try it, buy this other thing and try it, if none of them work, sorry, we don't do enterprise support".
Erm... this is different from the Windows OS ecosystem in what way? How many different antivirus vendors are there for Windows? How many anti-malware, anti-spam, special-purpose firewall, intrusion detection appliance and on and on and on...
Compare and contrast that with OS-X, Linux and Android antivirus apps. For the most part these commercial offerrings aren't about securing your Mac, Linux, Android PC or server. They're about detecting and eliminating pass-thru attacks on the poor vulnerable Windows clients you might share information with.
If the Windows world is the homeland of security, why is securing it more than a $20B/yr industry? And why does it fail so hard at security even with all that, with malware infections detected outnumbering systems checked? This crud has gotten so bad they're embedding Windows Malware service application stacks in freaking network switch modules now. That is not what a network switch is for.
Every complex platform solution has vulnerabilities. But the Windows ecosystem is the only one where malware variants outnumber the population of Belize, where individual botnets take out whole countries with DDOS attacks, where malware is so disruptive it can prevent the peaceful development of nuclear energy. Ok, that last one was a bit of a troll.
In case you haven't noticed, enterprise client-server applications are moving to web apps. This transition should have happened a decade ago, but the Microsoft shops all had to fall into the IE/.NET/MS Java traps and then chew their leg off to escape before we all got with the "industry standard" plan. Now that we're all finally down with the W3C things will move right along.
In addition to the things it does natively, it's a thin client. It can do all those things and many more.
The iPads are already in use in business - uptake of this new tech in business has been remarkably swift, with almost all of the Fortune 100 having pilot projects under way or completed. You don't need sanction from Apple to use their products in any way you like. Thinking this way is a sickness. It's a tool. Use it in any way it works.
Your complaints equate to "it's not managed with Active Directory! It's toxic!" Guess what: businesses want to use it, so apps to secure it are already available because there's a market for that. If there's a market for it, there's an app for it. That's how we roll these days.
It doesn't have Windows. Since it doesn't have Windows, it can use a lightweight ARM processor. Since it uses an ARM processor and flash memory, it doesn't need a huge thick battery. Since it uses a lightweight touch-centric OS that's not Windows on ARM it's so naturally intuitive that small children can use it, and adults want to. Because it doesn't need ridiculously expensive engineered hardware tricks to work at all, it can be priced reasonably. Because these technologies came online just prior to launch and they put them together secretly they hit a sweet spot and caught everybody by surprise at just the right moment to launch an ecosystem that peaks just in time for Christmas. Brilliant design, planning, timing and flawless execution.
It's succeeding because it's the first tablet that doesn't completely suck.
Censor the Internet? Unpossible.
The bill, if enacted, might have given the US government authorization to try. Once upon a time A bill was introduced in Indiana attempting to alter the value of pi.
Naturally any such censorship law would run afoul of the first amendment anyway, so a constitutional amendment would be required to make a credible attempt. And of course if enacted it would be as successful as attempting to control the distribution of alcohol or other harmful substances. It would do no more than breed contempt for law.
The bias of the Harvard Business Review is given away with the question "What's the endgame here?" The domination and ossification model we're used to - "embrace, extend, extinguish" has an endgame: the state where no more effort need be made toward progress because the domination of the market is self-reinforcing. James Plamondon called this "critical mass". This is rent-seeking behaviour, and participating in it is essentially self destructive from a customer point of view because it advances the plan toward the ossified end state. We desperately don't want an "endgame".
Google's game doesn't have an end state. Their game involves continually staying ahead of progress to catch the benefits, and continually driving progress to keep moving the goalposts so others can't achieve dominance because the market is too dynamic. It's better for us in the long run. It requires a great deal of courage and vision to come up with a plan like this, and excellent execution to keep it working. I hope it continues to work.
As the AC said above, no. It costs Google nothing if the Chinese telecoms put Baidu and their own app market on. It's not like it costs extra to develop that version they had nothing to do with. And the Chinese people will still have a computer in their pocket that can visit the Web. And where will they go on the web? To sites that carry Google ads. To YouTube and Gmail. And when they get tired of the poor search results with another provider, they'll just google from the browser.
If the vendors get to be too much trouble, phone users can just load a proper version of Android and be done with them.
And in the long run the vendor that provides the full Android experience with Google apps wins anyway.
In summary, the analysis in the fine articles is complete hogwash. It shows a lack of understanding about the situation. It assumes that Google wants to assert some control over the handset and that's not the case. Google doesn't want control, it just wants people to have more access to the Web so people can see their ads and use their services. Android can't be reengineered to shut Google out, so Google will be fine.
This is one of the things I love about Google. They engineer their businesses to profit from technological progress - faster Internet, mobile everywhere, open spectrum. Then they put their other efforts into driving that progress. Because they foresaw the progress they're driving they're best positioned to profit from it when it comes. Because we like progress, it endears us to them. Everybody wins. I like this model better than the domination and ossification model that was previously prevalent.
Look, Google can't use everybody's graphs. So they use their own graphs. They link to their finance sight and several of the most popular, because that's what people might be looking for. On Bing, there's one link: Bing Finance. On Yahoo search there's one link: Yahoo Finance. Google sites don't exist to the other search engines.
Personally when I search Google for a stock, what I'm looking for is the stock's Google Finance page. The way Google handles this is working fine for me.
If this is how hard you have to spin it to cast a dim eye at Google, they're doing great!
In this case, premium motherboards with solid caps.
What a coincidence! Disabling the system is the first step in installation of Norton 360. You've achieved equilibrium. Congratulations.
Y'all are bargaining in the wrong direction. For only 16 million a year I'd take the Microsoft CEO gig and I can guarantee a 20% stock price bump my first 90 days or it's free. That's an extra $44B in market cap in three months. Shucks, I wouldn't even have to show up to deliver that. I could deliver that in a drunken stupor on the set of Girls Gone Wild just because my name is not Steve. I could have a lot of fun screwing around while doing that. It's a hell of a deal at twice the price.
Oh I'd want the usual platinum parachute and stock options too - just because working for the Beast of Redmond is so unsavory and there isn't enough money to make me do it for more than a year. I'm sure I could convince them to get rid of me in 12 months or so.
As long as we're talking about Mobile... did Windows Phone 7 kill Dell's mobile division?
As long as both platforms keep making their customers happy I don't see why they won't both continue to do well. If neither knocks the other to irrelevance it's not "dominant".
Apple does great holding the line on the "premium" phone, making lots of money for their shareholders. Android does great at providing a vast array of choices at varying levels of cost.
The concern with domination is that a dominant player will crush all opposition and bring progress to a halt to protect its monopoly. I don't see that happening with either of these players. The player in the field that plays that way is having a hard time getting his game on.
TDP isn't a great metric unless your power budget is 4 watts. And then every solution that doesn't run in 4 watts is out of scope.