When I started in engineering, I noticed that engineering managers were often either ignored or
misunderstood in meeting with the marketing, finance, and other "business" types. I started an
MBA (finance), mostly as a vocabulary exercise that would allow me use the terms that the
business types would be able to hear, when I became a manager.
I later discovered that I had no desire to (or talent) to manage, and never finished the MBA,
but the vocabulary has still come in handy since I work as a "hired gun".
Now that M$ has declared Open Source to be "Unamerican", and given the power of the dollar to
"encourage" action by the various American governments, I believe that what we really need to
be aware of is the literal threat of prison and/or death for using/having used/knowing about
Open Source software.
The U.S. Constitution has very little to say regarding economic systems, other than originally
recognising slavery and some rather vague language about due process and just compensation in the
Fifth Amendment. So, constitutionally, Communism was NOT "Unamerican", just a concept that scared
the rich, powerful, and abusive. However, people with any association to "Communism" were deprived
of employment, their freedom, and some, in despair, of their lives back in the Fifties.
How much money would it take to convince some Republicans, American Independents, Southern
Democrats, etc. that there was justification for making Open Source software (much of it from "FOREIGNERS")
illegal in the U.S.?
Research performed for, and paid for by, the U.S. Government is supposed to P.D., at least, these
were the rules when I did some contract work years ago. Finding the source can be tricky, but if the
work can be identified, and located, you can request a copy. Some of the work, of course, is
classified, and there are the usual security restrictions on those items.
Some states may impose a similar rule, but California (AFAIK) does not, so research performed
at University of California sites belongs to UC and any company with which they partner.
I started using the "Magic Smoke" Theory of Electronics years ago; I must be getting REALLY old if it is now showing up in jargon. BTW, although I know that I did not hear of the usage before I started using it, I do not doubt that some, or many, others came up with it independently. My version (Transistors work becasue they are filled with Magic Smoke; the proof is that when the Magic Smoke is released, they no longer function.) was somewhat derived from Niven's Law (Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.) and based on the observation that to most people electronics is a "sufficiently advanced technology".
Not being a lawyer, but having heard a bit about the RICO act, I have a question:
Microsoft has been found to have repeatedly engaged in illegal monopolistic practices; does this pattern of activities fall within the scope of the RICO act?
It seems to me that if agents of the government can seize the car in which a very small amount of a proscribed substance was discovered, that they could seize Microsoft, Inc. a) to recover the cost of the prosecuion and b) to prevent a recurrance of the activities by auctioning off the assets of Microsoft to different companies.
Shareholder losses would be irrelevant, just as being a shareholder in a bank that laundered cash.
Once this model is accepted, manufacturers will have an incentive to release only the current M$- Windows drivers. No driver (and lost device sales) are better than the M$-Windows drivers.
Possibly true, but is "some" incentive enough?
Duplication of effort may be helpful; when I worked on AIX for the PS/2 we found hardware problems that didn't show up in M$-Windows, although they did, later, when OS/2 came out.
This, I believe, may be only a chimera; there are enough differences between the mechanisms that are used to protect driver and kernel data structures from interrupt service routines and peer-processor access in the various OSs that it may not even be possible to create a set of UDI drivers, much less port them across major kernel architecture change.
Since some devices MUST BE present in the kernel to access a boot device (and console), there is no way to prevent rebuilding drivers into a kernel. The current system of modular drivers already permits non-boot drivers to be excluded from the kernel image, and these modules can be distributed as separate packages. BTW, I just ran a line count on 2.2.5; there is a total of 1005095 lines of source code.
Although driver-private memory could be assigned to different contexts (at a huge cost in wasted memory and some significant CPU overhead switching between the various contexts), there are common data structures that would have to be accessed through an API and, presumably, another kernel- common context. This would create much more code to be maintained and more code does not guarantee additional stability, although it nearly always has a performance hit.
The performance will be that bad, so the existing sort-of APIs will be used and all that will have happened is a lot of unused work creating the code to implement and support the APIs.
If the Linux, bsd, etc. communities had been the driving aganecy for UDI, there's a good chance that the result would be a benefit to both users and device manufacturers. Since the current initiative is by M$ and the vendors that want to dump their M$-Windows drivers on Linux, bsd, etc., then YES it would be a REALLY, REALLY bad thing to implement UDI in Linux.
Actually, almost no new (and few existing) PC/M$-Windows games will run on the X-Box; it does not have enough memory for strategy games and the CPU is not really powerful enough for "shooters". Either of these may change, but why bother to announce a box that's Dead-On-Arrival?
For example, M$'s "Age of Empires II" locks up part way through an 8-character (computer+human) game in machines with less than 128 MBytes and even then if you allow more than 100 characters.
At NTSC/SVGA resolutions, 600 MHz is not very much x86 CPU to run a networked or multiplayer Quake or similar game (a 600 MHZ G4, on the other hand...); I've seen enough long pauses playing networked games on 550 PIIIs to know that.
A) both the new Sega and the PSX2 are SVGA (800x600) capable, so NTSC is NOT a limitation; B) if I could get StarCraft (BroodWars), Age of Empires II, etc. on a PSX2 that would play on an Ethernet LAN, I buy it today and never run M$-WIndows again; C) StarCraft, Diablo, AE II can be played on 200 MHz Pentiums with 64 MBytes of RAM and although an unfair amount of that is burned by M$-Windows, the 32 MBytes of PSX2 RAM IS likely to be a limitation for realtime strategy games (but it is RDRAM, so maybe we can just swap modules?); D) there are already USB disks, so that's not an issue (I know, there will have to be drivers); E) PC games do have to support at least one generation old video and most support at least two back, so a two-year-old PSX2 would still be in the ballpark for performance; F) it is flatly untrue that consoles are unsuitable to Sim/strategy games, my CD32 plays SimCity and RR Tycoon quite nicely with a keyboard, which both Sega and Sony (will) have.
It's not that funny; I cart a dual-bootable PC to a local net for multiplayer sessions; AE II is one of the games we've played. Misbehaves about as expected of an M$-branded product and the UI can be annoying, but it has some merit. If there were a Linux PPC or X86 port, I'd buy it.
Besides, it wouldn't hurt M$ with the DOJ to bring over some of their titles; although I would never buy M$-Word, -Office, Money, or V-anything, I'm sure they could sell more than a few copies.
I realize that "crap printing system that has dogged Unix..." is the writer's feeling, but I have yet to find an alternative that allows the same level of flexibility and efficiency. My favorite feature in distributed environments is that I (as sysadm) can select an appropriate processor to handle a job. I can use dedicated print processor, the processor in the system that has the disk on which the data is stored, the processor to which the printer is attached (the printer itself if it is smart enough), or the processor that the user is on. With M$-Windows, all I can do is watch streams of formatted data pass from the user's processor to the printer.
WordPerfect has the extremely intelligent feature of allowing me to configure the program to use the UNIX printing system, create (and manage) a dedicated print spooler, or print direct to a port (handy for printing sensitive documents).
The only downside(s) I can think of with the UNIX printing system is that the configuration requires that you know what you are doing and that so many printer manufacturers are so %#$#^% closed-mouth about the printer command set(s) and/or do not provide either UNIX or GhostScript print filters.
Way back in the old days, I developed an antipathy to BSD because Berkeley insisted on charging license fees; I felt that we (in California, at least) had funded the development of the kernel and utilities and should be allowed free copies (media cost only), whether for personal or business use.
Now that there are free versions, I may make use of BSD, but, until I find something that Linux won't do for me, I see no reason to add another OS to the mix (mostly Linux, one Amiga) that I run at home. For my professional use, Linux has broader embedded processor support. What is sad is that Linux' popularity has slightly opened the door for corporate use, but those %$*$# that "approve" technical decisions now have two names that they can remember (M$ and Linux); getting another name into that mindspace is hard.
Since most government systems are performing routine office tasks, why is isn't already illegal for them to use any M$ product? Linux and FreeBSD are essentially free; that takes care of nearly all of the M$-WinX licenses. The Linux-compatible office software is cheaper (when free won't do) than M$. An RFQ should simply read "word processing software", and Applix, Corel, StarOffice, etc. should be able to meet/beat M$ prices. Additionally, the OS and some of the tools will run on systems currently using M$DOS or Windows 3.1, so that the hardware upgrades needed to use the M$ products aren't required either.
Does anyone know whether any of our US legislators or executive officers would like to really save the country some money (rather than just getting more press coverage)? If so, let's let them onto this M$ rip-off.
Slashdot Mirror
When I started in engineering, I noticed that engineering managers were often either ignored or
misunderstood in meeting with the marketing, finance, and other "business" types. I started an
MBA (finance), mostly as a vocabulary exercise that would allow me use the terms that the
business types would be able to hear, when I became a manager.
I later discovered that I had no desire to (or talent) to manage, and never finished the MBA,
but the vocabulary has still come in handy since I work as a "hired gun".
Now that M$ has declared Open Source to be "Unamerican", and given the power of the dollar to
"encourage" action by the various American governments, I believe that what we really need to
be aware of is the literal threat of prison and/or death for using/having used/knowing about
Open Source software.
The U.S. Constitution has very little to say regarding economic systems, other than originally
recognising slavery and some rather vague language about due process and just compensation in the
Fifth Amendment. So, constitutionally, Communism was NOT "Unamerican", just a concept that scared
the rich, powerful, and abusive. However, people with any association to "Communism" were deprived
of employment, their freedom, and some, in despair, of their lives back in the Fifties.
How much money would it take to convince some Republicans, American Independents, Southern
Democrats, etc. that there was justification for making Open Source software (much of it from "FOREIGNERS")
illegal in the U.S.?
Research performed for, and paid for by, the U.S. Government is supposed to P.D., at least, these
were the rules when I did some contract work years ago. Finding the source can be tricky, but if the
work can be identified, and located, you can request a copy. Some of the work, of course, is
classified, and there are the usual security restrictions on those items.
Some states may impose a similar rule, but California (AFAIK) does not, so research performed
at University of California sites belongs to UC and any company with which they partner.
I started using the "Magic Smoke" Theory of Electronics years ago; I must be getting REALLY old if it is now showing up in jargon. BTW, although I know that I did not hear of the usage before I started using it, I do not doubt that some, or many, others came up with it independently. My version (Transistors work becasue they are filled with Magic Smoke; the proof is that when the Magic Smoke is released, they no longer function.) was somewhat derived from Niven's Law (Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.) and based on the observation that to most people electronics is a "sufficiently advanced technology".
Not being a lawyer, but having heard a bit about the RICO act, I have a question:
Microsoft has been found to have repeatedly engaged in illegal monopolistic practices; does
this pattern of activities fall within the scope of the RICO act?
It seems to me that if agents of the government can seize the car in which a very small amount of
a proscribed substance was discovered, that they could seize Microsoft, Inc. a) to recover the
cost of the prosecuion and b) to prevent a recurrance of the activities by auctioning off the
assets of Microsoft to different companies.
Shareholder losses would be irrelevant, just as being a shareholder in a bank that laundered cash.
Point by point:
Once this model is accepted, manufacturers will have an incentive to release only the current M$-
Windows drivers. No driver (and lost device sales) are better than the M$-Windows drivers.
Possibly true, but is "some" incentive enough?
Duplication of effort may be helpful; when I worked on AIX for the PS/2 we found hardware
problems that didn't show up in M$-Windows, although they did, later, when OS/2 came out.
This, I believe, may be only a chimera; there are enough differences between the mechanisms that are
used to protect driver and kernel data structures from interrupt service routines and peer-processor
access in the various OSs that it may not even be possible to create a set of UDI drivers, much less
port them across major kernel architecture change.
Since some devices MUST BE present in the kernel to access a boot device (and console), there is no
way to prevent rebuilding drivers into a kernel. The current system of modular drivers already
permits non-boot drivers to be excluded from the kernel image, and these modules can be distributed
as separate packages. BTW, I just ran a line count on 2.2.5; there is a total of 1005095 lines
of source code.
Although driver-private memory could be assigned to different contexts (at a huge cost in wasted
memory and some significant CPU overhead switching between the various contexts), there are common
data structures that would have to be accessed through an API and, presumably, another kernel-
common context. This would create much more code to be maintained and more code does not guarantee
additional stability, although it nearly always has a performance hit.
The performance will be that bad, so the existing sort-of APIs will be used and all that will have
happened is a lot of unused work creating the code to implement and support the APIs.
If the Linux, bsd, etc. communities had been the driving aganecy for UDI, there's a good chance
that the result would be a benefit to both users and device manufacturers. Since the current
initiative is by M$ and the vendors that want to dump their M$-Windows drivers on Linux, bsd, etc.,
then YES it would be a REALLY, REALLY bad thing to implement UDI in Linux.
Actually, almost no new (and few existing) PC/M$-Windows games will run on the X-Box; it does
...); I've seen enough long pauses playing
not have enough memory for strategy games and the CPU is not really powerful enough for "shooters".
Either of these may change, but why bother to announce a box that's Dead-On-Arrival?
For example, M$'s "Age of Empires II" locks up part way through an 8-character (computer+human)
game in machines with less than 128 MBytes and even then if you allow more than 100 characters.
At NTSC/SVGA resolutions, 600 MHz is not very much x86 CPU to run a networked or multiplayer Quake or
similar game (a 600 MHZ G4, on the other hand
networked games on 550 PIIIs to know that.
Sounds like a real waste of time to me.
A) both the new Sega and the PSX2 are SVGA (800x600) capable, so NTSC is NOT a limitation;
B) if I could get StarCraft (BroodWars), Age of Empires II, etc. on a PSX2 that would play on an
Ethernet LAN, I buy it today and never run M$-WIndows again; C) StarCraft, Diablo, AE II can
be played on 200 MHz Pentiums with 64 MBytes of RAM and although an unfair amount of that is
burned by M$-Windows, the 32 MBytes of PSX2 RAM IS likely to be a limitation for realtime strategy
games (but it is RDRAM, so maybe we can just swap modules?); D) there are already USB disks, so
that's not an issue (I know, there will have to be drivers); E) PC games do have to support at least
one generation old video and most support at least two back, so a two-year-old PSX2 would still be in
the ballpark for performance; F) it is flatly untrue that consoles are unsuitable to Sim/strategy games,
my CD32 plays SimCity and RR Tycoon quite nicely with a keyboard, which both
Sega and Sony (will) have.
It's not that funny; I cart a dual-bootable PC to a local net for multiplayer sessions; AE II is
one of the games we've played. Misbehaves about as expected of an M$-branded product and the UI
can be annoying, but it has some merit. If there were a Linux PPC or X86 port, I'd buy it.
Besides, it wouldn't hurt M$ with the DOJ to bring over some of their titles; although I would never
buy M$-Word, -Office, Money, or V-anything, I'm sure they could sell more than a few copies.
I realize that "crap printing system that has dogged Unix ..." is the writer's feeling, but
I have yet to find an alternative that allows the same level of flexibility and efficiency. My
favorite feature in distributed environments is that I (as sysadm) can select an appropriate
processor to handle a job. I can use dedicated print processor, the processor in the system that
has the disk on which the data is stored, the processor to which the printer is attached (the
printer itself if it is smart enough), or the processor that the user is on. With M$-Windows,
all I can do is watch streams of formatted data pass from the user's processor to the printer.
WordPerfect has the extremely intelligent feature of allowing me to configure the program to use
the UNIX printing system, create (and manage) a dedicated print spooler, or print direct to a
port (handy for printing sensitive documents).
The only downside(s) I can think of with the UNIX
printing system is that the configuration requires
that you know what you are doing and that so many printer manufacturers are so %#$#^% closed-mouth
about the printer command set(s) and/or do not provide either UNIX or GhostScript print filters.
Way back in the old days, I developed an antipathy to BSD because Berkeley insisted on charging
license fees; I felt that we (in California, at least) had funded the development of the
kernel and utilities and should be allowed free copies (media cost only), whether for personal
or business use.
Now that there are free versions, I may make use of BSD, but, until I find something that Linux
won't do for me, I see no reason to add another OS to the mix (mostly Linux, one Amiga) that I run
at home. For my professional use, Linux has broader embedded processor support. What is
sad is that Linux' popularity has slightly opened the door for corporate use, but those %$*$#
that "approve" technical decisions now have two names that they can remember (M$ and Linux);
getting another name into that mindspace is hard.
Since most government systems are performing routine office tasks, why is isn't already illegal for them to use any M$ product? Linux and FreeBSD are essentially free; that takes care of nearly all of the M$-WinX licenses. The Linux-compatible office software is cheaper (when free won't do) than M$. An RFQ should simply read "word processing software", and Applix, Corel, StarOffice, etc. should be able to meet/beat M$ prices. Additionally, the OS and some of the tools will run on systems currently using M$DOS or Windows 3.1, so that the hardware upgrades needed to use the M$ products aren't required either.
Does anyone know whether any of our US legislators or executive officers would like to really save the country some money (rather than just getting more press coverage)? If so, let's let them onto this M$ rip-off.