10 posts • joined 17 Jul 2007
I remember it well
I recall management of a research organisation directing IT staff to stop using the term "users", thereby giving rise to "our research colleagues", or Orcs for short.
I respectfully disagree.
In the end if, if a phone CPU does not share its owner's attitude to missing a phone call, the phone will fail as a product. This is an issue which will have to be resolved somehow if Linux is to be a serious player in this market. I do not know the technical rights or wrongs of it, but it is good to see that at least some people involved see the sense in coming to some agreement. Let's hope that little spat is soon to become history.
Somebody tell me I am hallucinating, please!
Speaking from experience...
I have a direct experience of the clusters versus SMPs tussle in a large commercial organisation, and my unambiguous conclusion is that the TCO of clusters is generally greatly underestimated. There are applications where clusters are worth considering, but overall SMPs are by far the better bet. Yes you pay more up-front. You also save yourself heck of a lot of subsequent headaches.
Bugrit, bugrit, bugrit...
Isn't that just about the unkindest thing possible for God/god/gods/fate/Fates/chance/other (delete according to your preferences) to do to Pterry of all people???
Not being a brain chemistry expert of any level, I can only wish the best of luck to somebody I've hugely respected and admired for... is it really dacedes now?... yes I suppose it must be!
Another worrying trend...
On a closely related issue... Nationwide have decided to ask their on-line users to assist with improving security by asking them to volunteer some personal information, which can then be requested for additional verification. They ask one to supply answers to 5 out of 20 questions such as "what is your favourite song" or "what is/was the name of your first pet animal" etc... Sounds reasonable at the first blink, until you consider what will happen if this method gets adopted by other institutions. If one answers truthfully, a set of non-alterable information gets spread wider and wider and if it leaks from somewhere, what is one to do? One can, of course, invent different (and hence false) responses in every case, but the only way to remember the resulting net of one's lies is to write them down -- the last thing one is supposed to do, of course.
In a way, it is the same problem as with the wretched belief in biometrics. Authorities fail to appreciate that once un-alterable information is compromised, in whatever way, there is no way out.
IBM saw the light
Back when (like a quarter of a century ago), IBM were Bad Boys (like M$ these days). A few years back, hobnobbing with IBMers trying to sell us Linux boxes, I happened to remark that I found it rather strange, consorting like that with "the enemy". The response was, I thought, a revealing one: "Yes, well, in those days we forgot to factor in the simple fact that techies like you would be making purchasing decisions in a decade or two". Sadly, M$ learned the lesson two, but in a rather different way.
Why does the name Spock spring to my mind quite unbidden?
Ah, the silly season is truly upon us! Or am I being too cynical?
Over to you, C4!
And can we now look forward to C4 showing a documentary to publicise the fact that the global warming is not attributable to sunspots after all? (I know, I know... just day-dreaming...)
Not a very good troll... must try harder!
> Believe me, I am no Microsoft fan, but in the same way that I would never drive a Scoda.
Mmm... Not sure what to make of that, given that Skodas are pretty good these days -- even Whych says so. :-)
But you are missing a couple of points. Firstly, the discussion is about DRM, and DRM is software broken by design, in order to prevent me, as a purchaser of a content, to do with that content as I damn well like. The three strikes.... er, plays and "you are out" is a particularly blatant "pigopolist" move.
Secondly, as a more general point, MS stuff is engineered in a way which breaks all rules of good software design, 'cause modularity and clean interfaces would give other companies too much scope for providing alternatives, so it's all entangled as a matter of deliberate choice. As any 1st year IT student will tell you, the inevitable and demonstrable result is more buggy software. But because MS managed to get themselves into a de facto monopoly position, telling people to "use something else" is simply naive. Most people don't want the hassle of dealing with "near compatibility", which is anyway always at risk of being subverted by the next version of MS software.
- Updated Zucker punched: Google gobbles Facebook-wooed Titan Aerospace
- Elon Musk's LEAKY THRUSTER gas stalls Space Station supply run
- Windows 8.1, which you probably haven't upgraded to yet, ALREADY OBSOLETE
- FOUR DAYS: That's how long it took to crack Galaxy S5 fingerscanner
- VMware reveals 27-patch Heartbleed fix plan