Many of these problems he describes seem to come from the use
of IE where better alternatives exist.
And of course, we who are in the know about alternatives to
Microsoft's products
could holler and rant forever about our preferred alternatives. That would not
keep Marshall Brain or anyone else of his fellow power users from wasting
time as he has just documented.
The problem isnt just a debate of MS or alternatives, it is rather that a lot
of people expect their computers and internet connections to function about
as reliably as any other comparable appliances. And MS and all the others are
failing miserably in that regard.
His remarks about having to wade through kilobytes of EULAs are spot-on.
Nobody requires you to read and accept a one-sided document like that
when you buy a new oil filter or new tires for your car, why should
an equivalent fix for some utility software have to be radically different?
Many of these exclusive-rights software are things that it doesn't make much
sense to copy and distribute, I mean, is there anyone that even would care
about warez-sites offering "printer driverz", considering that they're rather
worthless without the actual printer?
Really, the state of computers today bear strong similarities
to what cars were back in the early 20th century. The difficulties with
reliability, the need for frequent maintenance, and the
requirements of the operators were a lot bigger than they are today. A driver
had to be a fairly competent mechanic as well; similarly, people using
computers can still not get anywhere close to optimal use from them without
the knowledge about how to fix the internals.
Thus, like many of the above posters note, we who know more about
computers than our friends get requests from them to fix theirs, as the ones
that don't know how to fix their computers ask someone they know that does.
The point remains that all this need for fixing and maintenance is
indicative of a more fundamental flaw.
It is time to try and move forward, from the present-day sorry state of affairs. Abandoning certain flawed designs would be a good place to begin.
5 bold predictions, indeed. Let's look at some of them:
1. Lisa DiCarlio:
More cash-rich tech companies start to pay dividends. Microsoft continues to struggle to make its software secure, which means another great year in 2004 for Symantec. The complexities of integrating Legato and Documentum weigh down EMC. HP's stock doubles. IBM buys SCO to shut it up.
These don't look too far-fetched except for the last one. If anything I've seen on groklaw has any connection to reality at all, IBM will fight to the end in this particular battle. Score 0.7 tempered by a -1, Unlikely...
3. Daniel Lyons
SCO Group will settle its lawsuit against IBM. Both sides will declare victory. The Linux community will turn on IBM.
IBM vs SCO as before, IBM will not stop at anything less than full victory. And IBM as the new enemy? Whatever would have happened to Microsoft then? He might be seeing something I do not see of course, it just seems too unlikely. Score 0.2
4. Victoria Murphy:
Microsoft warms up to open source, and tries to make a buck off it.
Much as I'd think that would be a smart move on MS' part, I am not sure if they can leave their current closedness behind in time. To them it would be a big change. Maybe this explains what happens to MS in the previous prediction. Score 0.6, I Wish it Were True.
What does concern me is that some managers may read all of this and not realize it is all matters of opinion.
Looks to me like they have taken a page out of Intel's book. A number of Intel's trademarks begin with the lowercase "i", e.g.
iPDX, iRMX, iCEL, iAPX and so on. I don't think Intel has a monopoly on acronyms or words starting with "i[A-Z]", but they've certainly got a lot of them.
They are also quite well-known.
So it might be a fashion thing, that "i-" this or that sounds like it would be with the times. As long as they don't bang into Intel's trademarks they would be OK.
It does however look a little bit too 1985 to me...
Not all that strange. The guns that go into checked luggage are unloaded, and therefore inert pieces of metal, comparable to socket wrenches, knives, and other tools, as far as the operational security of the aircraft is concerned.
Lighters, whether gun-shaped or regular, contain some kind of flammable gas or liquid, and are therefore more dangerous in the plane. Even regular lighters appear to be restricted, the problem with the gun-shaped ones is that they look sufficiently like guns to be allowed in the cabin. And since they hold a flammable liquid they can't go into the hold; so they may not be taken along at all.
Makes sense after some analysis....
On some old big iron
on
First Computers
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The first computer I ever used was the PR1ME at the Oslo College of Engineering. This ran something called PRIMOS and it would reply with "OK," or "ER!" as a prompt depending on the outcome of the previous command. We had class accounts for the programming class, and the ones of us that were in active hacking mode made our own subdirectories for our stuff.
We all would write FORTRAN programs to run on this machine, and of course we would try for the holy grail of finding out the password on the "MFD", the "Master File Directory"... you see, each directory could be protected by a password but there was also a system subroutine called GPAS$$ (IIRC) which would obtain this password in a form suitable for going one level down. Which I think was called "attaching" to the directory. Going the other way however, was nontrivial....
We typed our stuff in using some 1200-baud terminals which only worked with capital letters, so all our code got this dense, brick-wall, appearance, what with FORTRAN requiring things to start in column 7. The only 9600-baud terminal was the graphical Tektronix one right next to the machine room; this was to be used sparingly for nongraphichal purposes lest its screen wore out.
Apparently, this terminal screen operated on a principle similar to an analog storage scope, flooding the phosphor with electrons. That thing was FAST though. It also allowed lowercase characters, but the compiler didn't like those, which made for interesting debugging sessions on the other uppercase-only terminals. This is probably where I got into the habit of starting loop indexes at J. I looked too much like 1...
I learned a lot of computer details on this thing, stuffing text into INTEGERs two by two characters, and experimenting with left- and right-shifting them... The characters were like ASCII but with the 8th bit set, the interface was basically 16-bit with a 65536-word addressing limit, and this could be extended for programs with big data using some compiler switches, -32R and -64V and similar. Of course we did have to try and find out what were the limits, how far we could go with lists of INTEGER*4 size prime numbers or electronic component matrices before it overflowed or our program crashed.
AFAIR, no-one ever managed to take the system completely down. And the MFD password was revealed at one point, but as a result of social engineering, not cracking...
Now for the second computer, that was a Commodore PET, and the third, which was a Commodore 64, both of which ran BASIC with line-numbers and two-letter variables. After having become used to writing fairly structured FORTRAN, having no way of partitioning things into functions with local variables felt restrictive... I never became a fan of BASIC in this form, and by the time BASIC had shaken off its linenumbering shackles, I was already done with Pascal and having discovered the UNIX workstations they had at the university, learning C. These things were more in the same league as that old PR1ME system and C certainly was a lot nicer than FORTRAN.
Of course, a student in the 80s couldn't afford anything that ran UNIX, so I learned Pascal and practiced C on the fourth computer I had and the first one I actually owned, this was a 4.77 MHz IBM XT Clone from 1985.
I still got that one, it still works, and I power it up occasionally, just to feel the factor of 700 or so difference in processor speed.
Endgame indeed -- this thing has reminded me of a chess game more than once!
If there ever comes a judgement to the effect that there is infringing code in Linux,
SCO will then have the obligation to minimize damages, which means that these infringing parts of code within Linux must be publicised so corrections can be made. They cannot force this code to remain in Linux and then make money off infringement penalties -- this particular money-making scheme is illegal.
In fact, that court probably also would have remarked that this should have been brought forward long ago.
Besides this, if there is found infringing code in Linux, since all the Linux source code is well-known public knowledge, there can not be talk of "trade secrets".
So SCO loses either way.
Re:SCO Survivor -- beware the quiet one
on
SCOrched Earth
·
· Score: 1
There is this site lamlaw.com run by Lewis A. Mettler, who has been covering the antitrust-actions against Microsoft as well as occasional more recent peeks at Microsoft and SCO's doings and dealings.
It is not anywhere near as active as Groklaw however.
Like many others, I have also seen BSODs on the departures screens at Heathrow.
Then about 2 weeks ago, I and all my fellow travellers were treated with a little tidbit of information, namely that the address of the screens above the platform at one of Oslo's underground stations was 34H on one side and 36H on the other, and that both monitors appeared to have been properly aligned, if the test-pattern and circular target-like patterns were to be believed.
Which is all nice and well, but I was really hoping for it to tell me which trains would be approaching....
The parent and grandparent posts started me thinking:
What is the probability of any randomly picked Linux machine running Ethereal? And thus the probability of a successful exploit of the holes therein? I don't know any certain numbers for this, but none of the Linux machines I have around here do, so whatever the probability, it is rather less than 1.0.
Now in contrast, what is the probability of any randomly picked Windows machine running the Workstation service? I would say this is close to 1.0, since this is something that is part of the Windows Operating system. Even if that system is a server, go figure...
Perhaps one could talk about security by absence here, as some variation of security by obscurity -- but the fact is that the various daemons and other software on a Linux system can be omitted on installation or removed later if they are not needed or desired. Whereas in Windows, large services cannot be stopped or removed lest the whole thing stops. This already gives Linux-systems a head start here.
Somewhat like marketing, the Windows Exploit Market is a lot bigger than the Linux Exploit Market, and thus sees more "suppliers".
Now while talking about marketing: Denigrating the competition is not a very effective way of advertising ones own products!
Ah yes, the bottom line. Now, it looks like SCO are even trying to give discounts on purchases of other things they don't even own themselves now, according to
this on groklaw
So if I were to go out and purchase Windows 2000 Server I would be able to get a discount from SCO?
That's either w00t! or WTF?
But either way, the SCO bottom line can't possibly be helped by them giving people discounts for buying Windows 2000 or HP-UX or whatever.
As for FUD, I would say there is less of it overall. Less F for Linux' future, less U about whether Linux is good for my bottom line,and less D as to whether SCO is in a terminal state of delusion.
Really, this whole thing reminds me of Monty Python, where, when things have got so weird and excessive as you can believe them to get, then there is yet another twist added to take it further across the limit.
"The Sun" and talk about them and "Stronger Flares", sounds like there'd be a topless model on Page 3 wearing fashionable-looking Kevlar flared trousers and nothing else....
Using one of these units to force the traffic light to change seems to me to be equivalent to tampering with a traffic control device, which probably already is illegal.
Crossing on the subsequent green light isn't illegal in itself, it is the prior actions in order to obtain that green light, that breaks the law.
As for parking in or near the intersection, I would guess that parking here is already prohibited given that your vehicle would block the traffic on the traveled way.
I haven't read the claims of this patent, but the company I work for could may be in violation of this patent. We make industrial controllers and have a configuration utility that can download the settings from one controller and upload it to another controller.
Depending on when your company began using the technique you describe,
this could be either infringement or prior art.
H in circle? As in Helicopter landing spot, as seen on ships and oil platforms or the like?
The analogy to the circled A of anarchists might be nice, the circled C of Copyright is probably less so, and the circled R of registered trademark even less so...
Never mind the circled N of the Norwegian laboratory of testing and approval of electrical equipment
So methinks not. Besides, Heerema Group already has the
H-in-circle logo.
"+5, Sad" would be about right. Unless that man on the bus was a politician for the city and would recommend draconian environmental policies because of his lack of understanding of the process.
In which case it could be "-1, Bloody Expensive" or worse...
As far as I know, callsigns and their owners is a matter of public record. The FCC in the US, and similar agencies in other countries are part of the governments, and they all cooperate with each other through WARC meetings and the like. Here they decide on allocations of callsigns and spectrum, and they decide on licensing requirements and other legislation.
Most of these rules promote the openness of this activity. There is no room for commercial activity with its attendant focus on economy and trade secrets and whatnot, and there must be no encryption. As for things such as spread-spectrum communications where obfuscation is easy, only certain well-known keys are to be used. Furthermore, the transmitting station's callsign must be repeated at intervals.
The effect of all this is that anyone, whether licensed or not, may listen and immediately fathom what is being said and who says it. There is, by law, no hiding place here! This openness reflects the unfettered nature of the radio signals themselves, these obey no borders or other political boundaries. And as for using Ham Radio for political ends, this is also illegal.
I guess one could compare the callsign to the license plate on a car. (even so in these cases where someone gets themselves personalized plates with their callsign on it) Both are mandatory, both are associated with unique strings that have only a slight connection to the owner, both are visible (or audible) in public, and both may be looked-up to find out who is their owner.
For years, all call-signs came in big books, now I think they mostly are published as CDs. Not that different from phone books really. So once on air, someone listening may find out who you are. It has always been this way.
I don't buy that. This was the 80s, there was the Death Star of AT&T and IBM was seen as big && stuffy and far from cool in any interpretation.
Back then Microsoft and Borland and Mortice Kern Systems were the good guys. There was some grudging respect for IBM having opened up the IBM PC architecture, true, but Bill Gates certainly warranted any figure of scorn until sometime after 1995 when Microsoft themselves began to seem stuffy... I remember how the mood of the developer kits changed sometime around 1995-1996 so I think I can pinpoint this quite accurately.
Meanwhile, Bloom County as I experienced it during the mid-80s, seemed to play puns on everything and everyone in ways only vaguely recaptured since. IMHO The old Bloom County strips offers a fascinating and fairly accurate view of the American mind-set during the 1980s.
Bill Gates as a villain is a strictly late 1990s-2000s phenomenon!
As is usually the case with large companies like IBM, which have stockholders who want to be pleased every 3 months or so.
But seeing as this appears to be near the end of a long slow period full of "belt-tightening" as some earlier poster mentioned, there is at the same time more latitude or headroom for a company to think ahead more than what is required for maximizing the current quarter's profit. To some extent, whatever they do is likely to be good in the short term, then the best things to do become the ones which are good for the long term.
Having said that, I also will point out that IBM has been actively participating in the Open Source process; this is a Good Thing for everyone, not just IBM.
Yes, the Aass Bock is definitely one of the best beers. Like I said in my original post, it would be impossible to decide on which of the many beers would be the most appropriate.:)
To carry this comparison further I guess the Norwegian "Skolelinux" project should map onto some Norwegian beer.
These beers are generally made according to the Purity Law, and since Skolelinux is based on Debian, the same arguments as the article already put forth about HefeWeiss should apply here as well.
The big question would be which of the beers? All the ones I know have their fans and foes...
I will therefore unilaterally claim that the beer in question should be Frydenlund Bokkol!
A translucent globular light fixture with a red bulb inside would be useful here. Place this near the entrance to the cubicle and have it turned on as a "do-not-disturb" signal. The big glowing red ball is not easy to overlook...
Slashdot Mirror
Many of these problems he describes seem to come from the use of IE where better alternatives exist.
And of course, we who are in the know about alternatives to Microsoft's products could holler and rant forever about our preferred alternatives. That would not keep Marshall Brain or anyone else of his fellow power users from wasting time as he has just documented.
The problem isnt just a debate of MS or alternatives, it is rather that a lot of people expect their computers and internet connections to function about as reliably as any other comparable appliances. And MS and all the others are failing miserably in that regard.
His remarks about having to wade through kilobytes of EULAs are spot-on. Nobody requires you to read and accept a one-sided document like that when you buy a new oil filter or new tires for your car, why should an equivalent fix for some utility software have to be radically different? Many of these exclusive-rights software are things that it doesn't make much sense to copy and distribute, I mean, is there anyone that even would care about warez-sites offering "printer driverz", considering that they're rather worthless without the actual printer?
Really, the state of computers today bear strong similarities to what cars were back in the early 20th century. The difficulties with reliability, the need for frequent maintenance, and the requirements of the operators were a lot bigger than they are today. A driver had to be a fairly competent mechanic as well; similarly, people using computers can still not get anywhere close to optimal use from them without the knowledge about how to fix the internals.
Thus, like many of the above posters note, we who know more about computers than our friends get requests from them to fix theirs, as the ones that don't know how to fix their computers ask someone they know that does. The point remains that all this need for fixing and maintenance is indicative of a more fundamental flaw.
It is time to try and move forward, from the present-day sorry state of affairs. Abandoning certain flawed designs would be a good place to begin.
1. Lisa DiCarlio: More cash-rich tech companies start to pay dividends. Microsoft continues to struggle to make its software secure, which means another great year in 2004 for Symantec. The complexities of integrating Legato and Documentum weigh down EMC. HP's stock doubles. IBM buys SCO to shut it up.
These don't look too far-fetched except for the last one. If anything I've seen on groklaw has any connection to reality at all, IBM will fight to the end in this particular battle. Score 0.7 tempered by a -1, Unlikely...
3. Daniel Lyons SCO Group will settle its lawsuit against IBM. Both sides will declare victory. The Linux community will turn on IBM.
IBM vs SCO as before, IBM will not stop at anything less than full victory. And IBM as the new enemy? Whatever would have happened to Microsoft then? He might be seeing something I do not see of course, it just seems too unlikely. Score 0.2
4. Victoria Murphy: Microsoft warms up to open source, and tries to make a buck off it.
Much as I'd think that would be a smart move on MS' part, I am not sure if they can leave their current closedness behind in time. To them it would be a big change. Maybe this explains what happens to MS in the previous prediction. Score 0.6, I Wish it Were True.
What does concern me is that some managers may read all of this and not realize it is all matters of opinion.
Now that I agree is nonsensical. I was not aware that ammo was OK in checked baggage...
They are also quite well-known.
So it might be a fashion thing, that "i-" this or that sounds like it would be with the times. As long as they don't bang into Intel's trademarks they would be OK.
It does however look a little bit too 1985 to me...
Lighters, whether gun-shaped or regular, contain some kind of flammable gas or liquid, and are therefore more dangerous in the plane. Even regular lighters appear to be restricted, the problem with the gun-shaped ones is that they look sufficiently like guns to be allowed in the cabin. And since they hold a flammable liquid they can't go into the hold; so they may not be taken along at all.
Makes sense after some analysis....
We all would write FORTRAN programs to run on this machine, and of course we would try for the holy grail of finding out the password on the "MFD", the "Master File Directory" ... you see, each directory could be protected by a password but there was also a system subroutine called GPAS$$ (IIRC) which would obtain this password in a form suitable for going one level down. Which I think was called "attaching" to the directory. Going the other way however, was nontrivial....
We typed our stuff in using some 1200-baud terminals which only worked with capital letters, so all our code got this dense, brick-wall, appearance, what with FORTRAN requiring things to start in column 7. The only 9600-baud terminal was the graphical Tektronix one right next to the machine room; this was to be used sparingly for nongraphichal purposes lest its screen wore out. Apparently, this terminal screen operated on a principle similar to an analog storage scope, flooding the phosphor with electrons. That thing was FAST though. It also allowed lowercase characters, but the compiler didn't like those, which made for interesting debugging sessions on the other uppercase-only terminals. This is probably where I got into the habit of starting loop indexes at J. I looked too much like 1...
I learned a lot of computer details on this thing, stuffing text into INTEGERs two by two characters, and experimenting with left- and right-shifting them... The characters were like ASCII but with the 8th bit set, the interface was basically 16-bit with a 65536-word addressing limit, and this could be extended for programs with big data using some compiler switches, -32R and -64V and similar. Of course we did have to try and find out what were the limits, how far we could go with lists of INTEGER*4 size prime numbers or electronic component matrices before it overflowed or our program crashed.
AFAIR, no-one ever managed to take the system completely down. And the MFD password was revealed at one point, but as a result of social engineering, not cracking...
Now for the second computer, that was a Commodore PET, and the third, which was a Commodore 64, both of which ran BASIC with line-numbers and two-letter variables. After having become used to writing fairly structured FORTRAN, having no way of partitioning things into functions with local variables felt restrictive... I never became a fan of BASIC in this form, and by the time BASIC had shaken off its linenumbering shackles, I was already done with Pascal and having discovered the UNIX workstations they had at the university, learning C. These things were more in the same league as that old PR1ME system and C certainly was a lot nicer than FORTRAN.
Of course, a student in the 80s couldn't afford anything that ran UNIX, so I learned Pascal and practiced C on the fourth computer I had and the first one I actually owned, this was a 4.77 MHz IBM XT Clone from 1985.
I still got that one, it still works, and I power it up occasionally, just to feel the factor of 700 or so difference in processor speed.
However, according to the verdict, all those judges were in agreement.
Then again, it will take a while to forget that the prosecutor did not know what an algorithm was at the time the trial started....
Endgame indeed -- this thing has reminded me of a chess game more than once!
If there ever comes a judgement to the effect that there is infringing code in Linux, SCO will then have the obligation to minimize damages, which means that these infringing parts of code within Linux must be publicised so corrections can be made. They cannot force this code to remain in Linux and then make money off infringement penalties -- this particular money-making scheme is illegal.
In fact, that court probably also would have remarked that this should have been brought forward long ago.
Besides this, if there is found infringing code in Linux, since all the Linux source code is well-known public knowledge, there can not be talk of "trade secrets".
So SCO loses either way.
It is not anywhere near as active as Groklaw however.
No need for perversion. I guess it is merely a matter of "running it up the pole and see if anyone salutes" here.
And as this is great news, I, for one, will salute.
Otherwise, I think Tux oughtta be allowed to make a guest appearance...
Then about 2 weeks ago, I and all my fellow travellers were treated with a little tidbit of information, namely that the address of the screens above the platform at one of Oslo's underground stations was 34H on one side and 36H on the other, and that both monitors appeared to have been properly aligned, if the test-pattern and circular target-like patterns were to be believed.
Which is all nice and well, but I was really hoping for it to tell me which trains would be approaching....
What is the probability of any randomly picked Linux machine running Ethereal? And thus the probability of a successful exploit of the holes therein? I don't know any certain numbers for this, but none of the Linux machines I have around here do, so whatever the probability, it is rather less than 1.0.
Now in contrast, what is the probability of any randomly picked Windows machine running the Workstation service? I would say this is close to 1.0, since this is something that is part of the Windows Operating system. Even if that system is a server, go figure...
Perhaps one could talk about security by absence here, as some variation of security by obscurity -- but the fact is that the various daemons and other software on a Linux system can be omitted on installation or removed later if they are not needed or desired. Whereas in Windows, large services cannot be stopped or removed lest the whole thing stops. This already gives Linux-systems a head start here.
Somewhat like marketing, the Windows Exploit Market is a lot bigger than the Linux Exploit Market, and thus sees more "suppliers".
Now while talking about marketing: Denigrating the competition is not a very effective way of advertising ones own products!
So if I were to go out and purchase Windows 2000 Server I would be able to get a discount from SCO?
That's either w00t! or WTF?
But either way, the SCO bottom line can't possibly be helped by them giving people discounts for buying Windows 2000 or HP-UX or whatever.
As for FUD, I would say there is less of it overall. Less F for Linux' future, less U about whether Linux is good for my bottom line,and less D as to whether SCO is in a terminal state of delusion.
Really, this whole thing reminds me of Monty Python, where, when things have got so weird and excessive as you can believe them to get, then there is yet another twist added to take it further across the limit.
"The Sun" and talk about them and "Stronger Flares", sounds like there'd be a topless model on Page 3 wearing fashionable-looking Kevlar flared trousers and nothing else....
Crossing on the subsequent green light isn't illegal in itself, it is the prior actions in order to obtain that green light, that breaks the law.
As for parking in or near the intersection, I would guess that parking here is already prohibited given that your vehicle would block the traffic on the traveled way.
Depending on when your company began using the technique you describe, this could be either infringement or prior art.
The analogy to the circled A of anarchists might be nice, the circled C of Copyright is probably less so, and the circled R of registered trademark even less so...
Never mind the circled N of the Norwegian laboratory of testing and approval of electrical equipment
So methinks not. Besides, Heerema Group already has the H-in-circle logo.
In which case it could be "-1, Bloody Expensive" or worse...
Most of these rules promote the openness of this activity. There is no room for commercial activity with its attendant focus on economy and trade secrets and whatnot, and there must be no encryption. As for things such as spread-spectrum communications where obfuscation is easy, only certain well-known keys are to be used. Furthermore, the transmitting station's callsign must be repeated at intervals.
The effect of all this is that anyone, whether licensed or not, may listen and immediately fathom what is being said and who says it. There is, by law, no hiding place here! This openness reflects the unfettered nature of the radio signals themselves, these obey no borders or other political boundaries. And as for using Ham Radio for political ends, this is also illegal.
I guess one could compare the callsign to the license plate on a car. (even so in these cases where someone gets themselves personalized plates with their callsign on it) Both are mandatory, both are associated with unique strings that have only a slight connection to the owner, both are visible (or audible) in public, and both may be looked-up to find out who is their owner.
For years, all call-signs came in big books, now I think they mostly are published as CDs. Not that different from phone books really. So once on air, someone listening may find out who you are. It has always been this way.
I don't buy that. This was the 80s, there was the Death Star of AT&T and IBM was seen as big && stuffy and far from cool in any interpretation.
Back then Microsoft and Borland and Mortice Kern Systems were the good guys. There was some grudging respect for IBM having opened up the IBM PC architecture, true, but Bill Gates certainly warranted any figure of scorn until sometime after 1995 when Microsoft themselves began to seem stuffy... I remember how the mood of the developer kits changed sometime around 1995-1996 so I think I can pinpoint this quite accurately.
Meanwhile, Bloom County as I experienced it during the mid-80s, seemed to play puns on everything and everyone in ways only vaguely recaptured since. IMHO The old Bloom County strips offers a fascinating and fairly accurate view of the American mind-set during the 1980s.
Bill Gates as a villain is a strictly late 1990s-2000s phenomenon!
At least you get to test your hardware.
Signing off and heading for the tub, indeed!
As is usually the case with large companies like IBM, which have stockholders who want to be pleased every 3 months or so.
But seeing as this appears to be near the end of a long slow period full of "belt-tightening" as some earlier poster mentioned, there is at the same time more latitude or headroom for a company to think ahead more than what is required for maximizing the current quarter's profit. To some extent, whatever they do is likely to be good in the short term, then the best things to do become the ones which are good for the long term.
Having said that, I also will point out that IBM has been actively participating in the Open Source process; this is a Good Thing for everyone, not just IBM.
Yes, the Aass Bock is definitely one of the best beers. Like I said in my original post, it would be impossible to decide on which of the many beers would be the most appropriate. :)
These beers are generally made according to the Purity Law, and since Skolelinux is based on Debian, the same arguments as the article already put forth about HefeWeiss should apply here as well.
The big question would be which of the beers? All the ones I know have their fans and foes ...
I will therefore unilaterally claim that the beer in question should be Frydenlund Bokkol!
A translucent globular light fixture with a red bulb inside would be useful here. Place this near the entrance to the cubicle and have it turned on as a "do-not-disturb" signal. The big glowing red ball is not easy to overlook...