My point is that if you are going to look at TCO for a *nix based system, or rather one element of it, the cost of staff to administrate it, per member of staff, that cost is going to be higher. This is because getting a decent *nix admin is more expensive than getting a decent windows admin - and generally you dont need decent windows admins.
However if you step back you will find that that one *nix admin will be able to administrate many more services and applications than a single Windows admin (Exchange administration on windos vs a postfix/imap solution on *nix springs to mind - where you might need 2-3 Exchange admins plus a server admin against one server & mail admin on the *nix side... always depending on the organisation of course).
What I have seen and found is that the staff pay element in TCO for *nix systems is only an issue when you dont take into account the capabilities of both *nix hardware and qualified staff, or when you are in a mixed environment that is light on *nix implementations (say just a few webservers. but dedicated staff because the windows teams cannot handle *nix administration well - or in addition to their existing role.).
Personal experience suggests that TCO for an organisation using only FOSS is about the same as for an organisation running Windows for the first year and then dramatically drops. Not to mention that on the linux side you get a complete system - including mail, file storage, print storage, security, backup solution etc... without the additional licenses and support agreements. But hey, since when did a single oppinion or the experience of a single person suggest a trend:)
Without being too harsh - the barriers to becomming a MS qualified Tech are monetary not skill based, and being an unqualified (but competent) MS tech requires less in-depth skill than a similarily capable *nix admin.
In short, there wont be as many *nix tech's because it does actually require a decent amount of understanding into what is happening within a system to administrate a *nix implementation successfuly. Windows is just too easy to administrate (A point in its favour if "out of the box" configurations are enough for you.).
This line made me think of something I hadn't thought to consider before (excuse my rather twisted mental process... and appologies for potentially adding to any MS generated FFUD - it is not intended.)
Anyway - the line:
That's right, folks, this agreement will make developers so angry that they'll triumph in the face of Microsoft telling them they're all patent infringers.
My thought:
Setting aside for a moment the fact that software patents are not applicable everywhere, and some other points such as the wide geographic spread of OSS developers..
Is it possible that MS or any other patent holder would go after the individual developers responsible for the creation of OSS software?
I don't mean just the large companies or business that use OSS (i.e. groups that could actually pay any compensation) , but the individuals who produce the applications, fixes and add ons that OSS is built up of. The worry here would be that it would place a burden on potential developers and potentially reduce the amount of people willing to contribute...
Moreover with the US seemingly having a much larger international grasp, (not a partisan political comment but there have been a number of cases where US domestic law appears to have been used against individuals with either only tenuous links to the US or no links at all, but where poor exradition agreements exist...) would that potentially threaten international development efforts that are occurring outside the scope of the US patent law?
I hate to say i but when I see a deal like this one I am unable to see any of the good points that must be there and tend to see them more as potential threats to OSS, especially since it seems that OSS is starting (with ODF and others) to impact in markets that have traditionally been associated with Microsoft (either as a Microsoft Dominated area, or as a Microsoft Monopoly.)
Anyway - As I said - this comment is not intended as FFUD or to start/further any myths - just a though
What they do: Take semen samples under microscopic observation to study their sperm count, then spin, separate, add preservatives and freeze the samples for in vitro fertilization.
Although how that is massively more dirty than any other job that involves looking at cells under a microscope beats me.
And that's why we wait until the first service pack to deploy operating systems. =)
I usually find that waiting a month after the service pack helps too, oh and SP2's should be given at least 2-3 months leeway.
Of course having the benefit of a full pre-deployment test rig helps, small business and consumers have to rely on other peoples propaganda FUD and try to make an educated guess...
Just a quick come back on the "unanswerable questions" I think that it would be nice to hear some personal perspectives rather than ones with corporate approval.
I can see where you are coming from, after all if he said feature X was something they would like to include and its dropped or not implemented then there will be cries of shame from others in this forum. All that said however it would have been nice for him to state that there were some cool things that they were looking at or anything that would make it at least appear that Microsoft were trying to develop their own ideas (ignoring development cycle argument for a moment at least).
On the other hand I suppose that if he had suggested a feature that was being looked at it would only start a discussion as to whether it would be proprietary to the extent that it would once again cause issues with standards and interoperability. Not an easy position for someone to be in.
I hope someone gets rid of the (Score:-1, Troll) on the parent.
The Parent has a very good point, IE has been bundled with Windows for a long time and for *most* users getting rid of it was either not an option or not on their horizon as something to do. I mean come on, how many people out there think that internet explorer is the internet?
Things are changing (Im not saying people will necessarily adopt a different browser, or OS) because people are becoming more aware of what the internet is and also that there are many applications that do the things they want, (not just web browsing either, but also accessing news feeds, email, audio etc..)
Microsoft did push Internet Explorer and it dominated for many reasons, one of those is its integration with Windows, and that has led to people not realising that alternatives exist.
Just as a general comment, It seems that some of the answers, particularly to the following;
* If you had more time, is there a new feature you would have liked to include in IE7?
* ...But where are the IE innovations? Why can't the IE team get ahead of the curve on Firefox?...
* Let's pretend for a moment that Internet Explorer isn't the default web-browser built into Windows and instead, users are presented with a choice on first login
* IE7, like IE6, renders a lot of pages significantly differently than the other main HTML rendering engines available
Seem either very vague or appear to be dodging the question (or the very obvious intent) that is being asked. Moreover I think that the questions were actually quite a good selection, and not too aggressive (nor too fluffy). I would like to know how much input or oversight Microsofts marketing / other departments had in the answers.
I've been looking at (and commenting on) some of the Microsoft related blogs that are out there, such as MSTechToday and I am intrigued at how defensive Microsoft advocates are (I know that Mac, GNU/Linux and BSD advocates are fairly Zealous too...), but they appear defensive even when they don't need to be. Love it or loath it, Microsoft software is now in general, stable, usable and allows you to be productive, and Microsoft are focusing on security too. Things like the "get the facts" campaign against GNU/Linux appear to be no better than negative political ads (Oh and check how many of the companies featured pointing out why OSS isn't an option for them in production are using OSS web servers, Firewalls and other technologies).
The one thing that stands out is that whilst the GNU/Linux groups are very keen to point out how great and how secure and stable the OS is, they don't tend to have to justify the direction they are going, even to pro-Microsoft posters. The Microsoft advocates on the other hand seem to have to point out that everything is being done to address a customer need that they have identified, and that anyone claiming a feature in the OS, or one being introduced into the OS may not benefit windows users (or in the case of DRM and Driver signing) may damage interests is working against some sort of ideal.
I guess the answer to that is that people use MS software because it fills a need of some sort, or because in a given situation there is no alternative (or because they are locked in to it for a given cycle), whilst GNU/Linux, BSD and Mac users use their respective products because they think that they are the best solution out there, and because they feel that the organisation / group also have a philosophy that they can either agree with or actively support.
I guess what I am saying rather badly is that those people making the software that is and runs on Mac OS, GNU/Linux, BSD etc.. stand for something, whilst Microsoft doesn't seem to anymore (and the whole Microsoft is evil and stand for evil doesn't count as its fairly invalid and is voiced by people who detest MS not its user base - although I guess there may be a certain attraction to some people:) ).
Just a thought, In modern markets is a philosophy that you aspire to something that adds something to your product? Google seem to think so, Banks seem to be keen to promote their reputations and ideals, even auto manufacturers try.
Anyway, thanks
I should declare that I use GNU/Linux and Solaris rather than MS products these days; but was quite fond of Active Directory and 2000 server, before any of the above is seen as either entireley pro or anti Microsoft
And wasnt that why Sun Microsystems were *not* going to Open Java? Im sure I remember reading that they wanted to maintain control of the development of the language and its implementation, although that was a long while ago.
I wouldn't though compare this to the Debian - Firefox - Iceweasel scenario though, as Debian are not Forking Firefox, developing it independently and making it less compatible, but simply working around some (legitimate) issues that Debian have with Mozilla. (and Mozilla has a perfectly sensible stance on the issue too - Im a Debian user but I don't think you need to take sides over that particular issue - Both groups are aiming at the same goal, but with slightly different ideas of how to get there.)
FTA it looks like it really is, finally about to be reality (:)), Java under an OSI approved license. Not only that but within 60 days and all because of pressure from the community - I wonder where else that might work (drivers? - nah need a bigger market share...).
It looks like Sun Microsystems are starting to see the benefits of Open Source technology, first Open Office (Under the GPL no less) then Solaris and now Java, - I can only hope it catches on throughout the industry.
Just a couple of points - I know that Java isn't being released under the GPL, and that there are still some interesting debates going on about the CCDL and interoperability with the GPL (I wont even pretend to know the precise issues), but it is definitely a good thing. Since Sun Microsystems is primarily seen as a hardware company, and presumably isn't too worried about the revenue's it is losing from the software sales it could have had (I know this doesn't apply to Java but it could have to Open Office and did to Solaris) it does mean that nothing that they are doing can be readily applied to a Software company. So anybody suggesting that Microsoft et al should start Open Sourcing their code because it works for Sun Microsystems is probably a little off the mark.
Well anyway - Be a good day when it *actually* happens and his is very good news. I wonder if I should look at using Java...
PS: By the way (and slightly random) my spell checker in OO.org attempts to correct CCDL as CUDDLY and GNU-GPL as SNUGGLE, how sweet.
Do appear to be some issues logging in, although the problem seems to be fairly short (2-4 minutes) and infrequent (for me anyway) I've seen it maybe 5 times in the last 3 days (503 System error is the response I am getting trying to get to the login page). Anyway you are not alone.
Ontopic
Since when does anyone read the article!?
But more to the point I wonder if giving away say 5 decent DVD's (Older Blockbusters may be a good place to start (Die hard / Top Gun / Terminator etc..) without needing to buy a player would boost uptake, after all 5 DVD's would be 'worth' £100 or so. I guess it depends on if the movie producers want this format (with all the DRM goodness they get from it, or whether its a push by the device manufacturers. After all no one is saying who is paying for these 'free' DVD's.
Of course giving them away free would probably just mean that a hell of a lot of HDDVD's would appear on ebay.
The BBC very is clearly not part of nor owned by the government. It's an was originally created by a group of wireless manufacturers. It is supported by a license fee so that it has financial independence from the Government. It was given its royal charter in 1927 and from that point onwards it has been answerable to the British people via the BBC Board of Governors. Those Governors are appointed to act as trustees for the public interest - ensuring it's accountable and independent.
If you think a Royal Charter means something is part of Government you need to do some rudementary research. Organisations with royal charters include; The Institute of Mathematics and its Applications (IMA); the British Standards Institute and the British Computing society (ther are many more, RSPCA RSPB etc.. see wikipedia).
Of course the BBC does have a relationship with government and the Government approves the level of the license fee on a periodic basis (but they don't collect it)
Additionally parliament has enacted a number of pieces of legislation that guarantee editorial independence, which should be clear from the BBC's content, which is un-biased, regardless of government position, and is supportive or hostile to government in equal measure. It is not a political tool, but a public service.
Not sure about Finland but the BBC certainly isn't government controlled, in fact the BBC enjoys a similar relationship to government as do most other Media organisations with their respective governments, i.e. governments often don't like what they are saying about them, but cant do much about it unless it is deemed to be untrue. I would suggest that you look at BBC coverage yourself, and when you do you will realise that there is no state control of content.
As far as the US government is concerned though I would have thought that the things that make it appear opposed to a free press on occasion are the more blatant attacks against media organisations (al-Jazeera?) and insistence on things like embedded journalists in war zones. That said I doubt anyone could claim that the US government is trying to prevent a free press operating, its just doing what all governments try to do, which is present the best possible image of themselves.
I suppose the point that a lot of people will make is that the US government must control the press because Fox news appears to have such an obvious bias.... forgetting the point that in a free press media organisations are free, free to oppose and also free to support the government. Plus Fox is delivering what people appear to want so who can argue with that?
I think that determining a level of press freedom is almost impossible. Any company in any country is subject to some government control, and more over is subject to government pressure (through tax or the judicial system). When we start seeing the US government actively preventing broadcasts, arresting reporters for what they report (withholding sources is a different area see next paragraph), excessively taxing / shutting down organisations or passing laws to limit freedoms for the press (would require constitutional change I assume?), then we can start really getting worried.
As for reporters not giving up their sources, it is fair to say that if a reporter reports something then they do take a risk, and they should protect their sources, however if the law says a crime has been committed and the source should be identified then legal action against the reporter is, if not fair, then at least valid. Not too sure what I think about that (I don't like the idea of reporters being arrested for what they write) but its up to the US people and legislature to determine their laws.
So is the US government less press friendly than some other countries? probably, is it working against the press? most likely (everyone else is). Is the US Government actively seeking to destroy press freedoms? well probably not, but Im sure its trying to make sure that it has as much control and influence as it can get away with, after all it is in the business of persuading people to vote / agree with it,
I assume that you are looking at this from a national / regional culture perspective, and that may be valid in some areas but I would assume the largest impact (well the largest 'cultural' impact at least) would not come from that area at all.
I have over time worked with a few programmers from a diverse range of national cultures and I have found that the only cultural impact that is discernible is the corporate or technological culture. That is to say that project management and technical approaches (using the latest tech or sticking to established and stable tech etc..) had an impact, whilst the individual team members backgrounds had little effect.
I think what you need to do is look at 3 - 5 applications that are not aimed at a corporate end user (to remove prevalent the corporate culture as an factor), and that have been written by different people / groups in different countries, and then try to identify where they came from. I am willing to bet that you will be unable to do so.
I would go further and say that if you look at open source projects developed around the world that the methods used in developing the code would not be largely different. Open Source would provide hopefully give you more insight as you should have access to the code and also be able to see what processes are being followed to create and update that code, as well as having a good idea of what the aims of the projects are and also what the impetus behind its inception were. Although I am sure the project and management methodologies will have been different, I would suggest that they would not differ based on a national or regional culture.
Technology is a global phenomenon, and the aims and objectives of corporations and even of individuals tend to be similar, moreover certain practices have been developed that just work, sure some were more prevalent in some societies in the past but now, as people have become more aware of what works, there has been a large amount of crossover, and the cultural element is largely gone.
Of course if you compare Open Source and Closed Source projects you will see in many cases a major divergence in methodology, but that will be because of the cultures inherent in those communities. To look at culture and its impact on IT, I would suggest you need to rapidly redefine what you mean by culture.
To put it bluntly, programming is not an art form, it is damn close at times, but it is not subject to as much interpritation as other areas. Whilst software is created with the aims of a creator in mind, and that creator will be in some ways influenced by his local culture when formulating his aims, I doubt that those aims would be unique, and If someone else from a different culture addressed the same aims I believe that the approach and end result would be very similar.
Lastly I should add that whilst I have tried to address in broad terms some of what you mention, I believe that this whole area is secondary to so many other factors that it is almost a non existent element, But that is just my experience, and is likely not to be representative of the industry as a whole.
For once in history, we have the ability to freely say and do anything, without causing any type of direct harm If it were true this would be a nice statement, but its not. What I am trying to say is the legal code that each nation has should be sufficient to regulate the internet. In that I am saying that if you use a newspaper to libel someone and you are then liable for it the same applies to or should apply to the internet. If you incite a murder via normal mail and would be liable the same should go for e-mail.
the point you are managing to miss is that if you use existing national laws to determine what is acceptable you don't need to pass additional, and often stupid law that applies to the internet. Another example is pornography, in the UK you are supposed to take some precautions to prevent people under 18 from buying pornography, this is presumably because at some point the government that was elected by the people decided this was something that was acceptable and also that it was something that the population as a whole agreed to, so this should also apply to the internet, or at least people doing business on the web.
We don't need badly informed politicians creating new laws that are in effect unnecessary and ill thought out, not because the internet is perfect and needs to be left alone (at the end of the day there are a lot of religious and conservative people out there who will scream shout and vote the government into taking action), but because we already have rules that are or can be applied.
Before I can take your argument that we need censorship seriously, you are going to have to show how this double-plus-ungood content has hurt the world As for that statement we currently do employ censorship in limited areas. pornography is the main one and kids will always sneak a look , as you said, so lets apply the rules on the net - and no more - its not going to stop kids sneaking a look but it might mean that parents don't sue the daylights out of anyone they think they can sue the daylights out of for a little extra cash, and it may also stop them from calling to the government for even tighter legislation (ban pornography?) in that lovely way only parents groups and people with "family values" can - i.e. save the children.
If normal laws were applied, then freedom of expression - or the equivalent (or lack thereof) in your country would apply - if there are strict laws about what you can and cant say in a country well that probably means that your web access is already censored, it tends to be liberal countries like the UK that protect freedom of expression, and those protections need to be applied along with any other relevant law to the web, the last thing you want is a law that says what you can do on the web and a different one for what you can do on the street.
(As for doubleplusungood content, its crimethink to plusgood it and a comrade of mine from miniluv will be there doubleplusquick - to deliver the new newspeak dictionary - its amazing there are less than half the words of the old version in it:))
You have a good idea of what you want, and I can see that you feel that the internet is currently what you want it to be - for you at least, but unless you employ a bit of realism and pragmatism its going to get taken away. What you should be doing is stopping additional legislation and offering an alternative - i.e. gee we have all these laws that are mostly being followed, lets make sure we get them right before writing a bunch of new ones that change the web into a parent / conservative / religious / corporate controlled media delivery system.
By the way Im not anti-porn nor do I hold a conservative political or strong religious view, but I do think that if the internet isnt deemed to be regulated by existing law, people will try to crate new law to take away what freedom we do have.
Replying to my own post (sorry) just to add that legislation should only ever apply to people who can have a hand in changing it - so I am not suggesting (in parent post) that any national legislation should apply outside of national boundries - i.e. the "Would you want China / N Korea / Saudi Arabia / America forcing restrictions on what you write in your country" argument dont apply. No taxation without representation I can live with but legislation without representation I cannot.
I'm glad that there is someone else posting that they are not entirely against this in principal.
Frankly I think that requiring something that is equivalent to a broadcasting license for web based video is a stupid idea, but there has to be some way of regulating certain content with existing legislation. The whole "think of the children" thing is generally stupid, however if there were a simple requirement for age verification for sites with content that is not suitable for children, most of it would be inaccessible to children and the problem would go away. Surely this should be sufficient as there are already laws to protect children, a different medium doesn't make that any more complex. (By not suitable for children I mean porn and extreme violence, not political discussion, or areas considered free speech.)
This raises the usual problem of finding a suitable proof of age system (not everyone has a credit card, and there are many privacy concerns with other systems) but there has got to be some mixture of effective methods.
I think the main problem here is two fold; firstly, just because its video and looks like it could be TV doesn't make it a broadcast, but its easy to persuade a politician it is because it does look like one. Secondly the internet is impossibly hard to regulate, and no one seems to actually be bothering to apply common sense to how regulation through existing legislation could be achieved.
We already have laws that cover decency, press freedoms, personal liberty, pornography etc.. so lets apply them to this new medium, you don't need new legislation, after all its simple to see what the aim of existing legislation was, so apply it as such. Where the person who is committing an offence is outside of your country well you are stuck, but that would be the case with new or old legislation (I'm not going to touch on extradition because its a mind field). So what we need is common sense and the sensible application of existing law, not new useless legislation.
Just one more point (In general not to the parent poster - I'm off on a tangent)- the whole EU thing is starting to get a bit silly - the EU is not a country (and if it ever looks to become a federation in the way the US is blood will be spilled first(not because the US is bad but because I like my country just fine as it is)) and we don't all use the the Euro either. There are some aspects of law that are handled by the EU but on a whole it is still national law that is important, except for transnational issues within the EU area (and i have no objection to international law either), what we are seeing here is legislators in the EU parliament trying to grab more legislative control, either because they are bored and think they should be doing something or because they are in it for the 'power', and that is what we should really be worried about. I didn't say my government could give my country away and I doubt that I am alone in saying that they wont be in government for long if they try to. (one way or the other).
You are giving the admins - even some of the non attachment clickers a lot of credit... - This is an OS Small and medium business' use because it "just works"(tm) ad because windows admins are cheap. Its almost completely configurable by wizard for Christs sake, and the wizards do not include everything that you may need to look at from a security point of view.
Now I am not suggesting that everything should be configured in at a CLI or eve that the admin should just be presented with a load of MMC snapins and no guidance, but the ease with which an apparently working server can be set up and configured is worrying - especially if security related tasks are not included in the wizards...
I have come across enough 2k/2k3 server admins who do not understand the OS at all and don't really understand what they are doing with it, they are sort of learning as they go (in production environments). This is not because they are stupid (inexperienced, ill qualified certainly.. but nor stupid) but because they were "good" at using windows and just scaled up, all the nice step by step wizards meant they didn't have to bother with learning anything more complex or in depth. In effect there are a huge number of windows admins out there who are really power users, and who really do need their hand holding fully, or need to come across an OS where everything is of by default, and to turn it o you need to have an understanding of what you are doing, or in the very least have to do some research..
Just - additionally these tend to be the admins who are unaware of and do not take advantage of whole segments of their OS's capabilities (Active Directory / Group Policy / Scripting / RIS / DFS etc.. (its been a while sorry if the names have changed..)) ad ed up convincing even less knowledgeable management to buy software that either puts a shiny front end over an existing feature (the multitude of AD Management suits that do nothing to enhance manageability) - or that replicates functionality (like software deployment) without using the component that is present - leading the company into even more of a lock in situation, but now with multiple products...
Ad yeah I know you get what you pay for, and I know its down to management etc.. but Windows server is *deceptively* easy to manage...
--------
just as a side note on your "hopefully aren't dopey attachment clickers" comment - I do penetration testing and security audits on a fairly regular basis, one of the simple tests we used to run was emailing an executable attachment that simply wrote a file to disk (or some such activity - initially we had it display warnings etc... then found the silent ones more interesting..) ad what we found was that most of the IT admins that received it (initially somewhere in the 60% area) virus scanned it and then executed it - this was when it came from a legitimate company address with a note saying that "X received this and needs it to do Y"... on a number of occasions admins executed it whilst logged into their personal machines with domain level admin accounts (which they should never have been logged in as anyway...).
On a couple of occasions instructions in a mail from a random email address and with spuriously written c0NTent advising the user to rename the attached.doc to.exe and report back to a fictitious person were actually carried out - and repeatedly by the same guys - all because the AV thought it was OK.
Ad this is after awareness training and having a laugh about who got caught out last time. So no admins are not necessarily and better at not clicking attachments as common users - they just have less of an excuse
(Not sure I got my point across - brain is not working...)
Just wondering as I have not seen anything official on this, but what happens when a product that requires activation is EOL'd by Microsoft? I understand that support and patches will stop, but that is often less of an issue for large businesses with internal tech suport and decent security in place, but what happens if you need to reactivate a product? Will the activation system still be available or is this yet another method of forcing corporate and home customers to carry out periodic upgrades?
I believe later licenses can be used for earlier OS's - and I remember seeing both 2k server and 2k3 server keys when buying 2k3 for a company. Not sure how long they will continue that though.
I agree with the TV license - its the private companies that are now being used to enforce it that are a nightmare - they *do not* have the right to "search" your house for a TV or make you pay any fine unless you have been convicted of an ofence (i.e. court).
Slashdot Mirror
My point is that if you are going to look at TCO for a *nix based system, or rather one element of it, the cost of staff to administrate it, per member of staff, that cost is going to be higher. This is because getting a decent *nix admin is more expensive than getting a decent windows admin - and generally you dont need decent windows admins.
:)
However if you step back you will find that that one *nix admin will be able to administrate many more services and applications than a single Windows admin (Exchange administration on windos vs a postfix/imap solution on *nix springs to mind - where you might need 2-3 Exchange admins plus a server admin against one server & mail admin on the *nix side... always depending on the organisation of course).
What I have seen and found is that the staff pay element in TCO for *nix systems is only an issue when you dont take into account the capabilities of both *nix hardware and qualified staff, or when you are in a mixed environment that is light on *nix implementations (say just a few webservers. but dedicated staff because the windows teams cannot handle *nix administration well - or in addition to their existing role.).
Personal experience suggests that TCO for an organisation using only FOSS is about the same as for an organisation running Windows for the first year and then dramatically drops. Not to mention that on the linux side you get a complete system - including mail, file storage, print storage, security, backup solution etc... without the additional licenses and support agreements. But hey, since when did a single oppinion or the experience of a single person suggest a trend
- excuse the spelling -
Without being too harsh - the barriers to becomming a MS qualified Tech are monetary not skill based, and being an unqualified (but competent) MS tech requires less in-depth skill than a similarily capable *nix admin.
In short, there wont be as many *nix tech's because it does actually require a decent amount of understanding into what is happening within a system to administrate a *nix implementation successfuly. Windows is just too easy to administrate (A point in its favour if "out of the box" configurations are enough for you.).
This line made me think of something I hadn't thought to consider before (excuse my rather twisted mental process... and appologies for potentially adding to any MS generated FFUD - it is not intended.)
Anyway - the line:
That's right, folks, this agreement will make developers so angry that they'll triumph in the face of Microsoft telling them they're all patent infringers.
My thought:
Setting aside for a moment the fact that software patents are not applicable everywhere, and some other points such as the wide geographic spread of OSS developers..
Is it possible that MS or any other patent holder would go after the individual developers responsible for the creation of OSS software?
I don't mean just the large companies or business that use OSS (i.e. groups that could actually pay any compensation) , but the individuals who produce the applications, fixes and add ons that OSS is built up of. The worry here would be that it would place a burden on potential developers and potentially reduce the amount of people willing to contribute...
Moreover with the US seemingly having a much larger international grasp, (not a partisan political comment but there have been a number of cases where US domestic law appears to have been used against individuals with either only tenuous links to the US or no links at all, but where poor exradition agreements exist...) would that potentially threaten international development efforts that are occurring outside the scope of the US patent law?
I hate to say i but when I see a deal like this one I am unable to see any of the good points that must be there and tend to see them more as potential threats to OSS, especially since it seems that OSS is starting (with ODF and others) to impact in markets that have traditionally been associated with Microsoft (either as a Microsoft Dominated area, or as a Microsoft Monopoly.)
Anyway - As I said - this comment is not intended as FFUD or to start/further any myths - just a though
FTA:
Semen Washer
What they do: Take semen samples under microscopic observation to study their sperm count, then spin, separate, add preservatives and freeze the samples for in vitro fertilization.
Although how that is massively more dirty than any other job that involves looking at cells under a microscope beats me.
I usually find that waiting a month after the service pack helps too, oh and SP2's should be given at least 2-3 months leeway.
Of course having the benefit of a full pre-deployment test rig helps, small business and consumers have to rely on other peoples propaganda FUD and try to make an educated guess...
Just a quick come back on the "unanswerable questions" I think that it would be nice to hear some personal perspectives rather than ones with corporate approval.
I can see where you are coming from, after all if he said feature X was something they would like to include and its dropped or not implemented then there will be cries of shame from others in this forum. All that said however it would have been nice for him to state that there were some cool things that they were looking at or anything that would make it at least appear that Microsoft were trying to develop their own ideas (ignoring development cycle argument for a moment at least).
On the other hand I suppose that if he had suggested a feature that was being looked at it would only start a discussion as to whether it would be proprietary to the extent that it would once again cause issues with standards and interoperability. Not an easy position for someone to be in.
Still I would like to see some personal views.
I hope someone gets rid of the (Score:-1, Troll) on the parent.
The Parent has a very good point, IE has been bundled with Windows for a long time and for *most* users getting rid of it was either not an option or not on their horizon as something to do. I mean come on, how many people out there think that internet explorer is the internet?
Things are changing (Im not saying people will necessarily adopt a different browser, or OS) because people are becoming more aware of what the internet is and also that there are many applications that do the things they want, (not just web browsing either, but also accessing news feeds, email, audio etc..)
Microsoft did push Internet Explorer and it dominated for many reasons, one of those is its integration with Windows, and that has led to people not realising that alternatives exist.
* If you had more time, is there a new feature you would have liked to include in IE7?
* ...But where are the IE innovations? Why can't the IE team get ahead of the curve on Firefox? ...
* Let's pretend for a moment that Internet Explorer isn't the default web-browser built into Windows and instead, users are presented with a choice on first login
* IE7, like IE6, renders a lot of pages significantly differently than the other main HTML rendering engines available
Seem either very vague or appear to be dodging the question (or the very obvious intent) that is being asked. Moreover I think that the questions were actually quite a good selection, and not too aggressive (nor too fluffy). I would like to know how much input or oversight Microsofts marketing / other departments had in the answers.
I've been looking at (and commenting on) some of the Microsoft related blogs that are out there, such as MSTechToday and I am intrigued at how defensive Microsoft advocates are (I know that Mac, GNU/Linux and BSD advocates are fairly Zealous too...), but they appear defensive even when they don't need to be. Love it or loath it, Microsoft software is now in general, stable, usable and allows you to be productive, and Microsoft are focusing on security too.
Things like the "get the facts" campaign against GNU/Linux appear to be no better than negative political ads (Oh and check how many of the companies featured pointing out why OSS isn't an option for them in production are using OSS web servers, Firewalls and other technologies).
The one thing that stands out is that whilst the GNU/Linux groups are very keen to point out how great and how secure and stable the OS is, they don't tend to have to justify the direction they are going, even to pro-Microsoft posters. The Microsoft advocates on the other hand seem to have to point out that everything is being done to address a customer need that they have identified, and that anyone claiming a feature in the OS, or one being introduced into the OS may not benefit windows users (or in the case of DRM and Driver signing) may damage interests is working against some sort of ideal.
I guess the answer to that is that people use MS software because it fills a need of some sort, or because in a given situation there is no alternative (or because they are locked in to it for a given cycle), whilst GNU/Linux, BSD and Mac users use their respective products because they think that they are the best solution out there, and because they feel that the organisation / group also have a philosophy that they can either agree with or actively support.
I guess what I am saying rather badly is that those people making the software that is and runs on Mac OS, GNU/Linux, BSD etc.. stand for something, whilst Microsoft doesn't seem to anymore (and the whole Microsoft is evil and stand for evil doesn't count as its fairly invalid and is voiced by people who detest MS not its user base - although I guess there may be a certain attraction to some people :) ).
Just a thought, In modern markets is a philosophy that you aspire to something that adds something to your product? Google seem to think so, Banks seem to be keen to promote their reputations and ideals, even auto manufacturers try.
Anyway, thanks
I should declare that I use GNU/Linux and Solaris rather than MS products these days; but was quite fond of Active Directory and 2000 server, before any of the above is seen as either entireley pro or anti Microsoft
Good point,
And wasnt that why Sun Microsystems were *not* going to Open Java? Im sure I remember reading that they wanted to maintain control of the development of the language and its implementation, although that was a long while ago.
I wouldn't though compare this to the Debian - Firefox - Iceweasel scenario though, as Debian are not Forking Firefox, developing it independently and making it less compatible, but simply working around some (legitimate) issues that Debian have with Mozilla. (and Mozilla has a perfectly sensible stance on the issue too - Im a Debian user but I don't think you need to take sides over that particular issue - Both groups are aiming at the same goal, but with slightly different ideas of how to get there.)
The article only says it will be an OSI Approved License and I would suggest that that probably means the CCDL,
FTA it looks like it really is, finally about to be reality (:)), Java under an OSI approved license. Not only that but within 60 days and all because of pressure from the community - I wonder where else that might work (drivers? - nah need a bigger market share...).
It looks like Sun Microsystems are starting to see the benefits of Open Source technology, first Open Office (Under the GPL no less) then Solaris and now Java, - I can only hope it catches on throughout the industry.
Just a couple of points - I know that Java isn't being released under the GPL, and that there are still some interesting debates going on about the CCDL and interoperability with the GPL (I wont even pretend to know the precise issues), but it is definitely a good thing. Since Sun Microsystems is primarily seen as a hardware company, and presumably isn't too worried about the revenue's it is losing from the software sales it could have had (I know this doesn't apply to Java but it could have to Open Office and did to Solaris) it does mean that nothing that they are doing can be readily applied to a Software company. So anybody suggesting that Microsoft et al should start Open Sourcing their code because it works for Sun Microsystems is probably a little off the mark.
Well anyway - Be a good day when it *actually* happens and his is very good news. I wonder if I should look at using Java...
PS: By the way (and slightly random) my spell checker in OO.org attempts to correct CCDL as CUDDLY and GNU-GPL as SNUGGLE, how sweet.
Offtopic -
Do appear to be some issues logging in, although the problem seems to be fairly short (2-4 minutes) and infrequent (for me anyway) I've seen it maybe 5 times in the last 3 days (503 System error is the response I am getting trying to get to the login page). Anyway you are not alone.
Ontopic
Since when does anyone read the article!?
But more to the point I wonder if giving away say 5 decent DVD's (Older Blockbusters may be a good place to start (Die hard / Top Gun / Terminator etc..) without needing to buy a player would boost uptake, after all 5 DVD's would be 'worth' £100 or so. I guess it depends on if the movie producers want this format (with all the DRM goodness they get from it, or whether its a push by the device manufacturers. After all no one is saying who is paying for these 'free' DVD's.
Of course giving them away free would probably just mean that a hell of a lot of HDDVD's would appear on ebay.
Are you suggesting that the US govt is unhappy with "not for export" standard encryption being "imported" *into* the country? :)
Hate to say this but its 2006, so thats more than 50 years from the last one...
Just do as we say goddamnit, your not even 600 years old yet, you should listen to your elders.
:)
kids today
The BBC very is clearly not part of nor owned by the government. It's an was originally created by a group of wireless manufacturers. It is supported by a license fee so that it has financial independence from the Government. It was given its royal charter in 1927 and from that point onwards it has been answerable to the British people via the BBC Board of Governors. Those Governors are appointed to act as trustees for the public interest - ensuring it's accountable and independent.
If you think a Royal Charter means something is part of Government you need to do some rudementary research. Organisations with royal charters include; The Institute of Mathematics and its Applications (IMA); the British Standards Institute and the British Computing society (ther are many more, RSPCA RSPB etc.. see wikipedia). Of course the BBC does have a relationship with government and the Government approves the level of the license fee on a periodic basis (but they don't collect it)
Additionally parliament has enacted a number of pieces of legislation that guarantee editorial independence, which should be clear from the BBC's content, which is un-biased, regardless of government position, and is supportive or hostile to government in equal measure. It is not a political tool, but a public service.
Not sure about Finland but the BBC certainly isn't government controlled, in fact the BBC enjoys a similar relationship to government as do most other Media organisations with their respective governments, i.e. governments often don't like what they are saying about them, but cant do much about it unless it is deemed to be untrue. I would suggest that you look at BBC coverage yourself, and when you do you will realise that there is no state control of content.
As far as the US government is concerned though I would have thought that the things that make it appear opposed to a free press on occasion are the more blatant attacks against media organisations (al-Jazeera?) and insistence on things like embedded journalists in war zones. That said I doubt anyone could claim that the US government is trying to prevent a free press operating, its just doing what all governments try to do, which is present the best possible image of themselves.
I suppose the point that a lot of people will make is that the US government must control the press because Fox news appears to have such an obvious bias.... forgetting the point that in a free press media organisations are free, free to oppose and also free to support the government. Plus Fox is delivering what people appear to want so who can argue with that?
I think that determining a level of press freedom is almost impossible. Any company in any country is subject to some government control, and more over is subject to government pressure (through tax or the judicial system). When we start seeing the US government actively preventing broadcasts, arresting reporters for what they report (withholding sources is a different area see next paragraph), excessively taxing / shutting down organisations or passing laws to limit freedoms for the press (would require constitutional change I assume?), then we can start really getting worried.
As for reporters not giving up their sources, it is fair to say that if a reporter reports something then they do take a risk, and they should protect their sources, however if the law says a crime has been committed and the source should be identified then legal action against the reporter is, if not fair, then at least valid. Not too sure what I think about that (I don't like the idea of reporters being arrested for what they write) but its up to the US people and legislature to determine their laws.
So is the US government less press friendly than some other countries? probably, is it working against the press? most likely (everyone else is). Is the US Government actively seeking to destroy press freedoms? well probably not, but Im sure its trying to make sure that it has as much control and influence as it can get away with, after all it is in the business of persuading people to vote / agree with it,
I assume that you are looking at this from a national / regional culture perspective, and that may be valid in some areas but I would assume the largest impact (well the largest 'cultural' impact at least) would not come from that area at all.
I have over time worked with a few programmers from a diverse range of national cultures and I have found that the only cultural impact that is discernible is the corporate or technological culture. That is to say that project management and technical approaches (using the latest tech or sticking to established and stable tech etc..) had an impact, whilst the individual team members backgrounds had little effect.
I think what you need to do is look at 3 - 5 applications that are not aimed at a corporate end user (to remove prevalent the corporate culture as an factor), and that have been written by different people / groups in different countries, and then try to identify where they came from. I am willing to bet that you will be unable to do so.
I would go further and say that if you look at open source projects developed around the world that the methods used in developing the code would not be largely different. Open Source would provide hopefully give you more insight as you should have access to the code and also be able to see what processes are being followed to create and update that code, as well as having a good idea of what the aims of the projects are and also what the impetus behind its inception were. Although I am sure the project and management methodologies will have been different, I would suggest that they would not differ based on a national or regional culture.
Technology is a global phenomenon, and the aims and objectives of corporations and even of individuals tend to be similar, moreover certain practices have been developed that just work, sure some were more prevalent in some societies in the past but now, as people have become more aware of what works, there has been a large amount of crossover, and the cultural element is largely gone.
Of course if you compare Open Source and Closed Source projects you will see in many cases a major divergence in methodology, but that will be because of the cultures inherent in those communities. To look at culture and its impact on IT, I would suggest you need to rapidly redefine what you mean by culture.
To put it bluntly, programming is not an art form, it is damn close at times, but it is not subject to as much interpritation as other areas. Whilst software is created with the aims of a creator in mind, and that creator will be in some ways influenced by his local culture when formulating his aims, I doubt that those aims would be unique, and If someone else from a different culture addressed the same aims I believe that the approach and end result would be very similar.
Lastly I should add that whilst I have tried to address in broad terms some of what you mention, I believe that this whole area is secondary to so many other factors that it is almost a non existent element, But that is just my experience, and is likely not to be representative of the industry as a whole.
For once in history, we have the ability to freely say and do anything, without causing any type of direct harm If it were true this would be a nice statement, but its not. What I am trying to say is the legal code that each nation has should be sufficient to regulate the internet. In that I am saying that if you use a newspaper to libel someone and you are then liable for it the same applies to or should apply to the internet. If you incite a murder via normal mail and would be liable the same should go for e-mail.
:))
the point you are managing to miss is that if you use existing national laws to determine what is acceptable you don't need to pass additional, and often stupid law that applies to the internet. Another example is pornography, in the UK you are supposed to take some precautions to prevent people under 18 from buying pornography, this is presumably because at some point the government that was elected by the people decided this was something that was acceptable and also that it was something that the population as a whole agreed to, so this should also apply to the internet, or at least people doing business on the web.
We don't need badly informed politicians creating new laws that are in effect unnecessary and ill thought out, not because the internet is perfect and needs to be left alone (at the end of the day there are a lot of religious and conservative people out there who will scream shout and vote the government into taking action), but because we already have rules that are or can be applied.
Before I can take your argument that we need censorship seriously, you are going to have to show how this double-plus-ungood content has hurt the world As for that statement we currently do employ censorship in limited areas. pornography is the main one and kids will always sneak a look , as you said, so lets apply the rules on the net - and no more - its not going to stop kids sneaking a look but it might mean that parents don't sue the daylights out of anyone they think they can sue the daylights out of for a little extra cash, and it may also stop them from calling to the government for even tighter legislation (ban pornography?) in that lovely way only parents groups and people with "family values" can - i.e. save the children.
If normal laws were applied, then freedom of expression - or the equivalent (or lack thereof) in your country would apply - if there are strict laws about what you can and cant say in a country well that probably means that your web access is already censored, it tends to be liberal countries like the UK that protect freedom of expression, and those protections need to be applied along with any other relevant law to the web, the last thing you want is a law that says what you can do on the web and a different one for what you can do on the street.
(As for doubleplusungood content, its crimethink to plusgood it and a comrade of mine from miniluv will be there doubleplusquick - to deliver the new newspeak dictionary - its amazing there are less than half the words of the old version in it
You have a good idea of what you want, and I can see that you feel that the internet is currently what you want it to be - for you at least, but unless you employ a bit of realism and pragmatism its going to get taken away. What you should be doing is stopping additional legislation and offering an alternative - i.e. gee we have all these laws that are mostly being followed, lets make sure we get them right before writing a bunch of new ones that change the web into a parent / conservative / religious / corporate controlled media delivery system.
By the way Im not anti-porn nor do I hold a conservative political or strong religious view, but I do think that if the internet isnt deemed to be regulated by existing law, people will try to crate new law to take away what freedom we do have.
Replying to my own post (sorry) just to add that legislation should only ever apply to people who can have a hand in changing it - so I am not suggesting (in parent post) that any national legislation should apply outside of national boundries - i.e. the "Would you want China / N Korea / Saudi Arabia / America forcing restrictions on what you write in your country" argument dont apply. No taxation without representation I can live with but legislation without representation I cannot.
I'm glad that there is someone else posting that they are not entirely against this in principal.
Frankly I think that requiring something that is equivalent to a broadcasting license for web based video is a stupid idea, but there has to be some way of regulating certain content with existing legislation. The whole "think of the children" thing is generally stupid, however if there were a simple requirement for age verification for sites with content that is not suitable for children, most of it would be inaccessible to children and the problem would go away. Surely this should be sufficient as there are already laws to protect children, a different medium doesn't make that any more complex. (By not suitable for children I mean porn and extreme violence, not political discussion, or areas considered free speech.)
This raises the usual problem of finding a suitable proof of age system (not everyone has a credit card, and there are many privacy concerns with other systems) but there has got to be some mixture of effective methods.
I think the main problem here is two fold; firstly, just because its video and looks like it could be TV doesn't make it a broadcast, but its easy to persuade a politician it is because it does look like one. Secondly the internet is impossibly hard to regulate, and no one seems to actually be bothering to apply common sense to how regulation through existing legislation could be achieved.
We already have laws that cover decency, press freedoms, personal liberty, pornography etc.. so lets apply them to this new medium, you don't need new legislation, after all its simple to see what the aim of existing legislation was, so apply it as such. Where the person who is committing an offence is outside of your country well you are stuck, but that would be the case with new or old legislation (I'm not going to touch on extradition because its a mind field). So what we need is common sense and the sensible application of existing law, not new useless legislation.
Just one more point (In general not to the parent poster - I'm off on a tangent)- the whole EU thing is starting to get a bit silly - the EU is not a country (and if it ever looks to become a federation in the way the US is blood will be spilled first(not because the US is bad but because I like my country just fine as it is)) and we don't all use the the Euro either. There are some aspects of law that are handled by the EU but on a whole it is still national law that is important, except for transnational issues within the EU area (and i have no objection to international law either), what we are seeing here is legislators in the EU parliament trying to grab more legislative control, either because they are bored and think they should be doing something or because they are in it for the 'power', and that is what we should really be worried about. I didn't say my government could give my country away and I doubt that I am alone in saying that they wont be in government for long if they try to. (one way or the other).
You are giving the admins - even some of the non attachment clickers a lot of credit... - This is an OS Small and medium business' use because it "just works"(tm) ad because windows admins are cheap. Its almost completely configurable by wizard for Christs sake, and the wizards do not include everything that you may need to look at from a security point of view.
.doc to .exe and report back to a fictitious person were actually carried out - and repeatedly by the same guys - all because the AV thought it was OK.
Now I am not suggesting that everything should be configured in at a CLI or eve that the admin should just be presented with a load of MMC snapins and no guidance, but the ease with which an apparently working server can be set up and configured is worrying - especially if security related tasks are not included in the wizards...
I have come across enough 2k/2k3 server admins who do not understand the OS at all and don't really understand what they are doing with it, they are sort of learning as they go (in production environments). This is not because they are stupid (inexperienced, ill qualified certainly.. but nor stupid) but because they were "good" at using windows and just scaled up, all the nice step by step wizards meant they didn't have to bother with learning anything more complex or in depth. In effect there are a huge number of windows admins out there who are really power users, and who really do need their hand holding fully, or need to come across an OS where everything is of by default, and to turn it o you need to have an understanding of what you are doing, or in the very least have to do some research..
Just - additionally these tend to be the admins who are unaware of and do not take advantage of whole segments of their OS's capabilities (Active Directory / Group Policy / Scripting / RIS / DFS etc.. (its been a while sorry if the names have changed..)) ad ed up convincing even less knowledgeable management to buy software that either puts a shiny front end over an existing feature (the multitude of AD Management suits that do nothing to enhance manageability) - or that replicates functionality (like software deployment) without using the component that is present - leading the company into even more of a lock in situation, but now with multiple products...
Ad yeah I know you get what you pay for, and I know its down to management etc.. but Windows server is *deceptively* easy to manage...
--------
just as a side note on your "hopefully aren't dopey attachment clickers" comment - I do penetration testing and security audits on a fairly regular basis, one of the simple tests we used to run was emailing an executable attachment that simply wrote a file to disk (or some such activity - initially we had it display warnings etc... then found the silent ones more interesting..) ad what we found was that most of the IT admins that received it (initially somewhere in the 60% area) virus scanned it and then executed it - this was when it came from a legitimate company address with a note saying that "X received this and needs it to do Y"... on a number of occasions admins executed it whilst logged into their personal machines with domain level admin accounts (which they should never have been logged in as anyway...).
On a couple of occasions instructions in a mail from a random email address and with spuriously written c0NTent advising the user to rename the attached
Ad this is after awareness training and having a laugh about who got caught out last time. So no admins are not necessarily and better at not clicking attachments as common users - they just have less of an excuse
(Not sure I got my point across - brain is not working...)
Just wondering as I have not seen anything official on this, but what happens when a product that requires activation is EOL'd by Microsoft? I understand that support and patches will stop, but that is often less of an issue for large businesses with internal tech suport and decent security in place, but what happens if you need to reactivate a product? Will the activation system still be available or is this yet another method of forcing corporate and home customers to carry out periodic upgrades?
Anyway,
Thanks
I believe later licenses can be used for earlier OS's - and I remember seeing both 2k server and 2k3 server keys when buying 2k3 for a company. Not sure how long they will continue that though.
I agree with the TV license - its the private companies that are now being used to enforce it that are a nightmare - they *do not* have the right to "search" your house for a TV or make you pay any fine unless you have been convicted of an ofence (i.e. court).