That is a picture of him. He played Det./Former Det. Vince Gotelli (1994-1999) on NYPD Blue (From imdb.com). If you can't place him, but know the series, his character was a night watch detective that retired and became an investigator for insurance companies.
I agree with your assessment 100% and would like to add that the loss of innovation does not come from the location or the individuals doing the work, but from the lack of incentive for the outsourcing company to provide innovative work. I would assume, because I don't know this to be true and please correct me if I'm wrong, that the majority of the firms that receive outsourcing contracts for programming have more than one client that they program for. Because of this they have little to no incentive to innovate for their clients, especially if they are working for two clients that compete. These companies would have ample incentive to innovate in maximizing the programming abilities of their staff, but not in the programms they create. Now if the corporations didn't outsource, but instead opened a subsidiary or branch locations for the specific purpose of programming, the loss of innovation would not exist because the same inncentives of "rising" up through the ranks or the financial incentives of your company succeding still exist. By opening these branches the company could still see the monetary gains of a cheaper workforce while providing the same incentives for innovation that they currently have.
Yet, there are still significant downsides to "offshoring" divisions of any company, especially programming. One would be the potential of a competitor latching on to this and using it as a "Support Americans" marketing ploy, this worked quite well for the big three auto makers in the 80's, if only short lived. Another would be the long term prospects of your company. Succesful companies are built on hard working employees that prove themselves in the trenches of their respective companies, rising through the ranks to middle and upper management. I don't know of too many companies that survive on exclusively hiring individuals that have no prior experience in their industries. A good mixture of fresh with experienced management is preferrable, in my opinion, but too many of either can be a problem.
Right, because butanetriol is a precursor to two cholesterol-lowering drugs isn't a good enough reason.
Or maybe you didn't know that diseases of the heart are the number one killer in the United States. If you don't believe me, the stats from 2001, available from the CDC, have 700,142 deaths attributed to diseases of the heart giving it a whopping 29% of the total deaths.
Here is the link to the pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_09.pdf
"We had warned the Justice Department and the court that removing all of those files would not result in a workable product, but that's what the DOJ demanded," Murray said.
http://www.internetwk.com/news/news1230-6.htm
To mean that IE was tied to the Kernel - I should have said "Tied to the fluff that they wrap together in a tangled mass of buggy code brought to us by the innovative thinkers at Microsoft"
costs in terms of data loss, damage, and lost productivity in the last three years alone runs into the billions of dollars. This is documented fact
Really ? which documents ?
From 2001 - CNN Survey: Costs of computer security breaches soar
With every year since the birth of Linux we've only seen improvements so I think there's only a bright future ahead.
I'd argue that with each year of Windows, we've only seen improvements.
How can you actually believe that we have only seen improvements with Windows? Yes, there have been improvements in functionality and capability, but by no means has there ONLY been improvements. Tying a HTML interpreter's code to the OS'es kernel is not only an abuse of the OS'es monopoly, but also an ignorant way to package additional functionality. Or, how about adding functionality for admin purposes that is accessible to anyone on the Internet when the computer is connected to the Internet.
Spammers slip ads through Windows
http://news.com.com/2100-1001_3-962483.html
By the way - CNET is owned by Microsoft.
How do I shut that service off without downloading a patch? I don't need the service, I don't want the service and I see it as redundant since I can e-mail updates or, this is novel, pick up the f-ing phone and call the person and tell them the message.
PS - I run both Linux (Red Hat - for now) and MS at home on two separate computers - does that give me credibility in your eyes?
I've heard stories of people doing the "revenge hack" to prove that the new security is worthless, then ending up in jail. Why would anyone want to risk jail time to get a job back at a company that obviously would rather listen to a contract consultant rather than a member of their company?
"This is the last in my series of On Search essays. I've written these pieces because I care about search and because the lessons of experience are worth writing down; but also because I'd like to change this part of the world. In short, I'd like to arrange for basically every serious computer in the world to come with fast, efficient, easy-to-manage search software that Just Works. This essay is about what that software should look like. Early next year I'll write something on how it might get built.
Naming the Baby An important piece of software needs to have a name, but that takes time and creativity and can wait; for now I'll just call this thing the Basic Resource Finder (BRF).
Requirements Then a couple of non-requirements and a conclusion.
BRF is Open-Source My heartfelt apologies to anyone still trying to make a go of it in server-side search; but that business is just so over. It always was a lousy business, nobody has ever made real money there on a sustained basis, and yet it's something that every Web deployment needs. For a substantial site you can easily drop six figures for a search engine, and all the bells and whistles that buys you are mostly not cost-effective.
So BRF is going to be open-source. That doesn't mean that you can't make money with search software; it just means you have to do it in services. There are always going to be search deployments loaded with tricky implementation and deployment work: figuring out where the data is, aggregating it, cleaning it up, building the workflows so these things keep happening, maintaining some application-specific synonyms, the list goes on and on, and none of these things are free. And they are much better things to spend money on than software licenses."
RTFA!
The original submission is about his last essay and that essay starts with the above quote.
Your comments in response to the "Mixed Feelings" post lead me to infer that you are also part of the problem.
Having "Under God" in the pledge does not force you to have "something" to do with my mainstream religion. Forcing you to recite the Pledge and including those words in it would impinge on your rights to Freedom of Religion. Also, the Bill of Rights guarantees you the Freedom of Religion, it does not guaratee that you can live without contact with another religion, as your comment "my right to have nothing to do with your mainstream religion" would imply. A Jehovas Witness has the right to knock on my door to try to "spread the word of God" and I have the right to slam my door in their face. A priest has the right to stand on public ground reciting passages from the Bible and I have the right to continue walking past him, ignoring his every word. That is what the Freedom of Religion and the Freedom of Speech mean to me.
Also, there is no law requiring the Ten Commandments in public buildings and their is no law requiring that people recite the Pledge of Allegiance. But there have been Lawsuits to have these items removed from public property (The Ten Commandments in a courthouse) or from the Pledge (In regards to students being forced to recite the Pledge in school).
As far as your comments regarding Guantanamo Bay and basic human rights, what do you call "basic human rights?" I call them the right to have a shelter over your head (One that protects the individual from any weather) when in custody, the right to be fed three meals a day (Appropriate for their religion and providing appropriate nurishement), the right to educate yourself through access to a library, and the right to exercise both your mind and body (Not including providing weights and other gym equipment, because you can exercise without access to this equipment) and the freedom to practice their religion. These are the only rights that I feel are required to be met for any criminal. I believe that they have a limited Freedom of Speech, meaning that the warden / guards can require "Lights Out" at a certain time, that a "quiet period" can be set, etc. And, I believe that criminals and prisoners of war should have access to a lawyer when requested. Non-Military combatants have very few rights as spelled out in the Geneva Convention, maybe you should investigate this for yourself instead of listening to anyone else on the issue, including me or my post.
So, what do you call "Basic Human Rights" that criminals and prisoners of war and non-military combatants should have? Access to basic cable? The ability to talk to reporters? Seriously, I want to know.
It seams to me that your priorities are to replace the current majority mindset with your own mindset, not the protection of individual civil liberties.
It would appear to me that you do not understand the nature of what a security update or bug-fix actually is, how Red Hat's plans affect the average user, or for that matter what Red Hat is currently doing.
First, lets get something straight; Red Hat sells the packaging of software, support for that packaged software, and, to some degree, a location to get updates for the software, they do not sell the software itself. Of the three that they do sell, I am willing to pay for two of them, specifically the packaging of the software and the support of the packaged software. I am not, however, willing to pay Red Hat for providing a location to get updates. Do I think that they have a quality update mechanism? Yes. Do I find it to be a valuable added feature? Yes. Am I willing to pay for it? No. It comes down to the choices available and which you choose. I could choose another distribution that offers bug-fixes and security updates for free, like Debian. Or I could monitor the bugtraq mailing list and maintain my own updates. Both of these are better options to me than paying for a place to get updates.
Secondly, the software improvements that I have come to "rely" on come from the open source community as a whole, not on Red Hat, and as such are freely available. Since they are freely available, I am not willing to pay for them. Also, security updates and bug-fixes should be freely available. If I develop a piece of software that has bugs or security issues, I would not go to my client and say 'Sorry, what I provided you doesn't work right, but I can fix it for a fee.' I wouldn't have that client anymore.
Third, this is not the "watershed event that makes people aware of what a service economy looks like when people have to deal with something close to honest pricing" because that is not what a service economy looks like. The customers drive a service economy. If the customers can find a comparable service provider at a lower cost, they will move to the other provider. A service economy is not dictated by the corporations that provide the service, it is dictated by the consumers the purchase the service.
Finally, Red Hat has changed to focusing on the enterprise and chosen to quit supporting the individual or small business at costs lower than enterprise level. Would you pay enterprise level prices for a single workstation? I wouldn't. I am willing to pay a portion of the costs of collecting the software and supplying the software, but only at the level that I plan to use it for, not at an enterprise level.
This is not the end of getting Red Hat's widely appreciated labor free of charge; it is the end of Red Hat providing a single location for the open source community's labor for the individual.
I am an IT professional with experience working with both proprietary and open source software. I have overseen the transition from proprietary software to open source software and have also done research on the cost of ownership issues that your press release site as evidence for waste. Your press release has shown your ignorance on both what "total cost of ownership" includes and what was intended by the Massachusetts government migration to open source.
First off, let me refute a few of your obviously inflammatory comments on this issue. Your comment of "Under the state's proposed "Freeware Initiative," there would be no exceptions to the rule permitting only open source/Linux software" is blatantly false when statements stating exactly the opposite have been made ("The state will also give preference to open-source software, although it will continue to purchase proprietary products if they are found to be superior technologically or otherwise, Kriss said." - News.com article http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5084442.html). Even if open source software was the only option, this would not imply that "Proprietary vendors will be effectively barred from competing for state contracts," these proprietary vendors would always have the option of providing an open source alternative and could do so while maintaining profitability. In addition, your comparison of this policy with the former Soviet Union is baseless and I personally find it offensive. In fact the statement is so ignorant that I fell there is no need to comment further on it.
Secondly, let me comment on your "cost of ownership" issues. As I stated in my opening paragraph I have done significant research into this and have also made the transition to open source alternatives where feasible. In my research I have found exactly the opposite of the studies that you have based this argument on. For example, training costs are higher for Microsoft operating systems than it is for Linux operating systems. This can be verified by researching the costs involved in obtaining an MCSE (Microsoft Certified System Engineer) and obtaining a RHCE (Red Hat Certified Engineer). Obtaining a MCSE costs about $8,000, regardless of Microsoft experience levels, where an RHCE costs about $3,000 for someone with Linux experience and about $7,300 for those with little to no experience with Linux. Also, maintenance costs for Microsoft systems are comparable to those for Linux systems, not less expensive. These maintenance costs would include any support contracts for the software based on the operating systems and for actual hardware maintenance. If a hard drive goes bad on a Microsoft system or a Linux system, you still need to purchase a new hard drive. If you are having problems with proprietary software then you may have go to either the software maker themselves for support or to a licensed support provider, both of which could have significant cost implications. If you are using open source alternatives, you typically have three options, the software provider (May require a support contract), a licensed support provider (May require a fee) or online communities (Depending on the software in question, usually free). The support issues can be summed up in an example from larger corporations typical support structures. These corporations typically hire support contractors to handle their desktop support situations. As part of this they accept bids from potential contractors and choose based on some criteria. In this model support costs are the same because the contractor would be responsible for the support. For small business, like the one I work for, the support costs are actually lower for open source software because the support staff is not called upon to fix the computer as much and can devote more time to other projects.
Finally, I can provide you with a real world example. My switch from Microsoft to Red Hat on 1 server saved my company $20,000 i
While I agree that @stake's comment that the "values and opinions of the report are not in line with @stake's views" implies disagreement with the report, I do not believe this is the biggest problem resulting from Dr. Greer's firing and subsequent statment. @stake is a digital security consulting firm, and as such should be counted on to provide services to best fit the security requirements of their clients. As a digital security consulting firm they should, dare I say must, be able to provide that service in a manner that is not perceived to be biased. Their statement does imply bias towards Microsoft, though I do not believe this was their intent.
Though I don't actually know why @stake believes this report to be contrary to their views and fired Dr. Greer for it, I can only assume that they did this because the report has been perceived as Microsoft bashing. I have not read the full report as of yet, but through reading the "Executive Summary" it is clear to me that the report did not indicate that M$ operating systems should never be used, only that a single operating system (regardless of the operating system) should not be used when security is a priority. This seems to be common sense to me.
As someone who has provided IT consulting services I take that influence that I have very seriously and try my best to provide an unbiased view that best meets my clients needs. @stake's actions and comments have given me a seed of doubt that they provide consulting services in a similar manner. I have perceived their actions and comments as an indication that they heavily favor M$ and could not provide an unbiased service level designed to best meet their clients needs. If I was in a position to choose between two consulting firms and @stake was one of them, these actions would cause me to hire the other consulting firm. Depending on @stake's client base, this could turn into a very serious problem.
Slashdot Mirror
That is a picture of him. He played Det./Former Det. Vince Gotelli (1994-1999) on NYPD Blue (From imdb.com). If you can't place him, but know the series, his character was a night watch detective that retired and became an investigator for insurance companies.
Sounds a lot like UnitedLinux minus SCO to me.
First- Fighting the Mafia
Second- The War on Drugs
Next- The War on Pirates
I agree with your assessment 100% and would like to add that the loss of innovation does not come from the location or the individuals doing the work, but from the lack of incentive for the outsourcing company to provide innovative work. I would assume, because I don't know this to be true and please correct me if I'm wrong, that the majority of the firms that receive outsourcing contracts for programming have more than one client that they program for. Because of this they have little to no incentive to innovate for their clients, especially if they are working for two clients that compete. These companies would have ample incentive to innovate in maximizing the programming abilities of their staff, but not in the programms they create. Now if the corporations didn't outsource, but instead opened a subsidiary or branch locations for the specific purpose of programming, the loss of innovation would not exist because the same inncentives of "rising" up through the ranks or the financial incentives of your company succeding still exist. By opening these branches the company could still see the monetary gains of a cheaper workforce while providing the same incentives for innovation that they currently have.
Yet, there are still significant downsides to "offshoring" divisions of any company, especially programming. One would be the potential of a competitor latching on to this and using it as a "Support Americans" marketing ploy, this worked quite well for the big three auto makers in the 80's, if only short lived. Another would be the long term prospects of your company. Succesful companies are built on hard working employees that prove themselves in the trenches of their respective companies, rising through the ranks to middle and upper management. I don't know of too many companies that survive on exclusively hiring individuals that have no prior experience in their industries. A good mixture of fresh with experienced management is preferrable, in my opinion, but too many of either can be a problem.
That's my 2 cents.
That's right, the fundamentals of a belief cause all the problems in the world. Not the people.
My guess on why they would call it non-natural is that they altered the DNA of the microbes to produce the gas.
Right, because butanetriol is a precursor to two cholesterol-lowering drugs isn't a good enough reason.
9 .pdf
Or maybe you didn't know that diseases of the heart are the number one killer in the United States. If you don't believe me, the stats from 2001, available from the CDC, have 700,142 deaths attributed to diseases of the heart giving it a whopping 29% of the total deaths.
Here is the link to the pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_0
"We had warned the Justice Department and the court that removing all of those files would not result in a workable product, but that's what the DOJ demanded," Murray said.
To mean that IE was tied to the Kernel - I should have said "Tied to the fluff that they wrap together in a tangled mass of buggy code brought to us by the innovative thinkers at Microsoft"
First
costs in terms of data loss, damage, and lost productivity in the last three years alone runs into the billions of dollars. This is documented fact
Really ? which documents ?
From 2001 - CNN Survey: Costs of computer security breaches soar
Second
With every year since the birth of Linux we've only seen improvements so I think there's only a bright future ahead.
I'd argue that with each year of Windows, we've only seen improvements.
How can you actually believe that we have only seen improvements with Windows? Yes, there have been improvements in functionality and capability, but by no means has there ONLY been improvements. Tying a HTML interpreter's code to the OS'es kernel is not only an abuse of the OS'es monopoly, but also an ignorant way to package additional functionality. Or, how about adding functionality for admin purposes that is accessible to anyone on the Internet when the computer is connected to the Internet.
Spammers slip ads through WindowsBy the way - CNET is owned by Microsoft.
How do I shut that service off without downloading a patch? I don't need the service, I don't want the service and I see it as redundant since I can e-mail updates or, this is novel, pick up the f-ing phone and call the person and tell them the message.
PS - I run both Linux (Red Hat - for now) and MS at home on two separate computers - does that give me credibility in your eyes?
I've heard stories of people doing the "revenge hack" to prove that the new security is worthless, then ending up in jail. Why would anyone want to risk jail time to get a job back at a company that obviously would rather listen to a contract consultant rather than a member of their company?
"This is the last in my series of On Search essays. I've written these pieces because I care about search and because the lessons of experience are worth writing down; but also because I'd like to change this part of the world. In short, I'd like to arrange for basically every serious computer in the world to come with fast, efficient, easy-to-manage search software that Just Works. This essay is about what that software should look like. Early next year I'll write something on how it might get built.
Naming the Baby An important piece of software needs to have a name, but that takes time and creativity and can wait; for now I'll just call this thing the Basic Resource Finder (BRF).
Requirements Then a couple of non-requirements and a conclusion.
BRF is Open-Source My heartfelt apologies to anyone still trying to make a go of it in server-side search; but that business is just so over. It always was a lousy business, nobody has ever made real money there on a sustained basis, and yet it's something that every Web deployment needs. For a substantial site you can easily drop six figures for a search engine, and all the bells and whistles that buys you are mostly not cost-effective.
So BRF is going to be open-source. That doesn't mean that you can't make money with search software; it just means you have to do it in services. There are always going to be search deployments loaded with tricky implementation and deployment work: figuring out where the data is, aggregating it, cleaning it up, building the workflows so these things keep happening, maintaining some application-specific synonyms, the list goes on and on, and none of these things are free. And they are much better things to spend money on than software licenses."
RTFA!
The original submission is about his last essay and that essay starts with the above quote.
And whoever moderated you up needs to RTFA also!
Your comments in response to the "Mixed Feelings" post lead me to infer that you are also part of the problem.
Having "Under God" in the pledge does not force you to have "something" to do with my mainstream religion. Forcing you to recite the Pledge and including those words in it would impinge on your rights to Freedom of Religion. Also, the Bill of Rights guarantees you the Freedom of Religion, it does not guaratee that you can live without contact with another religion, as your comment "my right to have nothing to do with your mainstream religion" would imply. A Jehovas Witness has the right to knock on my door to try to "spread the word of God" and I have the right to slam my door in their face. A priest has the right to stand on public ground reciting passages from the Bible and I have the right to continue walking past him, ignoring his every word. That is what the Freedom of Religion and the Freedom of Speech mean to me.
Also, there is no law requiring the Ten Commandments in public buildings and their is no law requiring that people recite the Pledge of Allegiance. But there have been Lawsuits to have these items removed from public property (The Ten Commandments in a courthouse) or from the Pledge (In regards to students being forced to recite the Pledge in school).
As far as your comments regarding Guantanamo Bay and basic human rights, what do you call "basic human rights?" I call them the right to have a shelter over your head (One that protects the individual from any weather) when in custody, the right to be fed three meals a day (Appropriate for their religion and providing appropriate nurishement), the right to educate yourself through access to a library, and the right to exercise both your mind and body (Not including providing weights and other gym equipment, because you can exercise without access to this equipment) and the freedom to practice their religion. These are the only rights that I feel are required to be met for any criminal. I believe that they have a limited Freedom of Speech, meaning that the warden / guards can require "Lights Out" at a certain time, that a "quiet period" can be set, etc. And, I believe that criminals and prisoners of war should have access to a lawyer when requested. Non-Military combatants have very few rights as spelled out in the Geneva Convention, maybe you should investigate this for yourself instead of listening to anyone else on the issue, including me or my post.
So, what do you call "Basic Human Rights" that criminals and prisoners of war and non-military combatants should have? Access to basic cable? The ability to talk to reporters? Seriously, I want to know.
It seams to me that your priorities are to replace the current majority mindset with your own mindset, not the protection of individual civil liberties.
It would appear to me that you do not understand the nature of what a security update or bug-fix actually is, how Red Hat's plans affect the average user, or for that matter what Red Hat is currently doing.
First, lets get something straight; Red Hat sells the packaging of software, support for that packaged software, and, to some degree, a location to get updates for the software, they do not sell the software itself. Of the three that they do sell, I am willing to pay for two of them, specifically the packaging of the software and the support of the packaged software. I am not, however, willing to pay Red Hat for providing a location to get updates. Do I think that they have a quality update mechanism? Yes. Do I find it to be a valuable added feature? Yes. Am I willing to pay for it? No. It comes down to the choices available and which you choose. I could choose another distribution that offers bug-fixes and security updates for free, like Debian. Or I could monitor the bugtraq mailing list and maintain my own updates. Both of these are better options to me than paying for a place to get updates.
Secondly, the software improvements that I have come to "rely" on come from the open source community as a whole, not on Red Hat, and as such are freely available. Since they are freely available, I am not willing to pay for them. Also, security updates and bug-fixes should be freely available. If I develop a piece of software that has bugs or security issues, I would not go to my client and say 'Sorry, what I provided you doesn't work right, but I can fix it for a fee.' I wouldn't have that client anymore.
Third, this is not the "watershed event that makes people aware of what a service economy looks like when people have to deal with something close to honest pricing" because that is not what a service economy looks like. The customers drive a service economy. If the customers can find a comparable service provider at a lower cost, they will move to the other provider. A service economy is not dictated by the corporations that provide the service, it is dictated by the consumers the purchase the service.
Finally, Red Hat has changed to focusing on the enterprise and chosen to quit supporting the individual or small business at costs lower than enterprise level. Would you pay enterprise level prices for a single workstation? I wouldn't. I am willing to pay a portion of the costs of collecting the software and supplying the software, but only at the level that I plan to use it for, not at an enterprise level.
This is not the end of getting Red Hat's widely appreciated labor free of charge; it is the end of Red Hat providing a single location for the open source community's labor for the individual.While I agree that @stake's comment that the "values and opinions of the report are not in line with @stake's views" implies disagreement with the report, I do not believe this is the biggest problem resulting from Dr. Greer's firing and subsequent statment. @stake is a digital security consulting firm, and as such should be counted on to provide services to best fit the security requirements of their clients. As a digital security consulting firm they should, dare I say must, be able to provide that service in a manner that is not perceived to be biased. Their statement does imply bias towards Microsoft, though I do not believe this was their intent.
Though I don't actually know why @stake believes this report to be contrary to their views and fired Dr. Greer for it, I can only assume that they did this because the report has been perceived as Microsoft bashing. I have not read the full report as of yet, but through reading the "Executive Summary" it is clear to me that the report did not indicate that M$ operating systems should never be used, only that a single operating system (regardless of the operating system) should not be used when security is a priority. This seems to be common sense to me.
As someone who has provided IT consulting services I take that influence that I have very seriously and try my best to provide an unbiased view that best meets my clients needs. @stake's actions and comments have given me a seed of doubt that they provide consulting services in a similar manner. I have perceived their actions and comments as an indication that they heavily favor M$ and could not provide an unbiased service level designed to best meet their clients needs. If I was in a position to choose between two consulting firms and @stake was one of them, these actions would cause me to hire the other consulting firm. Depending on @stake's client base, this could turn into a very serious problem.
"If you aren't able to do it right, don't do it"