09.18.11
IRC Proceedings: September 17th, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
09.17.11
Deepwater Horizon Final Report Spares Microsoft
The official final report on the Deepwater Horizon drilling disaster overlooks or ignores crucial testimony about the role of non free software. They conclude:
The Panel found that a central cause of the blowout was failure of a cement barrier in the production casing string, a high‐strength steel pipe set in a well to ensure well integrity and to allow future production. The failure of the cement barrier allowed hydrocarbons to flow up the wellbore, through the riser and onto the rig, resulting in the blowout. The precise reasons for the failure of the production casing cement job are not known.
That’s fair enough and they go on to cite various management issues that lead up to this. What’s not so fair is that they ignore the meat of Mike William’s prior testimony when examining the actual accident.
hydrocarbons began to flow from the Macondo reservoir into the well. Despite a number of additional anomalies that should have signaled the existence of a kick or well flow, the crew failed to detect that the well was flowing until 9:42 p.m. By then it was too late – the well was blowing drilling mud up into the derrick and onto the rig floor. If members of the rig crew had detected the hydrocarbon influx earlier, they might have been able to take appropriate actions to control the well. There were several possible reasons why the Deepwater Horizon crew did not detect the kick.
None of the reasons given mention the fact that Windows NT blue screen failures and lack of redundancy left the drilling crew blind. Nor is that software mentioned when explaining alarm bypasses that delayed crew notification once the accident had happened. In fact, “Microsoft” and “Windows” are never mentioned in the 217 page report.
There is no excuse for this omission because it was widely reported by Techrights and others. Previously, Techrights reported the role of Microsoft in the failure of the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform. The first report was when the NYT and other sites quoted Mike Williams referring to BSoD. The second report was an exclusive and detailed analysis of Mike Williams later published testimony. How such a long and extensive technical investigation could ignore such obvious problems is a mystery.
On the Web, Microsoft is Dying, GNU/Linux and FOSS Are Winning
Summary: Microsoft’s market share in servers is said to have slid to 1997 levels
FOLLOWING its malicious attack on Yahoo!, Microsoft became best evidence of its own demise on the Web. It no longer sought to create compelling products and make these available; instead, Microsoft tried to derail its competitors, preferably stealing their customers in the process. Once they got some crony installed, everything Yahoo! had which was of value to Microsoft got passed to Microsoft or put under the leadership of former Microsoft executives. According to this bit of news, Yahoo! is already well too infected by the Microsoft virus. “MALWARE DISTRIBUTORS have managed to get their rogue ads displayed on Bing and Yahoo when users search for popular software downloads,” says The Inquirer. “Since these ads always appear at the top of the page before the actual search results, and since the rogue websites they point to are near perfect copies of the real ones, the attack most likely has a high infection rate.”
This is why it’s good to limit Microsoft’s presence on the Web. It is nothing but trouble. In other interesting news, “Microsoft’s web server is losing ground” to the point where even Netcraft's flawed statistics show Microsoft approaching single-digit market share. To quote:
Apache has been the most widely used web server on the Internet since the early days of the Web. It still is. The second-most popular web server has been, and still is, Microsoft’s Internet Information Server, IIS. But Microsoft’s web server is now losing ground.
It wasn’t always like this. For quite some time, IIS was gaining ground on Apache, but the tide changed in 2007. Since then Apache has recovered much of its previous dominance, reaching a 65% market share, while the market share for IIS has dwindled below 16%, less than half of what it used to be. That’s a pretty steep drop, bringing the IIS market share back to what it was in 1997, 14 years ago.
In reality, based on the claims of some people, Microsoft’s real IIS market share was somewhere around 12%, whereas Apache and GNU/Linux market share in this area were all along impressive. In September 2008 Steve Ballmer was quoted as saying that “[f]orty percent of servers run Windows,” but he probably used flawed measures/methods. He would only wish for such a high market share. Where servers are concerned, Microsoft may be making money, but it’s not making much an impact. Zero-cost operating systems work a lot better and the Microsoft-taxed distribution, SUSE, is still niche product (for Microsoft lovers such as SAP). █
GTK 3-Sharp and Gstreamer-Sharp
Summary: What Mono proponents are other closet Windows/.NET fans are up tp
A few hours ago Ryan asked, “did you see omgubuntu give Windows 8 a glowing review?”
He also showed Mono promotion (in the form of Banshee news) which ignores the known risks and development impediments. He claims that “they want to make a GTK 3-Sharp and a Gstreamer-Sharp,” later adding that “Rhythmbox isn’t exactly getting a lot of love lately.”
“I think it’s only on life support because Fedora doesn’t want to use Banshee,” he added. When will Canonical get off the Mono dependency? It’s the gateway drug to Microsoft.
We ought to mention that one of the Mono boosters who attacked this site for a long time (trolling the IRC channel, smearing it from afar, etc.) turned out to have been a Microsoft intern. He pretended to be a Ubuntu member. Funny how many Mono people are close to Microsoft but still in disguise, eh? █
Impact of America Invents Act on Patent Trolls
Summary: A Red Hat perspective on the recently-passed H.R. 1249
RED HAT was recently sued by MOSAID, a patent troll that Microsoft helped pass some patents to, by its very own admission. MOSAID is similar to Acacia, which also sued Red Hat.
According to Erick Robinson, whom we mentioned in March and in April, the lousy patent 'reform' we saw recently may in fact be helpful against patent trolls. To quote Red Hat’s OpenSource.com:
So it has finally happened: a patent reform bill has actually become law. Last Thursday, the U.S. Senate voted 89-9 to send H.R. 1249 to the White House, where it was signed into law today. While I have pointed out in the past that this bill misses out on several aspects of reform that previous bills attempted, it does include some useful aspects.
First, though, let’s discuss what the new law will NOT include. It will not include any provision tying damages in patent litigation to the specific contribution of the patent over prior technology nor will it provide any specific damages limitation. It will also not require bifurcated trials to separate liability and damages issues. It will not allow interlocutory (real-time, during the underlying case rather than post-verdict) appeal of claim constructions by courts. It will also not specifically include a provision restricting venue in patent litigation (but, as shown below, the joinder provision will have an effect on venue for some cases). Each of these provisions were included in prior versions of the legislation and would have helped fix the system.
[...]
The joinder provision included in the America Invents Act, as passed, which Red Hat actively supported, specifically states that there must be another basis for joinder beyond an allegation that the defendants have all infringed a patent. Thus, the new law should prevent the “file around the country, and add a few Texas mom and pops” tactic. In fact, the natural result of this new law should be that patent plaintiffs, especially non-practicing entities (NPEs), will generally have to file as many lawsuits as there are defendants. This will mean that each case will likely be filed either where each defendant is organized (often Delaware or Nevada) or where it has its principal place of business.
At least as important as this effective restriction on venue is the effect on NPEs of having to litigate one case per defendant. First, NPEs have been targeting multiple defendants in a single lawsuit to reduce their costs. More important, though, NPEs have been leveraging such lawsuits against defendants by forcing competitors and other unfriendly parties to either cooperate by sharing confidential documents, expenses, attorneys, and strategy or to spend even more money and resources in defending the case. The new “one defendant-one lawsuit” rule will require NPEs to try cases as many times as there are defendants. Not only is this prohibitively expensive, but it puts the validity of the patent(s) in suit in peril every time the case is tried.
Ultimately, however, patent trolls should not exist; neither should software patents. █
Cablegate: EU Negotiations About EU Patent/Community Patent
Summary: 3 cables from Brussels and Geneva, all demonstrating growing acceptance of artificial trans-Atlantic monopolies with similar trends within Europe itself
According to EU authorities, there is no reason to worry about expanding the scope of patents, opening the door to increased litigation and damages.
In the following 3 cables we see the subject brought up several times. In the second cable, “Lorrain added that patent harmonization would be interesting, along with a discussion on copyrights and other current IPR issues.”
The third cable says: “A key area that would further innovation in the seed industry would be patent harmonization of plant protection, as the existing rules under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) allow for protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof. As a result, there are varying degrees of patent protection for plants from one territory to another. ”
We wrote about TRIPS in [1, 2, 3, 4]. The three cables from 2008 and 2009 are as follows:
Cablegate: Sarkozy Promotes Monopolies in China, French Government Backs ‘Community Patent’ (aka EU Patent, Harmonisation)
Summary: The position of the Nicolas Sarkozy regime on intellectual monopolies including patents
POOR CHINA. The West is too obsessed with (afraid of) this highly productive nation that exports almost everything people buy in the shops if it’s economic to transport by ship. Japan et al. try to limit China's trade using intellectual monopolies, which can impede domestic production under independent brands (Apple, for instance, is notorious for shutting down competing factories in China under the pretext of “IPR”). In any event, according to the following Cablegate cable (under ¶4), the Nicolas Sarkozy regime “recently ratified the London protocol and would support adoption of a Community patent during its presidency, he said. “Common reflection” on patent harmonization issues was a potential area for TEC discussion. France also was supportive of the International Anti-counterfeiting and Piracy Agreement (?) (ACTA).”
The information came from Novelli, who “had accompanied President Sarkozy to China in late 2007 and the message on IPR had been “very firm.” Pushing together for a stronger Chinese approach on IPR was important.” Important to who? Surely not the Chinese population.
The position from Paris and EU authorities matters a lot and the cable below is not so out of date. It’s also about ACTA.
VZCZCXYZ7332 RR RUEHWEB DE RUEHFR #0386/01 0641756 ZNR UUUUU ZZH R 041756Z MAR 08 FM AMEMBASSY PARIS TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2152 INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE UNCLAS PARIS 000386 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS DEPARTMENT PASS USTR E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ECON [Economic Conditions], ETRD [Foreign Trade], ENRG [Energy and Power], PREL [External Political Relations], EAGR [Agriculture and Forestry], EUR, FR [France; Corsica] SUBJECT: FRENCH RECEPTIVE TO A/S SULLIVAN'S PITCH ON TEC REF: 2/11 PARIS POINT ON FRENCH GMO LAW ¶1. (U) Embassy Action Request Para 14. ¶2. (SBU) Summary: In February 13-14 meetings French Trade Minister Novelli, MFA Economic Director Masset and PM Diplomatic Advisor Lapouge told A/S Dan Sullivan they would be supportive of the Trans-Atlantic Economic Council (TEC) as an important part of France's EU presidency. On other issues Novelli said France would pay attention to "reciprocity" in EU foreign economic relations during its presidency. France's position on agricultural bio- technology was evolving, with the amended draft law on GMOs recently approved by the French Senate a more "balanced" approach than that of the initial draft. Lapouge said energy supply issues would figure among France's EU presidency priorities and briefed on PM Fillon's early February trip to Kazakhstan. End summary. Novelli on TEC, 100% Screening, IPR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ¶3. (SBU) In a February 13 meeting A/S Sullivan, accompanied by Ambassador Stapleton and SE Boyden Gray, told French Trade Junior Minister Herve Novelli the U.S. hoped France would put the TEC high on its agenda for the French EU presidency. He underscored that the TEC not only could help deepen transatlantic economic relationship by reducing and harmonizing regulatory barriers, but also it has a much broader strategic rationale: enabling the U.S. and EU to more closely coordinate economic policies vis-`-vis rising economic powers. France's endorsement would be key to a successful TEC, and one that helped ensure the institution's longevity. Novelli said the GOF saw the TEC as "very important" and the French presidency could "play a key role" in advancing it. But the May TEC and June U.S.- EU Summit would precede the French presidency and it would be important to focus on these first. ¶4. (SBU) Novelli described cargo security and IPR as GOF priorities (both in and out of the TEC). U.S. requirements for 100% screening of containers were a top French concern given the "costs it would impose" on trans-Atlantic trade. Novelli saw convergence in U.S. - French interests on IPR. France recently ratified the London protocol and would support adoption of a Community patent during its presidency, he said. "Common reflection" on patent harmonization issues was a potential area for TEC discussion. France also was supportive of the International Anti-counterfeiting and Piracy Agreement (?) (ACTA). Novelli had accompanied President Sarkozy to China in late 2007 and the message on IPR had been "very firm." Pushing together for a stronger Chinese approach on IPR was important. Environmental Issues - - - - - - - - - - ¶5. (SBU) In the wake of its late 2007 "Grenelle" environmental pact France would be "exemplary" on cutting carbon emissions. The GOF was considering a variety of eco-taxes (and had already implemented some) as part of this effort. It would use its EU presidency to encourage an "awakening" on the use of such measures among its EU partners. Cuts in CO2 emissions were inevitable, Novelli said, the key would be to do so without impacting French productivity. (Note: Novelli said nothing about France's proposal for a carbon tax on imports from countries that do not impose binding limits on CO2 emissions. End note) A/S Sullivan underscored U.S. - EU convergence on climate change, especially through the Major Economies process. ¶6. (SBU) Sullivan raised the issue of GMOs, and Novelli said the GOF's position was evolving. The French Senate had passed a "more balanced" amended version of the GMO law than the one presented to parliament (ref). The position of Minister of Ecology and Sustainable Development Borloo was shifting, Novelli claimed, "in spite the views of environmental groups." France's current ban on MON810 "could be lifted," he said, though he did not specify the timing or circumstances of a possible rescission. Reciprocity - - - - - - ¶7. (SBU) Novelli previewed other priority issues within his remit for the French presidency. The GOF would pursue a European Small Business Act, to include regulatory simplification and access to public procurement. The GOF had presented its ideas in Brussels to "enrich the debate" and the Commission was preparing an initial draft. The GOF would encourage movement towards freer trade and investment regimes, but on the basis of reciprocity. The GOF wanted Europe to be "as open as our partners," but it would demand a level playing field. Discussion on EU trade defense measures was a possible "element" in France's strategy for pursuing reciprocity. ¶8. (SBU) France continued to hope for a Doha deal, Novelli said, but it "must be balanced." The GOF felt the Commission had done the "maximum," in fact surpassing negotiating mandates on agriculture and industrial access. France would not "sacrifice its interests" for the sake of a deal. Sullivan underscored very strong U.S. commitment to getting a "good, ambitious" agreement. He also noted the importance of maintaining a public commitment to open trade and investment, saying that foreign direct investment was a net benefit regardless of reciprocal limitations that partners might impose. TEC Strategic Dialogue Timely - - - - - - - - - - - - - ¶9. (SBU) In a separate meeting MFA Economic Director Christian Masset echoed Novelli's support for the TEC. He warmed to A/S Sullivan's description of the strategic nature of the TEC as demonstrated by the dialogue that had occurred over lunch at the November meeting. Such dialogue could be particularly useful given that France would host EU summits with a number of key developing economies during its presidency, including China and India. ¶10. (SBU) Masset expanded on the French EU presidency priorities of climate change and energy. The GOF would look to move forward with Phase II of the Emissions Trading System, the framework directive on renewables, and a directive for carbon capture and storage. To reach 2020 reduction goals, half of the gains would come through the functioning of the ETS, the other half from sectors not covered by the trading system. It would take strong action in both areas to achieve EU goals. ¶11. (SBU) On energy security, France would "put more emphasis" on dialogue with the Central Asia/Caspian region on diversification. Masset was keen on A/S Sullivan's views on the region, and Sullivan highlighted elements of his latest trip to Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan. Masset and Sullivan also touched on eventual membership of India and China in the IEA (septel). PM Fillon in Kazakhstan - - - - - - - - - - - - ¶12. (SBU) PM Fillon's diplomatic advisor Jacques Lapouge briefed Sullivan on the Prime Minister's early February visit to Kazakhstan (the first such visit in 15 years). Calling the trip "pretty encouraging," Lapouge said Fillon brought a message of support for development of westward hydrocarbon supply routes. Supply diversification would, in fact, be a theme of the French EU presidency. Lapouge said Nazarbayev talked to Fillon about shipping product across the Caspian, as well as a possible pipeline skirting the southern shore of the Caspian. He expressed continued interest in a pipeline to Iran. ¶13. (SBU) On other issues, Lapouge responded positively to A/S Sullivan's briefing on TEC (though an advisor had heard disappointment at EU technical levels over a perceived lack of progress on EU issues at the first TEC). On G8, the former Sous-Sherpa questioned whether there was sufficient follow-through in meeting commitments, notably on ODA. The body's "credibility is at stake," Lapouge thought. On IPR, the Heilegendamm Process must aim high and not be pulled down to the lowest common denominator. Lapouge indicated the French were interested in keeping alive their proposal for a FATF-like body for IPR in G8 discussions. Embassy Action Request - - - - - - - - - - - ¶14. (SBU) French views on energy supply diversification opportunities in the Caspian Basin are evolving. With the GOF ready to engage more actively on energy diplomacy in the region during its EU presidency, this is an auspicious time to contribute to French thinking. Post encourages the visit of an appropriate Department, or inter-agency, delegation to Paris in the coming months for in-depth discussions with French counterparts on these issues. ¶15. (U) A/S Sullivan has cleared this cable. ROSENBLATT
In the next post we shall look at cables from Brussels. █
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
