How long do you think it will be before the ISPs do the filtering centrally, instead of providing and supporting filter software at each customer's home? Think about the ISP providing a choice between two internet connections, one filtered and one unfiltered. The customer then selects which one is used. That's is the first step that will comply with the current law requiring the ISP to provide filtering if the customer requests it.
Then the next step is that a law is passed requiring the "all content internet feed" to be filtered in the name of fighting terrorism.
The march towards government censorship has begun.
Ignoring the complete lack of technical insight behind this statement
The government is telling the ISPs they have to install the filters. Currently the government is telling the ISPs that the control of those filters is delegated from the ISPs to the ISP's customers.
My "complete lack of technical insight" sees the filter control delegation as a configuration that the ISP manages. All that needs to be done is for the government to tell the ISP to stop delegating the filter control to the customers of the ISPs, and for the ISPs configure the filters as the government instructs. Then the government just tells the ISPs to configure the filters to censor what the government does not want the Australian people to see.
Once the filtering infrastructure is in place, this is all quite easily done, even with my complete lack of technical insight.
... implementing a government-controlled mandatory filtering infrastructure for the web in Australia. All it will take would be the change of a config file or two, and the government can censor whatever it pleases.
At the level that is making the.NET decision for you, the main concerns are going to be:
(1) how can we get the proper level of support, with SLAs
(2) how can we hold a vendor accountable when there is no vendor?
That level of management, unless they are extraordinarily enlightened, do not see that Open Source can provide the same level (and perhaps better) level of support as proprietary (i.e., Microsoft) software can provide. Part of the problem is the rather poor security history of the high-profile FireFox browser, even as the Open Source community touts it as being very secure.
What those managers do not relize is that going with Microsoft is not going to be a benefit. Sure, there is a corporate HQ in Redmond that the managers can complain to. However, Microsoft has a monopoly, and there is really little that anyone can do to get Microsoft to be responsive to customers when Microsoft does not want to be responsive to customers. Microsoft provides a false sense of support. However, by the time that is realized, the managers that made the decision will be off making the same poor decisions in another company.
The lack of accountability is not with the Open Source providers, but with the managers making the decision.
The great thing about capitalism is that CEOs like Bill Gates who wants to make hand-over-fist in terms of money, doesn't have to give a rat's ass about basic human rights, he can choose to hide behind his business like a coward. Craig Mundie's answer was "I don't think that is my area of expertise." Cowards.
So did Microsoft conquer China, or is it the other way around? Toward the end of Gates' trip, on the sidelines of China's Boao Forum, I sat down again with the Microsoft founder. One of the things I wanted to ask him was how he squares the company's "alignment" in China with its leaders' suppression of free speech on the Internet and what many consider to be their general disregard for human rights. Our conversation, which had been flowing freely, ground to a halt. He said nothing. His silence lasted so long I found myself piping up out of discomfort. "That's a very pregnant pause," I said. "I don't think I want to give an answer to that," he finally replied.
So Gates does not have an answer to why he is getting so close to a regime that censors the internet and oppresses human rights. Gates is definitely showing that he cares only about money, that all of his philanthropy is little more and a failed attempt to clear his name for the history books.
Right, and it does show that they can compete with free.
Only because the high prices in the US and EU subsibize the cheap price in China. Could Micorosft sustain what it is currently doing if the price of Vista were the same everywhere as it is in China? Of course they couldn't.
I wonder how long it will be, once Vista gets a good foothold in China (i.e., has driven out all the competition), that the price of Vista will rise significantly?
I also wonder how Microsoft explains its new coziness with the regime in China that severely oppresses human rights. What do Microsoft employees think of their company's financial and political support for such an oppressive regime?
On one hand (and this is where I am leaning), if I request $100 from an ATM and I get $1000, then I will know that something is wrong.
OK, maybe I'm not of two minds. I think that those who got the extra money should have given it back. That would be The Right Thing To Do.
Did you ever give a store clerk a $10 bill and get change for a $20 bill? What did you do? I told the clerk of the mistake and gave back the extra $10.
What's in your wallet? Ill-gotten money? Or money you deserve to have?
Perhaps for your purposes. However, the CVS license it not consistent with the goals and philosophies of OpenBSD. So they created OpenCVS with a license that is appropriate.
the main source of theo thinking SVN isn't secure, is because that control freak didn't write it himself.
Do you have a link pointing to his quote on that?
openssl and openssh are 2 packages responsible for huge security holes over the years, both of which are his babies.
OpenSSH's security, while not perfect, has been excellent. Your unsubstantiated attribution of "huge security holes" to it seems to be intended as little more than a troll, since you did not provide any citations.
It's not still in effect, but the people of Kansas tried to do it. That was my point - you cannot expect too much from a state that actively avoids education.
As a hiring manager, I would definitely be very skeptical of people "educated" in Kansas.
Google wanted to hire cheap H-1B people, instead they had to hire US Engineers. That is the reason for the salary costs that Wall Street was so concerned about.
Slashdot Mirror
How long do you think it will be before the ISPs do the filtering centrally, instead of providing and supporting filter software at each customer's home? Think about the ISP providing a choice between two internet connections, one filtered and one unfiltered. The customer then selects which one is used. That's is the first step that will comply with the current law requiring the ISP to provide filtering if the customer requests it.
Then the next step is that a law is passed requiring the "all content internet feed" to be filtered in the name of fighting terrorism.
The march towards government censorship has begun.
The government is telling the ISPs they have to install the filters. Currently the government is telling the ISPs that the control of those filters is delegated from the ISPs to the ISP's customers.
My "complete lack of technical insight" sees the filter control delegation as a configuration that the ISP manages. All that needs to be done is for the government to tell the ISP to stop delegating the filter control to the customers of the ISPs, and for the ISPs configure the filters as the government instructs. Then the government just tells the ISPs to configure the filters to censor what the government does not want the Australian people to see.
Once the filtering infrastructure is in place, this is all quite easily done, even with my complete lack of technical insight.
... implementing a government-controlled mandatory filtering infrastructure for the web in Australia. All it will take would be the change of a config file or two, and the government can censor whatever it pleases.
Much worse.
It was an article referred to by a /. posting. Doesn't everyone read those articles?
So we have to read articles about news in a fake world?
No, that is your incorrect inference from my statement. Try not to infer that which was not implied.
Also try not to be so blindly defensive of FireFox, and be more concerned about security. Both the users and FireFox will benefit.
That does not mean that FireFox is secure, or even approaching secure.
(2) how can we hold a vendor accountable when there is no vendor?
That level of management, unless they are extraordinarily enlightened, do not see that Open Source can provide the same level (and perhaps better) level of support as proprietary (i.e., Microsoft) software can provide. Part of the problem is the rather poor security history of the high-profile FireFox browser, even as the Open Source community touts it as being very secure.What those managers do not relize is that going with Microsoft is not going to be a benefit. Sure, there is a corporate HQ in Redmond that the managers can complain to. However, Microsoft has a monopoly, and there is really little that anyone can do to get Microsoft to be responsive to customers when Microsoft does not want to be responsive to customers. Microsoft provides a false sense of support. However, by the time that is realized, the managers that made the decision will be off making the same poor decisions in another company.
The lack of accountability is not with the Open Source providers, but with the managers making the decision.
Conflict of [former] interest.
Pushing mediocrity upon the poor people who visit the University's website.
The stunning incompetency of the search service.
From an article in Fortune:
So did Microsoft conquer China, or is it the other way around? Toward the end of Gates' trip, on the sidelines of China's Boao Forum, I sat down again with the Microsoft founder. One of the things I wanted to ask him was how he squares the company's "alignment" in China with its leaders' suppression of free speech on the Internet and what many consider to be their general disregard for human rights. Our conversation, which had been flowing freely, ground to a halt. He said nothing. His silence lasted so long I found myself piping up out of discomfort. "That's a very pregnant pause," I said. "I don't think I want to give an answer to that," he finally replied.So Gates does not have an answer to why he is getting so close to a regime that censors the internet and oppresses human rights. Gates is definitely showing that he cares only about money, that all of his philanthropy is little more and a failed attempt to clear his name for the history books.
Only because the high prices in the US and EU subsibize the cheap price in China. Could Micorosft sustain what it is currently doing if the price of Vista were the same everywhere as it is in China? Of course they couldn't.
I wonder how long it will be, once Vista gets a good foothold in China (i.e., has driven out all the competition), that the price of Vista will rise significantly?
I also wonder how Microsoft explains its new coziness with the regime in China that severely oppresses human rights. What do Microsoft employees think of their company's financial and political support for such an oppressive regime?
It does show that a monopoly results in consumers paying a ridicuously high price for the merchandise.
"The measure of a man's real character is what he would do if he knew he would never be found out." --- Thomas B. Macaulay
OK, maybe I'm not of two minds. I think that those who got the extra money should have given it back. That would be The Right Thing To Do.
Did you ever give a store clerk a $10 bill and get change for a $20 bill? What did you do? I told the clerk of the mistake and gave back the extra $10. What's in your wallet? Ill-gotten money? Or money you deserve to have?
I would be very wary if Microsoft tries to look as if they want to cooperate with the Open Source community.
Perhaps for your purposes. However, the CVS license it not consistent with the goals and philosophies of OpenBSD. So they created OpenCVS with a license that is appropriate.
the main source of theo thinking SVN isn't secure, is because that control freak didn't write it himself.
Do you have a link pointing to his quote on that?
openssl and openssh are 2 packages responsible for huge security holes over the years, both of which are his babies.
OpenSSL is not Theo's "baby".
OpenSSH's security, while not perfect, has been excellent. Your unsubstantiated attribution of "huge security holes" to it seems to be intended as little more than a troll, since you did not provide any citations.
Now, if Yahoo would only use it on their own sites to find out why they are always so darn slow.
Innovative means that it will look like a polished turd, instead of a plain turd.
It certainly does. I recognize Firefox as having nearly as many security issues as IE. Opera is way better in the security area.
Given FireFox's history of security issues, I would tend to agree.
... they haven't even gotten Vista out of beta yet. Maybe Microsoft should focus on finishing Vista before they start working on the next version.
As a hiring manager, I would definitely be very skeptical of people "educated" in Kansas.
This is from the State University of a state that outlawed evolution in favor of creationism.
Google wanted to hire cheap H-1B people, instead they had to hire US Engineers. That is the reason for the salary costs that Wall Street was so concerned about.