Slashdot Mirror

One thing Linux can do that OSX and Windows can't do, is give the end user freedom to do as pleased with the OS, make source code available for modding, adding/removing functions, etc.

This was the main reason for Linux to come about in the first place.

We can go back even further. Read this.

UNIX (and yes, kids, Linux is a UNIX, or at least a UNIX clone, despite the amount that most people who use it seem to wish it wasn't) was originally developed as a system to allow mechanical automation at a phone company.

If that doesn't sound like a system which was designed with Homer Simpson and pretty GUIs in mind, there's a reason for that; namely, that it wasn't.

Ubuntu is trying to force Linux as an underlying operating system to do a very large number of things which it simply wasn't designed to do; or more specifically, let me put that in another way.

Ubuntu is trying to force Linux to do things which Windows does, by mimicking Windows' methodology, when perhaps what Ubuntu's developers don't realise is that Windows was an example of exceptionally bad engineering and computer science in the first place.

UNIX can be made to work as an end-user system. However, it has to be done intelligently. It can only be done if the system's fundamental nature is taken into account. The Ubuntu developers don't do that, and the Debian developers don't do it either.

FreeBSD is proof that end-user UNIX (in other words, UNIX that is actually allowed to be itself, and isn't turned into some warped, Frankenstein-esque Windows hybrid, complete with many of Windows' attendant problems) actually is viable. might be a little more work to initially set up than the "user friendly," Windows crowd might want, but it works perfectly acceptably as a client system after that, and ports is also the only package management system I've ever used which I consider genuinely reliable.

Ubuntu is not UNIX, and Debian isn't either. Both take an underlying system which was, by itself, exceptionally well designed, and turn it into roadkill. Truthfully, the bottom line here is that most of the people developing Linux are themselves Windows immigrants, who wouldn't truly know good coding or design practice if it fell out of the sky, landed on top of them, and started viciously biting them on the face.

The fact that people want a system like Ubuntu, is actually an extension of the overall instant gratification culture. Get a copy of Morgan Spurlock's film, "Super Size Me," and then realise that Ubuntu is McLinux. It's Linux's answer to McDonald's, and has a similar nutritional effect on both the computer and the mind of the individuals who use it.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of junk food.

The Rules: (or DA RULZ)

http://www.isoc.org/internet/conduct/cerf-Aug-draft.shtml

http://www.dei.isep.ipp.pt/~acc/docs/arpa--1.html

http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html

http://rfc.net/rfc2430.html

Traffic Shaping Example:

http://rfc.net/rfc3514.html

WOW, I can hardly figure out where to start here.
HOSTS?
"When was the last time terrorists killed someone over the internet?!"
That feature is in beta - coming soon !!!
"It isn't about terrorism at all. It is about control and about policing the rest of the world."
If you repeat a word over and over enough (terrorism), it loses meaning, is trivialized.
It IS about control.
DNS is part of that control. (think bypass, sieve)
What if you HAD to pull the plugs?
Think about that, I'll wait.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYGKV1MaIaY

(God, I love the internet :-)
"Should U.S. DHS be trusted?"
Better question is about the policies of the Bush (v2.1b) administration.
Question authority. Talk to power, carry a big stick, etc.
Ummmm, what was the topic?
DNS (Mockapetris-Postel), right.
Defeat? With your own invention? (ARPANET)
http://www.dei.isep.ipp.pt/~acc/docs/arpa.html
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot and having a name such as "Smith" or "Wesson".
Apathy, lack of awareness and naivety is the greatest enemy.
We're (U.S.) so good at picking up the pieces.
Education, prevention, awareness - not so good.
Some need to understand you can use the internet to harm people - physically.
It's called a malicious Logic Bomb.
It IS rocket science.
Ask your ex SysAdmin about them.
Bios, Firmware, Flash memory, chip crowding, reconfigure with malice, and watch it burn.
Been there, seen that. Do that on a National scale and you have a society meltdown right in front of your eyes, wait two days - stir.
People were writing these things for hardware in the 80's and 90's, X-platform.
Remember all that talk of "hardware eating viruses" that would crop up occasionally, and how that person would be flamed out of the thread?
Ridicule and denial ... the American way. Fingers in ears -la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la.
There are no unbelievers on the battlefield.
"The truly powerful signing key is for Windows Update"
Why would you want any of that when you own the hardware?
Think (rouge) Eastereggs:
Microcode:
Disguised Bugs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_egg_(media)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_track
http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/

Really, people have no idea what's going on now.
I've been banging this drum since 1997.
The NSA/CIA/DHS is starting to trickle out awareness of this very thing.
Joel Brenner - The National Counterintelligence Strategy of the United States 2007, speaking last Thursday at the American Bar Association.
(He speaks about the hardware problem near the end)

http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/multimedia/2007/ breakfasts/joel_brenner_transcript.pdf
http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/multimedia/2007/ breakfasts/joel_brenner.mp3
http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/

Richard Clarke on Countdown with Keith Olbermann
Jan 22, 2007

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16771741/

CLARKE: ... China is building cyber warfare units. The Chinese general said publicly that if we get into hostilities with the United States, we will reach out through cyber space and turn off the American electric power grid. From what I can tell and what I learned when I was in government, that's possible.
Not just China.
I'll play Chicken Little, you ... think about it.
I'll wait.

I'm a libertarian, I'm against net neutrality, and I'm not a chump.

I'm happy for you. But unless you are claiming that any pair people who share two of these properties must logically share the third, the point is completely irrelevant.

How, exactly, did the government pay to build the Internet?

Initially, through the Advanced Research Projects Agency, but later though a host of channels such as creating easements through the use of immanent domain, targeted tax breaks (which represent a cost to all other tax payers), etc.

If companies have no way to make money, they won't provide the products. It's pretty simple.

Agreed. That's why no one is calling for network communism. But there is a big difference between saying they "have no way to make money" and saying that they can't charge twice for the same service. I pay to be connected to the internet, and exchange packets with others. So does Google. The carriers are already making piles of money of of the service as it stands. Trying to slip an additional charge in there with an implied threat of failing to provide the service that we have both contracted (and paid) for is fraud, plain and simple.

--MarkusQ

Incase any of you do not know, the Internew was an offshot of a US Military project anyway, So literally, it IS a US idea. ARPANET was it's name, and it split in to two projects, The still current military version of ARPANAET and what we know now as the Internet.

http://www.morebusiness.com/running_your_business/ technology/d959554096.brcWho built the Internet?
http://www.dei.isep.ipp.pt/docs/arpa.htmlHistory of ARPANET.
solo.Dev

NASA is not going to die. Most people seem to forget that NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration. There's an awful lot more going on than a few robotic probes and shuttle launches.

What is abundantly clear, however, is that Bush's "space initiative" is nothing more than smoke and mirrors designed to boost his approval ratings. Let's crunch a few numbers: Bush's plan set aside an additional $12 billion for developing a "Saturn Mark II" launch vehicle with a capsule capable of landings on both the Moon and Mars. Not only is the number ridiculous, but so is the method for obtaining the funds. Bush claims that $1 billion will be allocated by Congress, and the additional $11 billion will be found by restructuring NASA, including ending shuttle flights. So we'll finish up the station by 2010, auction the shuttles on eBay, and be on the Moon by 2015? Riiiight. First of all, NASA won't have any free funds from ending the shuttle program until at least 2010 when the station is complete, and then that only leaves 5 years for development of a completely new vehicle and support system. Even then, the shuttle's budget is only about $4 billion. The remaining $7 billion will have to be earned by cutting into NASA's remaining $11 billion. So once again, the Aeronautics branch of NASA is getting the shaft in favor of a bloated and fatally optimistic manned space program. Sound familiar? It's the shuttle all over again.

Since the federal government seems to be waffling on what it thinks NASA should be doing, I am in favor of a much less glamorous "bottom-up" approach to space exploration. Let the private entrepreneurs build simple craft to get us barely out of the atmosphere. From there, the craft get slightly more sophisticated, and through the magic of technological evolution from several sources, we end up exploring the solar system in ways we can't even dream of now. We can parallel this growth to that of the internet: it started as a large, well funded government program (ARPANET), but it wasn't until the little guy started to find commercial opportunities that it really took off (Amazon, anyone?) If we had relied on the DoD to create the internet for us, we'd be stuck with an online copy of the Library of Congress, distributed through a huge router the size of a steel factory and transmitting over a 9600 baud connection.

While Bush has his head in the sand, the X-Prize and the X-Prize Cup will be ruling the upper atmosphere! I plan on retiring at the Shady Craters Lunar Resort.

And, to keep this little tirade on topic:
The Hubble Telescope has performed beautifully and well beyond its intended lifespan. There are other, better space telescopes in the works. Let's save the shuttle flight for station hardware and let the telescope retire with dignity.

Perhaps you should check here or here and learn, once and for all, that Internet was not designed to withstand physical attacks. It just was a by-product.

Oh, lest I forget, ad hominem attacks take weight of your assertions (even more when they are not quite correct).

'til next post...

Marcos (any likeness to chance is pure reality)

Dear God you're stupid.

My Ph.D. says otherwise.

The Internet was about building a very large network that could withstand physical attack.

No, that was Arpanet. It can be argued that the "Internet" is a much different beast.

If true, this would most definitely NOT be the first time DARPA ever cancelled a grant...nor would it be the first time they cancelled a worthwhile grant.

Good thing they didn't cancel funding on the whole ARPANET thingy. We would all have to talk about this stuff in person.

You're absolutely right! Can you even imagine some part of the government trying to think about decentralization? Ha! Their brains would probably explode! Stupid governments.

...while America drowns under the weight of it's enormous, wasteful military budget...

And while evaluating the budget's "wasteful"ness, you should remember that a fair bit of the ~$280 billion we spend each year goes into R&D -- the same R&D that produced the Internet's predecessor, the ARPANET. So at least some of the money is doing some good; the same goes for NASA's budget -- we get completely unexpected scientific discoveries out of directed research programs, that end up being incredibly useful. While other nations leapfrog past our initial technological advances... we discover new ones! And the cycle continues....

Who appointed the USA supreme rulers of the Internet anyway ?

FYI: The internet began as the ARPAnet, a U.S.-funded research project. History of ARPAnet.

VNC will not provide a multiuser envirnoment like citrix (read the FAQ for VNC, they are very clear on that.) However, in a UN*X environment, there is a way to get Xvnc (part of VNC) to act as Citrix, through inetd. It works, and the proformance is fairly reasonable. The website is http://www.dei.isep.ipp.pt/~andre/extern/ixvnc.htm
Again, this would not be helpfull in the case of a Windows environment, but if you ever consider linux, this may be helpful to you.

Why should the US government have an idea that they own the Internet?

Oh yeah, because they built it.

I stand corrected!

I was quite certain that I was right so I went out and searched on the web. Eventually I found this URL where it says: The labs made the software available to academic institutions at a very small charge. For example, John Lions, a faculty member in the Department of Computer Science at the University of New South Wales, in Australia, reported that his school was able to acquire a copy of research UNIX Edition 5 for $150 ($110 Australian) in December, 1974, including tape and manuals. (See "An Interview with John Lions," in Unix Review, October, 1985, pg. 51)