"That may be, but I can fully understand companies not trusing any outside company without a express written agreement between the two on how the data should be handled."
Then why would that particular company allow the install of ANY software much less one that sends stuff out? That is the failing of the CIO if you ask me.
"In some cases the "sharing" of this information with Google may not only be against company policy, but may actually be illegal in the case of some companies that handle sensitive personal information (health related companies)."
Any computer hooked to the federal networks it is illegal to archive like this. Strict guidelines are in place for the handling of sensitive information and I'm sure Google doesn't meet those requirements. I used to work for FEMA (pre-Katrina thank God!) and can just imagine the flak that would happen if info from NEMIS wound up being hacked from Google. Just think, all those disaster client's financial info, housing info, health info being stolen! Wouldn't that make a good headline amongst all the others...
"How come the US unemployment rate is at 6% ? Do you think that 6% can produce all the stuff China and India produce for us? You think if you got blocked off all trade the 6% would be working better jobs?? Fact is more things need to be produced. What would happen to all the jobs people CURRENTLY have? Expect people to have shitty automon factory jobs working crap hours."
Assuming your figures are correct and you didn't pull them out of your ass, you can't use the published unemployment figure for anything other than CURRENT snapshot work. It doesn't include those that have exhausted their unemployment benefits but still don't have a job. Unemployment figures quoted in the press are only good for 2 things. First, who is still drawing benefits and second, so politicians can point to it and say, "Look, unemployment is going down".
"The major part of all the anecdotal evidence people will be posting today will apply to relatively small companies meaning there is not that much money to be lost.(which most of the time people will lose their jobs which would be very bad for these people personally)."
Small to medium businesses employ far more people across the US than all the $MEGA-CORPs combined (statistics can be found at the US Small Business Administration).
Combined, the small businesses have a far greater impact than "just a few losing their jobs".
I read TFA and I still don't think that OSS needs $MEGA-CORP more than $MEGA-CORP needs OSS. This can be seen by large companies like IBM and Novell joining the fray. However, if IBM and Novell were to get out of OSS today it would have little to no impact on the software development. Welcome to the OSS world!
"The reality is that competitors are looking for an unfair advantage in a market they've failed in, so they use the govt. to do their dirty work."
Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust laws in the US and other countries by illegally tying one product (Media Player in this case) with another (Windows OS). No matter how you slice it, that is what they did. They required users (I HATE the term "consumers") to purchase media player (embedded in the price of the OS) in order to use Windows. That is the definition of "tying".
Which is pure BS. When MS got ruled against in the US the first thing they did was focus on the judge and the court to find a reason to water down the "final settlement". They are doing the same thing here....
You evidentally have no idea how your government works. If you can't get the votes because of the rules, you break them until you do. The party in power is the one controlling the agenda. It is the one that decides what issues get heard, how long they are heard, or even if they are heard.
"f it is all about "creating obscure products that nobody needs", then nobody would buy/use it."
Unless it is foisted off on them in a monopolistic way say integrated into their Office product.... Oooopssss. That's exactly what they are doing....My bad.
"Well if that is the case, then they will go out of buisness, and all the Linux and Mac fanboys will rejoice."
That's a ridiculous statement. In case you haven't noticed, Microsoft is a monopoly with their fingers in so many pies it makes your head spin. It is highly unlikely this will break them. See below for more...
"As it stands, YOU probably don't have a personal need for this new product, just like me, but some large corporations want it."
Prove it. It is Office automation that got MS into the mess with scripting in the first place (that and their business tactics of integrating into the OS to kill competition). Yes, I am a "Linux fanboy" mainly because I have to deal with MS products at work and even that is too much. Our mail server (like most mail servers out there) ban.scr files. Ask yourself why and you will know what I'm talking about.
Hell, my system at work is so locked down because of it I can't even set the clock to the proper time without admin approval.
And now they are telling us that they are implementing back office plugs into their most popular Office product whether you want it or not (the API is still there with the hooks necessary to work even if you don't have the plug) and you think it isn't going to be a concern?!?!? All this to satisfy an unprovable "but some large corporations want it" statement....Amazing.
"I haven't used it but I've heard and read a few things about Windows Server 2003 - Small Business Edition. It does the same thing, just updated the name. From what I understand everything about the server can be configured from a web page interface, including users and security."
So it is basically servers like you get with every distro of Linux with the added webmin clone eh?
So exactly what is it that makes this solution so grand again?
"This means creating unique products with features no one else has."
Sure it does. But typical of MS instead of "creating unique products with features no one else has" they are "creating obscure products that nobody needs" opening the works up to more script kiddie nonsense.
It makes about as valid an argument as their, "we lost a gazillion dollars to piracy" one...
In either event, I simply make this argument because even with their claims of "they are stealing from us" they still manage to make billions per year. Does that make it ok to do it? No. But to try this one of starving from the **AA is laughable.
"If those business models that are 'founded on restricting free speech' stop paying for production of the content that goes to make up the main core of all these torrent sites, what will the sites offer? The content isnt free, you just arent paying the asking price for it. The real threat is that the content may stopped being produced because the people paying for the production arent seeing a return on investment."
I claim bullshit on this every time it is put forward by industry ludites. You show me one movie, book, song, software that WASN'T made for fear of piracy then we can talk about it. You can't and neither can they. You are talking about multi-billion dollar industries here and they can't show one instance where fear of piracy has stopped them from producing one single thing. So shhh about all this "we will starve and the content will disappear" bs.
"You have no inherent entitlement to the content."
And they aren't entitled to perpetual profits either. Copyright is supposed to expire. Think about that one.
"Yeah, it's not like all major Linux distros use the same kernel source, the same desktop environments, the same web servers, the same command line utilities,... Linux has a homogenous base just as much as Windows does."
There is enough differences between distros to make them different. Everything from file system layout to init scripting to even the CLI tools are up for modification by those distributors. Anyone trying to migrate between say Mandrake to Debian or Gentoo could tell you the difference is real.
It takes 3 branches of Government to make the US system. All the courts do is interpret the laws that the legislative / executive make. It isn't the court's job to make laws but try to figure the intent of those that do. So don't blame our court system when it is really the legislative system that writes crappy laws. Congress has always had the ability to rid us of these types of lawsuits by simply redoind patent laws to exclude software patents. The only thing stopping them from doing that is the software maker's lobby.
"Free software discussions aside, do you think that is also unfair that one must pay more for a nicer car over a basic car? They both get you from point A to point B, but one has more amenities that some people want."
So if I got this right you are bitching that there is too much choice in Linux? If so, then here goes my rant...
All of Microsoft's problems with security as well as stability are rooted in the fact that they are homogeneous. Every Windows system is exactly like the next. The lack of diversity is what will always make them vulnerable regardless of the scheme they try next to patch it. It is a problem of their own doing.
Let me illustrate why diversity is not only preferrable but necessary...
Let's say you have a "managed forrest" of oaks. What do you think will happen when an oak disease breaks out in that forrest? you got it. They all get infected. Now, lets run the same scenario in a diverse forrest. That same oak disease won't affect the pines, maples, etc..In fact, if you have isolated pockets of oak a disease is less likely to spread. That is what diversity does.
Now, back to this topic. The diversity in Linux makes it stronger, not weaker. Regardless of the "version" of Windows you get it is still going to have the same features, structure, and vulnerabilities if the base is homogeneous.
I never said to just roll over and take it. All I am saying is that unless there is something for the politician to lose (money for example) then any opposing side is going to be ignored. In the US system, money==exposure==elected office. If what you are writing about (or demonstrating about) will cost them support (read money) then it will be effective. The trick is to make it expensive for them.
You have 2 things going on here. I'll address them separately..
"Every bit of originally created source code is copyrightable...although in many cases code is copied from a public, common, source, like "Hello World".
For infringement to take place, you need to demonstrate that copying took place, that is, that the accused copier had access to the original and used it. Even if the source code is nearly identical, it does not mean there was infringement. You need to establish the copier had access to, and used, the original to create his copy."
You need 3 things to prove infringement.
1. A valid copyright is held on the original 2. The copier had access to the original 3. Substantial similarities occur between the original and the suspect
"Hello world" fails on 1 for the same reasons that SCO's claims fail. It is available through many sources that are "public domain". Derivative works are covered by copyright just as the original. That is why it has to be substantial similarities.
"I'm not sure a repository is useful for copyright issues. Those are proving minor, anyhow. For patent issues it would be very powerful, but there is another problem. The USPTO doesn't check outside the application and patent database. That is, if something HAS prior art, but that prior art is not patented or included in the application, then the patent examiner will grant the patent anyway in ignorance. The burden then falls on the holder of the prior art to establish that it is prior art. Which means hiring lawyers, litigating a case, etc. It is a PITA. And this is one of the principal ways the system is borked. Patent examiners have no means by which they can access prior art that is not in the system."
I agree that this repository system has little to do with copyright and would be more useful in patents. The USPTO and the US patent system in general is borked and counter to the stated purpose of "promot[ing] the sciences and useful arts" by making it impossible to even look at if you don't want sued for "willful infringement" (triple damages). That aside, software patents (as well as business methods) should be abolished because they have their protection in copyright as well as trade secret (business method covered by NDAs).
The copyright system is just as borked though with the never expiring terms and no requirement to register them thus leaving it up to the courts to decide which is the copy as well as if it has been long enough. I feel that removing the registration requirements was the most damaging thing even more damaging than the term extention. Now there is no way to determine even when to start the clock! So in that regard it may be "useful". That is the only reason I can see this as being needed.
"Write letters to the papers. Write letters to the politicians Call the politicians. You might at least talk to an assistant If that doesn't work, organize a demonstration, so that news media will notice you."
And you see how well that worked in the lead up to the Iraq war. Now just how many people were in the streets protesting around the world? How many politicians were written? how many editorials?
You see, that only works when politicians have nothing to lose by supporting you. In this case they lose money from $CORPORATION. You being correct has nothing to do with it.
"Would you rather be on a deathbed dying from an illness you have no chance against, or having a chance against that illness?"
Let's reverse this and ask you a question...
Would you rather be on a deathbed dying from an illness you have no chance against, or having a chance against that illness and not be able to afford it?
Let's start this off by saying that I am a WV state employee and I'll tell you what GSA does. They are responsible for the upkeep of the Capitol Complex grounds. They are not office workers and don't need computers to do grounds keeping. The one who had the computer was a manager (really a political appointee meaning "will and pleasure" servant) who did need a computer but doing nothing requiring that large of a screen. He was sort of cleared of wrong doing for the moment only because they don't have the evidence against him (yet). The FBI is going over everything in the GSA with a fine tooth comb and you can bet your lunch that convictions will come out of this. The ones in question weren't managers so the question comes to the front of where the hell were their supervisors?
As to overtime, I can't think of any reason GSA would need overtime. Grounds keeping is scheduled in such a way that overtime is unnecessary and by executive order not authorized except in writing (which is how they got caught). No, this is abuse of the system all around plain and simple. That and a lack of supervision and financial oversight which is why this is the manager's fault.
"The whole purpose of the organization is to spend all of their money by the end of the fiscal year."
And the whole reason for that is the "use it or lose it" you have with government budgets. If you don't need to replace equipment this year but you did last year your budget for this year is going to be bigger. If you don't spend it then you lose it next year meaning that when you do need it for more equipment it won't be there.
That issue aside, people that scream "privatize" often forget (or are ignorant of the fact) that government provides services that the private sector can't or won't provide. If it was then some company would already be providing it. Everything that has been privatized has been a disaster that I have seen. It usually leads to more expense and less product than having it done "in-house".
Slashdot Mirror
"That may be, but I can fully understand companies not trusing any outside company without a express written agreement between the two on how the data should be handled."
Then why would that particular company allow the install of ANY software much less one that sends stuff out? That is the failing of the CIO if you ask me.
"In some cases the "sharing" of this information with Google may not only be against company policy, but may actually be illegal in the case of some companies that handle sensitive personal information (health related companies)."
Any computer hooked to the federal networks it is illegal to archive like this. Strict guidelines are in place for the handling of sensitive information and I'm sure Google doesn't meet those requirements. I used to work for FEMA (pre-Katrina thank God!) and can just imagine the flak that would happen if info from NEMIS wound up being hacked from Google. Just think, all those disaster client's financial info, housing info, health info being stolen! Wouldn't that make a good headline amongst all the others...
B.
I did understand TFA what I don't understand is your definition of your point. What I see is you claim 2 things:
1) Small business doesn't matter for "mission critical" applications. I think you are wrong here...
2) There are "liabilities" (whatever that means) that OSS can't address like $MEGA-CORP. Again, I think you are wrong...
Now if I got those wrong then feel free to expand on your answers. Maybe I am dense on the point you are trying to make.
B.
"How come the US unemployment rate is at 6% ? Do you think that 6% can produce all the stuff China and India produce for us? You think if you got blocked off all trade the 6% would be working better jobs?? Fact is more things need to be produced. What would happen to all the jobs people CURRENTLY have? Expect people to have shitty automon factory jobs working crap hours."
Assuming your figures are correct and you didn't pull them out of your ass, you can't use the published unemployment figure for anything other than CURRENT snapshot work. It doesn't include those that have exhausted their unemployment benefits but still don't have a job. Unemployment figures quoted in the press are only good for 2 things. First, who is still drawing benefits and second, so politicians can point to it and say, "Look, unemployment is going down".
B.
"The major part of all the anecdotal evidence people will be posting today will apply to relatively small companies meaning there is not that much money to be lost.(which most of the time people will lose their jobs which would be very bad for these people personally)."
Small to medium businesses employ far more people across the US than all the $MEGA-CORPs combined (statistics can be found at the US Small Business Administration).
Combined, the small businesses have a far greater impact than "just a few losing their jobs".
I read TFA and I still don't think that OSS needs $MEGA-CORP more than $MEGA-CORP needs OSS. This can be seen by large companies like IBM and Novell joining the fray. However, if IBM and Novell were to get out of OSS today it would have little to no impact on the software development. Welcome to the OSS world!
B.
"The reality is that competitors are looking for an unfair advantage in a market they've failed in, so they use the govt. to do their dirty work."
Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust laws in the US and other countries by illegally tying one product (Media Player in this case) with another (Windows OS). No matter how you slice it, that is what they did. They required users (I HATE the term "consumers") to purchase media player (embedded in the price of the OS) in order to use Windows. That is the definition of "tying".
B.
Which is pure BS. When MS got ruled against in the US the first thing they did was focus on the judge and the court to find a reason to water down the "final settlement". They are doing the same thing here....
Look at the Wookie!
B.
You evidentally have no idea how your government works. If you can't get the votes because of the rules, you break them until you do. The party in power is the one controlling the agenda. It is the one that decides what issues get heard, how long they are heard, or even if they are heard.
B.
They are not in the current release of Office but you can bet your bippy they will be in the next.
B.
"f it is all about "creating obscure products that nobody needs", then nobody would buy/use it."
.... Oooopssss. That's exactly what they are doing....My bad.
Unless it is foisted off on them in a monopolistic way say integrated into their Office product
B.
"Well if that is the case, then they will go out of buisness, and all the Linux and Mac fanboys will rejoice."
.scr files. Ask yourself why and you will know what I'm talking about.
That's a ridiculous statement. In case you haven't noticed, Microsoft is a monopoly with their fingers in so many pies it makes your head spin. It is highly unlikely this will break them. See below for more...
"As it stands, YOU probably don't have a personal need for this new product, just like me, but some large corporations want it."
Prove it. It is Office automation that got MS into the mess with scripting in the first place (that and their business tactics of integrating into the OS to kill competition). Yes, I am a "Linux fanboy" mainly because I have to deal with MS products at work and even that is too much. Our mail server (like most mail servers out there) ban
Hell, my system at work is so locked down because of it I can't even set the clock to the proper time without admin approval.
And now they are telling us that they are implementing back office plugs into their most popular Office product whether you want it or not (the API is still there with the hooks necessary to work even if you don't have the plug) and you think it isn't going to be a concern?!?!? All this to satisfy an unprovable "but some large corporations want it" statement....Amazing.
B.
"I haven't used it but I've heard and read a few things about Windows Server 2003 - Small Business Edition. It does the same thing, just updated the name. From what I understand everything about the server can be configured from a web page interface, including users and security."
So it is basically servers like you get with every distro of Linux with the added webmin clone eh?
So exactly what is it that makes this solution so grand again?
B.
"This means creating unique products with features no one else has."
Sure it does. But typical of MS instead of "creating unique products with features no one else has" they are "creating obscure products that nobody needs" opening the works up to more script kiddie nonsense.
B.
"You could argue MP3 players, but they don't really have a monopoly, because if they do something stupid people have tons of viable choices"
/ 1548242
Maybe you should read this before commenting like above:
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/13
Admittedly it is a longshot but funnier things have happened in our courts...
B.
It makes about as valid an argument as their, "we lost a gazillion dollars to piracy" one...
In either event, I simply make this argument because even with their claims of "they are stealing from us" they still manage to make billions per year. Does that make it ok to do it? No. But to try this one of starving from the **AA is laughable.
B.
"If those business models that are 'founded on restricting free speech' stop paying for production of the content that goes to make up the main core of all these torrent sites, what will the sites offer? The content isnt free, you just arent paying the asking price for it. The real threat is that the content may stopped being produced because the people paying for the production arent seeing a return on investment."
I claim bullshit on this every time it is put forward by industry ludites. You show me one movie, book, song, software that WASN'T made for fear of piracy then we can talk about it. You can't and neither can they. You are talking about multi-billion dollar industries here and they can't show one instance where fear of piracy has stopped them from producing one single thing. So shhh about all this "we will starve and the content will disappear" bs.
"You have no inherent entitlement to the content."
And they aren't entitled to perpetual profits either. Copyright is supposed to expire. Think about that one.
B.
"Yeah, it's not like all major Linux distros use the same kernel source, the same desktop environments, the same web servers, the same command line utilities, ... Linux has a homogenous base just as much as Windows does."
There is enough differences between distros to make them different. Everything from file system layout to init scripting to even the CLI tools are up for modification by those distributors. Anyone trying to migrate between say Mandrake to Debian or Gentoo could tell you the difference is real.
B.
It takes 3 branches of Government to make the US system. All the courts do is interpret the laws that the legislative / executive make. It isn't the court's job to make laws but try to figure the intent of those that do. So don't blame our court system when it is really the legislative system that writes crappy laws. Congress has always had the ability to rid us of these types of lawsuits by simply redoind patent laws to exclude software patents. The only thing stopping them from doing that is the software maker's lobby.
B.
"Free software discussions aside, do you think that is also unfair that one must pay more for a nicer car over a basic car? They both get you from point A to point B, but one has more amenities that some people want."
So if I got this right you are bitching that there is too much choice in Linux? If so, then here goes my rant...
All of Microsoft's problems with security as well as stability are rooted in the fact that they are homogeneous. Every Windows system is exactly like the next. The lack of diversity is what will always make them vulnerable regardless of the scheme they try next to patch it. It is a problem of their own doing.
Let me illustrate why diversity is not only preferrable but necessary...
Let's say you have a "managed forrest" of oaks. What do you think will happen when an oak disease breaks out in that forrest? you got it. They all get infected. Now, lets run the same scenario in a diverse forrest. That same oak disease won't affect the pines, maples, etc..In fact, if you have isolated pockets of oak a disease is less likely to spread. That is what diversity does.
Now, back to this topic. The diversity in Linux makes it stronger, not weaker. Regardless of the "version" of Windows you get it is still going to have the same features, structure, and vulnerabilities if the base is homogeneous.
B.
I never said to just roll over and take it. All I am saying is that unless there is something for the politician to lose (money for example) then any opposing side is going to be ignored. In the US system, money==exposure==elected office. If what you are writing about (or demonstrating about) will cost them support (read money) then it will be effective. The trick is to make it expensive for them.
B.
You have 2 things going on here. I'll address them separately..
"Every bit of originally created source code is copyrightable...although in many cases code is copied from a public, common, source, like "Hello World".
For infringement to take place, you need to demonstrate that copying took place, that is, that the accused copier had access to the original and used it. Even if the source code is nearly identical, it does not mean there was infringement. You need to establish the copier had access to, and used, the original to create his copy."
You need 3 things to prove infringement.
1. A valid copyright is held on the original
2. The copier had access to the original
3. Substantial similarities occur between the original and the suspect
"Hello world" fails on 1 for the same reasons that SCO's claims fail. It is available through many sources that are "public domain". Derivative works are covered by copyright just as the original. That is why it has to be substantial similarities.
"I'm not sure a repository is useful for copyright issues. Those are proving minor, anyhow. For patent issues it would be very powerful, but there is another problem. The USPTO doesn't check outside the application and patent database. That is, if something HAS prior art, but that prior art is not patented or included in the application, then the patent examiner will grant the patent anyway in ignorance. The burden then falls on the holder of the prior art to establish that it is prior art. Which means hiring lawyers, litigating a case, etc. It is a PITA. And this is one of the principal ways the system is borked. Patent examiners have no means by which they can access prior art that is not in the system."
I agree that this repository system has little to do with copyright and would be more useful in patents. The USPTO and the US patent system in general is borked and counter to the stated purpose of "promot[ing] the sciences and useful arts" by making it impossible to even look at if you don't want sued for "willful infringement" (triple damages). That aside, software patents (as well as business methods) should be abolished because they have their protection in copyright as well as trade secret (business method covered by NDAs).
The copyright system is just as borked though with the never expiring terms and no requirement to register them thus leaving it up to the courts to decide which is the copy as well as if it has been long enough. I feel that removing the registration requirements was the most damaging thing even more damaging than the term extention. Now there is no way to determine even when to start the clock! So in that regard it may be "useful". That is the only reason I can see this as being needed.
B.
"Write letters to the papers.
Write letters to the politicians
Call the politicians. You might at least talk to an assistant
If that doesn't work, organize a demonstration, so that news media will notice you."
And you see how well that worked in the lead up to the Iraq war. Now just how many people were in the streets protesting around the world? How many politicians were written? how many editorials?
You see, that only works when politicians have nothing to lose by supporting you. In this case they lose money from $CORPORATION. You being correct has nothing to do with it.
B.
"Would you rather be on a deathbed dying from an illness you have no chance against, or having a chance against that illness?"
Let's reverse this and ask you a question...
Would you rather be on a deathbed dying from an illness you have no chance against, or having a chance against that illness and not be able to afford it?
The results are the same...
B.
Nice math there...
Let's start this off by saying that I am a WV state employee and I'll tell you what GSA does. They are responsible for the upkeep of the Capitol Complex grounds. They are not office workers and don't need computers to do grounds keeping. The one who had the computer was a manager (really a political appointee meaning "will and pleasure" servant) who did need a computer but doing nothing requiring that large of a screen. He was sort of cleared of wrong doing for the moment only because they don't have the evidence against him (yet). The FBI is going over everything in the GSA with a fine tooth comb and you can bet your lunch that convictions will come out of this. The ones in question weren't managers so the question comes to the front of where the hell were their supervisors?
As to overtime, I can't think of any reason GSA would need overtime. Grounds keeping is scheduled in such a way that overtime is unnecessary and by executive order not authorized except in writing (which is how they got caught). No, this is abuse of the system all around plain and simple. That and a lack of supervision and financial oversight which is why this is the manager's fault.
B.
"The whole purpose of the organization is to spend all of their money by the end of the fiscal year."
And the whole reason for that is the "use it or lose it" you have with government budgets. If you don't need to replace equipment this year but you did last year your budget for this year is going to be bigger. If you don't spend it then you lose it next year meaning that when you do need it for more equipment it won't be there.
That issue aside, people that scream "privatize" often forget (or are ignorant of the fact) that government provides services that the private sector can't or won't provide. If it was then some company would already be providing it. Everything that has been privatized has been a disaster that I have seen. It usually leads to more expense and less product than having it done "in-house".
B.
There is no union for WV state employees. Take it from me as I am a WV State employee....
B.