Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Should Microsoft's Amdocs Deal Worry Data Center Operators? 32

On Tuesday, Microsoft signed a patent cross-license agreement with Amdocs Software Systems. They specifically noted in their press release that the agreement covered Amdocs' use of 'Linux-based servers in its data centers,' and noted that Amdocs paid them money for the privilege. In light of the current state of mobile device licensing, with Microsoft getting a cut from most Android device sales, should data centers operators worry about having to pay Microsoft for their use of Linux servers? From the article: "To date, Linux advocates have been hypersensitive to any move Microsoft has made against the open-source OS—which, to be fair, Microsoft has seen as a threat since its inception. It's certainly possible that Amdocs approached Microsoft for a patent cross-license for its own purposes; but if that's the case, Amdocs would likely have disclosed that fact. Amdocs representatives declined to comment on the deal, and the arrangement has been completely ignored on the Amdocs Website. ... The question, though, is whether Microsoft will begin eyeing data-center operators as a similar source of licensing revenue. The company has avoided directly challenging Linux developer/distributors such IBM or Red Hat, instead targeting partners and customers."

Comment Re:Indeed. (Score 5, Insightful) 219


I have bolded the relevant bit that the biased summary failed to include. It is exactly the same as the Microsoft term above.

No, not it is not. There is a huge difference between Microsoft's (The Service) and Google (Our Services). If Google decided to come out with a new service where they allowed you to search anyones documents on their site, you've already agreed to it. With Microsoft, you have not. Is it a glaring omission in the biased summary? Yes. But does it mean that your stuff will only be used for operating,promoting and improving Google Drive? No. No it does not. When Google collects it and starts distributing your family photos as part of GIS, you've already agreed to it.

Comment Re:50 years ago... (Score 1) 184

"50 years ago the U.S. had a plane capable of traveling at Mach 3.35. Today it doesn't.
this is just false.

Fine. The A12 broke Mach 3 in 1963. So 49 years ago. I concede your point, it doesn't change the fact that this country has continued to shy away from the industrial and scientific frontiers that used to be established on a near weekly basis here. It isn't waxing nostalgic, its a simple truth. Our frontiers no longer lie in a national interest in being better than our forefathers. They lie in getting news that someone's kid took a bike ride to my friends list on facebook faster.

Comment Re:50 years ago... (Score 4, Informative) 184

PS... NASA still has operating SR-71's, so we technically still have a plane capable of traveling at Mach 3.35. And, God only knows what the slow, Government-teat-sucking, mouth-breathing engineers have been able to cook up in the past 50 years. Maybe they have us up to Mach 4 now.

No they don't. They haven't since 1999...

Comment Re:50 years ago... (Score 5, Insightful) 184

You're right. Nothing ever came out of the space program, aerospace industry or particle physics labs that equated back to our day to day life.

To quote JFK, "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too"

The U.S. learned from going to the moon. From building the tevatron and the A-12/SR-71. From the Manhattan project.

It doesn't matter if the goals are social equality and food for all, or freeing ourselves from the Oil economy. What matters is the single, common and focused goals to drive projects and technology further. The type of projects that lead to new and better lives for everyone in it. The list of discoveries and advancements made *JUST* off of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo projects would fill pages. It was not about putting a footprint on the moon. It was putting a footprint on the moon and learning everything we could about doing it. It was about the advancement in computers, radio, rocketry, electronics and a myriad of other fields. The A-12 project advanced our understanding of supersonic travel to a new level.

The point is, I really think as a society, we've fallen into the prediction that John Steinbeck made at the height of the progress of the 60's.

"We now face the danger, which in the past has been the most destructive to the humans: Success, plenty, comfort and ever-increasing leisure. No dynamic people has ever survived these dangers."

Comment 50 years ago... (Score 5, Insightful) 184

50 years ago the U.S. could put a man into space. Today it can't.
50 years ago the U.S. was at the forefront of particle physics. Today it isn't.
50 years ago the U.S. started development of 3 different spacecraft on 5 different man rated rockets over a 7 year span. Today it's 10 years just to develop one.
50 years ago the U.S. had a plane capable of traveling at Mach 3.35. Today it doesn't.

I seriously feel bad for the future country my kids will inherit. It doesn't seem like we're moving in the right direction on the science and technology front.

Comment Re:History (Score 1) 79

Of the people who I've talked to with RSA tokens, most have said they're now actively planning a migration off of RSA tokens.

It isn't that they were hacked. Shit happens, even to the best of them. It was the lack of information and lack of transparency by RSA (EMC) on the whole event. Trust has been lost.

I'm not talking about public statements or mea culpas. I'm talking about why they weren't 100% open and upfront with existing customers right away. It gives the impression that EMC's execs were hoping no one would get hacked and it would all fade away over time. That they could just ride this out and weren't going to have to fork over a boatload of cash to replace everyone's tokens, thus not taking a hit on their stock or bonuses.

They were wrong, and now the price they are going to pay is not only replacing everyone's tokens, but a loss of trust and hence future business.

I just got my quote for replacement tokens. They're giving me a 3 to 6 month estimate on when I'll actually have the new tokens. I can quote the whole chain from "Nothing was stolen" to "Nothing was stolen that could replicate a token" to "Yea, our bad."

Comment Re:I'll say it... (Score 0) 238

Question is, would a public-run utility design and build nuclear infrastructure to within the letter of the law or would they 'overbuild' for safety? Is this entire situation the cause of capitalism running into its core fault - its lack of concern for the expensive 'doing the right thing' vs the cheaper 'doing things right.'? I don't really know, but it smacks of the reality of letting a company totally focused on making and saving money vs making decisions to protect the people of Japan.

Lets ask the fine folk of Pripyat how the government run nuclear facility, completely free from capitalism running into it's core fault worked out.....

Comment Re:NAT (Score 3, Informative) 717

You have 65,000 inbound ports. You can't possibly be peering with more then 1000 or 2000 other torrents anyway without completely destroying your bandwidth. Further, there is nothing that says SSH has to run on port 22. You just like it to because it's easy. There's no reason you can't NAT to 100 servers for SSH, run 50 webservers (with both SSL and non-SSL ports), torrent to 5000 of your best friends and still have 59,000 ports left to play with. And a translation table with 5000 entries isn't beyond the capabilities of anyone that might actually have the much infrastructure running behind the device.

Slashdot Top Deals

A freelance is one who gets paid by the word -- per piece or perhaps. -- Robert Benchley