But that will change. Maybe next year, maybe the year after, maybe five years from now
Exactly. I run a small business (not an Enterprise by any stretch of the imagination) and one of the big pushes that drove me to full migration to Linux was growing needs.
Everytime I laid down money for software, I bought what I needed at that point; I could not tie up dollars in features I might need in two years. Inevitably, the time came when expanded features were needed, and plunk, down went more cash.
Not anymore. I say small businesses as well as large ones can stop the buy once, pay often cycle of proprietary licensed software.
The real point here is that there was a working alternative available; in this case, it was a non-MS product. If OOo did not support the MS file format, this presentation would have died.
The real point is this shows one practical utility of open file formats.
With open source, stuff breaks, no one is there to help you and you have to visit hundreds of howto sites in order to get the exact path to traverse the razor blades in the dark without killing yourself, just so you can fix the problem yourself.
Right, because RedHat, Mandrake, Mozilla and a host of other Open Source companies don't support their products at all. [/sarcasm]
You know, it's pretty hard for someone to change an executable on your computer if you just leave it powered off
Hence the word "practically." Typing in a root password is not that hard to do, but it provides just enough of a slowdown to hopefully force one to think "do I really want to do this." This is kind of like me saying I don't like that "Yes Always" button you refered as being on Win2003.
Then you've missed the point of networked security entirely in your quest for ideolgical purity, I'm afraid. Users are free to choose the product that suits them, and you are affected by that choice when you share a network.
Well, I think I understand network security at least a little bit, since I provide consulting to ISP and hosting providers and HIPAA compliance and VPN consulting for those in the medical profession. That said, I don't think it is always a good idea to let users install whatever they want on any system they want whenever they want.
You mentioned game playing, and I was just suggesting that in some environments, the more open security model that you prefer is very negative. HIPAA compliance, for example, requires all kinds of audits of running services, who has access to what and how, etc, etc. Segregating users into groups with different access privileges is necessary in a regulated environment.
In such an environment, there are certain tasks that only root should do; controlling what software is running or updating/being patched is among them.
I don't have mod points, but I wanted to say this is an incredibly insightful analysis of what may be going on here.
As I understand your thesis: The MS AV group makes Windows patches part of the AV software, which is sold separately from Windows itself. This way, they get to charge for security patches rather than being forced (by community-think that patches should be free) to give them away.
Plus, they get the marketing advantage of publicly saying that their AV software is helping to make Windows more secure, and not just in a passive way.
I *like* the fact that I don't have to do anything special for my online games to stay current - they take care of themslves. This is the way things should be.
I disagree that this is the way things should be. System security comes from controlling vectors into the machine. In contrast to you, I don't want a bunch of disparate programs making connections I don't know about whenever the urge hits them. Perhaps that's the difference between using a computer for games and using one for professional tasks.
If you want to patch this "security hole", do it in a way that doesn't make my computer less useful.
Again, it's just my opinion, but altering executable code on the box should be "as hard as practically possible." Which is to say it should require extra steps by extra priveleged users. That does not make a computer less useful; I get a lot of use out my machines, and I keep them fairly locked down.
In any case, any sucurity model which requires the user to do more than double-click an icon would never gain mainstream acceptance.
I guess it depends on how you describe mainstream. I don't care if proper security practices are an inconvenience to some users who are too lazy to care.
The fact is that windows users f%&k around with their pc's adding any of 100,000's of application, uninstalling, doing whatever they want without worrying about backing up and what not. You do that on a linux box and see how stable it is after 6 months abuse.
I abuse my Linux boxes quite frequently as you describe; I write rather destructive code on occasion, I am constantly installing/uninstalling apps/tools/gidgets.
Here's the fact from my own experience. I totally crashed (required OS Reinstall) Win2000 about twice a year when I was still using Windows. I've yet to crash Linux by such use.
Well, I did crash one Linux install with a rm -rf while sitting in/usr/lib. Okay, that was my fault, and no os can withstand 20-hour-day-for-a-week fatigue and operator error.
I'll never take Windows stability seriously. It's just not in my experience.
If you want to be realistic about this, think about billing clerks, secretaries, accountants, and school teachers.
Yes, but what are those tools going to be when today's school children are in the marketplace. We're talking 10 years or so down the road, minimum.
I have no doubt that Windows (whatever incarnation) will still be prevalent, but I personally don't think the marketshare numbers will remain as lopsided as they are today.
So, part of the question becomes: how insightful will the school administrators look to the future? In my opinion, Linux is coming (as an alternative taken seriously), and F/OSS in general definitely has a place in education.
FWIW, I know quite a few elementary teachers who are no longer teaching because of POLITICS and BAD DECISION MAKING. None of these got out due to low pay.
Once at a party, a group of teachers who had left teaching were asked by someone of your mindset (ie, increasing the pay of teachers would "help") and they all said, each and every one, that the pay had nothing whatsoever to do with why they were leaving.
I know several PhD level scientists who have left teaching for precisely the same reason. I myself (PhD, Chemistry) would consider teaching high school, but not with the current state of politics in the school boards (and the union). Money has nothing to do with it.
In my opinion, your thesis that higher pay would attract 'better' teachers is a guess at best. Teachers salaries DO increase, but the quality remains low. Especially in science and math. Many professionals in educations are starting to figure this out, and money really is not the issue.
My two cents (taught at two universities, one college and one tech college, physics and chemistry).
what kinda headaches do you think they would get if they started shipping a compiler?
I believe the complaints are not due to what they incluce as options, but what they integrate with the OS. There's a big difference in including a package on a CD for the user to install if they want it, and sharing so much code across 'diverse' applications that some apps can not be effectively removed.
Did anyone stop and think that maybe if Microsoft didn't have to keep hacking their OS to make various groups / government bodies happy that the OS might be more secure?
Huh? Who is making MS 'hack' their code? Microsoft actively markets their products to various groups/government bodies on various premises. I think you got cart before the horse.
Just to provide counterpoint, my wife is a medical doctor. Since switching my home office computer to Linux, she has been 'forced' to use OOo exclusively: Writer, and Impress. She's currently working on a presentation on Pediatric Syndromes A-Z, and she does Impress at home, PowerPoint at work.
No big issues yet. The interface is different. There may be things OOo cannot "do," but they don't seem to be hindering the productivity of two professionals (I'm a physical chemist). We both use files that get switched back and forth repeatedly.
Uh, that article you link to was 1994, and said that Krazy Glue was tried for cardiac surgery. Krazy Glue existed long before 1994. How is this "first prupose"?
you get lovely graphs showing how much of a mixture is which compound.
Not quite. Mass spectrometry itself is used for pure compounds.
The lovely graphs showing the components of mixtures of which you are thinking I believe are chromatograms (a mass spectrometer can be used as a gas or liquid chromatograph detector).
A molecule can not be "given" an electron is mass spec. Ions are generated by ejecting an electron or breaking a bond forming a positive species and a negative radical. Only postive species are detected.
That's not true at all. Ever heard of NEGATIVE ion chemical ionization? I've done this A LOT. This is not that uncommon.
Indeed, there are plenty of researchers doing negative ion work.
For the analysis or proteins you generally interested in the molecular ion...examining how the molecule fragments. This isn't as useful for proteins because they are so large.
Again, not so. You need to research the MS techniques used in protein sequencing; very big field. True, the MI is one desired datum, but the sequence is important (and measurable, or at least chunks of it) as well. See MS/MS, MS/MS/MS/ MS/MS/MS/MS, etc (ion trap techniques), electrospray, etc.
The purpose of most class-action lawsuits is more to punish the wrongdoer
Which is exactly part of the problem: punitive lawsuits and awards, rather than real damages.
In that case with my insurance company, I was a member of the class SOLELY because I had insurance with them, and they 'forgot' to tell me I had a right to a credit report based on something or other. I suffered no tort in my mind.
Now, is this REALLY a reason to stick a company (they settled, but we can speak hypothetically) multimillion dollar punitive judgement? Seems out of whack to me.
We're not talking about a case where someone put poison in a city's drinking water or some such where there are real damages.
I mean a huge class action suit where lawyers get millions and each customer would get a free rental or some other nominal compensation. That is how the system is supposed to work.
This is OT, but timely: We got a notice just yesterday that we were in a 'class' for a suit against an insurance company and the case has settled. What do we get?
A $9 credit report.
I was once also in a class in which the award was (iirc) $1.23 per member. A multimillion dollar lawsuit it was, too.
I didn't even bother sending the stupid forms in, but that probably means some lawyer got my $1.23.
If you want to have a secure system you have to use less software, not more. Virus scanner et al are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I do wish I had mod points for this; this is exactly the arguement I've been making for a couple of years now. Anti-malware products, layers of crap to prevent/remove spam, etc, just add to the complexity of the system.
Also, the VectorC compiler by CodePlay is useful for using a C compiler that can generate SIMD for MMX, SSE and 3DNow!. ,br>
But really, at the end of the day, what's so bad about assembly? I mean, if you inline only those (relatively small parts) you need to optimize, and let the C compiler handle all the symbol table stuff, it's not that bad. We're not talking about developing a full app, including GUI, in straight Assembly from scratch.
We write code for hardcore chemical simulations. The limits on what can be studied, ie number of atoms/molecules or timescales of the simulations depends on one thing: speed.
Faster computers means better simulations. BUT, if the code is not as fast as it can be on a particular architecture, your simulations are not going to be as complete as they can be. At least within a given time allotment.
I've recently applied some code optimizations to a Monte Carlo simulation and saw speed ups of over 1000x. That's significant.
It's naive to think that faster computers means we should live with sloppy or unoptimized code. SIMD is a useful technique, and if it means the difference between me getting work done in a week or two or three weeks, I think I'll take the one-week sim.
I think it is a matter of target audience. The Simpsons is on a major 'pop' broadcast network and specifically targets people for whom potty humor is (part of) the draw. Personally, I do like The Simpsons for it's subtlety.
Nova, otoh, has set itself up as a cut above the 'for the masses' standard. I've watched that show since high school (early 80's), and I remember specifics from specific episodes. It was produced to be informative first, and if pop style entertainment was a goal at all, it was far down on the list.
I've also witnessed what I believe to be a general degradation of Nova in this respect. This is just my opinion, mind you, but I think Nova is but a faint shadow of its former self.
To put this into a broader perspective, I also happen to believe the 'making science fun' in the classroom is partially responsible for the overall degradation in science education here in the US. I've taught my classes without that maxim, and proudly achieved my (only) stated goal of actually making sure my students finished the semester with more knowledge than they had at the start.
Slashdot Mirror
But that will change. Maybe next year, maybe the year after, maybe five years from now
Exactly. I run a small business (not an Enterprise by any stretch of the imagination) and one of the big pushes that drove me to full migration to Linux was growing needs.
Everytime I laid down money for software, I bought what I needed at that point; I could not tie up dollars in features I might need in two years. Inevitably, the time came when expanded features were needed, and plunk, down went more cash.
Not anymore. I say small businesses as well as large ones can stop the buy once, pay often cycle of proprietary licensed software.
The real point here is that there was a working alternative available; in this case, it was a non-MS product. If OOo did not support the MS file format, this presentation would have died.
The real point is this shows one practical utility of open file formats.
With open source, stuff breaks, no one is there to help you and you have to visit hundreds of howto sites in order to get the exact path to traverse the razor blades in the dark without killing yourself, just so you can fix the problem yourself.
Right, because RedHat, Mandrake, Mozilla and a host of other Open Source companies don't support their products at all. [/sarcasm]
Security.
Such as it is, security of XP IS better than that of 98.
You know, it's pretty hard for someone to change an executable on your computer if you just leave it powered off
Hence the word "practically." Typing in a root password is not that hard to do, but it provides just enough of a slowdown to hopefully force one to think "do I really want to do this." This is kind of like me saying I don't like that "Yes Always" button you refered as being on Win2003.
Then you've missed the point of networked security entirely in your quest for ideolgical purity, I'm afraid. Users are free to choose the product that suits them, and you are affected by that choice when you share a network.
Well, I think I understand network security at least a little bit, since I provide consulting to ISP and hosting providers and HIPAA compliance and VPN consulting for those in the medical profession. That said, I don't think it is always a good idea to let users install whatever they want on any system they want whenever they want.
You mentioned game playing, and I was just suggesting that in some environments, the more open security model that you prefer is very negative. HIPAA compliance, for example, requires all kinds of audits of running services, who has access to what and how, etc, etc. Segregating users into groups with different access privileges is necessary in a regulated environment.
In such an environment, there are certain tasks that only root should do; controlling what software is running or updating/being patched is among them.
YMMV, as always.
I don't have mod points, but I wanted to say this is an incredibly insightful analysis of what may be going on here.
As I understand your thesis: The MS AV group makes Windows patches part of the AV software, which is sold separately from Windows itself. This way, they get to charge for security patches rather than being forced (by community-think that patches should be free) to give them away.
Plus, they get the marketing advantage of publicly saying that their AV software is helping to make Windows more secure, and not just in a passive way.
What AV companies could compete with this?
I *like* the fact that I don't have to do anything special for my online games to stay current - they take care of themslves. This is the way things should be.
I disagree that this is the way things should be. System security comes from controlling vectors into the machine. In contrast to you, I don't want a bunch of disparate programs making connections I don't know about whenever the urge hits them. Perhaps that's the difference between using a computer for games and using one for professional tasks.
If you want to patch this "security hole", do it in a way that doesn't make my computer less useful.
Again, it's just my opinion, but altering executable code on the box should be "as hard as practically possible." Which is to say it should require extra steps by extra priveleged users. That does not make a computer less useful; I get a lot of use out my machines, and I keep them fairly locked down.
In any case, any sucurity model which requires the user to do more than double-click an icon would never gain mainstream acceptance.
I guess it depends on how you describe mainstream. I don't care if proper security practices are an inconvenience to some users who are too lazy to care.
The fact is that windows users f%&k around with their pc's adding any of 100,000's of application, uninstalling, doing whatever they want without worrying about backing up and what not. You do that on a linux box and see how stable it is after 6 months abuse.
/usr/lib. Okay, that was my fault, and no os can withstand 20-hour-day-for-a-week fatigue and operator error.
I abuse my Linux boxes quite frequently as you describe; I write rather destructive code on occasion, I am constantly installing/uninstalling apps/tools/gidgets.
Here's the fact from my own experience. I totally crashed (required OS Reinstall) Win2000 about twice a year when I was still using Windows. I've yet to crash Linux by such use.
Well, I did crash one Linux install with a rm -rf while sitting in
I'll never take Windows stability seriously. It's just not in my experience.
If you want to be realistic about this, think about billing clerks, secretaries, accountants, and school teachers.
Yes, but what are those tools going to be when today's school children are in the marketplace. We're talking 10 years or so down the road, minimum.
I have no doubt that Windows (whatever incarnation) will still be prevalent, but I personally don't think the marketshare numbers will remain as lopsided as they are today.
So, part of the question becomes: how insightful will the school administrators look to the future? In my opinion, Linux is coming (as an alternative taken seriously), and F/OSS in general definitely has a place in education.
FWIW, I know quite a few elementary teachers who are no longer teaching because of POLITICS and BAD DECISION MAKING. None of these got out due to low pay.
Once at a party, a group of teachers who had left teaching were asked by someone of your mindset (ie, increasing the pay of teachers would "help") and they all said, each and every one, that the pay had nothing whatsoever to do with why they were leaving.
I know several PhD level scientists who have left teaching for precisely the same reason. I myself (PhD, Chemistry) would consider teaching high school, but not with the current state of politics in the school boards (and the union). Money has nothing to do with it.
In my opinion, your thesis that higher pay would attract 'better' teachers is a guess at best. Teachers salaries DO increase, but the quality remains low. Especially in science and math. Many professionals in educations are starting to figure this out, and money really is not the issue.
My two cents (taught at two universities, one college and one tech college, physics and chemistry).
That's easy; OOo does not run vb scripts or 'macros' that can be used to propagate malware.
In some settings, this lack of 'support' is considered a con, but in others, it is definately a pro. I'd think it a pro in a school setting.
If linux had the same user base as MS there would be 100,000 times as many patches, security holes etc.
You don't know this. How can you know this. It may well be true, but right now, it is a gross extrapolation with no data to support it.
And it's based on a very iffy premise: bugs = user base.
what kinda headaches do you think they would get if they started shipping a compiler?
I believe the complaints are not due to what they incluce as options, but what they integrate with the OS. There's a big difference in including a package on a CD for the user to install if they want it, and sharing so much code across 'diverse' applications that some apps can not be effectively removed.
Did anyone stop and think that maybe if Microsoft didn't have to keep hacking their OS to make various groups / government bodies happy that the OS might be more secure?
Huh? Who is making MS 'hack' their code? Microsoft actively markets their products to various groups/government bodies on various premises. I think you got cart before the horse.
Just to provide counterpoint, my wife is a medical doctor. Since switching my home office computer to Linux, she has been 'forced' to use OOo exclusively: Writer, and Impress. She's currently working on a presentation on Pediatric Syndromes A-Z, and she does Impress at home, PowerPoint at work.
No big issues yet. The interface is different. There may be things OOo cannot "do," but they don't seem to be hindering the productivity of two professionals (I'm a physical chemist). We both use files that get switched back and forth repeatedly.
Uh, that article you link to was 1994, and said that Krazy Glue was tried for cardiac surgery. Krazy Glue existed long before 1994. How is this "first prupose"?
Just wonderin'.
you get lovely graphs showing how much of a mixture is which compound.
Not quite. Mass spectrometry itself is used for pure compounds.
The lovely graphs showing the components of mixtures of which you are thinking I believe are chromatograms (a mass spectrometer can be used as a gas or liquid chromatograph detector).
A molecule can not be "given" an electron is mass spec. Ions are generated by ejecting an electron or breaking a bond forming a positive species and a negative radical. Only postive species are detected.
That's not true at all. Ever heard of NEGATIVE ion chemical ionization? I've done this A LOT. This is not that uncommon.
Indeed, there are plenty of researchers doing negative ion work.
For the analysis or proteins you generally interested in the molecular ion...examining how the molecule fragments. This isn't as useful for proteins because they are so large.
Again, not so. You need to research the MS techniques used in protein sequencing; very big field. True, the MI is one desired datum, but the sequence is important (and measurable, or at least chunks of it) as well. See MS/MS, MS/MS/MS/ MS/MS/MS/MS, etc (ion trap techniques), electrospray, etc.
The purpose of most class-action lawsuits is more to punish the wrongdoer
Which is exactly part of the problem: punitive lawsuits and awards, rather than real damages.
In that case with my insurance company, I was a member of the class SOLELY because I had insurance with them, and they 'forgot' to tell me I had a right to a credit report based on something or other. I suffered no tort in my mind.
Now, is this REALLY a reason to stick a company (they settled, but we can speak hypothetically) multimillion dollar punitive judgement? Seems out of whack to me.
We're not talking about a case where someone put poison in a city's drinking water or some such where there are real damages.
I mean a huge class action suit where lawyers get millions and each customer would get a free rental or some other nominal compensation. That is how the system is supposed to work.
This is OT, but timely: We got a notice just yesterday that we were in a 'class' for a suit against an insurance company and the case has settled. What do we get?
A $9 credit report.
I was once also in a class in which the award was (iirc) $1.23 per member. A multimillion dollar lawsuit it was, too.
I didn't even bother sending the stupid forms in, but that probably means some lawyer got my $1.23.
If you want to have a secure system you have to use less software, not more. Virus scanner et al are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I do wish I had mod points for this; this is exactly the arguement I've been making for a couple of years now. Anti-malware products, layers of crap to prevent/remove spam, etc, just add to the complexity of the system.
This definately answers the question of Where the Cycles Have Gone.
At least in part.
Sorry to state the obvious, but if you have users that can barely use Windows, they won't know the difference if you switch OS's.
Good grief.
Also, the VectorC compiler by CodePlay is useful for using a C compiler that can generate SIMD for MMX, SSE and 3DNow!.
,br> But really, at the end of the day, what's so bad about assembly? I mean, if you inline only those (relatively small parts) you need to optimize, and let the C compiler handle all the symbol table stuff, it's not that bad. We're not talking about developing a full app, including GUI, in straight Assembly from scratch.
We write code for hardcore chemical simulations. The limits on what can be studied, ie number of atoms/molecules or timescales of the simulations depends on one thing: speed.
Faster computers means better simulations. BUT, if the code is not as fast as it can be on a particular architecture, your simulations are not going to be as complete as they can be. At least within a given time allotment.
I've recently applied some code optimizations to a Monte Carlo simulation and saw speed ups of over 1000x. That's significant.
It's naive to think that faster computers means we should live with sloppy or unoptimized code. SIMD is a useful technique, and if it means the difference between me getting work done in a week or two or three weeks, I think I'll take the one-week sim.
From the article:
using statistical models to compute how sure we can be that the answer lies in a particular range, rather than trying to calculate its exact value
We have that already. It's called Monte Carlo simulation. Been around a while, too.
I think it is a matter of target audience. The Simpsons is on a major 'pop' broadcast network and specifically targets people for whom potty humor is (part of) the draw. Personally, I do like The Simpsons for it's subtlety.
Nova, otoh, has set itself up as a cut above the 'for the masses' standard. I've watched that show since high school (early 80's), and I remember specifics from specific episodes. It was produced to be informative first, and if pop style entertainment was a goal at all, it was far down on the list.
I've also witnessed what I believe to be a general degradation of Nova in this respect. This is just my opinion, mind you, but I think Nova is but a faint shadow of its former self.
To put this into a broader perspective, I also happen to believe the 'making science fun' in the classroom is partially responsible for the overall degradation in science education here in the US. I've taught my classes without that maxim, and proudly achieved my (only) stated goal of actually making sure my students finished the semester with more knowledge than they had at the start.
Iconoclastic, I know.