FT on Europe's Open Source Option 235
Anonymous Coward writes "The Financial Times offers a very interesting read about Linux, its possibilities for business, and its threat to Microsoft. Also a second article about "Europe's open-source option"."
Problem with the article: (Score:5, Informative)
Only if you REDISTRIBUTE the binaries as well! This makes it sound like any in-house change must be published.
Re:Problem with the article: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Problem with the article: (Score:4, Interesting)
I wouldn't think so, since your company has not actually "distributed" the binary. If the company has made the modification, then as long as the company keeps the binary internal to the company, I wouldn't imagine it would be constrained by that portion of the GPL. Just as they didn't "give" you that monitor on your desk, or that chair you're sitting in, I don't think they would "give" you the binaries that you're using. Since the GPL seems to rely on variants of the term "distribute" however, it could legally be interpreted several ways. I would think, however, that you are being given access to the binaries as an agent of the company, not as an individual; in that case, no real distribution has occurred.
IANAL, but I'm sure your company has two or three; ask them.
From the FSF (Score:3, Informative)
Q- Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
A - The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.
Re:Problem with the article: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Problem with the article: (Score:2)
Re:Problem with the article: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Problem with the article: (Score:3, Interesting)
From the FSF (Score:3, Informative)
Q- Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement?
A - No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy of your version from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of that version. It does not give you permission to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.
Q - Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement?
A - Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA.
You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but agree not to release them to anyone else until the client says ok. In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions.
The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version, but in this scenario the client will choose not to exercise that right.
Re:From the FSF (Score:2)
The contractor may agree not to distribute but you can't force him not to distribute. In other words an NDA would be unenforcable with respect to GPLed code. You can ask him to sign what ever you want but it would no more valid than a contract where he signed himself into slavery.
Re:Problem with the article: (Score:3, Informative)
As for your example, the libraries can be put in a sandbox, and segregated from the more sensitive bits. But as long as you're not distributing out-of-house, you can keep your source code confidential. Just beware, should you decide that your app can be sold to clients...
Re:Problem with the article: (Score:4, Informative)
Asking "What happens to our software if we use GPL-software as base?" is like asking "What happens to my company when we don't pay licensing fees to MS?"
It's just part of the rules. And be assured, it's a lot easier to make sure not to use GPLed code in in-house apps than to make sure no employee has somewhere installed some unlicensed software. (Which can cost the company hundreds of thousands)
Also, all the GPL violations have been solved by either removing the code (rewriting it) or opening up the whole. So if you don't want to open up you just need to do what you should have done from the beginning: Write it yourself. The risks involved in breaking the GPL are minimal, especially because there won't be any damages claims. Also, when it is about an in-house app anyway, what's the big deal in opening it up?
Micorosft's license, on the other hand, is enforced, there are audits and huge fines.
Anybody asking "What happens to our software if we use GPL-software as base" is either:
Re:Problem with the article: (Score:2)
Second, by caling people with concerns with GPL as idiots, you're actually helping MS to spread FUD. It is this kind of elitist attitude that scares many people away. If not for IBM, the credibility of GPL would have gone down from the hills pretty quickly, because of people like you, and not because of GPL per se.
Re:Problem with the article: (Score:2)
Re:Problem with the article: (Score:3, Informative)
When you download software that somebody else has written, and use it as the basis of an inhouse piece of software, then you need the permission of the person who wrote the original software to distribute the derivative work (your inhouse software.) If the software comes with a notice that it is under the GPL, that is simply a communication from the author saying under what terms HE will allow you to distribute the software - namely that you keep it under the GPL and give the source code to anyone who wants it.
The people that you distribute the software to have no legal right to dictate the terms under which you do so - only the original author does, since you can only distribute his copyrighted work at all with his permission. Thus, the people who get the software may be more than happy to sign away the ability to get ahold of the source code - but that does not matter, because it is not with them you made an agreement to distribute the source code, it is with the original author of the software.
That said, regarding employees working in the office there is no issue what so ever - distribution of the software has to do with which computers it is installed on, not who uses it, so as long as the company owns the computer there has been no distribution. If it is software that employees or consolutants will take home and run on their own machines, then IANAL but it seems pretty clear to me that, yes, you do owe them the source.
On the whole though, MS campaign of trying to use this against Linux is 100% FUD (or rather an outright lie). There are GPLed programs and libraries on Windows as well, people who don't want to GPL there software don't have to make derivative works based on them, and nor do they on Linux (there are plenty of LGPLed, BSDed, and even proprietary libraries to go around). And if they do want to base their software on something that is GPLed, the worse case is that they have to exactly what you always have to do with proprietary software anyways: call up the author and try to negotiate to pay for permission to use it under other conditions.
Re:Problem with the article: (Score:2)
Re:Problem with ally macbeal (Score:2)
Seriously, internal deployment is not the same as distribution.
Qote from the GPL: These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.
So solution 1 is to distribute your program in binary form separate from the GPL'd code.
Quote from the GPL: You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
Solution 2 is to charge a high enough fee to dissuade others from requesting the source.
Quote from the GPL:In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
So don't worry about your closed-source code being "polluted" by the GPL
Quote from the GPL: b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,... (etc)
So, who's to say what my cost of physically performing this is? It depends upon what my hourly rate for such a task is, and this can be set arbitrarily high.
I agree with most of the posters, that the writer slipped up here.
Glossed over (Score:5, Insightful)
Stallman doesn't wear a tie. Get over it already.
However, more importantly, The Financial Times and many others seem to intentionally obfuscate or misinform their readers regarding the Freedom part of the GPL. Peddling misinformation does a heavy disservice to any that might be trying to make an informed decision regarding their IT strategies.
Free beer! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Free beer! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Free beer! (Score:2)
Re:Free beer! (Score:4, Insightful)
It depends if you're interested in running a stable system or selling a patched version. I'd say most of the intended audience of the article aren't interested in selling Linux systems, but rather use it. Then the GPL is good, since it makes patches spread thoughout the community.
Re:Free beer! (Score:2)
It does not guarantee YOUR freedom.
Re:Free beer! (Score:2)
The GPL gives you the right to use it (assuming it's been licensed that way) if you follow some rules. And if the BSD license offers 'true freedom', how come people don't release under Public Domain instead? Oh wait, time for you to go read the licenses again.
Re:Free beer! (Score:2)
All things are relative, including freedom. The GPL certainly gives you more freedom than Microsoft's EULA. Everything Microsoft's EULA allows the GPL allows. So in this common common case the GPL is more free.
But the BSD license takes away my freedom to strip off the original authors copyright statement and delete the disclaimer of warrante. If we're going to demand absolute freedom you need to look at truly public domain software, no copyright.
Re:Free beer! (Score:2)
Freedom to steal (Score:2)
Freedom is not just the absense of restraints. Introducing a "freedom to steal" destroys "the freedoms to own property" possession not ownership becomes the best you can do. You simply cannot have some freedoms in combination with others.
As the history of X11 shows quite clearly:
a) The freedom for commercial companies to embrace and extend a technology is propietery ways
b) The freedom for users to form a community th share ideas which will allow them to be able to configure their software environment in a meaningful way
are contradictory freedoms. Which freedom do you care about more?
You're point is really a subject for debate. (Score:2)
Re:Free beer! (Score:5, Insightful)
These things are interesting to read, and overall I thought the article was pretty accurate, but it makes it feel very dry doesn't it? All the graphs, figures, and relentlessly the focus on cost, the bottom line. Other benefits like increased flexibility and lack of lockin weren't mentioned. Neither was the fact that the vast majority of people who work on Linux the OS as a whole are not employed by big tech companies.
It's also rather depressing how much the involvement of IBM means to people. IBM has done a hell of a lot of good work, but the "we didn't pay any attention 'till IBM did" line indicates supreme daftness to me - Linux hasn't changed that much. I guess it's just a case of sheeple following whoever is biggest.
Re:Free beer! (Score:5, Insightful)
Before, the evangelists were totally irrelevant and totally without credibility - in terms of who an IT Manager would take advice from.
Re:Free beer! (Score:3, Insightful)
Why businessmen choose Linux?
1 - Concern about IT spending (at least for SMEs this is the big factor).
2 - Concern about relying on a monopolist, high-price oriented company (Microsoft as much as the old proprietary Unix producers).
3 - Concern about relying on a monopolist, fixed-price oriented, *american* company...
If you read the article, you'll find these and not much more, because the FT reader doesn't want anything other (well, maybe some tits would be appreciated).
Re:Free beer! (Score:2)
Actually the article mentioned this in a (backhanded way) but they disagree with your estimate that it is a "vast majority". It said (and I have no idea if it's true or not) that about 50% of the 1,000 or so developers that are really actively developing Linux are employees of big tech companies. I'm sure that there are many, many more non big company developers that are contributing occasionaly but the efforts of 500 full time developers doing it day in and day out for their living is probably making a pretty big impact.
Re:Free beer! (Score:2)
Free beer, NOT, It's About Safe Sharing (Score:3, Insightful)
They do point out that UNIX fragmented in the '80s and '90s because each UNIX vendor went off and created their own additions and variations, and that this is what created the opportunity for Windows to get into the server market. Without the introduction of Linux, we were quickly going to a situation where Sun was the defacto UNIX standard, and in the Sun/Solaris vs PC/Windows competition. This isn't that different from the competition with Apple, where the software development and support is really a drag on the hardware business (keeping costs up), and it is hard to compete with the commodity PC pricing (MS just cleans up, big time).
With Linux, system vendors can cooperate on software without worrying that the competition can just take their contribution and not return anything. IBM will not work on Darwin, but Linux is great precisly because of the limits imposed by the GPL.
Re:Free beer! (Score:2)
As the parent said, it's called Finacial Times for a reason. The people who read it basically care about one thing: money. If you want to communicate with them you need to speak their language: money.
There's a very good reason for not mentioning RMS-style Freedom to this audience; it gives them the willies. It's very difficult for a money-minded person to see how those ideals benefit them since all they are able to see is monetary worth.
It's also rather depressing how much the involvement of IBM means to people. IBM has done a hell of a lot of good work, but the "we didn't pay any attention 'till IBM did" line indicates supreme daftness to me - Linux hasn't changed that much. I guess it's just a case of sheeple following whoever is biggest.
When a very small company I was working at a while back needed to move all the important business files off of the bosses desktop and onto a dedicated fileserver I suggested adding a big harddrive to an old unused machine we had and throwing Linux on it. After explaining what Linux is and why we don't have to pay anyone for it if we don't want to, the question posed was "Who else is using it?" It seemed like a very strange question to me, but eventually I understood what it was about. Managers really don't like to take risks. What they were asking for is examples of where Linux has been successfully deployed. Data is the backbone of any company, and you don't trust your data to a platform that doesn't have an acceptable track record, and to have that you need some big names (like IBM) saying publicly "Yes, we use that, it works".
Unfortunately, this was when IBM was first talking about supporting Linux, so examples from companies anyone had heard of were scarce, to say the least. I managed to talk them into it anyway, and the winning arguement was money. Hardware and software costs to do it the way I suggested were $125 (new HDD and NIC), whereas software costs alone for an MS solution was around $1000, or $1500 for Novell, and both of those would have required more hardware expenses to create a viable platform, and would have had additional expenses for licenses ($50 and $70 respectively per seat, IIRC) whenever a new employee were hired (the company was growing roughly 30% per year at the time).
It so happened that the CEO had recently asked the CFO to marry him, so once these numbers were pointed out to her, the issue was decided in favor of Linux
Very good to see (Score:5, Informative)
We have been doing much work for lots of private industrial companies all over Europe by make the modfications to FreeBSD and Gnu/Linux kernel for years and just now starting to see jobs from the USA.
Oh too, to make a clarification, most of our work has been on FreeBSD (my specialty actually) because we recommend it for companies because of the more flexible license, but we like the work on Gnu/Linux too.
Re:Very good to see (Score:3, Informative)
That's an interesting perspective. Presumably if you make custom changes for companies then they wouldn't be redistributed so you wouldn't have to reveal the changes anyway. And what sort of things do you change or add that is so secret they can't be released back?
Re:Very good to see (Score:2, Insightful)
company and so there is no political motivation
to protect MS's market in the EU.
Whether or not that plays a bigger role than the
national security angle (being dependent on a
foreign company for national IT), I have no idea.
Re:Very good to see (Score:2)
For instance, you set up America vs Europe, a classic hot subject on Slashdot whatever the subject discussed. Same with FreeBSD vs Linux. Also "USian" isn't a very respectful term, right?
Cheers,
Lars
Re:Very good to see (Score:2)
I don't think respect is "in" these days.
The whole EU vs US thing is silly, because it presumes two huge land masses are monolithic in their thinking. Microsoft's demise will mean more jobs for everyone, both EU and US.
Re:Very good to see (Score:2)
Re:Very good to see (Score:2)
I would have thought that wether the work was going to be resubmitted back would be an important question raised by clients during the inital contract negotiaions for the work.
This article was mentioned on BBC World's (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This article was mentioned on BBC World's (Score:2, Informative)
The BBC website has an article [bbc.co.uk] on Linux aswell.
PS. WTF does "The Sopranos" have to do with HP and linux ?
I love reading these. (Score:2, Interesting)
I can undestand why slashdot puts stories like these on but I still laugh when I read them. The contradictions, the overstatements, not to mention the information they sometimes get wrong. I don't mind reading them though, if only for a laugh.
Not to say that this story has ALL of those listed above, but I did notice some lines that gave me a chuckle.
So do I - for different reasons (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of us on squishdot rage flamewars about code stability, scaleability, freedom of choice - but none of this matters to the execs - they don't read what we write.
But if someone like the FT mentions Linux and how good it is - this gets read in the board room, on the train, on the trading floor.
And then maybe, just maybe, someone will ask the head IT person just what its all about. Then we get a chance to explain it. Get a copy of these articles, save the link somewhere - and then next time you have to do a whitepaper or value proposal in your company where you know open source is the better choice you have some references that people will sit up and notice.
Treat these articles as sales leads to big buisness - marketing is what open source is not good at beacuse we don't press the right buttons - the FT does.
Still - good for a chukle wasn't it.
Re:So do I - for different reasons (Score:2)
That being said it doesn't excuse outright errors. The businessman reading the article can't be expected to know or care about the technological details. The technology writer on the other hand, while he may have to reduce things down to a simplistic level, should NOT be getting things just plain wrong.
Re:So do I - for different reasons (Score:2)
Stage 1 is getting people to talk about it
Stage 2 is getting them to talk about it correctly.
To my mind an obvious but reasonably harmless error like some of those in the article is okay - we get a chance to correct them.
Deliberate FUD however is not and should be jumped on.
I guess I'd say don't shoot the messenger - so long as the messenger doesn't have an agenda!
WTF? (Score:2)
What the hell? Do we need analysts to tell us ideology has no value in business?
An interesting point that gets overlooked (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a part of the model that I don't often see pointed out. It's pretty apparent, when you think about it, but not obvious. Sure, companies can add distinguishing (and proprietary) applications, but the core stays relatively stable.
Not only do others benefit from what is added, they benefit from what isn't added.
Just how big? (Score:4, Interesting)
So Linux share of the server market could be much larger than it would appear.
Nick
Re:Just how big? (Score:2)
I'm not sure how to feel about that.
On the one hand, this is a weapon for MS. "Linux is only $8G in a $200G industry. That's only 4%! Even Apple has a bigger marketshare than that! You don't want to be a loner, you want to be able to interoperate with everyone else...", they might say.
On the other hand, what is a $8G marketshare at Linux prices would be a $64G marketshare at MS prices, which makes it more like a 25% marketshare.
I'm not entirely sure that my math or logic are entirely correct, but one thing is clear: money is a really stupid way to measure usage.
Europe and Microsoft et al... (Score:5, Interesting)
The basic concern here is also reliance on technology that can be controlled by another goverment, the advantage of Open Source is not just financial but is also one of Intellectual Property. Most of Europe is politically much further to the left than the US and is pro-sharing. This is a major principle of the EU, as opposed to the US centric treaty that enables logging and exploitation on the other side of the pond.
So there is less of a clash of culture when considering open source, Europe understands why co-operation is good, that is how much of the European defence industry works already.
Now there is also the arrogant bit....
We think European Students can build better OSes than US corporations - Linus
We think that Europeans can build better enterprise systems - SAP
We think that the best things to come out of IBM were developed in Europe - MQSeries
So basically underpinning this is a belief that we don't have the cash to do better, but do have the talent. Most EU reports on Open Source software talk about leveraging this talent pool, and not having the marketing and release costs of a full scale company.
Its the difference between consent based and co-operative management and the approach taken over the pond.
Re:Europe and Microsoft et al... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, just couldn't help myself here
Re:Europe and Microsoft et al... (Score:2)
Re:France and DaVinci... (Score:2)
The only genius computing has ever had, forced into topping himself because the UK goverment was homophobic.
John Von Neuman?
Charles Babbage?
Ada Byron?
Blaise Pascal?
Konrad Zuse?
It seems your knowledge of the history of computing is rather limited.
Genius... (Score:2)
Those are brilliant, Turing was IMO the only Einstein that computing has had. Hell that isn't too bad as Physics has only had Newton and Einstein from the very top draw. One in 200 years really isn't that bad.
Re:Europe and Microsoft et al... (Score:2)
Sarcasm would have been
"Yes in the same way that the French produce such great pop-music, they really show us up there"
Irony would have been
"and who made the money out of European ideas ?"
So you don't seem to have proven your point at this stage. But please keep trying, it shows you care.
Re:Feh. (Score:3, Informative)
It *really pains me* to defend Europeans in this discussion, but I must point out that Alan Turing was English, and Colossus was one of the most significant developments in computers. And don't forget that Britain also made major contributions in the development of the atomic bomb and radar.
Of course, many of us don't consider Brits to be "true Europeans" since they speak a fractured form of English, which is the language of the most successful societies on earth.
Re:Feh. (Score:2)
Did they really? Which Americans do you think invented the computer?
now for the important bit: It doesn't matter whether IBM is a US company, but neither does it matter that MQSeries (and CICS etc) were all made in Hampshire by Brits. Saying that Europeans made some good stuff is not anti-american. It's just pointing out that Eurpoe has a lot to be proud of too.
Finally, to clear up a common misconception: Most Euopeans are not anti-American. They are anti-America, and specifically anti-the current US administration and its great big environmental and military fuck-you to the rest of the world.
Re:Feh. (Score:2)
Eckert and Mauchly.
And I realize this is an argument that can stretch back to Pascal and Leibniz, if the the debaters so chose, but at some point one must give credit for the *current* state of computing, and that credit belongs mostly to the Yanks.
And I further realize that Americans themselves, for the most part, descended from Europeans. But at some point you have to say, "An American did this." If a person was born here, they are American. Furthermore, if a person immigrates and is naturalized here, they are American. That is where I draw my lines.
And if you choose to fault us for Microsoft, don't forget to give us credit for UNIX at the same time.
Talisman
Re:Feh. (Score:2)
ENIAC [clemson.edu] was not a stored program machine, and was inferior to COLOSSUS, which preceded it. EDVAC [maxmon.com] was Eckert and Mauchly's first stored program machine, but was not completed until significantly after Baby had first run. All these machines depended crucially on Turing's 'On Computable Numbers'.
So if you think ENIAC was a computer, COLOSSUS beat them to it. If you think that ENIAC wasn't a computer, Baby beat them to it. COLOSSUS, Baby and, of course, Turing, were all British.
Re:Feh. (Score:2)
Americans INVENTED THE COMPUTER(!) (Score:2)
Oh? When [abelard.org] was this [computer50.org]?
Couple of errors... (Score:5, Informative)
WWII, France, UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark etc.
WWI, France, UK
The Brits and the Dutch used to have alliances against the French and the Spanish. The Germans and Austrians are pretty pally, lots of parts of Europe used to be owned by other countries, e.g. most of France by England, Alsace by Germany etc etc.
The Napoleonic wars were everyone v Napoleon. The Crimea was Brit and France v Russia.
In terms of the European defence industry being a joke, pretty harsh. Look at the contracts the US Goverment awards and look at the sub-contractors, Thales, Bae, Rolls-Royce are most often there.
Violent Crime in terms of rape and murder is MILES lower in Europe than the US. Muggings et al are higher, so we have unhappy people who live, and the US has unhappy relatives of people who died.
This isn't bloody American bashing, its laying out how Europe likes to co-operate to compete with the US Globalisation plan. Its a clash of cultures, each has their advantages and disadvantages.
Europe knows that the US is the biggest fish in the pond, but it also knows (to its cost) that being the biggest fish doesn't give you the right to dictate as you only get embarressed by what you did 100 years later.
WWI was started because the empire building powers thought that you could still fight a war from the 1800s with technology in the 1900s and that having plebs shot wasn't a very bad thing. Europe learnt alot from having tens of thousands of people die in a day.
Namely War does actually suck.
OT: You forgot one important piece of co-operation (Score:2)
Friends and power (Score:2)
Friends are not people who are scared of you.
The commonwealth is the third largest inter-goverment body on the planet after the UN and EU. The US has withdrawn from almost every international treaty there is. This is not how to win friends and influence people.
Re:Europe and Microsoft et al... (Score:3, Informative)
No, just not having mentioned it. Of course, we made a few adaptations that made it more successful. I also remember that the French tried it next, and ended up with the French Revolution, one of the most brutal episodes in the history of the west.
As for the US having to clean up our mess, the US were too busy looking in the mirror to see Pearl Harbor coming. It's only then that you interfered in WWII.
Not to save Europe, but to retain a market for your exporting companies and to save your OWN asses from communism that was closing in on you quite rapidly. Don't go telling me that the US were so noble to "save" Europe because Eisenhower/Roosevelt felt sorry for us. It's all about the Benjamins, it is now, and it was then.
What is a Benjamin?
Also, you seem a bit confused. WWII was a fight against the Nazis, not the communists. I suggest you check your history books.
And the US did a lot of noble things. Not *only* out of humanitarian reasons, of course, but noble none-the-less. We rebuilt a *competitor* (Europe) using our own money in the Marshall plan. We kept thousands of our young men in Europe for decades to protect Europe from the depradations of the Soviet empire. We brought Japan from a feudal state to a more modern, much freer democracy.
Would you have preferred to have been absorbed by the USSR? If so, I refer you to two books: "The Black Book of Communism "(written by French intellectuals) which highlights the crimes of communist governments throughout the world, and Alexander Yakovlev's "A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia." If those don't convince you of the evil of actual communist governments, you are hopeless!
What business did you have interfering in Vietnam? Korea? etc..
Stopping the global spread of imperial communist Russia. The Korean war was started *at the express order* of the KGB by Kim Il Sung, who spent World War II in Russia as a KGB asset. He invaded South Korea (in violation of treaties).
The Vietnam War was an (unfortunately successful) attempt by the Communist regime of Ho Chi Minh to conquer the South. A little history item for you: after the French colonialists (Europeans, btw) were thrown out of Vietnam, it was divided, and the people voted with their feet as to which regime they wanted. Huge numbers moved south to get away from the communists. The South Vietnamese government was hardly a shining example of democracy (or anything else), but it was preferred by its people to the alternative.
Also I hear of quite a few neighborhoods in the bigger cities of the US where the police don't even dare to patrol anymore.
Well, so much for the quality of European media! What you hear is total nonsense. Where did you hear it?
And how about slavery? Sure, there have always been regimes that made use of slave labor, but your fair and democratic USA made use of it on an enormous scale for centuries.
As did Europe, which initiated and profitted mightily from the African slave trade. And our country spent 500,000 lives to eliminate slavery in our country, and we did so!
If you are so exercised about slavery, how about condemning the Sudan, where slaves are still bought and sold? I have heard a lot of bloviations from Europeans about how bad the US is, but little about the real evil in the world! Selective morality seems to be a modern European attribute also.
Also tell me which country in the EU still executes prisoners? None, I can tell you.
Actually, Britain still has capital punishment for sabotage of naval facilities. However, I am not ashamed of our record of capital punishment. My state also executes those who have preyed upon their fellow human beings.
You're also right in your previous statements. But the rant above just goes to show that bot the US and EU have dirty hands in many ways.
Every nation in the world and every group has dirty hands... it just depends on what the situation is and when it happened.
If it werent for The West as I'll call them collectively, there'd probably be a lot less war in this world than there is now.
That is pretty pathetic. You might be right - of course. Some brutal dictator *might* just take over the whole world - that would end war all right. But to blame the wars in the world on the west is so silly that I am not going to bother refuting it.
--
Re:Europe and Microsoft et al... (Score:2)
Money?
Just a guess. Im not sure.
Re:Europe and Microsoft et al... (Score:2)
It is rather hard to comment on your totally vague assertions, other than to say that I am quite aware of what our government does and has done, and why it did it. If you disagree, be specific. Otherwise... why bother to post at all?
Most popular article. (Score:3, Interesting)
The Slashdot link seems to have caused this article to rise to number 1 in the FT list of most popular articles (from 3 in the 10mins or so it took me to read it).
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagena
Looks like t
More on Linux in the FT's Lex column... (Score:5, Informative)
To explain, the Lex column is a very influential daily piece of analysis, read by the financial world's movers and shakers (mainly in the UK). I'd quibble about a few points - MS's Office franchise is (financially) secure? Linux suffers from "real security issues"? Nonsense. Anyway, for review purposes, here the piece:
"Technology investors should be thinking long and hard about Linux. The free, open source operating system has moved beyond the beard and sandals stage and is no longer just an option for bleeding-edge early adopters and those theologically opposed to Microsoft. Linux, whose mascot is a cuddly penguin, has developed teeth. The technology has emerged as a credible alternative for corporate IT departments and is winning significant share in the $200bn server market.
"Sun, Hewlett-Packard and IBM - which have traditionally marketed high-margin Unix equipment and software - are among those that have suffered from Linux's growing popularity. All three have seen the writing on the wall and have begun supporting Linux, but the transition from Unix, with proprietary hardware and software, will be painful.
"For the moment, Microsoft has not been overly affected by Linux's rise. Open source software is unlikely to gain even a foothold in personal computer operating systems, so Microsoft's $10bn Windows monopoly remains impregnable. Its $8.8bn Office franchise is equally secure.
"Nonetheless, Microsoft cannot be complacent. The long-term threat to its $6.5bn server business is real. Microsoft's model has been low price, high volume, but for the first time it is being undercut on price. It can argue that Linux suffers from real security issues that are only now emerging and that the operating system has a tendency to fragment, making it difficult to ensure applications' reliability. But it has a real marketing battle on its hands."
Re:More on Linux in the FT's Lex column... (Score:2)
The way I read it, FT is saying that those are arguements MS could make, but will have a battle making them stick. "It can argue" v. "It can be argued".
I agree with you about MS Office, though. At the moment it might look secure at the moment, but then an undermined castle wall looks secure right up to the point where the besieger burn out the supports, and those Star/OpenOffice guys are working fast.
Fall of the Corporate Empire? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps I'm taking the comparison a little too far, but the similarities between the US and the Roman Empire at its height (before it imploded) have been jumping out at me even more lately. Bush's unilateralism, the RIAA's panic response to P2P, and yes, even Microsoft's attempts to hold off Linux strike me as desperate actions of a dominant power failing to keep up with the changing times and thus losing its grip on power.
If India, China, and the EU eventually embrace open source as the new paradigm, that will be just one more crack in the wall.
-mh
Re:Fall of the Corporate Empire? (Score:2)
1) It took centuries for the Roman empire to fall. Using a Roman timeline we somewhere in the age of Augustus Ceasar. That means for the next 150 years we get stronger not weaker. 300 years from now we are still the undisputed power. 500 years from now a major (but declining influence)
2) When Rome finally did fall it took the entire empire down with it. The fall happened from the outside in, now from the inside out. In other words: Europe falls first, falls harder and falls for longer
You sure you like the analogy?
Re:Fall of the Corporate Empire? (Score:2)
Things move much faster now.
Using a Roman timeline we somewhere in the age of Augustus Ceasar.
No, we're way past Augustus. Analogies are never perfect, so you can't really draw a direct correlation, but our culture is more like a split between Rome under Caligula and Rome under Constantine (post conversion).
The sickening decadence and depravity endemic to our society (think Springer, SUV's even after 9/11, a populace who watches news programs which are completely geared to manipulating them and maintaining their ignorance. Bread and circuses.)
is reminiscent of Roman society under the Claudian Emperors.
The religious zealots eager for martyrdom and the excommunication or torture and murder of anyone who has a different thought during the rise of Christianity is frighteningly similar to the zealots we have here today. Muslims have their similar wackos, but most of the rest of the civilized world is moving away from the sickening idea of fundamentalism.
That means for the next 150 years we get stronger not weaker. 300 years from now we are still the undisputed power. 500 years from now a major (but declining influence)
Again, things move faster.
Also Rome would have fallen much sooner if they hadn't still had the image of invulnerability. The barbarians could have moved earlier than they did.
When Rome finally did fall it took the entire empire down with it. The fall happened from the outside in, now from the inside out. In other words: Europe falls first, falls harder and falls for longer
Much of Europe was part of the Roman Empire. They are not part of the American Empire. The ties are deep economically, as they are throughout the world.
You make a large mistake in your analogy. The Europeans (and Asians) are not ignorant, and they are most certainly not barbarians.
Re:Fall of the Corporate Empire? (Score:2)
> Things move much faster now.
Any proof of that? Economic cycles that took about a lifetime then still take about a lifetime; which means things are evolving slower (since life expectency is higher). Political movements seem to also be moving slower; like the rise of Thatcherism... I don't see much evidence things are moving faster. This is one of those rumors of the modern age.
>> Using a Roman timeline we somewhere in the age of Augustus Ceasar.
> No, we're way past Augustus. Analogies are
> never perfect, so you can't really draw a
> direct correlation, but our culture is more
> like a split between Rome under Caligula and
> Rome under Constantine (post conversion).
Huh? What are just picking emperors at random?
1) We have a great deal of political and military influence over the empire but still lack direct control. Just like Rome in the early years. The rest of the world is not paying tribute but rather seems themselves as weaker partners.
2) There are still strong counter forces
3) A major increase in trade is occuring do to the safety of transportation (or in this case international trade and finance system) under Roman (American) control.
> The sickening decadence and depravity endemic
> to our society (think Springer, SUV's even
> after 9/11, a populace who watches news
> programs which are completely geared to
> manipulating them and maintaining their
> ignorance. Bread and circuses.)
Springer isn't that popular nor that depraved. The vast majority of Americans live in stable households, hold down steady jobs, are very law abiding, and frankly have monogomous sexual relations... That is not a society on the verge of collapse by any standards. As for bread and circuses I see no large government directed mass entertainment projects with minor exception like July 4th and the Olympics. It simply isn't happening.
> is reminiscent of Roman society under the
> Claudian Emperors. The religious zealots eager > for martyrdom and the excommunication or
> torture and murder of anyone who has a
> different thought during the rise of
> Christianity is frighteningly similar to the
> zealots we have here today.
Except the real wave of martyrs are mainly second century not first 80 years after the Claudian emperors.
> Muslims have their similar wackos, but most of
> the rest of the civilized world is moving away
> from the sickening idea of fundamentalism.
As it was during the days of Augustus. Augustus was a rise in rationalism. The mystery cults were a counter force but it wasn't for many years until they became a mass movement.
>> That means for the next 150 years we get
>> stronger not weaker. 300 years from now we are
>> still the undisputed power. 500 years from now
>> a major (but declining influence)
> Again, things move faster.
> Also Rome would have fallen much sooner if they > hadn't still had the image of invulnerability. > The barbarians could have moved earlier than
> they did.
Could they? All through the 2nd century the barbians were still being pushed back. In the 3rd Rome began to lose ground but slowly. Attilah was a genius but he was also the right man at the right time. Note he also didn't take out the eastern empire.
> > When Rome finally did fall it took the entire >> empire down with it. The fall happened from
>> the outside in, now from the inside out. In
>> other words: Europe falls first, falls harder
>> and falls for longer
> Much of Europe was part of the Roman Empire.
> They are not part of the American Empire. The
> ties are deep economically, as they are
> throughout the world.
> You make a large mistake in your analogy. The
> Europeans (and Asians) are not ignorant, and
> they are most certainly not barbarians.
First off it isn't my analogy I was commenting on this Roman analogy that gets brought up often. Second in the time of Augustus most of what would later be the empire had all sorts of mutual defense treaties and economic treaties with Rome. They didn't have any sort of formal vassel status and they didn't pay tribute. Mostly they just had bases on their territory and some limits placed on their foreign policy (which is a lot like today). Vassel status wouldn't come for a very long time.
Anyway if America is Rome then in the analogy Europe would be what will become a vassel state.
Re:Fall of the Corporate Empire? (Score:2)
Well, I can fly from San Diego to Chicago in 4 hours. How long would it take to ride a horse?
I can send a message from Rome to South America in seconds. How long did it take at the height of the Roman Empire? About 1500 years.
In fact at that time, the Romans didn't even know South Americans existed.
Information and knowledge travel very quickly indeed.
Technology moves much much faster than it did back then.
Huh? What are just picking emperors at random?
Not at all. Caligula was arguably the worst of the Claudian Emperors. Constantine was the (I believe) first Christian Emperor. I then went on to draw comparisons between those specific times and now. Not very random at all, huh.
1) We have a great deal of political and military influence over the empire but still lack direct control. Just like Rome in the early years. The rest of the world is not paying tribute but rather seems themselves as weaker partners
Fair enough.
2) There are still strong counter forces
Yes, but they are well informed, technologically advanced counter forces. Much more so than in the Roman days.
Our society has much more in common with Carthage at the time of the Punic wars than it does with Roman society at the same time. In Carthage, public officials were openly for sale just like America. Almost any action, no matter how disgusting or depraved, was ok as long as it made money. Exactly as in America. In Rome, a public official taking a bribe was practically unheard of. For one the person would be an outcast from society and also the penalty for this was death. It was ok to get rich, but there were some things that just were not done. Polybius draws comparisons where Carthage is at one extreme, Rome is in the middle, and Sparta is at the other extreme where no man could own more land than any other, and acquiring wealth was to be despised. He makes good points about how this prevented Sparta from becoming a major player on the world stage.
3) A major increase in trade is occuring do to the safety of transportation (or in this case international trade and finance system) under Roman (American) control.
Partially due to America, certainly.
Springer isn't that popular nor that depraved. The vast majority of Americans live in stable households, hold down steady jobs, are very law abiding, and frankly have monogomous sexual relations... That is not a society on the verge of collapse by any standards. As for bread and circuses I see no large government directed mass entertainment projects with minor exception like July 4th and the Olympics. It simply isn't happening
I believe Springer is still the most popular daytime TV show. The depravity isn't Springer's show as much as it is the fact that people watch it. There are Massive Corporate Media directed entertainment projects. Generally they tell the government what to do, so it works out to essentially the same thing. Again, analogies don't map exactly. Our economy is based on manipulating people into buying lots of worthless crap they don't need. This is not a healthy condition. It is one sign of a decadent society.
Except the real wave of martyrs are mainly second century not first 80 years after the Claudian emperors.
Right. Like, say, more toward the time of Constantine as I said?
There never really was a "wave" of martyrdom. There were a few cases here and there. The total number was around 2000 (according to Gibbon). A lot of it was just revisionist history by the Christians.
As it was during the days of Augustus. Augustus was a rise in rationalism. The mystery cults were a counter force but it wasn't for many years until they became a mass movement.
Well, Augustus was also the first Roman person to be declared a god. Not very "Rational" that.
First off it isn't my analogy I was commenting on this Roman analogy that gets brought up often.
Sure, but you modified the analogy which made it yours. I further modified it and pointed out flaws in the analogy.
Second in the time of Augustus most of what would later be the empire had all sorts of mutual defense treaties and economic treaties with Rome. They didn't have any sort of formal vassel status and they didn't pay tribute. Mostly they just had bases on their territory and some limits placed on their foreign policy (which is a lot like today). Vassel status wouldn't come for a very long time.
True enough.
Anyway if America is Rome then in the analogy Europe would be what will become a vassel state.
In a strict analogy, perhaps so. Again many things are different and Europe is aware of the history. Whether or not they can learn from it is another question.
Read "The Sovereign Individual" (Score:2)
They talk about just how bad the Roman tax collectors are and suggest that people leave large welfare democracies, emigrating to small stable democracies that do not support welfare states.
- Mark Watson
- Free Web Books at www.markwatson.com
Re:Fall of the Corporate Empire? (Score:2)
I don't think you're taking the comparison too far at all.
I just read "The Rise of the Roman Empire" by Polybius which was written during the republic; about 100 years before Julius Caesar.
I'm currently halfway through "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Gibbon.
I have been amazed by the similarities between the US in its earlier years and Rome during the republic when it was on the rise.
The similarities between Rome in its decline and The US currently are even more striking.
It's truly frightening.
We show all of the signs of a society in its decline.
Windows Getting Less Secure? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, I am not a Fortune 500 CTO (IANAF5CTO?), but I would be pretty worried if I had a global deployment of Windows systems and Microsoft just started handing out the source code to foreign governments (or my own for that matter). If people consistently find exploits without access to the internal code, imagine what a motivated foreign intelligence service can do with access to it.
Is Microsoft, in reacting to the emerging "open source in government" movement, inadvertently making Windows less desirable to everyone else?
Re:Windows Getting Less Secure? (Score:2)
Almost. Try: IANAFDCTO
D = 500, using Roman numerals.
High cost of Unix (Score:5, Insightful)
I still think that the most striking feature of this market is not so much the spread of Linux now -- after all, it offers obvious benefits -- as the fact that people are finally *stopping* spending huge amounts of money on Unix (read Sun) hardware.
I've occasionally had to do with projects where costs were reduced to 1/8 or so (yes, about what the article says) by replacing Sun with NT hardware. With hardware savings like that, it doesn't matter if you have a whole entire backup system with it's own set of staff.
What the popularity of Linux really means in money terms is that sites that kept spending millions a year on Sun, because of internal opposition to Microsoft, now have a politically correct way to buy cheap Intel hardware.
This is good. It's just a pity so many sites upgraded to ma$$ive Sun-hardware j2ee systems during the boom... it'll take forever to get rid of 'em all!
System Sales (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux vs. hackers FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
Count me as one person who's getting a little tired of this argument that we keep hearing that ``Linux's security isn't up to snuff and hasn't been severely tested because all the `hackers' are too busy writing attacks on Windows. Oooh! It'll just be awful when these `hackers' turn their attention to Linux''. Well, to me, that's just pure FUD and BS. Linux is, as reported in the FT article (or was it another one I read this morning) being developed by 1000 developers. These are hackers -- hackers in the sense we understand to be the true meaning of the word and not what the news outlets redefined it to mean -- that are attacking the Linux kernel every day. To think that the security implications of the features that are working their way into the kernel aren't being looked at from a security aspect by (at least some of) these 1000 developers is just silly and wishful thinking by Linux detractors. Not to mention the untold number of people beta testing the development kernels.
Oh sure, there are userland applications that have security issues. But didn't Intuit's flagship product recently have a flaw exposed? And didn't Oracle (you know: the folks with the ``unbreakable'' database) have to issue patches to plug potential security holes?
The day when the army of ``hackers'' writing Windows exploits focus their aim on Linux is the day after Microsoft releases Office for Linux (though I'm not holding my breath until that hit the shelves). And the attacks that target Linux-based systems will be a tribute to the concept of code reuse as most of the current Windows exploits will probably work just fine against the Office running on Linux. (Anyone thinking about who Microsoft would blame for the problem?)
Re:Linux vs. hackers FUD (Score:2)
I figgure that if crackers (not hackers) find a bunch of ways to break linux such that it is no longer trusted (that is the need to patch and update gets in the way of buisness) that everyone will just switch to OpenBSD [openbsd.org] and be done with it.
As evidence against my claim I present to you the fact that most companys [that went to outlook at one time] still use outLook on windows for their eMail.
Re:Linux vs. hackers FUD (Score:2)
Re:OT: hackers (Score:2)
UK and Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Whilst this sounds very nice, I feel that I should bring everyone back into the cold harsh reality by pointing about that the UK has a long long way to go before it becomes more open source savvy.
For example, the NHS, possibly the most underfunded thing we have, just coughed up £60 million for Microsoft Licencing [cw360.com].
Money well spent? You decide.
Re:FT??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FT??? (Score:3, Insightful)
To clarify: (Score:2)
Re:FFT (Score:2)
Re:FFT (Score:2)
On the CC clone issue someone mentioned that CNN science articles tend to get
Re:Linux DESTROYED (Score:2)
That would be because \. mission is to be a roughly US centric discussion site for technological news for people in the IT community.
I'm not discounting the seriousnes of what you report, but I can find that at CNN [cnn.com] or BBC [bbc.co.uk] in my other browser window.
Maybe in the case of unique and major event, as happened on September 11th, then running as a secondary newsfeed because the main ones are swamped is a worthwhile thing to do. But this is an editors decision, not a reason to post an offtopic message.
Re:Open source Intel CPU (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux and Windows are both benefiting from the fact that x86 is now very competitive on a performance basis, and extremly competitive with HP Sun SGI and IBM on a price performace basis. When you buy a $20,000 server the price difference between a Red Hat AS support contract and a Windows Server license is much smaller than the difference between buying an Dell 2 way P4 Xeon and an HP rp2470 (two way PA-8700). I realize that there are other considerations, especially the RAM addressing over 4 GB, but the Dell will save you a boatload of money even if you buy a Windows license.
Re:Internet down? (Score:2)
A small bit of Etherealing later, showed I was sending a packet with the SYN, ECN, and CWR flags. The ft.com server immediately replies with a RST, ACK packet, which terminated the tcp connection.
I tried disabling ECN ( echo 0 >
Re:just the beginning (Score:3, Funny)
Open Source databases are just as good for enterprise level applications as Gimp is for professional photo processing.
Shut up, Larry.
GF.
Re:just the beginning (Score:2)
Old setup: $1m Oracle enterprise, $1m Sun / Solaris hardware / OS bundle
New setup: $1m Oracle enterprise, $150k Dell hardware, $10k RedHat advanced server
Solaris is still a little better. But not that much better. As Bill Gates has proven: good enough and much cheaper wins.
Re:Stupid article quote (Score:2)
I think it's obvious from the article that FT is talking about IBM, HP and all the other companies that are adopting Linux as *part* of their strategy. What that sentence is saying is that Linux and it's adoption by these big technology companies isn't really affecting Microsoft yet but that it's coming. By conflict he isn't saying that Linux as the hacker created and supported OS is in any danger from Microsoft. But hobbyist OS's are not FT readers concern what is interesting to them is that Linux might/ or might not succeed in toppling M$ in the business arena.