Cracking *IS* that bad, and it's a very juvenile mindset to think otherwise.
At what point in time did it come into your tiny little mind that other people in the world should bear the cost of what you do.
Wonder how much our corporate lawyers, plus my overtime, plus the cost of reinstalling the OS on all the boxes, plus the cost of having to delay product releases because we had to divert 12 people to sifting through all the data by hand to verify it's integrity.... boy you know corporate lawyers, Senior SA's, management sure do work pretty cheap these days... ANY defacement and you are into THOUSANDS of dollars in lost time, slipped projects, overtime, customer loyalty, oh.. but that's harmless... *THWACK*
Back in my days I may have gotten freaky on a BBS but I understood that *I* was doing something wrong, and was ready to step up if the ax man ever came, and not make lame ass excuses (lucky for my stupid ass he didn't, damn stupid looking back). But you... you seem to think that it's your god given right to thrash other people's property, things they might have put their heart and soul into and want to walk away claiming it's only something harmless, if you're going to do something stupid at least have enough BALLS to take responsibility.
Personally I'd trust AMD's track record more than Intel's. How many pentium bugs and interoperability issues have there been in comparison to AMD's x86 line over the past 5 years?
I will agree that speed is secondary, but it is not secondary to chipsets it is secondary to cost. Lot's of geeks would love to have a cool SGI, Sun Sparc or Alpha on their desktop but don't have the cash.
That would work if we lived in a society that actually cared. Imagine if some good old billionaire decided to "buy a puppet", how many people do you think would not vote for the puppet solely because he got a billion dollars? You can disclose it all, but nobody seems to really care all that much.
There has to be some regulations... (for an extreme example) let's say that billionaire put up a website with multiple T3's, a couple of Sun E10k clustered, etc. costing millions of dollars hired 5 webmasters, etc. and all he had to do was put a little disclosure notice on the bottom... that would put more than a few people out of the running.
I wish I could say that I have an answer, or that there is even an answer out there. When you try to protect the small guy, the big guys abuse it, you try to protect it from the big guys, the small guys get lost in the shuffle; until someone trys to use the law in a way that it wasn't meant to be and the little guy gets walked on.
Not to change the subject too much, but my mind was wandering.
Anybody have any ideas on how well chess games would work in a distributed environment? Some problems are more suited for distributed processing than others, and if chess is... then some interesting options come up.
Kasparov vs. the computers of the world, or computers A of the world vs. computers B of the world. The last one (A vs. B) seem most interesting to me: let two groups come up with their own method of distributing parts of the cpu cycles out, let them fight it out and see who's got the best code.
Ahh but your one statement is what I've been talking about all along.
Linux is no longer just Linux, one can't say Installable Linux Compiler, you have to say Installable Redhat Linux Compiler, you say Installable Caldera Linux Compiler. You said it yourself "download the package that works on your system". That is the crux of my statements Linux is not Linux, things have changed so much that we have to say Linux is the distribution. I can't say compiler installs on Sun, I have to say compiler installs on SunOS or installs on Solaris.
People seem to want to read NT or Microsoft or something else in my posts, I could careless about Microsoft (personally they make crap). This is probably just my grumpiness but one cannot make all encompasing statements anymore about Linux, it doesn't work there is a falsity in almost any overgeneral statement (I can probably find one obscure part that is NOT true invalidating the entire statement).
NT is competing with any other OS, infact NT competes with all the other Microsoft products NT competes with Win98. EVERY OS competes with every other OS (hell even pretty much dead OS's compete CPM competes with Solaris 7), and it even competes at a distribution level Caldera is a competitor of Redhat. Being the grumpy person I am, "the devil is in the details". You never explained that NT would be replacing with Solaris, you said you were sick of hearing things like "Linux is competing with Unix" it obviously is, and since I can't read your mind that's how I have to take your message. You can have lots of standards (packages, protocols, file layouts, etc.) but I chose packages and it only takes one to kill a generality..../configure; make... blah blah blah doesn't work because if I don't have a compiler I have to install one... Redhat, Caldera all have a different way of install the compiler package. Look a different way of installing, guess that's NOT a linux standard. Saying Redhat Linux has a standard, or Caldera Linux has a standard, is correct but by lumping everything together into a general statement you can no longer say that Linux has a standard. A side note: I never did say that NT has any standards or that any other OS has any standards that are ALLWAYS (or ever) followed; hell think how much NFS has varied in the past from platform to platform. I've ran into many apps that DO NOT work with configure, I have to go in tweak the Makefile for certain items, that configure didn't get. Lot's and lots of programs do NOT have a configure option, and you have to go into the Makefile (does that sound like a easy package installer to you). If you've never run into a problem with a program you had to compile then I'd say you are a very lucky man.
Since when is rpm a standard for all Linux distributions? In fact you pretty much invalidate this entire statement with the line right below it. (I'll let that one slip, so many people think only Redhat's distribution exist).
./configure.... Do I really have to go into this? Do you really believe that building a program, is the same as installing a package? How about this one... I don't have a compiler and I want to install a compiler package? RPM.. but wait I'm on a different Linux distribution...
Pretty damn unstandard from my end, UNLESS one starts saying Redhat has a standard, Suse has a standard, Caldera has a standard.
I don't believe I EVER stated that NT has a standard, infact NT is NOT even mentioned in my post.
The only thing that I tried to convince you of, is that Linux does NOT have a "recognized" standard. RPM may be a defacto standard, but no Linux god has said all packages must be installed by RPM.
The Solaris gods have said you will use pkgadd, the Irix gods have said inst, the Wintel have said "setup", no Linux does NOT have this (the entire nature of Linux is this, the lack of some requirements allow for quicker innovation). Of course, the big issue with all of these is: nobody HAS to conform to these, which gums up all the works. (and don't even try the./install ; make;make install thing; everyone should know better than that)
Being "grumpy_geek" I tend to be nitpicky on things and saying Linux has a standard ain't true. Redhat Linux has a standard, Suse Linux has a standard, and so on. Instead of saying Linux has a standard we now HAVE to say distribution x has a standard to be correct.
You can't tell me that companies aren't putting Linux in place of "traditional" unix workstations. Linux is competing with all OTHER operating systems, if you look at bit closer the Linux distributions are even competing with each other! There are lots of Sys V unix vendors out there, and they compete with each other.... oh, but Linux surely doesn't compete with Unix, Linux is the only exception to the whole entire marketplace.
Standards... well then tell me the standard way to install a package that works accross all Linux distributions?
I'm not bashing Linux, but you haven't convinced me at all.
Kiddie go home, I bet JP recommends OpenBSD over Windows, and I guess that's a bad choice too.
BlackICE has been around for quite some time, CNN, Wired, NWFusion, etc. have all done reviews on them (I've never even touched the product myself). I guess all the companies who ever did a review on BlackICE are all scum too now, and I guess that JP has just also been named ruler of the world; my god everyone but me is under the thumb of JP... You consipiracy junkies need to really get a clue (life).
Note: I personally think someone needs to shut JP up, but I think conspiracy freaks like your are an even worse ilk (you look like an idiot, and JP looks like a martyr).
Moderators: You may now mark this and the original message as flamebait.
Would you like to name a single securable OS out there? Linux? nope, OpenBSD? nope, Trusted Solaris? (what the NSA uses) nope.
People need to realise that NO OS is secure and that NO OS can be made secure (alla all OS's suck). Look how many security fixes have gone into Linux the past year alone (probably the first OS people think of when think of alternative to Windows). People have started believing that the OS alone can stop crackers, hackers and other wannabees and then whine when their "secure" system is cracked.
Cool, things are all nice and friendly. You mentioned SCSI was going away (didn't mention workstation), I said it wasn't (didn't know you were meaning workstation) and then it got a bit warmer.
I think we have always been both in agreement (SCSI isn't too useful on the desktop). People just need to clarify things (set some boundries, 2+2 does not ALLWAYS equal 4) before making broad statements that overlap areas of differing interests (pet peave of mine, probably why I'm grumpy_geek). Obviously we are in different parts of the IT industry and it is a large oversight to forget either one, when making statements that aren't confined to just one.
Bad memories... Novell last I worked with it was something in the 2.x region (pretty ancient version), the Novell guys tell me things here and there and I guess now it is a completely different monster now; but I will say this even back then it did do it's functions (Printing & fileserver); as an app server I'm not so sure (but that's another topic all together).
Cool, things are all nice and friendly. You mentioned SCSI was going away (didn't mention workstation), I said it wasn't (didn't know you were meaning workstation) and then it got a bit warmer.
I think we have always been both in agreement (SCSI isn't too useful on the desktop). People just need to clarify things (set some boundries, 2+2 does not ALLWAYS equal 4) before making broad statements that overlap areas of differing interests (pet peave of mine, probably why I'm grumpy_geek). Obviously we are in different parts of the IT industry and it is a large oversight to forget either one, when making statements that aren't confined to just one.
Bad memories... Novell last I worked with it was something in the 2.x region (pretty ancient version), the Novell guys tell me things here and there and I guess now it is a completely different monster now; but I will say this even back then it did do it's functions (Printing & fileserver); as an app server I'm not so sure (but that's another rant all together).
This kills you? You kill me. Look at where your at, "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters". Is 99.99...% of the public coming to slashdot? I DON'T expect the "average" person to be here; I expect intelligent people who realize that there are things other than PC's in the world. If you expected a workstation conversation, maybe you oughta remember to mention that; cause there are people who work on servers and not PC's. You want to talk to 99.999...% of the population go on over to zdnet, you want to talk to those in the know come on over after you realize you are being pretty pompus assuming only workstations exist in the world.
Stepping back now, different strokes for different folks, is all I can say, maybe you oughta state where you meant SCSI was going to die. I can't think of anybody who think SCSI belongs at the desktop (don't go there, there are special cases), so I had to assume you meant in the enterprise. You were implying very hard (my opinion) that SCSI was going to die everywhere. That being the case, I had to state my opinion on this blanket statement. Hell, I could state the converse of what you are saying, with a "IDE is going to be killed by SCSI," if I didn't also mention "in servers" I'd probably get lots of contrary opinions also, rightfully so, the PC is NOT the center of the know universe. Next time maybe you should think that there are people here who don't work on PC all the time. You are being very short-sited on this, I can walk both sides (workstations & servers) you want to talk workstations fine, you want to talk servers fine, you make blanket statements you better be able to apply it to both sides, or state which side it pertains to.
For the waste... oh yeah I burn money every day, right in front of my boss too. There is a reason business spend the amount of money they do, they have to. I guess to save money I'll use IDE drives so that it will slow down my search through 9 terabytes of storage, so that the web response comes back in 5 minutesl; sure the customer will wait, and I did save some money.
Speed difference between 66 & 80? You do realize, that you aren't going to get 66mb/s out of one drive that's the total speed you can get on the one controller. Not knowing much about UDMA/66 can you hang enough devices on it to fill that channel? With SCSI I can, if you aren't hanging enough drives off the controller to fill the bus, well then I guess it would be YOU and 99.999..% of the people who are burning money.
You did inform me about the SCSI perphs though, I never even knew (maybe didn't care) they existed. I don't believe they were ever common place, which I got from your post. I got the impression from you that they were the leading technology and every single desktop had them, but is getting replaced by USB; but hey miscommunications happen.
You priced a Solid State disk lately? Prices aren't going to be in desktop (remember that 99.999..% you know) region any time soon, 90k for a 4gig. Of course that wouldn't "hot-shot" technology that 99.9999...% of consumers should see on their desktops soon; and of course SSD's are a dieing technology since most act like SCSI devices, which we all know is going to die off and go IDE; speaking for 99.999...% of us.
UDMA/66 won't put SCSI under, I'm not familiar with UDMA/66 but if it's just got a faster bus... well big whoop. SCSI is meant to be able to do multiple operations simultaneously, hang lots of drives off of one controller, etc. Until something other than SCSI/fibre channel can allow me to hang 15 devices off of it, be able to do multiple operations simultaneously, allow me to share drives (I can hook-up 2 boxes to the same drive using differential controllers, for HA use only). Try hanging a terabyte of UDMA storage off of one box (we've got something like 20 controllers in one of our monster SGI boxes). If anything is going to put down SCSI, fibrechannel will (not in the near future, but sometime), SAN's are really sweet. I can hang 150+ devices onto one SAN and gigabit FC-AL is almost finalized...
You completely lost me in your logic of USB... I don't know anyone of connecting phones, speakers, scanners, etc. to SCSI. SCSI is meant for drives, USB for periph. What you said is like saying my monitor is my visual connector of choice over printing everything on my printer (move mouse, print, move mouse, print).
With as much traffic that has been devoted to the license on this new blurb, are we starting to see a new kind of splintering?
Everybody seems to think about splintering at the OS or distribution level... but are we seeing the first signs of license splintering? Are we going to start seeing developers move away from open source because of 20 billion different licenses? Will license splintering get down to a point where developers are going to stop dealing with open source, because they will need to get 30 lawyers to wade through the all of the licenseing mess just to release some software?
Just something to throw out, and see what opinions there might be on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Cracking *IS* that bad, and it's a very juvenile mindset to think otherwise.
At what point in time did it come into your tiny little mind that other people in the world should bear the cost of what you do.
Wonder how much our corporate lawyers, plus my overtime, plus the cost of reinstalling the OS on all the boxes, plus the cost of having to delay product releases because we had to divert 12 people to sifting through all the data by hand to verify it's integrity.... boy you know corporate lawyers, Senior SA's, management sure do work pretty cheap these days... ANY defacement and you are into THOUSANDS of dollars in lost time, slipped projects, overtime, customer loyalty, oh.. but that's harmless... *THWACK*
Back in my days I may have gotten freaky on a BBS but I understood that *I* was doing something wrong, and was ready to step up if the ax man ever came, and not make lame ass excuses (lucky for my stupid ass he didn't, damn stupid looking back). But you... you seem to think that it's your god given right to thrash other people's property, things they might have put their heart and soul into and want to walk away claiming it's only something harmless, if you're going to do something stupid at least have enough BALLS to take responsibility.
Stupid ass AC, coward fits you well!
Personally I'd trust AMD's track record more than Intel's. How many pentium bugs and interoperability issues have there been in comparison to AMD's x86 line over the past 5 years?
I will agree that speed is secondary, but it is not secondary to chipsets it is secondary to cost. Lot's of geeks would love to have a cool SGI, Sun Sparc or Alpha on their desktop but don't have the cash.
That would work if we lived in a society that actually cared. Imagine if some good old billionaire decided to "buy a puppet", how many people do you think would not vote for the puppet solely because he got a billion dollars? You can disclose it all, but nobody seems to really care all that much.
There has to be some regulations... (for an extreme example) let's say that billionaire put up a website with multiple T3's, a couple of Sun E10k clustered, etc. costing millions of dollars hired 5 webmasters, etc. and all he had to do was put a little disclosure notice on the bottom... that would put more than a few people out of the running.
I wish I could say that I have an answer, or that there is even an answer out there. When you try to protect the small guy, the big guys abuse it, you try to protect it from the big guys, the small guys get lost in the shuffle; until someone trys to use the law in a way that it wasn't meant to be and the little guy gets walked on.
Not to change the subject too much, but my mind was wandering.
Anybody have any ideas on how well chess games would work in a distributed environment? Some problems are more suited for distributed processing than others, and if chess is... then some interesting options come up.
Kasparov vs. the computers of the world, or computers A of the world vs. computers B of the world. The last one (A vs. B) seem most interesting to me: let two groups come up with their own method of distributing parts of the cpu cycles out, let them fight it out and see who's got the best code.
Ahh but your one statement is what I've been talking about all along.
Linux is no longer just Linux, one can't say Installable Linux Compiler, you have to say Installable Redhat Linux Compiler, you say Installable Caldera Linux Compiler. You said it yourself "download the package that works on your system". That is the crux of my statements Linux is not Linux, things have changed so much that we have to say Linux is the distribution. I can't say compiler installs on Sun, I have to say compiler installs on SunOS or installs on Solaris.
People seem to want to read NT or Microsoft or something else in my posts, I could careless about Microsoft (personally they make crap). This is probably just my grumpiness but one cannot make all encompasing statements anymore about Linux, it doesn't work there is a falsity in almost any overgeneral statement (I can probably find one obscure part that is NOT true invalidating the entire statement).
NT is competing with any other OS, infact NT competes with all the other Microsoft products NT competes with Win98. EVERY OS competes with every other OS (hell even pretty much dead OS's compete CPM competes with Solaris 7), and it even competes at a distribution level Caldera is a competitor of Redhat. Being the grumpy person I am, "the devil is in the details". You never explained that NT would be replacing with Solaris, you said you were sick of hearing things like "Linux is competing with Unix" it obviously is, and since I can't read your mind that's how I have to take your message. You can have lots of standards (packages, protocols, file layouts, etc.) but I chose packages and it only takes one to kill a generality... ./configure; make... blah blah blah doesn't work because if I don't have a compiler I have to install one... Redhat, Caldera all have a different way of install the compiler package. Look a different way of installing, guess that's NOT a linux standard. Saying Redhat Linux has a standard, or Caldera Linux has a standard, is correct but by lumping everything together into a general statement you can no longer say that Linux has a standard. A side note: I never did say that NT has any standards or that any other OS has any standards that are ALLWAYS (or ever) followed; hell think how much NFS has varied in the past from platform to platform. I've ran into many apps that DO NOT work with configure, I have to go in tweak the Makefile for certain items, that configure didn't get. Lot's and lots of programs do NOT have a configure option, and you have to go into the Makefile (does that sound like a easy package installer to you). If you've never run into a problem with a program you had to compile then I'd say you are a very lucky man.
Since when is rpm a standard for all Linux distributions? In fact you pretty much invalidate this entire statement with the line right below it. (I'll let that one slip, so many people think only Redhat's distribution exist).
./configure.... Do I really have to go into this? Do you really believe that building a program, is the same as installing a package? How about this one... I don't have a compiler and I want to install a compiler package? RPM.. but wait I'm on a different Linux distribution...
Pretty damn unstandard from my end, UNLESS one starts saying Redhat has a standard, Suse has a standard, Caldera has a standard.
*THWACK*
./install ; make ;make install thing; everyone should know better than that)
I don't believe I EVER stated that NT has a standard, infact NT is NOT even mentioned in my post.
The only thing that I tried to convince you of, is that Linux does NOT have a "recognized" standard. RPM may be a defacto standard, but no Linux god has said all packages must be installed by RPM.
The Solaris gods have said you will use pkgadd, the Irix gods have said inst, the Wintel have said "setup", no Linux does NOT have this (the entire nature of Linux is this, the lack of some requirements allow for quicker innovation). Of course, the big issue with all of these is: nobody HAS to conform to these, which gums up all the works. (and don't even try the
Being "grumpy_geek" I tend to be nitpicky on things and saying Linux has a standard ain't true. Redhat Linux has a standard, Suse Linux has a standard, and so on. Instead of saying Linux has a standard we now HAVE to say distribution x has a standard to be correct.
You can't tell me that companies aren't putting Linux in place of "traditional" unix workstations. Linux is competing with all OTHER operating systems, if you look at bit closer the Linux distributions are even competing with each other! There are lots of Sys V unix vendors out there, and they compete with each other.... oh, but Linux surely doesn't compete with Unix, Linux is the only exception to the whole entire marketplace.
Standards... well then tell me the standard way to install a package that works accross all Linux distributions?
I'm not bashing Linux, but you haven't convinced me at all.
*Thwack*
Kiddie go home, I bet JP recommends OpenBSD over Windows, and I guess that's a bad choice too.
BlackICE has been around for quite some time, CNN, Wired, NWFusion, etc. have all done reviews on them (I've never even touched the product myself). I guess all the companies who ever did a review on BlackICE are all scum too now, and I guess that JP has just also been named ruler of the world; my god everyone but me is under the thumb of JP... You consipiracy junkies need to really get a clue (life).
Note: I personally think someone needs to shut JP up, but I think conspiracy freaks like your are an even worse ilk (you look like an idiot, and JP looks like a martyr).
Moderators: You may now mark this and the original message as flamebait.
Would you like to name a single securable OS out there? Linux? nope, OpenBSD? nope, Trusted Solaris? (what the NSA uses) nope.
People need to realise that NO OS is secure and that NO OS can be made secure (alla all OS's suck). Look how many security fixes have gone into Linux the past year alone (probably the first OS people think of when think of alternative to Windows). People have started believing that the OS alone can stop crackers, hackers and other wannabees and then whine when their "secure" system is cracked.
Cool, things are all nice and friendly. You mentioned SCSI was going away (didn't mention workstation), I said it wasn't (didn't know you were meaning workstation) and then it got a bit warmer.
I think we have always been both in agreement (SCSI isn't too useful on the desktop). People just need to clarify things (set some boundries, 2+2 does not ALLWAYS equal 4) before making broad statements that overlap areas of differing interests (pet peave of mine, probably why I'm grumpy_geek). Obviously we are in different parts of the IT industry and it is a large oversight to forget either one, when making statements that aren't confined to just one.
Bad memories... Novell last I worked with it was something in the 2.x region (pretty ancient version), the Novell guys tell me things here and there and I guess now it is a completely different monster now; but I will say this even back then it did do it's functions (Printing & fileserver); as an app server I'm not so sure (but that's another topic all together).
Cool, things are all nice and friendly. You mentioned SCSI was going away (didn't mention workstation), I said it wasn't (didn't know you were meaning workstation) and then it got a bit warmer.
I think we have always been both in agreement (SCSI isn't too useful on the desktop). People just need to clarify things (set some boundries, 2+2 does not ALLWAYS equal 4) before making broad statements that overlap areas of differing interests (pet peave of mine, probably why I'm grumpy_geek). Obviously we are in different parts of the IT industry and it is a large oversight to forget either one, when making statements that aren't confined to just one.
Bad memories... Novell last I worked with it was something in the 2.x region (pretty ancient version), the Novell guys tell me things here and there and I guess now it is a completely different monster now; but I will say this even back then it did do it's functions (Printing & fileserver); as an app server I'm not so sure (but that's another rant all together).
This kills you? You kill me. Look at where your at, "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters". Is 99.99...% of the public coming to slashdot? I DON'T expect the "average" person to be here; I expect intelligent people who realize that there are things other than PC's in the world. If you expected a workstation conversation, maybe you oughta remember to mention that; cause there are people who work on servers and not PC's. You want to talk to 99.999...% of the population go on over to zdnet, you want to talk to those in the know come on over after you realize you are being pretty pompus assuming only workstations exist in the world.
Stepping back now, different strokes for different folks, is all I can say, maybe you oughta state where you meant SCSI was going to die. I can't think of anybody who think SCSI belongs at the desktop (don't go there, there are special cases), so I had to assume you meant in the enterprise. You were implying very hard (my opinion) that SCSI was going to die everywhere. That being the case, I had to state my opinion on this blanket statement. Hell, I could state the converse of what you are saying, with a "IDE is going to be killed by SCSI," if I didn't also mention "in servers" I'd probably get lots of contrary opinions also, rightfully so, the PC is NOT the center of the know universe. Next time maybe you should think that there are people here who don't work on PC all the time. You are being very short-sited on this, I can walk both sides (workstations & servers) you want to talk workstations fine, you want to talk servers fine, you make blanket statements you better be able to apply it to both sides, or state which side it pertains to.
For the waste... oh yeah I burn money every day, right in front of my boss too. There is a reason business spend the amount of money they do, they have to. I guess to save money I'll use IDE drives so that it will slow down my search through 9 terabytes of storage, so that the web response comes back in 5 minutesl; sure the customer will wait, and I did save some money.
Speed difference between 66 & 80? You do realize, that you aren't going to get 66mb/s out of one drive that's the total speed you can get on the one controller. Not knowing much about UDMA/66 can you hang enough devices on it to fill that channel? With SCSI I can, if you aren't hanging enough drives off the controller to fill the bus, well then I guess it would be YOU and 99.999..% of the people who are burning money.
You did inform me about the SCSI perphs though, I never even knew (maybe didn't care) they existed. I don't believe they were ever common place, which I got from your post. I got the impression from you that they were the leading technology and every single desktop had them, but is getting replaced by USB; but hey miscommunications happen.
You priced a Solid State disk lately? Prices aren't going to be in desktop (remember that 99.999..% you know) region any time soon, 90k for a 4gig. Of course that wouldn't "hot-shot" technology that 99.9999...% of consumers should see on their desktops soon; and of course SSD's are a dieing technology since most act like SCSI devices, which we all know is going to die off and go IDE; speaking for 99.999...% of us.
UDMA/66 won't put SCSI under, I'm not familiar with UDMA/66 but if it's just got a faster bus... well big whoop. SCSI is meant to be able to do multiple operations simultaneously, hang lots of drives off of one controller, etc. Until something other than SCSI/fibre channel can allow me to hang 15 devices off of it, be able to do multiple operations simultaneously, allow me to share drives (I can hook-up 2 boxes to the same drive using differential controllers, for HA use only). Try hanging a terabyte of UDMA storage off of one box (we've got something like 20 controllers in one of our monster SGI boxes). If anything is going to put down SCSI, fibrechannel will (not in the near future, but sometime), SAN's are really sweet. I can hang 150+ devices onto one SAN and gigabit FC-AL is almost finalized...
You completely lost me in your logic of USB... I don't know anyone of connecting phones, speakers, scanners, etc. to SCSI. SCSI is meant for drives, USB for periph. What you said is like saying my monitor is my visual connector of choice over printing everything on my printer (move mouse, print, move mouse, print).
With as much traffic that has been devoted to the license on this new blurb, are we starting to see a new kind of splintering?
Everybody seems to think about splintering at the OS or distribution level... but are we seeing the first signs of license splintering? Are we going to start seeing developers move away from open source because of 20 billion different licenses? Will license splintering get down to a point where developers are going to stop dealing with open source, because they will need to get 30 lawyers to wade through the all of the licenseing mess just to release some software?
Just something to throw out, and see what opinions there might be on it.