Re: next version

(Sorry if this is a repost.  There was some DNS trouble earlier - likely
on our end)

I believe I'll only weaken my case by arguing with Mr. Watts, and it's
clear he's made up his mind.

I think the people I want to reach can probably make up their minds
based on what I've already written, but does anyone feel Mr. Watts'
arguments need to be addressed?  I believe the benefits of my proposal
are likely apparent, but I can elaborate if people have questions.

Assuming enough people see the merit in what I'm proposing, what's the
next step?  Wait for the next version of the LSB and bring it up then?
Does this group have any sort of formal decision-making process (like an
e-government or a voting system), or does the loudest voice win?

On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 14:11, Jeffrey Watts wrote:
> On 6 May 2003, Dan Stromberg wrote:
> 
> > Microsoft has their sales figures for their PR side, and I believe
> > licensing is done per employee instead of per install at UCI.  Other
> > sites have their difficulties with microsoft licensing, but that's not
> > something lsb-discuss is likely to have the power to fix.  lsb-discuss
> > does have the power to help significantly on the linux side though.
> 
> My point was that this isn't a deficiency with Linux.  You have the same
> problem with Windows, but in that case you let Microsoft figure out how
> much you need to pay.  Go monopoly.
> 
> > It's both linux and IT, IMO - because if we get a decent lower bound on
> > linux installs worldwide, people may take linux more seriously and adopt
> > more quickly.
> 
> That's Linux advocacy you're talking about.  Now, one of the goals behind
> the LSB is to promote Linux by encouraging third party vendors to write
> software for Linux by making it possible for them to write software that
> will run on any LSB-compliant distribution.  However I don't recall that
> direct advocacy was part of the charter.  The goal you just described
> doesn't seem (in my opinion) to be what we're doing here.  Unless it
> facilitates the writing of software that will run on any LSB-compliant
> distribution, it probably shouldn't be a part of the LSB.
> 
> > Installed base matters, as does a "vendor's" grasp of that installed
> > base.  EG, Microsoft reportedly takes a loss on each iPAQ that gets
> > sold.  Why would they do that?  To run up their installed base
> > statistics, to make developers choose their platform and consumers want
> > to buy their product.  Naturally once they're "established" they can be
> > expected to start charging enough to profit.
> 
> None of this has anything to do with an effort to facilitate the writing
> of software that will run on LSB-compliant systems.  Everyone already
> knows how Microsoft sells at a loss to reap profits later when customers
> need version upgrades.
> 
> > I may have written ambiguously.  I meant only to punch through a
> > personal firewall by default, not a border firewall.  Naturally - the
> > personal firewall is the only one a linux install, out of the box, is
> > likely to touch.
> 
> You stated above that one of the goals of what you proposed was to get a 
> master count of Linux systems in the world.  If it doesn't count almost 
> everything it isn't very useful.  Many ISPs and corporations will block 
> these scans (as they waste precious bandwidth and make netadmins nervous), 
> and many individuals will be uncomfortable with it.
> 
> To be honest you're making a lot of the same arguments that the folks who
> propose a National ID system make.  Unfortunately (fortunately?) we're not
> the US Federal Government and we don't have the power to force everyone to
> comply.  If you can't force compliance, the initiative is worthless.
> 
> > I of course have no intention of collecting statistics on private
> > networks.  The point is only to be able to get stats on public networks,
> > and for IT folks to be able to get stats on their own private nets.
> [... snip ...]
> > I mean for it to take one less click to have it than not to have it,
> > with a little "You can help linux adoption by leaving this on".  So, on
> > by default but easily disabled.
> 
> This will not help you.  This will not guarantee an accurate count of
> UCI's use of Linux, as you have to count on users to enable it.  Many in
> fact may be dissuaded from doing it, as they may fear reprisal (Linux is
> still a dirty word in some places).
> 
> As far as what I can tell, universal deployment is the only thing that
> will solve your problem your way.  I assert that that will never happen.
> 
> > I have enough nmap experience to say that nmap isn't really that good at
> > this.  It often says ambiguous stuff like "Linux 1.3.20 (X86), Windows
> > XP Professional RC1+ through final release"  This kind of info is quite
> > good enough for an attacker going after one system, but practically
> > useless to an administrator trying to assess two class B's, for example.
> 
> I'd wager that the vast majority of nmap's results are accurate.  When
> it's wrong or ambiguous, query the user.  Besides, you're looking for a
> ballpark number, not a to-the-person-accurate count.
> 
> > Asking people what they're running is extremely impractical at UCI and
> > other sites.  Not only do we have little info about who has which IP's,
> > but it would take endless phone tag and cause a lot of grumbling about
> > us wasting people's time.  We're talking about n*10,000 IP addresses.  
> > Surely you can see that's just too much for calling around and asking,
> > even if we had a list of phone numbers?
> 
> You're seriously arguing that it's EASIER to globally deploy a
> non-optional service on millions of computers than to simply do an
> inventory at a single college in California?
> 
> > > Remember, someday the Business Software Alliance will make a visit to
> > > UC Irvine, and if you can't accurately account for every installation
> > > of Windows they will happily eat your lunch.  If you don't know what
> > > is installed where, you've got a bigger problem.
> > 
> > Actually, I think this is a red herring in our case.  Besides, who says
> > linux can't be -better- than windows in this regard?
> 
> That's not my point.  My point is that everything that you've said
> indicates to me that you have some fundamental IT problems at UCI, and
> that you're proposing to resolve them by adding functionality to an
> operating system.  I'm also arguing that you can identify 90+ percent of
> the systems using existing, non-intrustive tools, and that you can use
> surveying to identify the remainder.  I'm also arguing that you NEED to do
> this anyway, since it's pretty apparent that you may have future problems
> with proprietary software vendors if you don't.  The fact that Microsoft
> is sticking you with a per-user license scheme tells me that you're
> already being screwed.
> 
> Finally, if you can identify the vast majority of systems on your network
> using simple tools, why can't you use statistical analysis to estimate the
> total number?  You're asking us to consider something extremely thorny
> when there are simpler, more practical methods at your disposal.
> 
> My opinion is that this isn't appropriate for the LSB.
> 
> Jeffrey.
> 
> o-----------------------------------o
> | Jeffrey Watts                     |
> | [email protected]         o-----------------------------------------o
> | System Administrator       | "History is the version of past events  |
> | Network Systems Management |  that people have decided to agree      |
> | Sprint Communications      |  on."                                   |
> o----------------------------|  -- Napoleon Bonaparte, "Maxims"        |
>                              o-----------------------------------------o
-- 
Dan Stromberg DCS/NACS/UCI <[email protected]>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA+uY5Go0feVm00f/8RAryLAJ4x3FsTAm4ltIXAWV7BuwkpQZ4kEgCcD14r
A5BceyAIeIZuZyx1GzUcuJ0=
=6LMz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----