Linux and Licensing
I was impressed with Jonathan Feldman's "Licensing Liability" column. In fact, I was so impressed I read every last word, which is unusual for me.
In the interests of passing along the good stuff, I will be circulating this column to my boss and my boss's boss. We're making strides in some areas by getting away from Microsoft dependency. For example, we dumped the Exchange server for a Linux box and now use an AS/400 solution for our secure-site Web publishing--bye-bye IIS.
The next cut will be deep. Before I came on board, the "sysadmin" kicked out WordPerfect Office Suite and brought in Microsoft Office 97. I want to reverse that decision. I like Corel, but I would also like a Linux-served application with WordPerfect, data sheets, e-mail and full-featured emulation. Any ideas?
Troy Grivet
Technology Administrator
The Howard Miller Cos.
tgrivet@howardmiller.com
Jonathan Feldman responds: I would hit SourceForge and Slashdot to see what folks are doing with open-source alternatives. You're covered on the terminal-emulation front, but I think you'll have a tough time converting folks from Microsoft Office since it's fairly entrenched, much as WordPerfect was back in the 1980s.
* * *
In "Licensing Liabilities" Jonathan Feldman states: "Folks are flocking to the Red Hat paradigm: Pay for support, get free upgrades with source code -- and without licenses that burden the enterprise."
Let's say Ford offered free cars and free blueprints, and then sold support contracts. Unfortunately, most of us would take the free cars and never buy the support. Furthermore, other companies would take the blueprints and make imitations.
This problem shows up regarding Linux. Most Linux users have never contributed to the software's development, and hundreds of companies have downloaded the free source code just to create their own variations. Unless users are forced to pay a support fee and unless competitors can be prohibited from making trivial variations, I cannot see how the free-software concept will succeed.
Open-source companies are begging for money. The software we want today is more complex than the software we wanted in 1984, when Richard Stallman proposed the free-software concept. Today's applications require a tremendous number of people and a tremendous amount of money. The companies that offer free software do not come close to getting the money they need.
Eric Hufschmid
Owner
Endpoint Software
erichuf@aol.com
Editor's Note: For more on the licensing issues involved with open source, see "The Law and Open-Source Software".
 |
Giving Hotmail the Cold Shoulder
Doug Barney's experiences with Hotmail mirror my own ("The Rant"). I can't use it anymore because of the volume of spam in the inbox even after I apply the most stringent filters.
I never used one account I had created on Hotmail. Once I added that account to Outlook Express' list of accounts, the spam started coming. My girlfriend never had a problem with spam on Hotmail until she started checking her account with Outlook.
I believe one of two things is happening. Either Microsoft is selling e-mail addresses to offset the cost of Hotmail, or someone found a way to intercept e-mail addresses that pass through the Microsoft servers acting as gateways to Hotmail.
Jason Rivas
MIS Programmer
Company name withheld upon request
jrivas@chromalloy.com
Once again another tech journalist blames everyone else for his own laziness and ignorance. Doug Barney's Rant shows him as just another crybaby who wants every piece of software to work his specific way.
Microsoft is trying to find the right medium for handling spam. I don't dislike spam quite as much as Barney does, but then again I don't have a public column in which to whine and cry about it. Go bitch about something more important.
Jan Erasga
Network Administrator
Tengam Engineering
jan@tengam.com
|
Safe at 50 Feet
In "The Safe Way to Remote Consoles," Michael J. DeMaria wrote: "Building your own console server is easy. All you need is an old PC and some additional serial cards (most PCs come with only two ports). ... RS-232 connections are limited to 25 feet, so remember to consider distance issues."
Where did DeMaria get that 25-feet figure? IIRC, the official figure for RS-232C, is 50 feet; however, we've run RS-232 at 19,200 bps and 9,600 bps over much longer distances, including to a printer in another building, over unshielded Cat 3 wire (though we did put a short-haul modem into the circuit when we replaced the printer with a newer, less sensitive one).
Rick Owens
Systems Analyst
Flathead Valley Community College
rowens@fvcc.cc.mt.us
Michael J. DeMaria responds: You're right, the specs do say 50 feet, and depending on the cable quality and desired speed, you can indeed do 50 feet or more. Just as with Cat 5, specs can be broken and the cable extended for a bit less speed and quality. Thanks for noticing.
|
Correction
We printed incorrect grades for QLogic's and Atto Technology's products in our review of host bus adapters ("QLogic Makes Sense of Fibre Channel"). The correct grades are QLogic, B; Atto Technology, B.
|
 |
REPORTS
ANALYTICS
Follow 
