That contrast is meaningless considering the null pointer bug that was in the Linux kernel for 8 years and the fact that MS takes backward compatibility as a Holy Grail compared to almost any other software maker.
He tried to break into the clique, but Linus preferred someone he knew who essential ripped off Kolivas' work instead of someone that did all the hard work.
A hole has been found in Linux kernel versions stretching back eight years that is 'as trivial as it can get to exploit', according to the Google employees who discovered it.
Julien Tinnes and Tavis Ormandy, the security researchers who discovered the vulnerability, have already issued a patch for the flaw. According to a blog post written by Tinnes on Thursday, the hole "affects all 2.4 and 2.6 kernels since 2001 on all architectures", and is "the public vulnerability affecting the greatest number of kernel versions".
Err did you fail Reasoning 101? You forget all the new features, UI and security in Windows 7 compared to Windows XP which take up lots of resources. It's the same case with almost any other software, as hardware becomes more powerful, more features are added. If you want ultimate speed, go run Windows 95 or DOS 6.22 or Windows 3.1 on modern hardware, but dont' complain when USB ports don't work.
They could've used those funds to dethrone Exchange, Outlook, maybe even Office. But all those highly paid executives oversaw the failure of Thunderbird, Sunbird and Lightning instead of leveraging search money. There's still nothing of value in Mozilla except for Firefox which itself could use some cleaning up and innovation on the lines of Webkit/Chrome/Opera.
I am not a professor or a dean, sorry. I meant to say 'my university friends' not 'my university students'. Mozilla should've offered refunds once it got money from Google, because I remember Ramen-eating students donating money to Mozilla.
Did the CEO help broker deals that generated the $66 million, or did the coders? If the executives were able to talk Google into a deal that brings in $66mil, surely they are worth $.5mil
Welcome to reality, where paying executives and paying coders is not an either/or proposition.
What's up with people drumming up this 'fact'? Opera (while sitting all way the across in the Land of the Midnight Sun') was able to broker a deal with Google for pay-per-search. And their CEO gets paid the equivalent of 26K in 2010!
And what did the Mozilla CEOs do in the meantime apart from inking search deals? Thunderbird is a failure, Fennec is too little, too late. There's absolutely nothing of significance fro Mozilla in 5 years apart from Firefox which the community made a success of, not as much Mozilla which just piggy backed on the popularity to sign on search deals. Bugzilla is the only success to a limited extent. They dropped the ball on LIGHTNING and SUNBIRD too which could've easily supplanted Exchange by now if the funds were properly utilized, but still the executive keep getting paid exorbitant salaries for underperforming.
Windows 7 is actually almost as fast as XP. That's really good accounting for the numerous improvements made to the OS in the intervening 9 years. Almost every new software release requires better hardware, including Gnome and KDE.
2) if they didn't deserve it the board wouldn't be giving it
You know why they deserve it? Because CEO 1 is on the board of company 2, so he says that CEO 2 should have a ridiculous salary. CEO 2 is on the board of company 1, so he says that CEO 1 should have a ridiculous salary.
That's actually pretty close to what happened, except that Company 2 is a non profit and CEO 1 & 2 were the same person. Read on.
Mitchell Baker is the chairperson of the board of directors for the Mozilla Foundation. She’s also the chairperson of the board of directors for the Mozilla Corporation. She’s also the CEO of the Mozilla Corporation. See where I’m going with this? No? You’re a moron. You also failed U.S. history, apparently. You’re looking at Mozilla’s own version of an interlocking directorate, a form of corporate control commonly associated with the robber barons of the Gilded Age, particularly as they sought to get around the restrictions of early anti-trust legislation. Mitchell is, hands down, the most powerful person within Mozilla. Just as with the robber barons, disagree with her and you’re fucked. More importantly for the premise of this post, for each of those positions, she undoubtedly gets paid.
Let’s look closer. In 2005, Mitchell received compensation totaling $115,660 for sitting on the board of the Foundation and leading it (see PDF page 7). But 2005 was the year the Corporation split off from the Foundation. As a result, Mitchell made an additional $181,042 for being the head of that organization (see PDF page 27). Finally, Mitchell received $50,659 from the Foundation for providing back-office support (see PDF page 36). That means, if the Lizard can do math, Mitchell received a total of $347,361 in compensation for the year of 2005. Of course, that amount includes benefit contributions and is not entirely cash in her pocket.
How productive must the executives be to justify the salaries? Seeing as it was them who negotiated the 66 million to begin with I would say there were quite productive indeed.
I'll never understand people like you that constantly whine about other peoples salaries. 1) it isn't any of your business how much they make, 2) if they didn't deserve it the board wouldn't be giving it, 3) if they grab more than they earn the company dies and the code base is free so no real loss.
Honestly, are people like you so petty that you must constantly whine that you don't make as much as someone else? Be happy they are making money, they will continue to do so and we'll all benefit as a result. If you really must insist on this socialist idea of spreading the wealth then by all means, move to Cuba and see how productive they are there.
Why are you attempting to make this into a capitalism vs. socialism strawman? The issue at hand is the CEO of a for-profit organization backed by a non-profit organization, and hence pays no taxes whatsoever on the $66 million some of which goes into obscene CEO profits. Meanwhile, countless F/OSS supporters are poring in their precious free time to develop, report bugs and develop extensions.
And it is my business how much they make or what Mozilla does with it's money, because that money comes from Google searches that people like me perform on Firefox. If me and other users of FF suddenly decide to switch to Bing on FF or to Chrome, it's Firefox that stops earning millions and fold up since Google pays per search. There are plenty of other competing browsers nowadays that are faster and leaner anyway. If some of that money that goes into executive pay was used in the previous years to make Firefox faster and leaner(notice the number of 'Firefox is bloated' complaints that pop up everytime in a FF story?) Firefox would stop losing users and revenue.
So if the executives start paying themselves $65 million a year because they signed on the agreement with Google, I should be happy for them for making money? And while I am not a fan of socialism, Cuba is a bad example. From the Wiki:
Cuba also has succeeded in reducing poverty and equalizing the distribution of wealth. According to the United Nation's Economic Commission for Latin America, the decile ratio (share of total income for the top 10 percent of wage earners divided by the bottom 10 percent) in Latin America was 45 to 1, while that of Cuba was only 4 to 1. Cuba's income distribution was more than 10 times more equal than the rest of Latin America in the 1980s. Before the Revolution, Cuba's decile ratio was 65 to 1.[4]
I, for one, am not going to contribute a cent till they reduce their exorbitant CEO and other executive compenstaion. Last known, it was around $550K for the CEO.
I think that if Google doesn't sponsor Mozilla, they'll probably switch to Bing. Firefox has a large marketshare, if we add IE to the mix (which already has Bing as the default choice), something like 90% of the browser market will be using Bing..
A large chunk of those machines are sold by OEMs, and Google has an agreement with a lot of them to have Google as the search engine(even in IE I think) and Chrome as the default browser.
Where does the money go? It seems to me that $66 million could fund a lot of development for many years. Put that in the bank and you could easily pay the salary of 10 full time programmers and a decent amount of overhead and never spend a dime of principal and never need additional sponsorship and strings that go with it.
The money goes to salaries of the executives. A cool half million dollars or more for the CEO to be exact. I wonder how productive should they be to justify such salaries? That money can easily go to hire 5 top notch C++ coders for an entire year to hunt down memory leaks and make the code more efficient. The only reason to give such money should be as a bonus if-and-only-if the executives figure out how to reduce their dependence on Google, it's been 5 years and nothing's being done about it.
Disclaimer: I've seen my university students scrounge their last savings money to pay for the Firefox ad in the NYT 4 years ago, so maybe that makes me sick to the stomach to see Mozilla wasting so much money on administration.
By 'post' you mean the Slashdot summary or the article. Either way, both quote absolute percentages of search share which treats all engines fairly, not relative to the particular engine which would reflect a higher growth rate for Bing because it's smaller . I am not sure what you're trying to argue here.
It is all the way up to 10.7% now. Fine. Google has 65.7%.
You can show HUGE increases in your rate of market gain when hardly anybody is looking at you and then a few more look at you. The same number of eyeballs for Google is a small increase.
Am I wrong, or did someone cherry pick the most appealing metric for Bing to write a story about?
You're wrong.
Did you RTFA or are you acting dumb to get some moderator love? All the percentages quoted are based on the 100% of overall search users, NOT relative growth of a particular search engine.. Since you won't RTFA, here it is http://www.techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/searchsharedec09.jpg
Your argument only applies to the last line of the summary, the 49.7% growth in search volume for Bing.
Slashdot Mirror
Glad you enjoyed it. The initial flamebait moderation made me think it would be buried. Thanks to your sibling poster.
And Con Kolivas didn't completely quit. He made a comeback of sorts with the Brain Fsck Scheduler. http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/bfs/bfs-faq.txt
I guess kernel development is too addictive to quit.
What the h--- is the "kernel" community? Are we talking about popcorn farmers?
You mean GNU/Popcorn farmers.
Switching to a new version of Linux is not nearly as big of an undertaking.
Sure it's not.
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/10/28/239258.shtml
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/03/karmic_koala_frustration/
So why didn't it stop this 8 yr old exploit?
http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=6820
The same people wrote 64bit Windows.
And a similar kind of people wrote, reviewed and audited Linux.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-332141.html
That contrast is meaningless considering the null pointer bug that was in the Linux kernel for 8 years and the fact that MS takes backward compatibility as a Holy Grail compared to almost any other software maker.
He tried to break into the clique, but Linus preferred someone he knew who essential ripped off Kolivas' work instead of someone that did all the hard work.
http://apcmag.com/why_i_quit_kernel_developer_con_kolivas.htm
http://apcmag.com/why_i_quit_kernel_developer_con_kolivas.htm
Windows 7 64-bit is not vulnerable to this, and thats the version that is pushing heavily to OEMs and companies.
Yea such exploits do not happen in Linux.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-332141.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/21/massive_debian_openssl_hangover/
Linux has it's own version of such bugs. Yes, even with the 'many eyes' looking at the source, it does happen, F/OSS is no panacea.
From http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-332141.html
A hole has been found in Linux kernel versions stretching back eight years that is 'as trivial as it can get to exploit', according to the Google employees who discovered it.
Julien Tinnes and Tavis Ormandy, the security researchers who discovered the vulnerability, have already issued a patch for the flaw. According to a blog post written by Tinnes on Thursday, the hole "affects all 2.4 and 2.6 kernels since 2001 on all architectures", and is "the public vulnerability affecting the greatest number of kernel versions".
This is the cost of backward compatibility at the expense of everything else. That is what made Microsoft and that is what may break it.
Geez. Don't flame me :( It was a typo. I meant to say 'my university friends' not 'my university students'. I am not a professor :/
Anyway, go read http://slashdot.org/articles/04/10/19/1338254.shtml
Maybe your diatribe is better directed against the FOSS supporters that form a good half of Slashdot?
Read my post again. Improvements like better UI, better security, more features etc. etc. need faster hardware.
Err did you fail Reasoning 101? You forget all the new features, UI and security in Windows 7 compared to Windows XP which take up lots of resources. It's the same case with almost any other software, as hardware becomes more powerful, more features are added. If you want ultimate speed, go run Windows 95 or DOS 6.22 or Windows 3.1 on modern hardware, but dont' complain when USB ports don't work.
They could've used those funds to dethrone Exchange, Outlook, maybe even Office. But all those highly paid executives oversaw the failure of Thunderbird, Sunbird and Lightning instead of leveraging search money. There's still nothing of value in Mozilla except for Firefox which itself could use some cleaning up and innovation on the lines of Webkit/Chrome/Opera.
I am not a professor or a dean, sorry. I meant to say 'my university friends' not 'my university students'. Mozilla should've offered refunds once it got money from Google, because I remember Ramen-eating students donating money to Mozilla.
Did the CEO help broker deals that generated the $66 million, or did the coders? If the executives were able to talk Google into a deal that brings in $66mil, surely they are worth $.5mil
Welcome to reality, where paying executives and paying coders is not an either/or proposition.
What's up with people drumming up this 'fact'? Opera (while sitting all way the across in the Land of the Midnight Sun') was able to broker a deal with Google for pay-per-search. And their CEO gets paid the equivalent of 26K in 2010!
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=11669499&capId=532001&previousCapId=532001&previousTitle=OPERA%20SOFTWARE%20ASA
And what did the Mozilla CEOs do in the meantime apart from inking search deals? Thunderbird is a failure, Fennec is too little, too late. There's absolutely nothing of significance fro Mozilla in 5 years apart from Firefox which the community made a success of, not as much Mozilla which just piggy backed on the popularity to sign on search deals. Bugzilla is the only success to a limited extent. They dropped the ball on LIGHTNING and SUNBIRD too which could've easily supplanted Exchange by now if the funds were properly utilized, but still the executive keep getting paid exorbitant salaries for underperforming.
Windows 7 is actually almost as fast as XP. That's really good accounting for the numerous improvements made to the OS in the intervening 9 years. Almost every new software release requires better hardware, including Gnome and KDE.
You know why they deserve it? Because CEO 1 is on the board of company 2, so he says that CEO 2 should have a ridiculous salary. CEO 2 is on the board of company 1, so he says that CEO 1 should have a ridiculous salary.
How productive must the executives be to justify the salaries? Seeing as it was them who negotiated the 66 million to begin with I would say there were quite productive indeed.
I'll never understand people like you that constantly whine about other peoples salaries. 1) it isn't any of your business how much they make, 2) if they didn't deserve it the board wouldn't be giving it, 3) if they grab more than they earn the company dies and the code base is free so no real loss.
Honestly, are people like you so petty that you must constantly whine that you don't make as much as someone else? Be happy they are making money, they will continue to do so and we'll all benefit as a result. If you really must insist on this socialist idea of spreading the wealth then by all means, move to Cuba and see how productive they are there.
Why are you attempting to make this into a capitalism vs. socialism strawman? The issue at hand is the CEO of a for-profit organization backed by a non-profit organization, and hence pays no taxes whatsoever on the $66 million some of which goes into obscene CEO profits. Meanwhile, countless F/OSS supporters are poring in their precious free time to develop, report bugs and develop extensions.
And it is my business how much they make or what Mozilla does with it's money, because that money comes from Google searches that people like me perform on Firefox. If me and other users of FF suddenly decide to switch to Bing on FF or to Chrome, it's Firefox that stops earning millions and fold up since Google pays per search. There are plenty of other competing browsers nowadays that are faster and leaner anyway. If some of that money that goes into executive pay was used in the previous years to make Firefox faster and leaner(notice the number of 'Firefox is bloated' complaints that pop up everytime in a FF story?) Firefox would stop losing users and revenue.
So if the executives start paying themselves $65 million a year because they signed on the agreement with Google, I should be happy for them for making money? And while I am not a fan of socialism, Cuba is a bad example. From the Wiki:
Cuba also has succeeded in reducing poverty and equalizing the distribution of wealth. According to the United Nation's Economic Commission for Latin America, the decile ratio (share of total income for the top 10 percent of wage earners divided by the bottom 10 percent) in Latin America was 45 to 1, while that of Cuba was only 4 to 1. Cuba's income distribution was more than 10 times more equal than the rest of Latin America in the 1980s. Before the Revolution, Cuba's decile ratio was 65 to 1.[4]
I, for one, am not going to contribute a cent till they reduce their exorbitant CEO and other executive compenstaion. Last known, it was around $550K for the CEO.
I think that if Google doesn't sponsor Mozilla, they'll probably switch to Bing. Firefox has a large marketshare, if we add IE to the mix (which already has Bing as the default choice), something like 90% of the browser market will be using Bing. .
A large chunk of those machines are sold by OEMs, and Google has an agreement with a lot of them to have Google as the search engine(even in IE I think) and Chrome as the default browser.
Where does the money go? It seems to me that $66 million could fund a lot of development for many years. Put that in the bank and you could easily pay the salary of 10 full time programmers and a decent amount of overhead and never spend a dime of principal and never need additional sponsorship and strings that go with it.
The money goes to salaries of the executives. A cool half million dollars or more for the CEO to be exact. I wonder how productive should they be to justify such salaries? That money can easily go to hire 5 top notch C++ coders for an entire year to hunt down memory leaks and make the code more efficient. The only reason to give such money should be as a bonus if-and-only-if the executives figure out how to reduce their dependence on Google, it's been 5 years and nothing's being done about it.
Disclaimer: I've seen my university students scrounge their last savings money to pay for the Firefox ad in the NYT 4 years ago, so maybe that makes me sick to the stomach to see Mozilla wasting so much money on administration.
By 'post' you mean the Slashdot summary or the article. Either way, both quote absolute percentages of search share which treats all engines fairly, not relative to the particular engine which would reflect a higher growth rate for Bing because it's smaller . I am not sure what you're trying to argue here.
The report is "Bing Gains Market Share Faster"
It is all the way up to 10.7% now. Fine. Google has 65.7%.
You can show HUGE increases in your rate of market gain when hardly anybody is looking at you and then a few more look at you. The same number of eyeballs for Google is a small increase.
Am I wrong, or did someone cherry pick the most appealing metric for Bing to write a story about?
You're wrong.
Did you RTFA or are you acting dumb to get some moderator love? All the percentages quoted are based on the 100% of overall search users, NOT relative growth of a particular search engine.. Since you won't RTFA, here it is http://www.techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/searchsharedec09.jpg
Your argument only applies to the last line of the summary, the 49.7% growth in search volume for Bing.