No, there are obviously no Kernel-level Macros. However, I have seen several companies I have done work for that relied heavily on Macros and to port(for lack of a better term) them to other environments is not a trivial task.
I think what is being referred to is Macros -- for Access, Word, Excel, etc... Many (most?) don't work in the free offerings.
Re:Viruses, Worms, and Exploits Are... Where?
on
2003: Year of Apache
·
· Score: 1
I am 100% with you. I was sysadmin at a company about a year ago where they had about a dozen Linux/Apache boxes, one Windows/Apache box, and one IIS 5.0 (win2k) box. The Linux/Apache boxes and even the Windows/Apache box worked flawlessly. If there ever was a problem, I could look at the logs (at least on the Linux boxen). IIS would crash randomly. Do you know what the "Event Viewer" (which, incidently, is the most piss-poor logging I have ever seen) showed as the error? "IIS died unexpectedly". Great.... when you expect it to die will you let me know? The only fix I could find was to tell services to restart IIS when this happened./rant
Because of the documentation. If you are a fledgling webmaster there is a bunch of good documentation available from the project; not to mention enough howto's on the internet to sink a ship.
OK. You are right again. I agree that all of this should have been handled years ago; at the absolute latest this should have been resolved in '91. My only response is that I hope the Iraqi people can forgive the U.S. for its extreme short-sightedness and thank them for their new found freedom. I really don't believe that this is "too little too late". It is just "too late".
I agree 100%; the U.S.A. did take advantage of a volatile regime. However, something was eventually done. I do not intend to sound dismissive, but, "Better late than never.", right? I mean, it may (or may not) have been done for all the wrong reasons, but it finally got done.
The U.S. govt. and especially GWB are taking a lot of heat over Iraq. Should they be under pressure? Hell yes. Should we (the entire world) condemn them for what was done in Iraq? I don't think so. Considering all reasonable alternatives (the worst of which is do nothing, which is pretty much what the U.N. had in mind...), I think what happened was the best thing that could have. 25 years late.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - At least 3,240 civilians died across Iraq during a month of war, including 1,896 in Baghdad, according to a five-week Associated Press investigation.
And if you do the math, Saddam Hussein killed roughly twice that per month during his ~25 year tenure as leader. 2,000,000 Iraqis killed by Hussein over 25 years is appx 6700 innocent civilians per month. Kinda puts a new outlook on the losses, no?
People love to point fingers at the Bush administration (and while I agree that some areas of this whole mess could have been handled differently), these same people quickly forget what the status quo prior to the war in Iraq was. Several *million* Iraqis died at the hands of Saddam Hussein. On that point alone, he needed to be removed from power. Genocide is not an option; ever.
I read something about the exact scenario which you are describing. Basically, being an employee of SCO, these contributors are considered "representatives" of SCO. As such, it was up to their management to put a stop to such contributions when they happened (if that was in fact the official stance of SCO). In other words, if this was something that was considered part of their job, then they are considered representatives of their employer (SCO); thus, any code contributed under these conditions is code that is considered to be GPL'd code (since that was the original license made by a representative of SCO).
I cannot find where it was that I read that, although I think it was in a discussion on groklaw. Anyone else have anymore specifics?
I have used Top-Layer's device (the 100Mb one, not the Gigabit one) for exactly what you were referring to -- 10,000 packets/second. It was expensive (about $12000) and a pain-in-the-ass to set up (maybe they have the SSH interface that was up-n-coming about a year ago, that sounded nicer than their damn flaky-ass java applet tool). It also worked a hell of a lot better than trying to time out connections on my Cisco 7200, which ran out of processor long before we saturated our 100Mb pipe.
I have been following all of anthony_dipierro's posts through this article. He knows his shit, listen to him.
"As far as everyone else is concerned, the FBI computer crime division is completely fictional."
You hit the nail on the head. Have you ever tried to contact the FBI's computer crime division? I did. About a year ago the company I was working for got attacked (pretty much same as this attack -- DDOS syn-flood -- hell, my Cisco 7200 couldn't keep up trying to filter). I *tried* very hard to get in touch with the FBI. I got bounced around from one department to another and probably ended up reporting my case to a dozen different individuals. You know what pisses me off the most? I *never* got a single follow-up call. Not one.
I still want to know how the word "Windows" can be trademarked. Especially when Microsoft's own CEO refers to windowing systems in a very generic way.
Comments from Deposition of William H. Gates...
"Virtually every application has the ability to put multiple things on the screen that you'd call windowing....that goes back even before the '60s."
"The idea of splitting a screen up so you have one thing in one place and something in another place I think has been referred to windowing, certainly in the '60s that was called windowing."
I mean, what the hell is " apparently by hackers unhappy with the company's legal threats against users of the Linux operating system" supposed to mean? I think that is a dangerous assumption. After all, it is probably Windows machines that are the 'bots, right?
I concure. Had some bad experiences with some custom java apps (always ran away w/memory... had to restart the apps daily and reboot the machine at least once a week...*sigh*).
I did see the article about Sun and Walmart -- I didn't get a chance to follow that thread... says to self, might be a good one to go look up.... I do appreciate that *something* other than Microsoft will be available on x86 at a retailer. And we already know what a thorn in the side of Microsoft is Sun.
My favorite quote from Sun's Johnathon Schwartz (executive VP of software...) -- "If you use Linux on the server, even if we sold the distribution to you, you are on your own." - from this article: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1274614,00.as p or you can find something very similar (same statement, just not a direct quote) a little bit down in this article: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39116260,00.htm
Here are a few more you may want to check out:
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/21894.html
http://linuxtoday.com/it_management/2003061301126N WSVLL
And who can forget this? - "But there's more to the relationship: SCO also granted Sun a warrant to buy as many as 210,000 shares of SCO stock at $1.83 per share as part of the licensing deal, according to a regulatory document filed Tuesday." : http://news.com.com/2100-1016-1024633.html
Who can forget the infamous words of ESR: http://www.linuxworld.com/story/34274.htm
Not to mention, up until recently, Sun's Java Desktop appeared to be vaporware, especially in the wake of the Redhat deal they had for a Linux Desktop.
You are right, in retrospect I can see how that comment could be percieved as a troll, however don't be swayed into any ideological thinking with regards to Sun. Sun does what is best for Sun, damn the consequences.
How is this any different from Dell, Gateway, HP, etc? If I buy a Dell I can put any damned OS I want to on it, and I'll still get hardware support. I would be rather surprised if Dell even cared what I used.
True, but at that point you have already bought Windows. My point was that I should not *have* to pay for Windows if I have no intention of using it.
If you take a whole bunch of Dell's, preinstall Linux on it, bundle it with OpenOffice.org and Mozilla, and shove them on a rack at CompUSA for the same price as the Windows variants, guess what? 95% of the consumers will still buy the Dell's with Windows on it.
What if these computer's prices reflected the discounts associated with free software. Joe Consumer sees two identical computers, but the one with Linux/Mozilla/OpenOffice is $200 less (appx OEM cost of Windows and Office) than the Windows box. I think he might go for the lesser expensive one. Not 100% of the time, but then again, I don't want Linux to be the only OS on the market either. I just want the choice of paying for a preinstalled OS or buying a bare system (or even buying a system with Linux installed...).
I originally posted this as a reply to my own comment... doh!
How is this any different from Dell, Gateway, HP, etc? If I buy a Dell I can put any damned OS I want to on it, and I'll still get hardware support. I would be rather surprised if Dell even cared what I used.
True, but at that point you have already bought Windows. My point was that I should not *have* to pay for Windows if I have no intention of using it.
If you take a whole bunch of Dell's, preinstall Linux on it, bundle it with OpenOffice.org and Mozilla, and shove them on a rack at CompUSA for the same price as the Windows variants, guess what? 95% of the consumers will still buy the Dell's with Windows on it.
What if these computer's prices reflected the discounts associated with free software. Joe Consumer sees two identical computers, but the one with Linux/Mozilla/OpenOffice is $200 less (appx OEM cost of Windows and Office) than the Windows box. I think he might go for the lesser expensive one. Not 100% of the time, but then again, I don't want Linux to be the only OS on the market either. I just want the choice of paying for a preinstalled OS or buying a bare system (or even buying a system with Linux installed...).
If I had some mod points, I would mod you a troll. Seriously, other than supporting SCO, what kind of commitment have you seen from Sun with regards to Linux? IBM, Redhat, SuSE, etc... have done *much* more in the way of supporting Linux.
Kind of off-topic, but I read somewhere that IBM does more Microsoft support than Microsoft does. Kind of ironic considering IBM's push for Linux, no? However, this does agree with your statement, "...and it would force all their major system integrators to consider pushing Linux much harder to reduce their reliance on Microsoft."
The idea of writing your own driver for new hardware is ludicrous.
When your installed user base is 800,000 machines, I am not sure that it is ludicrous. On the other hand, when your installed user base is 800,000 machines, I suspect your software vendor may handle that for you.;)
I think you missed my point, or I was too vague. Yes an OEM could have chosen to distribute another OS (or even no OS at all). Had they done this, however, the cost of Windows OS more than doubled for the OEM across the entire product line. This being the case, this OEM could *not* compete with other OEMs on a level playing field. This is not much of an incentive to move away from Microsoft, now is it?
To add insult to injury, the only people to suffer are the consumers. They can put another OS on a machine, as long as they purchase a Microsoft license first. Yes, you can build your own machine, but then you have no warranties; think about someone who wants to buy an extended warranty on their hardware. And yes, there are some vendors (who by virtue of being too small to qualify for Microsoft's volume discounts) who will sell bare systems or systems running an alternative OS. However because they are smaller businesses, their costs per unit are much higher and again, the consumer pays through the nose. These are predatory practices. I am not saying that we need to cripple Microsoft in any way (they do that well enough on their own!;), but that they should be forced to play on a level playing field.
Your two analogies don't quite cut it. Yes, Ford makes the cars, but they do not (because it has been proven illegal....) force you to only use Exxon Gas. In fact, Ford cannot legally tell you what brand of gas, oil or tires (or any number of other auto components) you can or cannot use. All Ford can do is require certain standards with regards to these products are met or as a consequence you void your warranty. Hell, they can even *recommend* certain specific products. They cannot, however, require those specific products. Same goes for Krupp. Krupp cannot tell you that you cannot use coffee, water, and filters produced by someone other than Krupp.
Hardware is hardware. What you do with it is your business. If you want to use it as a doorstop, fine, it is yours. This being said, doesn't it stand to reason that, with no other differences, a computer with no OS should never cost more than the exact same computer with an OS?
It seems to me that soon enough this whole argument will become moot because hardware will become *so* cheap that Microsoft will either have to give away the OS or subsidize it in some way. When a complete computer is available for around $300, that $79 or so that Windows costs all of a sudden becomes relevent.
I apologize for the winded reply. I think I am going to go and refresh my drink! 8=) Thanks for your reply.
While yes, you have a choice of other browsers, OSs and such, it seems the real problem with Microsoft was the fact that they (basically) force OEMs to install their product on *all* computers sold or none at all. If an OEM choses not to abide by Microsoft's rules, they are forced to pay full retail price for Microsoft products; effectively making it impossible for these OEMs to compete on a level playing field with other OEMs that did fall in line behind Microsoft's demands.
These are the actions of a Monopoly and are a Bad Thing (tm). I am not sure why more of the trial did not focus on this though.
Slashdot Mirror
No, there are obviously no Kernel-level Macros. However, I have seen several companies I have done work for that relied heavily on Macros and to port(for lack of a better term) them to other environments is not a trivial task.
I think what is being referred to is Macros -- for Access, Word, Excel, etc... Many (most?) don't work in the free offerings.
I am 100% with you. I was sysadmin at a company about a year ago where they had about a dozen Linux/Apache boxes, one Windows/Apache box, and one IIS 5.0 (win2k) box. The Linux/Apache boxes and even the Windows/Apache box worked flawlessly. If there ever was a problem, I could look at the logs (at least on the Linux boxen). IIS would crash randomly. Do you know what the "Event Viewer" (which, incidently, is the most piss-poor logging I have ever seen) showed as the error? "IIS died unexpectedly". Great.... when you expect it to die will you let me know? The only fix I could find was to tell services to restart IIS when this happened. /rant
Because of the documentation. If you are a fledgling webmaster there is a bunch of good documentation available from the project; not to mention enough howto's on the internet to sink a ship.
You son (daughter) of a bitch!
OK. You are right again. I agree that all of this should have been handled years ago; at the absolute latest this should have been resolved in '91. My only response is that I hope the Iraqi people can forgive the U.S. for its extreme short-sightedness and thank them for their new found freedom. I really don't believe that this is "too little too late". It is just "too late".
I agree 100%; the U.S.A. did take advantage of a volatile regime. However, something was eventually done. I do not intend to sound dismissive, but, "Better late than never.", right? I mean, it may (or may not) have been done for all the wrong reasons, but it finally got done.
The U.S. govt. and especially GWB are taking a lot of heat over Iraq. Should they be under pressure? Hell yes. Should we (the entire world) condemn them for what was done in Iraq? I don't think so. Considering all reasonable alternatives (the worst of which is do nothing, which is pretty much what the U.N. had in mind...), I think what happened was the best thing that could have. 25 years late.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - At least 3,240 civilians died across Iraq during a month of war, including 1,896 in Baghdad, according to a five-week Associated Press investigation.
And if you do the math, Saddam Hussein killed roughly twice that per month during his ~25 year tenure as leader. 2,000,000 Iraqis killed by Hussein over 25 years is appx 6700 innocent civilians per month. Kinda puts a new outlook on the losses, no?
People love to point fingers at the Bush administration (and while I agree that some areas of this whole mess could have been handled differently), these same people quickly forget what the status quo prior to the war in Iraq was. Several *million* Iraqis died at the hands of Saddam Hussein. On that point alone, he needed to be removed from power. Genocide is not an option; ever.
I read something about the exact scenario which you are describing. Basically, being an employee of SCO, these contributors are considered "representatives" of SCO. As such, it was up to their management to put a stop to such contributions when they happened (if that was in fact the official stance of SCO). In other words, if this was something that was considered part of their job, then they are considered representatives of their employer (SCO); thus, any code contributed under these conditions is code that is considered to be GPL'd code (since that was the original license made by a representative of SCO).
I cannot find where it was that I read that, although I think it was in a discussion on groklaw. Anyone else have anymore specifics?
p.s. IANAL and don't ever want to become one!
" Perhaps SCO should use some of their millions of recent investments and get an OC48."
Are you kidding? Do you know what one of those costs? That would seriously affect the Crack budget. No way is that going to happen.
Point taken.
I have used Top-Layer's device (the 100Mb one, not the Gigabit one) for exactly what you were referring to -- 10,000 packets/second. It was expensive (about $12000) and a pain-in-the-ass to set up (maybe they have the SSH interface that was up-n-coming about a year ago, that sounded nicer than their damn flaky-ass java applet tool). It also worked a hell of a lot better than trying to time out connections on my Cisco 7200, which ran out of processor long before we saturated our 100Mb pipe.
I have been following all of anthony_dipierro's posts through this article. He knows his shit, listen to him.
Cheers!
"As far as everyone else is concerned, the FBI computer crime division is completely fictional."
You hit the nail on the head. Have you ever tried to contact the FBI's computer crime division? I did. About a year ago the company I was working for got attacked (pretty much same as this attack -- DDOS syn-flood -- hell, my Cisco 7200 couldn't keep up trying to filter). I *tried* very hard to get in touch with the FBI. I got bounced around from one department to another and probably ended up reporting my case to a dozen different individuals. You know what pisses me off the most? I *never* got a single follow-up call. Not one.
I still want to know how the word "Windows" can be trademarked. Especially when Microsoft's own CEO refers to windowing systems in a very generic way.
...that goes back even before the '60s."
Comments from Deposition of William H. Gates...
"Virtually every application has the ability to put multiple things on the screen that you'd call windowing.
"The idea of splitting a screen up so you have one thing in one place and something in another place I think has been referred to windowing, certainly in the '60s that was called windowing."
I thought the same thing.
I mean, what the hell is " apparently by hackers unhappy with the company's legal threats against users of the Linux operating system" supposed to mean? I think that is a dangerous assumption. After all, it is probably Windows machines that are the 'bots, right?
I concure. Had some bad experiences with some custom java apps (always ran away w/memory... had to restart the apps daily and reboot the machine at least once a week...*sigh*).
I did see the article about Sun and Walmart -- I didn't get a chance to follow that thread... says to self, might be a good one to go look up.... I do appreciate that *something* other than Microsoft will be available on x86 at a retailer. And we already know what a thorn in the side of Microsoft is Sun.
Cheers!
errr, ummmm, no.
s p or you can find something very similar (same statement, just not a direct quote) a little bit down in this article:0 ,39020651,39116260,00.htm
N WSVLL
My favorite quote from Sun's Johnathon Schwartz (executive VP of software...) -- "If you use Linux on the server, even if we sold the distribution to you, you are on your own." - from this article: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1274614,00.a
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/
Here are a few more you may want to check out:
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/21894.html
http://linuxtoday.com/it_management/2003061301126
And who can forget this? - "But there's more to the relationship: SCO also granted Sun a warrant to buy as many as 210,000 shares of SCO stock at $1.83 per share as part of the licensing deal, according to a regulatory document filed Tuesday." : http://news.com.com/2100-1016-1024633.html
Who can forget the infamous words of ESR: http://www.linuxworld.com/story/34274.htm
Not to mention, up until recently, Sun's Java Desktop appeared to be vaporware, especially in the wake of the Redhat deal they had for a Linux Desktop.
You are right, in retrospect I can see how that comment could be percieved as a troll, however don't be swayed into any ideological thinking with regards to Sun. Sun does what is best for Sun, damn the consequences.
How is this any different from Dell, Gateway, HP, etc? If I buy a Dell I can put any damned OS I want to on it, and I'll still get hardware support. I would be rather surprised if Dell even cared what I used.
True, but at that point you have already bought Windows. My point was that I should not *have* to pay for Windows if I have no intention of using it.
If you take a whole bunch of Dell's, preinstall Linux on it, bundle it with OpenOffice.org and Mozilla, and shove them on a rack at CompUSA for the same price as the Windows variants, guess what? 95% of the consumers will still buy the Dell's with Windows on it.
What if these computer's prices reflected the discounts associated with free software. Joe Consumer sees two identical computers, but the one with Linux/Mozilla/OpenOffice is $200 less (appx OEM cost of Windows and Office) than the Windows box. I think he might go for the lesser expensive one. Not 100% of the time, but then again, I don't want Linux to be the only OS on the market either. I just want the choice of paying for a preinstalled OS or buying a bare system (or even buying a system with Linux installed...).
I originally posted this as a reply to my own comment... doh!
How is this any different from Dell, Gateway, HP, etc? If I buy a Dell I can put any damned OS I want to on it, and I'll still get hardware support. I would be rather surprised if Dell even cared what I used.
True, but at that point you have already bought Windows. My point was that I should not *have* to pay for Windows if I have no intention of using it.
If you take a whole bunch of Dell's, preinstall Linux on it, bundle it with OpenOffice.org and Mozilla, and shove them on a rack at CompUSA for the same price as the Windows variants, guess what? 95% of the consumers will still buy the Dell's with Windows on it.
What if these computer's prices reflected the discounts associated with free software. Joe Consumer sees two identical computers, but the one with Linux/Mozilla/OpenOffice is $200 less (appx OEM cost of Windows and Office) than the Windows box. I think he might go for the lesser expensive one. Not 100% of the time, but then again, I don't want Linux to be the only OS on the market either. I just want the choice of paying for a preinstalled OS or buying a bare system (or even buying a system with Linux installed...).
If I had some mod points, I would mod you a troll. Seriously, other than supporting SCO, what kind of commitment have you seen from Sun with regards to Linux? IBM, Redhat, SuSE, etc... have done *much* more in the way of supporting Linux.
Kind of off-topic, but I read somewhere that IBM does more Microsoft support than Microsoft does. Kind of ironic considering IBM's push for Linux, no? However, this does agree with your statement, "...and it would force all their major system integrators to consider pushing Linux much harder to reduce their reliance on Microsoft."
Interesting.
The idea of writing your own driver for new hardware is ludicrous.
;)
When your installed user base is 800,000 machines, I am not sure that it is ludicrous. On the other hand, when your installed user base is 800,000 machines, I suspect your software vendor may handle that for you.
I think you missed my point, or I was too vague. Yes an OEM could have chosen to distribute another OS (or even no OS at all). Had they done this, however, the cost of Windows OS more than doubled for the OEM across the entire product line. This being the case, this OEM could *not* compete with other OEMs on a level playing field. This is not much of an incentive to move away from Microsoft, now is it?
;), but that they should be forced to play on a level playing field.
To add insult to injury, the only people to suffer are the consumers. They can put another OS on a machine, as long as they purchase a Microsoft license first. Yes, you can build your own machine, but then you have no warranties; think about someone who wants to buy an extended warranty on their hardware. And yes, there are some vendors (who by virtue of being too small to qualify for Microsoft's volume discounts) who will sell bare systems or systems running an alternative OS. However because they are smaller businesses, their costs per unit are much higher and again, the consumer pays through the nose. These are predatory practices. I am not saying that we need to cripple Microsoft in any way (they do that well enough on their own!
Your two analogies don't quite cut it. Yes, Ford makes the cars, but they do not (because it has been proven illegal....) force you to only use Exxon Gas. In fact, Ford cannot legally tell you what brand of gas, oil or tires (or any number of other auto components) you can or cannot use. All Ford can do is require certain standards with regards to these products are met or as a consequence you void your warranty. Hell, they can even *recommend* certain specific products. They cannot, however, require those specific products. Same goes for Krupp. Krupp cannot tell you that you cannot use coffee, water, and filters produced by someone other than Krupp.
Hardware is hardware. What you do with it is your business. If you want to use it as a doorstop, fine, it is yours. This being said, doesn't it stand to reason that, with no other differences, a computer with no OS should never cost more than the exact same computer with an OS?
It seems to me that soon enough this whole argument will become moot because hardware will become *so* cheap that Microsoft will either have to give away the OS or subsidize it in some way. When a complete computer is available for around $300, that $79 or so that Windows costs all of a sudden becomes relevent.
I apologize for the winded reply. I think I am going to go and refresh my drink! 8=) Thanks for your reply.
While yes, you have a choice of other browsers, OSs and such, it seems the real problem with Microsoft was the fact that they (basically) force OEMs to install their product on *all* computers sold or none at all. If an OEM choses not to abide by Microsoft's rules, they are forced to pay full retail price for Microsoft products; effectively making it impossible for these OEMs to compete on a level playing field with other OEMs that did fall in line behind Microsoft's demands.
These are the actions of a Monopoly and are a Bad Thing (tm). I am not sure why more of the trial did not focus on this though.