The usage of any application is relevant in that our legal department and supply chain management must approve any software prior to usage, either for integration or just plain usage (i.e. office application). Some of the projects I've worked on focus on integration of both commercial vendor code (i.e. ESRI's ArcGIS, MS PowerPoint, BEA WebLogic, etc...) and "free" software (i.e Apache Tomcat, Sun Java, etc...). Any application on the company network has to be approved for a particular usage. Generally internally developed applications that will not be redistributed have less restrictive evaluations, but they still must be approved. Anything that will be redistributed is carefully reviewed for license requirements (redistribution obligations, release of our source code, etc...) prior to inclusion into a projects baseline.
believe that use of GPL applications can result in them opening up IP
No, the company does not "fear" using GPL code but wants to ensure that each developer and manager understands that using licensed code has requirements that must be followed to comply with a license. The GPL is mentioned only because the topic here was Sun and the GPL. We realize that using applications like Apache Ant won't require releasing all our code into the open source environment just because we use it as a tool. Now if we were developing a plugin to Ant or rewriting a portion of Ant for a particular task we have, then we'd be more likely to have requirements to release our code to follow license requirements.
Using OpenOffice.org is not going to compromise your IP.
Using OpenOffice as an office application won't, but writing a whole system that is integrated with it to the point that the applications are inseparatable would compromise code that you wish to keep closed. I believe the GPL section discussing the "output" from GPL software (think the example discusses gcc used to compile code) covers the point you raise here.
The focus on the GPL was only done because the main article directly discusses the GPL. The policies in the company address any software, either open source or proprietary, for appropriate usage.
The education that the company is giving to developers should be about the basic concepts of Copyright and Licenses.
These issues are addressed and a process exist (within my company) for obtaining approval (supply chain management and legal reviews) prior to allowing usage of any application (GPL, LGPL, Sun License, MS Licenses, etc...).
I didn't want to address every possible license type or all the requirements of following licenses in a post. Obviously any code not developed internally should be reviewed for usage, distribution, and obligation requirements.
OK, so inadvertanly losing IP probably isn't the best way to phrase it. I was looking at it in the sense that complying with the license requirements does turn over IP. Companies could choose not to follow the license requirement and keep code from being open sourced, but they'd be subject to the impositions you listed. I was looking at it from a compliance standpoint rather than trying to illegally use GPL code.
I agree with you on the GPL OS, but if you write code that can essentially lead to an aggregated work, you probably should read GPL FAQ Aggregation. One just needs to review license requirements if they intend to keep their code under a non GPL license.
Opening one's source is an opportunity, not an obligation
While this is an "opportunity", it's also an obligation if you create an aggregated work.
I realize I'll get a bit of hate on this, but the GPL license does scare away companies that rely on intellectual property (IP). My employer has stepped up it's free open source software awareness lately to avoid inadvertantly losing IP that it doesn't wish to give away under a GPL like license. The GPL has been labelled as a "viral license" in some company policies I've seen because it really does open everything up in most cases. The GPL does exactly what it should though in promoting free open source software and it's usage just needs to be carefully evaluated before using in a project where you wish to keep all/portions of code closed. The license itself shouldn't be attacked but education of it's requirements (which the FAQ does pretty well) must be understood if thinking of using GPL source.
well, in 15 years you can copy a bunch DVD's into the new media and keep upgrading constantly.
This works fine if you are dealing with a fairly limited amount of data but what happens if you are a library, the Census Bureau, or some other agency that may have longer storage requirements. Hopefully the organizations that require massive amounts of data to be stored essentially "forever" have considered the task of migrating from the "current" media to "future" media. I'd hate to be the organization that finds the current system doesn't have a reasonable "export to new system" option availble.
For home info, I'd like all my purchased video/audio media to last my lifetime. I don't know that all media (do I really need a CD, with patches I downloaded, to last more than a couple weeks or even months?) would need to last a persons lifetime, but having media labelled appropriately would help a user know the expected lifetime of the media and they'd purchase it based on expected needs.
I'd be interested in the land line being capable to send 911 calls if possible. I'll have to check with Verizon, who manages the lines in my area.
My service through SunRocket actually provides the phone device and it includes a port to connect to a land line specifically for 911 service if you choose to maintain the land line. As for those who don't, the 911 limitations are very clearly described and the sign up process definitely emphasizes them. They do have a process to setup your 911 location so they can appropriately direct your 911 calls. They also have the process to change your 911 service clearly defined and they state that using the service outside of your 911 area will not call the appropriate service (so if you take your device while you travel, don't expect it to automatically pick up your location).
You can look here for some information on how Idaho figures out if someone is an employee or a contractor.
Do you know if a difference exist between "contractor" and "independent contractor"? From what I've read, the people suing HP worked for a company that was contractor to HP so I am not sure "independent contractor" necessarily fits in this case.
I wasn't thinking about this outside of a corporate environment and I should have been. I'm used to a more lab and intranet type setup so I generally have a few more details that aren't always available on the Internet. Thanks for the reminder though.
they're abusing perma-temps by not giving them full benefits and protections.
I've had two positions (two different employers) where I worked on-site with government agencies. I worked side by side with regular government employees and other sub-contractors in both cases. Does that entitle me to full government benefits? I'd love to have some of the health and training benefits offered by government agencies.
In my opinion, contract employees should only receive the benefits offered to them by their employer, not the company or agency they may actually work at. If you don't like the benefits you have, then switch jobs. Companies/agencies hire contract workers for various reasons:
handle extra work
partnering with minority businesses
internal hiring practices may be too strict - hire/fire easier with contractor
cheaper labor rates due to competition between contractors - let's face it, some companies/agencies are "bloated" (i.e. unions, legacy business units from mergers, or whatever other reasons people's benefits/pay increase beyond similar rates by other companies)
How often does your IP address change under DHCP? I'm sure this could vary between ISPs, but I've had the same IP address assigned to me for about 4 years now (basically the time I've had broadband).
I wonder if they will really use just the IP address or if they tie in the MAC address. The article lacked details on how it would identify the sending computer.
IBM's solution would at least help shutdown the zombie PCs though. While the zombie PC owners aren't the originator of the spam messages, the solution would hopefully push users to patch/clean/protect their PC from future spam control. Unfortunately I don't see this as the "be all" solution but it could play a part in cleaning up zombie PCs and encouraging ISPs to better protect their own networks.
Now what if the collective zombie PCs are instructed to spam the anti-spam service?
While I'm generally for open standards, I actually found a case where supporting a particular standard, at this time, is not economical.
Example reason not to use the open standard route at this time:
Open Standard - OpenGIS.org (Open Geospatial Consortium - OGC) (will redirect to the PDF version of the Web Feature Service (WFS) specification for GeoSpatial services).
Customer desires open standard compliant projects where economically feasible.
Customer desires Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) products with minimal integration code.
Customer uses ESRI's ArcGIS product as the predominant geospatial application. (NOTE: ESRI is essentially the Microsoft of the Geographic Information System market.)
ESRI does not "fully" support OGC. Their data/service formats are pretty much the industry standard but are not totally "open".
Complying with the WFS standard through a COTS product adds a minimum cost of $50,000 USD to the project.
Free or Open Source alternatives were not mature enough to consider
While generally I agree that open standard is the right way to go, one must consider all factors.
FYI - My employer is a business partner to ESRI and we frequently request that they impliment their software to support the OGC standards from both a server and a client side (they currently impliment most of the client side but very little on the server side).
I realize that they are doing a CYA but I just found it funny that an article countering the "full support" was available but not mentioned.
As mentioned by other posters comments I've seen in this post, I think promising to support particular browsers is secondary to supporting open standards. They could certainly say things like "verified to work in X, Y, and Z" but I'd rather them say "compliant with open standards A, B, and C".
Yahoo said on Friday afternoon that a statement from the company's Australian office on Tuesday, which claimed that all future products would be compatible with both the Firefox and Internet Explorer (IE) browsers, was inaccurate.
In February, Yahoo launched a search toolbar for Firefox, but users of the open source browser were forced to switch back to IE when accessing some Yahoo services. Following communications between Yahoo and ZDNet UK sister site ZDNet Australia , Yahoo issued a statement saying the company would not launch any new products or services in the future without ensuring they work on both IE and Firefox.
However, on Friday, a Yahoo representative from the US admitted that the original statement was 'factually incorrect' because, although Yahoo realises that Firefox-compatibility is important, it is not in a position to promise all future products would be both Internet Explorer and Firefox compatible.
Do you have to run through legal whenever you want to install Tcl or Perl?
I work in a similar environment where any application must be reviewed and approved prior to installation, even if the application will only be used internally. Legal departments just want to make sure the company won't get in trouble (and likely to justify their existence).
My company is changing it's policy a bit to specifically address the user of Free Open Source Software (FOSS). Historically this was under the policy I mentioned above, but given the nature of some FOSS licenses, the company is addressing these differently. The policy doesn't say we can't use FOSS, but it does outline risk so that a project fully understands what they are responsible for. As you've indicated, using code internally doesn't often present a great amount of risk, but as soon as you release anything outside your development environment, you better have everything covered.
What if you wan't to add proprietary extensions?
Well if you are using a GPL license and have any thoughts of distributing part GPL (original code) and part proprietary license (your code), you better understand the GPL license. The GPL has some specific language in it concerning use with proprietary add-ons, integrations, or extensions. I'd guess that most people probably don't "fully" understand the implications of the license and that's where legal departments try to reduce company risk.
Justifying any tax as fair is a hard argument. The ones you listed, education, road maintenance, welfare, etc..., while maybe not a direct benefit, do in fact benefit everyone. Take welfare for example. Welfare supports people who can not provide for themselves (due to whatever circumstances). If these people didn't get food or housing assistance, what do you think they would do to survive? Likely they'd be stealing whatever they could in order to pawn it get cash for food/shelter. Education is similar in that it provides an educated work force that provides various services. Most taxes do benefit the masses but I'm sure people could just as easily find some that don't. The "stealing tax" recommended by the author does in some ways affect me (namely artist not being able to support themselves and therefore they do not produce music I listen to on the radio) but taxing everyone doesn't seem like the best approach. The problem here is the people downloading illegally and a distribution system that hasn't advanced (likely money/control issues here).
I'd be okay with such a tax if they'd decriminalize the sharing.
Problem with the tax is that you can't make it "fair" for everyone. Not everyone uses their computer to deal with music, movies, and/or video games. Some people simply use it for work related activities or even just email and occasional web browsing. Should these people be "taxed"?
I use my PC at home pretty much exclusively for video games and email. I wouldn't want to see additional fees/taxes by my ISP as a solution to music/movie/game piracy.
Anyone else have good or bad experience with VoIP quality?
VoIP has been working well for me so far. My VoIP provider is SunRocket and my broadband is Comcast. I haven't experienced any of the static or dropped calls that you mention, but I've only been with them for about one month so far. The annual plan offered by SunRocket runs $199/year (USD) or roughly $16.58/month, which is much lower than my Verizon bill (about $34/month) without long distance service (I used my cell phone for long distance). One of the features that is really nice for me is that I can pick a second line and assign it to any area code they cover. In my case, I assigned it near family members so they don't have to call long distance to reach me.
My guess is that your friends problem is more related to broadband service or possibly hardware issues.
I'm glad it's not just me that finds Halo to be a poor game to play. I'll first say that I don't have an Xbox so my exposure is limited on the game. Halo2 just seems to move way to slow compared to other games. I'd much rather play GoldenEye as you mentioned or BattleField 1942/Vietnam over Halo2.
Government can certainly require stricter security procedures where private networks interact with government networks. Private organizations can choose to impliment the new procedures or they can ignore them and face the possibility of disconnect. In this situation, I'd say government is doing the same thing a corporation is doing in securing itself and requiring certain security methods if you wish to interact with their network. The original poster stated 'Internet traffic cop' but NSA doesn't appear to have been given any authority over securing the entire Internet. Apparently they (the poster) aren't differentiating government networks from the Internet.
While the information made it to decision makers in some form, acting on every threat would be impractical. How many other reports did decision makers get that turned out to be invalid? Hind sight is always much clearer.
As for data sharing, the problem isn't technical rather it's a policy issue. "It's reorganizing leadership." - Leadership can be blamed, but it's not only at the top level as your statement about "The president did nothing about it." indicates. Each agency tends to consider their "secrets" to be more important than other agencies "secrets". Many people are responsible at various levels in the intelligence gathering process and placing blame on a single person, the president in your case, is not realistic. Many of the policies to protect information have been in place for quite a bit of time. DHS has the task of breaking down these barriers and will hopefully lead to better communication, but even with that, determining which threats are truly credible will still be a judgement call at various levels.
It's unclear how the NSA's efforts would affect private companies, which own and operate many of the electrical, water, banking and other systems vital to government. Wolf said the agency already works to secure such systems important to military installations, but he denied that NSA would have any new regulatory authority over private computers.
"When we talk about being the traffic cop, we're not in charge of these networks," Wolf said. "We're not running these networks."
NSA appears to be tasked with protecting government networks, not private networks. Now some private networks are of interest to government agencies, namely utilities and banking, but the involvement of NSA looks to be at most a set of recommendations rather than requirements.
Slashdot Mirror
The usage of any application is relevant in that our legal department and supply chain management must approve any software prior to usage, either for integration or just plain usage (i.e. office application). Some of the projects I've worked on focus on integration of both commercial vendor code (i.e. ESRI's ArcGIS, MS PowerPoint, BEA WebLogic, etc...) and "free" software (i.e Apache Tomcat, Sun Java, etc...). Any application on the company network has to be approved for a particular usage. Generally internally developed applications that will not be redistributed have less restrictive evaluations, but they still must be approved. Anything that will be redistributed is carefully reviewed for license requirements (redistribution obligations, release of our source code, etc...) prior to inclusion into a projects baseline.
believe that use of GPL applications can result in them opening up IP
No, the company does not "fear" using GPL code but wants to ensure that each developer and manager understands that using licensed code has requirements that must be followed to comply with a license. The GPL is mentioned only because the topic here was Sun and the GPL. We realize that using applications like Apache Ant won't require releasing all our code into the open source environment just because we use it as a tool. Now if we were developing a plugin to Ant or rewriting a portion of Ant for a particular task we have, then we'd be more likely to have requirements to release our code to follow license requirements.
Using OpenOffice.org is not going to compromise your IP.
Using OpenOffice as an office application won't, but writing a whole system that is integrated with it to the point that the applications are inseparatable would compromise code that you wish to keep closed. I believe the GPL section discussing the "output" from GPL software (think the example discusses gcc used to compile code) covers the point you raise here.
The focus on the GPL was only done because the main article directly discusses the GPL. The policies in the company address any software, either open source or proprietary, for appropriate usage.
The education that the company is giving to developers should be about the basic concepts of Copyright and Licenses.
These issues are addressed and a process exist (within my company) for obtaining approval (supply chain management and legal reviews) prior to allowing usage of any application (GPL, LGPL, Sun License, MS Licenses, etc...).
I didn't want to address every possible license type or all the requirements of following licenses in a post. Obviously any code not developed internally should be reviewed for usage, distribution, and obligation requirements.
OK, so inadvertanly losing IP probably isn't the best way to phrase it. I was looking at it in the sense that complying with the license requirements does turn over IP. Companies could choose not to follow the license requirement and keep code from being open sourced, but they'd be subject to the impositions you listed. I was looking at it from a compliance standpoint rather than trying to illegally use GPL code.
I agree with you on the GPL OS, but if you write code that can essentially lead to an aggregated work, you probably should read GPL FAQ Aggregation. One just needs to review license requirements if they intend to keep their code under a non GPL license.
Opening one's source is an opportunity, not an obligation
While this is an "opportunity", it's also an obligation if you create an aggregated work.
I realize I'll get a bit of hate on this, but the GPL license does scare away companies that rely on intellectual property (IP). My employer has stepped up it's free open source software awareness lately to avoid inadvertantly losing IP that it doesn't wish to give away under a GPL like license. The GPL has been labelled as a "viral license" in some company policies I've seen because it really does open everything up in most cases. The GPL does exactly what it should though in promoting free open source software and it's usage just needs to be carefully evaluated before using in a project where you wish to keep all/portions of code closed. The license itself shouldn't be attacked but education of it's requirements (which the FAQ does pretty well) must be understood if thinking of using GPL source.
well, in 15 years you can copy a bunch DVD's into the new media and keep upgrading constantly.
This works fine if you are dealing with a fairly limited amount of data but what happens if you are a library, the Census Bureau, or some other agency that may have longer storage requirements. Hopefully the organizations that require massive amounts of data to be stored essentially "forever" have considered the task of migrating from the "current" media to "future" media. I'd hate to be the organization that finds the current system doesn't have a reasonable "export to new system" option availble.
For home info, I'd like all my purchased video/audio media to last my lifetime. I don't know that all media (do I really need a CD, with patches I downloaded, to last more than a couple weeks or even months?) would need to last a persons lifetime, but having media labelled appropriately would help a user know the expected lifetime of the media and they'd purchase it based on expected needs.
I'd be interested in the land line being capable to send 911 calls if possible. I'll have to check with Verizon, who manages the lines in my area.
My service through SunRocket actually provides the phone device and it includes a port to connect to a land line specifically for 911 service if you choose to maintain the land line. As for those who don't, the 911 limitations are very clearly described and the sign up process definitely emphasizes them. They do have a process to setup your 911 location so they can appropriately direct your 911 calls. They also have the process to change your 911 service clearly defined and they state that using the service outside of your 911 area will not call the appropriate service (so if you take your device while you travel, don't expect it to automatically pick up your location).
You can look here for some information on how Idaho figures out if someone is an employee or a contractor.
Do you know if a difference exist between "contractor" and "independent contractor"? From what I've read, the people suing HP worked for a company that was contractor to HP so I am not sure "independent contractor" necessarily fits in this case.
I wasn't thinking about this outside of a corporate environment and I should have been. I'm used to a more lab and intranet type setup so I generally have a few more details that aren't always available on the Internet. Thanks for the reminder though.
I've had two positions (two different employers) where I worked on-site with government agencies. I worked side by side with regular government employees and other sub-contractors in both cases. Does that entitle me to full government benefits? I'd love to have some of the health and training benefits offered by government agencies.
In my opinion, contract employees should only receive the benefits offered to them by their employer, not the company or agency they may actually work at. If you don't like the benefits you have, then switch jobs. Companies/agencies hire contract workers for various reasons:
handle extra work
partnering with minority businesses
internal hiring practices may be too strict - hire/fire easier with contractor
cheaper labor rates due to competition between contractors - let's face it, some companies/agencies are "bloated" (i.e. unions, legacy business units from mergers, or whatever other reasons people's benefits/pay increase beyond similar rates by other companies)
Please disregard my question about using the MAC address. Going to the IBM website and searching for FairUCE gives a bit more detail.
How often does your IP address change under DHCP? I'm sure this could vary between ISPs, but I've had the same IP address assigned to me for about 4 years now (basically the time I've had broadband).
I wonder if they will really use just the IP address or if they tie in the MAC address. The article lacked details on how it would identify the sending computer.
IBM's solution would at least help shutdown the zombie PCs though. While the zombie PC owners aren't the originator of the spam messages, the solution would hopefully push users to patch/clean/protect their PC from future spam control. Unfortunately I don't see this as the "be all" solution but it could play a part in cleaning up zombie PCs and encouraging ISPs to better protect their own networks.
Now what if the collective zombie PCs are instructed to spam the anti-spam service?
Example reason not to use the open standard route at this time:
Open Standard - OpenGIS.org (Open Geospatial Consortium - OGC) (will redirect to the PDF version of the Web Feature Service (WFS) specification for GeoSpatial services).
Customer desires open standard compliant projects where economically feasible.
Customer desires Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) products with minimal integration code.
Customer uses ESRI's ArcGIS product as the predominant geospatial application. (NOTE: ESRI is essentially the Microsoft of the Geographic Information System market.)
ESRI does not "fully" support OGC. Their data/service formats are pretty much the industry standard but are not totally "open".
Complying with the WFS standard through a COTS product adds a minimum cost of $50,000 USD to the project.
Free or Open Source alternatives were not mature enough to consider
While generally I agree that open standard is the right way to go, one must consider all factors.
FYI - My employer is a business partner to ESRI and we frequently request that they impliment their software to support the OGC standards from both a server and a client side (they currently impliment most of the client side but very little on the server side).
I realize that they are doing a CYA but I just found it funny that an article countering the "full support" was available but not mentioned.
As mentioned by other posters comments I've seen in this post, I think promising to support particular browsers is secondary to supporting open standards. They could certainly say things like "verified to work in X, Y, and Z" but I'd rather them say "compliant with open standards A, B, and C".
From ZD Net UK:
Yahoo said on Friday afternoon that a statement from the company's Australian office on Tuesday, which claimed that all future products would be compatible with both the Firefox and Internet Explorer (IE) browsers, was inaccurate.
In February, Yahoo launched a search toolbar for Firefox, but users of the open source browser were forced to switch back to IE when accessing some Yahoo services. Following communications between Yahoo and ZDNet UK sister site ZDNet Australia , Yahoo issued a statement saying the company would not launch any new products or services in the future without ensuring they work on both IE and Firefox.
However, on Friday, a Yahoo representative from the US admitted that the original statement was 'factually incorrect' because, although Yahoo realises that Firefox-compatibility is important, it is not in a position to promise all future products would be both Internet Explorer and Firefox compatible.
Do you have to run through legal whenever you want to install Tcl or Perl?
I work in a similar environment where any application must be reviewed and approved prior to installation, even if the application will only be used internally. Legal departments just want to make sure the company won't get in trouble (and likely to justify their existence).
My company is changing it's policy a bit to specifically address the user of Free Open Source Software (FOSS). Historically this was under the policy I mentioned above, but given the nature of some FOSS licenses, the company is addressing these differently. The policy doesn't say we can't use FOSS, but it does outline risk so that a project fully understands what they are responsible for. As you've indicated, using code internally doesn't often present a great amount of risk, but as soon as you release anything outside your development environment, you better have everything covered.
What if you wan't to add proprietary extensions?
Well if you are using a GPL license and have any thoughts of distributing part GPL (original code) and part proprietary license (your code), you better understand the GPL license. The GPL has some specific language in it concerning use with proprietary add-ons, integrations, or extensions. I'd guess that most people probably don't "fully" understand the implications of the license and that's where legal departments try to reduce company risk.
Justifying any tax as fair is a hard argument. The ones you listed, education, road maintenance, welfare, etc..., while maybe not a direct benefit, do in fact benefit everyone. Take welfare for example. Welfare supports people who can not provide for themselves (due to whatever circumstances). If these people didn't get food or housing assistance, what do you think they would do to survive? Likely they'd be stealing whatever they could in order to pawn it get cash for food/shelter. Education is similar in that it provides an educated work force that provides various services. Most taxes do benefit the masses but I'm sure people could just as easily find some that don't. The "stealing tax" recommended by the author does in some ways affect me (namely artist not being able to support themselves and therefore they do not produce music I listen to on the radio) but taxing everyone doesn't seem like the best approach. The problem here is the people downloading illegally and a distribution system that hasn't advanced (likely money/control issues here).
I'd be okay with such a tax if they'd decriminalize the sharing.
Problem with the tax is that you can't make it "fair" for everyone. Not everyone uses their computer to deal with music, movies, and/or video games. Some people simply use it for work related activities or even just email and occasional web browsing. Should these people be "taxed"?
I use my PC at home pretty much exclusively for video games and email. I wouldn't want to see additional fees/taxes by my ISP as a solution to music/movie/game piracy.
Anyone else have good or bad experience with VoIP quality?
VoIP has been working well for me so far. My VoIP provider is SunRocket and my broadband is Comcast. I haven't experienced any of the static or dropped calls that you mention, but I've only been with them for about one month so far. The annual plan offered by SunRocket runs $199/year (USD) or roughly $16.58/month, which is much lower than my Verizon bill (about $34/month) without long distance service (I used my cell phone for long distance). One of the features that is really nice for me is that I can pick a second line and assign it to any area code they cover. In my case, I assigned it near family members so they don't have to call long distance to reach me.
My guess is that your friends problem is more related to broadband service or possibly hardware issues.
Problem is that too many parents don't want to take the time to filter what their children watch. They want to place the responsibility on others.
I agree with you though on blocking channels or cancelling subscriptions. The content is only available if I enable it into my house.
I'm glad it's not just me that finds Halo to be a poor game to play. I'll first say that I don't have an Xbox so my exposure is limited on the game. Halo2 just seems to move way to slow compared to other games. I'd much rather play GoldenEye as you mentioned or BattleField 1942/Vietnam over Halo2.
Government can certainly require stricter security procedures where private networks interact with government networks. Private organizations can choose to impliment the new procedures or they can ignore them and face the possibility of disconnect. In this situation, I'd say government is doing the same thing a corporation is doing in securing itself and requiring certain security methods if you wish to interact with their network. The original poster stated 'Internet traffic cop' but NSA doesn't appear to have been given any authority over securing the entire Internet. Apparently they (the poster) aren't differentiating government networks from the Internet.
While the information made it to decision makers in some form, acting on every threat would be impractical. How many other reports did decision makers get that turned out to be invalid? Hind sight is always much clearer.
As for data sharing, the problem isn't technical rather it's a policy issue. "It's reorganizing leadership." - Leadership can be blamed, but it's not only at the top level as your statement about "The president did nothing about it." indicates. Each agency tends to consider their "secrets" to be more important than other agencies "secrets". Many people are responsible at various levels in the intelligence gathering process and placing blame on a single person, the president in your case, is not realistic. Many of the policies to protect information have been in place for quite a bit of time. DHS has the task of breaking down these barriers and will hopefully lead to better communication, but even with that, determining which threats are truly credible will still be a judgement call at various levels.
Realizing that you couldn't see the article...
It's unclear how the NSA's efforts would affect private companies, which own and operate many of the electrical, water, banking and other systems vital to government. Wolf said the agency already works to secure such systems important to military installations, but he denied that NSA would have any new regulatory authority over private computers. "When we talk about being the traffic cop, we're not in charge of these networks," Wolf said. "We're not running these networks."
NSA appears to be tasked with protecting government networks, not private networks. Now some private networks are of interest to government agencies, namely utilities and banking, but the involvement of NSA looks to be at most a set of recommendations rather than requirements.