My sympathies go out to those innocent civilians who have lost their lives today.
I expect that there will be significant shifts in U.S. domestic and foreign policy to bring increased security at home and to bring to justice those responsible for the killing of these many people.
It sounds more like "this software could be used for a mission-critical operation, and if our software breaks, someone might sue us." They have the standard "no warranties" disclaimer, but they're saying that such a warning doesn't seem to carry much weight in today's lawyer-happy society.
Interesting hypothesis. But, I have to imagine that there are a lot of other free software projects which are at least as vulnerable. Pick any language like Perl or Python for that matter. Besides, it's hard to imagine someone (sane) using Broadcast 2000 in their medical life support system, or web-based passenger jet liner remote piloting system, or nuclear power plant cooling system:) So it's hard for me to swallow that explanation. Even if it were so, would it not be possible for someone like FSF or EFF to help them draft a more iron-clad disclaimer of warranty or fitness for any purpose?
I think it's a lot more likely that they got a stern letter from some lawyers retained by parties with large financial interests that are in imminent danger of loss if continued development of Broadcast 2000 proceeds apace.
Exactly who that might be is another matter, but I'm sure there are some likely candidates.
The GUI vs command line argument has raged on all fronts for years. And the gist of those arguments, including personal feelings, are telling. The proper choice depends on the user context.
In essence, I'd say the GUI vs command line debate reduces to an internal evaluation of just how important are the tradeoffs between:
control
convenience
where by "control" I'm referring to the command line flexibility that allows you to twiddle a Makefile so that one particular source file gets compiled with a special set of DEFINES and INCLUDE directory path specifications and compiler optimization levels. And that's without having to learn some IDE's Preference sub-sub-sub menu navigation in order to accomplish the task.
Convenience is chosen when I'm willing to suffer some loss of control for the sake of rolling faster through a typical development cycle of automatically popping up to the next error, etc. An IDE is great for this kind of work (even IDE's in disguise like emacs with compile, grep and gdb modes.)
Another poster had the right idea suggesting that command line and GUI should be interconvertible. Ideally, the IDEs should be able to let you wander out of the loop as you wish without having to climb and IDE-specific learning curve to do so.
Interconvertability is especially important because software development projects move through different phases, where either approach may be appropriate to the task at hand and the user that is doing the task. (Eg, setting up automated regression tests, etc.)
1. You have to distinguish backward compatibility in the program or in the interface presented to the users. Sometimes, the latter can be preserved for the sake of the clients while the former can be invisibly improved to adhere to current standards.
2. Cross platform portability is a good thing in its right. Not just be cause you can increase the market by a few percent, but because, in my experience, the more a code has been required to run throught the gauntlet of different compilers on different platforms, the more likely the code is not going to break. That means break, period, as well as not break when porting to platform n+1.
Maintainability and extendability of software is improved markedly if you make an effort to be cross platform portable.
That's not to say that you need to port back to the same least common denominator as Ghostscript has been known to do. While impressive, I consider that level of effort to be more than I would consider for a software project. But a lot of that is legacy anyway.
I work a large C++ Solaris project that has code from the mid-1990's when compilers didn't have as much of the standard as they do now. We're slowly making an effort to move in the direction of standards in this regard because it will decrease long term maintenance costs and make the code base easier to read and, therefor, to extend.
Some server managers might, but, no, most casual users would not notice such things.
The story that broke a couple days ago about the divorcee whose ex-husband installed spy software on her home PC is a testimony to the obliviousness of most computer users.
The only reason he was caught was due to his own stupidity in mentioning things to his former wife's friend that could have only been known if he had installed such snooping software. Otherwise, he could peep to his heart's content.
I know lots of people with fun, useful, http-active software running all the time on their PCs (webshots, newsfeeds). It would not be such a stretch to have those programs summarize key strokes, buffer them up, and send a compressed encrypted version back via web request to an innocuous site. It could all be done under the guise of normal operations. You know, "updating..." Kind of like cookies but more intrusive. And that's just one example. You can probably think of several other ways to do it.
The earlier poster is correct. There are simply so many imaginative ways through which your security can be compromised that inspection of the actual source code is the only substantial guarantee you have.
I love Linux and I think it's got a great future. But for HPaq to abandon Tru64, VMS, HP-UX and the legacy systems would be folly.
Those systems have an installed base of users that are willing to pay money to have working systems keep working.
Linux, OTOH, is characterized by a slew of small VC funded company carcasses that failed to grasp how to make money off this nascent OS.
If nimble little companies have failed to do so, what makes you think that a behemoth like HPaq will be able to do so?
No, the right move is for them to contribute to the growth of Linux and become recognized as a key player in that area (IBM strategy). Then, when the installed base of Linux creeps upward enough, they can sell services and specialized add-on products that will be recognized for adding value instead of adding hype and cool.
Linux is too small and growing too fast to be able to predict with any certainty which markets it will figure into most dominantly. Servers? Yes, but don't discount what random thing can come of the ferment that is the embedded market. Any Linux company (not just HPaq) should cultivate internal expertise in Linux so that they can be ready to jump when it starts to become obvious where the market is leading.
It sounds to me like you're already a step ahead of the rest of the world, for the most part.
My workplace uses a hodge-podge of formats including "special" ASCII text files, Framemaker, HTML and Microsoft Word. Needless to say, it's a mess. No open, standard, consistent tools to examine all of our documentation. Yeah, you can grep HTML, but the others are a pain. And don't even think about automatic script language based conversion among these formats.
I suspect you're more advanced in your thinking than 90% of the places out there. Why not continue with your thinking and let the rest of us know what you decide?
I sympathize with your recommendation. It is absolutely rational and, in theory, should work.
In practice, however, most corporate IT decision makers live in an MS World, where even the ability to perceive lock-in is severely diminished.
There are constantly new MS Market Extending products being offered to fix holes in their existing MS all-encompassing fabric. Needless to say, these new products typically introduce further lock-ins in the guise of features. I don't have to tell you how many times I have seen products sold that have a functionality that was either:
already in UNIX years ago, or
not needed in UNIX because of its better design (virus scanners, anyone?)
No, I think there are 2 important strategies you should follow, in addition to emphasizing total costs.
At every opportunity, promote adherence to openly published standards for interfaces between all parts of products in your enterprise.
Ask about RFCs, about protocols for data exchange, about file formats, about interoperability with competing products, about published APIs and the ability to get to your data ten years from now when you're afraid that Win 2012 won't run OfficeXP because of the upgrade treadmill you've been climbing.
Secondly, and more importantly, deploy a few Linux boxes as test bed machines for a new, vital service.
Yes, you can also run a few for various little tasks like print service, file service, web service.
But what I'm advocating here is you thinking up of what your business could really find useful from a computer. I'm postive that a intelligent sysadmin can see many vital needs, such as for a cheap reliable 3-tier (browser/Apache/PHP/MySQL) web based system that can be used to keep track of <insert dynamic items getting away right now> for your company. After you get it working for a few weeks, show it off to your management and let them point their browser to a dynamic updating portal view of their business. PHBs love that kind of control view.
You can get yourself kudoes for something you put together in your off-hours with free software and using that cast-off piece-of-junk computer sitting out by the dumpster. They'll be impressed.
I think the best testimony to the utility of free software in any business situation is an actual working demonstration. When people see it performing a useful, vital function, day-in and day-out, on obsolete hardware, with no big checks to cut for license renewals, it speaks volumes.
In reaction to the news, large holders of MSFT stock were
delighted by today's announcement.
"This is exactly the kind of relief from burdensome regulation and
government oversight that we had decried so often in the past," said
one Bush advisor.
"It shows the kind of cooperation that you can get. That government
and industry can work together for all Americans that pay
taxes," said the President, arriving back after a recent 24 day
vacation.
At Microsoft's Redmond, Washing headquarters, a teary-eyed Steve
Ballmer could barely whisper his joy at the occasion of the news that
the feds at discontinued their pursuit to break up the software giant.
"I'd like to thank everyone out there that supported us. It just
goes to show that the American way is working, that we really do have
the best government that money can buy." said Steve, wiping away
tears.
"Protecting our right to innovate has been vindicated by the
government of the United States of Amerika. We're heartened," said
Bill Gates at a conference on Bridging the Digital Divide in
Haiti. Gates refused to answer questions that he was negotiating to
buy Haiti in the event of an unfavorable treatment from U.S. courts in
the landmark anti-trust trial.
"The President of Haiti and I have reached an understanding that
his police force can cooperate fully with the BSA in an effort to
prevent software piracy, which, as you can easily see, has led to the
ruination of this once-proud nation."
Must apologize for drifting away from the topic, but speaking of features that "no one" uses, I'd like to vote for a new feature for StarOffice that, to my limited knowledge, MS Office lacks:
User defined mappings between keys and functions.
You can not imagine the horrors of being forced to use MS Office for some administrivial task but having the emacs default key mapping hardwired into the brain/hand circuit!
Control F to quickly move forward? No! You get some silly font changing window! You can imagine the process of discovery on my part when Control K and Control D and Control E do not function like I am accustomed to. Every application should allow the user to choose whatever mapping makes them happiest.
Sorry to vent, but it was a nightmarish experience for me!
AOL wants to keep Mozilla waiting in the wings as a potential threatening poker chip in its negotiations with MS about desktop icon placement, default MSN services, whether AOL will pursue the legal complaints that Netscape originally filed, etc.
These negotiations pivot about various points, such as whether AOL will use IE or Netscape, whose streaming media format they will support, etc. As such, the poker chips in this game can be quite important and valuable because the game is for such very high stakes.
The Netscape/Mozilla browser represents a bugaboo to MS for two reasons.
As a ghost of a vanquished enemy that could be brought back to life to challenge IE if suddenly AOL were to release tens of millions of CDs with a working Mozilla on it.
The same ghost carries with it the wounds it suffered during the famous Air Supply Cutoff that the Dept of Justice is so intent upon examining. Rather than have AOL with a well funded legal department display the corpse for all to see, it is better to lay flowers on that grave and not upset the status quo.
The upshot is that Mozilla is an excellent poker chip where it stands now, getting preened but not quite ready for prime time. It serves AOL's purpose well in keeping the beast of Redmond at bay.
If the Mozilla poker chip were actually played, either releasing it for general widespread use or using its legal status to beat up MS in the courts, then a lot of blood and fur would fly. Not a business decision that they want or need right now.
Kind of like the book and movie Shogun, if you recall the end, where Lord Toranaga keeps Anjin-san building dangerous ships to keep his adversaries at bay, but secretly Lord Toranaga burns the ships when they are in danger of becoming a full fledged reality.
I also wonder, if instead of getting your video feed off the air you got it from your DVD player (or the DVD drive of your PC - since the devices aparently will shares data fairly seemlessly), couldn't this quickly become the ultimate DVD ripping device? (pardon me - I mean DVD backup device - soley for personal use with DVDs I actually own.) I mean it would go through a decompression/recompression cycle, but it would stay in digital format the whole time, certainly
adequate to make a fairly good VCD copy of a DVD.
Not unless you have a better different DVD player and TV than most of us.
The best quality video format that comes out of the back of my DVD player is S-video, i.e., analog. My TiVo accepts S-video input and provides S-video output, despite the internal digital storage format. There's D/A and A/D conversion happening a lot. The only device I have that produces native digital video output is my camcorder with IEEE-1394. Everything else talks via analog signals, even if the internals are digital.
Likewise, the best quality input into my TV is S-video (also analog).
I've seen a few new TVs with 480p and 1080i input jacks of late, but I am not familiar with the details of these digital formats. Likewise, I haven't seen any DVD players or satellite TV receivers that have digital video output jacks.
I've become a lot more aware of some of the limitations in current consumer electronics since I recently purchased (and upgraded) a TiVo. It's a wonderful improvement over VHS, except for disk space limitations and archiving.
In order to overcome the archive problem (and the device specific playback problem that I think is looming) my next venture will be looking at video capture on the PC.
I'm a genius, but I'm also a U.S. citizen, so the visa won't do me much good. I'd be interested if anyone has information about any other government perks available to a genius. Thanks in advance.
Well, being in the U.S., you get the entertainment value of watching the rest of us idiots! In fact, the government is itself a particularly good source of amusement.
Yes, I'm an engineer and I sit in front of a terminal coaxing C++ code into looking half way elegant, doing the job and being a pleasure to look at in the future instead of the pain that happens so much during the inevitable phase of maintenance and improvement.
I also built a house a few years ago and obtained a general contractor's license so that the bank would trust me with doing the subcontracting.
If you think that by virtue of "it's being in the physical world" that construction is some kind of nirvana where design elegance and the true art and beauty of the profession of engineering can flourish unimpeded, then think again.
In terms of residential house construction, the whole endeavor is a mess.
I could tell you the sorrowful tale I heard one Monday morning, when asking where John the other worker was, and was informed that, tragically, he was still in jail for DWI over the weekend.
Or the framers that got cold one morning and built a fire on the slab to keep themselves warm, nevermind the sparks wafting through ultra-dry framing and expensive heavy logs that had been hoisted into place for the house.
Or the initial 3 week time estimate for completing one phase of the job that stretched into 10 weeks, requiring constant rescheduling with subsequent subcontractors (never mind the heavier interest on the money I'm paying on the construction loan).
Or the interesting "features" that crept in (and then had to be worked around) because various individuals couldn't read blueprints properly (no, the beam can't go there because there's a fireplace directly beneath it).
Or the knowledgable foreman was out doing sales while the jobsite got staffed with ignorant, wet-behind-the-ears kids in charge of the project. The end result was a standing edifice that was "acceptable", but a careful scrutiny with a level and plumb line showed where shoddiness had crept in.
I could whine for ages about my experience, but I'll cut it short to summarize my experience with house construction projects:
Takes longer.
Costs more.
Good people are worth the money.
Yes, things are different in commercial construction versus residential construction. Commercial buyers know it's not uncommon to pay $200 / sq ft and the more important the structure, the less allowance can be made for shoddy work. And that observation starts to address some of the issue in a more meaningful way.
Usually, shoddy workmanship creeps in for a very good reason: it's cheaper to get shoddy work done that to get good work done. And most uneducated buyers look primarily at price and usually little else.
It's all fine and good to exhort practitioners of the fine arts of construction or of software building to hone their skills and to take pride in their workmanship. But the root of the issue can be traced to the buyers of the services. They are the ones that need the education: they need to know the difference between shoddy software and good software and to learn to appreciate fine workmanship in software. As buyers, they are the ones ultimately responsible for promoting or denigrating the fine arts of software building.
Assuming that come tomorrow your job still exists.
Hey! Quit being so negative on this poor dude!
Besides, you know that the layoffs don't come until after the obligatory
Memo to All Employees:
Many of you have heard...recent events...merger...HP and Compaq. I just wanted to reassure everyone that the best of both proud corporate cultures will be preserved and propel us into the 21st century...careful reexamination of our core business strategies over the next 6 months...streamlining...careful...protect assets...do not injure customer relationships and our combined reputations for quality...I know I can look forward to the continued excellent service by all of you in HP and Compaq.
I could swear that a few years ago I read about some commercial jet flying across the vast nether <boringmidwest> regions of the United States when, for some fluke reason the plane began a power dive. IIRC, the plane broke the sound barrier!
There was all kinds of consternation and investigation, etc., without much result that I can remember.
I do sympathize with the pilot, though, after guiding those commercial jets in flights that are probably as exciting as watching paint dry!
I'd love to have a different box for magazines, for bills, for personal mail and a spam filter. Yes I know I can write to the bastards at the direct marketing assoc and get off their mailing lists but that's far more effort than blocking 'net spam is.
Well, you might not be able to get full procmail convenience of action, but you can go to some lengths to get clearer labeling of spam in meatspace.
Sign up all your magazine subscriptions in the names of your pets! Ditto for phone service!
Since I did this, I can quickly sort my snail inbox. It helps that my friendly post office has a countertop for sorting and a very large trash can next to it that can be used to place unwanted mail. Typically I leave with about 8% of the incoming box.
My life would be perfect on this front, except for the annoying habit my wife has of buying things from catalogs. Kinda like the Reply option at the bottom of UBE that serves as Verfication. So far all my entreaties to here "You'll only encourage them!" are to no avail. You'd think the dog audience she gets at dinner time would have taught her a lesson about that.
The problem is that the total cost of Linux doesn't actually go down from $79 to $39.50 if you have two machines. The total cost of Win XP does go from $99 to $198, though. But on a per machine basis, the price of XP is fixed. Whereas with each additional Linux machine the cost to purchase Linux decreases.
Ay, there's the rub, the One Thing that makes XP different from previous Windows.
In the old days, Home and Small Office Pirates got the price of Windows divided down by the number of machines by installing the same software on multiple machines. Now, with XP, that won't be so easy.
It's no surprise that I heard quite a bit of grumbling and murmuring in the software aisle a few months ago when the Helpful Knowledgeable Store Clerk was talking with a User. A lot of the more knowledgeable PC users are very much aware that XP is a significantly "less useful" product from the licensing perspective in the everyday real world.
My prediction: all the XP success and fanfare of units shipped will be as a result of shoving it down the throats of the OEMs, who don't have a choice. However, the consumers have little reason to bite, even if Windows Me was a downgrade from 98SE in terms of stability and usefulness.
What about foreign employees? SSN is a U.S. thing, so they wouldn't have SSN numbers, I'm guessing (could be wrong).
Reminds me of when I was in graduate school a few years ago.
The database system was set up to require an SSN. Of course, the newly arrived students from Greece, U.K., China, etc. didn't have one.
That's OK. Their SSNs all became 888-88-8888.
I just hope that someone's choice of MAGIC NUMBER didn't trod on someone's real SSN! Imagine the chaos!
Sigh, I wish, for once, they'd get off this neanderthal number business and just use names, with sufficient extra identifiers to distinguish one John Smith from another Chang. Just force every one to make their names unique. Thus, John Smith becomes John Smith Iowa 1968 or John Smith, Eater of Chicken Wings, or whatever is unique. Numbers are for computers.
Am I the only one that finds it just a little bit of stretch to talk about about fantastic technology that helps to make GaAs cheaper for real life applications on the one hand -- and then mention 200+ patents on the other hand?
I know, I know, that the hope of financial gain provides the dollars for this kind of research, but let's be real: it won't be that cheap.
...listening to these high-falutin arrogant Europeans whining about Microsoft.
I mean, gimme a break!
It is through the hard work and genuine innovation of entrepreneurs like Bill Gates that the United States today enjoys one of the best governments that money can buy. How can anyone stand for crybaby statements like:
"We find the bundling of MS Government with Windows XP to be an unfair cultural invasion and infringement of our traditional and hallowed values."
I'm glad that at least MS Business Mindset was not encumbered by all these petty concerns.
In fact, I hear that people are doing exactly that and using something called "SCSI over IP", which sounds like an interesting idea but probably not optimal
I've been mulling over the pros and cons of NAS vs SAN lately, as our environment is moving to FC-AL SANs connecting our servers, but 1000 BSX for the desktop LAN.
Just today, though, I caught notice of this iSCSI site, though, which looks kind of interesting.
I though GFS looked pretty good, but wondered why, for example, coda had achieved greater buy-in from the Linux crowd.
Yes, and I am able to compress all of Slashdot down to 10 bytes.
Actually, if you permit the use of a diff against previous stories and postings, it is possible to compress Slashdot down to an average of 3 bytes:)
News item:
Late Thursday, researchers announced that one of their Perl modules was supposed to have demonstrated a successful performance of Turing's test for mimicking human intelligence via machine.
Authors claimed the module was able to replicate Slashdot stories and user postings, including not only classic Trolls, but also the previously difficult to analyze AC postings at Score:-1.
"It was a hard task to get that last set of Score:-1 set of responses correct, but we knew we had to do it if we were to present a credible emulation of Slashdot."
Researchers were gratified that all of their hard work to simulate Slashdot paid off, demonstrating such a degree of fidelity that a recent audience of Slashdot users were transparently convinced of its reality.
However, distribution of any prize monies is pending an appeal from Alan Turing's estate, who claim that Slashdot stories and postings do not represent intelligent life.
I was going to say the same thing, that, as far as current customers are concerned, this product seems to fill an incredible Non-Niche.
It's exclusively for IA-64, which can't compete head to head with established RISC hardware yet. Also, given that the OS's for the competitive RISC hardware have been around longer, had more bugs shaken out, had more apps (eg, Oracle) developed for them, Advanced Server won't provide any kind of revenue for MS. It's all written off for the sake of future revenue.
Like anything, they're willing to let it slog slowly up through the ranks for a few years until it gains credibility (eg, the first 2 versions of Windows and of NT). Eventually, though, all this beta testing will pay off so that in 2005 they can argue convincingly that they can provide an alternative to the big iron from IBM, Sun, HP, SGI and Compaq (DEC).
The other benefit of this move for MS is to provide a testing ground for their code base so that if IA-64 ever does develop into something so desirable that it begins to appear in desktops, they'll have some experience for it. With the recent boost that Intel gets from killing off the Alpha competitor and from using the Alpha's carcass to improve the sickly Itanium, the IA-64 will eventually become something to be reckoned with, even if through the sheer brute force of the dollars behind it.
For current customers, though, this OS release is a yawning opportunity to be part of MS beta test program. As with the Linux IA-64 release, it is mildly interesting, with genuine interest deferred until the point that the hardware is competitive with the established RISC vendors.
Anyone care to compare and contrast their 64 bit foray to their first foray into the 32 bit world?
Slashdot Mirror
This is a terrible tragedy.
My sympathies go out to those innocent civilians who have lost their lives today.
I expect that there will be significant shifts in U.S. domestic and foreign policy to bring increased security at home and to bring to justice those responsible for the killing of these many people.
A somber occasion.
It sounds more like "this software could be used for a mission-critical operation, and if our software breaks, someone might sue us." They have the standard "no warranties" disclaimer, but they're saying that such a warning doesn't seem to carry much weight in today's lawyer-happy society.
Interesting hypothesis. But, I have to imagine that there are a lot of other free software projects which are at least as vulnerable. Pick any language like Perl or Python for that matter. Besides, it's hard to imagine someone (sane) using Broadcast 2000 in their medical life support system, or web-based passenger jet liner remote piloting system, or nuclear power plant cooling system:) So it's hard for me to swallow that explanation. Even if it were so, would it not be possible for someone like FSF or EFF to help them draft a more iron-clad disclaimer of warranty or fitness for any purpose?
I think it's a lot more likely that they got a stern letter from some lawyers retained by parties with large financial interests that are in imminent danger of loss if continued development of Broadcast 2000 proceeds apace.
Exactly who that might be is another matter, but I'm sure there are some likely candidates.
The GUI vs command line argument has raged on all fronts for years. And the gist of those arguments, including personal feelings, are telling. The proper choice depends on the user context.
In essence, I'd say the GUI vs command line debate reduces to an internal evaluation of just how important are the tradeoffs between:
- control
- convenience
where by "control" I'm referring to the command line flexibility that allows you to twiddle a Makefile so that one particular source file gets compiled with a special set of DEFINES and INCLUDE directory path specifications and compiler optimization levels. And that's without having to learn some IDE's Preference sub-sub-sub menu navigation in order to accomplish the task.Convenience is chosen when I'm willing to suffer some loss of control for the sake of rolling faster through a typical development cycle of automatically popping up to the next error, etc. An IDE is great for this kind of work (even IDE's in disguise like emacs with compile, grep and gdb modes.)
Another poster had the right idea suggesting that command line and GUI should be interconvertible. Ideally, the IDEs should be able to let you wander out of the loop as you wish without having to climb and IDE-specific learning curve to do so.
Interconvertability is especially important because software development projects move through different phases, where either approach may be appropriate to the task at hand and the user that is doing the task. (Eg, setting up automated regression tests, etc.)
1. You have to distinguish backward compatibility in the program or in the interface presented to the users. Sometimes, the latter can be preserved for the sake of the clients while the former can be invisibly improved to adhere to current standards.
2. Cross platform portability is a good thing in its right. Not just be cause you can increase the market by a few percent, but because, in my experience, the more a code has been required to run throught the gauntlet of different compilers on different platforms, the more likely the code is not going to break. That means break, period, as well as not break when porting to platform n+1.
Maintainability and extendability of software is improved markedly if you make an effort to be cross platform portable.
That's not to say that you need to port back to the same least common denominator as Ghostscript has been known to do. While impressive, I consider that level of effort to be more than I would consider for a software project. But a lot of that is legacy anyway.
I work a large C++ Solaris project that has code from the mid-1990's when compilers didn't have as much of the standard as they do now. We're slowly making an effort to move in the direction of standards in this regard because it will decrease long term maintenance costs and make the code base easier to read and, therefor, to extend.
Some server managers might, but, no, most casual users would not notice such things.
The story that broke a couple days ago about the divorcee whose ex-husband installed spy software on her home PC is a testimony to the obliviousness of most computer users.
The only reason he was caught was due to his own stupidity in mentioning things to his former wife's friend that could have only been known if he had installed such snooping software. Otherwise, he could peep to his heart's content.
I know lots of people with fun, useful, http-active software running all the time on their PCs (webshots, newsfeeds). It would not be such a stretch to have those programs summarize key strokes, buffer them up, and send a compressed encrypted version back via web request to an innocuous site. It could all be done under the guise of normal operations. You know, "updating..." Kind of like cookies but more intrusive. And that's just one example. You can probably think of several other ways to do it.
The earlier poster is correct. There are simply so many imaginative ways through which your security can be compromised that inspection of the actual source code is the only substantial guarantee you have.
I love Linux and I think it's got a great future. But for HPaq to abandon Tru64, VMS, HP-UX and the legacy systems would be folly.
Those systems have an installed base of users that are willing to pay money to have working systems keep working.
Linux, OTOH, is characterized by a slew of small VC funded company carcasses that failed to grasp how to make money off this nascent OS.
If nimble little companies have failed to do so, what makes you think that a behemoth like HPaq will be able to do so?
No, the right move is for them to contribute to the growth of Linux and become recognized as a key player in that area (IBM strategy). Then, when the installed base of Linux creeps upward enough, they can sell services and specialized add-on products that will be recognized for adding value instead of adding hype and cool.
Linux is too small and growing too fast to be able to predict with any certainty which markets it will figure into most dominantly. Servers? Yes, but don't discount what random thing can come of the ferment that is the embedded market. Any Linux company (not just HPaq) should cultivate internal expertise in Linux so that they can be ready to jump when it starts to become obvious where the market is leading.
It sounds to me like you're already a step ahead of the rest of the world, for the most part.
My workplace uses a hodge-podge of formats including "special" ASCII text files, Framemaker, HTML and Microsoft Word. Needless to say, it's a mess. No open, standard, consistent tools to examine all of our documentation. Yeah, you can grep HTML, but the others are a pain. And don't even think about automatic script language based conversion among these formats.
I suspect you're more advanced in your thinking than 90% of the places out there. Why not continue with your thinking and let the rest of us know what you decide?
I sympathize with your recommendation. It is absolutely rational and, in theory, should work.
In practice, however, most corporate IT decision makers live in an MS World, where even the ability to perceive lock-in is severely diminished.
There are constantly new MS Market Extending products being offered to fix holes in their existing MS all-encompassing fabric. Needless to say, these new products typically introduce further lock-ins in the guise of features. I don't have to tell you how many times I have seen products sold that have a functionality that was either:
No, I think there are 2 important strategies you should follow, in addition to emphasizing total costs.
At every opportunity, promote adherence to openly published standards for interfaces between all parts of products in your enterprise.
Ask about RFCs, about protocols for data exchange, about file formats, about interoperability with competing products, about published APIs and the ability to get to your data ten years from now when you're afraid that Win 2012 won't run OfficeXP because of the upgrade treadmill you've been climbing.
Secondly, and more importantly, deploy a few Linux boxes as test bed machines for a new, vital service.
Yes, you can also run a few for various little tasks like print service, file service, web service.
But what I'm advocating here is you thinking up of what your business could really find useful from a computer. I'm postive that a intelligent sysadmin can see many vital needs, such as for a cheap reliable 3-tier (browser/Apache/PHP/MySQL) web based system that can be used to keep track of <insert dynamic items getting away right now> for your company. After you get it working for a few weeks, show it off to your management and let them point their browser to a dynamic updating portal view of their business. PHBs love that kind of control view.
You can get yourself kudoes for something you put together in your off-hours with free software and using that cast-off piece-of-junk computer sitting out by the dumpster. They'll be impressed.
I think the best testimony to the utility of free software in any business situation is an actual working demonstration. When people see it performing a useful, vital function, day-in and day-out, on obsolete hardware, with no big checks to cut for license renewals, it speaks volumes.
Just do it!
In reaction to the news, large holders of MSFT stock were delighted by today's announcement.
"This is exactly the kind of relief from burdensome regulation and government oversight that we had decried so often in the past," said one Bush advisor.
"It shows the kind of cooperation that you can get. That government and industry can work together for all Americans that pay taxes," said the President, arriving back after a recent 24 day vacation.
At Microsoft's Redmond, Washing headquarters, a teary-eyed Steve Ballmer could barely whisper his joy at the occasion of the news that the feds at discontinued their pursuit to break up the software giant.
"I'd like to thank everyone out there that supported us. It just goes to show that the American way is working, that we really do have the best government that money can buy." said Steve, wiping away tears.
"Protecting our right to innovate has been vindicated by the government of the United States of Amerika. We're heartened," said Bill Gates at a conference on Bridging the Digital Divide in Haiti. Gates refused to answer questions that he was negotiating to buy Haiti in the event of an unfavorable treatment from U.S. courts in the landmark anti-trust trial.
"The President of Haiti and I have reached an understanding that his police force can cooperate fully with the BSA in an effort to prevent software piracy, which, as you can easily see, has led to the ruination of this once-proud nation."
Must apologize for drifting away from the topic, but speaking of features that "no one" uses, I'd like to vote for a new feature for StarOffice that, to my limited knowledge, MS Office lacks:
You can not imagine the horrors of being forced to use MS Office for some administrivial task but having the emacs default key mapping hardwired into the brain/hand circuit!
Control F to quickly move forward? No! You get some silly font changing window! You can imagine the process of discovery on my part when Control K and Control D and Control E do not function like I am accustomed to. Every application should allow the user to choose whatever mapping makes them happiest.
Sorry to vent, but it was a nightmarish experience for me!
You may laugh, but know that you are too right.
Bill Gates' father is an attorney, and Mr Bill Jr is no slouch when it comes to reading fine print contracts with an eagle eye.
That put him a few jumps ahead of the rest of nerd-dom that for the most part abhors reading anything resembling legalese.
Better, it put him a few jumps ahead of the competitors lawyers, who knew legalese, but much less about technology and software.
Read Hard Drive sometime. You'll get an education.
No, no, no.
The conspiracy theory is about half right.
AOL wants to keep Mozilla waiting in the wings as a potential threatening poker chip in its negotiations with MS about desktop icon placement, default MSN services, whether AOL will pursue the legal complaints that Netscape originally filed, etc.
These negotiations pivot about various points, such as whether AOL will use IE or Netscape, whose streaming media format they will support, etc. As such, the poker chips in this game can be quite important and valuable because the game is for such very high stakes.
The Netscape/Mozilla browser represents a bugaboo to MS for two reasons.
The upshot is that Mozilla is an excellent poker chip where it stands now, getting preened but not quite ready for prime time. It serves AOL's purpose well in keeping the beast of Redmond at bay.
If the Mozilla poker chip were actually played, either releasing it for general widespread use or using its legal status to beat up MS in the courts, then a lot of blood and fur would fly. Not a business decision that they want or need right now.
Kind of like the book and movie Shogun, if you recall the end, where Lord Toranaga keeps Anjin-san building dangerous ships to keep his adversaries at bay, but secretly Lord Toranaga burns the ships when they are in danger of becoming a full fledged reality.
I also wonder, if instead of getting your video feed off the air you got it from your DVD player (or the DVD drive of your PC - since the devices aparently will shares data fairly seemlessly), couldn't this quickly become the ultimate DVD ripping device? (pardon me - I mean DVD backup device - soley for personal use with DVDs I actually own.) I mean it would go through a decompression/recompression cycle, but it would stay in digital format the whole time, certainly
adequate to make a fairly good VCD copy of a DVD.
Not unless you have a better different DVD player and TV than most of us.
The best quality video format that comes out of the back of my DVD player is S-video, i.e., analog. My TiVo accepts S-video input and provides S-video output, despite the internal digital storage format. There's D/A and A/D conversion happening a lot. The only device I have that produces native digital video output is my camcorder with IEEE-1394. Everything else talks via analog signals, even if the internals are digital.
Likewise, the best quality input into my TV is S-video (also analog).
I've seen a few new TVs with 480p and 1080i input jacks of late, but I am not familiar with the details of these digital formats. Likewise, I haven't seen any DVD players or satellite TV receivers that have digital video output jacks.
I've become a lot more aware of some of the limitations in current consumer electronics since I recently purchased (and upgraded) a TiVo. It's a wonderful improvement over VHS, except for disk space limitations and archiving.
In order to overcome the archive problem (and the device specific playback problem that I think is looming) my next venture will be looking at video capture on the PC.
I'm a genius, but I'm also a U.S. citizen, so the visa won't do me much good. I'd be interested if anyone has information about any other government perks available to a genius. Thanks in advance.
Well, being in the U.S., you get the entertainment value of watching the rest of us idiots! In fact, the government is itself a particularly good source of amusement.
Your analogy with construction intrigues me.
Yes, I'm an engineer and I sit in front of a terminal coaxing C++ code into looking half way elegant, doing the job and being a pleasure to look at in the future instead of the pain that happens so much during the inevitable phase of maintenance and improvement.
I also built a house a few years ago and obtained a general contractor's license so that the bank would trust me with doing the subcontracting.
If you think that by virtue of "it's being in the physical world" that construction is some kind of nirvana where design elegance and the true art and beauty of the profession of engineering can flourish unimpeded, then think again.
In terms of residential house construction, the whole endeavor is a mess.
I could tell you the sorrowful tale I heard one Monday morning, when asking where John the other worker was, and was informed that, tragically, he was still in jail for DWI over the weekend.
Or the framers that got cold one morning and built a fire on the slab to keep themselves warm, nevermind the sparks wafting through ultra-dry framing and expensive heavy logs that had been hoisted into place for the house.
Or the initial 3 week time estimate for completing one phase of the job that stretched into 10 weeks, requiring constant rescheduling with subsequent subcontractors (never mind the heavier interest on the money I'm paying on the construction loan).
Or the interesting "features" that crept in (and then had to be worked around) because various individuals couldn't read blueprints properly (no, the beam can't go there because there's a fireplace directly beneath it).
Or the knowledgable foreman was out doing sales while the jobsite got staffed with ignorant, wet-behind-the-ears kids in charge of the project. The end result was a standing edifice that was "acceptable", but a careful scrutiny with a level and plumb line showed where shoddiness had crept in.
I could whine for ages about my experience, but I'll cut it short to summarize my experience with house construction projects:
Yes, things are different in commercial construction versus residential construction. Commercial buyers know it's not uncommon to pay $200 / sq ft and the more important the structure, the less allowance can be made for shoddy work. And that observation starts to address some of the issue in a more meaningful way.
Usually, shoddy workmanship creeps in for a very good reason: it's cheaper to get shoddy work done that to get good work done. And most uneducated buyers look primarily at price and usually little else.
It's all fine and good to exhort practitioners of the fine arts of construction or of software building to hone their skills and to take pride in their workmanship. But the root of the issue can be traced to the buyers of the services. They are the ones that need the education: they need to know the difference between shoddy software and good software and to learn to appreciate fine workmanship in software. As buyers, they are the ones ultimately responsible for promoting or denigrating the fine arts of software building.
Assuming that come tomorrow your job still exists.
Hey! Quit being so negative on this poor dude!
Besides, you know that the layoffs don't come until after the obligatory
I'm surprised at your lack of business knowledge!
I could swear that a few years ago I read about some commercial jet flying across the vast nether <boringmidwest> regions of the United States when, for some fluke reason the plane began a power dive. IIRC, the plane broke the sound barrier!
There was all kinds of consternation and investigation, etc., without much result that I can remember.
I do sympathize with the pilot, though, after guiding those commercial jets in flights that are probably as exciting as watching paint dry!
I'd love to have a different box for magazines, for bills, for personal mail and a spam filter. Yes I know I can write to the bastards at the direct marketing assoc and get off their mailing lists but that's far more effort than blocking 'net spam is.
Well, you might not be able to get full procmail convenience of action, but you can go to some lengths to get clearer labeling of spam in meatspace.
Sign up all your magazine subscriptions in the names of your pets! Ditto for phone service!
Since I did this, I can quickly sort my snail inbox. It helps that my friendly post office has a countertop for sorting and a very large trash can next to it that can be used to place unwanted mail. Typically I leave with about 8% of the incoming box.
My life would be perfect on this front, except for the annoying habit my wife has of buying things from catalogs. Kinda like the Reply option at the bottom of UBE that serves as Verfication. So far all my entreaties to here "You'll only encourage them!" are to no avail. You'd think the dog audience she gets at dinner time would have taught her a lesson about that.
The problem is that the total cost of Linux doesn't actually go down from $79 to $39.50 if you have two machines. The total cost of Win XP does go from $99 to $198, though. But on a per machine basis, the price of XP is fixed. Whereas with each additional Linux machine the cost to purchase Linux decreases.
Ay, there's the rub, the One Thing that makes XP different from previous Windows.
In the old days, Home and Small Office Pirates got the price of Windows divided down by the number of machines by installing the same software on multiple machines. Now, with XP, that won't be so easy.
It's no surprise that I heard quite a bit of grumbling and murmuring in the software aisle a few months ago when the Helpful Knowledgeable Store Clerk was talking with a User. A lot of the more knowledgeable PC users are very much aware that XP is a significantly "less useful" product from the licensing perspective in the everyday real world.
My prediction: all the XP success and fanfare of units shipped will be as a result of shoving it down the throats of the OEMs, who don't have a choice. However, the consumers have little reason to bite, even if Windows Me was a downgrade from 98SE in terms of stability and usefulness.
What about foreign employees? SSN is a U.S. thing, so they wouldn't have SSN numbers, I'm guessing (could be wrong).
Reminds me of when I was in graduate school a few years ago.
The database system was set up to require an SSN. Of course, the newly arrived students from Greece, U.K., China, etc. didn't have one.
That's OK. Their SSNs all became 888-88-8888.
I just hope that someone's choice of MAGIC NUMBER didn't trod on someone's real SSN! Imagine the chaos!
Sigh, I wish, for once, they'd get off this neanderthal number business and just use names, with sufficient extra identifiers to distinguish one John Smith from another Chang. Just force every one to make their names unique. Thus, John Smith becomes John Smith Iowa 1968 or John Smith, Eater of Chicken Wings, or whatever is unique. Numbers are for computers.
Am I the only one that finds it just a little bit of stretch to talk about about fantastic technology that helps to make GaAs cheaper for real life applications on the one hand -- and then mention 200+ patents on the other hand?
I know, I know, that the hope of financial gain provides the dollars for this kind of research, but let's be real: it won't be that cheap.
...listening to these high-falutin arrogant Europeans whining about Microsoft.
I mean, gimme a break!
It is through the hard work and genuine innovation of entrepreneurs like Bill Gates that the United States today enjoys one of the best governments that money can buy. How can anyone stand for crybaby statements like:
"We find the bundling of MS Government with Windows XP to be an unfair cultural invasion and infringement of our traditional and hallowed values."
I'm glad that at least MS Business Mindset was not encumbered by all these petty concerns.
In fact, I hear that people are doing exactly that and using something called "SCSI over IP", which sounds like an interesting idea but probably not optimal
I've been mulling over the pros and cons of NAS vs SAN lately, as our environment is moving to FC-AL SANs connecting our servers, but 1000 BSX for the desktop LAN.
Just today, though, I caught notice of this iSCSI site, though, which looks kind of interesting.
I though GFS looked pretty good, but wondered why, for example, coda had achieved greater buy-in from the Linux crowd.
Yes, and I am able to compress all of Slashdot down to 10 bytes.
Actually, if you permit the use of a diff against previous stories and postings, it is possible to compress Slashdot down to an average of 3 bytes:)
News item:
I was going to say the same thing, that, as far as current customers are concerned, this product seems to fill an incredible Non-Niche.
It's exclusively for IA-64, which can't compete head to head with established RISC hardware yet. Also, given that the OS's for the competitive RISC hardware have been around longer, had more bugs shaken out, had more apps (eg, Oracle) developed for them, Advanced Server won't provide any kind of revenue for MS. It's all written off for the sake of future revenue.
Like anything, they're willing to let it slog slowly up through the ranks for a few years until it gains credibility (eg, the first 2 versions of Windows and of NT). Eventually, though, all this beta testing will pay off so that in 2005 they can argue convincingly that they can provide an alternative to the big iron from IBM, Sun, HP, SGI and Compaq (DEC).
The other benefit of this move for MS is to provide a testing ground for their code base so that if IA-64 ever does develop into something so desirable that it begins to appear in desktops, they'll have some experience for it. With the recent boost that Intel gets from killing off the Alpha competitor and from using the Alpha's carcass to improve the sickly Itanium, the IA-64 will eventually become something to be reckoned with, even if through the sheer brute force of the dollars behind it.
For current customers, though, this OS release is a yawning opportunity to be part of MS beta test program. As with the Linux IA-64 release, it is mildly interesting, with genuine interest deferred until the point that the hardware is competitive with the established RISC vendors.
Anyone care to compare and contrast their 64 bit foray to their first foray into the 32 bit world?