The objective of OSS is the sharing of information in hopes of return. I have code that will do "X" and need it to do "X+Y". Hey, you happened to have done "Y" and can send it to me.
Soon enough people are sharing that not only is "X+Y+Z..." available, but I can get the entire package without any work on my part. Unfair? Hardly. People who needed them built "X" and Y and Z, and could not wait. They hope that when they need "Q" or "R" or "S" you will pass it on to them. [Like we do in our offices on a weekly basis.]
In addition, they ask that if you enhance or fix "X", you send it back so we all benefit. Let's face it, I gave you 20000 lines of code, you put in a 20-line fix, sounds like a good deal to me. Or if you cannot fix it, tell me it is out there so I do not find it a 3:00 a.m.
I also want to be certain you do not take "X+Y+Z", put your name on it and sell it. Much like I would frown on my neighbor planting crops in my yard and selling them.
So why is the business side of this failing? It is not, if we consider that around 50% of US businesses fail each year, and many of those are based on products. For a service model to work, I need to bring something to you, you do not have. To keep you as a customer I must always have more, know more, or control more.
OSS development is the antithesis of this. We are sharing in hopes the information will become well known. We want everyone to be as good as we are, because we want to use them as a resource, like they use us. We also recognize that OSS is many times a short cut toward, not the solution prepackaged for consumption. This means your people can be as knowledgeable as OSS developers, because we do not hide how we do it. Great for OSS, tough on Service companies without a value add piece.
Denying anyone free access to other peoples ideas is not beneficial to your citizens.
Unless of course, control is your goal.
Saudi Arabia has the same moral police, as well as the suppression of women and limitations on free speech, government, and education as the Taliban. Of course, we (the US) need them to keep oil prices down.
Holding this type of environment, as the Soviets learned, requires suppressing the free flow of information. Beneficial to the citizens? No. Benefitial to those in power, certainly.
Microsoft and the current DOJ lawyers started with the economy card. Sue Microsoft, see the economy tumble. Next we had a judge whose orders were to settle this, out of court. Why? It appears she has a lack of both Anti-trust and technology experience.
Then in a secret meeting between Microsoft's attorney (a former Reagan appointee) and the lead attorney for the DOJ (a current appointee), a deal less restrictive than accepted prior to the trail was accepted without the state's knowledge.
This is an op-ed piece supplied for the consumption of U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. As we start to enter the 60-day review period, this will give Microsoft more leverage to indicate they do have competition and the deal is fair. Of course, the exclusions put into the deal also ensure Open source will not be considered a legitimate third party to receive any advance notice or right to information.
In addition, they can force those who do have 'the right" to sign non-disclosures, under the guise of ensuring security, and sue anyone attempting to provide access to open source. Then they begin legal action against anyone who uses the information to enhance open source.
While it may make us "feel good" to know we are considered a threat, we are not. A threat is something you do not have a solution for. They have a solution and it is about to become a legal document by which they can exclude all open source from access.
Consider how far we could push Linux, BSD, etc... into an environment where merely communicating with the existing NT network would be considered illegal. A simple API change we cannot mimic or duplicate and they can tie it up in court for years. The mere specter of such possibility will keep us out of many shops.
Now is the time to re-read Ralph Nader's letter and create your own. Keep it specific to the agreement, factual and polite. This will become a legal document, not an editorial or slashdot forum. Revise, reread, and revise some more. When the 60-day period begins, print it off, and mail it. Start working on it now to be ready when the time comes.
Note to editors: can we put up a forum where people can post their letters for comment?
Time to put on the critical thinking caps on. Okay you statistics gurus jump in....
a recent poll of 100 executives from Fortune 1000 companies .
Was it 50 from one company? 100 from the last 100 on the list? This is not even a sampling in statistics. These numbers mean nothing, but make it sound "significant"
Next we have . "Respondents to the Goldman survey indicated that mainframes, Linux servers and supply-chain management ranked as the three lowest spending priorities, in that order." Here numbers are made to sound significant because they rank as "lowest spending priorities". Time for a quick kill. Every Linux box we run came in as.....ding! you got it a Windows server. I also do not foresee IBM getting out of the mainframe business because they are on the "lowest spending priority."
Conversely, the top items in order of importance were Windows 2000 or XP Professional desktop operating systems, security software and Unix servers. Now we are getting somewhere. Okay, based on the first point these numbers are meaningless, but if they want to use them... 2000 and XP, I am guessing like us they are in a forced migration to XP. The new pay now or really pay later licenses(although they probably did not know that). Instead, I would suspect, they heard XP was coming and wanted the interviewer to know they are keeping current. I do not fault the executives here. Most of the detail is more of a hobby, if they know much of it at all. And why should they care, as long as thier business gets done?
As for security... Well with all the issues they have had lately, of course it is a priority. But come on, given a reasonable IT budget, do you really think security software and hardware is going to make a top 3 dent? These are priorities not expenses. If I buy 200 desktops and spend $5,000 on security, security was still important, but not significant to my budget.
Even IBM--"Linux's staunchest adherent," in Goldman Sachs' view--is careful to say that Linux has its limitations. This is great. Goldman Sachs did not even ask IBM, they decided for them. I do not know that IBM would provide a much different view, but neither do they.
Finally, we have Ultimately, technology managers don't want to hear about the operating system, Robinson believes. "All you care about is wanting a stable, scalable platform for applications to run on." Yes they do and where do they want to go today?;-)
We seem to take things too personally here. Alan and Linus had a disagreement about when and why. Much like people I work with on a daily basis have differences of opinion on approach. In the end we do not start working for other companies, we reach an agreement.
ZDnet is not the ACM; they are trying to sell magazines (or at least sponsors). A little conflict spices up the story. Should they put a more reasonable context around these things? Sure. However, if they did : "Linus and Alan agree on future" is hardly news worthy.
The more people hear about LINUX the better. (positive spin coming...)
In this context people can believe we know how to operate as open source and an effective business model. The need to evaluate, compare and when necessary compromise can be accomplished in this model for the benefit of everyone. People who appreciate that the people we want to be making business decisions for Linux.
The issue is not physics versus manufacturing, it is scope and cost containment like is done in manufacturing. As a person who has lead multi-million dollar projects, I have grown used to the cliché that goes something like this:
If we built homes like software we would all be living in the street, penniless...
The major issues I have seen revolve around a lack of scope and cost control. In many cases it is because there is little penalty for being late or over budget. In cases where penalties exist it is often beneficial to then over estimate the effort or cost required. Then once the money is approved, using it is becomes easy.
Going back to the analogy consider the following:
Scope If you were building a house, each piece has a specified cost, known in advance to a very large degree. In addition, altering the scope itself often incurs a penalty, because the work is not done by the owner. You plan a three bedroom, 1.5 bath home. Midway through planning you decide to make it a two bath home instead. The architect will charge the "re-scoping" fee and the builder will add the material fee. Now do the same after construction has begun. The architect gets their fee, the builder adds the material and resource costs, plus a "revision" fee for changing your mind after construction begins.
During a software project, it is common for individuals to approach the developers and ask to expand the scope. This would be analogous to approaching one of the work crew and asking them to just add the extra half a bath. The difference is the work crew would get fired, and the developer gets bonus points for adding the feature, either directly or indirectly.
If the developer chooses not to do it, or pushes them to the project manager, the client may label them uncooperative or difficult to work with. The project manager not wanting to be labeled either may coerce, cajole, or beg the developer to accomplish it, without a scope revision. Failure to do so by the developer results in real financial impact at some point, and offers little incentive to hold the line.
Cost I call this the "Porsche syndrome".
I go into the Porsche dealership and see a new 911 Carrera Coupe. Smiling the dealer offers to sell it at a deep discount, with options and accessories $84,000 (U.S.). Whewwww baby!!! I cannot afford that. "Look," I tell him, "my wife will never approve that, you need to get it down to $28,500 tops." Would any of us expect to have the price cut down? By half or more?
Okay, how about "Look, what will it take to get it under $30,000? Seriously now, what do I have to give up" As the dealer is escorting me to the door he explains the only way I will get this car under $30k is with a mask and a gun or from a scrap metal dealer.
Yet, daily we go to developers and tell them to do the same. We ask for an estimate and then go back with "This is too much, it needs to be smaller or it won't get approved!" --Insert blank stare here--- The idea that if something cannot be cost justified it should not be done, is often lost in the "request" itself.
To nearly guarantee a project is on budget and time requires things many companies are unwilling to provide. Strict scope control procedures, with oversight by the person responsible for the money. That means each change, regardless of how trivial must be approved by someone above the project management team with business justification. It also means that requests for scope change cannot be made to developers directly, by anyone.
I was very happy with the people who built my home. When speaking to many of my friends and coworkers who built their homes, they describe it as a process akin to having their flesh removed. Everything required such effort and detail that many would not do it again.
Most of them were looking for the relationship to be like one at the office. We all want to get along and help each other out. This is not a commercial arrangement, and when we put the commercial context around it, we see it many offices lack structure.
Internal organizations can be setup like commercial ones, but it is usually unwelcome as the perception is everyone should be working for the greater good of the company and this has the appearance of bureaucracy. Even if inaccurate, everyone "wanting to get along" prevents it from being implemented.
Go to a host of sites and look for the internal hdd converter. It will allow you to mount a laptop hdd into a desktop system. The intent is to allow you to more easily access the data (i.e. upgrade the drive, etc.). Then buy one of these drives.
The only thing I am uncertain about is if this will let you access the security information.
_____________________________________________
For every complex problem there exists a simple, inexpensive solution that is wrong.
The line that best summerizes what happened here was "James had been acting real tough until now," said Robert Lande, a University of Baltimore professor of antitrust law who followed the case closely. "But when it comes down to it, Microsoft broke open the champagne when Bush was elected."
Before negotiations even get anywhere the Justice Department announces they will not seek a structural remedy. They bought a get out of jail free card because we talk to each other instead of our representatives.
Now the terms are such that MS need only hold out five years before they are no longer supervised and they can do as they please again. Who will form a business with a five year life span against MS?
Let's say you are willing to. And now MS does not release the information on interfaces as promoised? What will you do? Sue them? Go ahead, can you outlast them in court? They do not need to win they just need to delay and delay and delay. That is how they got this deal.
We can whine and complain and bitch and moan, but the fact is they have $46 billion in cash and a PR machine telling eveyone the economy is doomed if you don't settle now and it is those "technical people" like slashdot readers who are responsible for all the virus and email problems we are seeing today.
Ask the simple question of why we would accept less now than what was being offered months ago? This is a plea bargin for robbery where we agree to do 3 years in jail and at the hearing are asked to promise we won't do it again instead.
It is time to put up or recognize these are the things that will make future open source development nearly impossible. Disagree? Let's go back to passport and hailstorm. Then the presumption sold to our representatives by the MS PR machine and many of the vendors selling security software: closed source is more secure than open source.
Now DMCA stops reverse engineering and Microsoft provides an interface (but not the one they use) which is slower and convoluted. And they change is every quarter, because "their customer's demand innovation". And they release the new version as they announce the changes. Do you think "mom and dad" are going to use open source if they have issues at all?
Microsoft doeso not need to bring out the big guns, they just need to bleed us slowly one change at a time. From their side it is the best of all possible results because they are complying with the courts and are protected from further attacks.
I do not know if alternate solutions can meet your criteria. Security and Freedom are mutually exclusive.
However, failing to have a better solution does not make this solution a good one. No more than telling you your house is in fire is useless unless I have a firehose. (You may still want to get out)
If we do not set a standard for what is acceptable, we will get the worst of all options. Unfortunately, in times of high stress, sound reasoning rarely prevails.
The card would contain basic information about the holder, including Social Security number, and would be linked to a federal database containing detailed personal data, including digital records of the person's thumbprint, palm print, face or eyes.
Later of course we could expand it for more specific information like your health records, financial status, political slant, religious affiliations and employment history. Of course you would not have to provide this to anyone else, but then again they would not have to hire you, provide products or services, and extend credit to you.
To handle these issues I am certain we will be asked to trust them. And should it prove to be an issue You they will take it up in a future bill.
I am reminded of the principle of SAM (Specific, Attainable, and Measurable). I then ask the simple question (the same I posed for cryptography "back doors"), "If this was in place on 9/11, would it have stopped the terrorists?" Ding-ding-ding, I am sorry, but at last count something like 14 of the hijackers were unknown to anyone. They would have had cards that allowed them to get on without an issue.
"But what about the others? They would have been stopped." No, they would not have been on to begin with, or they would have paid someone to create or reprogram cards.
So what will work? With regards to planes, no one on a plane will believe a hijacker is anything but suicidal. Even if they are not, and really just want money. Sorry, we are going to be looking out for ourselves and each other. The best security you can ever hope to find.
Next few quarters are not looking good.
on
Suspended E-nimation?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I do not want to sound bleak but 9/11 was damaging to many businesses that depended on air transport, shipping, or travel. People are worried about the situation and their jobs. Add to that the layoffs of the past three months and that is impacting business projections.
I am seeing a number of companies that are involved in arbitrary "slash and burn" in order to turn numbers around for the next few quarters. Internal organizations must either bring in revenue or cost savings which can be quantified. ROIs over 9 months are being rejected as too long given the current market.
I do not know what your organization looks like, but if you cannot show real dollars as revenue or savings, consider your group "at risk." and act accordingly. I never recommend acting out of fear, however much like a fire extinguisher is precautionary you may want to look around at what options are available to you to generate quantifiable savings or revenue.
Sounds like a great time to get together the entire team for a brainstorming session.
I have been playing with dia for a while now. I would agree with the author of dia that the product is in a state where it can be actively used and it is free.
While it could use more widgets/modules it does offer the option to build your own and it is free. Viso is also an excellent choice in the commercial product line, especially the ability to directly link into other windows documents.
Either option (dia or visio) will be time consuming, so I would re-read the previous poster. If you do not absolutely need a picture, go for a spreadsheet or simple database. The time consumed will be less, as you do not need to make it look nice. You will also find it much easier to locate a node, system, etc. in one of these products than to look through all the connections visually.
If you decide to go with the diagram version, I would still suggest the spreadsheet/db be done.
While it may sound harsh, I believe the point is important, and probably due another "ask slashdot" all together.
While I may have success with LanguageX, you try it and suffer failure. Group2 tries it with limited success and Group5 cranks it out like they are going out of style.
My experience has been that two true production efforts (not pilots) are almost always needed to work through "first timers" disease. New technology of any kind is almost certain to slow down the process and limit success. If you choose to follow the advice here, remember it was built with the effort and experience you may not have. In essence, your mileage will vary.
I strongly recommend "Rapid Development" by Steve McConnell for anyone planning to start with technology new to them.
Control your enthusiasm. While they may have shut off the software, this will almost certainly be a "Do as I say not as I do." result. Consider that most judges who break the speed limit getting into court are probably not revoking their own licenses.
Workplace monitoring is here to stay and has been upheld too often for it to be easily overturned. Any case brought to challenge would have to be in the legislature and the infamous "What do you have to hide" mentality will hold most representatives at bay.
Sad but true...
Better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt
Alternate jobs in the same line of work. This means competition for the best jobs but also that jobs exist should I decide to move on.
Cost of living. Forget what I get paid, what do I get get to keep relative to similar money in other towns. ($95k in DC versus Baltimore)
Very good schools at two levels. First, for my children, elementary/high schools. Then for what it brings to the area one or two good technical colleges. The first is far easier than the second but most places seem to succeed or fail at both.
Good cultural opportunities. Sports, Theater, Arts.
Good public transport. Even if you build the ideal city I will still live in the suburbs and want to commute without a headache.
Fair taxes. I do not mind paying my share but it needs to be fair, and get me at once. I am tired of getting five different tax bills.
And seeing where you are from I just have to add, nice weather...
From this and the previous posters you see why this is hard to accomplish. Most cities do not have the billions of dollars necessary to start a college/university, build schools, public transportation, and cultural facilities.
Start with jobs. If you have them, they will come...
We are setting a precedent that is going to come back to haunt us. Consider that we have imprisoned a foreign national, who entered the country on a Visa from the US government. His act is only illegal within the boarders of the US and the act did not occur here.
This policy puts all of us who travel abroad for business at risk. Consider that we have people setting up phone networks, running fiber, etc. in countries like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and a host of third world countries. Can you tell me what is illegal in those countries? Would you like it to be in the US? That is what we are saying. If you violate our laws while in your country, never come here.
Extreme example? The only people who believe the world loves the US have never traveled. While they do not dislike us individually, we are considered arrogant and inexperienced as a country. Most countries have homes older than we have existed. We think we are right most of the time and are more prone to "my way or the highway" mentality, with the view shared by many that we are a bully that needs a good thrashing.
We have now set the precedent that you can arrest an American for violating your laws while in America. This is bad on so many levels.
I started with RH5.2(?). Prior to DSL, I purchased any updates on Ebay for about the price of the disk ($10 is the most I think I spent)
That being said, if we compare apples to apples this is a difficult metric. Historically, I would get a "patch" from Windows. However, with Linux it has proven to be just as easy, especially in the newest releases to install the entire new version. I get everything that is up to date without hunting for the Access Fix, the Word Fix, MSIE's security updates of the week...etc.
If you are out purchasing the full retail, box version for each new release, I would ask "Why?" What can you possibly get in the 7.2 box that you didn't get in the 7? [This is easier to understand when companies foot the bill. For some reason we can always spend someone else's money easier than taking our time to download a version, burn new CDs, etc. ]
If you are buying new retail versions each time, I would make the suggestion that you buy a good set of manuals (look around here someone is always suggesting). Then get your distros through ftp (or auctions if you cannot download at high speed). You will be money ahead and have a better working reference.
One caveat, if this is your first implementation buy the retail with the manuals, etc. The install guide that goes with the specific distro you have is invaluable when you first start. Other manuals may be better, but you won't know until you have done the first install.
Instead of writing a reply here, write one (on paper) here:
Senate Address Lookup and House of Representative Address Lookup We heard about it, read about, whined and cried about it. What about doing something about it? Like singing to the choir we complain about how the government is letting big business get away with.... Everyone is taking our rights....yada yada yada... If we do not care enough to actually put pen to paper, we are not really serious. If we are not serious why should we be taken seriously?
For the home/small business network, Home depot does sell a unit as described above and it took about 15 minutes to install. It will absorb the hit, however your house will pass some of it along the circuits. I believe they are really designed to stop a fire more than anything else.
You will be a happy camper if you then have a surge protector too. This should stop all but a direct hit on your house. The power coming in is like a magnet I'm told. If you are going to get hit it will almost certainly be on or around where the power comes into the house. (I am not an electrician...)
Okay, we got the power covered, goodjobbob told you not to forget the modem, easy to do, but many of the surge suppressors have a built in line protector. However, remember that Cable/DSL modem too. You probably accepted responsibility for it when you got it from your broadband supplier. Have a UPS? Front end it with a protector. Even though it has one built in, the UPS is much more expensive than the protector is, so save it from itself.
My approach is that if it in any way, shape or form enters equipment from outside the house I put a protector on it. That would include your stereo, TVs, DVD player, VCRs, regular phone (the 2+ghz one that set you back $100) all that fun. I try to buy names I recognize and that can be screwed into places. This lets me hide a protector on the back of the stereo cabinet, etc.
Next check out the insurance policy. Why after putting all this in do you need to worry? Sorry but a direct hit is coming in, jumping through most everything and ruining your day. That is also why, in severe thunderstorms, if possible I unplug the computers and the phone lines.
These are referred to as "SMACKS!". The companies know most developers and small companies would rather switch than spend money to fight. The intent is to get you and anyone like you to go away for the price of an on-staff attorney.
Would they win in court? Hard to tell this is a very disputed area of law, and the courts are not helping. (IANAL) They can make TM claims, and may win, so they have little to lose. If nothing he may be able to claim GAIM as copyrighted material. Public domain however, does put that on short leash, at least in the case of violations.
If you have the money, desire, or can get the ACLU, FSF, etc. to hear your case you may wish to fight as long as they will. AOL, like Microsoft, GM, etc., has deep pockets and a long outlook on things. This could be tied up for years. You can have fun with it or call it a day and give it a different name.
While many people tell you: "fight fight fight" it is easy to say when you are not getting a second mortgage to ensure the $100k you forked out in legal fees to date are not lost. If however, you cannot get free help or have just as deep a pocket...sometimes be right doesn't help.
So why PostgreSQL? Red Hat needed to choose one that existed. Building from scratch, no matter how you look at it, would provide little return on investment.
They had a relationship established, with a group of developers very familiar with the product. Is it the best choice for everything, of course not. Hence the reason we have DB2/2, Oracle, MySQL...
What does Red Hat get out of it? They have a core group of developers in place today. Zero cost of a learning curve for them and minimal for the developers they add. In addition, they get PR. Red Hat is a public company that is making money. The PR only helps.
What does the Open Source community get? More dollars invested by someone who can work at it full time. In addition, we do not loose access to other DB choices. The development of MySQL, Oracle, sapDB, etc. will go on regardless of the announcement, either way. This will merely allow focus on this product for the reasons stated above.
To read this as a your SQL's better than mine, degrades quickly back to the NT vs. Linux sport that shows up in some newsgroup about a billion times a day. Many database options are good. Many are good at some things the others are not. I try to equate these choices like cars, we all want to drive different things for different reasons.
I spoke with the SSA and as they put it, Congress is a little far behind on this one. The law, as stated above, is businesses cannot force you to give your SSN. However they do not have to provide the service, equipment, etc. if you do not. [Color me vague here but does anyone see a difference but a lawyer?]
BTW - SSA answered their phone in 4 rings, no queue, AND the person was friendly with information. Bonus them +2...
I wonder how this impacts competitors. While I have been hesitant to support any business patents, this does seem a little bit more than "one click purchase" type patents we have seen come lately.
Does ultimate TV violate the patent, or are they clear because they allow you to tape two shows at once? Obviously, IANAL however, we have heard from some in the past. It would be interesting to have resident legal opinions available. Compare/Contrast type.
I see it now, the company claiming their EULA protects them from anything their software might or might not do. The school system saying it is the companies fault and everybody in court. The students who may lose scholarships, parents who now have to pay because of it, teachers and staff that lost their positions, and of course the townspeople of any school district that is somehow in a legal battle.
In abstract it falls under the "okay we need to do this better next time.." however real people had a real impact on their lives. How many teachers would have a hard time getting hired AND be able to prove it? Like a claim of "improper behavior," this is not going away even if the screw up is completely resolved. The next school will wonder, are they a screw up or were they screwed? Better to fall on the side of "screw up" at least I won't be help responsible later.
Slashdot Mirror
The objective of OSS is the sharing of information in hopes of return. I have code that will do "X" and need it to do "X+Y". Hey, you happened to have done "Y" and can send it to me.
Soon enough people are sharing that not only is "X+Y+Z..." available, but I can get the entire package without any work on my part. Unfair? Hardly. People who needed them built "X" and Y and Z, and could not wait. They hope that when they need "Q" or "R" or "S" you will pass it on to them. [Like we do in our offices on a weekly basis.]
In addition, they ask that if you enhance or fix "X", you send it back so we all benefit. Let's face it, I gave you 20000 lines of code, you put in a 20-line fix, sounds like a good deal to me. Or if you cannot fix it, tell me it is out there so I do not find it a 3:00 a.m.
I also want to be certain you do not take "X+Y+Z", put your name on it and sell it. Much like I would frown on my neighbor planting crops in my yard and selling them.
So why is the business side of this failing? It is not, if we consider that around 50% of US businesses fail each year, and many of those are based on products. For a service model to work, I need to bring something to you, you do not have. To keep you as a customer I must always have more, know more, or control more.
OSS development is the antithesis of this. We are sharing in hopes the information will become well known. We want everyone to be as good as we are, because we want to use them as a resource, like they use us. We also recognize that OSS is many times a short cut toward, not the solution prepackaged for consumption. This means your people can be as knowledgeable as OSS developers, because we do not hide how we do it. Great for OSS, tough on Service companies without a value add piece.
Denying anyone free access to other peoples ideas is not beneficial to your citizens.
Unless of course, control is your goal.
Saudi Arabia has the same moral police, as well as the suppression of women and limitations on free speech, government, and education as the Taliban. Of course, we (the US) need them to keep oil prices down.
Holding this type of environment, as the Soviets learned, requires suppressing the free flow of information. Beneficial to the citizens? No. Benefitial to those in power, certainly.
Microsoft and the current DOJ lawyers started with the economy card. Sue Microsoft, see the economy tumble. Next we had a judge whose orders were to settle this, out of court. Why? It appears she has a lack of both Anti-trust and technology experience.
Then in a secret meeting between Microsoft's attorney (a former Reagan appointee) and the lead attorney for the DOJ (a current appointee), a deal less restrictive than accepted prior to the trail was accepted without the state's knowledge.
This is an op-ed piece supplied for the consumption of U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. As we start to enter the 60-day review period, this will give Microsoft more leverage to indicate they do have competition and the deal is fair. Of course, the exclusions put into the deal also ensure Open source will not be considered a legitimate third party to receive any advance notice or right to information.
In addition, they can force those who do have 'the right" to sign non-disclosures, under the guise of ensuring security, and sue anyone attempting to provide access to open source. Then they begin legal action against anyone who uses the information to enhance open source.
While it may make us "feel good" to know we are considered a threat, we are not. A threat is something you do not have a solution for. They have a solution and it is about to become a legal document by which they can exclude all open source from access.
Consider how far we could push Linux, BSD, etc... into an environment where merely communicating with the existing NT network would be considered illegal. A simple API change we cannot mimic or duplicate and they can tie it up in court for years. The mere specter of such possibility will keep us out of many shops.
Now is the time to re-read Ralph Nader's letter and create your own. Keep it specific to the agreement, factual and polite. This will become a legal document, not an editorial or slashdot forum. Revise, reread, and revise some more. When the 60-day period begins, print it off, and mail it. Start working on it now to be ready when the time comes.
Note to editors: can we put up a forum where people can post their letters for comment?
Time to put on the critical thinking caps on. Okay you statistics gurus jump in....
.....ding! you got it a Windows server. I also do not foresee IBM getting out of the mainframe business because they are on the "lowest spending priority."
;-)
a recent poll of 100 executives from Fortune 1000 companies .
Was it 50 from one company? 100 from the last 100 on the list? This is not even a sampling in statistics. These numbers mean nothing, but make it sound "significant"
Next we have . "Respondents to the Goldman survey indicated that mainframes, Linux servers and supply-chain management ranked as the three lowest spending priorities, in that order."
Here numbers are made to sound significant because they rank as "lowest spending priorities". Time for a quick kill. Every Linux box we run came in as
Conversely, the top items in order of importance were Windows 2000 or XP Professional desktop operating systems, security software and Unix servers.
Now we are getting somewhere. Okay, based on the first point these numbers are meaningless, but if they want to use them... 2000 and XP, I am guessing like us they are in a forced migration to XP. The new pay now or really pay later licenses(although they probably did not know that). Instead, I would suspect, they heard XP was coming and wanted the interviewer to know they are keeping current. I do not fault the executives here. Most of the detail is more of a hobby, if they know much of it at all. And why should they care, as long as thier business gets done?
As for security... Well with all the issues they have had lately, of course it is a priority. But come on, given a reasonable IT budget, do you really think security software and hardware is going to make a top 3 dent? These are priorities not expenses. If I buy 200 desktops and spend $5,000 on security, security was still important, but not significant to my budget.
Even IBM--"Linux's staunchest adherent," in Goldman Sachs' view--is careful to say that Linux has its limitations.
This is great. Goldman Sachs did not even ask IBM, they decided for them. I do not know that IBM would provide a much different view, but neither do they.
Finally, we have Ultimately, technology managers don't want to hear about the operating system, Robinson believes. "All you care about is wanting a stable, scalable platform for applications to run on."
Yes they do and where do they want to go today?
We seem to take things too personally here. Alan and Linus had a disagreement about when and why. Much like people I work with on a daily basis have differences of opinion on approach. In the end we do not start working for other companies, we reach an agreement.
ZDnet is not the ACM; they are trying to sell magazines (or at least sponsors). A little conflict spices up the story. Should they put a more reasonable context around these things? Sure. However, if they did : "Linus and Alan agree on future" is hardly news worthy.
The more people hear about LINUX the better. (positive spin coming...)
In this context people can believe we know how to operate as open source and an effective business model. The need to evaluate, compare and when necessary compromise can be accomplished in this model for the benefit of everyone. People who appreciate that the people we want to be making business decisions for Linux.
The issue is not physics versus manufacturing, it is scope and cost containment like is done in manufacturing. As a person who has lead multi-million dollar projects, I have grown used to the cliché that goes something like this:
If we built homes like software we would all be living in the street, penniless...
The major issues I have seen revolve around a lack of scope and cost control. In many cases it is because there is little penalty for being late or over budget. In cases where penalties exist it is often beneficial to then over estimate the effort or cost required. Then once the money is approved, using it is becomes easy.
Going back to the analogy consider the following:
Scope
If you were building a house, each piece has a specified cost, known in advance to a very large degree. In addition, altering the scope itself often incurs a penalty, because the work is not done by the owner. You plan a three bedroom, 1.5 bath home. Midway through planning you decide to make it a two bath home instead. The architect will charge the "re-scoping" fee and the builder will add the material fee. Now do the same after construction has begun. The architect gets their fee, the builder adds the material and resource costs, plus a "revision" fee for changing your mind after construction begins.
During a software project, it is common for individuals to approach the developers and ask to expand the scope. This would be analogous to approaching one of the work crew and asking them to just add the extra half a bath. The difference is the work crew would get fired, and the developer gets bonus points for adding the feature, either directly or indirectly.
If the developer chooses not to do it, or pushes them to the project manager, the client may label them uncooperative or difficult to work with. The project manager not wanting to be labeled either may coerce, cajole, or beg the developer to accomplish it, without a scope revision. Failure to do so by the developer results in real financial impact at some point, and offers little incentive to hold the line.
Cost
I call this the "Porsche syndrome".
I go into the Porsche dealership and see a new 911 Carrera Coupe. Smiling the dealer offers to sell it at a deep discount, with options and accessories $84,000 (U.S.). Whewwww baby!!! I cannot afford that. "Look," I tell him, "my wife will never approve that, you need to get it down to $28,500 tops." Would any of us expect to have the price cut down? By half or more?
Okay, how about "Look, what will it take to get it under $30,000? Seriously now, what do I have to give up" As the dealer is escorting me to the door he explains the only way I will get this car under $30k is with a mask and a gun or from a scrap metal dealer.
Yet, daily we go to developers and tell them to do the same. We ask for an estimate and then go back with "This is too much, it needs to be smaller or it won't get approved!" --Insert blank stare here--- The idea that if something cannot be cost justified it should not be done, is often lost in the "request" itself.
To nearly guarantee a project is on budget and time requires things many companies are unwilling to provide. Strict scope control procedures, with oversight by the person responsible for the money. That means each change, regardless of how trivial must be approved by someone above the project management team with business justification. It also means that requests for scope change cannot be made to developers directly, by anyone.
I was very happy with the people who built my home. When speaking to many of my friends and coworkers who built their homes, they describe it as a process akin to having their flesh removed. Everything required such effort and detail that many would not do it again.
Most of them were looking for the relationship to be like one at the office. We all want to get along and help each other out. This is not a commercial arrangement, and when we put the commercial context around it, we see it many offices lack structure.
Internal organizations can be setup like commercial ones, but it is usually unwelcome as the perception is everyone should be working for the greater good of the company and this has the appearance of bureaucracy. Even if inaccurate, everyone "wanting to get along" prevents it from being implemented.
Go to a host of sites and look for the internal hdd converter. It will allow you to mount a laptop hdd into a desktop system. The intent is to allow you to more easily access the data (i.e. upgrade the drive, etc.). Then buy one of these drives.
The only thing I am uncertain about is if this will let you access the security information.
_____________________________________________
For every complex problem there exists a simple, inexpensive solution that is wrong.
The line that best summerizes what happened here was "James had been acting real tough until now," said Robert Lande, a University of Baltimore professor of antitrust law who followed the case closely. "But when it comes down to it, Microsoft broke open the champagne when Bush was elected."
Before negotiations even get anywhere the Justice Department announces they will not seek a structural remedy. They bought a get out of jail free card because we talk to each other instead of our representatives.
Now the terms are such that MS need only hold out five years before they are no longer supervised and they can do as they please again. Who will form a business with a five year life span against MS?
Let's say you are willing to. And now MS does not release the information on interfaces as promoised? What will you do? Sue them? Go ahead, can you outlast them in court? They do not need to win they just need to delay and delay and delay. That is how they got this deal.
We can whine and complain and bitch and moan, but the fact is they have $46 billion in cash and a PR machine telling eveyone the economy is doomed if you don't settle now and it is those "technical people" like slashdot readers who are responsible for all the virus and email problems we are seeing today.
Once again, using paper and an a real envelope (or these days a post card or FAX is probably better) Senate Address Lookup and House of Representative Address Lookup
Ask the simple question of why we would accept less now than what was being offered months ago? This is a plea bargin for robbery where we agree to do 3 years in jail and at the hearing are asked to promise we won't do it again instead.
It is time to put up or recognize these are the things that will make future open source development nearly impossible. Disagree? Let's go back to passport and hailstorm. Then the presumption sold to our representatives by the MS PR machine and many of the vendors selling security software: closed source is more secure than open source.
Now DMCA stops reverse engineering and Microsoft provides an interface (but not the one they use) which is slower and convoluted. And they change is every quarter, because "their customer's demand innovation". And they release the new version as they announce the changes. Do you think "mom and dad" are going to use open source if they have issues at all?
Microsoft doeso not need to bring out the big guns, they just need to bleed us slowly one change at a time. From their side it is the best of all possible results because they are complying with the courts and are protected from further attacks.
I do not know if alternate solutions can meet your criteria. Security and Freedom are mutually exclusive.
However, failing to have a better solution does not make this solution a good one. No more than telling you your house is in fire is useless unless I have a firehose. (You may still want to get out)
If we do not set a standard for what is acceptable, we will get the worst of all options. Unfortunately, in times of high stress, sound reasoning rarely prevails.
The card would contain basic information about the holder, including Social Security number, and would be linked to a federal database containing detailed personal data, including digital records of the person's thumbprint, palm print, face or eyes.
Later of course we could expand it for more specific information like your health records, financial status, political slant, religious affiliations and employment history. Of course you would not have to provide this to anyone else, but then again they would not have to hire you, provide products or services, and extend credit to you.
To handle these issues I am certain we will be asked to trust them. And should it prove to be an issue You they will take it up in a future bill.
I am reminded of the principle of SAM (Specific, Attainable, and Measurable). I then ask the simple question (the same I posed for cryptography "back doors"), "If this was in place on 9/11, would it have stopped the terrorists?" Ding-ding-ding, I am sorry, but at last count something like 14 of the hijackers were unknown to anyone. They would have had cards that allowed them to get on without an issue.
"But what about the others? They would have been stopped." No, they would not have been on to begin with, or they would have paid someone to create or reprogram cards.
So what will work? With regards to planes, no one on a plane will believe a hijacker is anything but suicidal. Even if they are not, and really just want money. Sorry, we are going to be looking out for ourselves and each other. The best security you can ever hope to find.
I do not want to sound bleak but 9/11 was damaging to many businesses that depended on air transport, shipping, or travel. People are worried about the situation and their jobs. Add to that the layoffs of the past three months and that is impacting business projections.
I am seeing a number of companies that are involved in arbitrary "slash and burn" in order to turn numbers around for the next few quarters. Internal organizations must either bring in revenue or cost savings which can be quantified. ROIs over 9 months are being rejected as too long given the current market.
I do not know what your organization looks like, but if you cannot show real dollars as revenue or savings, consider your group "at risk." and act accordingly. I never recommend acting out of fear, however much like a fire extinguisher is precautionary you may want to look around at what options are available to you to generate quantifiable savings or revenue.
Sounds like a great time to get together the entire team for a brainstorming session.
I have been playing with dia for a while now. I would agree with the author of dia that the product is in a state where it can be actively used and it is free.
While it could use more widgets/modules it does offer the option to build your own and it is free. Viso is also an excellent choice in the commercial product line, especially the ability to directly link into other windows documents.
Either option (dia or visio) will be time consuming, so I would re-read the previous poster. If you do not absolutely need a picture, go for a spreadsheet or simple database. The time consumed will be less, as you do not need to make it look nice. You will also find it much easier to locate a node, system, etc. in one of these products than to look through all the connections visually.
If you decide to go with the diagram version, I would still suggest the spreadsheet/db be done.
dia home page
dia Win32 Version
While it may sound harsh, I believe the point is important, and probably due another "ask slashdot" all together.
While I may have success with LanguageX, you try it and suffer failure. Group2 tries it with limited success and Group5 cranks it out like they are going out of style.
My experience has been that two true production efforts (not pilots) are almost always needed to work through "first timers" disease. New technology of any kind is almost certain to slow down the process and limit success. If you choose to follow the advice here, remember it was built with the effort and experience you may not have. In essence, your mileage will vary.
I strongly recommend "Rapid Development" by Steve McConnell for anyone planning to start with technology new to them.
Control your enthusiasm. While they may have shut off the software, this will almost certainly be a "Do as I say not as I do." result. Consider that most judges who break the speed limit getting into court are probably not revoking their own licenses.
Workplace monitoring is here to stay and has been upheld too often for it to be easily overturned. Any case brought to challenge would have to be in the legislature and the infamous "What do you have to hide" mentality will hold most representatives at bay.
Sad but true...
Better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt
Alternate jobs in the same line of work. This means competition for the best jobs but also that jobs exist should I decide to move on.
Cost of living. Forget what I get paid, what do I get get to keep relative to similar money in other towns. ($95k in DC versus Baltimore)
Very good schools at two levels. First, for my children, elementary/high schools. Then for what it brings to the area one or two good technical colleges. The first is far easier than the second but most places seem to succeed or fail at both.
Good cultural opportunities. Sports, Theater, Arts.
Good public transport. Even if you build the ideal city I will still live in the suburbs and want to commute without a headache.
Fair taxes. I do not mind paying my share but it needs to be fair, and get me at once. I am tired of getting five different tax bills.
And seeing where you are from I just have to add, nice weather...
From this and the previous posters you see why this is hard to accomplish. Most cities do not have the billions of dollars necessary to start a college/university, build schools, public transportation, and cultural facilities.
Start with jobs. If you have them, they will come...
We are setting a precedent that is going to come back to haunt us. Consider that we have imprisoned a foreign national, who entered the country on a Visa from the US government. His act is only illegal within the boarders of the US and the act did not occur here.
This policy puts all of us who travel abroad for business at risk. Consider that we have people setting up phone networks, running fiber, etc. in countries like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and a host of third world countries. Can you tell me what is illegal in those countries? Would you like it to be in the US? That is what we are saying. If you violate our laws while in your country, never come here.
Extreme example? The only people who believe the world loves the US have never traveled. While they do not dislike us individually, we are considered arrogant and inexperienced as a country. Most countries have homes older than we have existed. We think we are right most of the time and are more prone to "my way or the highway" mentality, with the view shared by many that we are a bully that needs a good thrashing.
We have now set the precedent that you can arrest an American for violating your laws while in America. This is bad on so many levels.
I started with RH5.2(?). Prior to DSL, I purchased any updates on Ebay for about the price of the disk ($10 is the most I think I spent)
That being said, if we compare apples to apples this is a difficult metric. Historically, I would get a "patch" from Windows. However, with Linux it has proven to be just as easy, especially in the newest releases to install the entire new version. I get everything that is up to date without hunting for the Access Fix, the Word Fix, MSIE's security updates of the week...etc.
If you are out purchasing the full retail, box version for each new release, I would ask "Why?" What can you possibly get in the 7.2 box that you didn't get in the 7? [This is easier to understand when companies foot the bill. For some reason we can always spend someone else's money easier than taking our time to download a version, burn new CDs, etc. ]
If you are buying new retail versions each time, I would make the suggestion that you buy a good set of manuals (look around here someone is always suggesting). Then get your distros through ftp (or auctions if you cannot download at high speed). You will be money ahead and have a better working reference.
One caveat, if this is your first implementation buy the retail with the manuals, etc. The install guide that goes with the specific distro you have is invaluable when you first start. Other manuals may be better, but you won't know until you have done the first install.
Any idea how someone might tell if we were revealed to the world?
Somehow I do not think AT&T, and especially Verizon will be helpful in providing this to their customers.
Instead of writing a reply here, write one (on paper) here:
Senate Address Lookup and House of Representative Address Lookup
We heard about it, read about, whined and cried about it. What about doing something about it? Like singing to the choir we complain about how the government is letting big business get away with.... Everyone is taking our rights....yada yada yada... If we do not care enough to actually put pen to paper, we are not really serious. If we are not serious why should we be taken seriously?
Wake up, smell the JAVA and act!
For the home/small business network, Home depot does sell a unit as described above and it took about 15 minutes to install. It will absorb the hit, however your house will pass some of it along the circuits. I believe they are really designed to stop a fire more than anything else.
You will be a happy camper if you then have a surge protector too. This should stop all but a direct hit on your house. The power coming in is like a magnet I'm told. If you are going to get hit it will almost certainly be on or around where the power comes into the house. (I am not an electrician...)
Okay, we got the power covered, goodjobbob told you not to forget the modem, easy to do, but many of the surge suppressors have a built in line protector. However, remember that Cable/DSL modem too. You probably accepted responsibility for it when you got it from your broadband supplier. Have a UPS? Front end it with a protector. Even though it has one built in, the UPS is much more expensive than the protector is, so save it from itself.
My approach is that if it in any way, shape or form enters equipment from outside the house I put a protector on it. That would include your stereo, TVs, DVD player, VCRs, regular phone (the 2+ghz one that set you back $100) all that fun. I try to buy names I recognize and that can be screwed into places. This lets me hide a protector on the back of the stereo cabinet, etc.
Next check out the insurance policy. Why after putting all this in do you need to worry? Sorry but a direct hit is coming in, jumping through most everything and ruining your day. That is also why, in severe thunderstorms, if possible I unplug the computers and the phone lines.
Life's not fair, but it beats the alternative...
These are referred to as "SMACKS!". The companies know most developers and small companies would rather switch than spend money to fight. The intent is to get you and anyone like you to go away for the price of an on-staff attorney.
Would they win in court? Hard to tell this is a very disputed area of law, and the courts are not helping. (IANAL) They can make TM claims, and may win, so they have little to lose. If nothing he may be able to claim GAIM as copyrighted material. Public domain however, does put that on short leash, at least in the case of violations.
If you have the money, desire, or can get the ACLU, FSF, etc. to hear your case you may wish to fight as long as they will. AOL, like Microsoft, GM, etc., has deep pockets and a long outlook on things. This could be tied up for years. You can have fun with it or call it a day and give it a different name.
While many people tell you: "fight fight fight" it is easy to say when you are not getting a second mortgage to ensure the $100k you forked out in legal fees to date are not lost. If however, you cannot get free help or have just as deep a pocket...sometimes be right doesn't help.
Life is not fair, but consider the alternative.
So why PostgreSQL?
Red Hat needed to choose one that existed. Building from scratch, no matter how you look at it, would provide little return on investment.
They had a relationship established, with a group of developers very familiar with the product. Is it the best choice for everything, of course not. Hence the reason we have DB2/2, Oracle, MySQL...
What does Red Hat get out of it?
They have a core group of developers in place today. Zero cost of a learning curve for them and minimal for the developers they add. In addition, they get PR. Red Hat is a public company that is making money. The PR only helps.
What does the Open Source community get?
More dollars invested by someone who can work at it full time. In addition, we do not loose access to other DB choices. The development of MySQL, Oracle, sapDB, etc. will go on regardless of the announcement, either way. This will merely allow focus on this product for the reasons stated above.
To read this as a your SQL's better than mine, degrades quickly back to the NT vs. Linux sport that shows up in some newsgroup about a billion times a day. Many database options are good. Many are good at some things the others are not. I try to equate these choices like cars, we all want to drive different things for different reasons.
I spoke with the SSA and as they put it, Congress is a little far behind on this one. The law, as stated above, is businesses cannot force you to give your SSN. However they do not have to provide the service, equipment, etc. if you do not. [Color me vague here but does anyone see a difference but a lawyer?]
BTW - SSA answered their phone in 4 rings, no queue, AND the person was friendly with information. Bonus them +2...
I wonder how this impacts competitors. While I have been hesitant to support any business patents, this does seem a little bit more than "one click purchase" type patents we have seen come lately.
Does ultimate TV violate the patent, or are they clear because they allow you to tape two shows at once? Obviously, IANAL however, we have heard from some in the past. It would be interesting to have resident legal opinions available. Compare/Contrast type.
I see it now, the company claiming their EULA protects them from anything their software might or might not do. The school system saying it is the companies fault and everybody in court. The students who may lose scholarships, parents who now have to pay because of it, teachers and staff that lost their positions, and of course the townspeople of any school district that is somehow in a legal battle.
In abstract it falls under the "okay we need to do this better next time.." however real people had a real impact on their lives. How many teachers would have a hard time getting hired AND be able to prove it? Like a claim of "improper behavior," this is not going away even if the screw up is completely resolved. The next school will wonder, are they a screw up or were they screwed? Better to fall on the side of "screw up" at least I won't be help responsible later.