I thought the comment posted there poses an even better question - Is this another Urban Legend?
Before we go railing against Microsoft and the NYPD, do we have independent verification that this incident actually happened? It sounds like a story that someone could hear on a rumor, slightly embellished, and re-post. Lord knows, if it has to do with Microsoft, it'll get plenty of air time.
It's still Beta software, but I have played with it some, and I think it has potential. It's an "enabling technology", meaning it provides a communications and brokering framework for other people to write their applications on top of. My impression is that it has a lot of the same things as Sun's "Gini", but it's more service related (as opposed to hardware) and designed to work over a wider network.
Now that it's free (as in "freedom"), I think it has the potential to really take off.
Get the Architecture document (PDF) and look at that. A lot more in depth than most people want, but there are a couple of good overview sections.
I've played with e-speak some (we're supposed to be one of those e-commerce consultant companies), and though it is still vey much "Beta" software, I think it has a lot of potential. Going first with an open standard and now with open source, it has the promise of becoming one of those fundamental standards like NFS was after Sun released the source code to that.
> I'm now seeing why ESR started the "Open Source" movement.
Not to degrade your point, but ESR (Eric Raymond) didn't start the Open Source movement. That honor belongs more properly to RMS (Stallman). Both have done a great deal to promote Open (or "Free") Software, each in their own way, but it was Stallman who first came up with the idea of the GNU "Copyleft".
We make use of a UML modeling product which is made by Rational.
Though it is infuriatingly buggy, I must admit that it is probably the most feature rich UML package I've ever seen, with both code generation and "reverse engineering" functions as well as Use Case, Interaction, Activity and a bunch of other UML diagram tools.
The point is, the processors are actually running at the stated speed.
How many "typical" users ever open up their computer? Of those who do, how many pull the heat sink off the CPU? If they do open it up for a look, it'll probably be a couple of years down the road when they are about to upgrade the CPU, at which point it'll be more hassle than it's worth to try to track down the original seller.
I overclock my own CPU's by 20% to 30% all the time. It's as simple as changing a couple of jumpers on the MB usually, and it's reliable as long as you have a good heat sink and fan. The only drawback is the risk of reducing the life expectancy of the processor (which is still an order of magnitude greater than their useful lifespan in today's economy anyway). If a retailer did it, I think he'd be able to get away for years before someone called him on the carpet. Even then, chances are the dealer could weasel out of it by claiming the parts were mislabled, or that he had included the "enhanced clock speed" somewhere in the fine print.
After all, if the sign says "500MHz", and the processor is actually running at 500MHz, then the dealer is sort of telling the truth...
At the moment, I'm still trying to get their "echo" example working in a distributed environment (i.e., where the client and server are on different actual machines, communicating over a local network). Overall, the documentation is fairly good, but it leaves some critical details out (or stuffs them in some obscure place where I haven't been able to find them), and sometimes it's just plain wrong.
One thing I'd like to see is a list of requirements under Linux. It wasn't until after working with it for a week that I suddenly realzed that I had confugured IP Multicast out of the kernel that I was running. I'm sure that didn't help!
I've been involved in the HP e-speak Beta program for a month or so now, and have had mixed success. This is definitely BETA software, and not ready for the Big Time. There are a number of issues with things like support for the 1.2JKD, security and generally fuzzy documentation. However, reading the architecture documentation, it seems to have a lot of potential.
I'm wondering if anyone else has downloaded and/or tried the software yet. I'd like to hear other experiences.
> I appreciate where the author is going here, but the whole war metaphor is getting old. Think in constructive terms instead.
Then give us a better metaphor. Seriously.
I agree that we have to take out sights off "beating" Microsoft. However, like it or not, they do a pretty good job at defining what people's expectations are for computers. It's not because they have such great products, or because their vision of the future is all that insightful, but simply because so many people are used to the features they have laid out on the table.
Call it mind share or attention or corporate backing or VAR support or plugins, Microsoft and Microsoft-only applications are sucking up resources. Do you want to have plugins that work for all the Web pages you surf? How many times have you tried to get at multi-media content only to find that "You appear to be using an unsupported platform"? It bugs the TAR out of me when I can't use QuickTime or RealAudio (it core dumps on my sound card) for anything.
If you want your Linux computer to be as useful to you as a Windows computer, you are going to have to fight for resources. Call it a war or call it something else - it's going to take a significant amount of effort on our part to make it a success.
Shoot - Linux is buggy too if you really get down to it. The X driver (technically not a part of "Linux", but an integral part of the operating enviromnent) crashes or hangs up fairly regularly. The question is how usefull it is, and how much time do you waste because of those bugs.
I learned long ago that depending on special hardware to do a task tends to be (a) very expensive, and (b) ties you in to a fixed solution to a problem. You may be able to crank your applications out Really Fast for a while, but in 18 months, when commodity hardware has doubled in speed, you suddenly find yourself shackled to an out of date system.
My biggest complaint about the article, or rather the author, is his self-serving attitude. Statements like, "I'm the only one with the real story," and "Put *ME* on your inventment board," and "Hire *ME* as your keynote speaker" make me think he's more interested in advancing his own fortunes, rather than halting a truly dangerous situatiion...
> I am sure many of us have been in that situation...
Sounds like my computer network at home. How many times have you spent 10 hours fiddling with some upgrade or enhancement on your computer at home, only to realize that the only reason you're fiddling with it is... well... because you like to fiddle with computers? I just put a 300MHz processor in my Linux box. Do I really need that 500MHz processor/MB upgrade I've been drooling over? Will my son's life really be better when he has THREE systems on line at home to play QuakeII Deathmatch???
Now, there's a lot to be said for education and keeping up with the industry and hacking and contributing to the community, but when does it shift from hobby to obsession? When does it get in the way of spending time with our families?
Funny... My wife is a teacher and principal in a small elementary school. I work on Information Technology - the ability to stuff huge amounts of data into small places, and then be able to find it later. My wife teaches kids the basic tools of life - reading, writing, critical thinking, writing. I push bits. Yet, my salary is close to 4 times what hers is. Where's the justice in that???
I just volunteered a week this Summer at a not-for-profit organization working on getting LDAP and Netscape up and running on their new Linux network so they can use more of the power of email to communicate. Is that an appropriate use of technology?
(Of course, I'm still having all kinds of fun, so I can't be TOO far off base...;-)
If Gutenberg had invented a better threashing machine rather than a printing press...
Not a perfect analogy, but I think it fits. The Internet is more than just a playground for rich people, just as books - especially CHEAP books made possible by the printing press - were not the sole property of the rich.
You wrote: believe the Internet, and computers in general, are both worthwhile and necessary. It's when we think of them as ends in themselves that we go wrong. The Internet doesn't create ideas; it's merely a tool that helps distribute them and makes collaborative thinking easier. Computers do no original thinking; they merely help human thinkers work more efficiently.
This is the key. Using the analogy of books again, Gutenberg didn't print the Bible just because it was a "neat thing to do." He did it because it gave information, and by extension, power to the masses. No longer could the religious elete hold sway over the common people, claiming that they were the sole holders of The Truth. Now every man or woman (or at least those who could read) could go and read the Bible for themselves.
The Internet opens up a vast network of information. In itself, it's not worth any more than a piece of paper with ink spots on it. What makes it important is the people and information and opportunities it brings together.
> Do you suppose that at the first sign of something that might result in bad press, Microsoft immediately gets MSNBC the story, thinking that at the very least, it can use the situations to bolster the network's credibility?
More likely, if they are the first to publicize the story, then they can "spin doctor" it - report all the negative "facts" but with a subtle shift to make them sound "not so bad".
Microsoft's certainly not the first company to do this. They've just perfected the art...;-)
Josh makes a point: > There is a great support mechanism (the community itself). However, that mechanism, while typically very responsive, isn't truly "responsible", in that no-one is required to support anything...
While, for the most part, I have had good success getting help with various problems I have encountered using Linux, it hasn't been easy. I've been working with computers for many years, and I'm pretty good at hunting down information and just hammering at a problem until I come up with a solution. However, there are a lot of people who don't have the time or patience or experience or inclination to do things the way I do. And, even at that, sometimes I just can't find a solution. There have been times when I have posted a request to a newsgroup and either found someone else with the same problem or got a reply within hours. However, there have been times when I've come up empty.
My point is, if no one is responsible for providing an answer, then there is a high probability that noone will answer your cry for help. And, as the size and complexity of the community grows, I have a feeling that the "signal to noise ratio" is going to get so bad that those who are out there trying to help people are going to become overwhelmed to the point where they will retreat back into their Hacker communities where the hordes of newbies won't be able to bother them.
Obviously, the one hope for this situation is organizations like RedHat and others who will set up support contracts, but these will not be for free. While these are great, they lose some of the "openly available" spirit of sources like UseNet and various User Groups. A lot of people try out Linux simply because it's free (as in beer), and if the free supply of support dries up, it will put a serious dent in the growth pressure for Open Source software.
(In other words, we're doing well, but the battle isn't over yet.)
Does Hollywood portray anything (person, group, technology) in a realistic light?
Does the public want Hollywood to portray the world in a realistic light, or do they want movies that support and build on their pre-conceived notions of how life works?
I think that the computer industry has spent the last ten years or so running scared in front of Microsoft's preditory tacts, and they are simply tired of it. Most people don't want the company ground to dust, but they would be happy if they no longer had to look over their shoulder every time they wanted to try something new, wondering if the Great Lion was going to come along and swallow them whole.
If something could be done to Microsoft as a corporation to de-claw the beast, then perhaps some other groups of people would be so bold as to innovate, with a clear hope that their blood, sweat and tears will pay off in the end.
The other hope is that this whole situation is introducing a little healthy fear into Microsoft. They obviously have a lot of paranoia, but that's not the same as fear. Real fear is, "If we don't do a better job, someone else will come along and replace our product with a better one." This is opposed to the current feeling of, "If we let anyone else innovate, then we will lose our total domination of this market."
However, I have a feeling that the DoJ trial came at just the right time. Whatever ends up happening to Microsoft in the short term, the trial has (1) raised the Spector that, perhaps the industry can survive without bowing morning and evening in the direction of Redmond, and (2) distracted Gates and his minions long enough to let some of the mice out of the cage. Now, it's anybody's guess what the future will bring.
It's not exactly clear from the rather sketchy article, but if the key comes from a service (i.e., special application opens message X and sends request to server http://foo.bar for key), then the server could destroy its copy of the key, say... 24 hours after the first read request.
Still, a system that relies on "both sender and receiver wanting the message to dissapear" seems pretty limited...
It found my NIC OK, but it didn't have a clue what to do with my video. The mouse on one system (Conpaq) I tried it on buzzed and jumped like it was on an old 286.
Was that a web Server or a Browser? About a year ago, I played with a version that had a simple browser, as well as support for a half dozen NIC's, but you couldn't write anything to the file system, so you couldn't do anything more than play around a little.
Now, if it supported a small web Server, than that would be pretty cool... especially if you could create some content for it.
I won't deny the fact that the post has a definite US-Centric view, but let's turn this around...
Does the fact that a US based corporation has bought a huge amount of influence into what is by anyone's definition, one of the most highly regarded educational institutions, bring any fear that this will only increase the rest of the world's dependence on a preditory US monopoly?
Put another way, one of the greatest strengths of Linux (and a number of other similar, non-MS products) is the fact that it isn't beholden to a single US corporation. A move like this on the part of MS threatens to flood the market with a great number of new grads with little window icons burned into their foreheads. When these technologists and managers and marketing people hit the world economy, what's the chance that they will think twice about implementing systems based on software that is, in more than one sense, "foreign" to them???
Slashdot Mirror
Before we go railing against Microsoft and the NYPD, do we have independent verification that this incident actually happened? It sounds like a story that someone could hear on a rumor, slightly embellished, and re-post. Lord knows, if it has to do with Microsoft, it'll get plenty of air time.
Now that it's free (as in "freedom"), I think it has the potential to really take off.
I've played with e-speak some (we're supposed to be one of those e-commerce consultant companies), and though it is still vey much "Beta" software, I think it has a lot of potential. Going first with an open standard and now with open source, it has the promise of becoming one of those fundamental standards like NFS was after Sun released the source code to that.
Not to degrade your point, but ESR (Eric Raymond) didn't start the Open Source movement. That honor belongs more properly to RMS (Stallman). Both have done a great deal to promote Open (or "Free") Software, each in their own way, but it was Stallman who first came up with the idea of the GNU "Copyleft".
Though it is infuriatingly buggy, I must admit that it is probably the most feature rich UML package I've ever seen, with both code generation and "reverse engineering" functions as well as Use Case, Interaction, Activity and a bunch of other UML diagram tools.
How many "typical" users ever open up their computer? Of those who do, how many pull the heat sink off the CPU? If they do open it up for a look, it'll probably be a couple of years down the road when they are about to upgrade the CPU, at which point it'll be more hassle than it's worth to try to track down the original seller.
I overclock my own CPU's by 20% to 30% all the time. It's as simple as changing a couple of jumpers on the MB usually, and it's reliable as long as you have a good heat sink and fan. The only drawback is the risk of reducing the life expectancy of the processor (which is still an order of magnitude greater than their useful lifespan in today's economy anyway). If a retailer did it, I think he'd be able to get away for years before someone called him on the carpet. Even then, chances are the dealer could weasel out of it by claiming the parts were mislabled, or that he had included the "enhanced clock speed" somewhere in the fine print.
After all, if the sign says "500MHz", and the processor is actually running at 500MHz, then the dealer is sort of telling the truth...
One thing I'd like to see is a list of requirements under Linux. It wasn't until after working with it for a week that I suddenly realzed that I had confugured IP Multicast out of the kernel that I was running. I'm sure that didn't help!
I'm wondering if anyone else has downloaded and/or tried the software yet. I'd like to hear other experiences.
Then give us a better metaphor. Seriously.
I agree that we have to take out sights off "beating" Microsoft. However, like it or not, they do a pretty good job at defining what people's expectations are for computers. It's not because they have such great products, or because their vision of the future is all that insightful, but simply because so many people are used to the features they have laid out on the table.
Call it mind share or attention or corporate backing or VAR support or plugins, Microsoft and Microsoft-only applications are sucking up resources. Do you want to have plugins that work for all the Web pages you surf? How many times have you tried to get at multi-media content only to find that "You appear to be using an unsupported platform"? It bugs the TAR out of me when I can't use QuickTime or RealAudio (it core dumps on my sound card) for anything.
If you want your Linux computer to be as useful to you as a Windows computer, you are going to have to fight for resources. Call it a war or call it something else - it's going to take a significant amount of effort on our part to make it a success.
Shoot - Linux is buggy too if you really get down to it. The X driver (technically not a part of "Linux", but an integral part of the operating enviromnent) crashes or hangs up fairly regularly. The question is how usefull it is, and how much time do you waste because of those bugs.
Been there. Done that.
My biggest complaint about the article, or rather the author, is his self-serving attitude. Statements like, "I'm the only one with the real story," and "Put *ME* on your inventment board," and "Hire *ME* as your keynote speaker" make me think he's more interested in advancing his own fortunes, rather than halting a truly dangerous situatiion...
Sounds like my computer network at home. How many times have you spent 10 hours fiddling with some upgrade or enhancement on your computer at home, only to realize that the only reason you're fiddling with it is... well... because you like to fiddle with computers? I just put a 300MHz processor in my Linux box. Do I really need that 500MHz processor/MB upgrade I've been drooling over? Will my son's life really be better when he has THREE systems on line at home to play QuakeII Deathmatch???
Now, there's a lot to be said for education and keeping up with the industry and hacking and contributing to the community, but when does it shift from hobby to obsession? When does it get in the way of spending time with our families?
Funny... My wife is a teacher and principal in a small elementary school. I work on Information Technology - the ability to stuff huge amounts of data into small places, and then be able to find it later. My wife teaches kids the basic tools of life - reading, writing, critical thinking, writing. I push bits. Yet, my salary is close to 4 times what hers is. Where's the justice in that???
I just volunteered a week this Summer at a not-for-profit organization working on getting LDAP and Netscape up and running on their new Linux network so they can use more of the power of email to communicate. Is that an appropriate use of technology?
(Of course, I'm still having all kinds of fun, so I can't be TOO far off base... ;-)
Not a perfect analogy, but I think it fits. The Internet is more than just a playground for rich people, just as books - especially CHEAP books made possible by the printing press - were not the sole property of the rich.
You wrote: believe the Internet, and computers in general, are both worthwhile and necessary. It's when we think of them as ends in themselves that we go wrong. The Internet doesn't create ideas; it's merely a tool that helps distribute them and makes collaborative thinking easier. Computers do no original thinking; they merely help human thinkers work more efficiently.
This is the key. Using the analogy of books again, Gutenberg didn't print the Bible just because it was a "neat thing to do." He did it because it gave information, and by extension, power to the masses. No longer could the religious elete hold sway over the common people, claiming that they were the sole holders of The Truth. Now every man or woman (or at least those who could read) could go and read the Bible for themselves.
The Internet opens up a vast network of information. In itself, it's not worth any more than a piece of paper with ink spots on it. What makes it important is the people and information and opportunities it brings together.
More likely, if they are the first to publicize the story, then they can "spin doctor" it - report all the negative "facts" but with a subtle shift to make them sound "not so bad".
Microsoft's certainly not the first company to do this. They've just perfected the art... ;-)
> There is a great support mechanism (the community itself). However, that mechanism, while typically very responsive, isn't truly "responsible", in that no-one is required to support anything
While, for the most part, I have had good success getting help with various problems I have encountered using Linux, it hasn't been easy. I've been working with computers for many years, and I'm pretty good at hunting down information and just hammering at a problem until I come up with a solution. However, there are a lot of people who don't have the time or patience or experience or inclination to do things the way I do. And, even at that, sometimes I just can't find a solution. There have been times when I have posted a request to a newsgroup and either found someone else with the same problem or got a reply within hours. However, there have been times when I've come up empty.
My point is, if no one is responsible for providing an answer, then there is a high probability that noone will answer your cry for help. And, as the size and complexity of the community grows, I have a feeling that the "signal to noise ratio" is going to get so bad that those who are out there trying to help people are going to become overwhelmed to the point where they will retreat back into their Hacker communities where the hordes of newbies won't be able to bother them.
Obviously, the one hope for this situation is organizations like RedHat and others who will set up support contracts, but these will not be for free. While these are great, they lose some of the "openly available" spirit of sources like UseNet and various User Groups. A lot of people try out Linux simply because it's free (as in beer), and if the free supply of support dries up, it will put a serious dent in the growth pressure for Open Source software.
(In other words, we're doing well, but the battle isn't over yet.)
Does the public want Hollywood to portray the world in a realistic light, or do they want movies that support and build on their pre-conceived notions of how life works?
This is entertainment, remember...
If something could be done to Microsoft as a corporation to de-claw the beast, then perhaps some other groups of people would be so bold as to innovate, with a clear hope that their blood, sweat and tears will pay off in the end.
The other hope is that this whole situation is introducing a little healthy fear into Microsoft. They obviously have a lot of paranoia, but that's not the same as fear. Real fear is, "If we don't do a better job, someone else will come along and replace our product with a better one." This is opposed to the current feeling of, "If we let anyone else innovate, then we will lose our total domination of this market."
However, I have a feeling that the DoJ trial came at just the right time. Whatever ends up happening to Microsoft in the short term, the trial has (1) raised the Spector that, perhaps the industry can survive without bowing morning and evening in the direction of Redmond, and (2) distracted Gates and his minions long enough to let some of the mice out of the cage. Now, it's anybody's guess what the future will bring.
Still, a system that relies on "both sender and receiver wanting the message to dissapear" seems pretty limited...
It found my NIC OK, but it didn't have a clue what to do with my video. The mouse on one system (Conpaq) I tried it on buzzed and jumped like it was on an old 286.
I *DO* like the built in web server though...
Was that a web Server or a Browser? About a year ago, I played with a version that had a simple browser, as well as support for a half dozen NIC's, but you couldn't write anything to the file system, so you couldn't do anything more than play around a little.
Now, if it supported a small web Server, than that would be pretty cool... especially if you could create some content for it.
It took me a while to find it, but there was an article about a month ago here on /. that predicted that this exact situation would happen.
Does the fact that a US based corporation has bought a huge amount of influence into what is by anyone's definition, one of the most highly regarded educational institutions, bring any fear that this will only increase the rest of the world's dependence on a preditory US monopoly?
Put another way, one of the greatest strengths of Linux (and a number of other similar, non-MS products) is the fact that it isn't beholden to a single US corporation. A move like this on the part of MS threatens to flood the market with a great number of new grads with little window icons burned into their foreheads. When these technologists and managers and marketing people hit the world economy, what's the chance that they will think twice about implementing systems based on software that is, in more than one sense, "foreign" to them???