So they were using a commonly-used term in their title. No problem there. They just couldn't then go back and try and trademark "ftp". "FTP software", that's trademarkable.
In this case, the person who started using the acronym, as I understand, LATER decided to trademark it... Making it much muddier than your example, but I think its too late to undo the "commonly-used" of ssh.
Addison
You just said it! AIE! I just said it! AAAA
on
What is 'IT'?
·
· Score: 1
You've been served with objective proof against your point before - that you've ignored. I don't have the original link - but you do, don't you? Post it for everybody to see.. then we can post the links that you had in rebuttal.....:)
You're making a statement. Its your job to back it up.
If all you do is "jump up and rub it in" without any backing.. then... you're a troll.
But no.. no amount of real world examples will make him back down - he's unable to consider the ability to back down. The German WWII high
command retreated more than Bryce.:)
There's a long history here with "Tabilizer" and myself, and many others.
As for syntax.. well, you should have seen some of his earlier missives on semicolons on IWE. (nevermind when people _explained_ why they were used, etc... he didn't like them, so they were stupid"
The reason he doesn't respond to the good criticisms is.. its his MO. he'll wait and attack some tangential position, divert the argument, then declare victory.
I'll recommend you to the link I've posted several times... Its as good as any other, the arguments always go the exact. same. way.
Prove him wrong, pin him in a corner, and its a technicallity/silly/not important. More often, he'll just ignore them, and worry on the tangents, and get things so mixed up that nobody can be sure where he started.
(For example, he demands that people who say that OO is better "prove it objectively". A study was produced that did exactly that. (measuring Lines of Code/Function Point) He then went on a rant "demanding the code they used". When pointed out that the methodology was available, and he could measure it himself, he said he didn't have the time, but since the "code wasn't open" the study didn't meet his prior demands for a scientific study.
I merely (strongly) suggested they see what has come before, and what has argued before. Before they get into it with you. (Which, in my opinion, follows the same path time and time again...)
(Searching on Deja for topmind is a good idea too, but largely redundant).
Of course, if you're right, you wouldn't object to them reading those prior arguments, would you?:)
I'm quite happy to let them draw their own conclusions.:-)
You'll be rehashing the same things over and over - read that first, and then decide if it is a "fair challenge" (minor note - most of the people there have been "discussing" this for 2-4 years with him).
When it first was announced, and was rather underwhelmed.
Far from defeating "Carnivore" (which would pick up the cleartext going to or from Yahoo!) (Ahem, sorry, Mr. G-man, I forgot, you promised you wouldn't DO that) this is useful only in limited situations.
This does have the ability - possibly - to turn more useful, in a way. For instance, Hushmail is by far the best, most secure email - but only on that system. This might establish a "standard" for other web-based and other email systems to use for common encryption and decryption.
But that then begs the question, why not just standardize on say, PGP?
Until at least SSL is supported (as many other free email systems support), this isn't that useful, and is still decryptable (as many above have detailed).
Total impact? Mostly meaningless. At least we can hope. Else we'll have a propriatary standard for encryption, one that's decryptable.
If there *was* a usability issue - that had its time and place to be discussed and fixed.
If it wasn't at the right point, then it can't be now. Shouldn't be. The second-guessing of the system never ends. Do we need to check all the other close states? Perhaps people didn't MEAN to vote for Gore. Maybe people who MEANT to vote for Buchanan voted for Gore!
Nielsen doesn't go so far as to say that this is specifcally what cost Gore the election, but with 19K incorrectly filled out ballots in two counties, I'd say it's a pretty fair guess.
Nielsen's a smart guy. And he knows that you can't tell, with the info we have.
Seems that there are lot of independant voters - who might well be legitimate Buchanan supporters.
The fact that 19k versus 3k punched 2 boxes on the Senate also isn't statically proven - the Presidental vote historically gets a lot more, people abstain on other races that they don't know/care about. So that, in and of by itself doesn't mean that there WAS an error. Further, I don't know if it checked WHICH two where punched. I don't think it does.
So rather than grousing about how dumb people are, why not design a ballot that doesn't skew the result?
Because its after the fact.
And because everybody had a chance to object before the election. If nobody did... Well, we've got checks and balances, and if they're unused....
Then you can't complain that they didn't catch problems.
First of all, "Communism" is 2 things (simplified)
1) A utopian theory
2) A repressive dictatorship
Now, 1) is possible. Everybody writes code to help everybody else, and damn making all the money, we don't need profits, etc.
2) Is only possible with the use of force. Which is what I assume you mean, its the usual "Communism" (With background pictures of Mao and Stalin).
How - which, notice, you didn't answer - would RMS being the "leader of an 'empire' " lead to that sort of "Communism"?
So what? That's what I want explained, not silly epithets and jingoistic labels. *What would it mean (notice the word mean)* for RMS running this "empire" ?
Communism? 1) doesn't have a leader. Witness the communistic peasants in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. 2) has to have it imposed by force.
How is RMS going to effectively force people to code for him?
Stallman's aim was never to create software that was really free for everyone to use, but rather to build an empire.
OK, so what?
In the worst case, what would that mean?
An empire of free products? Requiring others to help? Many, many, many others?
What's the worst case in this situation - if you're right?
Since Stallman has complete and total control over the FSF, this really means that it's been signed over to him personally.
I believe you've been debunked on this on Infoworld before, but again, assuming you're right - so what? What's the worst case?
Long ago, he stated that he wanted GNU to "remove operating systems from the realm of competition."
And that has to do with GUI's how? You left out the connecting parts.
Abandon the GPL, which makes software non-free, and adopt truly free licenses which do not restrict the creation of derivative works.
Like the BSD model? Which Microsoft was then able to take the code and place in their monopoly product, making it yet harder for competition to emerge?
Brett: your GPL hysteria _really_ needs to get checked.
If you write the software, you get to pick the damn licence. Simple as that. Why is someone making a choice - that you disagree with - THAT distasteful to you?
Or at least come up with some BETTER proof of a conspiracy? Mmmmmkay?
It doesn't change the fact that they achieved the rating, and that by following the same guidelines, someone else can have their installation certified.
It doesn't, because that fact doesn't exist.
Its been EVALUATED. Not certified.
And no, you can't have YOUR installation certified, either.
Additionally - the 3.5 (not 3.51) Certification - *was* without a network or a floppy drive.
I simply intended to show that NT4 can be made C2 compliant, and put an end to the 3.51/no floppy/no network anecdotes.
You were simply, wrong.
First - its 3.5. On 3 machines (2 x86, 1 Alpha) with a certain service pack. And no floppy, no network card. its not anecdotal. Go find the facts, and read them.
And the default of NT isn't complaint/certifiable. NT 4 has *never* been certified as C2 (Orange Book) secure.
And attempting to put an "end" to the factual complaints based on a badly flawed understanding is not a good idea.
It also doesn't have the bottlenecks than an x86 (PC) does.
So in all fairness, comparing a router built to route versus a PC used to route (and 486s have a lot of legacy that can/will bottleneck them) isn't fair.
Its not *JUST* the processor.
Actually, I priced a 2501 (my cablemodem goes in Thursday) with my discount yesterday. $400 for the 2501. But the firewalling software was $1000. Oh well. The Cyrix 200 might just get build today.:)
Either that.. or the SS5 will route... and I'll run Token ring in the apartment.:)
I'm not so sure there's a valid distinction to be made between the two, for the purposes of this argument, but let's pass on that...
The markets are tracked seperately. Microsoft has "server" products and "desktop" products. Try to install Backoffice on NT server and see what happens. Hence, there is a difference in market.
. In any case, Windows is certainly not the only choice a person has for their desktop, so they're not a monopoly in that sense, at least.
A monopoly doesn't mean there isn't ANY choice. It means that there is little, that the switching cost is extremely high, and that a company has virtual control over a market. There are *always* alternatives to any monopoly other than food, water, shelter. You can walk, rather than use the oil/electric monopoly. Use a radio rather than a landlocked phone. Use carrier pidgeons, Write a letter, etc.
The fact that Microsoft is realizing RECORD profits - and that noone else is able to break into that market is a pretty good indication of a monopoly.... Start making money, and notice how fast everybody else starts doing what you are doing.
I think you misunderstand the application of Monopoly/Antitrust law. Its *not* illegal to have a monopoly.
It *is* illegal to *leverage* that into *new* markets. Slightly subjective, granted, but Microsoft's argument is easily compared to a defendant arguing that "assault is subjective" when the victim was beaten within an inch of its life.
It's being applied in a situation where the company in question is only too happy to produce as many copies of their software as anyone will buy... and their great anti-competitive act was to drop their prices to zero! Something's amiss here.
No, its not.
Did they drop the price of their monopoly product? No. Their monopoly product was threatened - and so they entered a new market - with the express intent to damage compitition in that market (which might have affected their monopoly market) - and gave THAT away.
They aren't being punished for having a monopoly -but for keeping competitiors/things that could have upset that - from realizing.
Saying that MS flaunted the laws doesn't answer whether the laws are just.
No, it doesn't. But without those laws, we WOULDN"T BE TYPING HERE!:) AT&T wouldn't see the need for all these datalines. 56K is surely enough for anybody, right? IBM would have most of the computer market under their thumb, and who needs client/server?
That is supreme irony.:)
There is obvious reason for them. Come up with alternatives, please. How do you keep someone dominant from using that dominant position to muscle in on new markets?
Market based economics fail in the real world, sadly. Yes, M$ will lose their monopoly some day. But how much will be stifled to the enrichment of Redmond before that?
Additionally - thinking a law is unjust does not justify flaunting it.
Microsoft's attitude is still "We did nothing wrong". (Funny, considering without those laws, they wouldnt' exist). Not that the laws are wrong, that they did nothing wrong.
They aren't *worried* about the law. They abused it mercilessly... and part of what took so long about this is the states and DoJ really couldn't believe a company would be THIS blatant in flaunting antitrust law.
(Disclaimer: I work at another big company that is admittedly, a monopoly in a certain market. We don't talk like that, and if the FTC and DoJ ask us about our monopoly, we're nice and show them what they want, and show them that we're *competing*, not leveraging).
The software "finds" people who - might - be violating a licence agreement.
(Many people on Napster, for instance, own the software - the software makes no attempt to verify this - or even - that the "name" on the software is even what it is). (And its not illegal to name something anything that the user wants)
However, this software violates the licence agreement necessary to particpate in Napster.
If one's wrong, and - notice, Napster is written with strong disclaimers that they're not responsible for actions - isn't the other?
This software seems to have the same disclaimer - "its up to you what you do with it (go after those immoral licence breakers with something that breaks licences)"
Excuse me for my ignorance, sir, but what does this have to do with *privately* owned guns? Do you take your own handgun with you when you join the army?
Allow me to quote the paragraph above the one you quoted.
Typical Eurotrash thinking. "I don't understand it, it must me worthless". It wasn't so worthless in 1914-15 and then AGAIN in the 40's, when England was running ads in papers over here, BEGGING for those guns for their defence.
Privately held guns were begged to be donated to England (and France in WWI). That's what I was referring to.
To answer your question a little more throughly, actually, one of the _defining_ battles in the United State's Civil War was won by a regiment who's commander had bought Spenser rifles (which were supposed to have been Union issue, but the entrenched bureacracy and obstinate officers had virtually kept them out of the army) personally.
Some interesting reading. Charging Confederate soldiers (I'll leave what battle this is up to the reader, don't want to drop TOO many hints), going up a hill - versus Spensers. Confederates had muzzle-loaded caplocks. Spenser's were lever action, 7 shot, breechloading, loadable from cover/prone.....
And the Confederates were decimated.
So yes, sometimes personal weapons are used, previously the disarmed British have begged twice (and the French once) - for weapons to arm their "home guard" - from the American stock of privately held weapons.
Reread your history book first. Guns were pretty common around Europe before WWII,
Either you didn't read yours - or you're in Germany and they left that part out.
Go get some new ones. One of Hitler's first acts - was to disarm the populace. And ESPECIALLY the Jews.
The fact you're not noticing that Europe *had* been disarmed..... Plus your views on hunting/meat eating and military.... I'd try to enlighten you as to reality.. but your reply proves it's pointless.
Sarah Brady has said publically that the way to outlaw all guns - is to slowly work "small" laws in.
That's the problem - some of these proposals I don't have a problem with - even constitutionally - but what that means is NEXT year, they're used as the starting point for the next round.
Its kind of like somebody shows up, and demands your house and land - you say "No!" "OK, I'll just take this 1/2 of the land here". Next year, he demands all of the rest - and takes another chunk..
This isn't a "Compromise". Its just slow loss.
but what seemed to me to be a reasonable approach (via registration and licensing)
Historically - governments have been "reasonable" about proposing registration - and then at a later point, forgetting the reasonableness, and demanding that citizens (other than the rich and connected) turn in their guns.
I've got a severe problem with the fact that the FBI - _IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE BRADY LAW_ is currently keeping historical data on firearms purchases.
And the DoJ doesn't seem to be doing much about it. This is something _specifically_ denied to the federal government - and the FBI had admitted to doing it in interviews...
*That's* the problem with "reasonable" gun legislation - the lack of gurantees/enforcement of the other side as well.
A few years ago "assult" weapons were the focal point - outlaw them (never mind they're almost never used in crime), and that's the answer. Now they're talking trigger locks as the cure.... (uh, yeah, sure).
Many of the people against gun control seem to be hell-bent on portraying anyone supporting any kind of gun control as wanting to ban all weapons.
And many of the supporters of gun control refuse to believe many of their cohorts want to do exactly that.
Don't rewrite history - at least in Vietnam vs US, the Vietnamese were armed by the russian. They didn't bought their guns and grenades at their local grocery store.
The NVA, yes. Which, speaking of re-writing history, you might want to check out a tad, before running your mouth. The Viet Cong, the "real" guerillas in the south were much more spottily armed, many times with less than AK-47's. They did a fair amount of damage - and massive amounts to morale - with Punji sticks (sharpened bamboo with the tips smeared with feces), and other technologial wonders. Mines were especially effective - and those are very easy to make.
'm sorry but I live in Europe, and all those crazy Americans so in love with their guns are gun-nuts to me. A gun sole purpose is to kill - plain and simple. You can't use it to repair your car or to cook. Professing the widespread availability of killing-devices is completely insane.
Europe.. Europe. Oh, right, that's the place where my Grandfather went to save your non-gun-owning asses from those gun-toting Germans, right? Are you from the half who's ass we kicked or the half who's ass we saved?
You're missing the entire point of the Second Amendment. Its to keep the government in line. (not invoking Godwin, as I'm not calling anyone a Nazi) - That's why Hitler's first acts were to disarm (especially Jews) the citizenry.
Unlike Europe, we don't put our leaders on a god platform. Most of us anyway. We got our freedom not via royal decree, but by fighting for it, against an opressive, tyrannical government. (Actually, we're taxed more now than then, and the government has far more restrictions).
Well now they do - so the situation CHANGED. And the 2nd amendment is obsolete.
Typical Eurotrash thinking. "I don't understand it, it must me worthless". It wasn't so worthless in 1914-15 and then AGAIN in the 40's, when England was running ads in papers over here, BEGGING for those guns for their defence.
So, its OK to ask/demand that we supply guns when its convient to you - but call us barbarians when you don't.
The right to bear arms was to achieve a goal - it is not a basic human right like free speech.
Again, you misunderstand. Go read some. The "Bill of Rights" is essentially what any _legitimate_ government cannot do. That was the point behind it. It can't censor, remove the ability to resist, imprison without trial... And if you remove those - then according to the thinkers of those who wrote and signed the Consititution - you no longer have a legitimate government.
Well I think hunting is nut too, I mean which mentally sane human could enjoy killing - even animals ?
Somebody damn well better - its impossible for EVERYBODY to be a vegetarian (especially with the animals unchecked)
Are you a vegetarian? If not. SOMEBODY had to kill your fish/chicken/beef/goat/lamb/whatever.
Oh, so if its a low paying job, that's OK? (Never let it be said that most Europeans are enlightened, class-free people)
Disclaimer: I hunt. If you weren't so insulting about something you know nothing about (and so incorrect as to the math behind it) - I'd be willing to explain why.
Again I live in Europe. I'm anti-gun like 99,9% if my fellow citizens. I've never been afraid of getting shot in the streets - the chances of me dying from a gunshot is so close to 0 it is negligeable. I bet you can't says as much...
Which twice now, we've had to wade our troops over there and fight for - and spend a shitload tax money - mine included - keeping armed troops over there so the USSR wouldn't decide that gee, those pesky European countries are making too good an escape haven.. or have things that we want.
Armed Troops. Gee, Golly. Us Crazy Americans.
They think we're barbarians, and we're STILL helping them.
As for the defense of our free stats, we have armies and nukes, and that's enough, thank you.
Oh, well, in that case, mind paying us for your defenses for the last 50 years? Or is that idea obsolete as well?
There have been a couple of DNS-"replacements" before - I forget (and on really quick looking couldn't come up with a link) where one of the dissenters/troublemakers hacked some sites for publicity - bad idea, got him burned bad.
Second point - Yeah, this is Slashdot, but does "open source" have to be suggested for EVERYTHING? Don't like McDonalds?! Open Source Burgers are the answer!
DNS *is* open source *now*. The only thing holding you back is the approval (of others) to set up DNS.
All you have to do is get enough people to force lookups to your servers, too..... (good luck).
But nothing stops anybody from setting up their own DNS servers, in their own hierarchy. Whether anybody ever points there for lookups, on the other hand...
And I defend her vigorously against these sorts of sterotypical slams.:)
The problem isn't being non-technical, but non-technical and a bad manager.
Best manager I've yet had (excluding current, for obvious reasons) liked to tell me how she USED to be technical (she started selling Selectrics and parts door to door to businesses).. She actively wanted to know how I did what I did.
She didn't get in my way. She asked why, rather than telling me no. She told me what parameters she was under, and she knew that if I knew that - cause I'm pretty doggoned good at this political stuff - I'd work it into the calculations.
She came in and brought me dinner when I had an all-nighter with server hardware. She didn't ask me what I was doing when she was looking over my shoulder at 6:30 AM when the brand spanking new super-(and expensive)server just got a hole blown in the motherboard with a surge, and I was grabbing racks of drives and swapping them to another server that was to be configured that day.
We disagreed sometimes. Sometimes because she didn't know why I was doing what I was doing - but more importantly - there was a huge amount of trust between us - I trusted her - she trusted me. *THAT* is the issue. Not technical ability (because at SOME point, a supervisor will almost always be non-technical.
It depends on far too much: * How enlightened are the end users? 1) How much support do they require 2) How long does it take, on average, to deliever support?
* What are you supporting? * How good is the current Help Desk? * What are user/management expectations?
The initial question asked: : "My current manager (who is not a tech guru by any stretch of imagination) is trying to tell us we have enough manpower to support the number of customers we have, even though our manpower has trickled in half and the number of customers has doubled in size. .
Since the poster asked - and isn't POSITIVE, I'd say his manager might be right. If they were overworked, there'd be no questioning about it. It would be "We're overworked, how do I convince my manager?" (And I'd expect.. nah, I wouldn't).
Its not so much, even what servers you're running*, but what you're doing, how well the users were trained, what their expectations are.
And training - is the most disregarded of all IT arts... Train the users - how stuff works, how the help desk works, get their expectations reasonable (Not depressed, _reasonable_. So that they know "I'll get to that, but this is more important", and you mean it).
All of this adds up to a HUGE amount of variables.
The poster didn't tell us anything to isolate and solve for them - so the question was bad.
As with everything, it depends. A lot of not very good people, supported, with a good, reasonable set of policies and proceedures can do better than a lot of great people, in constant troubleshooting/firefighting mode.
Addison
* - Yes, I know, all things being equal, NT takes more. BELIEVE ME I KNOW.
Slashdot Mirror
So they were using a commonly-used term in their title. No problem there. They just couldn't then go back and try and trademark "ftp". "FTP software", that's trademarkable.
In this case, the person who started using the acronym, as I understand, LATER decided to trademark it... Making it much muddier than your example, but I think its too late to undo the "commonly-used" of ssh.
Addison
NOW I SAID IT!!! EEEEAAAAA
For the proof that its not.
:)
You've been served with objective proof against your point before - that you've ignored. I don't have the original link - but you do, don't you? Post it for everybody to see.. then we can post the links that you had in rebuttal.....
You're making a statement. Its your job to back it up.
If all you do is "jump up and rub it in" without any backing.. then... you're a troll.
Addison
(The Deja.com archives are down, else I'd try and link to that).
He's also IIRC called Turing, Meyer and Dyjstra idiots....
No, Bryce is the only expert, we've established that well.
http://pub1.ezboard.com/fobjectorienteddevelopment languagewars.showMessage?topicID=175.topic&index=2 2
That forum has lots of good posts...
But no.. no amount of real world examples will make him back down - he's unable to consider the ability to back down. The German WWII high command retreated more than Bryce. :)
Addison
There's a long history here with "Tabilizer" and myself, and many others.
As for syntax.. well, you should have seen some of his earlier missives on semicolons on IWE. (nevermind when people _explained_ why they were used, etc... he didn't like them, so they were stupid"
The reason he doesn't respond to the good criticisms is.. its his MO. he'll wait and attack some tangential position, divert the argument, then declare victory.
I'll recommend you to the link I've posted several times... Its as good as any other, the arguments always go the exact. same. way.
Prove him wrong, pin him in a corner, and its a technicallity/silly/not important. More often, he'll just ignore them, and worry on the tangents, and get things so mixed up that nobody can be sure where he started.
(For example, he demands that people who say that OO is better "prove it objectively". A study was produced that did exactly that. (measuring Lines of Code/Function Point) He then went on a rant "demanding the code they used". When pointed out that the methodology was available, and he could measure it himself, he said he didn't have the time, but since the "code wasn't open" the study didn't meet his prior demands for a scientific study.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Addison
I merely (strongly) suggested they see what has come before, and what has argued before. Before they get into it with you. (Which, in my opinion, follows the same path time and time again...)
:)
:-)
(Searching on Deja for topmind is a good idea too, but largely redundant).
Of course, if you're right, you wouldn't object to them reading those prior arguments, would you?
I'm quite happy to let them draw their own conclusions.
Addison
http://pub1.ezboard.com/fobjectorienteddevelopment languagewars
Trust me. you WANT to read through that.
Trust me.
You'll be rehashing the same things over and over - read that first, and then decide if it is a "fair challenge" (minor note - most of the people there have been "discussing" this for 2-4 years with him).
Addison
ObjectOriented programming.
:)
e nt languagewars
Hey, should have seen those pages *before* the IW and comp.object crowd pointed out the BIGGEST piles of BS there.
http://pub1.ezboard.com/fobjectorienteddevelopm
*sigh* Bryce made the front page of slashdot. Maybe slashdot finally HAS hit rock-bottom.
Addison
Running "forward" (forward being an arbitary direction) blindly is usually not progress.
More often than not, you'll run into a tree, off a cliff, or into someone else.
Addison
When it first was announced, and was rather underwhelmed.
Far from defeating "Carnivore" (which would pick up the cleartext going to or from Yahoo!) (Ahem, sorry, Mr. G-man, I forgot, you promised you wouldn't DO that) this is useful only in limited situations.
This does have the ability - possibly - to turn more useful, in a way. For instance, Hushmail is by far the best, most secure email - but only on that system. This might establish a "standard" for other web-based and other email systems to use for common encryption and decryption.
But that then begs the question, why not just standardize on say, PGP?
Until at least SSL is supported (as many other free email systems support), this isn't that useful, and is still decryptable (as many above have detailed).
Total impact? Mostly meaningless. At least we can hope. Else we'll have a propriatary standard for encryption, one that's decryptable.
Addison
If there *was* a usability issue - that had its time and place to be discussed and fixed.
If it wasn't at the right point, then it can't be now. Shouldn't be. The second-guessing of the system never ends. Do we need to check all the other close states? Perhaps people didn't MEAN to vote for Gore. Maybe people who MEANT to vote for Buchanan voted for Gore!
We don't know. There was a review period.
http://www.newsma x.c om/archives/articles/2000/11/8/161334.shtml
Nielsen doesn't go so far as to say that this is specifcally what cost Gore the election, but with 19K incorrectly filled out ballots in two counties, I'd say it's a pretty fair guess.
Nielsen's a smart guy. And he knows that you can't tell, with the info we have.
http://www.newsm ax. com/archives/articles/2000/11/8/161334.shtml
Seems that there are lot of independant voters - who might well be legitimate Buchanan supporters.
The fact that 19k versus 3k punched 2 boxes on the Senate also isn't statically proven - the Presidental vote historically gets a lot more, people abstain on other races that they don't know/care about. So that, in and of by itself doesn't mean that there WAS an error. Further, I don't know if it checked WHICH two where punched. I don't think it does.
So rather than grousing about how dumb people are, why not design a ballot that doesn't skew the result?
Because its after the fact.
And because everybody had a chance to object before the election. If nobody did... Well, we've got checks and balances, and if they're unused....
Then you can't complain that they didn't catch problems.
Addison
In the worst case, what would that mean?
Communism.
Oooo.
How?
First of all, "Communism" is 2 things (simplified)
1) A utopian theory
2) A repressive dictatorship
Now, 1) is possible. Everybody writes code to help everybody else, and damn making all the money, we don't need profits, etc.
2) Is only possible with the use of force. Which is what I assume you mean, its the usual "Communism" (With background pictures of Mao and Stalin).
How - which, notice, you didn't answer - would RMS being the "leader of an 'empire' " lead to that sort of "Communism"?
So what? That's what I want explained, not silly epithets and jingoistic labels. *What would it mean (notice the word mean)* for RMS running this "empire" ?
Communism? 1) doesn't have a leader. Witness the communistic peasants in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. 2) has to have it imposed by force.
How is RMS going to effectively force people to code for him?
Please, explain, my interest in intrigued.
Addison
Stallman's aim was never to create software that was really free for everyone to use, but rather to build an empire.
OK, so what?
In the worst case, what would that mean?
An empire of free products? Requiring others to help? Many, many, many others?
What's the worst case in this situation - if you're right?
Since Stallman has complete and total control over the FSF, this really means that it's been signed over to him personally.
I believe you've been debunked on this on Infoworld before, but again, assuming you're right - so what? What's the worst case?
Long ago, he stated that he wanted GNU to "remove operating systems from the realm of competition."
And that has to do with GUI's how? You left out the connecting parts.
Abandon the GPL, which makes software non-free, and adopt truly free licenses which do not restrict the creation of derivative works.
Like the BSD model? Which Microsoft was then able to take the code and place in their monopoly product, making it yet harder for competition to emerge?
Brett: your GPL hysteria _really_ needs to get checked.
If you write the software, you get to pick the damn licence. Simple as that. Why is someone making a choice - that you disagree with - THAT distasteful to you?
Or at least come up with some BETTER proof of a conspiracy? Mmmmmkay?
Addison
It doesn't change the fact that they achieved the rating, and that by following the same guidelines, someone else can have their installation certified.
It doesn't, because that fact doesn't exist.
Its been EVALUATED. Not certified.
And no, you can't have YOUR installation certified, either.
Additionally - the 3.5 (not 3.51) Certification - *was* without a network or a floppy drive.
I simply intended to show that NT4 can be made C2 compliant, and put an end to the 3.51/no floppy/no network anecdotes.
You were simply, wrong.
First - its 3.5. On 3 machines (2 x86, 1 Alpha) with a certain service pack. And no floppy, no network card. its not anecdotal. Go find the facts, and read them.
And the default of NT isn't complaint/certifiable. NT 4 has *never* been certified as C2 (Orange Book) secure.
And attempting to put an "end" to the factual complaints based on a badly flawed understanding is not a good idea.
Addison
It also doesn't have the bottlenecks than an x86 (PC) does.
:)
:)
So in all fairness, comparing a router built to route versus a PC used to route (and 486s have a lot of legacy that can/will bottleneck them) isn't fair.
Its not *JUST* the processor.
Actually, I priced a 2501 (my cablemodem goes in Thursday) with my discount yesterday. $400 for the 2501. But the firewalling software was $1000. Oh well. The Cyrix 200 might just get build today.
Either that.. or the SS5 will route... and I'll run Token ring in the apartment.
Addison
I'm not so sure there's a valid distinction to be made between the two, for the purposes of this argument, but let's pass on that...
:) AT&T wouldn't see the need for all these datalines. 56K is surely enough for anybody, right? IBM would have most of the computer market under their thumb, and who needs client/server?
:)
The markets are tracked seperately. Microsoft has "server" products and "desktop" products. Try to install Backoffice on NT server and see what happens. Hence, there is a difference in market.
. In any case, Windows is certainly not the only choice a person has for their desktop, so they're not a monopoly in that sense, at least.
A monopoly doesn't mean there isn't ANY choice. It means that there is little, that the switching cost is extremely high, and that a company has virtual control over a market. There are *always* alternatives to any monopoly other than food, water, shelter. You can walk, rather than use the oil/electric monopoly. Use a radio rather than a landlocked phone. Use carrier pidgeons, Write a letter, etc.
The fact that Microsoft is realizing RECORD profits - and that noone else is able to break into that market is a pretty good indication of a monopoly.... Start making money, and notice how fast everybody else starts doing what you are doing.
I think you misunderstand the application of Monopoly/Antitrust law. Its *not* illegal to have a monopoly.
It *is* illegal to *leverage* that into *new* markets. Slightly subjective, granted, but Microsoft's argument is easily compared to a defendant arguing that "assault is subjective" when the victim was beaten within an inch of its life.
It's being applied in a situation where the company in question is only too happy to produce as many copies of their software as anyone will buy... and their great anti-competitive act was to drop their prices to zero! Something's amiss here.
No, its not.
Did they drop the price of their monopoly product? No. Their monopoly product was threatened - and so they entered a new market - with the express intent to damage compitition in that market (which might have affected their monopoly market) - and gave THAT away.
They aren't being punished for having a monopoly -but for keeping competitiors/things that could have upset that - from realizing.
Saying that MS flaunted the laws doesn't answer whether the laws are just.
No, it doesn't. But without those laws, we WOULDN"T BE TYPING HERE!
That is supreme irony.
There is obvious reason for them. Come up with alternatives, please. How do you keep someone dominant from using that dominant position to muscle in on new markets?
Market based economics fail in the real world, sadly. Yes, M$ will lose their monopoly some day. But how much will be stifled to the enrichment of Redmond before that?
Additionally - thinking a law is unjust does not justify flaunting it.
Microsoft's attitude is still "We did nothing wrong". (Funny, considering without those laws, they wouldnt' exist). Not that the laws are wrong, that they did nothing wrong.
They aren't *worried* about the law. They abused it mercilessly... and part of what took so long about this is the states and DoJ really couldn't believe a company would be THIS blatant in flaunting antitrust law.
(Disclaimer: I work at another big company that is admittedly, a monopoly in a certain market. We don't talk like that, and if the FTC and DoJ ask us about our monopoly, we're nice and show them what they want, and show them that we're *competing*, not leveraging).
That's the difference.
Addison
The software "finds" people who - might - be violating a licence agreement.
(Many people on Napster, for instance, own the software - the software makes no attempt to verify this - or even - that the "name" on the software is even what it is). (And its not illegal to name something anything that the user wants)
However, this software violates the licence agreement necessary to particpate in Napster.
If one's wrong, and - notice, Napster is written with strong disclaimers that they're not responsible for actions - isn't the other?
This software seems to have the same disclaimer - "its up to you what you do with it (go after those immoral licence breakers with something that breaks licences)"
Addison
Excuse me for my ignorance, sir, but what does this have to do with *privately* owned guns? Do you take your own handgun with you when you join the army?
Allow me to quote the paragraph above the one you quoted.
Typical Eurotrash thinking. "I don't understand it, it must me worthless". It wasn't so worthless in 1914-15 and then AGAIN in the 40's, when England was running ads in papers over here, BEGGING for those guns for their defence.
Privately held guns were begged to be donated to England (and France in WWI). That's what I was referring to.
To answer your question a little more throughly, actually, one of the _defining_ battles in the United State's Civil War was won by a regiment who's commander had bought Spenser rifles (which were supposed to have been Union issue, but the entrenched bureacracy and obstinate officers had virtually kept them out of the army) personally.
Some interesting reading. Charging Confederate soldiers (I'll leave what battle this is up to the reader, don't want to drop TOO many hints), going up a hill - versus Spensers. Confederates had muzzle-loaded caplocks. Spenser's were lever action, 7 shot, breechloading, loadable from cover/prone.....
And the Confederates were decimated.
So yes, sometimes personal weapons are used, previously the disarmed British have begged twice (and the French once) - for weapons to arm their "home guard" - from the American stock of privately held weapons.
Addison
And you refuse to.
Reread your history book first. Guns were pretty common around Europe before WWII,
Either you didn't read yours - or you're in Germany and they left that part out.
Go get some new ones. One of Hitler's first acts - was to disarm the populace. And ESPECIALLY the Jews.
The fact you're not noticing that Europe *had* been disarmed..... Plus your views on hunting/meat eating and military.... I'd try to enlighten you as to reality.. but your reply proves it's pointless.
Is that it quickly becomes unreasonable.
Sarah Brady has said publically that the way to outlaw all guns - is to slowly work "small" laws in.
That's the problem - some of these proposals I don't have a problem with - even constitutionally - but what that means is NEXT year, they're used as the starting point for the next round.
Its kind of like somebody shows up, and demands your house and land - you say "No!" "OK, I'll just take this 1/2 of the land here". Next year, he demands all of the rest - and takes another chunk..
This isn't a "Compromise". Its just slow loss.
but what seemed to me to be a reasonable approach (via registration and licensing)
Historically - governments have been "reasonable" about proposing registration - and then at a later point, forgetting the reasonableness, and demanding that citizens (other than the rich and connected) turn in their guns.
I've got a severe problem with the fact that the FBI - _IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE BRADY LAW_ is currently keeping historical data on firearms purchases.
And the DoJ doesn't seem to be doing much about it. This is something _specifically_ denied to the federal government - and the FBI had admitted to doing it in interviews...
*That's* the problem with "reasonable" gun legislation - the lack of gurantees/enforcement of the other side as well.
A few years ago "assult" weapons were the focal point - outlaw them (never mind they're almost never used in crime), and that's the answer. Now they're talking trigger locks as the cure.... (uh, yeah, sure).
Many of the people against gun control seem to be hell-bent on portraying anyone supporting any kind of gun control as wanting to ban all weapons.
And many of the supporters of gun control refuse to believe many of their cohorts want to do exactly that.
Addison
Don't rewrite history - at least in Vietnam vs US, the Vietnamese were armed by the russian. They didn't bought their guns and grenades at their local grocery store.
The NVA, yes. Which, speaking of re-writing history, you might want to check out a tad, before running your mouth. The Viet Cong, the "real" guerillas in the south were much more spottily armed, many times with less than AK-47's. They did a fair amount of damage - and massive amounts to morale - with Punji sticks (sharpened bamboo with the tips smeared with feces), and other technologial wonders. Mines were especially effective - and those are very easy to make.
'm sorry but I live in Europe, and all those crazy Americans so in love with their guns are gun-nuts to me. A gun sole purpose is to kill - plain and simple. You can't use it to repair your car or to cook. Professing the widespread availability of killing-devices is completely insane.
Europe.. Europe. Oh, right, that's the place where my Grandfather went to save your non-gun-owning asses from those gun-toting Germans, right? Are you from the half who's ass we kicked or the half who's ass we saved?
You're missing the entire point of the Second Amendment. Its to keep the government in line. (not invoking Godwin, as I'm not calling anyone a Nazi) - That's why Hitler's first acts were to disarm (especially Jews) the citizenry.
Unlike Europe, we don't put our leaders on a god platform. Most of us anyway. We got our freedom not via royal decree, but by fighting for it, against an opressive, tyrannical government. (Actually, we're taxed more now than then, and the government has far more restrictions).
Well now they do - so the situation CHANGED. And the 2nd amendment is obsolete.
Typical Eurotrash thinking. "I don't understand it, it must me worthless". It wasn't so worthless in 1914-15 and then AGAIN in the 40's, when England was running ads in papers over here, BEGGING for those guns for their defence.
So, its OK to ask/demand that we supply guns when its convient to you - but call us barbarians when you don't.
The right to bear arms was to achieve a goal - it is not a basic human right like free speech.
Again, you misunderstand. Go read some. The "Bill of Rights" is essentially what any _legitimate_ government cannot do. That was the point behind it. It can't censor, remove the ability to resist, imprison without trial... And if you remove those - then according to the thinkers of those who wrote and signed the Consititution - you no longer have a legitimate government.
Well I think hunting is nut too, I mean which mentally sane human could enjoy killing - even animals ?
Somebody damn well better - its impossible for EVERYBODY to be a vegetarian (especially with the animals unchecked)
Are you a vegetarian? If not. SOMEBODY had to kill your fish/chicken/beef/goat/lamb/whatever.
Oh, so if its a low paying job, that's OK? (Never let it be said that most Europeans are enlightened, class-free people)
Disclaimer: I hunt. If you weren't so insulting about something you know nothing about (and so incorrect as to the math behind it) - I'd be willing to explain why.
Again I live in Europe. I'm anti-gun like 99,9% if my fellow citizens. I've never been afraid of getting shot in the streets - the chances of me dying from a gunshot is so close to 0 it is negligeable. I bet you can't says as much...
Which twice now, we've had to wade our troops over there and fight for - and spend a shitload tax money - mine included - keeping armed troops over there so the USSR wouldn't decide that gee, those pesky European countries are making too good an escape haven.. or have things that we want.
Armed Troops. Gee, Golly. Us Crazy Americans.
They think we're barbarians, and we're STILL helping them.
As for the defense of our free stats, we have armies and nukes, and that's enough, thank you.
Oh, well, in that case, mind paying us for your defenses for the last 50 years? Or is that idea obsolete as well?
Addison
There have been a couple of DNS-"replacements" before - I forget (and on really quick looking couldn't come up with a link) where one of the dissenters/troublemakers hacked some sites for publicity - bad idea, got him burned bad.
Second point - Yeah, this is Slashdot, but does "open source" have to be suggested for EVERYTHING? Don't like McDonalds?! Open Source Burgers are the answer!
DNS *is* open source *now*. The only thing holding you back is the approval (of others) to set up DNS.
All you have to do is get enough people to force lookups to your servers, too..... (good luck).
But nothing stops anybody from setting up their own DNS servers, in their own hierarchy. Whether anybody ever points there for lookups, on the other hand...
Addison
And I defend her vigorously against these sorts of sterotypical slams. :)
The problem isn't being non-technical, but non-technical and a bad manager.
Best manager I've yet had (excluding current, for obvious reasons) liked to tell me how she USED to be technical (she started selling Selectrics and parts door to door to businesses).. She actively wanted to know how I did what I did.
She didn't get in my way. She asked why, rather than telling me no. She told me what parameters she was under, and she knew that if I knew that - cause I'm pretty doggoned good at this political stuff - I'd work it into the calculations.
She came in and brought me dinner when I had an all-nighter with server hardware. She didn't ask me what I was doing when she was looking over my shoulder at 6:30 AM when the brand spanking new super-(and expensive)server just got a hole blown in the motherboard with a surge, and I was grabbing racks of drives and swapping them to another server that was to be configured that day.
We disagreed sometimes. Sometimes because she didn't know why I was doing what I was doing - but more importantly - there was a huge amount of trust between us - I trusted her - she trusted me. *THAT* is the issue. Not technical ability (because at SOME point, a supervisor will almost always be non-technical.
Addison
It depends on far too much:
.. nah, I wouldn't).
* How enlightened are the end users?
1) How much support do they require
2) How long does it take, on average, to deliever support?
* What are you supporting?
* How good is the current Help Desk?
* What are user/management expectations?
The initial question asked: : "My current manager (who is not a tech guru by any stretch of imagination) is trying to tell us we have enough manpower to support the number of customers we have, even though our manpower has trickled in half and the number of customers has doubled in size. .
Since the poster asked - and isn't POSITIVE, I'd say his manager might be right. If they were overworked, there'd be no questioning about it. It would be "We're overworked, how do I convince my manager?" (And I'd expect
Its not so much, even what servers you're running*, but what you're doing, how well the users were trained, what their expectations are.
And training - is the most disregarded of all IT arts... Train the users - how stuff works, how the help desk works, get their expectations reasonable (Not depressed, _reasonable_. So that they know "I'll get to that, but this is more important", and you mean it).
All of this adds up to a HUGE amount of variables.
The poster didn't tell us anything to isolate and solve for them - so the question was bad.
As with everything, it depends. A lot of not very good people, supported, with a good, reasonable set of policies and proceedures can do better than a lot of great people, in constant troubleshooting/firefighting mode.
Addison
* - Yes, I know, all things being equal, NT takes more. BELIEVE ME I KNOW.
Well, if its not just burned, but OVERBURNED.. Well, that I can see being a problem.
(I had thought the problem was that they were overburdened) :)
Addison