"I can't think of a better way to open peoples eyes to the threat of virii than to revoke their internet privilages"
And I can't think of a better way to drive away your customers. Remember, from their point of view, the ISP isn't working; and there are plenty of others that will. This isn't the closed environment of a University.
As already mentioned, egress is one great solution.
I don't know about their revenue stream, but their expense stream should be between $5-10 Million a year. That's assuming each employee costs them between $100,000 to $200,000 with salary and benefits.
I'm a little surprised that the industry sponsers aren't keeping up with this. Surely RedHat, IBM, Monte Vista, Wind River, et. al. are making far, far more on Open Source than a measly $10 Million a year?
Yes, but that's just a subset of the number of MIPS CPUs which are out there. Most of the MIPS cores don't have Java available. You explicitly have to go to an effort to put Java on a MIPS core. There really isn't much business around to support the marketplace for doing do.
Good luck on finding a job. You might consider moving out to Silicon Valley to better your chances of getting a job there. Or making contacts with people in the Open Source area where you want to work; getting involved with the projects which interest you, and asking questions.
So tell me, how many MIPS boxes does Java run on, exactly? Or, for that matter, all the other CPU's which make up the vast majority of systems in the world. I'm talking embedded here, not servers and clients.
Wake me up when you move out of the x86/sparc space into the real world.
Oh, please, spare me. I can show you a number of so-called "professional" boxes which will break under a load that I can throw at it.
The really funny thing is that people doing "professional work" are doing so with pure blind trust in the manufacturer. Very, very few "professionals" bother with the most basic of QA. They just open the box, plug it in, and run, based on pure blind faith.
I've worked with various computer companies, being involved with the bring-up of a wide variety of hardware, from workstations, servers, storage arrays, and what have you. The practices in this industry are generally quite sloppy. The engineering is typically rushed, the QA is rushed (and usually done by people who really don't know what real QA is). It's all about getting the systems out the door quickly, with as low cost as possible.
Unless you've run memtest86 on your system for a while, you really don't know if the RAM you're using has some bad spots, do you? If it does, well, that means your calculations are now suspect as well.
But no, it's easier to stick your head in the sand, and ignore that possibility.
If you really are depending on the results from your box, you should start with the basics, at the least. Memtest86 ought to be run on every new box you get. And you should go through a burn-in cycle. Plus put a load on your system for a while, just to make certain that the thermal cooling in the case, and the room, are indeed adequate. This is just the basics, IMO. You'd be surprised at how many bad systems I catch with just that; including systems that are in a production environment.
I can guarantee you that I can put together an overclocked system which is more solid than most (if not all) machines put out by OEMs. But that's because I know how to spec the parts, and QA them before I put them into production. Yes, it's extra work. But I've noticed that I have a lot fewer problems with my systems than other people do, and this saves me time over the long run.
So please spare me the snobbery; it's just a mask for ignorance.
Nice troll yourself. You make it seem as if all was well and good at Apple at the time, and they had money to spare. And to downplay the importance of the Microsoft's investment.
So, far from everything being rosy, and this just being another deal, it was viewed at the time (and still is) as being a deal which kept Apple going. If you'll recall, Jobs and Gates were far from the best of chums before this.
"I think Apple's biggest 80s flop was letting Microsoft get away with Windows... "
Perhaps. But let's not forget that letting IBM get away with the IBM PC stealing the market is just as big a mistake; one which almost resulted in Apple going bankrupt during the 90's (or whenever it was that Gates had to pump in money to keep Apple afloat).
And, to all the people asking "Is this news?", yes it is. Apple may well be on the way to repeating these mistakes with their latest technology. I swear, their moves with the iPod and iTunes (and the resulting moves by their competitors) really remind me of Apples' previous mistakes back in the 80's. The real question is whether Apple has learned from the past, or whether they are going to repeat history and let their competitors take the market away from them.
I'd like to see Apple succeed. But I suspect that what's happening now may result in the market that Apple invented being taken away from them. Again.
"Anyone know what the outcome of [the Adaptec] fiasco was?"
Yes. The hackathon after this one will be held on-site at Adaptec.
Alas, Adaptec doesn't know this yet.;)
Re:Java's biggest hole is in the embedded market.
on
Open source Java?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I agree, but there are quite a number of CPUs which do have the horsepower to run Java. Enough so that the selection of a non-Intel CPU is feasible and reasonable. It is a shame to see people restricted here simply because they thought Java was originally a good choice, based upon their experiences with x86.
I suppose that does give a competitor who knows what it is doing a leg up. But still, the point remains that the lack of Openess with Java is hindering its adoption on a good many CPUs.
As far as the low-end goes, we're starting to see serious strides here. There are now $3 32-bit Microcontrollers appearing. Granted, the horsepower is only on par with the 1990 CPU's. But if Moore's law holds, we should see Java capable CPU's in this space within 10 years (assuming Java doesn't get horribly bloated).
Java's biggest hole is in the embedded market.
on
Open source Java?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
You may well be right for PCs and Servers. But frankly, the current licensing scheme of Sun's Java is really getting in the way in the embedded space.
What typically happens is that some company has a neat idea for an embedded device. But they quickly find that the Java applications they want there won't fly because Java isn't supported on the hardware they were planning to use. They either have to fall back to a different CPU (which is usually more expensive), or pay a lot just to put Java on the CPU. Or go with C/C++ for their applications.
x86 and PPC are simply not the entire embedded world. There are many other superb (and cheaper) solutions out there, in this space. And no, Java support is far from prevalent on MIPS processors, despite what MIPS might try to claim. I know, as I've been there.
Please keep in mind that there are far more embedded CPUs around than there are PCs or Servers. So there is a clear need for Java, if it were available in this space. But it's not. gcc however, usually is, fortunately.
If Java were indeed Open Sourced, it just might be as popular as gcc is in the embedded space.
Until then, people in the embedded space have far more flexibility by going with C/C++ than with Java.
"you are forgetting the power of greed and a what a fat paycheque can do to sway opinion"
So who exactly is going to be reading a clearly unethical publication? Let them try and replace the staff which left. I for one will be viewing what the former Editorial staff has to say, because I respect them. I won't waste my time with SYS-CON's stuff any more. And I know I'm not alone.
In order to have greed, there has to be cash. And it seems like SYS-CON has managed to drive a lot of cash flow away.
After those statements by Kirccali yesterday, I was seriously wondering how anyone with any credibiity whatsoever could still be associated with SYS-CON. Which was hard, because there are some good folks there; and it was really sad to see this spill over and tarnish their reputations.
All I can say now is that I salute those who have resigned. There are some things more important than money, and one of them is being able to look yourself in the mirror each morning, squarely in the eye.
It is so refreshing to see that there are people with integrity around, especially with all the sleezy CEO's who seem to get so much press.
I don't know where the Senior Editors are going now. But whereever it is, I want to know so that I can start reading their publications.
Let's see, he interrupts the question before the point is made several times, insults the work PJ has done (even though he claims that to have never read Groklaw), and defends his publications' use of the term "elusive harridan" against PJ because "it was an accurate news story".
Oh yes, I can see that he's a bastion of high standards as far as Journalism goes.
Personally, I found his comments unbelieveable. One would think his goal would be to try to re-establish some sort of credibility with his readers. All he's accomplished is to drive people away.
I'm not sure what his goal was with his comments and attitude, but clearly it wasn't to improve relations with the Linux community, or to come across as an unbiased source for information.
Nice try at distracting from the original point without addressing it.
I suppose you condone then the original SCO's claims that they were
going to steal all the IP from Linux that they needed. I suppose
that you condone their FUD campaigns against Linux. And I suppose you
condone the original SCO's attempts to discredit the contributors
to Linux.
Clearly you could care less about these things. But please,
if you're going to shill for the original SCO, at least be honest about it.
You're welcome. I'm glad you found a good UNIX platform back then.
I'd put the old SCO somewhere above "normal corporate evil", and lower than the evilness being put out by Daryl McBride. SCO was certainly at least a cut above everyone else in this way.
If one wanted to learn these ways, all one had to do way to study from them. They were masters of dirty tricks, and took apparent joy from screwing over people; including their own employees, and especially some of the original employees.
They even managed to screw over Microsoft in a contract deal, which says something. But they soon made up, and were locked at the hip with Microsoft, including using Microsoft to help stifle competition.
Oh no; to categorize the old SCO as "normal corporate evil" is insulting to SCO's skills, and gives too much credit to most corporations, IMHO.;)
Oh, how soon people forget. The old SCO was quite evil. The littany is extensive; where to begin?
The old SCO absolutely, positively despised Linux. Linux was a competitor, and the old SCO did everything they could against it. FUD, legal threats and dirty tricks were standard operating proceedure for the old SCO against any and all competitors.
Here are some excerpts from the CEO of SCO then, Doug Michels.
"Linux didn't break any new ground."
"So now we've got some punk young kids who've taken and engineered pieces around the Unix [kernel]. "
"As far as I'm concerned, [Linux} is free R&D [for us]".
In a different interview, Michels claimed he was going to steal everything they needed from Linux and put it into UNIX.
So, yes, the old SCO was very evil, and very hostile against Linux.
So it's fitting that Sun is aquiring the old SCO. Sun is no friend to Open Source, and has helped fund the current lawsuit against IBM. In fact, I'd say that it's fitting that two companies which hate Open Source are teaming up more closely.
Blackberries only work with Microsoft Email products. RIM has explicitly refused to work with Linux servers. Please DO correct me if this has changed recently, as this has been a major impediment towards moving to a Linux-only shop. The Marketing and Sales guys always insist on having their Blackberries, and that in turn requires a Windows server.
Perhaps now that Microsoft is jumping into RIM's turf, RIM will realize their screwup here, and start adding support for Linux servers.
This would be great, in that a number of companies I know of could ditch the last reason they have for using any Microsoft servers (and paying through the nose for them, I might add).
No, I remember it well. That's why I said "for most" of the last century. Before the late 80's, their recruiters were bragging about how they didn't have layoffs, even during the Great Depression.
This is something which isn't mentioned in the original article. Those people who signed up with IBM 20 years ago probably went into it thinking they were set for life.
For almost all of the last century, when you worked at IBM, you were guaranteed a job for life. I don't know if people realize this, but IBM reportedly didn't have layoffs even during the Great Depression (which made the dot-com bust look like peanuts).
How times have changed. I'm sorry to hear about how this will impact the lives of all those people affected, directly and indirectly.
Well, to be honest, I hadn't missed your point at all; rather, I hadn't
responded to it, as that would take a bit of typing, and detract from
the other points. My apologies for not being clear about this.
I must respectfully and strongly disagree that it's pointless to lump
them together. Rather, I'd say that the differences don't detract from
the point that they have a common theme of amazing crookedness throughout
the history of SCO, as well as unique hostility towards competitors of their
UNIX/Xenix. This includes active hostility towards Linux.
To deny this is to lessen the unique place in history that SCO has earned for
itself. Let us please keep this in mind, as I think it's a worthy goal.
There was never any "friendliness" towards Linux, as the original article claimed.
I would agree that the original SCO and the current SCO are different in
key respects; however, they also have a lot of simularities. This is natural
corporate evolution.
These similarities include "Intellectual Property". And common structures, as well
as customers and distribution channels (at least until the lawsuit). In short,
they were selling themselves as the old SCO and acting like it.
If you're going to claim that it's pointless to lump them together, then you will
need to come up with a clear and convincing definition on how to distinguish
separate companies and apply it here. To me, it's simpler and more accurate to view
SCO's transitions as evolutionary. And typically so, as far as companies go.
Please keep in mind that SCO was a vastly different company in (say) 1984,
1994 and 2004. And under three different managers (actually, I've forgotten
when Doug took over, but it was around the mid 90's). Your definition
will have to be accurate for each of these phases as well.
Yes, they were under different top managers. But another key thing that they
shared was being run by utter crooks. Larry, Doug and Darryl each would not
only sell their grandmother for a buck, but they'd have no qualms whatsoever
of killing anyone who got in their way. None of them had any moral misgivings
about their deeds, which they displayed over and over again.
The only difference was of competance. Larry would do the kill and take the
buck. Doug would only succeed in wounding, but still get the buck. Darryl
would wound himself, and drop the dollar.:)
One has to expect that companies will change. They either do that or die.
So rather than being pointless, we have certain common themes throughout
SCO's history, that has survived all of its transitions.
I have no doubt whatsoever that either Larry or Doug would fill Darryl's
shoes in suing IBM. It would only be a simple matter of how much they could
get out of the bargain. And they would demand a premium from Microsoft, unlike
Darryl.
So in summary, I agree that SCO was a different company in all three main
phases of its history. But rather than being pointless to compare them, it
offers a better picture of history to keep in mind that the owners of the
SCO "brand" have always been actively hostile to Linux or other low-cost
UNIX competitors. This is, indeed, their tradition.
Ummm, that's a rather curious timeline. It's also apparently mistaken.
According to Caldera's
own website
it was:
2002 Caldera changes its name to The SCO Group (SCO), returning to the SCO brand.
2003 SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM
My point still stands, despite your curious error in this matter; this is
the second time that SCO (or the owners of the so-called "brand" name)
have partnered with Microsoft to bring a lawsuit in order to stifle
competition in the UNIX area.
Slashdot Mirror
And I can't think of a better way to drive away your customers. Remember, from their point of view, the ISP isn't working; and there are plenty of others that will. This isn't the closed environment of a University.
As already mentioned, egress is one great solution.
I'm a little surprised that the industry sponsers aren't keeping up with this. Surely RedHat, IBM, Monte Vista, Wind River, et. al. are making far, far more on Open Source than a measly $10 Million a year?
And those darn roaches are going to have their flying cars before I have mine!
Yes, but that's just a subset of the number of MIPS CPUs which are out there. Most of the MIPS cores don't have Java available. You explicitly have to go to an effort to put Java on a MIPS core. There really isn't much business around to support the marketplace for doing do.
Good luck on finding a job. You might consider moving out to Silicon Valley to better your chances of getting a job there. Or making contacts with people in the Open Source area where you want to work; getting involved with the projects which interest you, and asking questions.
So tell me, how many MIPS boxes does Java run on, exactly? Or, for that matter, all the other CPU's which make up the vast majority of systems in the world. I'm talking embedded here, not servers and clients. Wake me up when you move out of the x86/sparc space into the real world.
The really funny thing is that people doing "professional work" are doing so with pure blind trust in the manufacturer. Very, very few "professionals" bother with the most basic of QA. They just open the box, plug it in, and run, based on pure blind faith.
I've worked with various computer companies, being involved with the bring-up of a wide variety of hardware, from workstations, servers, storage arrays, and what have you. The practices in this industry are generally quite sloppy. The engineering is typically rushed, the QA is rushed (and usually done by people who really don't know what real QA is). It's all about getting the systems out the door quickly, with as low cost as possible.
Unless you've run memtest86 on your system for a while, you really don't know if the RAM you're using has some bad spots, do you? If it does, well, that means your calculations are now suspect as well.
But no, it's easier to stick your head in the sand, and ignore that possibility.
If you really are depending on the results from your box, you should start with the basics, at the least. Memtest86 ought to be run on every new box you get. And you should go through a burn-in cycle. Plus put a load on your system for a while, just to make certain that the thermal cooling in the case, and the room, are indeed adequate. This is just the basics, IMO. You'd be surprised at how many bad systems I catch with just that; including systems that are in a production environment.
I can guarantee you that I can put together an overclocked system which is more solid than most (if not all) machines put out by OEMs. But that's because I know how to spec the parts, and QA them before I put them into production. Yes, it's extra work. But I've noticed that I have a lot fewer problems with my systems than other people do, and this saves me time over the long run.
So please spare me the snobbery; it's just a mask for ignorance.
Exactly. That's way the new marketing slogan "Wave your money away" isn't the smartest thing I've ever heard. :)
Here's a more thorough article about what Jobs did "to save Apple" referencing a PBS article. http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/july97/0632.html
And here's another one, with some quotes:
"For right now, though, a $150 million investment really does keep Apple going"
"Well, the $150 million gets Apple a little new lease on life."
See: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/cyberspace/july-dec 97/apple_8-6.html
So, far from everything being rosy, and this just being another deal, it was viewed at the time (and still is) as being a deal which kept Apple going. If you'll recall, Jobs and Gates were far from the best of chums before this.
Perhaps. But let's not forget that letting IBM get away with the IBM PC stealing the market is just as big a mistake; one which almost resulted in Apple going bankrupt during the 90's (or whenever it was that Gates had to pump in money to keep Apple afloat).
And, to all the people asking "Is this news?", yes it is. Apple may well be on the way to repeating these mistakes with their latest technology. I swear, their moves with the iPod and iTunes (and the resulting moves by their competitors) really remind me of Apples' previous mistakes back in the 80's. The real question is whether Apple has learned from the past, or whether they are going to repeat history and let their competitors take the market away from them.
I'd like to see Apple succeed. But I suspect that what's happening now may result in the market that Apple invented being taken away from them. Again.
Yes. The hackathon after this one will be held on-site at Adaptec.
Alas, Adaptec doesn't know this yet. ;)
I suppose that does give a competitor who knows what it is doing a leg up. But still, the point remains that the lack of Openess with Java is hindering its adoption on a good many CPUs.
As far as the low-end goes, we're starting to see serious strides here. There are now $3 32-bit Microcontrollers appearing. Granted, the horsepower is only on par with the 1990 CPU's. But if Moore's law holds, we should see Java capable CPU's in this space within 10 years (assuming Java doesn't get horribly bloated).
What typically happens is that some company has a neat idea for an embedded device. But they quickly find that the Java applications they want there won't fly because Java isn't supported on the hardware they were planning to use. They either have to fall back to a different CPU (which is usually more expensive), or pay a lot just to put Java on the CPU. Or go with C/C++ for their applications.
x86 and PPC are simply not the entire embedded world. There are many other superb (and cheaper) solutions out there, in this space. And no, Java support is far from prevalent on MIPS processors, despite what MIPS might try to claim. I know, as I've been there.
Please keep in mind that there are far more embedded CPUs around than there are PCs or Servers. So there is a clear need for Java, if it were available in this space. But it's not. gcc however, usually is, fortunately.
If Java were indeed Open Sourced, it just might be as popular as gcc is in the embedded space. Until then, people in the embedded space have far more flexibility by going with C/C++ than with Java.
So who exactly is going to be reading a clearly unethical publication? Let them try and replace the staff which left. I for one will be viewing what the former Editorial staff has to say, because I respect them. I won't waste my time with SYS-CON's stuff any more. And I know I'm not alone.
In order to have greed, there has to be cash. And it seems like SYS-CON has managed to drive a lot of cash flow away.
All I can say now is that I salute those who have resigned. There are some things more important than money, and one of them is being able to look yourself in the mirror each morning, squarely in the eye.
It is so refreshing to see that there are people with integrity around, especially with all the sleezy CEO's who seem to get so much press.
I don't know where the Senior Editors are going now. But whereever it is, I want to know so that I can start reading their publications.
Oh yes, I can see that he's a bastion of high standards as far as Journalism goes.
Personally, I found his comments unbelieveable. One would think his goal would be to try to re-establish some sort of credibility with his readers. All he's accomplished is to drive people away.
I'm not sure what his goal was with his comments and attitude, but clearly it wasn't to improve relations with the Linux community, or to come across as an unbiased source for information.
I suppose you condone then the original SCO's claims that they were going to steal all the IP from Linux that they needed. I suppose that you condone their FUD campaigns against Linux. And I suppose you condone the original SCO's attempts to discredit the contributors to Linux.
Clearly you could care less about these things. But please, if you're going to shill for the original SCO, at least be honest about it.
How soon people forget.
I'd put the old SCO somewhere above "normal corporate evil", and lower than the evilness being put out by Daryl McBride. SCO was certainly at least a cut above everyone else in this way.
If one wanted to learn these ways, all one had to do way to study from them. They were masters of dirty tricks, and took apparent joy from screwing over people; including their own employees, and especially some of the original employees.
They even managed to screw over Microsoft in a contract deal, which says something. But they soon made up, and were locked at the hip with Microsoft, including using Microsoft to help stifle competition.
Oh no; to categorize the old SCO as "normal corporate evil" is insulting to SCO's skills, and gives too much credit to most corporations, IMHO. ;)
The old SCO absolutely, positively despised Linux. Linux was a competitor, and the old SCO did everything they could against it. FUD, legal threats and dirty tricks were standard operating proceedure for the old SCO against any and all competitors.
For a sample of their mindset and FUD there's this interview: http://www.computerworld.com/news/1999/story/0,112 80,35431,00.html
Here are some excerpts from the CEO of SCO then, Doug Michels.
"Linux didn't break any new ground."
"So now we've got some punk young kids who've taken and engineered pieces around the Unix [kernel]. "
"As far as I'm concerned, [Linux} is free R&D [for us]".
In a different interview, Michels claimed he was going to steal everything they needed from Linux and put it into UNIX.
So, yes, the old SCO was very evil, and very hostile against Linux.
So it's fitting that Sun is aquiring the old SCO. Sun is no friend to Open Source, and has helped fund the current lawsuit against IBM. In fact, I'd say that it's fitting that two companies which hate Open Source are teaming up more closely.
Blackberries only work with Microsoft Email products. RIM has explicitly refused to work with Linux servers. Please DO correct me if this has changed recently, as this has been a major impediment towards moving to a Linux-only shop. The Marketing and Sales guys always insist on having their Blackberries, and that in turn requires a Windows server.
Perhaps now that Microsoft is jumping into RIM's turf, RIM will realize their screwup here, and start adding support for Linux servers.
This would be great, in that a number of companies I know of could ditch the last reason they have for using any Microsoft servers (and paying through the nose for them, I might add).
That's a valid point; and there certainly were a lot of slackers from what I heard.
I submit though that it sounds a lot better than the sweatshops which have emerged and become so common since the dotcom crash.
I heard HP was a great place to work at too, before Fiorina, if you were (heaven forbit) actually raising a family.
It's a different world now, as one already mentioned. I think not for the better.
This is something which isn't mentioned in the original article. Those people who signed up with IBM 20 years ago probably went into it thinking they were set for life.
How times have changed. I'm sorry to hear about how this will impact the lives of all those people affected, directly and indirectly.
I must respectfully and strongly disagree that it's pointless to lump them together. Rather, I'd say that the differences don't detract from the point that they have a common theme of amazing crookedness throughout the history of SCO, as well as unique hostility towards competitors of their UNIX/Xenix. This includes active hostility towards Linux.
To deny this is to lessen the unique place in history that SCO has earned for itself. Let us please keep this in mind, as I think it's a worthy goal.
There was never any "friendliness" towards Linux, as the original article claimed.
I would agree that the original SCO and the current SCO are different in key respects; however, they also have a lot of simularities. This is natural corporate evolution.
These similarities include "Intellectual Property". And common structures, as well as customers and distribution channels (at least until the lawsuit). In short, they were selling themselves as the old SCO and acting like it.
If you're going to claim that it's pointless to lump them together, then you will need to come up with a clear and convincing definition on how to distinguish separate companies and apply it here. To me, it's simpler and more accurate to view SCO's transitions as evolutionary. And typically so, as far as companies go.
Please keep in mind that SCO was a vastly different company in (say) 1984, 1994 and 2004. And under three different managers (actually, I've forgotten when Doug took over, but it was around the mid 90's). Your definition will have to be accurate for each of these phases as well.
Yes, they were under different top managers. But another key thing that they shared was being run by utter crooks. Larry, Doug and Darryl each would not only sell their grandmother for a buck, but they'd have no qualms whatsoever of killing anyone who got in their way. None of them had any moral misgivings about their deeds, which they displayed over and over again.
The only difference was of competance. Larry would do the kill and take the buck. Doug would only succeed in wounding, but still get the buck. Darryl would wound himself, and drop the dollar. :)
One has to expect that companies will change. They either do that or die. So rather than being pointless, we have certain common themes throughout SCO's history, that has survived all of its transitions.
I have no doubt whatsoever that either Larry or Doug would fill Darryl's shoes in suing IBM. It would only be a simple matter of how much they could get out of the bargain. And they would demand a premium from Microsoft, unlike Darryl.
So in summary, I agree that SCO was a different company in all three main phases of its history. But rather than being pointless to compare them, it offers a better picture of history to keep in mind that the owners of the SCO "brand" have always been actively hostile to Linux or other low-cost UNIX competitors. This is, indeed, their tradition.
2002 Caldera changes its name to The SCO Group (SCO), returning to the SCO brand.
2003 SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM
My point still stands, despite your curious error in this matter; this is the second time that SCO (or the owners of the so-called "brand" name) have partnered with Microsoft to bring a lawsuit in order to stifle competition in the UNIX area.