First, perhaps instead of making use of the batteries exclusively, you could hook a generator to the bike. The generator could be used to charge the batteries where you have 2 sets and you alternate between charge and use/expend.
Secondly, I would refer you to all of the embedded linux solutions: check out:
http://www.linux-embedded.com/
A lot of manufacturers make PC compatible single board computers (some very small) that will run Linux. The Basic STAMP micro-controllers might not be a bad choice either, they come with a lot of accessories (such as a mini-webserver) and a lot of hobbyist work with them: check out:
http://www.parallaxinc.com/
Lastly, I would refer you to Information Unlimited at:
http://www.amazing1.com
to get a small, low cost CCD camera, assuming that you didn't want to go with one of the cheapy webcams out there.
As you might be able to surmise, I have given thought to the kind of project you describe (hobbyist robotics actually). I don't really have THE answer for you, but these are some good places to look. I hope this helps.
Ultimately, via humor I'm just saying that it's nothing to get one's balls in a bunch over (or mammaries in a knot if it so applies.)
I'm willing to accept that the ultimate description of the process that created mankind is probably complex enough that men whether we are talking about 3000 years ago or today would have a difficult time explaining it even IF they had all the answers.
I really think that everyone puts way too much of a burden on a man living several thousands of years ago. Creationism is not disproven in the least.
If we assume for a second that God the creator is explaining the complex origin of the universe to a man living 3000 years ago, can we assume that that man's description of the specific processes being communicated to him might be somewhat er-uh LACKING?
I submit that if God explained the creation of the Universe to Einstein, that even Einstein's description of the account would be prone to a few inaccuracies. The generally accepted story of creationism seeks to explain the origin of man and the role God played in the creation of man, it is not a scientific journal or recipe for how to make men from dirt.
Let's say that God did tell Moses that he created man from DNA, should Moses be expected to transcribe that God created man from the "Deoxyriboneuclaeic Acid" scattered about the planet or can we stretch our imaginations to conceive that where God saw DNA, Moses saw dirt. OR perhaps where God saw a "Big Bang", Moses saw "and God said, let there be light".
Before anyone just totally discounts creationism, let us remember that other than a decay of the material body, the smartest scientists in the world have NO CLUE what happens to us after death (and that's something we all experience). Can we extend this idea to suggest that just as science is not the final authority on death, that maybe (genome project notwithstanding) it is not the final authority on life either?
Furthermore, that if we can accept these two premises, can we entertain the idea that there remains room for creationism after all?
I'm not trying to push my or anyone else's religion on anyone. I'm just trying to suggest that there is something inherently unfair about comparing the writings of a man (or any man) living 3000 years ago to findings from today's technology.
I just think that EACH accounting should be considered within the context of the material being presented (the creation of man) and the time in which it was evaluated (now vs. 3000 years ago). Scientists once claimed that the earth was flat, so can we cut Moses some slack?
Moses: "So er-uh God, could you explain that creation of the earth thing to me? I'd let to get it down for posterity."
God: "How much time have you got, this could take a while."
Moses: "Look at me... what??? I got an 2:30 appointment with Pharoh or something? Oh yeah, I forgot... I DO Have a 2:30 appointment with Pharoh... You got a cliff notes version???"
God: "Yeah, Here goes... Basically allowing for the time dialation associated with the Einsteinian special relativity involved with working from a parallel yet cohabitational dimension at faster than the speed of light, I created the Earth in about 5.68 of what you know as the equivalent earth days."
Moses: "Er-uh... OK... and God created the Earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th day... Sound Good??"
This episode reminds me of the early conflict between ARC (from seaware?) and ZIP (Katz&Co./PKware).
It was the classic battle of What's in a name?
Once upon a time in a galaxy far, far, away when BBSes were the primary means in which the computer community communicated its data and ideas, there was a compression standard known by its.3 extension ARC... Simply put: it was the DOS.tgz of its time and everyone that frequented BBSes used it.
As a result, a company called Seaware sold a lot of copies of their compression/decompression utility also called ARC...
Well along came an inventive programmer named Phil Katz who developed a compression/decompression utilty that was compatible with ARC. Its primary feature was that it yielded slightly faster decompression times than the original Seaware product. (I believe that he originally called it PKARC.)
Needless to say, Seaware sued him over the use of the letters A-R-C (I guess 3 IS a magic number) making a lot of the same kind of claims that SSH Inc. is making. They went around and around about it until FINALLY Katz changed his utility to PKZIP and the entensions produced by his utility to.ZIP.
The problem was that in the process of protecting a quick buck, Seaware Inc. offended their user base. 'Sysops' RAN away from their commercial offerings to support Katz. Besides that, PKARC was already faster than ARC. As it all turned out, once freed from ARC, Katz went on to improve his product offer better compression and nifty features like self extraction. Now only a few even REMEMBER Seaware let alone ARC.
HERE'S THE POINT:
By maintaining the term 'ssh' as the name of a protocol as opposed to a product, SSH Inc. can probably better maintain the synergy between the two efforts. The alternative is that the OpenSSH product changes its name, goes off in a different direction and becomes its own standard much like PKWare's PKZIP did to Seaware's ARC or even GNU's gzip did to the proprietary compression format used for 'compress' and its.Z files.
Yeah, SSH Inc. could use its LAWYERS to press their point, but the fact remains that in a nontrivial way, the term OpenSSH is an ADVERTISEMENT for SSH Inc. People looking for free/low-cost solutions will find them anyway. By maintaining the positive association between the efforts, it gives SSH Inc. the room and credibility to offer the kinds of services and support that an open source project CAN'T offer to its user base.
One day, software companies may learn that LAWYERS are NOT the way to get your point across to the computing community. If anything, they probably CREATE the MOTIVATION to IGNITE its CREATIVITY. There are better ways to handle this situation and I feel that SSH addressing its own LACK OF CREATIVITY in naming their products wouldn't be a bad thing to consider.
SECURELink
CRYPTLink
SECUREConnect
There are all sorts of possibilities that do not require them to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Heaven forbid that corporations and individuals be empowered to make better use of their own machines if so inclined. Not every shinkwrapped program fills the need and not every programmer wants to work for (or even like) M$.
The only companies that truly need to fear open source are companies that either make garbage products or offer poor support.
M$ is just upset because after YEARS of making their income from the toll-booth they placed between the users and their machines, the some of the users got SMART and found ways around the toll.
Intellectual property?? Anyone that programs knows that 90% of the time we stand of the shoulders of others... Nicklaus Wirth, Dijkstra, Alan Kay, Kernigan, Richie, Thompson... individuals whom without access to their "intellectual property", we wouldn't have a science let alone an industry to call home. CAN ANYONE IMAGINE where we would be had AT&T NOT MADE UNIX (their intellectual property) available to the world? Even DOS/Windows uses concepts first explored in Unix including pipes and tree structured directories.
The 'threat' that open source poses is to entities that use monopolies to impose mediocre products on consumers. Innovation?? I only wish that anyone sympathetic to Microsoft could name ONE thing that Microsoft actually innovated... They BOUGHT DOS from a small firm in Seattle, they created Windows after supposedly "developing applications to support the Macintosh", and they usurped the browser market created Netscape. Theirs is a history of aquisition and theft (Stacker vs. Doublespace). When MS Money couldn't outsell Quicken, they tried to BUY Intuit. They'd have been successful if the government had not blocked them. Innovation?
They are right:
Congress does need to be educated about the REAL threat to innovation. If M$ wants to compete let them do so by creating word processors that can't destroy your hard drive because some teen-agers get a malevolent programming itch and operating systems that don't allow users the kind of access that makes it possible.
M$: Don't hate open source, especially when your company has benefitted so much from the "intellectual property" of others... Here's an idea: MAKE BETTER PRODUCTS AND SUPPORT THEM.
Part of the problem is that as far as the lack of creativity goes, there's PLENTY to go around. It's a byproduct of the Unix functional-yet-minimalist mentality that gave us 'cat', 'mv' and 'ls'. As a result, Shell became sh, and Remote Shell-- rsh. It only follows that Secure Shell would become 'ssh'... it makes perfect sense in the true unixen tradition.
Dammit man! I like UNIX but I'm a programmer, not a marketteer.
Moreso than a product, ssh is more like a protocol for which there can obviously be many implementations... to that end, I would submit that the 'confusion' is possibly a good thing because the 'open' product advertises and lends credibility/support to the 'closed' one.
I think that if the author of ssh wants to preserve his company, he should offer to LICENSE 'ssh' in the same way that the modem manufacturer HAYES once licensed 'HAYES compatible' (of course with deference to the fact that openssh is a volunteer effort) so that his company can remain in the cat-bird seat at standards definition meetings. The alternative is that the openssh people rename their product to something different and then because they offer a free implementation, achieve acceptance, credibility, and an installed user base that forgets about its ties to the original product.
I do feel for his problem and appreciate that he was nice about expressing his concern, but I simply feel that there are better ways out of this situation. EXAMPLE:
In addition to ssh, sh, and rsh... most of you are aware that there is also 'ftp' and 'telnet'. Across platforms there have been many implementations including 'TCP/Connect' for the Macintosh. 'TCP/Connect' sounds more like a PRODUCT name. Many of us are also familiar with the Eudora e-mail client.
What I would propose to the author of ssh to get out of the confusion that plagues his company is that HE RENAME HIS PRODUCT to something only slightly more creative like:
SECURE Connect
or SECURELink
or CRYPTLink
or CRYPTConnect
or SECUREComm
or SAFELink
or SAFEConnect
or ANYTHING that sounds more like a commercial product and then BILL/Advertise that product as supporting whichever SSH level his company establishes.
My point is that being embraced by the computing community is a GOOD thing that can be put to GOOD (and even profitable) use. Once you have everyone dancing to your tune, you don't have to break the jukebox just to prove that you own it.
As for the slash/phpslash thing, I think there are subtle differences between the confusions...
Windows 2000: Accept no substitutes!... for COMEDY maybe.;-)
Anyone wanna start a betting pool as to how long it will take before the next M$ tech-blunder hits the national news?
It takes Linux to make a '386 run like a Pentium, it takes Windows to make a Pentium run like a '386.
I'm sure whatever your time is worth pales in comparison to:
a) The amount of money spent reviving thousands of windows systems after the last teardrop attack.
b) The amount of money spent reviving MS dns servers when they all went down a week ago.
c) The amount of money spent rescuing and cleaning windows PCs from Word Processor MACRO-VIRUSES.
d) The amount of money spent rescuing windows PCs from the FUN-LOVE virus and its cousins.
Besides THAT... the windows world is full of companies that both got their start and made their living off of the deficiencies in Microsoft "Innovation" (Symantec & Novell name a couple that come mind) ONLY in a monopolistic environment can the ability to destroy every shread of data on a hard drive by your word processor or spreadsheet be considered a "feature". (Thankyou again, Judge Jackson)
So when a server goes down in a production environment, how much money do you suppose gets burned up as people like yourself spend their time TWIDDLING THEIR THUMBS waiting for it to come back up?
Don't tell me you're NOT a system administrator?
Of course you're NOT, because if you were you'd know that in all applications and environments that COUNT (including those in Wall Street and the nation's telephone network), UNIX OWNS THE SERVER.
Interestingly enough, while there is a separation of CHURCH and STATE, the founding documents of this nation confirm that there is no separation of GOD and STATE. (Which is probably why upon being asked to testify, they say: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... SO HELP YOU _GOD_?) The founding fathers when declaring this land a separate entity specifically stated that they were forming the government to protect the unalienable rights given to us by "the Creator".
Remember the history in that many of the early colonists were fleeing England which had established the Anglican Church/Church of England. Quakers were prominent in Pennsylvania, and Catholics in Maryland (to name a few). Keep in mind that the same constitution that separates Church and state also guarantees Freedom of Religion. To lock out effective faith based organizations from being able to compete to offer services is in fact to truly _endorse_/exhalt a religion and place it above all others:
Atheism.
As for the tax breaks, the tax code is extremely UNFAIR. There should never have been a "sliding rule" for taxation. They should tax the money not the people that earn it... Made clearer: A FLAT TAX RATE or TAXATION based upon CONSUMPTION.
If the tax rate is a flat 10%, then the man with a million dollars still pays more than the man with 10 thousand; it should not be for a government to determine that the millionaire needs the MONEY HE EARNED any less than anyone else especially when the fact is that he still pays 100 times more tax than his counterpart in the previous example.
We are supposedly in A SURPLUS. A SURPLUS means that the government took in more money than it needed. Past/beyond its obligations, it is not for the government to decide that it needs our money more than we do. We live in a REPUBLIC. That make it the government's job to SERVE us, not ROB us.
It is my opinion that Bush is on the right track. Besides, cutting taxes to spur economic growth has precedent - JFK & Ronald Reagan both cut taxes in front of economic upturns. Beyond that, an endorsement from the Grand Wizard of Wall Street (Mr. Greenspan) probably doesn't hurt his case.
I will say this:
As far as the Scum-o-meter goes, please keep in mind that Mr. Clinton is out of office and he's STILL making headlines with his scandals.
As time progresses, I'm willing to bet that more idiots like myself will be more than willing to administer their remote *nix servers from behind their favorite X interface while "enlightened individuals" like yourself pay M$ through the nose for their Advanced Terminal Server:-)
Who knows? Maybe with enough time and YOUR money, M$ will come up with an "innovative" way to install software WITHOUT rebooting the system.:-)
In all fairness however, I must commend them on one of the innovations that they are BEST known for:
The Blue Screen of Death...
Blue is my favorite color (Really! It is...;-)
Do yourself a favor and NEVER look at any chart comparing UPTIMES between the Unixen and Windoze OSes 'lest you come to the same conclusion that the good folks at M$ Hotmail came to when M$ tried to convert them:
Er-uh...
The article proclaims that the Microsoft ERA is over, not necessarily that Microsoft is dead (wishful thinking notwithstanding). Declaring the ERA over (to me) means that finally we are living in a time where "Operating System" IS NOT EQUAL TO "MS Windows". When we started this journey, software from Wordstar to Lotus 123 and hardware from the Compaq to the original PC billed itself as "Microsoft Compatible". Thankfully, we now live in a world that makes room in the mental landscape for alternatives such as Linux, FreeBSD, Beos, Solaris, and others. Yeah, they still don't enjoy the market share that Windoze does, but whereas Microsoft once largely DEFINED standards in DOS/Windows times, Win2k sells itself in part by being compatible with the features of OTHER operating systems.
YES. The ERA is OVER. As strong as ever? Not when my server is as likely (if not moreso) to run Oracle under Unix as it is MS SQL under NT/2k.
And that is a GOOD thing...
For the people that write the programs as well as use them.
Newsflash:
MS doesn't "innovate" anything. Their fearless leader considered the internet to be a toy until Netscape established the market. We can only hope that one day consumers will become informed enough to stop paying M$ for antiquated technology.
The point is (my point anyway) that the ERA IS over, not because Microsoft is on the skids, but because just as IBMPC NOT-EQUAL-TO PC in a world of clones, MS NOT-EQUAL-TO Operating Systems/Applications in a world of software.
It was an interesting scenario but never underestimate the ability of Steve Jobs to steer his ship right into the rocks.
There is no question that Jobs and Co. know how to make a great product. I was a fan of the Macintosh which I defended against a tide of cheap PCs and the NeXT machine which I advocated over cheap sun machines.
Both platforms demonstrated what Mr. Jobs is very good at: Bringing great ideas to the marketplace... BUT there is a reason why Mr.Gates is a multi Billionaire and jobs a multi Millionaire...
Steve Jobs has NEVER understood the concept of "cost of entry". As innovative as the Mac was, did any of you ever try to purchase the "Inside Macintosh Series: Vols I,II,&III?" That doesn't even count what you could expect to pay for actual TOOLS like compilers...
As nice as the Mac was (I liked it, even though I originally had the garbage 128k version that they dumped at my university) you could expect to pay at least 1.5 times MORE for mac hardware.
Even though they've made some adjustments and offer models in the <$1000 range, they do so in a world where you can get a new, functional PC for less than $500.
There is no question that a move to Intel hardware would greatly benefit Apple, but you are kidding yourselves if you think Mr.Jobs has a clue as to how to enlist the support of any but the richest Apple fanatics. Yeah, he might throw a bone in there to hook the people that he'll extort from later... but that is a FAR CRY from what the open source movement has to offer.
Case and point: I loved NeXTStep, and I was encouraged when NeXT ported it to Intel Hardware years ago... but originally, Jobs wanted $1000 for THE SOFTWARE (you could get a PC for that!) and thousands for the training classes necessary to make a serious bid for developing on that platform.
What of the NeXTSTEP heads now?
If they are like me, they are waiting on GNUStep on the assumption that GNOME/GTK doesn't make it irrelevant.
The point is this:
Linux and the *BSDs offer the highest levels of low-cost ACCESS which translates to the potential for the AVERAGE, non-I-have-too-much-money-to-burn developers to make the kind of contributions that give a platform its vitality.
Look at projects such as Apache, which dominates the http server market, Php, PostgresSQL, and Mysql:
All of which feature low cost access and/or low cost of ownership. These speak to the BOTTOM LINE and are probably the reason that there are so many ISPs running linux and *BSD shops.
Nope, Linux isn't quite ready for the desktop YET, but that is YET... and although, where I work, my manager has spent THOUSANDS of dollars with Microsoft to turn our NT boxes into Unix Boxes (X-windows standard functionality + $$$ = MS Windows 2000 Advanced Terminal Server) when the word gets out, not everyone will be down to pay Mr.Jobs OR Mr.Gates the money they ask for stuff that the "people that know" TAKE FOR GRANTED.
The cat is out of the bag gentlemen, and its name is "Open Source".
Slashdot Mirror
First, perhaps instead of making use of the batteries exclusively, you could hook a generator to the bike. The generator could be used to charge the batteries where you have 2 sets and you alternate between charge and use/expend.
Secondly, I would refer you to all of the embedded linux solutions: check out:
http://www.linux-embedded.com/
A lot of manufacturers make PC compatible single board computers (some very small) that will run Linux. The Basic STAMP micro-controllers might not be a bad choice either, they come with a lot of accessories (such as a mini-webserver) and a lot of hobbyist work with them: check out:
http://www.parallaxinc.com/
Lastly, I would refer you to Information Unlimited at:
http://www.amazing1.com
to get a small, low cost CCD camera, assuming that you didn't want to go with one of the cheapy webcams out there.
As you might be able to surmise, I have given thought to the kind of project you describe (hobbyist robotics actually). I don't really have THE answer for you, but these are some good places to look. I hope this helps.
Ultimately, via humor I'm just saying that it's nothing to get one's balls in a bunch over (or mammaries in a knot if it so applies.)
I'm willing to accept that the ultimate description of the process that created mankind is probably complex enough that men whether we are talking about 3000 years ago or today would have a difficult time explaining it even IF they had all the answers.
I really think that everyone puts way too much of a burden on a man living several thousands of years ago. Creationism is not disproven in the least.
If we assume for a second that God the creator is explaining the complex origin of the universe to a man living 3000 years ago, can we assume that that man's description of the specific processes being communicated to him might be somewhat er-uh LACKING?
I submit that if God explained the creation of the Universe to Einstein, that even Einstein's description of the account would be prone to a few inaccuracies. The generally accepted story of creationism seeks to explain the origin of man and the role God played in the creation of man, it is not a scientific journal or recipe for how to make men from dirt.
Let's say that God did tell Moses that he created man from DNA, should Moses be expected to transcribe that God created man from the "Deoxyriboneuclaeic Acid" scattered about the planet or can we stretch our imaginations to conceive that where God saw DNA, Moses saw dirt. OR perhaps where God saw a "Big Bang", Moses saw "and God said, let there be light".
Before anyone just totally discounts creationism, let us remember that other than a decay of the material body, the smartest scientists in the world have NO CLUE what happens to us after death (and that's something we all experience). Can we extend this idea to suggest that just as science is not the final authority on death, that maybe (genome project notwithstanding) it is not the final authority on life either?
Furthermore, that if we can accept these two premises, can we entertain the idea that there remains room for creationism after all?
I'm not trying to push my or anyone else's religion on anyone. I'm just trying to suggest that there is something inherently unfair about comparing the writings of a man (or any man) living 3000 years ago to findings from today's technology.
I just think that EACH accounting should be considered within the context of the material being presented (the creation of man) and the time in which it was evaluated (now vs. 3000 years ago). Scientists once claimed that the earth was flat, so can we cut Moses some slack?
Moses: "So er-uh God, could you explain that creation of the earth thing to me? I'd let to get it down for posterity."
God: "How much time have you got, this could take a while."
Moses: "Look at me... what??? I got an 2:30 appointment with Pharoh or something? Oh yeah, I forgot... I DO Have a 2:30 appointment with Pharoh... You got a cliff notes version???"
God: "Yeah, Here goes... Basically allowing for the time dialation associated with the Einsteinian special relativity involved with working from a parallel yet cohabitational dimension at faster than the speed of light, I created the Earth in about 5.68 of what you know as the equivalent earth days."
Moses: "Er-uh... OK... and God created the Earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th day... Sound Good??"
God: "It'll have to do..."
This episode reminds me of the early conflict between ARC (from seaware?) and ZIP (Katz&Co./PKware).
It was the classic battle of What's in a name?
Once upon a time in a galaxy far, far, away when BBSes were the primary means in which the computer community communicated its data and ideas, there was a compression standard known by its .3 extension ARC... Simply put: it was the DOS .tgz of its time and everyone that frequented BBSes used it.
As a result, a company called Seaware sold a lot of copies of their compression/decompression utility also called ARC...
Well along came an inventive programmer named Phil Katz who developed a compression/decompression utilty that was compatible with ARC. Its primary feature was that it yielded slightly faster decompression times than the original Seaware product. (I believe that he originally called it PKARC.)
Needless to say, Seaware sued him over the use of the letters A-R-C (I guess 3 IS a magic number) making a lot of the same kind of claims that SSH Inc. is making. They went around and around about it until FINALLY Katz changed his utility to PKZIP and the entensions produced by his utility to .ZIP.
The problem was that in the process of protecting a quick buck, Seaware Inc. offended their user base. 'Sysops' RAN away from their commercial offerings to support Katz. Besides that, PKARC was already faster than ARC. As it all turned out, once freed from ARC, Katz went on to improve his product offer better compression and nifty features like self extraction. Now only a few even REMEMBER Seaware let alone ARC.
HERE'S THE POINT:
By maintaining the term 'ssh' as the name of a protocol as opposed to a product, SSH Inc. can probably better maintain the synergy between the two efforts. The alternative is that the OpenSSH product changes its name, goes off in a different direction and becomes its own standard much like PKWare's PKZIP did to Seaware's ARC or even GNU's gzip did to the proprietary compression format used for 'compress' and its.Z files.
Yeah, SSH Inc. could use its LAWYERS to press their point, but the fact remains that in a nontrivial way, the term OpenSSH is an ADVERTISEMENT for SSH Inc. People looking for free/low-cost solutions will find them anyway. By maintaining the positive association between the efforts, it gives SSH Inc. the room and credibility to offer the kinds of services and support that an open source project CAN'T offer to its user base.
One day, software companies may learn that LAWYERS are NOT the way to get your point across to the computing community. If anything, they probably CREATE the MOTIVATION to IGNITE its CREATIVITY. There are better ways to handle this situation and I feel that SSH addressing its own LACK OF CREATIVITY in naming their products wouldn't be a bad thing to consider.
SECURELink
CRYPTLink
SECUREConnect
There are all sorts of possibilities that do not require them to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Heaven forbid that corporations and individuals be empowered to make better use of their own machines if so inclined. Not every shinkwrapped program fills the need and not every programmer wants to work for (or even like) M$.
The only companies that truly need to fear open source are companies that either make garbage products or offer poor support.
M$ is just upset because after YEARS of making their income from the toll-booth they placed between the users and their machines, the some of the users got SMART and found ways around the toll.
Intellectual property?? Anyone that programs knows that 90% of the time we stand of the shoulders of others... Nicklaus Wirth, Dijkstra, Alan Kay, Kernigan, Richie, Thompson... individuals whom without access to their "intellectual property", we wouldn't have a science let alone an industry to call home. CAN ANYONE IMAGINE where we would be had AT&T NOT MADE UNIX (their intellectual property) available to the world? Even DOS/Windows uses concepts first explored in Unix including pipes and tree structured directories.
The 'threat' that open source poses is to entities that use monopolies to impose mediocre products on consumers. Innovation?? I only wish that anyone sympathetic to Microsoft could name ONE thing that Microsoft actually innovated... They BOUGHT DOS from a small firm in Seattle, they created Windows after supposedly "developing applications to support the Macintosh", and they usurped the browser market created Netscape. Theirs is a history of aquisition and theft (Stacker vs. Doublespace). When MS Money couldn't outsell Quicken, they tried to BUY Intuit. They'd have been successful if the government had not blocked them. Innovation?
They are right:
Congress does need to be educated about the REAL threat to innovation. If M$ wants to compete let them do so by creating word processors that can't destroy your hard drive because some teen-agers get a malevolent programming itch and operating systems that don't allow users the kind of access that makes it possible.
M$: Don't hate open source, especially when your company has benefitted so much from the "intellectual property" of others... Here's an idea: MAKE BETTER PRODUCTS AND SUPPORT THEM.OPEN_SSH?
Just kidding, but seriously--
Part of the problem is that as far as the lack of creativity goes, there's PLENTY to go around. It's a byproduct of the Unix functional-yet-minimalist mentality that gave us 'cat', 'mv' and 'ls'. As a result, Shell became sh, and Remote Shell-- rsh. It only follows that Secure Shell would become 'ssh'... it makes perfect sense in the true unixen tradition.
Dammit man! I like UNIX but I'm a programmer, not a marketteer.
Moreso than a product, ssh is more like a protocol for which there can obviously be many implementations... to that end, I would submit that the 'confusion' is possibly a good thing because the 'open' product advertises and lends credibility/support to the 'closed' one.
I think that if the author of ssh wants to preserve his company, he should offer to LICENSE 'ssh' in the same way that the modem manufacturer HAYES once licensed 'HAYES compatible' (of course with deference to the fact that openssh is a volunteer effort) so that his company can remain in the cat-bird seat at standards definition meetings. The alternative is that the openssh people rename their product to something different and then because they offer a free implementation, achieve acceptance, credibility, and an installed user base that forgets about its ties to the original product.
I do feel for his problem and appreciate that he was nice about expressing his concern, but I simply feel that there are better ways out of this situation. EXAMPLE:
In addition to ssh, sh, and rsh... most of you are aware that there is also 'ftp' and 'telnet'. Across platforms there have been many implementations including 'TCP/Connect' for the Macintosh. 'TCP/Connect' sounds more like a PRODUCT name. Many of us are also familiar with the Eudora e-mail client.
What I would propose to the author of ssh to get out of the confusion that plagues his company is that HE RENAME HIS PRODUCT to something only slightly more creative like:
SECURE Connector SECURELink
or CRYPTLink
or CRYPTConnect
or SECUREComm
or SAFELink
or SAFEConnect
or ANYTHING that sounds more like a commercial product and then BILL/Advertise that product as supporting whichever SSH level his company establishes.
My point is that being embraced by the computing community is a GOOD thing that can be put to GOOD (and even profitable) use. Once you have everyone dancing to your tune, you don't have to break the jukebox just to prove that you own it. As for the slash/phpslash thing, I think there are subtle differences between the confusions...Windows 2000: Accept no substitutes! ... for COMEDY maybe. ;-)
Anyone wanna start a betting pool as to how long it will take before the next M$ tech-blunder hits the national news?
It takes Linux to make a '386 run like a Pentium, it takes Windows to make a Pentium run like a '386.
Re-Whatever...
I'm sure whatever your time is worth pales in comparison to:
a) The amount of money spent reviving thousands of windows systems after the last teardrop attack.
b) The amount of money spent reviving MS dns servers when they all went down a week ago.
c) The amount of money spent rescuing and cleaning windows PCs from Word Processor MACRO-VIRUSES.
d) The amount of money spent rescuing windows PCs from the FUN-LOVE virus and its cousins.
Besides THAT... the windows world is full of companies that both got their start and made their living off of the deficiencies in Microsoft "Innovation" (Symantec & Novell name a couple that come mind) ONLY in a monopolistic environment can the ability to destroy every shread of data on a hard drive by your word processor or spreadsheet be considered a "feature". (Thankyou again, Judge Jackson)
So when a server goes down in a production environment, how much money do you suppose gets burned up as people like yourself spend their time TWIDDLING THEIR THUMBS waiting for it to come back up?
Don't tell me you're NOT a system administrator?
Of course you're NOT, because if you were you'd know that in all applications and environments that COUNT (including those in Wall Street and the nation's telephone network), UNIX OWNS THE SERVER.
"Friends don't let friends use Windows."
Hmmm,
As for "the national day of prayer"...
Interestingly enough, while there is a separation of CHURCH and STATE, the founding documents of this nation confirm that there is no separation of GOD and STATE. (Which is probably why upon being asked to testify, they say: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... SO HELP YOU _GOD_?) The founding fathers when declaring this land a separate entity specifically stated that they were forming the government to protect the unalienable rights given to us by "the Creator".
Remember the history in that many of the early colonists were fleeing England which had established the Anglican Church/Church of England. Quakers were prominent in Pennsylvania, and Catholics in Maryland (to name a few). Keep in mind that the same constitution that separates Church and state also guarantees Freedom of Religion. To lock out effective faith based organizations from being able to compete to offer services is in fact to truly _endorse_/exhalt a religion and place it above all others:
Atheism.
As for the tax breaks, the tax code is extremely UNFAIR. There should never have been a "sliding rule" for taxation. They should tax the money not the people that earn it... Made clearer: A FLAT TAX RATE or TAXATION based upon CONSUMPTION.
If the tax rate is a flat 10%, then the man with a million dollars still pays more than the man with 10 thousand; it should not be for a government to determine that the millionaire needs the MONEY HE EARNED any less than anyone else especially when the fact is that he still pays 100 times more tax than his counterpart in the previous example.
We are supposedly in A SURPLUS. A SURPLUS means that the government took in more money than it needed. Past/beyond its obligations, it is not for the government to decide that it needs our money more than we do. We live in a REPUBLIC. That make it the government's job to SERVE us, not ROB us.
It is my opinion that Bush is on the right track. Besides, cutting taxes to spur economic growth has precedent - JFK & Ronald Reagan both cut taxes in front of economic upturns. Beyond that, an endorsement from the Grand Wizard of Wall Street (Mr. Greenspan) probably doesn't hurt his case.
I will say this:
As far as the Scum-o-meter goes, please keep in mind that Mr. Clinton is out of office and he's STILL making headlines with his scandals.
Whatever...
:-)
;-)
As time progresses, I'm willing to bet that more idiots like myself will be more than willing to administer their remote *nix servers from behind their favorite X interface while "enlightened individuals" like yourself pay M$ through the nose for their Advanced Terminal Server
Who knows? Maybe with enough time and YOUR money, M$ will come up with an "innovative" way to install software WITHOUT rebooting the system.:-)
In all fairness however, I must commend them on one of the innovations that they are BEST known for:
The Blue Screen of Death...
Blue is my favorite color (Really! It is...
Do yourself a favor and NEVER look at any chart comparing UPTIMES between the Unixen and Windoze OSes 'lest you come to the same conclusion that the good folks at M$ Hotmail came to when M$ tried to convert them:
Unix: Accept no substitutes!
Er-uh...
The article proclaims that the Microsoft ERA is over, not necessarily that Microsoft is dead (wishful thinking notwithstanding). Declaring the ERA over (to me) means that finally we are living in a time where "Operating System" IS NOT EQUAL TO "MS Windows". When we started this journey, software from Wordstar to Lotus 123 and hardware from the Compaq to the original PC billed itself as "Microsoft Compatible". Thankfully, we now live in a world that makes room in the mental landscape for alternatives such as Linux, FreeBSD, Beos, Solaris, and others. Yeah, they still don't enjoy the market share that Windoze does, but whereas Microsoft once largely DEFINED standards in DOS/Windows times, Win2k sells itself in part by being compatible with the features of OTHER operating systems.
YES. The ERA is OVER. As strong as ever? Not when my server is as likely (if not moreso) to run Oracle under Unix as it is MS SQL under NT/2k.
And that is a GOOD thing...
For the people that write the programs as well as use them.
Newsflash:
MS doesn't "innovate" anything. Their fearless leader considered the internet to be a toy until Netscape established the market. We can only hope that one day consumers will become informed enough to stop paying M$ for antiquated technology.
The point is (my point anyway) that the ERA IS over, not because Microsoft is on the skids, but because just as IBMPC NOT-EQUAL-TO PC in a world of clones, MS NOT-EQUAL-TO Operating Systems/Applications in a world of software.
Thankyou Judge Jackson!
It was an interesting scenario but never underestimate the ability of Steve Jobs to steer his ship right into the rocks.
There is no question that Jobs and Co. know how to make a great product. I was a fan of the Macintosh which I defended against a tide of cheap PCs and the NeXT machine which I advocated over cheap sun machines.
Both platforms demonstrated what Mr. Jobs is very good at: Bringing great ideas to the marketplace... BUT there is a reason why Mr.Gates is a multi Billionaire and jobs a multi Millionaire...
Steve Jobs has NEVER understood the concept of "cost of entry". As innovative as the Mac was, did any of you ever try to purchase the "Inside Macintosh Series: Vols I,II,&III?" That doesn't even count what you could expect to pay for actual TOOLS like compilers...
As nice as the Mac was (I liked it, even though I originally had the garbage 128k version that they dumped at my university) you could expect to pay at least 1.5 times MORE for mac hardware.
Even though they've made some adjustments and offer models in the <$1000 range, they do so in a world where you can get a new, functional PC for less than $500.
There is no question that a move to Intel hardware would greatly benefit Apple, but you are kidding yourselves if you think Mr.Jobs has a clue as to how to enlist the support of any but the richest Apple fanatics. Yeah, he might throw a bone in there to hook the people that he'll extort from later... but that is a FAR CRY from what the open source movement has to offer.
Case and point: I loved NeXTStep, and I was encouraged when NeXT ported it to Intel Hardware years ago... but originally, Jobs wanted $1000 for THE SOFTWARE (you could get a PC for that!) and thousands for the training classes necessary to make a serious bid for developing on that platform.
What of the NeXTSTEP heads now?
If they are like me, they are waiting on GNUStep on the assumption that GNOME/GTK doesn't make it irrelevant.
The point is this:
Linux and the *BSDs offer the highest levels of low-cost ACCESS which translates to the potential for the AVERAGE, non-I-have-too-much-money-to-burn developers to make the kind of contributions that give a platform its vitality.
Look at projects such as Apache, which dominates the http server market, Php, PostgresSQL, and Mysql:
All of which feature low cost access and/or low cost of ownership. These speak to the BOTTOM LINE and are probably the reason that there are so many ISPs running linux and *BSD shops.
Nope, Linux isn't quite ready for the desktop YET, but that is YET... and although, where I work, my manager has spent THOUSANDS of dollars with Microsoft to turn our NT boxes into Unix Boxes (X-windows standard functionality + $$$ = MS Windows 2000 Advanced Terminal Server) when the word gets out, not everyone will be down to pay Mr.Jobs OR Mr.Gates the money they ask for stuff that the "people that know" TAKE FOR GRANTED.
The cat is out of the bag gentlemen, and its name is "Open Source".