"You're happy with you AMD700 box; want to maintain status quo. Yet, you want to change your system to Linux. That's quite the reach from status quo"
If you define "being supported by its producer" as part of the lost 'statu quo' you aim to recover, then migration from Win98 to anything (supported) else makes perfect sense, don't you think so?
"That is assuming the Company can gather a team of Asterisk people"
If a "general purpouse" company can't an "Asterisk Support Company" certainly will do. And probably the combination of the "Talented Asterisk Guys"+"Asterisk The Platform That Do The Stuff" will bring the "Cisco Killer Of Tomorrow" that will allow both for a cheaper and more featurefull telephony for everybody in the mid/long term.
It is not as if it were all novelty but the way IT Corps has been evolving from its inception.
"Asterisk will have a better chance if there is a RedHat/Novel/Microsoft/IBM Backup"
And how do you think RedHat/Novel/Microsoft/IBM get to backup "The Next Technology" or even went to become a Big One capable to backup anything but hiring talented guys from University that experimented for the cheap with new expensive technologies?
"Is it really of the most value to teach elementary school kids about using Linux?"
Yes.
"What benefit do they have here?"
Two at least: 1) Since it's not a maintstream system it will teach them the abstractions that makes a PC being a PC just by looking what has in common a "proper computer" (that with Windows) and "our school's" (the Linux thingie). It's a known fact that the exceptions have a great potential to teach about the mainstream. 2) Since it's an open source system it gives the chance to think about politics, ethics and economics (quite interesting things to think about in *all* curriculum subjects) they wouldn't otherwise.
"What percentage will ever use that knowledge in a IT type job, and what percentage will go up to Windows workstations later in life"
Just look at the time *you* where at school. Do you really have so many chances to currently apply what you learnt about Windows 3.11 or even Windows 95 on your current Windows XP? You seem to think that because it's called "windows" is just the same. There's no more differences between a Linux+KDE (or Gnome, or even Fluxbox) and a Windows XP than that from Windows 3.1 and Windows XP, not to talk about Ms DOS.
"and declare that they have no idea how to do anything because they've been using CLI to do everything up until junior high!"
You must be kidding! Just think about it for a moment: Case A) Somebody that for the last six years has been exposed to the ugly CLI you talk about; who knows everything about Bash scripting; about how to configure a network card and why; what an interruption is and why it's interesting to know the hardware within the box suddenly exposed (as a mere user) to Windows XP. Case B) Somebody that for the last six years has been exposed to Windows XP who find extremly difficult to reach http://www.slashdot.org/ if only the "Big Blue E that means the Internet" is moved from top left to bottom right within the desktop suddenly exposed (as a mere user)... to anything else.
Which one do you really think will have a worse time to adapt to his new environment? Linux should be use in schools if only because it's lightyears more didactic than Windows.
You told it: system *requirements*. On a 386 with 4 megs Win95 was almost a no-go... to the point Win3.11 was preferable. Win95 asked for a 486 with 8 megs.
Surely you won't have a "proper experience" on Linux today not even with one of those due to current expectations. Anyway, even the 386 with 4MB will do flabergashting X drones with any of the "terminal projects" overthere as long as you can count with a server with about 70 megs a node (that is, less that 1GB RAM for 10 to 20 clients) even for a Gnome/KDE full fledged desktop.
"why not order a bunch of components from Newegg, or somewhere similar, and build computers as part of the education exercise?"
You certainly named it! It's quite an interesting experiment for them. For the most aged even the network cabling would be within goals.
"Sorry, we're talking real applications with keyboards here, not POS machines"
This single sentence resumes it all: No, we are not talking about what you think we are talking about.
Specifically, we are *not* talking about just PCs under a single administrative control; we are talking about *any* kind of electronic device under securized authentication/authorization: PCs under the companie's administrative control, yes, but the electronic alarm in the door too, and the whole bunch of routers within our networks, and the hugher bunch of routers, firewalls... under our clients' control; and our DNSs regitrar's, and those of our clients', and...
Well, and yes: POS software is "real applications" too.
"Part of my responsibility is related to information security"
Information security requieres both deep technical knowledge and wide imagination. You seem to lack both of them.
See points 1 through 7.
So you read The Book and you are able to repeat it like a kakatoo. Good for you. Now what?
About point 1: What if the system doesn't allow for multiple administrative passwords (like i.e. a router or a network device)? Do you really want the one password to be known by just one person that can be on vacation or under the mythical overuling bus?
About point 2: If it's going to be a one-shot change, then why "reset" it; just give it a new one and don't change it; it doesn't add nothing. On the other way, what about devices that just can't apply a policy regarding their default password? Remember the military addagio: Mandate only what you are sure you can enforce.
About point 3: how is it that you are able to stablish a max for password life? Doesn't it depend on the strengh of the security system? On it's sensibleness? On the awareness of a breakeage? On sociological aspects like the fact that people WILL choose weak passwords or they WILL write down on easily accesible places if forced to change them too frecuently (for a variable range of "frecuently")?
About point 4: Just redundant. If only one can know a password, it's obvious you can share it with an administrator, not even when/if she sets it, thus, only the user himself can set it (and change it).
About point 5: If the password is to be used, even if it's only a one-shot, it can be used by whoever happens to know it... like the support personnel that resets it.
About point 6: Simple naivety. So you really think that when you are in a hurry/critical situation you should wait for a "security officer" to produce a "written permission" to access the resource? What kind of "urgent access" is this?
About point 7: Tell it to any device with just a numeric pad, for instance. And of course you will piss somebody if you use a random password for anything which is to be used in the real world. You will piss the user that will have to memorize a ten random alphanumeric char string and you will certainlypiss the company that tried to secure the resource since its obvious that unmemorizable password will be written down somewhere near the resource.
I'd be very worried if you were doing something "related to information security" on my company.
"You're not redistributing it if you wrote it. You're distributing it."
Maybe that's why the GPL says "distribute" and not "redistribute" (see i.e. 2B: "You must cause any work that you DISTRIBUTE or publish..." -my remark).
"The GPL is a license which grants people other than the author certain rights"
Of course, since the author already had such rights to begin with.
"Schilling cannot be told he cannot choose a different license for new code"
Nobody has said anything diferent.
"Debian has code which was licensed to them under the GPL"
By who? The author? Any "third party" that LEGALLY got the code "somewhere else"? If *you* didn't pass me the code *you* have no bussiness about what can I do with it (provided I got the code legally).
"I don't see anything anywhere in the GPL saying that the copyright holder cannot revoke the license of a third party, only that the redistributor cannot."
You won't see that the author can revoke it unless some very specific situations are met (basically, the unability from the distributor side to abide to the GPL and some other law/patent grant, etc.). Regarding its conditions a license is no different from a contract: two parts stablished a relationship and from that moment on them both are abode to respect it. You (the distributor) acorded to give me a non-limited license for redistribution; you *must* respect this. I (the licensee) acorded the redistribution to be in such and such terms; I *must* respect them.
"I don't see anything here other than speculation about Schilling planning to revoke the GPL"
Well, I wouldn't say this specific thread is about Schilling doing this or that but about the general case regarding if these kinds of things can or cannot be done.
"That is not entirely correct. You can legally revoke a license at any time."
Not this one, because the license terms themselves:
"2.b) ou must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License....and... 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions."
Given them both together it means that while it might be within your powers to revoke the license to those you directly distributed to (since it's a matter about *you* and someone else, and even then, as you properly stated, it will be quite difficult to convince a judge you can break the confidence of your licensees without a really strong reason), you can't deal on something that it is not your bussiness, that is, the deal among "second tier" redistributors and their receptors. So you, as most, can avoid people that recieved copies directly from you to further redistribute, but you won't be able to avoid redistribution from people that didn't get the code from you, much less those that got the code neither from you nor you direct "clients".
"Of course, we were trained on Word Perfect...since that is what *everybody* used."
Which obviously has so much to do with the fact that almost everybody uses Ms Word *now*.
"I had spent a crap load of money and got to learn a word processor that nobody was using, I would have been highly pissed."
Yeah, children are upset everytime about what the adults try to teach them instead of what they *know* it's in their best interest/irony off
"it isn't fair to say that a head IT person is a complete moron or doesn't know about alternatives, when tons of businesses use Word..."
It isn't too clever to abuse the "1000 million flies can't be wrong, so eat shit". There are quite a lot not so clever things done by thousand or even millions of people. The big numbers don't make them any more clever.
"I'm not a big fan of public schools, but one of the things most people want, is for their kids to be taught something useful in the "real world.""
Even if that were my opinion (and about "public school" remember you are talking about "USA public school", there are other countries and other "public schools") I bet learning by the age of 12 about using "A Word Processor" is much more useful than learning to use "Ms Word 2003" or OpenOffice.org 2.1.
"it could be that the head IT person thinks he is teaching what all the businesses are using. Or do you think that makes that person a moron?"
Yes: I do STRONGLY think that such a thought by anyone having anything to do with youngsters education is a complete moron beyond hope. Maybe you can stand having such a naive opinion *if* you don't have the power for that kind of decision (after all, everbody -me included, tend to have naive opinions about everything beyond our usual scope).
"And yes, by 2015 people will still use something that looks like Word"
No: they surely won't, specially not like Ms Word 2003 (since they earn money by license fees, Microsoft is condemned to climb the feature-hill, so you can bet Ms Word 2015 won't resemble too much 2003, or else there won't be "Microsoft" no more by those days). They still will use something that looks like "A Word Processor". And you can bet that in order to really learn about what kind of a beast such "A Word Processor" is, they will be better using a variety of them to reach the essence about what do they have in common (so learning what makes a word processor and what is just bells and whistles) or, at least, using a not so common one in order for them to learn to separate the general functionalities from those associated with a given brand (much like using a fountain pen to learn how to write: they'll have plenty of time to write with a ball pen like most people do). Changing scenarios a bit, that would avoid, for instance, people thinking that "The Internet" is -literally, "The Program With The Big E On My Computer Desktop" that comes from learning about it only using Ms Internet Explorer and failing to explain what's the program (and its functionalities) and what's the concept beyond it.
Again, in order to succeed teaching some "ofimatics" is not needed to learn the latest and cutest trick from Ms Word (or any other word processor) which, anyway, won't be there in some years in the future, but learn the basics and the commonalities about *all* of them so no matter what the future brings those young fellows will be able to cope with it.
"that maybe the people in charge want to train the kids on what businesses actually use?"
No, they don't. They make their decisions on the IT field out of the greatest ignorance, you can bet it.
And even if they did for the reason you exposed (but they don't) just some practical cases: in the late 70's/early 80's, Apple managed to fill universities and schools with their Macs; Apple is still collecting benefits from that movement (they avoided bankrupcy while all the other domestic computer/os manufacters -Sinclair, Amstrad, Dragon, Commodore... failed). In the 80's Sun managed to fill universities with their Suns; then, when the dot.com boom came what did bussiness use? Sun, of course.
For all the "basic/commoditiy stuff" (and that includes basic office computer usage nowadays) is not "teaching what bussiness use" but "bussines will use what we teach".
As a last note, do you really think bussiness by 2015 (by the time ten-year-old boys start to be ready for the "bussiness world") will use anything that resembles Windows XP or Ms Office 2003 *even* if they still use Microsoft products? That's simply stupid!
"...the fact that many Linux users, I think, aren't used to buying software"
I am used to buy software.
It is not that I don't want to pay for software, my main concern is that paying for software is too much of a hassle.
I want, say, and office suite? Then I go with `apt-get install openoffice.org` and I'm done. Now, do I want to use Ms Office? It's not only that I must pay in order to use it; it is that I must go to Microsoft's site to learn if I have to pay for a single license, or a 5-license pack, or a corporate one; maybe I'm elegible for some kind of discount or rebate if I'm upgrading from a different Microsoft product, or an office suite from a rival... and then, I'll have to convince my company's bincounters to buy it, fill a ton of paperwork for the order to be produced; the EULA agreement will have to be approved by my company's attorneys (since every proprietary software vendor will have its own one; on open software for the most part is a matter for them to approve GPL or BSD and been done for quite a lot of different sofware packages). And then, once deployed, I'll have to actively seek for license compliance on my whole network, and even then, tomorrow I may have to go through the hassle of an auditory my company will have to pay for if the company vendor decides I have to show them I'm in compliance. Not to talk about machine-locked software. Do I want to use, say, Arc/Info? Add to the previous paragraph that if I want to move the software to a more powerful machine I just bougth I'll have to call ESRI to get a new CPU-bound lincense ID, and maybe I'll learn my product is supported no more, so they won't produce it; or maybe the software requieres a dongle and it breaks, or it's lost, or simply I go from OS versionX to OS versionX+1 which renders my licensing software nonfunctional and, again, my sofwtare version is now unsupported so I won't be able to migrate (not even able to try, the EULA is quite clear about it)...
You see, too much of a hassle, and I even didn't start on the technical benefits about going open source!
"The "Extend" in this sequence is extending the Microsoft product to be incompatible with the ones following the standard that they claim to have "embraced". I don't see what you are suggesting here"
There's about five people on "full time" mode on Firefox, but let's imagine there're 100.
Now you carefully choose 20% of them (just one on the lower situation, no more than 20 on the higher) and manage to convince them about the magic virtues of the Microsoft platform; now those 20% are expending more and more time "fine tuning" Firefox for Windows instead of working on other tasks; maybe you manage to introduce some "so much worthing you can avoid them" features on Firefox due to your relationship with those developers... unluckly those nifty features only work on Windows (maybe Ms Office related, for instance), not in unix-like platforms so, unluckily again "the OSS Firefox camp" divides itself: those that think the Microsoft-only features are terribly valuable and those that think OSS and OS independency is the way to go. A significative percentage of the later decide, for instance, move to Konqueror and abandon the Firefox project. At the same time Microsoft discovers that some of the "Microsoft side" Firefox developers are sooo valuable they decide to hire them to maximize their abilities (to be read: in two months you will have abandoned completly your work on Firefox).
That's just one scenario out of a bunch I can come with (and surely the think-tank on Redmond can add up some more); anyway in one/two years where you had a promising project you will have an stagnating one that can't compete with the new and revitalised IE7.x that happens to support those Ms-only nifty features... only better than Firefox and in the meantime you have managed to retain within Microsoft (200x/XP->Vista) those that might have though about a migration path 200x/XP->some linux.
"And yet again you say how IIS factors into the equation, when it quite clearly doesn't (a web server is generally agnostic to the browser you use or the HTML put on it...the discussion is irrelevant, even more so to a home user)."
Do you really think so? After all, it seems quite reasonable, doesn't it?
But now, please, follow me!
-In order for a web page to display properly disregarding IE cludges, where do you have to develop it? On Windows. -If you are kind of el-cheapo about your web developments (quite a huge percentage) what's the most probable platform for a "first stage" development server? The same as the developer's platform, since most of the time is one of the developers the one in charge of part-time sysadmining it. -And then, as everybody knows, "nobody will be fired by choosing IB^H^HMicrosoft"; since Microsoft's development tools are quite decent (at least for someone that can stand working on Windows) there's a nice chance for Ms (whatever) Studio to be choiced. -And then, if you develop it on Microsoft Windows and the "first devel" server is Windows too, what do you think it is the first candidate for the production server? Bet for Windows. But then, since Ms (whatever) Studio has quite a lot of nifty wizards and assitants in order to "...integrate the development process thus achiving highest rates of productivity" (at least that's what said a brigthly coloured brochure some PHB read some time ago) you won't use Apache on Windows (Apache, those redskin communist hippies that want to destroy corporate america giving away labour for free -the PHB knows it quite well, since he read a non-biased study about it on a serious economic magazine), you of course will use IIS. QED.
Now, you might think I'm being too fantasious, that it can never happen that way, but my story is scaringly true. Add it a bit of dumb techs/managers and that's what made Microsoft/IIS/Exchange, a system never designed to be exposed in the wild, to get an unthinkable 40-60% Internet share. It *already* happened.
"I believe it is a sign that Microsoft doesn't want to continue supporting and developing IE. "
I don't think so. Here is what I do believe:
I believe Microsoft knows how short in developers is the Firefox project "core" team.
*Even if only one of them refocus to this "subproject" a significative work force is "out of the game" making it easier for next IE version to fill the gap.
*And then, "making friends" on the Windows camp *may* mean some Firefox developing lines that could be "too unixy" would be avoided, now Microsoft is so lovely to insure Windows will be the best plaform for Firefox to be run on ("hey, Firefox runs better on Linux than in Windows" currently harms Microsoft more than Linux or Firefox itself).
*And then, the close contact between Firefox developers and Microsoft engineers *may* make one of the formers to "fall in love" with Microsoft enough to accept a juicy contract from the company thus making future Firefox development more aligned to whatever their interest are (if only because point one above).
*And then, some people *may* really believe that somehow Microsoft has abode to be a "good boy" after all, so good PR for them.
Yes, they are too many "may", but it's cheap cash for Microsoft that could provide quite good benefits for them.
"If I were Microsoft, I'd have to look at IE like a rathole that is having money poured into it."
I bet Microsoft really knows what has made it the utterly successful company it is today (in no particular order): *An ashtounding legal system that makes IP-based bussiness the most profitable ever designed by humankind... by huge margin *Their early start advantage *Their backwards binary compatibility *Dumbed users/sysadmins *Their development tools *Their office suite *Their ability to abuse their monopolistic positions *Marketing focused on high management and beancounters instead of technical positions/users
They could only be morons if they'd go against those principles and since I don't think they are morons, I always think that anything Microsoft does or plans is in accordance to them.
I don't think so. "Overbuget" can reasonabily mean one of either two things: Budgeted A, really costed when produced A+delta, or Budgeted as A, when it really costs A-delta.
The previous poster said that by paying lot of money to his project manager their projects went on bugdet, within specs and deadlines. That means that he budgeted the project as A and it costs to the client A or less, so the first meaning for "overbudget" is not an issue. For the second one (it's budgeted A, it really costs A-delta) it has to be demonstrated that these same projects, or others alike, could be achieved with less. Being this thread about how big projects wreak havoc, this is a non-issue too, since that project leadership achive goals so being the only one to be compared with, there's no point in saying it could have costed less: projects with cheaper project managers crash, so that's the proper budget for an effective project leadership. (now, for the usual car-comparation): a car with four wheels is not overbudgeted when you compare it whit a car with only three wheels because of the fourth wheel; those with four wheels work as expected, three-wheeled do not.
"So I guess you've found the way around it: Pick your consituents/customers carefully enough, and you won't have any significantly complex projects to worry about."
I think you have a point here. If you want your projects to succeed, pick a client you can success with. As long as there are enough clients of such a kind for you company to go profitable, there's no problem with such a policy. Problem arises (on the client side) when you can get a project doomed to fail and still you can make as much or even more money out of them. But then, who's the fool? the contractor that takes a project doomed to fail because it will be able to make (big money*three) out of it, or the client that fools out himself _once and again_?
"here's no way you could get away with paying your high-priced project manager like that if you had any beancounter non-technical oversight at all"
That's not the client problem but the contractor's one. He is the contractor, so there's no problem about who much he does pay to their project managers. It's the overall bill that counts.
"some would say your way is actualy LESS efficient"
That's true if clients allow their contractos to rise their benefit margins by accepting shit from them. Quite a common situation. But if the rest of the company also works the "proper way", and I'm speaking "proper marketing" here, it's just a matter of time potential clients will know the this company delivers "on time, on specs, on budget" while competitors won't. Proper marketing should have an easy day to convince prospective clients they allow a better deal by "undisclosing" hidden costs due to overtime, overbudget, undespec'ing if they go to their competitors. Thus, his way is quite efficient since it makes proper benefit and allows better company resilience over time.
"The only open-source tool I know of is called FindBugs developed by the University of Maryland"
|ironic mode on| It must be bullshit when the worst bugs/codelines ratio comes from Amanda... the Advanced Maryland Automatic Network Disk Archiver, from University of Maryland |ironic mode off|
"Ha! The same people who think their computer is broken when two windows overlap, also know how to spoof MAC addresses or pick IP addresses?"
You are suffering the myth about "all people except myself are dumb". You would be surprised how many advanced "tricks" those dumb users manage to know (certainly, for the most part it will be black magic to them, but they will know the trick). It's perfectly compatible thinking their computer is broken when two windows overlap and know how to change their MAC, I can tell you.
"Anyway, that's not the point. The idea is to minimize the number of Joes plugging completely anonymous machines into the LAN"
That's just OK, if you can get support from upper management for this. In too many situations this will be unaffordable, simply because management won't give enough power to you. You can block MAC addresses at the switch level, but if you can't have support from management so every new computer goes first to the IP departament for OS installation, inventory, etc. you will be doomed. And I can tell you people will learn about NATting their "unofficial" networks, about setting their own Wins servers and yes, learning how to change their MAC-address in order to use the one from a retired box that it is still on your databases.
In other words: you are just a tool for that people; it's their work the important one, and if you are to stablish a blocking policy, you better have the power to enforce it without the users seeing it as a blocker for their job, or they will find a workaround (that of cours, at the end will be much worse for everybody, but that's a different story).
"If a business complains or fears that OSS will be too complex, then, whether it's too complex or not, IT IS TOO COMPLEX"
Even when the company that so says is Microsoft?
Well, next time I hear from Coca-Cola that Pepsi sucks (or the other way around) I'll know it's true because, you know, when a bussiness complains or fears that Coke sucks it means IT SUCKS.
What a lot of people forget is that the internet is a world-wide thing. Not all distributions are native to "an English-speaking nation"
Like... you for one?
What's the problem pronouncing "ekiga" or "sabayon"? I can tell you that Quicktime and Outlook sound ridiculous in Spanish; still they come from great software companies, so they must be all right, mustn't they?
Your problem is exactly the one that maintains tons of people within Microsoft realms: whatever you are widely exposed, you feel "natural", anything else is "weird" on your account.
Microsoft? The ones that have it short and soft? Microsoft Windows? It must be due to the high number of security holes or something like this. Microsoft XP ? That's obviously an emoticon for laughing on your face and showing their tongue... quite a proper name, after all. Navision? Admiral Nelson's ability to win naval battles? Oracle? Read your future on your hand for a nickel? (reading it backwards makes it quite a proper name in Spanish: Elcaro transalates to "The expensive one") IBM? NBA? CIA? Boney-M? HP? (Spanish for son-of-a-gun)? Mac OS/X? What's that? Klingon?
In the very end, any short word without a clear meaning, more or less alternating wovels and consonants, so it maximizes probabilities to be pronounceable in most languages, with a proper marketing campaign backing it makes a good company/product name. The outshining paradigm? Kodak.
"but can't you do something with DHCP and MAC indentification?"
Yes you can. And what then?
"In short, any laptop, by definition, is always outside the firewall."
Till the moment they discover how to reconfigure their MAC to get a valid IP address (or just use a fixed IP from the proper pool); a thing they will do as soon as the policy goes in their way and expectations for the job to be done (like, "you need to mount this share to get this so important data for your this evening's presentation to that very important client).
If they really need to print or email or mount shares, then they should be using whatever sort of technology "(VPN, IMAP/SSL, etc) to do that outside the network"
What's the difference about port 445 traffic on the LAN or through an VPN? (VPN==Virtual LAN). The worm that can expand through the LAN surely can expand through the VPN (unless, of course, the VPN has stricter access rules than the LAN ifself, in which case those rules will be jumped over, see previous point).
Slashdot Mirror
"You're happy with you AMD700 box; want to maintain status quo.
Yet, you want to change your system to Linux.
That's quite the reach from status quo"
If you define "being supported by its producer" as part of the lost 'statu quo' you aim to recover, then migration from Win98 to anything (supported) else makes perfect sense, don't you think so?
"That is assuming the Company can gather a team of Asterisk people"
If a "general purpouse" company can't an "Asterisk Support Company" certainly will do. And probably the combination of the "Talented Asterisk Guys"+"Asterisk The Platform That Do The Stuff" will bring the "Cisco Killer Of Tomorrow" that will allow both for a cheaper and more featurefull telephony for everybody in the mid/long term.
It is not as if it were all novelty but the way IT Corps has been evolving from its inception.
"Asterisk will have a better chance if there is a RedHat/Novel/Microsoft/IBM Backup"
And how do you think RedHat/Novel/Microsoft/IBM get to backup "The Next Technology" or even went to become a Big One capable to backup anything but hiring talented guys from University that experimented for the cheap with new expensive technologies?
"Is it really of the most value to teach elementary school kids about using Linux?"
Yes.
"What benefit do they have here?"
Two at least:
1) Since it's not a maintstream system it will teach them the abstractions that makes a PC being a PC just by looking what has in common a "proper computer" (that with Windows) and "our school's" (the Linux thingie). It's a known fact that the exceptions have a great potential to teach about the mainstream.
2) Since it's an open source system it gives the chance to think about politics, ethics and economics (quite interesting things to think about in *all* curriculum subjects) they wouldn't otherwise.
"What percentage will ever use that knowledge in a IT type job, and what percentage will go up to Windows workstations later in life"
Just look at the time *you* where at school. Do you really have so many chances to currently apply what you learnt about Windows 3.11 or even Windows 95 on your current Windows XP? You seem to think that because it's called "windows" is just the same. There's no more differences between a Linux+KDE (or Gnome, or even Fluxbox) and a Windows XP than that from Windows 3.1 and Windows XP, not to talk about Ms DOS.
"and declare that they have no idea how to do anything because they've been using CLI to do everything up until junior high!"
You must be kidding! Just think about it for a moment:
Case A) Somebody that for the last six years has been exposed to the ugly CLI you talk about; who knows everything about Bash scripting; about how to configure a network card and why; what an interruption is and why it's interesting to know the hardware within the box suddenly exposed (as a mere user) to Windows XP.
Case B) Somebody that for the last six years has been exposed to Windows XP who find extremly difficult to reach http://www.slashdot.org/ if only the "Big Blue E that means the Internet" is moved from top left to bottom right within the desktop suddenly exposed (as a mere user)... to anything else.
Which one do you really think will have a worse time to adapt to his new environment? Linux should be use in schools if only because it's lightyears more didactic than Windows.
"System requirements for installing Windows 95"
You told it: system *requirements*. On a 386 with 4 megs Win95 was almost a no-go... to the point Win3.11 was preferable. Win95 asked for a 486 with 8 megs.
Surely you won't have a "proper experience" on Linux today not even with one of those due to current expectations. Anyway, even the 386 with 4MB will do flabergashting X drones with any of the "terminal projects" overthere as long as you can count with a server with about 70 megs a node (that is, less that 1GB RAM for 10 to 20 clients) even for a Gnome/KDE full fledged desktop.
"why not order a bunch of components from Newegg, or somewhere similar, and build computers as part of the education exercise?"
You certainly named it! It's quite an interesting experiment for them. For the most aged even the network cabling would be within goals.
"Sorry, we're talking real applications with keyboards here, not POS machines"
This single sentence resumes it all: No, we are not talking about what you think we are talking about.
Specifically, we are *not* talking about just PCs under a single administrative control; we are talking about *any* kind of electronic device under securized authentication/authorization: PCs under the companie's administrative control, yes, but the electronic alarm in the door too, and the whole bunch of routers within our networks, and the hugher bunch of routers, firewalls... under our clients' control; and our DNSs regitrar's, and those of our clients', and...
Well, and yes: POS software is "real applications" too.
"If I used 1l9a1w6 (...) Next month it could be as6lack0by (...) how about j2e5p9a1rit"
I can bet you *used* all of them, and I almost sure you are using at least one of those three *currently*.
I bet more: I bet you don't use more than a dozen of them and then rotate.
"Part of my responsibility is related to information security"
Information security requieres both deep technical knowledge and wide imagination. You seem to lack both of them.
See points 1 through 7.
So you read The Book and you are able to repeat it like a kakatoo. Good for you. Now what?
About point 1: What if the system doesn't allow for multiple administrative passwords (like i.e. a router or a network device)? Do you really want the one password to be known by just one person that can be on vacation or under the mythical overuling bus?
About point 2: If it's going to be a one-shot change, then why "reset" it; just give it a new one and don't change it; it doesn't add nothing. On the other way, what about devices that just can't apply a policy regarding their default password? Remember the military addagio: Mandate only what you are sure you can enforce.
About point 3: how is it that you are able to stablish a max for password life? Doesn't it depend on the strengh of the security system? On it's sensibleness? On the awareness of a breakeage? On sociological aspects like the fact that people WILL choose weak passwords or they WILL write down on easily accesible places if forced to change them too frecuently (for a variable range of "frecuently")?
About point 4: Just redundant. If only one can know a password, it's obvious you can share it with an administrator, not even when/if she sets it, thus, only the user himself can set it (and change it).
About point 5: If the password is to be used, even if it's only a one-shot, it can be used by whoever happens to know it... like the support personnel that resets it.
About point 6: Simple naivety. So you really think that when you are in a hurry/critical situation you should wait for a "security officer" to produce a "written permission" to access the resource? What kind of "urgent access" is this?
About point 7: Tell it to any device with just a numeric pad, for instance. And of course you will piss somebody if you use a random password for anything which is to be used in the real world. You will piss the user that will have to memorize a ten random alphanumeric char string and you will certainlypiss the company that tried to secure the resource since its obvious that unmemorizable password will be written down somewhere near the resource.
I'd be very worried if you were doing something "related to information security" on my company.
"Sorry, but that's simply not correct. The terms you indicate do not have the effect you describe."
Of course not, silly me! Thanks for enlighting us.
"You're not redistributing it if you wrote it. You're distributing it."
Maybe that's why the GPL says "distribute" and not "redistribute" (see i.e. 2B: "You must cause any work that you DISTRIBUTE or publish..." -my remark).
"The GPL is a license which grants people other than the author certain rights"
Of course, since the author already had such rights to begin with.
"Schilling cannot be told he cannot choose a different license for new code"
Nobody has said anything diferent.
"Debian has code which was licensed to them under the GPL"
By who? The author? Any "third party" that LEGALLY got the code "somewhere else"? If *you* didn't pass me the code *you* have no bussiness about what can I do with it (provided I got the code legally).
"I don't see anything anywhere in the GPL saying that the copyright holder cannot revoke the license of a third party, only that the redistributor cannot."
You won't see that the author can revoke it unless some very specific situations are met (basically, the unability from the distributor side to abide to the GPL and some other law/patent grant, etc.). Regarding its conditions a license is no different from a contract: two parts stablished a relationship and from that moment on them both are abode to respect it. You (the distributor) acorded to give me a non-limited license for redistribution; you *must* respect this. I (the licensee) acorded the redistribution to be in such and such terms; I *must* respect them.
"I don't see anything here other than speculation about Schilling planning to revoke the GPL"
Well, I wouldn't say this specific thread is about Schilling doing this or that but about the general case regarding if these kinds of things can or cannot be done.
"That is not entirely correct. You can legally revoke a license at any time."
...and...
Not this one, because the license terms themselves:
"2.b) ou must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions."
Given them both together it means that while it might be within your powers to revoke the license to those you directly distributed to (since it's a matter about *you* and someone else, and even then, as you properly stated, it will be quite difficult to convince a judge you can break the confidence of your licensees without a really strong reason), you can't deal on something that it is not your bussiness, that is, the deal among "second tier" redistributors and their receptors. So you, as most, can avoid people that recieved copies directly from you to further redistribute, but you won't be able to avoid redistribution from people that didn't get the code from you, much less those that got the code neither from you nor you direct "clients".
"Of course, we were trained on Word Perfect...since that is what *everybody* used."
/irony off
Which obviously has so much to do with the fact that almost everybody uses Ms Word *now*.
"I had spent a crap load of money and got to learn a word processor that nobody was using, I would have been highly pissed."
Yeah, children are upset everytime about what the adults try to teach them instead of what they *know* it's in their best interest
"it isn't fair to say that a head IT person is a complete moron or doesn't know about alternatives, when tons of businesses use Word..."
It isn't too clever to abuse the "1000 million flies can't be wrong, so eat shit". There are quite a lot not so clever things done by thousand or even millions of people. The big numbers don't make them any more clever.
"I'm not a big fan of public schools, but one of the things most people want, is for their kids to be taught something useful in the "real world.""
Even if that were my opinion (and about "public school" remember you are talking about "USA public school", there are other countries and other "public schools") I bet learning by the age of 12 about using "A Word Processor" is much more useful than learning to use "Ms Word 2003" or OpenOffice.org 2.1.
"it could be that the head IT person thinks he is teaching what all the businesses are using. Or do you think that makes that person a moron?"
Yes: I do STRONGLY think that such a thought by anyone having anything to do with youngsters education is a complete moron beyond hope. Maybe you can stand having such a naive opinion *if* you don't have the power for that kind of decision (after all, everbody -me included, tend to have naive opinions about everything beyond our usual scope).
"And yes, by 2015 people will still use something that looks like Word"
No: they surely won't, specially not like Ms Word 2003 (since they earn money by license fees, Microsoft is condemned to climb the feature-hill, so you can bet Ms Word 2015 won't resemble too much 2003, or else there won't be "Microsoft" no more by those days). They still will use something that looks like "A Word Processor". And you can bet that in order to really learn about what kind of a beast such "A Word Processor" is, they will be better using a variety of them to reach the essence about what do they have in common (so learning what makes a word processor and what is just bells and whistles) or, at least, using a not so common one in order for them to learn to separate the general functionalities from those associated with a given brand (much like using a fountain pen to learn how to write: they'll have plenty of time to write with a ball pen like most people do). Changing scenarios a bit, that would avoid, for instance, people thinking that "The Internet" is -literally, "The Program With The Big E On My Computer Desktop" that comes from learning about it only using Ms Internet Explorer and failing to explain what's the program (and its functionalities) and what's the concept beyond it.
Again, in order to succeed teaching some "ofimatics" is not needed to learn the latest and cutest trick from Ms Word (or any other word processor) which, anyway, won't be there in some years in the future, but learn the basics and the commonalities about *all* of them so no matter what the future brings those young fellows will be able to cope with it.
"that maybe the people in charge want to train the kids on what businesses actually use?"
No, they don't. They make their decisions on the IT field out of the greatest ignorance, you can bet it.
And even if they did for the reason you exposed (but they don't) just some practical cases: in the late 70's/early 80's, Apple managed to fill universities and schools with their Macs; Apple is still collecting benefits from that movement (they avoided bankrupcy while all the other domestic computer/os manufacters -Sinclair, Amstrad, Dragon, Commodore... failed). In the 80's Sun managed to fill universities with their Suns; then, when the dot.com boom came what did bussiness use? Sun, of course.
For all the "basic/commoditiy stuff" (and that includes basic office computer usage nowadays) is not "teaching what bussiness use" but "bussines will use what we teach".
As a last note, do you really think bussiness by 2015 (by the time ten-year-old boys start to be ready for the "bussiness world") will use anything that resembles Windows XP or Ms Office 2003 *even* if they still use Microsoft products? That's simply stupid!
"He appears to have no interest in the practical outcome of his evangelism"
Heck! what is this vast ammount of free software then?
"...the fact that many Linux users, I think, aren't used to buying software"
I am used to buy software.
It is not that I don't want to pay for software, my main concern is that paying for software is too much of a hassle.
I want, say, and office suite? Then I go with `apt-get install openoffice.org` and I'm done. Now, do I want to use Ms Office? It's not only that I must pay in order to use it; it is that I must go to Microsoft's site to learn if I have to pay for a single license, or a 5-license pack, or a corporate one; maybe I'm elegible for some kind of discount or rebate if I'm upgrading from a different Microsoft product, or an office suite from a rival... and then, I'll have to convince my company's bincounters to buy it, fill a ton of paperwork for the order to be produced; the EULA agreement will have to be approved by my company's attorneys (since every proprietary software vendor will have its own one; on open software for the most part is a matter for them to approve GPL or BSD and been done for quite a lot of different sofware packages). And then, once deployed, I'll have to actively seek for license compliance on my whole network, and even then, tomorrow I may have to go through the hassle of an auditory my company will have to pay for if the company vendor decides I have to show them I'm in compliance. Not to talk about machine-locked software. Do I want to use, say, Arc/Info? Add to the previous paragraph that if I want to move the software to a more powerful machine I just bougth I'll have to call ESRI to get a new CPU-bound lincense ID, and maybe I'll learn my product is supported no more, so they won't produce it; or maybe the software requieres a dongle and it breaks, or it's lost, or simply I go from OS versionX to OS versionX+1 which renders my licensing software nonfunctional and, again, my sofwtare version is now unsupported so I won't be able to migrate (not even able to try, the EULA is quite clear about it)...
You see, too much of a hassle, and I even didn't start on the technical benefits about going open source!
"The "Extend" in this sequence is extending the Microsoft product to be incompatible with the ones following the standard that they claim to have "embraced". I don't see what you are suggesting here"
There's about five people on "full time" mode on Firefox, but let's imagine there're 100.
Now you carefully choose 20% of them (just one on the lower situation, no more than 20 on the higher) and manage to convince them about the magic virtues of the Microsoft platform; now those 20% are expending more and more time "fine tuning" Firefox for Windows instead of working on other tasks; maybe you manage to introduce some "so much worthing you can avoid them" features on Firefox due to your relationship with those developers... unluckly those nifty features only work on Windows (maybe Ms Office related, for instance), not in unix-like platforms so, unluckily again "the OSS Firefox camp" divides itself: those that think the Microsoft-only features are terribly valuable and those that think OSS and OS independency is the way to go. A significative percentage of the later decide, for instance, move to Konqueror and abandon the Firefox project. At the same time Microsoft discovers that some of the "Microsoft side" Firefox developers are sooo valuable they decide to hire them to maximize their abilities (to be read: in two months you will have abandoned completly your work on Firefox).
That's just one scenario out of a bunch I can come with (and surely the think-tank on Redmond can add up some more); anyway in one/two years where you had a promising project you will have an stagnating one that can't compete with the new and revitalised IE7.x that happens to support those Ms-only nifty features... only better than Firefox and in the meantime you have managed to retain within Microsoft (200x/XP->Vista) those that might have though about a migration path 200x/XP->some linux.
"And yet again you say how IIS factors into the equation, when it quite clearly doesn't (a web server is generally agnostic to the browser you use or the HTML put on it...the discussion is irrelevant, even more so to a home user)."
Do you really think so? After all, it seems quite reasonable, doesn't it?
But now, please, follow me!
-In order for a web page to display properly disregarding IE cludges, where do you have to develop it? On Windows.
-If you are kind of el-cheapo about your web developments (quite a huge percentage) what's the most probable platform for a "first stage" development server? The same as the developer's platform, since most of the time is one of the developers the one in charge of part-time sysadmining it.
-And then, as everybody knows, "nobody will be fired by choosing IB^H^HMicrosoft"; since Microsoft's development tools are quite decent (at least for someone that can stand working on Windows) there's a nice chance for Ms (whatever) Studio to be choiced.
-And then, if you develop it on Microsoft Windows and the "first devel" server is Windows too, what do you think it is the first candidate for the production server? Bet for Windows. But then, since Ms (whatever) Studio has quite a lot of nifty wizards and assitants in order to "...integrate the development process thus achiving highest rates of productivity" (at least that's what said a brigthly coloured brochure some PHB read some time ago) you won't use Apache on Windows (Apache, those redskin communist hippies that want to destroy corporate america giving away labour for free -the PHB knows it quite well, since he read a non-biased study about it on a serious economic magazine), you of course will use IIS.
QED.
Now, you might think I'm being too fantasious, that it can never happen that way, but my story is scaringly true. Add it a bit of dumb techs/managers and that's what made Microsoft/IIS/Exchange, a system never designed to be exposed in the wild, to get an unthinkable 40-60% Internet share. It *already* happened.
"I believe it is a sign that Microsoft doesn't want to continue supporting and developing IE. "
I don't think so. Here is what I do believe:
I believe Microsoft knows how short in developers is the Firefox project "core" team.
*Even if only one of them refocus to this "subproject" a significative work force is "out of the game" making it easier for next IE version to fill the gap.
*And then, "making friends" on the Windows camp *may* mean some Firefox developing lines that could be "too unixy" would be avoided, now Microsoft is so lovely to insure Windows will be the best plaform for Firefox to be run on ("hey, Firefox runs better on Linux than in Windows" currently harms Microsoft more than Linux or Firefox itself).
*And then, the close contact between Firefox developers and Microsoft engineers *may* make one of the formers to "fall in love" with Microsoft enough to accept a juicy contract from the company thus making future Firefox development more aligned to whatever their interest are (if only because point one above).
*And then, some people *may* really believe that somehow Microsoft has abode to be a "good boy" after all, so good PR for them.
Yes, they are too many "may", but it's cheap cash for Microsoft that could provide quite good benefits for them.
"If I were Microsoft, I'd have to look at IE like a rathole that is having money poured into it."
I bet Microsoft really knows what has made it the utterly successful company it is today (in no particular order):
*An ashtounding legal system that makes IP-based bussiness the most profitable ever designed by humankind... by huge margin
*Their early start advantage
*Their backwards binary compatibility
*Dumbed users/sysadmins
*Their development tools
*Their office suite
*Their ability to abuse their monopolistic positions
*Marketing focused on high management and beancounters instead of technical positions/users
They could only be morons if they'd go against those principles and since I don't think they are morons, I always think that anything Microsoft does or plans is in accordance to them.
"Wouldn't that automatically make him overbudget"
I don't think so. "Overbuget" can reasonabily mean one of either two things: Budgeted A, really costed when produced A+delta, or Budgeted as A, when it really costs A-delta.
The previous poster said that by paying lot of money to his project manager their projects went on bugdet, within specs and deadlines. That means that he budgeted the project as A and it costs to the client A or less, so the first meaning for "overbudget" is not an issue. For the second one (it's budgeted A, it really costs A-delta) it has to be demonstrated that these same projects, or others alike, could be achieved with less. Being this thread about how big projects wreak havoc, this is a non-issue too, since that project leadership achive goals so being the only one to be compared with, there's no point in saying it could have costed less: projects with cheaper project managers crash, so that's the proper budget for an effective project leadership. (now, for the usual car-comparation): a car with four wheels is not overbudgeted when you compare it whit a car with only three wheels because of the fourth wheel; those with four wheels work as expected, three-wheeled do not.
"So I guess you've found the way around it: Pick your consituents/customers carefully enough, and you won't have any significantly complex projects to worry about."
I think you have a point here. If you want your projects to succeed, pick a client you can success with. As long as there are enough clients of such a kind for you company to go profitable, there's no problem with such a policy. Problem arises (on the client side) when you can get a project doomed to fail and still you can make as much or even more money out of them. But then, who's the fool? the contractor that takes a project doomed to fail because it will be able to make (big money*three) out of it, or the client that fools out himself _once and again_?
"here's no way you could get away with paying your high-priced project manager like that if you had any beancounter non-technical oversight at all"
That's not the client problem but the contractor's one. He is the contractor, so there's no problem about who much he does pay to their project managers. It's the overall bill that counts.
"some would say your way is actualy LESS efficient"
That's true if clients allow their contractos to rise their benefit margins by accepting shit from them. Quite a common situation. But if the rest of the company also works the "proper way", and I'm speaking "proper marketing" here, it's just a matter of time potential clients will know the this company delivers "on time, on specs, on budget" while competitors won't. Proper marketing should have an easy day to convince prospective clients they allow a better deal by "undisclosing" hidden costs due to overtime, overbudget, undespec'ing if they go to their competitors. Thus, his way is quite efficient since it makes proper benefit and allows better company resilience over time.
"This is inherently a failure of the contractor to manage the project"
The contractor *did* have their bills payed, didn't he?
The contractor got 170M US$; the client didn't get the system he wanted. Who's the failure then?
"The only open-source tool I know of is called FindBugs developed by the University of Maryland"
|ironic mode on|
It must be bullshit when the worst bugs/codelines ratio comes from Amanda... the Advanced Maryland Automatic Network Disk Archiver, from University of Maryland
|ironic mode off|
I know, I know... just joking!
"Ha! The same people who think their computer is broken when two windows overlap, also know how to spoof MAC addresses or pick IP addresses?"
You are suffering the myth about "all people except myself are dumb". You would be surprised how many advanced "tricks" those dumb users manage to know (certainly, for the most part it will be black magic to them, but they will know the trick). It's perfectly compatible thinking their computer is broken when two windows overlap and know how to change their MAC, I can tell you.
"Anyway, that's not the point. The idea is to minimize the number of Joes plugging completely anonymous machines into the LAN"
That's just OK, if you can get support from upper management for this. In too many situations this will be unaffordable, simply because management won't give enough power to you. You can block MAC addresses at the switch level, but if you can't have support from management so every new computer goes first to the IP departament for OS installation, inventory, etc. you will be doomed. And I can tell you people will learn about NATting their "unofficial" networks, about setting their own Wins servers and yes, learning how to change their MAC-address in order to use the one from a retired box that it is still on your databases.
In other words: you are just a tool for that people; it's their work the important one, and if you are to stablish a blocking policy, you better have the power to enforce it without the users seeing it as a blocker for their job, or they will find a workaround (that of cours, at the end will be much worse for everybody, but that's a different story).
"If a business complains or fears that OSS will be too complex, then, whether it's too complex or not, IT IS TOO COMPLEX"
Even when the company that so says is Microsoft?
Well, next time I hear from Coca-Cola that Pepsi sucks (or the other way around) I'll know it's true because, you know, when a bussiness complains or fears that Coke sucks it means IT SUCKS.
"Why is it called "Linux", when it could just as easily be refered to as "Operating System Kernel"?"
/me ducks!
GNU/OperatingSystemKernel, you mean...
What a lot of people forget is that the internet is a world-wide thing. Not all distributions are native to "an English-speaking nation"
Like... you for one?
What's the problem pronouncing "ekiga" or "sabayon"? I can tell you that Quicktime and Outlook sound ridiculous in Spanish; still they come from great software companies, so they must be all right, mustn't they?
Your problem is exactly the one that maintains tons of people within Microsoft realms: whatever you are widely exposed, you feel "natural", anything else is "weird" on your account.
Microsoft? The ones that have it short and soft?
Microsoft Windows? It must be due to the high number of security holes or something like this.
Microsoft XP ? That's obviously an emoticon for laughing on your face and showing their tongue... quite a proper name, after all.
Navision? Admiral Nelson's ability to win naval battles?
Oracle? Read your future on your hand for a nickel? (reading it backwards makes it quite a proper name in Spanish: Elcaro transalates to "The expensive one")
IBM? NBA? CIA? Boney-M?
HP? (Spanish for son-of-a-gun)?
Mac OS/X? What's that? Klingon?
In the very end, any short word without a clear meaning, more or less alternating wovels and consonants, so it maximizes probabilities to be pronounceable in most languages, with a proper marketing campaign backing it makes a good company/product name. The outshining paradigm? Kodak.
"IANANA (Network Admin)"
Of course you aren't.
"but can't you do something with DHCP and MAC indentification?"
Yes you can. And what then?
"In short, any laptop, by definition, is always outside the firewall."
Till the moment they discover how to reconfigure their MAC to get a valid IP address (or just use a fixed IP from the proper pool); a thing they will do as soon as the policy goes in their way and expectations for the job to be done (like, "you need to mount this share to get this so important data for your this evening's presentation to that very important client).
If they really need to print or email or mount shares, then they should be using whatever sort of technology "(VPN, IMAP/SSL, etc) to do that outside the network"
What's the difference about port 445 traffic on the LAN or through an VPN? (VPN==Virtual LAN). The worm that can expand through the LAN surely can expand through the VPN (unless, of course, the VPN has stricter access rules than the LAN ifself, in which case those rules will be jumped over, see previous point).
"Or walk to a workstation."
You are joking, aren't you?