Why do you think people like Darl McBride feel that they can get away with shit like this?
Darl & his MSFT frineds DID get away with it.
My CEO's already convinced that Linux is dirty thanks to lots of Enderle reports that our microsoft rep among others seem to have refered him to.
My bet is that Darl's backers are already praising him and preparing a job for him in much the same way that Rick Belluzzo got rewarded for defeating SGI and HP.
I forwarded this to our corporate risk group that Linux's source has been audited and proven clean.
I encouraged them to try to get a similar audit of Windows from one of Microsoft's competitors before we include Windows in or bundle Windows with any of our future products.
How do you conclude Windows has more serious flaws than Linux.
Uh, the parent poster never concluded Windows has more serious flaws.
I can understand *YOU* could jump to the conclusion that people think Windows is less secure than Linux (because a lot of people have that personal experience)
But for all we can tell the parent posting that you flamed may have been suggesting that Linux had more serious flaws than Windows (as laughable as that sounds; considering most online brokerages are linux/apache according to netcraft; and most all the Department of Homeland Security sites are either Linux/Apache or Unix/Apache).
More likely he was just making an observation that often journalists falsely jump to conclusionsn that when two things have some risk, that they have equal risk.
It's funny how people think. Since neither product is 100% secure, they both think they're equally insecure. This logic is as stupid as saying "reading slashdot is just as dangerous as motorcycle racing, because I could get hit by meteor and die either way". Clearly one of the products has more serious exploits than the other and has caused more loss to businesses, but some people just don't want to admint that.
But I agree with the parent -- advanced psychology-based FUD is a growing science.
The software market is of size $X billion or trillion.
Google is is the first company in a very long time who has attracted a team capable of taking a chunk of this from MSFT.
"how and when google will start delivering on that stock price" over the short term has more to do with MSFT's monopoly practices and how aggressive they are in using their desktop installed base to redirect google customers to MSN. The answer Google quite eloquently explained to the reporter is that it doesn't matter at all when google will start delivering on that stock price to a long-term investor, and that they don't give a shit about day-traders gaming their stock.
"A few times, he's said things like 'maybe we should acquire Novell', and it changed the stock price," Vass said of Schwartz's blog. "You have to be careful... if ever he's writing anything controversial he has to get the lawyers to look at it."
What's that supposed to mean....
Is this implying that his laywers are pissed because they wanted the hot-stock-tips before the general public?!?
The reporter is missing the point and Google is correct that thier culture (of which the CFO is but one case study) is much more important than the current quarter's results.
Google success has nothing to do with Q4 2005's financal statement (it has enough short-term cash), and everything to do with keeping the talented engineers it hired and keeping them motivated to outperform MSFT in the long term.
For this goal, the Chief Food Officer is
infinitely more imoprtant than the Chief Financial Officer.
The commercial rivalries (should United Airlines or Disney or Virgin Galactic or WalMart own them) or the political ones (should the US military or the Chinese military occupy them).
Seems it'd be best for the US if WalMart owned one of the lagrange points, just like WalMart owns much of manufacturing in China and Exxon owns much of the oil in the mideast. If it's siezed as a military base it'll just sit there with lots of cost and little benefit to anyone; but if it's purchased as a commercial facility, it'll be a tax on everyone going into space. To rephrase the distinction in more concrete terms; China is WalMart's biggest ally, but China is also the US military's largest competitor for space domination.
I agree that the US corporations should race to control commercially the Lagrange points (as we do buying up oil in the mideast); but I think it'd be stupid if we decided to occupy them at great cost to ourselves (as we do to certain countries in the mideast).
Personally I think it'd be saddest if those points got claimed to be some military base of any type; as opposed to the ideal launching point for space tourism.
I'd do more for my kids's personal futures if Virgin Galactic (and I don't even know what country they're in) owned one of them than if any particular company's military base were put there.
The article did mention that not all waste is pure waste, as they could spark new ideas,
I suspect half the trolls are going to make jokes about slashdot being a waste of time.
I wish my previous CFO would spend more time on slashdot, and perhaps we'd have done far fewer stupid things like maintaining an unmaintainable mess of microsoft components and forcing them on our customers.
Slashdot, beyond the way the trolls word things, is a great place to find best-practices for the IT world.
It's an example showing the poor assembly-language code when it detects an AMD chip. And notice in that posting that the complier is perfectly capabile of producing efficient AMD code as well. It's sad but funny that the workaround to produce fast code for the AMD chip is to add the string "__intel_cpu_indicator=-512".
I think customers of the Intel compiler should be suing too.
Effectively, if you released a product using the Intel complier, Intel sabotaged your product ('or cause it to crash' in TFA) for their own political agenda. Surely that's illegal.
The first thing we're doing now is Baning the use of the Intel compliers in our company; as some of our customers may be running AMD chips.
It's too bad because the intel compiler seems to have good code; but if they're sabotaging our customers by injecting bad code in our product, that's one of the most unacceptable things I've ever heard of!!!!! If this is as bad as it sounds, I'd like to see and join a class-action lawsuit of any company who released a product that used this compiler.
Microsoft configured its servers to give broken HTML to browsers other than Internet Explorer..... Anybody can see that this claim is ludicrous and that things like this just don't happen. (but I hope I'm not giving anybody any ideas.)
I hope you patented those ideas so if any of those companies were to do something so outrageously filthy they'd owe you royalties.
From a business point of view, it was quite the success.
When Itanium started, Intel was absolutely nowhere in 64 bit and high-end computing. Thanks to Itanium, over half Intel's competitors simply walked away from the market with little more than a few press releases from Intel.
Consider that at the time, you had Alpha (Dec), PA-RISC (HP), MIPS (SGI), and Sparc as leading 64-bit computing platforms.
HP in it's infinite wisdom was suckered the worst - giving up their own leadership position just to be strung along for many years in Intel's PR bluff. However Wall Street loved the "ooh, intel's story's so aWsUM that even HP is giving up" that SGI spun off and MIPS gave up on the high-end space; and Dec->Compaq->HP undervalued Alpha and it went away.
This has to be the most successful come-from-zero-to-wipe-out-half-the-market story in the history of computing. How can it be considered a failure.
The one thing that would make yet-another-debian "new" and more importantly viable for the enterprise would be a non-absurd name.
In particular, it shoud
not be named after the packager and his girlfriend (no offense intended, Deb and Ian)
not have it's up-to-date release be called "unstable" or "testing"
not be named after the end-users nor users of drugs like "user linux" (no offense Bruce)
should not be named "humanity, caring, and harmony" in any language (no offense to the Ubuntu guys; but CEO's would probably something that implies 'unfair competitive advantage' rather than charitable sharing.
not contain any swear words (damn small linux, etc).
not to start with K or G just based on the packager's desktop religion-flamewar (no offense gnoppix and kubuntu)
I don't mean to bash the debian derivitives; the other linux distro namers are just as lame, with my CEO unlikely to appreciate "slackware" "devil", "puppy", "gogo", "tinysofa", "kate os", "whopix" and most of the others based on name alone without even considering their merits.
"You really think drug companies care about your health?"
Would it even be legal for them to do so if they wanted to?
Wouldn't that violate their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders? It'd be like microsoft killing off their upgrade revenue by releasing a secure OS.
I know people are modding you funny; but there is some important truth to what you said.
I've long said that Microsoft's greatest strength as a business is that they were the only software company who best calculated and acted on these risk/reward tradeoffs.
In all businesses there is a tradeoff between Security and other business needs including Time-to-Market and Ease-of-Use. Note that this problem isn't unique to the software industry. Credit card companies have the same challenges (ease of stealing a credit card vs ease of using a credit card), and also go to great lenghts to strike a balance that provides the best user experience.
But in this particular case, I'd say security problems in debian/unstable are good; but security problems in debian/stable are very very bad, and I'm glad to see they're being addressed.
I don't care how many random letters (like phd / mcse, mba, etc) this Arthur dude gloms on his name when he signs documents; it's still perfectly appropriate for interviewers to want to make their own evaluation of candidates.
I've seen plenty of 60-year-old PhD's who hadn't produced anything for 30 years. Before hiring anyone, I think it's fair to ask them some interview questions.
Methinks his response is sour grapes because he no longer has the mind he once had when he did his phd studies and flunked their interview.
On the other hand, I agree with his comments about MSFT arrogancy --- back in the day when MSFT stock was doubling every few months I could see how they could be pretty selective about attracting top tallent. At the time they earned the right to be arrogant Now all MSFT has to offer is a lot of hard work in a stressful environment working on technology that no-one wants to work on (as inconcevable to linux developers as this may sound, did you realize they have to pay people to work on Windows!!!)
Slashdot Mirror
Which do you think has a better TCO.
At $400/minute, I think even BillG would consider windows expensive.
For example strategies that the government discussed like this one: "These e-mails would come from a .com return address rather than .mil to hide the Pentagon's role."
They could as easily conceal through information polution the info that showed up in these google searches.
Seems the guys in the last SCO article had a point. When the Bush administration leads by example with it's Neo-Morality business leaders follow.
Darl & his MSFT frineds DID get away with it.
My CEO's already convinced that Linux is dirty thanks to lots of Enderle reports that our microsoft rep among others seem to have refered him to.
My bet is that Darl's backers are already praising him and preparing a job for him in much the same way that Rick Belluzzo got rewarded for defeating SGI and HP.
I encouraged them to try to get a similar audit of Windows from one of Microsoft's competitors before we include Windows in or bundle Windows with any of our future products.
Uh, the parent poster never concluded Windows has more serious flaws.
I can understand *YOU* could jump to the conclusion that people think Windows is less secure than Linux (because a lot of people have that personal experience)
But for all we can tell the parent posting that you flamed may have been suggesting that Linux had more serious flaws than Windows (as laughable as that sounds; considering most online brokerages are linux/apache according to netcraft; and most all the Department of Homeland Security sites are either Linux/Apache or Unix/Apache).
More likely he was just making an observation that often journalists falsely jump to conclusionsn that when two things have some risk, that they have equal risk.
But I agree with the parent -- advanced psychology-based FUD is a growing science.
Most of the ones that matter never need to worry about a paycheck again in their life.
They stay at Google because of the culture and to interact with other top people in their fields.
My bet is Bush'll nominate someone anti-UN to the UN to make it ineffective so this UN thing isn't an option. Oh....
What's that supposed to mean....
Is this implying that his laywers are pissed because they wanted the hot-stock-tips before the general public?!?
Google success has nothing to do with Q4 2005's financal statement (it has enough short-term cash), and everything to do with keeping the talented engineers it hired and keeping them motivated to outperform MSFT in the long term.
For this goal, the Chief Food Officer is infinitely more imoprtant than the Chief Financial Officer.
Seems it'd be best for the US if WalMart owned one of the lagrange points, just like WalMart owns much of manufacturing in China and Exxon owns much of the oil in the mideast. If it's siezed as a military base it'll just sit there with lots of cost and little benefit to anyone; but if it's purchased as a commercial facility, it'll be a tax on everyone going into space. To rephrase the distinction in more concrete terms; China is WalMart's biggest ally, but China is also the US military's largest competitor for space domination.
I agree that the US corporations should race to control commercially the Lagrange points (as we do buying up oil in the mideast); but I think it'd be stupid if we decided to occupy them at great cost to ourselves (as we do to certain countries in the mideast).
I'd do more for my kids's personal futures if Virgin Galactic (and I don't even know what country they're in) owned one of them than if any particular company's military base were put there.
I suspect half the trolls are going to make jokes about slashdot being a waste of time.
I wish my previous CFO would spend more time on slashdot, and perhaps we'd have done far fewer stupid things like maintaining an unmaintainable mess of microsoft components and forcing them on our customers.
Slashdot, beyond the way the trolls word things, is a great place to find best-practices for the IT world.
If you're too lazy to read the postings here shows such evidence.
It's an example showing the poor assembly-language code when it detects an AMD chip. And notice in that posting that the complier is perfectly capabile of producing efficient AMD code as well. It's sad but funny that the workaround to produce fast code for the AMD chip is to add the string "__intel_cpu_indicator=-512".
Effectively, if you released a product using the Intel complier, Intel sabotaged your product ('or cause it to crash' in TFA) for their own political agenda. Surely that's illegal.
The first thing we're doing now is Baning the use of the Intel compliers in our company; as some of our customers may be running AMD chips.
It's too bad because the intel compiler seems to have good code; but if they're sabotaging our customers by injecting bad code in our product, that's one of the most unacceptable things I've ever heard of!!!!! If this is as bad as it sounds, I'd like to see and join a class-action lawsuit of any company who released a product that used this compiler.
I hope you patented those ideas so if any of those companies were to do something so outrageously filthy they'd owe you royalties.
When Itanium started, Intel was absolutely nowhere in 64 bit and high-end computing. Thanks to Itanium, over half Intel's competitors simply walked away from the market with little more than a few press releases from Intel.
Consider that at the time, you had Alpha (Dec), PA-RISC (HP), MIPS (SGI), and Sparc as leading 64-bit computing platforms.
HP in it's infinite wisdom was suckered the worst - giving up their own leadership position just to be strung along for many years in Intel's PR bluff. However Wall Street loved the "ooh, intel's story's so aWsUM that even HP is giving up" that SGI spun off and MIPS gave up on the high-end space; and Dec->Compaq->HP undervalued Alpha and it went away.
This has to be the most successful come-from-zero-to-wipe-out-half-the-market story in the history of computing. How can it be considered a failure.
In particular, it shoud
- not be named after the packager and his girlfriend (no offense intended, Deb and Ian)
- not have it's up-to-date release be called "unstable" or "testing"
- not be named after the end-users nor users of drugs like "user linux" (no offense Bruce)
- should not be named "humanity, caring, and harmony" in any language (no offense to the Ubuntu guys; but CEO's would probably something that implies 'unfair competitive advantage' rather than charitable sharing.
- not contain any swear words (damn small linux, etc).
- not to start with K or G just based on the packager's desktop religion-flamewar (no offense gnoppix and kubuntu)
I don't mean to bash the debian derivitives; the other linux distro namers are just as lame, with my CEO unlikely to appreciate "slackware" "devil", "puppy", "gogo", "tinysofa", "kate os", "whopix" and most of the others based on name alone without even considering their merits.Would it even be legal for them to do so if they wanted to?
Wouldn't that violate their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders? It'd be like microsoft killing off their upgrade revenue by releasing a secure OS.
I've long said that Microsoft's greatest strength as a business is that they were the only software company who best calculated and acted on these risk/reward tradeoffs.
In all businesses there is a tradeoff between Security and other business needs including Time-to-Market and Ease-of-Use. Note that this problem isn't unique to the software industry. Credit card companies have the same challenges (ease of stealing a credit card vs ease of using a credit card), and also go to great lenghts to strike a balance that provides the best user experience.
But in this particular case, I'd say security problems in debian/unstable are good; but security problems in debian/stable are very very bad, and I'm glad to see they're being addressed.
I've seen plenty of 60-year-old PhD's who hadn't produced anything for 30 years. Before hiring anyone, I think it's fair to ask them some interview questions.
Methinks his response is sour grapes because he no longer has the mind he once had when he did his phd studies and flunked their interview.
On the other hand, I agree with his comments about MSFT arrogancy --- back in the day when MSFT stock was doubling every few months I could see how they could be pretty selective about attracting top tallent. At the time they earned the right to be arrogant Now all MSFT has to offer is a lot of hard work in a stressful environment working on technology that no-one wants to work on (as inconcevable to linux developers as this may sound, did you realize they have to pay people to work on Windows!!!)
In order to compete with Europe, I think "harmonization" with their patent policies is exactly what we should be fighting for now.