Right.... but the fact is that the people who demand Outlook and Exchange aren't using it as a plain MTA and MUA. They're using the calendar, they're using the shared features of the calendar, they're using the ability to delegate checking email to someone else (how else did you think the CEO's PA checks his email without knowing his password? Magic?), they're using the global address list (something which Thunderbird still doesn't do properly, even with an LDAP server appropriately configured), they're using the task list, they're using the contacts list and they're using the ability to send emails with a "yes/no" button for a quick straw-poll around the office.
And they expect to find all of these features in one product.
Let's not automatically assume that's because Linux really isn't ready for desktop use - or that there's corruption going on.
A major transition like this is hard. Linux doesn't have anything like Active Directory for the desktop (Anyone who suggests you use something like Puppet is living in another world. AD comes with policies ready to go, all you need to do is tick the necessary boxes and you can be reasonably sure that when you tick the box, it'll actually do what it says. Writing and debugging equivalent configuration for even a tenth of that in Puppet would cost a lot more in man-hours than all the Windows licenses you can shake a stick at). There's no realistic replacement for the combination of Outlook/Exchange. (BTW, I can't remember the username but every time I post something like this one of the authors of Citadel comes out of the woodwork and suggests I check that. Terribly sorry, but I have. No offence, but I don't believe you've used a properly administered Exchange installation if you honestly think Citadel's a viable replacement.)
I haven't even considered the possibility of custom-written software which was intended for Windows and will require re-writing. Wine doesn't cut it when your suppliers' response to any query is going to be "You're running under what?!"
Add to that the fact that a lot of people don't really know how to use their computer - they just know to click on the "button on the left" or "third one from the right". Even very subtle change will cause such people no end of trouble, and even if you're in a part of the world with at-will employment you can't sack them because otherwise you'd be sacking 20% of your workforce. I'm not even remotely surprised to learn that someone's tried a migration and messed it up.
The thing that does surprise me is that the same desktop users who will call the helpdesk every 15 minutes with a Linux desktop will almost certainly not object anywhere near so vocally when they're put onto Windows 7 and an upgraded Office suite. Part of me wonders if you'd see different results if you took Ubuntu, changed the boot and login screen to say "Microsoft Windows 8", re-branded OpenOffice as "Microsoft Office 2009" but left everything else as a normal Ubuntu install.
Which country's this in? I ask because I was in a grocery store and watched a self-scan checkout rebooting - there was a message with "connecting to SCOxxxx" in it but given the context it could have been referring to something completely different.
There's probably a SCO box still sitting around somewhere, but I'd be surprised if there were many left doing anything terribly important. I daresay buying hardware that might actually have a chance of being supported to replace failed kit would be an exercise in futility.
Seriously, SCO Unix earned itself a reputation as being fantastically finicky for hardware support ages ago and hasn't had useful development in years. Unlike most commercial Unixes, it's never really had any cutting edge features (unless you consider "runs on x86 hardware" to be cutting edge, which it may have been twenty-odd years ago), so it's hard to imagine what the world might gain from such a thing.
The LTO spec is fast enough that you need a reasonably quick disk array to keep up with one single tape drive. That really isn't a limiting factor when you compare it to broadband.
And one proprietary one that everyone in the real world is using because unlike the free one, you don't need an honours degree in computer science just to set the thing up.
If your conventional oven is capable of getting even 30% of the way to being hot enough to melt steel, I think I might be able to explain why your dinner keeps on getting burned.
This, by the way, is exactly what the Gowers report, commissioned by the last UK government, recommended. Labour extended copyright terms shortly after reading this report. Apparently we're getting more of the same from the ConDems.
Very true - Labour had their own variation on the old "Yes, Minister" way of dealing with reports.
"Implement the bits you agree with and publicise the fact that you are doing so far and wide. Ignore the bits you don't agree with."
It worked so well I would be astonished if the ConDems don't adopt it themselves.
There is no such thing as a business which hasn't already got a bunch of other things over and above Office to consider. The obvious issues are accounts and payroll, but virtually every industry has software that's specific to the industry and the immense likelihood is that any given business has been using such a product for some time. And "saving the cost of the OS" is a non-issue when in most businesses, the cost of the OS per PC is equivalent to under half a man-day's worth of labour.
Unless you have the time/inclination to develop your own tools, I wouldn't rush.
CSS was broken for some time before the break went from "algorithm that we know works, here's the source" to "library for decrypting CSS and application that can use that library".
(Please don't mod me funny. I'm serious - I've seen lots of people pirating Windows and Windows apps, I've seen lots of people running Linux for all sorts of reasons but I have never yet seen anyone run Linux because they can't pirate software. Because they don't want to pirate software (and perhaps can't afford to purchase legitimately), sure.)
I can well believe it. Search around small business forums, you'll find dozens of examples worldwide of small businesses being hassled by ASCAP or their local equivalent.
IANAL, so I'm not going to go into the legal rights or wrongs, but AFAICT the general form is that if the business owner says that they don't need to pay eg. because their music is all composed and performed by the live singer who comes in every Tuesday, they get shown a piece of legislation that suggests otherwise and given an ultimatum - pay up, stop the music or we'll see you in court for so many hundreds of thousands of ${CURRENCY} you'll have no choice but to declare yourself bankrupt.
Most small business owners are more interested in running their business than fighting a lengthy court battle - if you're in court for a day that's a day when you're not actually working on the thing that's supposed to provide your living - and so fold.
Small and medium business I do work for are not spending on upgrades. It's all break/fix replacement. It's getting so bad for some, they won't even upgrade their backup software and hardware requirements. If only they can keep limping along for another year they say...
A storm is brewing. The handwriting is on the wall. I predict an increase in stories posted on Slashdot about how many companies have suffered data loss from the recession.
This might actually be a good thing, particularly if it hits the mainstream press. A few big articles about how "Company X has gone into administration following a huge systems failure" might drive a bit more investment in IT.
Which is why I said that anyone who wants to buy 30,000 sets of passport details almost certainly has the resources to deal with issues like that.
Even if it is an issue, it's only a problem in certain circumstances - maybe if you're entering a country with well-trained, smart customs officials who know most countries' passports inside out and can smell a rat at 100 paces. Put it this way, I wouldn't try to enter Israel on a fake passport.
This is exactly why Chip & PIN was rolled out in Europe. The traditional small swipe machines that read and store the magnetic strip become effectively useless.
While you're absolutely correct that there's room for improvement, there will always be fraud. The bad guys aren't going to jack it in and take a respectable job just because you've made their life a little harder. Developing a layer to reduce that fraud costs a lot of money - it's easy to devise a theoretical solution, it's rather harder to ensure it'll work reliably with the millions of card users worldwide without significantly impacting on legitimate transactions. It's not something you can throw together in a week or so.
And when you've finished you'll have reduced one sort of fraud, which may well have an impact on others - the bad guys aren't going to retire simply because you've made their job harder.
So, questions have to be asked. Questions like "How much does this sort of fraud cost?" and "Are there cheaper ways of achieving the same end?". Given that fraud costs a lot of money, I guarantee you these exact questions are being asked.
It'll also have a passport number, which means there's quite enough on there to produce a fake passport. It may or may not pass muster at international borders, but it'd almost certainly be adequate ID at a bank.
Clue: Anyone who wants to purchase 30,000 valid passport details almost certainly has the resources to get their hands on genuine blank passports from the country of their choice and print them appropriately. The only clue that the passport they produce would be fake would be the photograph, and even that may not be a problem if Fifa are reading the RFID chip on the newer passports.
Your credit card details can be changed in a flash at zero cost and relatively little hassle. It would be obvious very quickly if they were being abused and it's unlikely that a credit card on its own could be used as ID to take out other lines of credit.
Further, there's a mechanism to establish whether or not a card is valid built right into the entire system. How many merchants are still using those old-fashioned card swipers which don't connect to the bank? I think I've seen two in the last ten years.
The data was collected because there was no other way to identify the hooligans.
No, the GP's right. You could enforce it just as easily by keeping a blacklist of names and passport numbers and simply use it as a comparison - without actually storing the number you're checking.
You speak to low-level rep and ask to speak to a supervisor. You get their team leader. Now, their team leader doesn't really have a great deal of power as such - they just have more experience with dealing diplomatically with awkward customers. "Awkward" in this context means "not prepared to accept the only answer the low-level rep is authorised to give". IME, it is exceedingly rare to be put through to a supervisor who says "You know something? You're quite right, and the rep you were just speaking to should never have dealt with you how they did. I'll fix everything up for you then I'll go have a word with them..." - usually, if a rep has screwed up they'll hang up rather then put their boss on the line.
Anyhow, you ask the team leader to escalate your call again. 99% of the time, they'll refuse - usually claiming that "there's nobody more senior here" (bullshit) or "there's nobody more senior available" (available == that I'm prepared to put my neck on the line by putting you through to), and you're speaking to someone who's practically got a degree in getting shot of people who are making life difficult.
1% of the time, you get the call centre manager. At this point, you're speaking with someone who's gone past the degree in getting shot of difficult people, has a Masters in it and is well on the way to a Doctorate in "getting shot of awkward people". On top of that, the immense likelihood is the call centre manager has about 100 other things on their plate, all of which are higher priority to them than a single customer.
The only way you have a snowflakes' chance in hell of getting hold of someone within the legal department is to send a letter threatening legal action to their registered office. And I guarantee you they're not stupid enough to talk to you on the phone - far too much risk of being misunderstood, misquoted or simply putting their foot in it because with a letter you can at least consider what you write before you actually print and send it.
The alternative trick is to call the CEOs office, speak with his PA (who's usually much easier to get hold of than the CEO him/herself), explain as politely as you can that you've run into some difficulty and while you realise that the PA is very busy, you wonder if she could see her way clear to having a word in the right ears to sort you out. I've used this to great effect in the past, but with the amount of money involved here I don't imagine they'd hand it over without looking closely. The best you could hope for is to be bumped to the front of the queue.
Slashdot Mirror
Right.... but the fact is that the people who demand Outlook and Exchange aren't using it as a plain MTA and MUA. They're using the calendar, they're using the shared features of the calendar, they're using the ability to delegate checking email to someone else (how else did you think the CEO's PA checks his email without knowing his password? Magic?), they're using the global address list (something which Thunderbird still doesn't do properly, even with an LDAP server appropriately configured), they're using the task list, they're using the contacts list and they're using the ability to send emails with a "yes/no" button for a quick straw-poll around the office.
And they expect to find all of these features in one product.
Let's not automatically assume that's because Linux really isn't ready for desktop use - or that there's corruption going on.
A major transition like this is hard. Linux doesn't have anything like Active Directory for the desktop (Anyone who suggests you use something like Puppet is living in another world. AD comes with policies ready to go, all you need to do is tick the necessary boxes and you can be reasonably sure that when you tick the box, it'll actually do what it says. Writing and debugging equivalent configuration for even a tenth of that in Puppet would cost a lot more in man-hours than all the Windows licenses you can shake a stick at). There's no realistic replacement for the combination of Outlook/Exchange. (BTW, I can't remember the username but every time I post something like this one of the authors of Citadel comes out of the woodwork and suggests I check that. Terribly sorry, but I have. No offence, but I don't believe you've used a properly administered Exchange installation if you honestly think Citadel's a viable replacement.)
I haven't even considered the possibility of custom-written software which was intended for Windows and will require re-writing. Wine doesn't cut it when your suppliers' response to any query is going to be "You're running under what?!"
Add to that the fact that a lot of people don't really know how to use their computer - they just know to click on the "button on the left" or "third one from the right". Even very subtle change will cause such people no end of trouble, and even if you're in a part of the world with at-will employment you can't sack them because otherwise you'd be sacking 20% of your workforce. I'm not even remotely surprised to learn that someone's tried a migration and messed it up.
The thing that does surprise me is that the same desktop users who will call the helpdesk every 15 minutes with a Linux desktop will almost certainly not object anywhere near so vocally when they're put onto Windows 7 and an upgraded Office suite. Part of me wonders if you'd see different results if you took Ubuntu, changed the boot and login screen to say "Microsoft Windows 8", re-branded OpenOffice as "Microsoft Office 2009" but left everything else as a normal Ubuntu install.
Solaris, too. Pretty sure /bin/clear (or was it something else...?) on Solaris is a shell script taken direct from Xenix.
Which country's this in? I ask because I was in a grocery store and watched a self-scan checkout rebooting - there was a message with "connecting to SCOxxxx" in it but given the context it could have been referring to something completely different.
What of their property is still in use anymore?
There's probably a SCO box still sitting around somewhere, but I'd be surprised if there were many left doing anything terribly important. I daresay buying hardware that might actually have a chance of being supported to replace failed kit would be an exercise in futility.
Like a colossal waste of money.
Seriously, SCO Unix earned itself a reputation as being fantastically finicky for hardware support ages ago and hasn't had useful development in years. Unlike most commercial Unixes, it's never really had any cutting edge features (unless you consider "runs on x86 hardware" to be cutting edge, which it may have been twenty-odd years ago), so it's hard to imagine what the world might gain from such a thing.
What are the shelves made out of and are you supposed to remove them first?
Depending on the roads, it could well be 84 miles by road but substantially less as the pigeon flies.
The LTO spec is fast enough that you need a reasonably quick disk array to keep up with one single tape drive. That really isn't a limiting factor when you compare it to broadband.
And one proprietary one that everyone in the real world is using because unlike the free one, you don't need an honours degree in computer science just to set the thing up.
If your conventional oven is capable of getting even 30% of the way to being hot enough to melt steel, I think I might be able to explain why your dinner keeps on getting burned.
This, by the way, is exactly what the Gowers report, commissioned by the last UK government, recommended. Labour extended copyright terms shortly after reading this report. Apparently we're getting more of the same from the ConDems.
Very true - Labour had their own variation on the old "Yes, Minister" way of dealing with reports.
"Implement the bits you agree with and publicise the fact that you are doing so far and wide. Ignore the bits you don't agree with."
It worked so well I would be astonished if the ConDems don't adopt it themselves.
And your use case is not that unusual.
There is no such thing as a business which hasn't already got a bunch of other things over and above Office to consider. The obvious issues are accounts and payroll, but virtually every industry has software that's specific to the industry and the immense likelihood is that any given business has been using such a product for some time. And "saving the cost of the OS" is a non-issue when in most businesses, the cost of the OS per PC is equivalent to under half a man-day's worth of labour.
Unless you have the time/inclination to develop your own tools, I wouldn't rush.
CSS was broken for some time before the break went from "algorithm that we know works, here's the source" to "library for decrypting CSS and application that can use that library".
Yes, run Linux.
(Please don't mod me funny. I'm serious - I've seen lots of people pirating Windows and Windows apps, I've seen lots of people running Linux for all sorts of reasons but I have never yet seen anyone run Linux because they can't pirate software. Because they don't want to pirate software (and perhaps can't afford to purchase legitimately), sure.)
I can well believe it. Search around small business forums, you'll find dozens of examples worldwide of small businesses being hassled by ASCAP or their local equivalent.
IANAL, so I'm not going to go into the legal rights or wrongs, but AFAICT the general form is that if the business owner says that they don't need to pay eg. because their music is all composed and performed by the live singer who comes in every Tuesday, they get shown a piece of legislation that suggests otherwise and given an ultimatum - pay up, stop the music or we'll see you in court for so many hundreds of thousands of ${CURRENCY} you'll have no choice but to declare yourself bankrupt.
Most small business owners are more interested in running their business than fighting a lengthy court battle - if you're in court for a day that's a day when you're not actually working on the thing that's supposed to provide your living - and so fold.
Small and medium business I do work for are not spending on upgrades. It's all break/fix replacement. It's getting so bad for some, they won't even upgrade their backup software and hardware requirements. If only they can keep limping along for another year they say...
A storm is brewing. The handwriting is on the wall. I predict an increase in stories posted on Slashdot about how many companies have suffered data loss from the recession.
This might actually be a good thing, particularly if it hits the mainstream press. A few big articles about how "Company X has gone into administration following a huge systems failure" might drive a bit more investment in IT.
Which is why I said that anyone who wants to buy 30,000 sets of passport details almost certainly has the resources to deal with issues like that.
Even if it is an issue, it's only a problem in certain circumstances - maybe if you're entering a country with well-trained, smart customs officials who know most countries' passports inside out and can smell a rat at 100 paces. Put it this way, I wouldn't try to enter Israel on a fake passport.
This is exactly why Chip & PIN was rolled out in Europe. The traditional small swipe machines that read and store the magnetic strip become effectively useless.
Security in the real world is seldom an absolute.
While you're absolutely correct that there's room for improvement, there will always be fraud. The bad guys aren't going to jack it in and take a respectable job just because you've made their life a little harder. Developing a layer to reduce that fraud costs a lot of money - it's easy to devise a theoretical solution, it's rather harder to ensure it'll work reliably with the millions of card users worldwide without significantly impacting on legitimate transactions. It's not something you can throw together in a week or so.
And when you've finished you'll have reduced one sort of fraud, which may well have an impact on others - the bad guys aren't going to retire simply because you've made their job harder.
So, questions have to be asked. Questions like "How much does this sort of fraud cost?" and "Are there cheaper ways of achieving the same end?". Given that fraud costs a lot of money, I guarantee you these exact questions are being asked.
It'll also have a passport number, which means there's quite enough on there to produce a fake passport. It may or may not pass muster at international borders, but it'd almost certainly be adequate ID at a bank.
Clue: Anyone who wants to purchase 30,000 valid passport details almost certainly has the resources to get their hands on genuine blank passports from the country of their choice and print them appropriately. The only clue that the passport they produce would be fake would be the photograph, and even that may not be a problem if Fifa are reading the RFID chip on the newer passports.
Your credit card details can be changed in a flash at zero cost and relatively little hassle. It would be obvious very quickly if they were being abused and it's unlikely that a credit card on its own could be used as ID to take out other lines of credit.
Further, there's a mechanism to establish whether or not a card is valid built right into the entire system. How many merchants are still using those old-fashioned card swipers which don't connect to the bank? I think I've seen two in the last ten years.
The data was collected because there was no other way to identify the hooligans.
No, the GP's right. You could enforce it just as easily by keeping a blacklist of names and passport numbers and simply use it as a comparison - without actually storing the number you're checking.
You ever tried that with a large organisation?
It doesn't work. Here's what happens:
You speak to low-level rep and ask to speak to a supervisor. You get their team leader. Now, their team leader doesn't really have a great deal of power as such - they just have more experience with dealing diplomatically with awkward customers. "Awkward" in this context means "not prepared to accept the only answer the low-level rep is authorised to give". IME, it is exceedingly rare to be put through to a supervisor who says "You know something? You're quite right, and the rep you were just speaking to should never have dealt with you how they did. I'll fix everything up for you then I'll go have a word with them..." - usually, if a rep has screwed up they'll hang up rather then put their boss on the line.
Anyhow, you ask the team leader to escalate your call again. 99% of the time, they'll refuse - usually claiming that "there's nobody more senior here" (bullshit) or "there's nobody more senior available" (available == that I'm prepared to put my neck on the line by putting you through to), and you're speaking to someone who's practically got a degree in getting shot of people who are making life difficult.
1% of the time, you get the call centre manager. At this point, you're speaking with someone who's gone past the degree in getting shot of difficult people, has a Masters in it and is well on the way to a Doctorate in "getting shot of awkward people". On top of that, the immense likelihood is the call centre manager has about 100 other things on their plate, all of which are higher priority to them than a single customer.
The only way you have a snowflakes' chance in hell of getting hold of someone within the legal department is to send a letter threatening legal action to their registered office. And I guarantee you they're not stupid enough to talk to you on the phone - far too much risk of being misunderstood, misquoted or simply putting their foot in it because with a letter you can at least consider what you write before you actually print and send it.
The alternative trick is to call the CEOs office, speak with his PA (who's usually much easier to get hold of than the CEO him/herself), explain as politely as you can that you've run into some difficulty and while you realise that the PA is very busy, you wonder if she could see her way clear to having a word in the right ears to sort you out. I've used this to great effect in the past, but with the amount of money involved here I don't imagine they'd hand it over without looking closely. The best you could hope for is to be bumped to the front of the queue.
I meant software available for RISC OS, not ARM.