1. There was a page on Dell's site saying displaying photoshopped pc's with a brown ubuntu splash screen, but the link took you to freedos systems. (?)
2. Search the phrase Dell linux and one of the links will take you to PC's with Red Hat.
3. Going through Dell's front door www.dell.com gets you absolutely zero indication they have Linux, much less ubuntu as an option.
I found the link to buy a ubuntu/dell pc in an article. This suggests some combination of typical corporate inertia and maybe, just maybe a Microsoft distribution agreement that discourages alternatives.
Keep in mind the audit and disclosure is probably politically motivated. Maybe the FBI wants a bigger IT budget? Maybe the head of another agency wants to discredit the FBI? I can tell you from experience, this is more likely rather than plain old incompetence.
The GAO looks like they are doing their job, but that's about it. Having set up NIST compliant LAN and desktops. I promise you they are not _that_ secure. It's better than a default windows desktop, but not remarkable. It's windows after all.
Our Freedom-loving lobbyists in D.C. will be wearing last weeks shirt pulled out of the dirty clothes and in desperate need of a shower. But their LAN will be secure!
As someone that has done some DIY once-upon-a-time:
1. this would be considered a "win" for both companies. IMHO the Wall Street Journal and a mention by Walt Mossberg is the pinnacle of PR success. Literally, it doesn't get much higher than that in the U.S. anyway.
2. This is a perfect example of the power of the media. Bitter rivals? Not if Walt Mossberg asks you to come to his event.
3. Walt's not going to do anything to ruffle any feathers. Considering the audience, this will most likely be a snoozer for most./'ers.
4. Linus _should_ be in Walt's media contacts list. Does Linus pay an _insane_ amount of money to PR hacks who bribe their way into Walt's assistant's office? That's kind of a pre-requisite.
That's what I do now. But the point is not what you or I do. The point is how influential the media conglomerates are.
Here's another way to get a sense of how pervasive the media conglomerates and their messages are: Try going one week without, watching any tv, going to any movie distributed by the media conglomerates, watching a movie _not_ distributed by a media conglomerates, playing a game that the media conglomerates have _not_ produced or funded, reading a magazine not owned or funded by a media conglomerate.
The average American sniffs derisively at the notion that North Koreans have one media outlet. We may have more media, but the message is coordinated in a very similar fashion as in North Korea.
First of all, it's a testament to the effectiveness of the media conglomerates that this headline does not outrage./'ers in general.
Sadly though, most people have thrown away all of their personal use rights in exchange for little more than a high-def picture and an ipod. These people get what they deserve. Higher prices.
For those of you (like the submitter) that aren't aware:
1. The banks do not "pay" for fraud. Merchants who have the fraudulent transactions pay for fraud. Therefore, the cost of fraud is assumed by all consumers in the form of higher prices. In fact, the banks profit from fraudulent transactions by charging the merchant penalties.
2. There is a well implemented and secure banking standard that is in many places in the world. Except no bank in the U.S. wants to implement it because of the costs the bank has to assume in order to implement it. It's called EMV.
It's been this way for at least twenty years. If you have read this far, the situation has gotten more perilous because the supreme court just eliminated State over site of corporations running banks in multiple states. Who's minding the store eh?
The DSP is still where the action is if you are doing infrastructure. I know the modern CPU can handle telco DSP, but as the asterisk docs show, it's very cpu intensive at medium-sized numbers of users.
I give this one a low probability of success and is probably just something to keep the investors convinced they are growning.
I pay $50 for a book about a certification. I've exchanged $50 for a book. That exchange occurs in a market because I gave something I valued ($50)for a book. Economics says that this transaction occurs in a market.
Let's say the publisher gives that book away and I take one. Economics says this behavior falls outside market behavior. There was no exchange. Just one person freely giving and another taking.
Trying to do more than one transaction, especially something as intangible as a certification is difficult to simplify.
ps... The programmers are paid exclusive of the GPL work they do in most cases. Yes, there are some exceptions, but in those cases where developers are paid to work on free code, the term market does not apply to the code. The exchange in those cases is imparting the knowledge implementing/using the code in exchange for the client's money.
Value = Benefit - Cost - Risk In the field of economics, there is no such formula for value. Value is defined as the exchange value (price) of goods or services. That is the common definition of value. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_value_(econ omics) Is the wikipedia dead wrong?
You are avoiding development expense, You are still taking something you exchanged nothing for. (libpng) Trying to shift the argument to developing expenses has no effect on the original action. You acquired something for nothing, and that is not the definition of a market.
Please note carefully the original grandparent post because it's a non-obvious but very important point. I urge you to develop more discipline in the field of economics. I am no different or better in what I don't know, so please take is as a recommendation.
You are sodomizing a number of economic terms to reach your conclusion.
1. It doesn't matter if software is a good or service. If I don't have to exchange something for it, the term market does not apply.
2. There is no such thing as "natural competition." If you are trying to refer to the notion of a perfectly working "free market" then please, please stop. Humans do all kinds of things to capture permanent advantages like capturing all of the output of all suppliers, coordinating pricing with their competitors, legislating barriers to entry. "Free markets" only exist in textbooks.
3. The notion of "non-profit" is a social (tax) contrivance and is not related to my original point, the definition of "market" and "free market" in particular being abused. It's this kind of lazy magical thinking that harms society.
At this point a few naysayers are sticking with the notion that there is some value exchanged by adding all kinds of indirect/psychological benefits.
1. I go to www.libpng.org 2. Download library source code. 3. Use libpng.
I didn't have to give the libpng library copyright holder money for the software. I didn't have to trade something I have for the software.
There is _no_ exchange of value when acquiring libpng software. Zero. Therefore, the term "market" cannot be applied to libpng and other free software like it.
Moderators are relying on the often abused phrase "free market." The term you were abusing is "market."
However, a market requires an exchange of goods or services.
Free (as in speech and beer) software violates the premise of a market. There is no exchange of value. It most certainly is different than your example of paid programming jobs.
Grandparent post is correct, the distribution model that arises as a result of GPL'd software affects all programmers. To be more specific it introduces a cost-free method of delivering a similar service that used to be available only in market conditions.
sorry what is the difference from Sun or IBM or any other big corporation sponsoring developers?
You are blurring the ways that an IBM or Sun interact with GPL'd projects versus mozilla for the sole purpose of disagreeing with my bias. Please, read on....
I want a quality, well engineered genuinely innovative OS - what better justification?
1. That's okay except history is full of organizations where success literally crushes innovation. The specter of failure looms large. So large, no risks are taken.
2. In this case in particular, the change _required_ for innovation now comes under the control of the for-profit organization.
Re:So is Slashdot going to critique
on
The HP Way 2.0
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think there's enough/.'ers who have been around long enough to remember when buying HP meant _great_ quality and service at not-that-high-prices.
Fiorina was pretty much the tipping point. Hurd's infamous "I didn't explicitely approve illegal actions, so I'm not liable or responsible" pretty much tells you what kind of scumbags he's likely to hire. It makes me feel sympathetic for the old-guard BOD's.
It also gives you an idea what passes for leadership in this country.
The part that concerns me most is that the historical record is now impermanent. Unlike physical media (paper) it's possible to alter historical perspective.
Editing archived articles is easy and has been done for many reasons, some of which I'm sure could be attributed to censorship/tyranny.
But it will. How can that be?! It's true because Microsoft has an obligation to their shareholders to return above-average profits. They do that by creating barriers to entry. Right now the signed driver barrier is low, later on, the barrier will be raised steadily.
No, they'll do what they already do with everything that's not a.doc (or whatever extension is next) make it _really_ hard to use anything but.whatever.
if you've a process eating 100% of the cpu power all the time
1. It's not so much acpi, but cpu frequency scaling I should have mentioned. Sorry, wrong terminology.
2. My point is that the unsexy work of sophisticated uses of frequency scaling would probably help more on a laptop. I'm estimating the most power consumption is the lcd panel followed by the cpu which is where the frequency scaling helps.
3. I run a bunch of servers and a storage array and it would be great if the disks would run at lower power consumption, kind of like frequency scaling at non-peak hours. I know it would cut down on the heat we generate and power/cooling requirements. That's dollars and cents savings that look good. Can hdparm settings lower my power consumption?
C'mon what are we talking about here, a few minutes? AFAIK, better power savings comes through a good acpi config, which I don't see a whole lot of discussion on.
My guess is where this kind of thing would make a dollars/cents difference is in the NOC. But this kind of detail isn't very sexy or very high on most NOC operators radar.
Slashdot Mirror
I tried to find it this morning too.
1. There was a page on Dell's site saying displaying photoshopped pc's with a brown ubuntu splash screen, but the link took you to freedos systems. (?)
2. Search the phrase Dell linux and one of the links will take you to PC's with Red Hat.
3. Going through Dell's front door www.dell.com gets you absolutely zero indication they have Linux, much less ubuntu as an option.
I found the link to buy a ubuntu/dell pc in an article. This suggests some combination of typical corporate inertia and maybe, just maybe a Microsoft distribution agreement that discourages alternatives.
GAO had to know what 'right'
Keep in mind the audit and disclosure is probably politically motivated. Maybe the FBI wants a bigger IT budget? Maybe the head of another agency wants to discredit the FBI? I can tell you from experience, this is more likely rather than plain old incompetence.
The GAO looks like they are doing their job, but that's about it. Having set up NIST compliant LAN and desktops. I promise you they are not _that_ secure. It's better than a default windows desktop, but not remarkable. It's windows after all.
Here here!
Our Freedom-loving lobbyists in D.C. will be wearing last weeks shirt pulled out of the dirty clothes and in desperate need of a shower. But their LAN will be secure!
As someone that has done some DIY once-upon-a-time:
./'ers.
1. this would be considered a "win" for both companies. IMHO the Wall Street Journal and a mention by Walt Mossberg is the pinnacle of PR success. Literally, it doesn't get much higher than that in the U.S. anyway.
2. This is a perfect example of the power of the media. Bitter rivals? Not if Walt Mossberg asks you to come to his event.
3. Walt's not going to do anything to ruffle any feathers. Considering the audience, this will most likely be a snoozer for most
4. Linus _should_ be in Walt's media contacts list. Does Linus pay an _insane_ amount of money to PR hacks who bribe their way into Walt's assistant's office? That's kind of a pre-requisite.
You must be new to the U.S.
I'm all for outrage, but what have you done to be sure your Federal/State/Local representatives are representing honest people?
Don't buy the content
That's what I do now. But the point is not what you or I do. The point is how influential the media conglomerates are.
Here's another way to get a sense of how pervasive the media conglomerates and their messages are: Try going one week without, watching any tv, going to any movie distributed by the media conglomerates, watching a movie _not_ distributed by a media conglomerates, playing a game that the media conglomerates have _not_ produced or funded, reading a magazine not owned or funded by a media conglomerate.
The average American sniffs derisively at the notion that North Koreans have one media outlet. We may have more media, but the message is coordinated in a very similar fashion as in North Korea.
One week. Try it... I dare you.
First of all, it's a testament to the effectiveness of the media conglomerates that this headline does not outrage ./'ers in general.
Sadly though, most people have thrown away all of their personal use rights in exchange for little more than a high-def picture and an ipod. These people get what they deserve. Higher prices.
For those of you (like the submitter) that aren't aware:
1. The banks do not "pay" for fraud. Merchants who have the fraudulent transactions pay for fraud. Therefore, the cost of fraud is assumed by all consumers in the form of higher prices. In fact, the banks profit from fraudulent transactions by charging the merchant penalties.
2. There is a well implemented and secure banking standard that is in many places in the world. Except no bank in the U.S. wants to implement it because of the costs the bank has to assume in order to implement it. It's called EMV.
It's been this way for at least twenty years. If you have read this far, the situation has gotten more perilous because the supreme court just eliminated State over site of corporations running banks in multiple states. Who's minding the store eh?
What is old is new again.
s _dialogic/
n tel-sells-dialogic-to-eicon.html
They bought dialogic for USD $750 million in 1999. http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/06/01/intel_buy
Then they sold in 2006 for an undisclosed sum. The simple fact they sold it suggests they couldn't make it work for them. Otherwise, they would spin it off differently so the operation shows up on Intel's balance sheet: http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/greg-galitzine/voip/i
The DSP is still where the action is if you are doing infrastructure. I know the modern CPU can handle telco DSP, but as the asterisk docs show, it's very cpu intensive at medium-sized numbers of users.
I give this one a low probability of success and is probably just something to keep the investors convinced they are growning.
Do you deny that the certification holds value?
That could be a complicated question. To simplify, lets make _only_ two possible outcomes, kind of like gov't pay grades:
1. An employer pays you more specifically because you have a certificate. The certificate has value.
2. The same salary is given regardless of the certificate. The certificate has no value.
Beyond such a simple test, it's pretty hard to establish where value lies.
Concentrate on the first exchange.
I pay $50 for a book about a certification. I've exchanged $50 for a book. That exchange occurs in a market because I gave something I valued ($50)for a book. Economics says that this transaction occurs in a market.
Let's say the publisher gives that book away and I take one. Economics says this behavior falls outside market behavior. There was no exchange. Just one person freely giving and another taking.
Trying to do more than one transaction, especially something as intangible as a certification is difficult to simplify.
Software doesn't violate the free market. The owner of proprietary software creates the scarcity. These days it's through copy protection schemes.
What do you term "exchange?
n omics)
When I trade something the other person values for something they have. Psychological benefits lie outside economic thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_value_(eco
ps...
The programmers are paid exclusive of the GPL work they do in most cases. Yes, there are some exceptions, but in those cases where developers are paid to work on free code, the term market does not apply to the code. The exchange in those cases is imparting the knowledge implementing/using the code in exchange for the client's money.
Value = Benefit - Cost - Riskn omics) Is the wikipedia dead wrong?
In the field of economics, there is no such formula for value. Value is defined as the exchange value (price) of goods or services. That is the common definition of value. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_value_(eco
You are avoiding development expense,
You are still taking something you exchanged nothing for. (libpng) Trying to shift the argument to developing expenses has no effect on the original action. You acquired something for nothing, and that is not the definition of a market.
Please note carefully the original grandparent post because it's a non-obvious but very important point. I urge you to develop more discipline in the field of economics. I am no different or better in what I don't know, so please take is as a recommendation.
You are sodomizing a number of economic terms to reach your conclusion.
1. It doesn't matter if software is a good or service. If I don't have to exchange something for it, the term market does not apply.
2. There is no such thing as "natural competition."
If you are trying to refer to the notion of a perfectly working "free market" then please, please stop. Humans do all kinds of things to capture permanent advantages like capturing all of the output of all suppliers, coordinating pricing with their competitors, legislating barriers to entry. "Free markets" only exist in textbooks.
3. The notion of "non-profit" is a social (tax) contrivance and is not related to my original point, the definition of "market" and "free market" in particular being abused. It's this kind of lazy magical thinking that harms society.
At this point a few naysayers are sticking with the notion that there is some value exchanged by adding all kinds of indirect/psychological benefits.
1. I go to www.libpng.org
2. Download library source code.
3. Use libpng.
I didn't have to give the libpng library copyright holder money for the software.
I didn't have to trade something I have for the software.
There is _no_ exchange of value when acquiring libpng software. Zero. Therefore, the term "market" cannot be applied to libpng and other free software like it.
Moderators are relying on the often abused phrase "free market." The term you were abusing is "market."
However, a market requires an exchange of goods or services.
Free (as in speech and beer) software violates the premise of a market. There is no exchange of value. It most certainly is different than your example of paid programming jobs.
Grandparent post is correct, the distribution model that arises as a result of GPL'd software affects all programmers. To be more specific it introduces a cost-free method of delivering a similar service that used to be available only in market conditions.
sorry what is the difference from Sun or IBM or any other big corporation sponsoring developers?
You are blurring the ways that an IBM or Sun interact with GPL'd projects versus mozilla for the sole purpose of disagreeing with my bias. Please, read on....
I want a quality, well engineered genuinely innovative OS - what better justification?
1. That's okay except history is full of organizations where success literally crushes innovation. The specter of failure looms large. So large, no risks are taken.
2. In this case in particular, the change _required_ for innovation now comes under the control of the for-profit organization.
It will be interesting to see how much influence the Mozilla Corporation becomes on the project.
Given the way money and power corrupt, I'd say there's a fork coming in the next 10 years.
All hail the IceWeasel! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceweasel
I think there's enough /.'ers who have been around long enough to remember when buying HP meant _great_ quality and service at not-that-high-prices.
Fiorina was pretty much the tipping point. Hurd's infamous "I didn't explicitely approve illegal actions, so I'm not liable or responsible" pretty much tells you what kind of scumbags he's likely to hire. It makes me feel sympathetic for the old-guard BOD's.
It also gives you an idea what passes for leadership in this country.
The part that concerns me most is that the historical record is now impermanent. Unlike physical media (paper) it's possible to alter historical perspective.
Editing archived articles is easy and has been done for many reasons, some of which I'm sure could be attributed to censorship/tyranny.
I'd be wrong if my statement never came true.
But it will. How can that be?! It's true because Microsoft has an obligation to their shareholders to return above-average profits. They do that by creating barriers to entry. Right now the signed driver barrier is low, later on, the barrier will be raised steadily.
Really???
n alContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1144104,00.html
.doc (or whatever extension is next) make it _really_ hard to use anything but .whatever.
Then what the hell happened in Massachusetts wanted to switch to ODF?? Here's a long-winded citation: http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/origi
No, they'll do what they already do with everything that's not a
if you've a process eating 100% of the cpu power all the time
1. It's not so much acpi, but cpu frequency scaling I should have mentioned. Sorry, wrong terminology.
2. My point is that the unsexy work of sophisticated uses of frequency scaling would probably help more on a laptop. I'm estimating the most power consumption is the lcd panel followed by the cpu which is where the frequency scaling helps.
3. I run a bunch of servers and a storage array and it would be great if the disks would run at lower power consumption, kind of like frequency scaling at non-peak hours. I know it would cut down on the heat we generate and power/cooling requirements. That's dollars and cents savings that look good. Can hdparm settings lower my power consumption?
C'mon what are we talking about here, a few minutes? AFAIK, better power savings comes through a good acpi config, which I don't see a whole lot of discussion on.
My guess is where this kind of thing would make a dollars/cents difference is in the NOC. But this kind of detail isn't very sexy or very high on most NOC operators radar.