3473 posts • joined 31 May 2010
Re: Not at all
Just for the record; my beliefs are slightly more nuanced than that. I believe that intellectual property is a form of property.
What I don't believe is that Intellectual Property is Property in the same sense as a tangible good. The biggest reason for this is the implicit assumption that comes with tangible property of perpetuity.
When you deprive me of tangible property you deprive me of its use, forever. When you infringe copyright, you aren’t depriving me of use of that good. You are merely depriving me of potential revenues.
I believe that intellectual property is a separate and distinct form of property from tangible property. I believe that intellectual property belongs to society as a whole, but that we grant creators a temporary monopoly on the economic uses of that property so that they may see economic benefit from their works.
I believe that this arrangement is necessary for the continued creation of various types of works, and for the continued growth of western economies. I also believe – quite fiercely – that this arrangement absolutely must come with a strict limitation to copyright length for this system to work.
In this manner I both believe that copyright is a form of property – one that requires enforcement and the efforts of society to protect – and that it is not at all like tangible property; “ownership” should not be perpetual, as part of the bargain all sides make to ensure the economic viability of creative endeavours.
And I also believe I am correct in my take on this; this is the basis of social acceptance of copyright, as well as something that most countries maintain to be true in current laws and enforcement implementations. (Indeed, it forms the basis of a few of the aforementioned treaties.)
Intellectual copyright is quite simply treated as something different than tangible property, even in international treaties. Less so in the past few years…but it still holds true today. It is property…but different. Therein lies the basis of a great deal of disagreement, strife, angst and uncertainty.
I believe strongly in enforcement of intellectual property rights. But I do not support the attachment of these rights to the lengthening of copyright terms or the increasing restriction (or elimination!) of fair use.
I believe that for copyright to be accepted – for the general public and the businesses they run to choose voluntarily to put effort into complying with copyright a sense of balance and fairness must exist.
The needs of society to be able to use works without burden, the need of creators to be compensated, the need of creators to be able to extend the works of their predecessors…all has to find a balance.
I do not believe that balance will be achieved by extending copyright to perpetuity, eliminating fair use nor by increasing complexity and uncertainty. I do believe that if we can find the right balance of complexity, fair use and term length then society will support far more extensive enforcement, and even participate actively and willingly in ensuring that enforcement occurs.
In my opinion, that balance has yet to be achieved.
Re: Speaking of unicorn fairy land...
You only assume this isn't possible. I honestly believe it is. It would require a formal standards process - probably a formal standards body - that described everything from the PKI to the interaction APIs to minimum performance limits for analytics/advertising CDNs.
We live in a cloudy world. There are CDNs and public clouds and all such madness everywhere. This is an issue of standards and enforcement. Establish the standard. Get signatories from the main advertisement organisations and most of the big tech players. Then build your browsers to reject anything that isn't standards compliant.
We need to accept that advertising underpins and drives the internet economy, and build these standards into our technology and infrastructure in the same manner as we do HTML. It needs to go in at the browser level, even the operating system level. It needs to have a know PKI infrastructure that is constantly under review, and a standards process that allows for change and adaptation to new threats.
But it is doable. Big Tech does this sort of thing all the time. At issue is the fact that Big Content can’t organise their way out of a paper box, and so would probably refuse to take part in any advertising revenue security scheme they didn’t absolutely control from end to end.
Re: @anyone care to argue that the people do benefit from eternal copyright on Mickey Mouse
Well, that’s two bullshit-o-meters that need replacing thanks to this thread alone. You guys are making this article unprofitable. Do you know how much science I have to read to reset that thing?
Okay, listen, let me break this all down for you. Let’s have an honest discussion here: man to piranha.
I consider myself to be “a creator.” I have reached the point in my life where I am now reliant upon income from the articles I write, the advertising copy I edit and so forth to make ends meet. I am in the process of writing a science fiction trilogy; one I intend to self-publish on Kobo and I am sincerely hoping will sell enough copies at some low amount ($3.99 a book?) to pay for the creation of the next one.
I have planned a significant % of my future around being a creative, reliant upon copyright as an exit from the world of systems administration. (The stress is literally killing me.) So I believe that I have a right to weigh in on this topic from the standpoint of someone other than “just an observer.”
At the end of the day, Big Content is bad – terrible – for people like me. They are quite frankly the enemy. They are not a vehicle for support, they are not a vehicle for reimbursement. They are a massive cabal of extremely well resources business dedicated to ensuring that I see as little money from my own efforts as possible.
I am not talking here about simply taking the lion’s share of any works they publish whilst passing a bent pittance on to the actual creators. I am talking about their attempts to have all orphaned works slurped up and assigned to their incestuous little publishing cartels. I am talking about actively raising barriers to entry for creatives who are unaffiliated with them.
I am talking about the outright economic warfare they perpetuate on the anyone who doesn’t work for them combined with the blatant treatment of those who do work for them as little more than indentured chattle.
The extant copyright cartels – the copyright holders – are businesses I consider to be unbelievably damaging to the livelihoods of any creators. They lobby to restrict and remove rights from creators in order to assign it to “copyright holders.” They then lobby to have the bulk of those rights assigned to “collection societies” and other tentacles of the cartel, instead of individuals.
They are a pestilence; a pox on society, the ruination of any and all (except the chosen few, ordained by the cartels themselves) who seek to create content at all. A pox on all their houses.
But it makes perfect sense for Big Content to act this way.
You see, Big Content is winning the war of perpetual copyright. That means they don’t need an injection of new material anymore. They have enough content in their grubby mitts to last the next two centuries. And new content will perpetually be assigned to them as “orphaned works” are brought within their grasp…not that of society at large.
Now, consider Google. (Yes, I looked through the viel and saw who you were referring to.) Google wants to murder the copyright cartels in the face with a bag of angry, rocket-powered weasles. Hurray! I support this on general principle.
Do they want to completely strip content creators of rights? No.
But…but…Big Content tells us that they do! Well, bullshit. Google has no interest in stripping creators of their rights. They do have designs on that very same pool of “orphaned works” though. They want orphaned works released to society at large. (So that anyone, anywhere can benefit from it. But especially Google.)
I am actually okay with this. Morally, ethically…pragmatically. If some of my works go missing, and they cannot find me or my heirs…I want those works available to the rest of society. I create not for the profit, but because I want my works to be consumed by people; that they may find some part of me in them and I may perhaps be remembered.
What’s more; I continually find Google promoting rights for creators to the detriment of rights for copyright holding corporations. Google seems to like the idea of lots and lots of individual creators all creating new things and competing against eachother.
This is likely because it reduces the ability of creators to collectively bargain, but again, I’m okay with that. We have 250 years of learning to deal with that problem; we can go it alone without having to surrender our works – indeed our futures – to the likes of Big Content.
Big Content needs as little competition as possible. They must control all new works, or prevent them from being created. If they can’t prevent creation, they need to acquire control or at the very least prevent those new works from becoming popular. This is fundamental to their business model.
Google doesn’t need to control content at all. Google needs to eliminate powerful copyright cartels that can drive up the cost of licensing to levels which it – and by extension consumers – cannot afford. What Google does need is as much new content – from as many diverse creators as possible – to advertise against.
It needs new content because this is what the people demand. It needs content from diverse creators so it can keep prices low. And it needs to ensure that creators get paid so they keep churning out the new content.
So neither side is really going to maximize the profits I receive from my creative endeavors if they win. But Google will ensure that I have a much better chance at retaining control of my own works while I am alive and getting paid for them than Big Content can provide me.
More to the point; what I do get paid will probably be more under daddy Google than it will be under Big Content. Unless I am stupid enough to still believe in the fairy tale that Big Content will pick me to be the next superstar. (Bullshit.)
Google needs me. Big Content doesn’t. Google wants my works to be made available for the benefit of society if at any point I cannot be found to assert my claims over my works. Big Content wants my works locked away from the world unless they control those works.
Google is the future for creatives. They aren’t the greatest. They aren’t “in it for us.” But their vision of the world is far more closely aligned with mine than that of Big Content. And with Google at the helm, at least I stand a chance of getting paid.
Now, I'm off to watch some Geek and Sundry; an Internet TV channel made possible by Google; check it out here: Geek and Sundry.
We partially agree. ACTA was not about clarity. The regional initiatives most certainly are. Lack of IP harmonisation is ruinous to the EU and similar entities. They know it. They are trying to fix it.
In certain countries <ahem>, business methods and even math (software) can indeed be patented.
Re: Greshams's Law: Free Mickey Mouse tends to drive out non-Mickey Mouse
Nice unicorn magic fairy world there. In the real world, those with established, successful properties devote significant time, effort and expense to raising as many barriers to entry for new ideas, concepts and “universes” as possible.
You also make a huge assumption; that a work using novel characters and a novel universe will do just as well as a work taking place in a tried and true universe. Let me take a moment to call this blatant, utter bullshit.
If your pixie dust view of copyright were true, why would Disney, (or for that matter Electronic Arts or Activision) bother with established characters and universes at all? Surely there is enough empirical evidence on hand to demonstrate the concept that sequels are a bit of a crapshoot. If your reasoning were sound, then a novel universe with novel characters would be a sound investment for established copyright houses.
Instead, let’s look at the real world: those enterprises that succeed in the entertainment space tend to do so by creating and then fleshing out a given universe. Start Trek, Stargate, Transformers, Mickey Mouse/Donald Duck, and so forth. Even reviving an old franchise after a bit of a lay down can be obscenely profitable (Fallout.)
Then there are the kinds of tropes that we can only get from building on the works that have gone before. Fantasy novels are heavily influenced by Tolkien; Tolkien embedded the now nearly universal conceptualization of common races; elves, dwarves and so forth. Terry Brooks’ works couldn’t have occurred without building upon Tolkien, nor the Dungeons and Dragons universe, Dragon Lance or hundreds of others.
Indeed, were the copyright cartels to have their way, we could even lose the rights to things like parody, taking original works like Galaxy Quest and Robot Chicken off the table.
Creativity does not occur in a vacuum. All of mankind’s endeavors build upon the creativity, intellect, insight, artistry and craftsmanship of our predecessors. From any angle you approach it, perpetual copyright is a gross detriment to society. It is a limitation economically, creatively and morally.
So what then? How do we bridge the gap?
A man should be rewarded for his capability and his efforts; if his capability and effort is greater than that of his peers, he should be more generously rewarded. A man should be able to ensure the wellbeing of his family and his heirs.
But the works of a man belong to mankind, be those works the works of his hands or the works of his mind. There must be a balance between the good of the group (in this case all of mankind) and rewarding the individual.
So copyright abolishment is ludicrous. It provides no reward for the efforts and capabilities that go in to a man’s work. And yet perpetual copyright is equally ludicrous; society must benefit from the works of all its individuals. From the bricklayer to the academic, the policeman to the writer.
A balance needs be struck. One that we – as a society, and as a collection of societies that form a global community – can live with. As creators, as consumers, as businesses and as individuals. This balance needs to be negotiated in an open fashion, and with the participation of all major stakeholders.
More importantly, it needs to be something that we can set in stone. It is to be the foundation of all intellectual enterprise for the next several hundred years.
It cannot be negotiated in back rooms. I cannot be negotiated under a veil of secrecy, a cone of silence or outside the boundaries of democracy. It cannot favor one special interest of another, it cannot pit creators against consumers, corporations against people.
It must bring clarity to the copyright mess. It must bring finality; an end to the perpetual lobbying. Most importantly it must feel fair to the majority of society. People will resist and rebel against any law so important to the fabric of our economy which is fundamentally unfair.
The extant copyright cartels – and the laws they are paying dearly to impose – are most certainly and unquestionably unfair.
I am forced to disagree with you. While that is certainly the reactionary - indeed the cynical - take on the matter...a deeper analysis shows otherwise. Or, if not “otherwise,” shows “things in addition to.”
The French – as just one example – have had their own agenda to push for quite some time. They have been exporting their take on the matter for some time. Other nations have their own views (many of which have tempered the more aggressive stances pushed by the Americans.)
It’s far more complicated than simply “exporting American copyright to the world.’ Certainly, as regards the copyright of entertainment, this is generally the case. But these negotiations occur in complex environments covering patents, trademarks and even the right (or lack thereof) to impose duties on various types of trade.
Consider the French insistence on regional trademarks. (It’s not Champagne unless it’s from the Champagne region of France!) Consider also the requirement by many theocracies to outright ban (or at the very least impose import duties rendering items practically unavailable) various products that go against the dominant belief system.
Beyond this, there are complex copyright negotiations that are occurring which simply don’t involve the united states. South America has it’s own burgeoning regional ecopolitical alliance, and “friendly to the United States” could never be used to describe it. They have their own take on copyright, and they are trying to harmonise that across their own region.
Asia has at least two such entities, and the African Union is rapidly evolving to the point where many of its nations are going to have to start caring about exactly this. (Ethiopia, Kenya and South Africa in particular have red-hot IT sectors; experiencing growth the likes of which the west can only dream. Of course, starting from next to nothing and trying to catch up to the west will do that…)
The EU also has its own take on intellectual property. There have been numerous efforts at harmonisation within the regional borders of that entity, and they then go forth and work with other nations (and metanational entities) in an attempt to cause harmonisation.
A great example is the CETA (Canadian-European Trade Agreement,) a NAFTA-like free trade agreement between Canada and the EU that is currently being negotiated. The big sticking point in passing it has been the ratification of various copyright reforms within Canada…something that has just recently taken place. (I expect CETA to proceed with alacrity.)
That is a beautiful example of something that has the US quite up in arms; they view CETA as a danger to their dominance of NAFTA (which has screwed Canada time and again, with the Americans refusing repeatedly to abide by the terms of the treaty whenever it suits them.) It also formally ends Canada’s reliance on America for nearly everything, including the template for our intellectual property laws.
Canada will be bound by treaty to harmonise its laws with the EU; a stipulation that NAFTA doesn’t have. So the US’s global bargaining power decreases in this instance; Canada lends its political and economic might to the EU bloc, fundamentally altering the US’s ability to project culture and legal imperialism throughout the western world.
Indeed, there are far more interesting implications when you consider that CETA will provide for vastly increased and simplified trade between Canada and the EU. Canada’s unparalleled resource wealth will then practically overnight shift towards assisiting the EU recover from the economic crisis instead of the US.
The basic reason is that American laws are batshit bananas and it costs a crazy amount of money to do business there. (Lawyers, insurance, etc.) The EU may actually be more financially stable than the US – even if half the thing implodes – and has a number of countries that are far easier to do business with than anything involving the US at all.
So…US intellectual property imperialism? At first glance…yes. But it’s only a surface impression. International politics are complex and interwoven. Given how important “the knowledge economy” is to the west, intellectual property politics – and the economics that drive them – are anything but simple.
Re: OSX on a non-Mac
Canada is not subject to the DMCA, however we can neither run OSX on a non-Apple PC nor can we transfer OEM licenses. In fact, this holds true for most of the commonwealth, most of Europe (even those countries outside the EU,) and a significant chunk of Asia.
The technical ability to do something does not confer the legal right to do something. More to the point, there is in fact established case law in most jurisdictions supporting the right of software companies to impose and enforce such copyright restrictions.
ACTA isn’t needed for Microsoft, Apple, the RIAA, MPAA or your local whomever-you-are-photocopying to take the majority of the world’s internet-connected businesses to the cleaners.
Copyright law in most countries is pretty restrictive already, and its only going to get worse.
Re: Jayzus, Orlowski must hate you.
In Canada I certainly can't move an OEM copy of Windows! Can I put OSX on a non-Mac anywhere? It's hard enough to write a globally applicable article on copyright. Give country-by-country detail and it moves from "article" into "novel."
As to A.O...he has his patch of sand to preach from. The beauty of El Reg is that it isn't Fox news. We can all call it like we see it. If A.O. felt so inclined, he has the wherewithal to write a truly epic rebuttal. He is a capable and accomplished writer after all; with an order of magnitude more experience than I.
Professional_curiosity; what's not well-written about that?
40mm fans. Dear god; ASUS 1U pizzabox nightmares. I have a set that have, what...12 of the blighters? Give it wings it'll take off.
That said, 6 years in, the fans are still going...and so are the servers...
Supermicro do a great job of looking for thermal discrepancies in their boards.
As to “high speed versus variable speed” that’s an open question. You are saying that you trust $vendor to know the when and where of kicking up the fan speed? My experience with every Dell laptop ever (and a fair number of tier 1 servers) would seem to disagree with your assessment.
Fans are consumables. I’d rather replace the $0.10 fan periodically as part of regular maintenance on my $10,000 server than wreck my $10,000 server trying to save my $0.10 fan.
But that’s just me.
I don't know about you, but I don't work in a datacenter. The datacenter is generally a separate room/building/area of the city (delete as per appropriate to client) from where I am located. I only have to go into the datacenter when a widget is broken. Something that thankfully doesn't happen all that often.
When it does, there is some wailing banshee alarm of ultimate screaming high-pitched doom making its presence felt in a manner that far surpasses the irritation of any Supermicro case I have ever encountered.
Give me my spinny fans of high-RPM victory. They prevent the drives from dying and prolong the periods of silence in between having to enter the accursed room of auditory assault alarms.
Re: @Trevor_Pott Is anyone actually surprised by this?
Well, I believe the appropriate expression here is "herp, derp." :)
Re: Is anyone actually surprised by this?
Um...yes they are. "Dwarf planet" is still a planet. (Vesta is a candidate.) Both bodies have differentiated interiors, both achieved hydrostatic equilibrium (until that unfortunate catering on Vesta...) and with the exception of clearing their orbits, they meet all the requirements to be terrestrial planets. Vesta and Ceres both were altered by thier own Late Heavy Bombardment, and Ceres is thought to have geology shaped by (probably long dormant) tectonics. (We'll know soon enough; thanks, DAWN.)
And yet...both bodies are really nothing alike. For that matter, Mars and Earth aren't, either. Earth appears to be unique in that we were impacted by Theia late in the birth of the solar system. This re-liquefied most of the crust, dramatically changed mineral distribution - and the size of our radioactive core - spun the planet up, and gave us a moon large enough to almost count as a double planet.
That any of these bodies share anything but the most superficial similarities is astounding. Theia is probably what stopped Earth from becoming Venus; it would have blasted off an Early Earth’s atmosphere. What we had left then was low pressure enough that life eventually could transform it from Class Y to Class M.
Mars and Ceres were just too small. They can’t hold on to an atmosphere for long enough; it just keeps bleeding away into space. (Or sublimating!) Without a magnetosphere, solar winds slowly ionise the atmosphere and erode it.
Mars, Ceres and Vesta are all dead; the core quiet, the mantle cold. Their geology is a map of history; ours has been actively influenced by life – a lot of life – for billions of years. Life is so prolific on Earth that it has fundamentally altered not only our atmosphere, but the composition of geological structures ranging from sand to sedimentary rock, limestone to hydrogeology.
Mars, Vesta and Ceres are an interest record (and result) of things that crashed into them. And therein lies my point; from the same cloud of dust, with orbits a stone’s throw away, these planets had totally different things crash into them. The balance of minerals, the % of volatiles, the mixing due to differentiation…the formal is completely different for each.
So Mars has a similar % of water in its rocks to Earth? That is indeed interesting. I wonder quite how that happened?
Re: Is anyone actually surprised by this?
So what? Vesta and Ceres are even more closely related, and they are nothing alike.
Re: Why not?
Hyper-V itself is not borderline functional. Certainly not Hyper-V 3.0, which is a massive improvement over the previous offerings.
What was borderline functional was Microsoft's "integration tools" code (specifically the kernel code) which Microsoft donated to the open source community and then functionally abandoned. After a public (and well deserved) spanking by the openstack community, Microsoft turned its attention back to that code, and all reports are that it has started to shape back up.
Long story short? Hyper-v (at least Hyper-v 3.0) is Good Stuff. Microsoft’s integration work however (and its frigid-then-tepid-then-frigid-again support for heterogeneous environments) is questionable at best. It’s holding them back, and…
…they are stating to figure that out.
Slowly but surely Microsoft are starting to realise that they no longer own any market. If they want to remain relevant, they have to start developing their software for other platforms. This is why you are seeing Microsoft make iOS apps for major items, and the beginning of Android support.
I am not going to sit here and defend Microsoft; it would be pointless. The company is too large, too disorganised…one department can do something wonderful and then have their legs cut out from under them by the absolute idiocy of another.
Microsoft is a scattered collection of fiefdoms, all at war with each other nearly as much as with the rest of the world. As a company, Microsoft makes some really dumb decisions. But it can also - does also - make some really great stuff.
Microsoft isn’t Apple. It isn’t a single, coherent entity. Yet neither is it Samsung; a collection of independent corporations loosely tied together into a chaebol.
Microsoft is – for better or worse – a community. With all the benefits – and foibles – that such a concept brings.
I’ll stick my head above the fence here and say Hyper-V is worthwhile. Microsoft have done some good stuff with virtualisation this time around. And the MVA thing? This one time they got it right.
As always, we’ll have to wait to see about the rest of it…
Re: "You seem to be trolling"?
Mr. Pott's out for tea.
Oh, and just so we're clear; I'm not at all saying Microsoft offer the best product from a technical standpoint. I loathe exchange.
But almost nobody puts technical considerations first in a purchasing descision. People care about UI and they care about workflow. Maybe that's not how things should be, but it is how they are.
Labels aren't PUBLIC FOLDERS. "Folders" are totally different than PUBLIC FOLDERS. Maybe if you knew what you were talking about, you might understand what real groupware brings to the table.
Also: Google’s pathetic attempt at replacing SharePoint? *shudder*
Look, I’m not a big SharePoint fan…but I’ve seen implementations that legitimately boost productivity for the companies that use them. Boost it in ways that I struggle to find a serviceable replacement for.
SharePoint is basically “website creation and integration for complete idiots.” Sure, an IT nerd can whip up something – anything – to do what SharePoint does fairly easily…but the point of SharePoint is the ability to not involve IT. It’s a smug individual who can just smirk and say “well, just learn $huge_array_of_new_technologies and keep teaching it over and over to all that sales droid/accountant/HR drone/etc’s replacements!” Or better yet “just buy another sysadmin to deal with every single request for a new website feature or alteration!”
Obviously you don’t have to deal with real budgets.
SharePoint offers nothing to nerds and sysadmins. It’s a hell of a thing for USERS though, and that’s what you’re missing here.
I get that you don't feel you need Microsoft. Others do. Until you actually have used the products you're deriding enough to know what some of the most basic feature offerings are (like the difference between a folder and a public folder,) perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to snipe.
As I’ve said before, non-Microsoft groupware alternatives boil down to “compromise by accepting less-capable functionality,” or “do without various elements of functionality” or “pay a lot more money in nerd salary than the cost of licensing.”
Shockingly, billions of individuals and businesses just aren’t interested in any of those choices. I wonder why.
Why do users choose Office 365? Outlook integration that works as well as tlaking to a real Exchange server. Public folders, contacts, distribution groups, integration with sharepoint, etc.
Basically, Office 365 can make outlook do all the things that it does when hooked up to Exchange. That's why people use outlook. They want more than mail. They don't want 15 different programs with poor interoperation and integration tied to 15 different servers to achieve the same thing.
This is why Exchange and Outlook still rule the corporate messaging roost. There is no replacement; no alternative. Not even Zimbra is a complete alternative to Exchange + Outlook.
I use Google Apps for my personal consulting company, and it – mostly – does what I want it to. Its attempt at “public folders” however is at best shamefully inadequate, and it needs company-wide global contact list. These can be bought as “add ons” from third parties…but remember what I said about not wanting 15 different programs…
And yeah, there’s Lotus. So what? Both users are impressed. “It’s not Microsoft” isn’t a reason to switch away from a software stack that companies have been using for decades. Besides, IBM is yet another megacorporate. Prove to me they have any more soul than Microsoft.
No viable alternatives exist. In order to walk away from Microsoft, you need to make compromises. Not everyone is ready to make the same compromises you are, and everyone has differing business requirements.
Or are you going to tell everyone to “hold it different” and just think/do/say things exactly like you? Because if you are, what exactly makes you/your chosen software/etc better than Microsoft, again?
I’ve little love for – and zero faith in – the beast of Redmond. But don’t expect me – or anyone else – to spontaneously develop a righteous zealotry or deep abiding faith in anyone else, either. My faith – and my business – is earned. Not through arrogance, but through the hard work of making a top notch product and backing it up with comprehensible, accessible, easy-to-use and friendly support.
If you’ve a candidate company or ten for me to invest my time and effort into, I am all ears. Until that time, I’ll just keep on doing what every other businessman and sysadmin does: choose “the least worst” from amongst a series of lacklustre and disappointing alternatives.
Or, you know...ask. Got a product you'd like me to talk about? Perhaps you can send me a review, or give me a link (if it's FOSS.) I write about what I work with; but i am a nerd, and I do enjoy exploring new subject matter. If I can do it, I try to.
So...what would you like to hear about?
WHEN TF are you from?
I manage all my Linux boxes with a GUI. It's called webmin. And it Just Works. Next!
He/She/It is an Anonymous Coward. There is a non-zero possibility they evolved elsewhere. Or that they are an AI. Maybe it is not "billions of years of evolution" but rather "introduce AI development courses to undergraduate Computer Science programs, and we get you."
Maybe it runs on a private cloud and are irritated at having to face the horror of its own mortality simplicity and the likelihood that the individual components that underpin its cloudy self will succumb to entropy ~5minutes after the warrantee expires.
Who knows? But speculation is fun!
Re: Cloud still at the "we only want experts like us playing with them" stage.
Glad I could help. If you have any more questions, you know how to find me. Cheers!
Re: Cloud still at the "we only want experts like us playing with them" stage.
Hi NeoC, funny you should bring that up. I actually recently reviewed a Microsoft Virtual Academy track that is probably exactly what you are looking for: Introduction to virtualisation. I have no idea when the review will actually be posted; it's been handed in, and everything from there on is a black box to me. Worth your time if you're looking for the bare basics of virtualisation with a brief intro into "why the cloud?"
If you want a more hands on, here's a review I wrote about a different MVA track. And here is a review I wrote about yet another MVA track that is "OMFGWTF System Center 2012." Combined you will probably learn all you ever wanted to learn (and way more) about cloudy whatever.
I know that sounds like a marketing blurb...but I had to go to all the trouble of watching the smeggling things and then writing reviews; I'd rather just post links to those (and from there you could view the MVA tracks themselves) rather than try to explain clouds, and the why.
As for "Clouds 101"...I've gotten a lot of positive feedback on the previous article in this series (right here) in that regard. I've been told it's not bad for exactly that role.
Hopefully that fulfills at least some of your research needs.
If you've got the money for it, SCVMM comes very close to "running itself." If you can afford Microsoft's private cloud, you have techs already. Microsoft's private cloud won't eliminate you need for techs; but it will probably eliminate your need for more techs. The long and short is that it allows you to do more with the same number of people, without completely overloading those existing people.
It allows growth in the amount and types of data you process without a growth in payroll to play nursemaid.
Is it at all suitable for SMEs? No. Absolutely no. Outright beyond a doubt completely unfit. While the tech is grand, and I could run 100 companies as clients if they all used this stuff…the licensing is egregiously out of whack with reality. SMEs simply can’t afford this stuff without a major licensing shakeup.
Mind you, they can’t afford the VMWare licensing for tools of the same quality either, so…I am not sure anyone except the poor SME owners and sysadmins care.
As both an SME owner and a sysadmin, I really, really like Microsoft’s private cloud offerings. I like them better than VMWare or Citrix. But as an SME owner and sysadmin, neither my own business – nor any of my clients – will be buying any of this soon. It’s simply beyond reach. For now – for us – there is KVM.
And that is the reality of life for the foreseeable future. One day, maybe, I will get to own a Microsoft private cloud that doesn’t expire when the trial licences are over. Until then, pass me my bash shell, I’ve got to install Webmin.
Re: Oz Sysadmin here - listen to me dammit!
Um...thanks? I think? O_o
Re: Exchange issue
Inbuilt mail app seems to work fine if back-end server is 2010 and you have autodiscovery set up with a proper third-party cert.
Damned if I can get the thing to connect to 2007 or 2003.
Haven't had AD connectivity issues though. Will be attempting replication of issues in lab...
Re: Microsoft Private Cloud Commentary...
Good: Nearly everything. If you want PaaS or SaaS (especially SaaS) it kills the competition.
Bad: Completely reliant on Active Directory
Ugly: Completely outside my price range; so expensive I will be using Openstack and KVM until I die. But still cheaper than VMWare. (Which says all sorts of ?!? to me about VMWare's pricing...)
There were two more in depth articles that followed this one. They'll be posted soon.
If and when someone asks me to write about a particular topic at El Reg, it is vague and open ended. Content, direction, tone...they are up to me. If you feel this article is a little lovey dovey regarding Microsoft's cloudy offerings...that might stem from the fact that after lab testing what's on the table, I legitimately believe they have the best offering.
And no, VMWare's storage capabilities aren't as good. MS have stolen a march here. For now; they are out in front; future articles in the set will explain that in detail.
In the meantime, maybe you should download Server 2012 and SCVMM 2012 and see for yourself. MS have blown me away here; second-rate also-ran to "well they just might be the best for this round of virtualisation offerings" in just a few years.
Boggles the mind.
Re: Storage Migration and Expensive SAN's
I go more in depth into local storage in upcoming articles.
As to exploring other alternatives; I can't afford VMWare. I can only afford to review MS because of technet. Open source virtualiation options will be reviewed...but I lost two servers and my SAN towards the end of the Microsoft review. I have to buy expensive replacement equipment to properly do those reviews...something I have to put off until after my wedding in July.
My VMWare testing tends to occur when I can borrow a buddy's lab who has licences. (I got time on the lab for the duration of the MS cloud eval.) Thay lets me see what VMWare can do...not how easy it is to set up.
The one thing I can tell you about MS is this; "zero to hyper-v private cloud in a few clicks" is not exactly exaggeration. I can build a fully SaaS ready MS-based private cloud in about 1/2 hour, if I have good gear.
Based on my useage of production envrionments, my "state of virtualisation" impression is this: MS were playing catch-up last round. This round, I think they might just be a few steps ahead. (They certainly are in storage!) Openstack and KVM are decent IaaS offerings, but have quite a bit of catch up to do to reach MS or VMWare anywhere else.
"When you're having fun poking trolls then YOU are a troll too and that gets boring as well."
Trolling gets boring?
Corporations can't confiscate property.
Really. So you own that DVD? That MP3? You own your phone? Your tablet? Your Mac? Do you own that copy of software you bought, or is it all licensed to you? Restricted under penalty of sever fines and/or jail?
Some things you may be allowed in your jurisdiction, others aren't. Even in Western nations. Here in Canada I will soon be unable to rip a DVD, jailbreak a cell phone or install a different operating system on my tablet/PC. A combination of intellectual property overreach and "digital locks" rules do in fact mean that corporations can confiscate all sorts of property. Really, you never owned it in the first place.
Just like any communist country
A condo association or property developer can place all sorts of restrictions on what I can and can’t do with my own home. Car manufacturers can prevent me from accessing certain electronics or so forth on my vehicle. Corporations can tell me if I can use my phone at work, if I can take a picture, or any of a dozen mundane activities that used to be perfectly innocent, innocuous and allowed when I was a youngster.
The argument goes that we choose to sign our right away to these corporations by using their product, by living where live, working where we work or so forth. And yet every single year our options are fewer. The alternatives non-existant. You can agree to these binding conditions and forfeiture of rights with company A, or you can agree to it with company B.
The next argument is that you can simply choose to do without. In many cases – internet access, a phone, a place to live that is within commuting distance of a job, taking whichever job you can find because unemployment is ridiculous – “choosing to do without” means choosing poverty. Either directly – through choosing not to be employed – or by proxy – by being unemployable because you cannot meet the basic requirements that society has placed on each and every one of us.
So we have the illusion of choice. We can choose to give up our rights to damned near everything – including various types of property – or we can choose abject poverty.
So the almighty capitalism ends up being “better” because they don’t kill you outright. In the more dictatorial communist regimes we were led to believe that if you didn’t comply, you were killed. In our capitalist utopia, if you don’t comply you are simply driven into such poverty that wither away and die a terrible, lingering, lonely death.
The bullet was cleaner.
Re: Another "Real World"
I think you are talking about thread scheduling. Or at least, that's the closest that Windows comes to what you are talking about; scheduling granularity occurs at the thread level. Threads can be assigned differing priorities, and mapped to specific cores, but that's as far as it goes. (The introduction of multiple cores combined with core affinity and priority allows Windows to "fake" being a real time OS "good enough" for a lot of industrial processes.)
Now, I will be 100% up front and honest with you here by saying I am quite simply am not remotely qualified to have a debate with anyone over whether or not Windows’ scheduling is "adequate" for a given use. We’re off into the weeds there where people who program kernels for a living lie. There be dragons in those woods. Also; people who haven’t seen the sun in 15 years.
From what I understand, however, all modern Windows implementations use a Multilevel feedback queue for scheduling, which according to some at least, can be considered as a "Real Time Operating System."
However, the debate over exactly what kind of scheduling algorithms are truly real time, and what level of granularity is required to qualify for that seems to have armed camps with differing viewpoints, and I try to stay away from kernel programmers with pointy things.
Hope that can provide you a starting point for further research!
Re: Sorry what?
You are correct; Metro is active on only one screen at a time...but it can be any screen. What's more, if your Metro app was open on screen 1, it will be available to you on screen 2 when you open metro there, etc.
So it is not "true multimon support" in the way that the desktop can present windows in a multimonitor environment. But it is still way – way – better than being restricted to “Metro on the primary monitor only” as it was easier in this game.
Re: Total Crap
Also: Launchpad in Lion isn't the equivalent to Metro. Launchpad doesn't promise a future of fullscreen-only or 33/66-only applications. Apple has made very strong commitments to preserving the ability to window all applications on the platform and pursue a multi-view-based-multitasking environment for the foreseeable future. What's more, they've made these commitments in a way that I can believe them.
Re: Total Crap
I never said that Metro was useless. In fact, as I have stated elsewhere in this thread I think certain elements of Metro are absolutely brilliant, and I would pay cash money to be able to use them in a different manner. (That's another article for next week, I think.)
To further elucidate that point: Metro is fantastic for tablets, and it is potentially usable, with some tweaks on an ultrabook. I do not believe that the current incarnation has any place on a real notebook or a desktop at all. For all the reasons I have stated in this article and in this thread.
It is never black-and-white. And Metro contains some truly revolutionary (in the old, non-Apple-mangled sense of the world) technologies.
But the implementation (on any productivity-based device) sucks. The lack of customisability sucks. And it gets in the way of doing real work…especially once the things becomes mandatory for various critical day-to-day apps. Spectacular consumption interface though.
Re: Not necessarily about multi-tasking
I was not belittling Luke! Far from it! I honestly find his take refreshing, and I legitimately am interested in hearing his thoughts as to how applications could take on the responsibilities for multitasking.
And should they? Why? Why not? This is legitimately a whole new take on the argument and I think it needs to be explored!
Outlook (and Trillian) were the applications I had in made while making that comment. I use these applications specifically so that I don't have to punch my credentials into a bunch of different applications.
Trillian is my IM client (covering all IM platforms,) my IRC client and my Twitter client of choice. Outlook is currently managing gods only know how many e-mail accounts now, and runs my calendar and contacts. (I have never – ever – found a use for the journal.) I tried using the “task list” but found “unread emails” a better way of marking that. (Make email unread if it can’t be dealt with right away.)
Either way…no, I don’t view these apps as dealing with “multiple tasks within a single application.” Or, more accurately, I consider them to be so good at doing this that they collapse an entire category of tasks into “a single metatask.”
Trillian has ceased to be something I think of as “doing more than one thing” in my mind. That occurred about 10 seconds after I finished configuring it. It may connect to multiple different services, but in my mind it is quite simple “real time communications application.” All the things, in all the real times, they go in there.
Outlook is “buffered communications application.” Communications, tasks, calendar items, etc that are stored in Outlook do not have to be addressed on an interrupt priority. (That could be a function of usage; I tend to set reminders for my calendar items fairly far in advance of the actual event.) Things that hit outlook are things that I can queue up in my mind as “deal with this after the current task is completed,” and Outlook is simply the place where all of that lives for me.
So, do I believe these applications shouldn’t exist? Not at all. I adore them. I require them to function. I would be lost, adrift, cast upon a sea of madness without them.
My point was more “does the functionality of these things needs to be integrated in to my browser/image editor/POS application/etc” in order for me to be able to do multi-view-based multitasking in a Metro world? Will Adobe CS Metro have to replicate the functionality of Outlook/Trillian and/or Firefox for me to be able to have my imaging, comns and browser running at the same time?
Do we start integrating comns into the browser? A browser into the comns app? Where does it end?
To me, the idea of attempting to use multi-purpose applications as the solution to multitasking woes in Metro sounds like a terrible band-aid. It sounds like a step backwards.
I am not against a great multi-purpose app. I endorse and embrace them with open arms. What I am against is the idea of using multi-purpose apps to restore functionality to Metro that should damned well have been available in the first place.
But I don’t know what Luke said, or implied. It got my brain running, but I really do want him to respond with more information, and preferably for the thousands of highly intelligent commenters here on The Register to join in the debate and present their ideas and opinions.
We could, after all, be discussing the necessary future of Windows on the desktop!
Re: Multi-tasking includes proof-reading?
According to dictionary.com your "nob" is either referring to my head (nonstandard to say the least,) something involving cribbage (wtf?) or you are calling me "a person of wealth or social importance." (I am neither, just by the by.)
I suspect instead you were attempting to call me a knob, which is "taboo (Brit) a slang word for penis." This is a far more context-appropriate method of mocking me for my article's word omission.
Please file this away for future reference. Cheers.
Re: Total Crap
Thank you for your comments. You'll notice that the article talked about Metro, and not Windows 8's desktop at all.
Your attempt to defend Metro by claiming that you can still use the desktop is quaint, but irrelevant. Your argument does not address the topic at hand and is nothing more than a sad attempt to justify a UI change that has seen a significant negative response. Furthermore, you leave out issues like "Metro screen splitting only goes 33/66," something that seriously impinges upon the ability to use large productivity apps at the same time as the desktop.
Additionally, it is not my job to publicise your concerns about Windows 8. Write your own damned articles, if you have your own beefs with the product. But don't you dare denigrate the concerns of others simply because you don't feel they apply to you.
I talked about the issues I, personally have with Metro. I talked about the issues my clients and users have with Metro. I talk about Metro, specifically because it is the future of Microsoft’s design, and Microsoft has very much so made it the favoured child.
So you can take your “the desktop is still there” and your “if you don’t like it, just stick with Windows 7” arguments and shove them. I've been over that territory many times times in this thread.
Your solution to what I call multitasking is to rely on the traditional desktop. It is a solution that isn't available in all versions of Windows 8. It is a solution that isn't relevant if the application you are trying to use is a large Metro app that requires more than 33% of your screen. And most damning of all, it is a solution that has every possibility of simply not being available forever.
So I’ll be very blunt with you here: if you believe any of the following:
1) Microsoft is a company that you can bet your business on for client OS continuity
2) The legacy desktop in “pinned” mode is the solution to my multitasking woes
Then just don’t bother reading any article by me regarding Windows 8. The man you want to be reading is Peter Bright at Ars Technica. Those are the beliefs he espouses with fervor. You will find my analysis far more cynical, and significantly less attached to the idea of blind faith.
If you want to convert me, derision and ad homs aren't going to do it. You need to prove to me that Microsoft have earned my trust. You are going to have to show not only that what is on the table now will do everything I need it to do, but that there is a firm commitment to preserving that capability for 5, 10, 15 and 20 year timeframes.
You need to show me that continuing to invest in the Microsoft ecosystem, developing applications for Windows and supporting developers who choose this proprietary route is a sound investment.
Because as it stands, right now, Metro does not allow me to do mutltiasking as I have described it in my article. The legacy desktop does, (though even that has been nerfed somewhat,) but having Metro apps and desktop apps coexist and and participate in a multi-viewable environment is broken to the point of “completely fucking useless.”
Worse, “the legacy desktop” can absolutely no longer be counted upon to exist past the (Hopefully brief) shelf life of Windows 8. We’re back to “trust” here. You obviously have it. I don’t.
No, I’ve heard the argument from the fanboys at this point: “why worry about something that hasn’t been announced? Microsoft haven’t said they are getting rid of the desktop, so that’s not a valid concern.” Bullshit. I still have systems running NT4 built into machines that are the size of a bus, cost over $1M and have been running for 15 years. I have similar machines with Windows 2000 and Windows 7.
I have a massive XP embedded estate that probably won’t be replaced until 2018. We have point of sales apps that are based on code that largely hasn’t changed in 20 years. There is industry specific software from companies that have gone out of business, or who maintain some 10 year old Frankenapp with 3 devs and have zero competition, thus zero reason to improve upon things.
Eventually, all of this will be replaced. With what? How long will whatever I replace it will be supported? If I invest in some application today that has a Windows desktop client software bit, will users 5, 10, 15 years form now be able to use that software and use it in a remotely reasonably and efficient fashion?
How well will it work in a world where an unknown number of other applications are Metro only? What will context switching be like? Multitasking? How does it all fit?
No, I will not wait for the final product. No, I will not wait for Microsoft to slowly reveal to me the roadmap for Windows 9 and 10 one goddmaned morsel at a time over the course of the next decade.
Microsoft have just engaged in a massive paradigm shift in how computers are used. On the one hand they are periodically trying to ease concerns about the future role of the desktop, and then in the very next sentence talk about how Metro – and very clearly only Metro – is the future.
You trust them if you want. You bet your business on them. You invest thousands of your personal dollars into their new OS, and apps to go on it.
I’m done. Metro doesn’t do what I need it to do. Metro/Desktop interaction is pants. Worst of all, Microsoft have basically told everyone who raises concerns about this to go to hell.
So, Metro is okay? Dragging the desktop around on life support is the solution? Microsoft can be trusted with my future?
Convince me, sir.
Re: Multi-tasking includes proof-reading?
Far more interested in why we seem to produce them with full conscious attention on the task at hand. Not to mention why our brains purposefully skim over the errors, reporting to the conscious mind "everything is a-okay" when it is in fact not.
It is an interesting and difficult concept for most people to grasp: what we perceive with our conscious mind is not in fact reality. Just because you see something does not mean it is there. Just because you don’t see something does not mean it isn’t there.
Our minds are heuristic processors that perform all sorts of different layers of filtration on raw input before presenting it to our conscious minds for consideration. Out vision alone is a great example: there are dozens of different layers of filtration required to provide us with what we perceive to be a single, homogenous, three dimension view of the world around us.
In reality, each eye is seeing a curved single-dimensional image with differing levels of resolution at the center to the edges, in addition to things like our blind spot. Many of us (myself included) actually see colour differently out of each eye. Furthermore, we don’t actually “see” (as in have enough photons from a given object strike our eye) everything that we “see.” A lot of what we “see” is in fact provided us by our memories of what an object “should” be.
Add to this that movement changes things. When something moves, some of these filters are actually bypassed to allow quicker access to the raw data by both our conscious minds and our brain stem. (So the endocrine system can make fight-or-flight decisions asynchronously to our relatively slow conscious decision making process.)
Our conscious minds are a high-level application running on top of a rather buggy kernel. Worse: the kernel is in love with Bayesian analysis, and the hardware sensors kind of suck. 10Mbit/sec for our shitty vision? And it requires ~2lbs of our brain dedicated to post-processing before it is even provided to applications for analysis?
Pffft. Back to the drawing board, random processes of evolution that resulted in the complex chemical interactions that allow me to bitch about things on the internets. Back to the drawing board!
Re: You're complicating it too much
And, oh wait...works like a hot damn on my Android-based transformer too.
Multi-view windowed multitasking: even Chromebooks can do it.
Worse: many desktop apps will be "Metro style," while still being full-bore desktop apps with Windowing and everything!
Users are going to be so confused...
Re: Sorry what?
Metro supports multiple monitors. The consumer preview does not do multimon correctly. However Microsoft have made some huge strides in multimonitor support in Windows 8. Both in Metro mode and the legacy desktop.
There are many valid complaints to level against Windows 8, but please read the provided link...Multimonitor support is no longer one of them.
- Vid Hubble 'scope snaps 200,000-ton chunky crumble conundrum
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Windows 8.1 Update 1 spewed online a MONTH early – by Microsoft
- Interview Global Warming IS REAL, argues sceptic mathematician - it just isn't THERMAGEDDON