There are thousands of useful coding projnects over at Sourceforge: pick one or two that relate to tools you use, and help update or debug them. Post patches, and you'll have it online there as a matter of public record. If you management doesn't want you to publish such tools, gently steer them to the details of GPL licenses: GPL code is particularly good for this. Perl modules are particularly good for this, published over at CPAN.
At my last job interview, I was able to point to 3 products that they used that I'd contributed to at least 5 years previously, and one product they were contemplating using that I pointed them to bug fixes I'd published.
If it's the remote client that concerns you, you do realize that most ILO systems, VMware's remote management application, he popular 'virt-manager' tool for Xen, and remote KVM's seem to be running VNC under the hood? It still makes me laugh every time I see this, because it still has the same issue with non-US keyboards confusing it as I remember from the last millennium.
You don't leave patients in MRI's any longer than necessary. Unless you like being shoved in a sewer pipe and having dwarfs with hammers bang on it (the sound of an MRI firing), it gets pretty scarey in there. And the staff can't chat with you easily when you're in there and they have to stay outside fixing things.
Also, this is a patient. If something goes wrong, you don't want them _stuck_ in the MRI and have to cart medical equipment in, especially anything electronic like an EKG or a defibrillator, while they're near the magnets. It's much safer to wheel them out so that they know you care more about them than about the equipment.
You could have left out the Windows part. Siemens was no more stable when they used IRIX for CT systems. I spent a fascinating hour, years ago, explaining the security concerns of their NFS practices to some lab technicians while a friend had a CT for some sports injuries.
What they'd been doing to allow their staff to edit reports while viewing data was... quite frightening if you realize the lack of security with classic NFS.
I've seen them. The laptops are in their offices, or connected over VPN's or dialups, even unauthorized dialups. And increasing numbers of medical devices have printing, TFTP, email, and other file transfer capabilities precisely to distribute patient information. with Windows variants in place,they're more vulnerable to remote manipulation: it's a serious danger.
'Good management' will not assume that their employees, or other managers, do not enjoy oral sex with men. So I'd urge you not to use that sort of statement tied with someone not knowing what they're talking about.
And before you say 'I can't afford different tools', take a good look at real cost-of-ownership, access to the code, savings in hardware costs, long-term supportability, and improved security as factors in such a move. I've certainly seen these as factors, especially for dedicated hardware. There's a signicant upfront cost to any major software change, which is why I still have to support NT based servers, and why I know of several RedHat 7.x machines still in service.
I'm afraid not. Seedless cloning of bananas has already caused 'Panama Disease', which almost wiped out all banana crops worldwide in the 1950's. The bananas we eat today are from a different breed, which is allegedly not as large or tasty as those before the blight. And we're facing a similar blight today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2664373.stm. We may be able to salvage them by genetic modification, but such monocultures remain profitable in the short term and vulnerable in the long term.
And the banana blight is a big nutrition problem: a lot of people around the world get a lot of their protein from bananas.
You cannot simply invent arbitrary copyright agreements from whole cloth. Copyright law has profound limitations on what it restricts to both the public and to recipients of the copyrighted documents.
For examples of where creative copyright handling can get you in trouble, I urge you to look at the fascinating history and legal problems surrounding Scientology's secret inner documents (describedin detail over at www.xenu.net).
GPL and Linux are two very, very different beasts. The Linux kernel uses GPL. The Linux OS's use whatever they find convenient or appropriate, and most of them include plenty of BSD licensed code, Apache licensed code, MIT licensed code, and other licenses.
I've been dealing with BSD licenses for decades, and GPL licenses since Richard Stallman and his comrades first created them. I'm sad to say that this original post is absolutely full of strawmen. People like *THIS*, who skew the basic terms of both sides, are much more of a source of GPL/BSD license flaming than almost any of the actual software authors and license advocates. It starts with is original statement 'BSD projects are free, but GPL projects stay free'. BSD projects are under the control of the project owners. GPL projects are under the control of the users. The difference is _that_ simple.
He continues iwth his skew: When he says 'But, I digress. I am here to explain, not bash, so please excuse this little rant.', right after insulting the free software process of nabbing snippets from one project to use on another in the GPL world, it's adding insult to injury. This rant is inexcusable, and ill-founded. Most projects do not benefit from a complete rewrite, because few programmers are capable of doing as thorough a job as a few years of evolution and community involvement can provide. If you think I'm kidding, take a look at all the software building tools published, and at how GNU-make continues in such widespread use because the problems that the new developers think are so devastating pale in comparison to the ones we solved 10 or 20 years ago with basic Makefiles, and we know how to scale them and manage them.
Then there's "GPL code can only be legally embedded in GPL projects, and if a non-GPL project wants to use GPL code, it must either not do that, or become a GPL project." Complete nonsense: there hundreds, if not thousands, of dual-license projects in broad use. It's awkward, but effective.
And there's "By the laws of private property in the real world, my ownership was relinquished at the time when I handed him my lemons." Complete nonsense. There is a sign up that says 'If you make lemonade from this, you have to share'. Plenty of apartment-sharing situations and households work this way: when mom or dad shows up with the groceries, and the other one cooks, everyone gets some of the food. It's part of why they bring home the groceries: the teenager does not get to take all the lemons from the refrigerator and make and sell lemonade and expect dad to buy more lemons everyday.
His following claim that "The derived project is wholly owned by whoever wrote it, even if it uses other people's code." is also complete and utter legal nonsense. Copyright doesn't work that way: duplicating paragraphs, or pages, or chapters out of another work can indeed be a violation of copyright. Copyright law is tangled, and such complete disregard for its actual use simply obscures it. Software copyright is particularly nasty: If you look at a typical closed source license, such as a Microsoft End User License Agreement, you'lll see a complex and far more intrusive set of copyright restrictions.
I've worked with BSD licenses on a number of projects: they do have their uses, but this is just insulting to the GPL community. And it makes the BSD license users look bad because it claims to speak for the rest of them, when there are plenty of better reasons to use BSD licenses. (Controlling one's own project, and making money by selling enhanced proprietary components, is a legitimate business model, for example.)
Those are mere examples of where Vista's DRM features are so burdensome. You don't use those tools? Good for you, and tough on the rest of us who have, in fact, had to deal with the problem. But don't therefore pretend that the problems don't exist.
The same applies to Windows and other OS's. I'm seeing NT 4.x boxes still in use, and they have not a chance of running an up-to-date Internet Explorer. (Those machines are in de-militarized zones and protected from user access: the softwae is just too painful to move yet.)
Well, here (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html) is a good article on Vista DRM and its issues for audio and video. And yes, Vista is a failure because of the massive resistane to it in the marketplace, coupled with rejection of its new features by both consumers and developers.
Bloating is not an aspect of 'not being completed'. Bloating is a function of being burdened with unnecessary features and capabiloities. The security is a nightmare, and remains one, because Microsoft isn't concerned about protecting the operating system from the programs. They're concerned about protecting content, including the programs, from the user being able to access them, even to simply read them.
Temporal resolution is a related but different issue. What i noted was that, no matter what you use, you still have to deposit energy to make subtle measurements. That's a basically Heisenberg-ian issue, and one that sonography also suffers from.
That's backwards. Microsoft is losing market share partially because Vista is a failure. And Vista released 2 or 3 years earlier might have benefited from less competition with cleaner, more capable systems such as Linux for servers and Apple for desktops, but it would have still suffered from being seriously bloated and mistaking DRM for security.
And more DRM to wade through. Much of Microsoft's current 'security' development is aimed squarely at DRM and protecting the control by businesses, not at protecting users.
AOL is hardly the only company to do this. Technical support is one of the most expensive parts of an ISP's services, and even companies with sophisticated products can burn many hours of technical support on fairly minor problems that their first-tier and second-tier staff have no chance of understanding, because it's not in the troubleshooting flowchart they use. Someone has to actually understand the problem, or have tried a similar configuration.
VMware does nearly this. Their dial-up and online support is, frankly, useless, and points you to the customer forums. unfortunately, those customer forums are so deluged with similar problems and no way to expire bad answers and get them out of the forum that it's quite difficult to search through and find the real answer.
And getting it to a higher resolution means depositing more energy in the tissue. We shouldn't ever expect MRI, or any similar technique, to provide really high resolution measurement without damaging tissue.
Slashdot Mirror
There are thousands of useful coding projnects over at Sourceforge: pick one or two that relate to tools you use, and help update or debug them. Post patches, and you'll have it online there as a matter of public record. If you management doesn't want you to publish such tools, gently steer them to the details of GPL licenses: GPL code is particularly good for this. Perl modules are particularly good for this, published over at CPAN.
At my last job interview, I was able to point to 3 products that they used that I'd contributed to at least 5 years previously, and one product they were contemplating using that I pointed them to bug fixes I'd published.
If it's the remote client that concerns you, you do realize that most ILO systems, VMware's remote management application, he popular 'virt-manager' tool for Xen, and remote KVM's seem to be running VNC under the hood? It still makes me laugh every time I see this, because it still has the same issue with non-US keyboards confusing it as I remember from the last millennium.
You don't leave patients in MRI's any longer than necessary. Unless you like being shoved in a sewer pipe and having dwarfs with hammers bang on it (the sound of an MRI firing), it gets pretty scarey in there. And the staff can't chat with you easily when you're in there and they have to stay outside fixing things.
Also, this is a patient. If something goes wrong, you don't want them _stuck_ in the MRI and have to cart medical equipment in, especially anything electronic like an EKG or a defibrillator, while they're near the magnets. It's much safer to wheel them out so that they know you care more about them than about the equipment.
Getting it into the database is the issue. I've automated that with CygWin tools, quite effectively.
You could have left out the Windows part. Siemens was no more stable when they used IRIX for CT systems. I spent a fascinating hour, years ago, explaining the security concerns of their NFS practices to some lab technicians while a friend had a CT for some sports injuries.
What they'd been doing to allow their staff to edit reports while viewing data was... quite frightening if you realize the lack of security with classic NFS.
I've seen them. The laptops are in their offices, or connected over VPN's or dialups, even unauthorized dialups. And increasing numbers of medical devices have printing, TFTP, email, and other file transfer capabilities precisely to distribute patient information. with Windows variants in place,they're more vulnerable to remote manipulation: it's a serious danger.
'Good management' will not assume that their employees, or other managers, do not enjoy oral sex with men. So I'd urge you not to use that sort of statement tied with someone not knowing what they're talking about.
And before you say 'I can't afford different tools', take a good look at real cost-of-ownership, access to the code, savings in hardware costs, long-term supportability, and improved security as factors in such a move. I've certainly seen these as factors, especially for dedicated hardware. There's a signicant upfront cost to any major software change, which is why I still have to support NT based servers, and why I know of several RedHat 7.x machines still in service.
I'm afraid not. Seedless cloning of bananas has already caused 'Panama Disease', which almost wiped out all banana crops worldwide in the 1950's. The bananas we eat today are from a different breed, which is allegedly not as large or tasty as those before the blight. And we're facing a similar blight today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2664373.stm. We may be able to salvage them by genetic modification, but such monocultures remain profitable in the short term and vulnerable in the long term.
And the banana blight is a big nutrition problem: a lot of people around the world get a lot of their protein from bananas.
You cannot simply invent arbitrary copyright agreements from whole cloth. Copyright law has profound limitations on what it restricts to both the public and to recipients of the copyrighted documents. For examples of where creative copyright handling can get you in trouble, I urge you to look at the fascinating history and legal problems surrounding Scientology's secret inner documents (describedin detail over at www.xenu.net).
GPL and Linux are two very, very different beasts. The Linux kernel uses GPL. The Linux OS's use whatever they find convenient or appropriate, and most of them include plenty of BSD licensed code, Apache licensed code, MIT licensed code, and other licenses.
I've been dealing with BSD licenses for decades, and GPL licenses since Richard Stallman and his comrades first created them. I'm sad to say that this original post is absolutely full of strawmen. People like *THIS*, who skew the basic terms of both sides, are much more of a source of GPL/BSD license flaming than almost any of the actual software authors and license advocates. It starts with is original statement 'BSD projects are free, but GPL projects stay free'. BSD projects are under the control of the project owners. GPL projects are under the control of the users. The difference is _that_ simple.
He continues iwth his skew: When he says 'But, I digress. I am here to explain, not bash, so please excuse this little rant.', right after insulting the free software process of nabbing snippets from one project to use on another in the GPL world, it's adding insult to injury. This rant is inexcusable, and ill-founded. Most projects do not benefit from a complete rewrite, because few programmers are capable of doing as thorough a job as a few years of evolution and community involvement can provide. If you think I'm kidding, take a look at all the software building tools published, and at how GNU-make continues in such widespread use because the problems that the new developers think are so devastating pale in comparison to the ones we solved 10 or 20 years ago with basic Makefiles, and we know how to scale them and manage them.
Then there's "GPL code can only be legally embedded in GPL projects, and if a non-GPL project wants to use GPL code, it must either not do that, or become a GPL project." Complete nonsense: there hundreds, if not thousands, of dual-license projects in broad use. It's awkward, but effective.
And there's "By the laws of private property in the real world, my ownership was relinquished at the time when I handed him my lemons." Complete nonsense. There is a sign up that says 'If you make lemonade from this, you have to share'. Plenty of apartment-sharing situations and households work this way: when mom or dad shows up with the groceries, and the other one cooks, everyone gets some of the food. It's part of why they bring home the groceries: the teenager does not get to take all the lemons from the refrigerator and make and sell lemonade and expect dad to buy more lemons everyday.
His following claim that "The derived project is wholly owned by whoever wrote it, even if it uses other people's code." is also complete and utter legal nonsense. Copyright doesn't work that way: duplicating paragraphs, or pages, or chapters out of another work can indeed be a violation of copyright. Copyright law is tangled, and such complete disregard for its actual use simply obscures it. Software copyright is particularly nasty: If you look at a typical closed source license, such as a Microsoft End User License Agreement, you'lll see a complex and far more intrusive set of copyright restrictions.
I've worked with BSD licenses on a number of projects: they do have their uses, but this is just insulting to the GPL community. And it makes the BSD license users look bad because it claims to speak for the rest of them, when there are plenty of better reasons to use BSD licenses. (Controlling one's own project, and making money by selling enhanced proprietary components, is a legitimate business model, for example.)
Those are mere examples of where Vista's DRM features are so burdensome. You don't use those tools? Good for you, and tough on the rest of us who have, in fact, had to deal with the problem. But don't therefore pretend that the problems don't exist.
You've obviously not dealt with RealPlayer, nor with legally obtained DVD images, nor with Sony CD's. It's nasty indeed under Vista.
The same applies to Windows and other OS's. I'm seeing NT 4.x boxes still in use, and they have not a chance of running an up-to-date Internet Explorer. (Those machines are in de-militarized zones and protected from user access: the softwae is just too painful to move yet.)
Well, here (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html) is a good article on Vista DRM and its issues for audio and video. And yes, Vista is a failure because of the massive resistane to it in the marketplace, coupled with rejection of its new features by both consumers and developers.
Bloating is not an aspect of 'not being completed'. Bloating is a function of being burdened with unnecessary features and capabiloities. The security is a nightmare, and remains one, because Microsoft isn't concerned about protecting the operating system from the programs. They're concerned about protecting content, including the programs, from the user being able to access them, even to simply read them.
Temporal resolution is a related but different issue. What i noted was that, no matter what you use, you still have to deposit energy to make subtle measurements. That's a basically Heisenberg-ian issue, and one that sonography also suffers from.
Oh, I still use twm occasionally for stripped down servers. Now _that's_ a non-Windows-GUI.
That's backwards. Microsoft is losing market share partially because Vista is a failure. And Vista released 2 or 3 years earlier might have benefited from less competition with cleaner, more capable systems such as Linux for servers and Apple for desktops, but it would have still suffered from being seriously bloated and mistaking DRM for security.
You've obviously never played Quake on Linux.
And more DRM to wade through. Much of Microsoft's current 'security' development is aimed squarely at DRM and protecting the control by businesses, not at protecting users.
AOL is hardly the only company to do this. Technical support is one of the most expensive parts of an ISP's services, and even companies with sophisticated products can burn many hours of technical support on fairly minor problems that their first-tier and second-tier staff have no chance of understanding, because it's not in the troubleshooting flowchart they use. Someone has to actually understand the problem, or have tried a similar configuration.
VMware does nearly this. Their dial-up and online support is, frankly, useless, and points you to the customer forums. unfortunately, those customer forums are so deluged with similar problems and no way to expire bad answers and get them out of the forum that it's quite difficult to search through and find the real answer.
No, that's an "I'm shocked!" wave, and it happens _after_ a sound occurs.
Would you prefer if he pointed out the Sun's path by the Starbucks we're passing?
He sad 'recursive', not 'accursed'.
[ I played with HURD some years back: there are compelling reasons to stick with Linux or any working, open source kernel. ]
And getting it to a higher resolution means depositing more energy in the tissue. We shouldn't ever expect MRI, or any similar technique, to provide really high resolution measurement without damaging tissue.