As much as it's utterly expected for a Slashdotter to confidently claim that any pro-MS/Anti-*nix story is automatically lies and FUD, but there are a couple of things that did catch my eye in this story.
"We have not had an outage in two years, where before we experienced downtime at least two to three times a year. We have also lowered our TCO [total cost of ownership]."
Firstly, I find it hard to believe that a Windows server system is that much more stable than a *nix server... or was the Windows server kept responsive by the monthly reboots to apply Windows security patches? (I administer Win2k3 Server boxes in work, I know whereof I speak) Proper outages may have happened more often (although I'm not sure how) but that doesn't count the amount of times servers would be restarted.
Secondly though, a company proudly announcing that they have lowered their "Total Cost of Ownership" (TCO) always rings alarm bells with me. As everyone knows, that's the big thing MS are trying to push in their latest FUD atm; Linux may be free, but the TCO is higher. Saying that you have a lower TCO when you switched to Windows makes you sound like a Microsoft poster child, imo.
Roy also had concerns about the security and reliability of the system.
Okay, you can be concerned with the security of *any* system, and you could also take the opinion (as some studies suggest) that Linux and Windows are relatively similar in the amount of vulnerabilities/patches released (not my belief, but it's been suggested), but I have not heard of any cases beyond the Microsoft FUD machine where anyone has been concerned with the security of a Linux system and has moved to Windows as a result... again, just sounds like a Microsoft poster child to me.
"There was a limit set up within the program that said you can only order 'x' amount of products within one transaction," Roy said. "When one of our guests went over the limit, it crashed the whole store. We then had to manually identify the erroneous credit card charges."
The ultimate horror story that no manager wants to hear... the program crashed, and lots of time and effort was spent fixing it! omg! But then again, that sounds to me like it's a problem with the program they're using, not the operating system. If they were to switch to Windows, and use the same software (assuming it had a port) there's no guarantee that the exact same thing wouldn't happen. This again, imo, is simply FUD.
"We spent more during the first three months troubleshooting the Linux system than if we had purchased the Windows solution to begin with," she said.
This could be a valid arguement in itself; if you do not have the skills in your company to deal with a Linux system (having previously overloaded your IT base with MCSE's:p) then you might have a lot of issues trying to administer the system internally. This, as other people have said, is a problem with manpower, not with the operating system itself.
However, it goes on to say:
"The Linux system could not handle the layers of information needed for internal control of the resort."
Perhaps they were not able to implement it, but I would have a hard time believing that Linux would be unable to handle what was previously stated as a LAMP (Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP) system.
"If we had not gone with the Windows solution, there is no way we could have processed all the passes."
Once again, no details are specified, simply a sweeping statement which heralds Windows as the solution to all IT problems.
Linux is not flawless, nor is Linux for everyone. I can imagine that some companies would rather stick with Windows than Linux, and I can also believe that companies might want to switch back when they discovered that Linux
Well if you're going to be pedantic about it, the "Free Software" movement, led by RMS and the FSF, set out to create a free alternative to proprietary software, which at the time was specifically Unix. However, the Open Source Initiative was created to promote Linux and open source applications on their own merits, showing them to be more cost effective and technologically superior to the proprietary alternative.
You can't really say that the FOSS movement is primarily to destroy proprietary Unix, because RMS does not like nor use the term "Open Source". Free Software focuses *primarily* on freedom, OS focuses *primarily* on technological superiority. They are two different movements, fighting for a common goal in two very different ways.
It's a fairly good idea, all in all... It's kinda similar in certain respects to the way most firewalls are (or should be) configured; block all, allow selectively.
Clearly no company wants to cut into their profits, so I'm sure they very carefully analysed calls to the blocked areas over the last while, to see how many calls were made out to them. If they were used all the time by customers, they wouldn't consider it feasible to ban the entire selection.
It could be considered to be extreme, but it's certainly not any sort of censorship. They have said that they will compile a "white-list" of numbers in those territories, so if you have a legitimate reason to be calling those places, they are more than happy for you to do so. Again, just like configuring a firewall for the first time, it is a bit of a pain to allow all the things you need to, but you end up with a much more secure system.
Certainly a good way to go, if you have the convenience of a Mac wherever you go, but for general day-to-day travel, be it work, or friends' houses, etc, you tend to find that you're far more likely to encounter a PC; not much use for a copy of OSX in that event.
Not to mention the fact that if you encounter a Mac, chances are that Mac OS X will already be on it; there isn't much point in booting into a *different* copy of OS X just to sit and surf the net or other tasks. You could just use the existing system, and copy any downloads or other files to or from the iPod from there. There's *some* justification for it in the case of email settings and things, but beyond that it seems somewhat superfluous for anything other than system restores.
One of the points of having a GNU/Linux system on hand means that no matter what wierd or wonderful system is running on a given PC, whether it be an unfamiliar GNU/Linux environment (Like KDE, when you prefer GNOME, or a command line instead of a GUI), or a BSD variant, or BeOS, QNX, Unix, Windows, or any other wierd and wonderful system, you will be able to boot into your own system and play around. Yes, there are GNU/Linux systems for the Mac, but by and large they'll be running OS X. The sheer volume of operating systems available for the x86 platform is enough justification for having your familiar system on hand at all times (Especially in the case of the GNU/Linux zealots, so that they don't have to endure a Windows system even when they're out and about;p).
If nothing else, it's really a good opportunity for a GNU/Linux company to make money in a different way. Selling a portable hard drive with a free operating system is a good justification for selling hardware (like the mini usb drive you get with MandrakeMove), and it is relatively innovative, meaning that people who (a) May want to purchase a portable harddrive *anyway*, and/or (b) appreciate the convenience or novelty of the system, will be eager to purchase one.
That when you look at the Searchspy list, someone has recently searched for "die slashdotters":p
Slightly pointless all in all, there's no real skill involved in using WMP on a PDA which you've essentially duct taped to yourself. Since most people won't actually see what it says (unless you're comfortable with the idea of a large group of men and women squatting in a nightclub, huddled around your crotch... but maybe that's your thing) it would be more fun to actually play a proper movie, like a disco scene or some psychadelic winamp-style visualisation, so you could actually appreciate the belt beyond about 6 inches away...
The "Don't Induce" proposals are definately the most ideal proposals, and despite what the MPAA/RIAA and Orrin Hatch might try to claim, it's the most fair to ordinary people.
It is also not any attempt to justify or allow piracy. It is simply a *fair* suggestion, which will catch the true commercial pirating organisations, rather than kids who share the occasional piece of software with their friends, or legitimate users who wish to make backups of their original data.
They claim that the Don't Induce act is also too narrow in scope, which would stop them from attacking p2p networks; I don't think this is a bad thing. They have proven over the last while that they are only too happy to use their legal powers against anyone, from young to old, to squeeze a bit more cash out of ordinary people, while commercial piracy is still rampant. It's not *too* narrow in scope at all, simply narrow enough to avoid ambiguity, and to stop half the net falling under their legal juristiction. It's narrow enough to be *fair*.
But then, it's to do with making money, not doing the right thing.
Re:watch that tape on how to use your vcr...dumbas
on
Linux Desktop Guide
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Now *THERE'S* a good idea. Put it in a proprietary format that *possibly* (current compatibility features accepted) won't be displayed properly on a GNU/Linux system, so that once they get on there and start trying to read the manuals and work their way around, they might not be able to read the manual properly. I would imagine that one of the requirements of the manual is that people are able to read them on a GNU/Linux system, so that they can actually try out the things they are learning.
And how do you suggest that they display screenshots in a text file? Being that the manual is for beginners, and they added as many screenshots as possible to aid understanding, having a text-only document would utterly defeat the purpose of the manual.
If you're going to rag on the format, at least suggest SENSIBLE (and preferably open) formats, such as PDF (which they already provide; most systems have a PDF viewer so this is not a problem) or HTML.
And to take a Free Software view for a moment, I think if you want a Free (as in speech) document about a Free system converted into a proprietary format, you aren't going to appreciate the philosophy of GNU/Linux.
Well yes, but if you read the article, it's not claiming to be a new theory, simply *proof* of an existing theory. From the article:
Experts agree that the startling result provides the strongest support yet for the controversial hypothesis that the language available to humans defines our thoughts. So-called "linguistic determinism" was first proposed in 1950 but has been hotly debated ever since.
You can't really argue that this is likely to give people ideas and hurt the country, because while it's not a very obvious course, it's highly unlikely that he's the first person who's ever thought of looking for sensitive documents on p2p networks. To say that it's "helping the bad guys" is being naive and underestimating the intelligence gathering skills of the 'enemy'.
To quote the most famous example of terrorism against the United States, if a terrorist organisation is coordinated enough to slip various teams with weapons onto several seperate aircraft, and crash those planes into US buildings, I wouldn't say searching internet resources (be they web or p2p) for sensitive information that has been leaked or poorly secured is beyond them, by any stretch of the imagination.
It's also similar to the "Deceptive Duo", who were Americans who hacked military websites and defaced them with screenshots of personnel databases, under the flag of 'patriotism'; in an attempt to make the military realise the importance of security within their systems. The difference being of course that they intentionally penetrated military networks to achieve this, and used uncensored screenshots of databases, revealing private information on government personnel. As such they were arrested for it.
This site hasn't gone so far as to display any critical security data, or illegally access any systems. I have seen and heard of many examples where a hacker has warned a sysadmin on several occasions about the dangers of vulnerabilities in a network, only to be ignored until finally the site ended up being defaced, so I can understand his impatience to some extent. The next person to run off and harvest this information might not be so eager to censor what they consider to be personal data.
There might be an influx of curious people running off to p2p networks to see what they can turn up, but I really don't see this as too much of a concern in the grand scheme of things; what security risk does a 14 year old kid who wants to look cool pose? It's not information that anyone particularly wants public, but in the hands of the average private citizen, it's not drastically critical. A US citizen could probably get a fair few details from public records, or socially engineer contact details out of people. But any "terrorist" who would have been intelligence gathering has more than likely done this sort of activity already.
It's not the easiest problem to rectify though, without some sort of drastic overhaul in the system, and some method of securing or blocking p2p systems across all military computers, which would be a rather hard thing to enforce, and would annoy many soldiers who are used to using these systems. But of course, national security has to come first. If nothing else, an explanation of the importance of not sharing entire drives would be a start.
I think that there's a few issues that means that free desktops need to play "catch up" with the likes of Windows.
When a free software project starts, *GENERALLY* (not all the time) the coders are writing the code because they want/need it. They aren't coding with users in mind, they're coding something that they want and think might be useful. So the project is designed for a skilled computer user, and if usability comes after that as a result of enough requests, it is already "playing second fiddle". The reason that a certain usability feature doesn't get into the code might (but of course not always) be simply because the coder uses the desktop system, and considers the addition to over-simplify the system to the point of almost being patronising (There are many examples where Windows can be considered extremely patronising to a "power user").
Speaking of being patronising, there is also a notable point in regards to the attitude of many geeks/hackers. As the "Portrait of J. Random Hacker" says in the "Weaknesses of the Hacker Personality" section:
Hackers have relatively little ability to identify emotionally with other people. This may be because hackers generally aren't much like 'other people'. Unsurprisingly, hackers also tend towards self-absorption, intellectual arrogance, and impatience with people and tasks perceived to be wasting their time. (Emphasis Added)
That, and the brief mention of "Stupid People" in the section entitled "Things Hackers Detest and Avoid" is also part of the problem. Hackers/coders tend to react very badly to timewasting tasks and stupidity, so when an inexperienced user has a problem with a current system, they tend to receive ridicule and/or abuse, rather than their concerns being taken on board. This doesn't happen in every case of course, but the most common answer to a technical question is "RTFM". It's ultimately hard to really take what inexperienced users need on board when you just consider them to be stupid for not being able to use your current system.
Another thing is really the power of the (normally Bash) shell. A lot of *nix users are people who grew up on the system before GUIs really became popular, and they have got so used to a command line system that they often shun the very idea of a GUI system. When you're so comfortable with a shell window where you can do just about anything you need to, there's less of a focus on usability of a desktop system. Provided you have a basic file browser, which is usable and functional, there's a danger of not fully developing the file browser, on the strength of the fact that you can get to where you want to go much more quickly with cd/home/blah or similar at the shell. With Windows, the command line is so utterly piss-poor by comparison (yes you can get 3rd party Unix command line apps, but on it's own, it sucks), you're basically forced to use GUI systems for just about everything.
There's also a bit of a Catch 22 situation about it. Unless you get more inexperienced users on the system, you won't get more design suggestions from the usability viewpoint. But if you don't make the system more usable, you won't get more inexperienced users.
So what to do if you don't have your own basic user focus groups like Microsoft? Well, you use some of the resarch that they have done. While UI designers have been accused many times of making desktop environments too much like Windows, at the end of the day, that is what people are used to. If you want to move a user from Windows to *nix, they will have a much better experience if they are sitting infront of a system which is similar enough to their previous system that they can find their way around with little assistance. I know that many people try to set themselves apart from Windows users (although there is a large degree of elitism about that) but at the end of the day, Microsoft have been de
In the past five years, Hatch has also received $158,000 in campaign contributions from the television, movie and music industries, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Orrin Hatch really is so deep in the **AA's pockets (although it must be hard to kiss their asses with his head lodged firmly up his own...) that he really goes far too far with these "copyright protection" bills.
A bill of this nature would destroy innovation and understanding in many areas, such as the previously quoted example of a college professor discussing the use of the current protection on audio CDs. It is also so broad that it could be used in many malicious cases, to the same or even greater extent than even the DMCA is used now. Markham Erickson put it best in the article, when he said:
"This takes an objective standard and replaces it with a subjective one that allows a copyright holder to try and determine the intent of a company when producing a product. It's not outside the realm of possibility that you would be placing the entertainment industry in charge of technological innovation if this law were passed."
The last thing anyone needs now is yet another law which is so broad in scope, it is utterly trivial to abuse. Once again, the rich get richer, everyone else gets fucked.
No Slashdot for a few hours? Oh God, nooooooooooooooo! *starts refreshing once a minute until it comes back*;)
Nah seriously though, it's cool that you're updating the software, a few new bugs is a good trade off to get the software cleaned up and all the new stuff added
It's a good sign that free speech and common sense has largely won out in this circumstance; it's been some time since I've seen a legal issue on here that actually followed the principles of freedom granted by the constitution, rather than blatantly ignoring it;P
One thing that I did notice though, was:
Given the nationwide, on-going dispute in this area, it is reasonable to ask whether a state may ever impose a ban on the disseminations of video games to children under 18. The answer is "probably yes" if the games contain sexually explicit images, and "maybe" if the games contain violent images, such as torture or bondages, that appeal to the prurient interest to minors.
Which suggests that as expected, the debate over violent/explicit video games is long from over, and more restrictions may well be brought in over time.
I think that the article is kinda interesting, in so far as Apple users seem to be quite good at expressing themselves; although as someone pointed out, that may have at least something to do with the economics of the wealthier and resultantly better educated owners of expensive Mac platforms.
I do think that "PC Users" is too broad in scope to really be applicable to any group of people. If you are a PC User, it means you could be using:
Windows 3.1/95/98/2k/XP/2k3
Free/Open/Net/Dragonfly BSD
Any of the many variants of "traditional" Unix
Any of the many distributions of Linux
BeOS
QNX
OS/2
And any other of the many "weird and wonderful" operating systems that currently exist for the PC. Each of these Operating Systems may vary greatly in terms of the types of user they attract, the amount of skill/study they involve to install/use, which may or may not have an influence of the amount of literate users you find.
I think, for example, that many would agree that *nix users would tend to be somewhat more intelligent than many "average" PC users, who are simply running the standard OEM operating system that was pre-installed on their computer when they got it. Linux may be becoming more accessible to new users these days, but I doubt that most script kiddies, packet kiddies, and people who tend to break their computer by falling for yet another polite suggestion to fix whatever problem they are having with deltree C:\/y, would even know where to begin on a *nix distro.
In saying that though, it is important not to directly link technical ability with literacy. It *may* be the case that people who run *nix systems are more technically minded than users running Windows, but that does not automatically mean that they are more literate. It *may* be the case, depending on how generally smart an individual user is, but they could easily have unparalleled analytical/mathematical skill, but very poor literacy/communicative skill.
One way or the other, it is just not a fair test to throw all "PC Users" together into one group of people, due to the vast diversity of the PC as a platform, and the amount of different operating systems and communities which rely on it.
I think us "PC Users" are just lucky he didn't go searching for his information on IRC. The average packet kiddie would have us looking like we have trouble walking erect, much less operating a computer.;)
"Manufacturers have voiced concern that Microsoft could conceivably gain access to proprietary information about their cutting-edge products, and would be able to distribute their technology to competitors using the Windows operating system."
I don't know if M$ would actually do this or not, but the disputed clause in the contracts essentially gives M$ a free ride to do so.
Is it so surprising that a company like Microsoft would steal technology? They generally license it when they can't get away with it, but if they could steal with no repercussions (as this agreement would technically allow) you can bet that they would steal technology to stay "competitive". They have gone for the most underhanded business tactics against many companies and organisations over the years, most notably the open source and free software movements; and don't forget they essentially stole the original concept for a "windows" system from Apple, so I wouldn't trust them further than I could comfortably spit out a rat.
Additionally, the FTC obviously considers those concerns legitimate, as the article says:
The FTC raided Microsoft's Japan headquarters in February as part of its investigations.
This isn't a *supposedly* "dubious" company like Sharman Networks (KaZaA) are accused of being, this is the so-called "untouchable" Microsoft, who sell nothing but legal product; so for any organisation to go so far as to raid their headquarters, the concern must be very believed and legitimate indeed.
Well I can understand all the privacy issues surrounding putting RFID tags on people, but it's not the worst idea in the world with kids on that age. I know it runs the risk of setting a precedent, but kids that age aren't really at the stage where they need a huge degree of independance from their parents, and aren't sneaking off to drink/smoke like high school kids might do, so it's not really a situation where the parents are violating their kids' privacy. It would certainly allay certain fears about kids being abducted or getting into trouble. The only thing that concerns me somewhat is the alarm on "danger areas", because that could be abused by an over-strict system.
Hardly surprising that Yahoo have done something like this really... after all, the "quick and easy" way of trying to compete with GMail when you have that much money, is obviously to just find something similar and buy it;P
I do wonder about the suggestion that Yahoo is in any way cross-platform though. Especially considering the recent protocol change (reported on Slashdot) to lock out third party messenger clients like Trillian and Gaim. They are yet another proprietary company, so they'll design their system to run as *they* like, and if you don't want to adhere to it, tough.
In saying that though, Oddpost has only *just* been acquired, and it says on their page that they are only starting to develop the merge between their service and Yahoo! Mail, so there is more than ample opportunity to ensure all browser compatibility before the main roll out. Whether they do or not remains to be seen, but I would hope they would take the recent announcements about the insecurity of IE, and the recent 1% loss in market share into account, and ensure that their service will be more universally accessible than it's current incarnation.
GoBSD.com, a BSD-centric community website, is providing access to thousands of pre-built DragonFly software packages. These can be added via pkg_add -r packagename.
From a quick cursory glance at the site, it looks like there are more than enough packages sitting around to be getting on with, you shouldn't be left with nothing to use if you don't want to.
And there's always the option of compiling from source...
This post has largely turned into an attempt to pull up the most unlikely archaic technologies and make jokes about them coming back to the mainstream, but in actuality it's a very valid point.
PHP *isn't* the first language to come up with a lot of principles, that much is true. It isn't like it's even the first incarnation of the language in itself, it is simply the next version. But it adapts and improves a lot of the fundamental principles that were set down in languages such as Perl. That's not to say that it has totally superceded Perl, I know people will continue to use it for years to come, but it's taking the best lessons from languages like it, and moving from strength to strength. It's like many of the principles in books like "The Art of Unix Programming", which explains the importance of learning the lessons of good program design, and building on the very strong framework that Unix originally set down, all those years ago.
With the addition of the (admittedly proprietary) compiler, I think it has nowhere to go but up, and really can begin to match those dynamic languages which can run standalone as well as in a web context. It's certainly within business interests and finance to buy licensing, and if there is that much call for it, I'm sure someone could create a free software alternative.
...that there's "only" about half a dozen "Soviet Russia" jokes in this thread.;) (In Soviet Russia, game plays YOU!)
It's interesting to see another example where there was a real east/west struggle to compete with each other; Space race, nuclear arms race... Pacman:)
And you may say that the games are a little boring, but are they boring to the people who grew up on games like Pacman and Missile Command? And even if they are, when you live in a much more restrictive country than a lot of countries in the west were at the time (or are now), I'd say they were probably a lot more interesting than a lot of the "recreational pasttimes" around at the time. It's not as if it was really a choice between that or a Nintendo Console; it was probably that or pretty much nothing.
It's just the "flavour of the month", so to speak. Their primary concern at the minute is that they want rid of piracy, so that's how they interpret their statistics, or at least how they publicly interpret them.
So, they neglect the loss of sales due to people using free software alternatives. They imply that P2P filesharing is responsible for 100% of software piracy. They make the assumption that 100% of the pirated software counts as a "loss", and that every single piece of software would otherwise be paid for, which is not the case. Then they go running to the government with their facts and figures, crying about how P2P networks are destroying the economy, and demanding action.
And if they succeed in that action, and damage/destroy the P2P networks? Well, then it's time to move on to free software. It's anti-competitive, they'll cry! It's un-american, and it's destroying the economy, because people are opting for free software over proprietary options! Then they'll demand for stricter software patents, and continue to push their enforcement in other parts of the world, and they'll try to find a variety of equally harsh and unfair restrictions to try and hurt free software. It's not exactly an unheard of concept, is it? People are already describing free software as a virus, it's just that the BSA doesn't consider it their biggest "enemy" for the time being, with Microsoft and SCO already being on the case.
I'm sure they're only too aware as to how inaccurate their figures are, but it suits their arguement, so they'll obviously interpret them as they like.
That is the best way to do things imo. Don't just complain about the problems that you encounter, like it's some sort of major flaw in the system, which discourages people from adopting it. Instead, work through your problems, and let people know that there are ways around the issues that you encountered. Every system has problems, but it is reassuring to people to know that many/most/all can be fixed, and that there are resources available to help.
I think that this is a very useful contribution to anyone who is looking for information on Cisco networking. It's definately a "middle finger" to big companies who are so set in their ways, they are unwilling to take advice from people in the field who have the qualifications and experience to make a genuine contribution to their documentation.
In many ways, it also reflects the spirit of the Free Software movement, in many respects. It reflects the frustration of a constant refusal to fix issues with something released in what is, in certain respects, a proprietary format, and the result of writing a version, which is then distributed for free. It's good to see:)
Speaking of which, I wonder if Mr Basham could be convinced to release the text under a free license, like the GNU FDL... possibly not, if he has already made arrangements with publishers, but it might be worth looking into...
Well it's interesting to see that an MSN run website has slammed Internet Explorer, and spent some time extolling the virtues of Firefox, which is indeed surprising at first glance. But in many ways, there is one other important factor to consider.
Even Microsoft *knows* that Internet Explorer is antiquated. They pulled developers off it years ago, and afaik have only recently started some work on it. It displays none of the features that all the modern competitive browsers have, and has FAR more security issues than possibly any other browser.
But at the end of the day, they don't care. It doesn't provide them any revenue, so they don't really give a damn about what features you want. It comes free with every OS they distribute, and it doesn't have advertising panels or anything like that, so it doesn't really matter to them what browser you decide to use with their OS, you're still using their OS.
And that's another thing to consider. Until they bother undertaking a vast overhaul of Internet Explorer (which they may not even do), they know that users will be vulnerable to all sorts of these problems that keep reoccuring. So in some ways it can be construed as a good idea for them to move you to other browsers, especially free ones like Mozilla where they do not provide another company with revenue. This will keep their users much safer, and at the end of the day, I think that's what this is about. Their users. You can use any browser you want on their OS, but again, you're still using Windows.
Consider the two scenarios. You get extremely frustrated with all the viruses and bugs that Internet Explorer throws up, and you decide that you've had enough. What are your options?
Install FireFox, or Opera, or any other browser on Windows, and thus be protected from most (all?) of the issues that tend to crop up on IE,
Switch to Linux or a BSD variant, which are not affected by all these issues.
With those choices in mind, which would you expect Microsoft to prefer?;)
Slashdot Mirror
As much as it's utterly expected for a Slashdotter to confidently claim that any pro-MS/Anti-*nix story is automatically lies and FUD, but there are a couple of things that did catch my eye in this story.
Firstly, I find it hard to believe that a Windows server system is that much more stable than a *nix server... or was the Windows server kept responsive by the monthly reboots to apply Windows security patches? (I administer Win2k3 Server boxes in work, I know whereof I speak) Proper outages may have happened more often (although I'm not sure how) but that doesn't count the amount of times servers would be restarted.
Secondly though, a company proudly announcing that they have lowered their "Total Cost of Ownership" (TCO) always rings alarm bells with me. As everyone knows, that's the big thing MS are trying to push in their latest FUD atm; Linux may be free, but the TCO is higher. Saying that you have a lower TCO when you switched to Windows makes you sound like a Microsoft poster child, imo.
Okay, you can be concerned with the security of *any* system, and you could also take the opinion (as some studies suggest) that Linux and Windows are relatively similar in the amount of vulnerabilities/patches released (not my belief, but it's been suggested), but I have not heard of any cases beyond the Microsoft FUD machine where anyone has been concerned with the security of a Linux system and has moved to Windows as a result... again, just sounds like a Microsoft poster child to me.
The ultimate horror story that no manager wants to hear... the program crashed, and lots of time and effort was spent fixing it! omg! But then again, that sounds to me like it's a problem with the program they're using, not the operating system. If they were to switch to Windows, and use the same software (assuming it had a port) there's no guarantee that the exact same thing wouldn't happen. This again, imo, is simply FUD.
This could be a valid arguement in itself; if you do not have the skills in your company to deal with a Linux system (having previously overloaded your IT base with MCSE's :p) then you might have a lot of issues trying to administer the system internally. This, as other people have said, is a problem with manpower, not with the operating system itself.
However, it goes on to say:
Perhaps they were not able to implement it, but I would have a hard time believing that Linux would be unable to handle what was previously stated as a LAMP (Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP) system.
Once again, no details are specified, simply a sweeping statement which heralds Windows as the solution to all IT problems.
Linux is not flawless, nor is Linux for everyone. I can imagine that some companies would rather stick with Windows than Linux, and I can also believe that companies might want to switch back when they discovered that Linux
Well if you're going to be pedantic about it, the "Free Software" movement, led by RMS and the FSF, set out to create a free alternative to proprietary software, which at the time was specifically Unix. However, the Open Source Initiative was created to promote Linux and open source applications on their own merits, showing them to be more cost effective and technologically superior to the proprietary alternative.
You can't really say that the FOSS movement is primarily to destroy proprietary Unix, because RMS does not like nor use the term "Open Source". Free Software focuses *primarily* on freedom, OS focuses *primarily* on technological superiority. They are two different movements, fighting for a common goal in two very different ways.
It's a fairly good idea, all in all... It's kinda similar in certain respects to the way most firewalls are (or should be) configured; block all, allow selectively.
Clearly no company wants to cut into their profits, so I'm sure they very carefully analysed calls to the blocked areas over the last while, to see how many calls were made out to them. If they were used all the time by customers, they wouldn't consider it feasible to ban the entire selection.
It could be considered to be extreme, but it's certainly not any sort of censorship. They have said that they will compile a "white-list" of numbers in those territories, so if you have a legitimate reason to be calling those places, they are more than happy for you to do so. Again, just like configuring a firewall for the first time, it is a bit of a pain to allow all the things you need to, but you end up with a much more secure system.
Certainly a good way to go, if you have the convenience of a Mac wherever you go, but for general day-to-day travel, be it work, or friends' houses, etc, you tend to find that you're far more likely to encounter a PC; not much use for a copy of OSX in that event.
;p).
Not to mention the fact that if you encounter a Mac, chances are that Mac OS X will already be on it; there isn't much point in booting into a *different* copy of OS X just to sit and surf the net or other tasks. You could just use the existing system, and copy any downloads or other files to or from the iPod from there. There's *some* justification for it in the case of email settings and things, but beyond that it seems somewhat superfluous for anything other than system restores.
One of the points of having a GNU/Linux system on hand means that no matter what wierd or wonderful system is running on a given PC, whether it be an unfamiliar GNU/Linux environment (Like KDE, when you prefer GNOME, or a command line instead of a GUI), or a BSD variant, or BeOS, QNX, Unix, Windows, or any other wierd and wonderful system, you will be able to boot into your own system and play around. Yes, there are GNU/Linux systems for the Mac, but by and large they'll be running OS X. The sheer volume of operating systems available for the x86 platform is enough justification for having your familiar system on hand at all times (Especially in the case of the GNU/Linux zealots, so that they don't have to endure a Windows system even when they're out and about
If nothing else, it's really a good opportunity for a GNU/Linux company to make money in a different way. Selling a portable hard drive with a free operating system is a good justification for selling hardware (like the mini usb drive you get with MandrakeMove), and it is relatively innovative, meaning that people who (a) May want to purchase a portable harddrive *anyway*, and/or (b) appreciate the convenience or novelty of the system, will be eager to purchase one.
That when you look at the Searchspy list, someone has recently searched for "die slashdotters" :p
Slightly pointless all in all, there's no real skill involved in using WMP on a PDA which you've essentially duct taped to yourself. Since most people won't actually see what it says (unless you're comfortable with the idea of a large group of men and women squatting in a nightclub, huddled around your crotch... but maybe that's your thing) it would be more fun to actually play a proper movie, like a disco scene or some psychadelic winamp-style visualisation, so you could actually appreciate the belt beyond about 6 inches away...
The "Don't Induce" proposals are definately the most ideal proposals, and despite what the MPAA/RIAA and Orrin Hatch might try to claim, it's the most fair to ordinary people.
It is also not any attempt to justify or allow piracy. It is simply a *fair* suggestion, which will catch the true commercial pirating organisations, rather than kids who share the occasional piece of software with their friends, or legitimate users who wish to make backups of their original data.
They claim that the Don't Induce act is also too narrow in scope, which would stop them from attacking p2p networks; I don't think this is a bad thing. They have proven over the last while that they are only too happy to use their legal powers against anyone, from young to old, to squeeze a bit more cash out of ordinary people, while commercial piracy is still rampant. It's not *too* narrow in scope at all, simply narrow enough to avoid ambiguity, and to stop half the net falling under their legal juristiction. It's narrow enough to be *fair*.
But then, it's to do with making money, not doing the right thing.
Now *THERE'S* a good idea. Put it in a proprietary format that *possibly* (current compatibility features accepted) won't be displayed properly on a GNU/Linux system, so that once they get on there and start trying to read the manuals and work their way around, they might not be able to read the manual properly. I would imagine that one of the requirements of the manual is that people are able to read them on a GNU/Linux system, so that they can actually try out the things they are learning.
And how do you suggest that they display screenshots in a text file? Being that the manual is for beginners, and they added as many screenshots as possible to aid understanding, having a text-only document would utterly defeat the purpose of the manual.
If you're going to rag on the format, at least suggest SENSIBLE (and preferably open) formats, such as PDF (which they already provide; most systems have a PDF viewer so this is not a problem) or HTML.
And to take a Free Software view for a moment, I think if you want a Free (as in speech) document about a Free system converted into a proprietary format, you aren't going to appreciate the philosophy of GNU/Linux.
Well yes, but if you read the article, it's not claiming to be a new theory, simply *proof* of an existing theory. From the article:
You can't really argue that this is likely to give people ideas and hurt the country, because while it's not a very obvious course, it's highly unlikely that he's the first person who's ever thought of looking for sensitive documents on p2p networks. To say that it's "helping the bad guys" is being naive and underestimating the intelligence gathering skills of the 'enemy'.
To quote the most famous example of terrorism against the United States, if a terrorist organisation is coordinated enough to slip various teams with weapons onto several seperate aircraft, and crash those planes into US buildings, I wouldn't say searching internet resources (be they web or p2p) for sensitive information that has been leaked or poorly secured is beyond them, by any stretch of the imagination.
It's also similar to the "Deceptive Duo", who were Americans who hacked military websites and defaced them with screenshots of personnel databases, under the flag of 'patriotism'; in an attempt to make the military realise the importance of security within their systems. The difference being of course that they intentionally penetrated military networks to achieve this, and used uncensored screenshots of databases, revealing private information on government personnel. As such they were arrested for it.
This site hasn't gone so far as to display any critical security data, or illegally access any systems. I have seen and heard of many examples where a hacker has warned a sysadmin on several occasions about the dangers of vulnerabilities in a network, only to be ignored until finally the site ended up being defaced, so I can understand his impatience to some extent. The next person to run off and harvest this information might not be so eager to censor what they consider to be personal data.
There might be an influx of curious people running off to p2p networks to see what they can turn up, but I really don't see this as too much of a concern in the grand scheme of things; what security risk does a 14 year old kid who wants to look cool pose? It's not information that anyone particularly wants public, but in the hands of the average private citizen, it's not drastically critical. A US citizen could probably get a fair few details from public records, or socially engineer contact details out of people. But any "terrorist" who would have been intelligence gathering has more than likely done this sort of activity already.
It's not the easiest problem to rectify though, without some sort of drastic overhaul in the system, and some method of securing or blocking p2p systems across all military computers, which would be a rather hard thing to enforce, and would annoy many soldiers who are used to using these systems. But of course, national security has to come first. If nothing else, an explanation of the importance of not sharing entire drives would be a start.
I think that there's a few issues that means that free desktops need to play "catch up" with the likes of Windows.
When a free software project starts, *GENERALLY* (not all the time) the coders are writing the code because they want/need it. They aren't coding with users in mind, they're coding something that they want and think might be useful. So the project is designed for a skilled computer user, and if usability comes after that as a result of enough requests, it is already "playing second fiddle". The reason that a certain usability feature doesn't get into the code might (but of course not always) be simply because the coder uses the desktop system, and considers the addition to over-simplify the system to the point of almost being patronising (There are many examples where Windows can be considered extremely patronising to a "power user").
Speaking of being patronising, there is also a notable point in regards to the attitude of many geeks/hackers. As the "Portrait of J. Random Hacker" says in the "Weaknesses of the Hacker Personality" section:
That, and the brief mention of "Stupid People" in the section entitled "Things Hackers Detest and Avoid" is also part of the problem. Hackers/coders tend to react very badly to timewasting tasks and stupidity, so when an inexperienced user has a problem with a current system, they tend to receive ridicule and/or abuse, rather than their concerns being taken on board. This doesn't happen in every case of course, but the most common answer to a technical question is "RTFM". It's ultimately hard to really take what inexperienced users need on board when you just consider them to be stupid for not being able to use your current system.
Another thing is really the power of the (normally Bash) shell. A lot of *nix users are people who grew up on the system before GUIs really became popular, and they have got so used to a command line system that they often shun the very idea of a GUI system. When you're so comfortable with a shell window where you can do just about anything you need to, there's less of a focus on usability of a desktop system. Provided you have a basic file browser, which is usable and functional, there's a danger of not fully developing the file browser, on the strength of the fact that you can get to where you want to go much more quickly with cd /home/blah or similar at the shell. With Windows, the command line is so utterly piss-poor by comparison (yes you can get 3rd party Unix command line apps, but on it's own, it sucks), you're basically forced to use GUI systems for just about everything.
There's also a bit of a Catch 22 situation about it. Unless you get more inexperienced users on the system, you won't get more design suggestions from the usability viewpoint. But if you don't make the system more usable, you won't get more inexperienced users.
So what to do if you don't have your own basic user focus groups like Microsoft? Well, you use some of the resarch that they have done. While UI designers have been accused many times of making desktop environments too much like Windows, at the end of the day, that is what people are used to. If you want to move a user from Windows to *nix, they will have a much better experience if they are sitting infront of a system which is similar enough to their previous system that they can find their way around with little assistance. I know that many people try to set themselves apart from Windows users (although there is a large degree of elitism about that) but at the end of the day, Microsoft have been de
Orrin Hatch really is so deep in the **AA's pockets (although it must be hard to kiss their asses with his head lodged firmly up his own...) that he really goes far too far with these "copyright protection" bills.
A bill of this nature would destroy innovation and understanding in many areas, such as the previously quoted example of a college professor discussing the use of the current protection on audio CDs. It is also so broad that it could be used in many malicious cases, to the same or even greater extent than even the DMCA is used now. Markham Erickson put it best in the article, when he said:
The last thing anyone needs now is yet another law which is so broad in scope, it is utterly trivial to abuse. Once again, the rich get richer, everyone else gets fucked.
No Slashdot for a few hours? Oh God, nooooooooooooooo! *starts refreshing once a minute until it comes back* ;)
Nah seriously though, it's cool that you're updating the software, a few new bugs is a good trade off to get the software cleaned up and all the new stuff added
See you when the site comes back up ;P
It's a good sign that free speech and common sense has largely won out in this circumstance; it's been some time since I've seen a legal issue on here that actually followed the principles of freedom granted by the constitution, rather than blatantly ignoring it ;P
One thing that I did notice though, was:
Which suggests that as expected, the debate over violent/explicit video games is long from over, and more restrictions may well be brought in over time.
I think that the article is kinda interesting, in so far as Apple users seem to be quite good at expressing themselves; although as someone pointed out, that may have at least something to do with the economics of the wealthier and resultantly better educated owners of expensive Mac platforms.
I do think that "PC Users" is too broad in scope to really be applicable to any group of people. If you are a PC User, it means you could be using:
And any other of the many "weird and wonderful" operating systems that currently exist for the PC. Each of these Operating Systems may vary greatly in terms of the types of user they attract, the amount of skill/study they involve to install/use, which may or may not have an influence of the amount of literate users you find.
I think, for example, that many would agree that *nix users would tend to be somewhat more intelligent than many "average" PC users, who are simply running the standard OEM operating system that was pre-installed on their computer when they got it. Linux may be becoming more accessible to new users these days, but I doubt that most script kiddies, packet kiddies, and people who tend to break their computer by falling for yet another polite suggestion to fix whatever problem they are having with deltree C:\ /y, would even know where to begin on a *nix distro.
In saying that though, it is important not to directly link technical ability with literacy. It *may* be the case that people who run *nix systems are more technically minded than users running Windows, but that does not automatically mean that they are more literate. It *may* be the case, depending on how generally smart an individual user is, but they could easily have unparalleled analytical/mathematical skill, but very poor literacy/communicative skill.
One way or the other, it is just not a fair test to throw all "PC Users" together into one group of people, due to the vast diversity of the PC as a platform, and the amount of different operating systems and communities which rely on it.
I think us "PC Users" are just lucky he didn't go searching for his information on IRC. The average packet kiddie would have us looking like we have trouble walking erect, much less operating a computer. ;)
Is it so surprising that a company like Microsoft would steal technology? They generally license it when they can't get away with it, but if they could steal with no repercussions (as this agreement would technically allow) you can bet that they would steal technology to stay "competitive". They have gone for the most underhanded business tactics against many companies and organisations over the years, most notably the open source and free software movements; and don't forget they essentially stole the original concept for a "windows" system from Apple, so I wouldn't trust them further than I could comfortably spit out a rat.
Additionally, the FTC obviously considers those concerns legitimate, as the article says:
This isn't a *supposedly* "dubious" company like Sharman Networks (KaZaA) are accused of being, this is the so-called "untouchable" Microsoft, who sell nothing but legal product; so for any organisation to go so far as to raid their headquarters, the concern must be very believed and legitimate indeed.
Well I can understand all the privacy issues surrounding putting RFID tags on people, but it's not the worst idea in the world with kids on that age. I know it runs the risk of setting a precedent, but kids that age aren't really at the stage where they need a huge degree of independance from their parents, and aren't sneaking off to drink/smoke like high school kids might do, so it's not really a situation where the parents are violating their kids' privacy. It would certainly allay certain fears about kids being abducted or getting into trouble. The only thing that concerns me somewhat is the alarm on "danger areas", because that could be abused by an over-strict system.
Hardly surprising that Yahoo have done something like this really... after all, the "quick and easy" way of trying to compete with GMail when you have that much money, is obviously to just find something similar and buy it ;P
I do wonder about the suggestion that Yahoo is in any way cross-platform though. Especially considering the recent protocol change (reported on Slashdot) to lock out third party messenger clients like Trillian and Gaim. They are yet another proprietary company, so they'll design their system to run as *they* like, and if you don't want to adhere to it, tough.
In saying that though, Oddpost has only *just* been acquired, and it says on their page that they are only starting to develop the merge between their service and Yahoo! Mail, so there is more than ample opportunity to ensure all browser compatibility before the main roll out. Whether they do or not remains to be seen, but I would hope they would take the recent announcements about the insecurity of IE, and the recent 1% loss in market share into account, and ensure that their service will be more universally accessible than it's current incarnation.
From their downloads page on the site:
From a quick cursory glance at the site, it looks like there are more than enough packages sitting around to be getting on with, you shouldn't be left with nothing to use if you don't want to.
And there's always the option of compiling from source...
This post has largely turned into an attempt to pull up the most unlikely archaic technologies and make jokes about them coming back to the mainstream, but in actuality it's a very valid point.
PHP *isn't* the first language to come up with a lot of principles, that much is true. It isn't like it's even the first incarnation of the language in itself, it is simply the next version. But it adapts and improves a lot of the fundamental principles that were set down in languages such as Perl. That's not to say that it has totally superceded Perl, I know people will continue to use it for years to come, but it's taking the best lessons from languages like it, and moving from strength to strength. It's like many of the principles in books like "The Art of Unix Programming", which explains the importance of learning the lessons of good program design, and building on the very strong framework that Unix originally set down, all those years ago.
With the addition of the (admittedly proprietary) compiler, I think it has nowhere to go but up, and really can begin to match those dynamic languages which can run standalone as well as in a web context. It's certainly within business interests and finance to buy licensing, and if there is that much call for it, I'm sure someone could create a free software alternative.
...that there's "only" about half a dozen "Soviet Russia" jokes in this thread. ;) (In Soviet Russia, game plays YOU!)
It's interesting to see another example where there was a real east/west struggle to compete with each other; Space race, nuclear arms race... Pacman :)
And you may say that the games are a little boring, but are they boring to the people who grew up on games like Pacman and Missile Command? And even if they are, when you live in a much more restrictive country than a lot of countries in the west were at the time (or are now), I'd say they were probably a lot more interesting than a lot of the "recreational pasttimes" around at the time. It's not as if it was really a choice between that or a Nintendo Console; it was probably that or pretty much nothing.
It's just the "flavour of the month", so to speak. Their primary concern at the minute is that they want rid of piracy, so that's how they interpret their statistics, or at least how they publicly interpret them.
So, they neglect the loss of sales due to people using free software alternatives. They imply that P2P filesharing is responsible for 100% of software piracy. They make the assumption that 100% of the pirated software counts as a "loss", and that every single piece of software would otherwise be paid for, which is not the case. Then they go running to the government with their facts and figures, crying about how P2P networks are destroying the economy, and demanding action.
And if they succeed in that action, and damage/destroy the P2P networks? Well, then it's time to move on to free software. It's anti-competitive, they'll cry! It's un-american, and it's destroying the economy, because people are opting for free software over proprietary options! Then they'll demand for stricter software patents, and continue to push their enforcement in other parts of the world, and they'll try to find a variety of equally harsh and unfair restrictions to try and hurt free software. It's not exactly an unheard of concept, is it? People are already describing free software as a virus, it's just that the BSA doesn't consider it their biggest "enemy" for the time being, with Microsoft and SCO already being on the case.
I'm sure they're only too aware as to how inaccurate their figures are, but it suits their arguement, so they'll obviously interpret them as they like.
That is the best way to do things imo. Don't just complain about the problems that you encounter, like it's some sort of major flaw in the system, which discourages people from adopting it. Instead, work through your problems, and let people know that there are ways around the issues that you encountered. Every system has problems, but it is reassuring to people to know that many/most/all can be fixed, and that there are resources available to help.
Kudos to Ken Barber for writing this follow-up.
I think that this is a very useful contribution to anyone who is looking for information on Cisco networking. It's definately a "middle finger" to big companies who are so set in their ways, they are unwilling to take advice from people in the field who have the qualifications and experience to make a genuine contribution to their documentation.
In many ways, it also reflects the spirit of the Free Software movement, in many respects. It reflects the frustration of a constant refusal to fix issues with something released in what is, in certain respects, a proprietary format, and the result of writing a version, which is then distributed for free. It's good to see :)
Speaking of which, I wonder if Mr Basham could be convinced to release the text under a free license, like the GNU FDL... possibly not, if he has already made arrangements with publishers, but it might be worth looking into...
Well it's interesting to see that an MSN run website has slammed Internet Explorer, and spent some time extolling the virtues of Firefox, which is indeed surprising at first glance. But in many ways, there is one other important factor to consider.
Even Microsoft *knows* that Internet Explorer is antiquated. They pulled developers off it years ago, and afaik have only recently started some work on it. It displays none of the features that all the modern competitive browsers have, and has FAR more security issues than possibly any other browser.
But at the end of the day, they don't care. It doesn't provide them any revenue, so they don't really give a damn about what features you want. It comes free with every OS they distribute, and it doesn't have advertising panels or anything like that, so it doesn't really matter to them what browser you decide to use with their OS, you're still using their OS.
And that's another thing to consider. Until they bother undertaking a vast overhaul of Internet Explorer (which they may not even do), they know that users will be vulnerable to all sorts of these problems that keep reoccuring. So in some ways it can be construed as a good idea for them to move you to other browsers, especially free ones like Mozilla where they do not provide another company with revenue. This will keep their users much safer, and at the end of the day, I think that's what this is about. Their users. You can use any browser you want on their OS, but again, you're still using Windows.
Consider the two scenarios. You get extremely frustrated with all the viruses and bugs that Internet Explorer throws up, and you decide that you've had enough. What are your options?
With those choices in mind, which would you expect Microsoft to prefer? ;)