The biggest problem with many of these tests is they are so completely arbitrary and generational. I remember MCSE tests that effectively made you memorize steps to the control panel through the menu & a bunch of other stuff they happily change with each version of windows.
Cisco at least shares some of their working reality (protocals etc...) with their students.
Microsoft puts you a football field from the code, arms length from the issues and tries to teach you temporary solutions. Show me another 'teacher' that won't show you their proofs and tells all your prospective employers you're not necessary because they made it so simple.
Certifications that are an overblown software manual are poor. It should be possible for an information company to distill a central few tests and update less than a third for each software release. The problem is that that would have to be based on fundamental understanding that would crack open their design box.
Proprietary software certification is little more than a golden nose ring. It may lead you to a job but you certainly don't have a huge depth of knowledge after.
The people trying to abuse security may likely have the same sort of skills as the flaw hunters, though hopefully less skill. Its not just that some bugs are found but perhaps the most obvious ones are found.
Embarrassment encourages vigilence: Software firms are always looking to reduce costs (who isn't) - outside bug hunters encourage them to test more completely.
I think really bad software abuse usually has a motive connected with bad treatment or reputation for bad treatment. Even if there is a small lag time between the discovery and fixing of a hole it doesn't let the problem lie around where people who develop a grudge can use it.
Finally (and most importantly) fairness dictates that if I'm using a product you know a problem with - you should tell me about it. Consumers deserve the chance to disable systems, switch products etc.... if they feel vulnerable.
Especially if software is closed source - how do you know this bug isn't the tip of the iceberg. Companies have conviced consumers they dont get to look inside software -- they can't stop others from hearing about its flaws.
Windows9X has a massive installed base. I'm sure the number of hosts on the internet using windows 9x dwarf any numver of Redhat machines.
If there was that much interest in an open source program it would certainly be backported or fixed -- look at Apache 1.2.
Windows made a huge profit and received a huge public trust in earlier windows.
Besides I am not talking about these 'platforms' I am talking about Microsoft's commitment to Internet Explorer. It is a classic monopoly conflict of interest Microsoft disregards a huge installed base for IE because it wants to push users to the latest and greatest. They cannot get away from the fact that their software is left as a security risk for the whole internet. Patches that they may be able to backport with little difficulty will not be released while they stop others from doing it by controlling the source code.
If Windows 95 were a car made in 1960 it would be legal to independently make parts for it according to the original specifications & design. Since it is software, even though its much newer, that is illegal. American business relies at least as much on its computers as its cars and they deserve similar service.
One has to ask if they're market share reflects free customers able to replace what isn't working. The mammoth security holes of IE & Outlook would be funny if they didn't represent so much time wasting trouble & junk mail in my inbox.
How does Microsoft justify not fixing IE bugs on older platforms?
"Yeah, and if you were really as smart as the inventor, you'd have patented it first."
That really assumes that the whole world is in favour of software patents - a big assumption.
In our Neo-con world it is still possible that people with good ideas want to share the ideas out of altruism. That altruism should be protected, at least by a diligent patent office - which we don't have - or better yet by a rethink of the patent rules.
Linux does not have as many games and has not got all the name brand software (yet). This is a huge plus for my company that previously had to work to keep games off the network and didn't have a clear idea of deployed software.
All hail Linux that made our software situation more stable, more simple and much cheaper!
open office is great. postgres is doing better for us than SQLserver We sit quitely trying to respect other company's sorrows when they talk about viruses -- we don't have them. The ones we get sent from Internet Explorer wash off. We send back polite notes sayin they are infected and might want to get rid of LEGACY Windows systems.
I can understand that, with the hardware on the shelves, a computer company will put together an Uber Machine for anyone with enough $. If their is an identifiable segment all the better. But is this a gasp of an industry looking for deserting customers?
More important to me, how healthy is the manufacturing sector. I will never spend that kind of dough on a PC, although I once did in the day.
Are there enough dollars for the technology front runners to build their elite machines? Can I count on them paying for the RD before it gets to affordable prices.
If the outdoors is a problem for a temporary site why dont they just find a plug somewhere or put it on the roof of a running car. Are british cars not 12 volt in the cig lighter?
If they could make it more weather resistant a Car could even be outfitted permanently.
I still like the idea but think that if the range is a mile getting a car nearby is likely possible.
Hiding the thing might make it much easier to explain. I'd probably print up a little propaganda folder on the machine. Advertise on the back and expect questions.
If you're just a repeater you dont actually have to do anything but stand there anyway. You probably dont even have to be quiet.
Another article I read mentioned decomissioning a lot. NASA needs to attach some sort of engine to hubble to be able to crash it safely where it wont kill anyone.
I hope they are able to service it, but I think they might be more concerned with how its going to fall.
I think the argument (long term) has two basic tenants.
1) all the hardware sold will eventually break or lose its appeal.
2) at some stage central forces, controlled by the software corps, will be able to remove any competition on whatever is the dominant hardware.
So when your Pentium 7 is still running free software but you can't connect to anything and all your friends have gone over to the controlled Pentium 10 its not cool to be free. Cool beats freedom.
I'm hoping that international Standards keep enough teeth to insure interoperability. Lets hope companies like IBM & markets like China can stop too much centralization of power.
I think someone should quote Gandalf to Sun if it now thinks Microsoft is its ally:
"There is only one master of the ring, and he does not share power!"
DRM support and control could be _the_ distinctive element between MOBO manufacturers. Most support and performance is similar enough that for good or bad Security/Corporate controls might be the biggest difference between mobo's.
Even radical differences like processor type and mobo size matter less to me than having my own control over my own computer.
Microsoft will have so many extra services, Spy and DRM activities that only this sort of router will be able to handle the load. And since no current computer infrastructure could handle such demands Longhorn will have it built in so that you can participate in the new 'Make the Net Safe (for Microsoft)' campaign with your own hardware.
Officials say that this small increase in hardware requirements is a small price to pay....
You make me consider the other slant that you'd have to put on the findings.
IBM has found a good working solution that pleases many of its customers and is developing it. Seen without the Microsoft backdrop this is much more positive news. No discord, just better technology and profit for the company that pursues it.
Its far more appropriate that a company make money selling hardware, the stationary of software speech, than it is that they control what we can say.
20 years ago perhaps, there were few enough computer programmers that proprietary software could bribe or bluff them all into preserving a monopoly. Perhaps there were few enough computers or solution models that they could dominate all the working solutions.
Today developed world companies are swimming in hardware, often throwing out working hardware on vendor demand - not necessity. The number of programmers has grown and alternate programming methods have a long line of useful success stories to point to.
Microsoft, by dominating the market, has lowered the perceived value of competing solutions such that they might as well be given away. The Solution market is due for a huge correction as companies realize that their own home made solutions make them no money if not implemented at all. Open sourcing solutions at least capitalize their existing training and organization. Service and Support creates wealth and can gain client loyalty.
Proprietary software interests act like railroad barons of the American frontier - they are trying to monopolize key bridges to data flow. They are effectively saying that if I have my business on their tracks I can never make tracks of my own at anything approaching the real cost of track. I cannot build similar bridges,only because they built first. I cannot even use industry tools cheaply because they claim ownership of how you swing a pick.
In the midst of all this the reality is that sharing logic is a principle element of humanity. You may hoard tools & possessions but methods & information want to be free.
Protectionist, monopoly software is like the ancient silk monopoly of China. It has to fail because the world needs to use its computers affectively - not pay Billions of Dollars to Rich American firms for drawing pictures, ordering lists, and filing data.
Proprietary software can change and become a center, perhaps _the_ center, where things are done particularly well or they can slowly become a much resented backwater as more efficient systems spring up to bypass their bridges.
It is immoral to not allow poor countries to modernize for the real cost of organization. License and Permission costs are not real costs. Hardware companies know that, and will eventually sell to the world population at real costs plus a small profit margin.
As we absorb computers into how our culture operates society must claim computer languages, and their phrases and nuances, as 'free speech' the exercise of which is a right.
My sympathies for your sisters condition. About the only thing I can think of saying is treasure the best times more than the bad times. Remember that even in outbursts you hate or cant understand she is suffering too.
I would take any response you get here with a grain of salt and a suit of armor. Some of it will be geeky resentment at the topic not mentioning an operating system and some will be complete lack of empathy or experience.
Find a newsgroup or a circle of people confronting this illness. Its not well uderstood so its even harder to explain.
There is a schizophrenia.com that looks to have a bunch of stuff to start.
http://www.schizophrenia.com/
ls
Too Much Data Might be what they want
on
FSF Subpoenaed by SCO
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Given their delaying tactics they might love to be given too much data.
Aside from the question of who eventually will get that data ie invisible backers, they seem to be abusing the trial as a way to get press not justice.
Whatever intelligence they can collect for their backers is probably gravy, and if they can gain a delay based on its volume that must suit them fine.
Besides when you know there won't be proof you can use its easy to disregard stacks of paper.
Perhaps they could hire the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution to make grand pronouncements without the burden of the facts.
Slashdot Mirror
I like the idea of someone storing all sorts of old computers but I'd rather pay to be able to freely use the computers of the future.
www.eff.org
sorry if that's heartless
The biggest problem with many of these tests is they are so completely arbitrary and generational. I remember MCSE tests that effectively made you memorize steps to the control panel through the menu & a bunch of other stuff they happily change with each version of windows.
Cisco at least shares some of their working reality (protocals etc...) with their students.
Microsoft puts you a football field from the code, arms length from the issues and tries to teach you temporary solutions. Show me another 'teacher' that won't show you their proofs and tells all your prospective employers you're not necessary because they made it so simple.
Certifications that are an overblown software manual are poor. It should be possible for an information company to distill a central few tests and update less than a third for each software release. The problem is that that would have to be based on fundamental understanding that would crack open their design box.
Proprietary software certification is little more than a golden nose ring. It may lead you to a job but you certainly don't have a huge depth of knowledge after.
ls
This is not about theories (ie socialism), or is it about fund raising this is about corruption and graft.
Where is the integrity of the corporations involved that they simply took the money for stupid ideas for out schools. These are their schools too.
ls
The people trying to abuse security may likely have the same sort of skills as the flaw hunters, though hopefully less skill. Its not just that some bugs are found but perhaps the most obvious ones are found.
Embarrassment encourages vigilence: Software firms are always looking to reduce costs (who isn't) - outside bug hunters encourage them to test more completely.
I think really bad software abuse usually has a motive connected with bad treatment or reputation for bad treatment. Even if there is a small lag time between the discovery and fixing of a hole it doesn't let the problem lie around where people who develop a grudge can use it.
Finally (and most importantly) fairness dictates that if I'm using a product you know a problem with - you should tell me about it. Consumers deserve the chance to disable systems, switch products etc.... if they feel vulnerable.
Especially if software is closed source - how do you know this bug isn't the tip of the iceberg. Companies have conviced consumers they dont get to look inside software -- they can't stop others from hearing about its flaws.
ls
Fully agree where Linux etc... is concerned.
My point is simply that Microsoft has escaped a great deal of responsibility & accountability -- but thats hardly news.
Windows9X has a massive installed base. I'm sure the number of hosts on the internet using windows 9x dwarf any numver of Redhat machines.
If there was that much interest in an open source program it would certainly be backported or fixed -- look at Apache 1.2.
Windows made a huge profit and received a huge public trust in earlier windows.
Besides I am not talking about these 'platforms' I am talking about Microsoft's commitment to Internet Explorer. It is a classic monopoly conflict of interest Microsoft disregards a huge installed base for IE because it wants to push users to the latest and greatest. They cannot get away from the fact that their software is left as a security risk for the whole internet. Patches that they may be able to backport with little difficulty will not be released while they stop others from doing it by controlling the source code.
If Windows 95 were a car made in 1960 it would be legal to independently make parts for it according to the original specifications & design. Since it is software, even though its much newer, that is illegal. American business relies at least as much on its computers as its cars and they deserve similar service.
ls
One has to ask if they're market share reflects free customers able to replace what isn't working. The mammoth security holes of IE & Outlook would be funny if they didn't represent so much time wasting trouble & junk mail in my inbox.
How does Microsoft justify not fixing IE bugs on older platforms?
ls
"Yeah, and if you were really as smart as the inventor, you'd have patented it
first."
That really assumes that the whole world is in favour of software patents - a big assumption.
In our Neo-con world it is still possible that people with good ideas want to share the ideas out of altruism. That altruism should be protected, at least by a diligent patent office - which we don't have - or better yet by a rethink of the patent rules.
Linux does not have as many games and has not got all the name brand software (yet). This is a huge plus for my company that previously had to work to keep games off the network and didn't have a clear idea of deployed software.
All hail Linux that made our software situation more stable, more simple and much cheaper!
open office is great.
postgres is doing better for us than SQLserver
We sit quitely trying to respect other company's sorrows when they talk about viruses -- we don't have them. The ones we get sent from Internet Explorer wash off. We send back polite notes sayin they are infected and might want to get rid of LEGACY Windows systems.
I can understand that, with the hardware on the shelves, a computer company will put together an Uber Machine for anyone with enough $. If their is an identifiable segment all the better. But is this a gasp of an industry looking for deserting customers?
More important to me, how healthy is the manufacturing sector. I will never spend that kind of dough on a PC, although I once did in the day.
Are there enough dollars for the technology front runners to build their elite machines? Can I count on them paying for the RD before it gets to affordable prices.
ls
If the outdoors is a problem for a temporary site why dont they just find a plug somewhere or put it on the roof of a running car. Are british cars not 12 volt in the cig lighter?
If they could make it more weather resistant a Car could even be outfitted permanently.
I still like the idea but think that if the range is a mile getting a car nearby is likely possible.
ls
Hiding the thing might make it much easier to explain. I'd probably print up a little propaganda folder on the machine. Advertise on the back and expect questions.
If you're just a repeater you dont actually have to do anything but stand there anyway. You probably dont even have to be quiet.
LS
I don't care about any of the administrivia of my life but I do appreciate reducing it for others.
I might consider a bequest to a useful OS tool. Being immortalized in a geek toy would be worth some money I'd be too dead to spend.
ls
Another article I read mentioned decomissioning a lot. NASA needs to attach some sort of engine to hubble to be able to crash it safely where it wont kill anyone.
I hope they are able to service it, but I think they might be more concerned with how its going to fall.
ls
I think the argument (long term) has two basic tenants.
1) all the hardware sold will eventually break or lose its appeal.
2) at some stage central forces, controlled by the software corps, will be able to remove any competition on whatever is the dominant hardware.
So when your Pentium 7 is still running free software but you can't connect to anything and all your friends have gone over to the controlled Pentium 10 its not cool to be free. Cool beats freedom.
I'm hoping that international Standards keep enough teeth to insure interoperability. Lets hope companies like IBM & markets like China can stop too much centralization of power.
I think someone should quote Gandalf to Sun if it now thinks Microsoft is its ally:
"There is only one master of the ring, and he does not share power!"
Don't know the answer. Just thought I'd say.
redundancy be damned
redundancy be damned
DRM support and control could be _the_ distinctive element between MOBO manufacturers. Most support and performance is similar enough that for good or bad Security/Corporate controls might be the biggest difference between mobo's.
Even radical differences like processor type and mobo size matter less to me than having my own control over my own computer.
ls
I wonder if prosecution requires copyright holders demand?
That might make it harder to embarrass out of existance.
LS
Microsoft will have so many extra services, Spy and DRM activities that only this sort of router will be able to handle the load. And since no current computer infrastructure could handle such demands Longhorn will have it built in so that you can participate in the new 'Make the Net Safe (for Microsoft)' campaign with your own hardware.
Officials say that this small increase in hardware requirements is a small price to pay....
ls
You make me consider the other slant that you'd have to put on the findings.
IBM has found a good working solution that pleases many of its customers and is developing it. Seen without the Microsoft backdrop this is much more positive news. No discord, just better technology and profit for the company that pursues it.
Thanks for the heads up!
ls
Its far more appropriate that a company make money selling hardware, the stationary of software speech, than it is that they control what we can say.
20 years ago perhaps, there were few enough computer programmers that proprietary software could bribe or bluff them all into preserving a monopoly. Perhaps there were few enough computers or solution models that they could dominate all the working solutions.
Today developed world companies are swimming in hardware, often throwing out working hardware on vendor demand - not necessity. The number of programmers has grown and alternate programming methods have a long line of useful success stories to point to.
Microsoft, by dominating the market, has lowered the perceived value of competing solutions such that they might as well be given away. The Solution market is due for a huge correction as companies realize that their own home made solutions make them no money if not implemented at all. Open sourcing solutions at least capitalize their existing training and organization. Service and Support creates wealth and can gain client loyalty.
Proprietary software interests act like railroad barons of the American frontier - they are trying to monopolize key bridges to data flow. They are effectively saying that if I have my business on their tracks I can never make tracks of my own at anything approaching the real cost of track. I cannot build similar bridges,only because they built first. I cannot even use industry tools cheaply because they claim ownership of how you swing a pick.
In the midst of all this the reality is that sharing logic is a principle element of humanity. You may hoard tools & possessions but methods & information want to be free.
Protectionist, monopoly software is like the ancient silk monopoly of China. It has to fail because the world needs to use its computers affectively - not pay Billions of Dollars to Rich American firms for drawing pictures, ordering lists, and filing data.
Proprietary software can change and become a center, perhaps _the_ center, where things are done particularly well or they can slowly become a much resented backwater as more efficient systems spring up to bypass their bridges.
It is immoral to not allow poor countries to modernize for the real cost of organization. License and Permission costs are not real costs. Hardware companies know that, and will eventually sell to the world population at real costs plus a small profit margin.
As we absorb computers into how our culture operates society must claim computer languages, and their phrases and nuances, as 'free speech' the exercise of which is a right.
LS
Yea but available code without a simple free license is a problem as well as a bonus.
:)
At least it will make patent searches easier
ls
My sympathies for your sisters condition. About the only thing I can think of saying is treasure the best times more than the bad times. Remember that even in outbursts you hate or cant understand she is suffering too.
I would take any response you get here with a grain of salt and a suit of armor. Some of it will be geeky resentment at the topic not mentioning an operating system and some will be complete lack of empathy or experience.
Find a newsgroup or a circle of people confronting this illness. Its not well uderstood so its even harder to explain.
There is a schizophrenia.com that looks to have a bunch of stuff to start.
http://www.schizophrenia.com/
ls
Given their delaying tactics they might love to be given too much data.
Aside from the question of who eventually will get that data ie invisible backers, they seem to be abusing the trial as a way to get press not justice.
Whatever intelligence they can collect for their backers is probably gravy, and if they can gain a delay based on its volume that must suit them fine.
Besides when you know there won't be proof you can use its easy to disregard stacks of paper.
Perhaps they could hire the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution to make grand pronouncements without the burden of the facts.
Bobsled privides the working link.
Thanks Bobsled.