Slashdot Mirror

It doesn't need repairing today, but it will in a couple of years. The batteries and gyroscopes have limited lifetimes and must be replaced every so often. These cyclic repair missions, which have been performed in the past, were cancelled after the Columbia accident

While they could restart the repair cycle, NASA no longer feels that repair flights are safe, because, unlike when the Shuttle visits ISS, there are no good rescue options given Hubble's orbit.

Yeah, and after a handful of missions you shut up shop and never went back because you were too busy arming yourselves to the teeth.

I don't see your lot making much progress in getting back to the moon.

Actually, there are more chips out there then Intel's. They are notoruous power hogs and this is just one of them. While it is not a 2.8G P4., it will do for a number of small systems including dedicated servers.

Linux Insider is running a couple of editorials speculating about running Linux on the 'Cell' processor for the next Sony Playstation. The bold prediction? 'the Linux developer community will, virtually en masse, abandon the x86 in favor of the new machine.' And guess who has partnered with Sony to manufacture the 'Cell'? Why its none other than IBM.

Linux Insider is running a couple of editorials speculating about running Linux on the 'Cell' processor for the next Sony Playstation. The bold prediction? 'the Linux developer community will, virtually en masse, abandon the x86 in favor of the new machine.' And guess who has partnered with Sony to manufacture the 'Cell'? Why its none other than IBM.

Maybe you should stop being a zealot.

Facts:

• For a vendor, it's equally hard to install Freedos and to install Linux
• A halfway complete Linux distribution is much more useful than Freedos because it includes office suite, IM, media player, etc. Actually out of the box it beats Windows easily as well. So if you are not into games and also don't need other Windows-only software, Linux doesn't looks very good.
• FreeDOS on the other hand offers zero value to customers
• All PC-makers that don't have ties with Microsoft and want to install a free (beer) OS, install Linux, never FreeDOS. An example is Thailand's ICT PCs

This article provides some background.

Linux Insider is running a couple of editorials speculating about running Linux on the 'Cell' processor. The bold prediction? 'the Linux developer community will, virtually en masse, abandon the x86 in favor of the new machine.'

Linux Insider is running a couple of editorials speculating about running Linux on the 'Cell' processor. The bold prediction? 'the Linux developer community will, virtually en masse, abandon the x86 in favor of the new machine.'

Back in September, NASA selected 11 companies to conduct preliminary concept studies for human lunar exploration and the development of the NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle. Many of these are your typical aerospace dinosaurs, but a notable exception is t/Space, a new company which includes people like Burt Rutan (of Scaled Composites and SpaceShipOne), Elon Musk (of SpaceX), Red Whittaker (of the Red Team, which constructed an autonomous vehicle which competed in DARPA's Grand Challenge), and several of the new companies in the budding private space industry.

According to their page: Our core mission requirement is to enable prompt, affordable, safe and sustainable lunar exploration and development by the largest possible number of Americans, both in person and via telepresence.

Under our approach, government incentives focus exclusively on top-level goals, with technology and operational choices left to the private sector. The government incentives will be matched to specific top-level needs, but the "invisible hand" of market forces will shape choices as they flow down multiple supplier chains. Incentives will be structured so that several companies in each major area have an opportunity to win this support. With this competitive industrial base, two major processes become possible:

* Market forces will continually launch new products that replace established goods and services (the "creative destruction" that Joseph Schumpeter [Austrian economist 1883-1950] identified as the key element of capitalism). Poorly performing systems will be killed off quickly via competition rather than via burdensome NASA reviews or Congressional intervention.
* Capability gap analyses will be performed by dozens and ultimately hundreds of companies on a continuous basis. As happens now in all competitive industries, the successful companies will be those who listen closely to their customers and accurately predict their future needs - in other words, capability gap analysis by multiple independent profit-seekers.

Commercial firms will create and own infrastructure that offers services that overlap in many cases. The overlaps found in a competitive private space economy will provide the resiliency now lacking in single-string solutions such as the Space Shuttle and Space Station, for which there are no ready alternatives. While functional overlaps are viewed as inefficiencies in centrally-planned systems, in a market-based system they drive costs lower (by reducing monopoly power and spurring innovation) and accelerate schedules (by eliminating single-point bottlenecks among suppliers and spurring competition).

If I understand correctly, tSpace's plan is to design an overall space architecture, and have companies compete for different components, whether they be launch vehicles, space station life support modules, or lunar landers. Many of these components will also be available commercially, keeping the price down and the reliability high. I suspect it's going to be difficult to keep from being eaten alive by the huge aerospace companies (Boeing, Lockheed, etc.), but I have a hope that they'll somehow end up getting the contract and end up completely reforming our approach to space.

I highly recommend reading through their presentation. The things they discuss are quite insightful, and they have some incredible ideas. Here's a few of their points:

Safety results from design choices, not oversight
* Attempting to produce safety by inspection, quality control,

Maybe the poster reads the press more often than you? Sun has repeatedly said that the license for Open Solaris will be an OSI approved license (even the sceptics admit it).

Because if the group doing the integrating decides you dont need it, you dont get it.

Unless the group doing the integrating decides, on a lark, to join, embrace, and even contribute to the open standard/software movement. 'Cause then you might be able to still decide what you want or need.

But that couldn't possibly come from some over priced, consumer-electronic excuse for a computer, now could it? No way.

Just keep doing yer thing, man...

Links for the lazy

Macs are More Expensive, Right?
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/36120.html

But Macs are Slower, Right?
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/But-Macs-Are-Slo wer-Right-36964.html

Links for the lazy

Macs are More Expensive, Right?
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/36120.html

But Macs are Slower, Right?
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/But-Macs-Are-Slo wer-Right-36964.html

I think a killer combination would be a factory installed Linux distro with a dual boot option to XP Lite

There are other choices. The killer combination is Mac OS X. The platform has all the software you need to do the job, with plenty of choices on both the proprietary and free sides, no Microsoft tax, and the hardware is cheaper than PC's:
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/36120.html

Price comparision of Apple to Dell shows that Macintosh is NOT more expensive than a PC. Over, and over, and over again. Please refrain from this nonsense.

Check out http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/But-Macs-Are-Slo wer-Right-36964.html.

jfs

But catch her in a dishonesty before you slam her.

Why? She doesn't offer that to writers at BusinessWeek who disagree with her.

But catch her in dishonesty I have:

ITEM ONE:
She put words in the mouth of a columnist at LinuxInsider (Phil Albert) claiming he said something he never said then strawmanned him to death. The original article was "lost" on Groklaw, but you can read his response to PJ accusing her of putting words in his mouth here.

To quote PJ (from memory, since the original is gone): Basically, he [Albert] basically told businesses not to use the GPL.

Albert's response: My column on the GPL 2.0 was a product review, not an attack on the GPL itself -- and anyway, it was mostly favorable. I never said that companies should not use it, and I am not opposed to the concept of copyleft.

I read Albert's original article. He's right. By my reading, he never even implied it. PJ made that up out of whole cloth.

ITEM TWO:
She did a character assassination on Gosling because they don't see eye-to-eye on Java and the GPL -- and because Sun isn't doing what PJ and RMS wants them to do with their own software (release the Sun JDK under the GPL). However in the BusinessWeek rant, she says the authors should license however they want. Nice double standard. To quote PJ: You have to admit, there is something comical in a commentary asking the authors to change their license. Yes, there is PJ. Yes, there is. Leave Gosling alone for not wanting to release the Sun JDK under your favorite license.

ITEM THREE:
Here's another double standard form PJ. From today no less:

Journalists are a cynical bunch. They've seen it all, heard execs and politicians spin baloney, and endured endless press conferences where they've been told what turn out to be lies, so they can be forgiven for ending up Being From Missouri. The thing about journalists is, they do usually know what is really happening. They may not print what they know, or all they know, or they may feel compelled to slant it to suit their editors/owners. But they know.

Wow! Journalists suddenly "know"! Despite 18 months of PJ's rants that journalists will report whatever FUD is put in front of them. I could quote them, but why bother. You've read them for months.

In this case, PJ is right. Journalists "may feel compelled to slant it to suit their editors/owners". PJ should know. According to the top of the Groklaw site, she's now a "journalist".
- - - - - -
You know, I'm not doing anything with this post that PJ doesn't do every day with Groklaw. I'm using PJ's own contradictory words against her. The difference is, I admit that I'm biased against PJ and I'm slanted against her rants. I also don't call myself a "journalist", which implies that I'm being objective. I'm not. I admit that. That is what separates me from her.

For the record, the output of a "journalist" is not a "blog".

I've often wondered how people reconcile the contradiction between calling themselves Republican and continuing to worship the ground George W. walks on, since he's sold most of the principals of conservatism and the old Republican party down the river.

My dad is the staunchest Republican ever and yesterday he said he decided he was voting against Bush...my jaw dropped...since he ALWAYS votes Republican. For him the last straw was he can't tolerate George W. constantly injecting religion in to his public duties. For him religion is personal and it should never be allowed to creep in to public service. I'm afraid he may have to find a new party since it appears extremist Christians, you know they are like extremist Muslims except they are Christian, seem to have taken over the Republican party.

Anyway I was reading this this story on Linux insider and was interested to see there is actually a theory that seeks to explain how people can maintain fanatical devotion to a lost cause in fact of overwhelming evidence they are wrong, its Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance. This article is actually councilling Linux fanatics to refrain from constantly bashing Windows, especially SP2.

From the article:

"In brief, however, the theory makes two critical predictions. First, people will try to strengthen existing beliefs by rejecting contrary information and actively seeking out supportive information. Second, the energy believers put into doing this will increase as the boundaries between believers and others get stronger."

"In other words, opposition strengthens belief and the more people believe in something, the harder they'll fight to keep that belief no matter how obvious the increasing absurdity of their beliefs and actions might be to the uninvolved."

"Festinger's best example of this process at work involves the response to failed religious prophecy: Do "world enders" change their opinions the day after it doesn't end? You'd think so, but they don't. On the contrary, they change the due date and double their efforts to convince others that their unique knowledge conveys or reflects moral superiority."

So it appears the Bush faithful, though they have encountered case after case that should have shattered their faith in George W. have crossed over a line where these traumas compel them to look ever harder to find reason to justify their faith.

Here for example is a pretty good run down of the probable reality of George W. services in the National Guard. His service should shatter all faith staunch republicans have in him since they cherish there military service. If a Democratic candidate had this record the Republican's would be pilloring him over all day every day. Kerry's service record is way less bad but the media is constantly beating him up over it and they say next to nothing about Bush's military disgrace.

Before all you right wingers hit that reply button to flame me in to charcoal just stop and think for a minute if maybe you've fallen in to the trap of cognitive dissonance.

Last night CSPAN was running ACLU speeches by Richard Clark and Bob Barr in particular. If you know Bob Barr he is one of the more rabid conservatives known to man. It was a mind blowing experience to see him addressing the ACLU and state the obvious, the Bill of Rights is already an endangered species and heading to extinction. He is the staunchest Republican and he mauled the Bush administration, state and local governments and the ever expanding corpratist cultures that is devastating the civil liberties staunch conservatives cherish so much. If I hadn't known who he was I would have though he was a flaming liberal but then I remembered the true conservatives on the far right and the left have pretty much been united by the massive danger the new Republican party poses to the U.S. constitution. If CSPAN replays the ACLU speeches from July Barr's speech and Richard Clark's are good oratory.

I think he just took a moment to sharpen his shovel with that Insider article (here, for those with broken scrollbars). Can't wait to see how much deeper he digs his hole with his next public episode.

He has some kind of followup on Linux Insider. Which, by the way, is not necessarily an aptly named website. They seem to have lots of anti-Linux articles.

Linux

Isnt this Old news, isn't it HERE is a story. I actually posted it yesterday in a comment I intended as a joke, unfortunately it got modded as flamebait

Surely they have WMD's

Sounds to me that it is time for Canada to be LIBERATED

calm down people it was meant to be a joke.

in germany that can't work out as PD doesn't really exist here

I went to a science and engineering school, which explains the lack of Macs.

Science and engineering was traditionally one of the Mac's strong markets. When I was an EE undergrad (87-91), there were far more Macs than PCs in the labs, and some software development classes were done only on Macs. I got to learn Unix, too. As other posters have mentioned, free PC donations from Dell and Intel (with the requirement to run Windows) quickly replaced anything else. It's hard to compete with FREE. Now the fresh grads are all Windows users, and surprised there's anything else.

When Mathworks cancelled MATLAB for the Mac, there was enough outcry that they eventually brought it back. Wolfram had enough sense to keep Mathematica on the Mac all along. There are plenty of people in science, engineering, research, and higher education that are still using Macs. I think MacOS X has begun a Mac resurgence with lots of geeks. It's nice to have Unix and productivity apps on the same box. LOTS of OSS programs just run on MacOS X.

there really are not a lot of Macs in use compared to Windows machines

And that means what, exactly? Linux Insider has definitive proof that scientists should use Macs. :) Are you a lemming, or a scientist? :)

• "Sun has the technology to compete... No one else does."
• "So what can Apple do? What the company should have done two years ago: Hop into bed with Sun."
• He also conspiracy-theorizes that IBM hasn't reached 3.0 GHz not because of technical issues, but because of ego: that the performance gap would be too embarassing. Despite the fact that every other chip has had the same difficulties in transitioning to 90nm...

OK, back on topic: So, having this nitwit tell me who is intelligent, and that we can evaluate such by looking at which platform they use, rings a little hollow. Even if you did think those grammar checkers are accurate, you have to take into account anti-Mac trolls on the Mac websites, and people writing code on Slashdot. Is there a Perl/C/++/#/Java/Python/Ruby parser in any of those algorithms? Idiocy....

As long as long as we're talking about linux under other architectures, I wonder what others think of these Linux Insider editorials speculating about running Linux on the 'Cell' processor for the next Sony Playstation. The bold prediction? "the Linux developer community will, virtually en masse, abandon the x86 in favor of the new machine."

As long as long as we're talking about linux under other architectures, I wonder what others think of these Linux Insider editorials speculating about running Linux on the 'Cell' processor for the next Sony Playstation. The bold prediction? "the Linux developer community will, virtually en masse, abandon the x86 in favor of the new machine."

Real link is here

The Flatlander

Free Advice: Ignore LinuxInsider as a news source.

...and everyone says that Microsoft is paying Secunia to do this, etc. (like with AdTI, though AdTI really is getting funding from MSFT, different story), read this: http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/32370.html
It seems that it was Secunia which released lots of IE bugs, and that Microsoft has had scuffles with them before. Unless someone here has evidence that they got funding from MSFT since then, don't say that.

... unless the interface is documented so that you can plug in a Rio or a HardDiskMan

Can you say 8-track? I knew you could...

Online, LinuxInsider has been having very well written articles.

ZDNet UK and ZDNet AU The Register and occasionally eWeek. The Register is one of the few that actually seems to do any investigative reporting.

I used to read Wired, InfoWorld, InformationWeek regularly, but only rarely now.

Nature, Scientific American, NewScientist, and National Geographic have been pretty good in print.

Not true. Linux TLE is still the default. See for instance this article, though it's a few months old.

This looks like yet another patent to fight. The FAT file system patent is going to be reviewed by the patent thanks to PubPat. This is another one to add to the list.

To anyone familiar with the topic being discussed -- as opposed to a government bureaucrat that couldn't recognize a piece of code if it fell on their head -- it seems obvious that Ken Brown is being disingenuous.

AdTI did not publish Samizdat with the expectation that rabidly pro-Linux developers would embrace it. Its purpose is to provide U.S. leadership with a researched presentation on attribution and intellectual property problems with the hybrid source code model, particularly Linux.

Clearly not, because the pro-Linux developers are aware that the claims, as outlined in this document, are preposterous. "rabidly" is simply a thinly disguised ad hominem attack trying to lend some semblance of credence to claims which deserve none.

The United States is the home of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, an internationally respected agency which contributes to the worldwide effort to protect and govern intellectual property. In addition, the U.S. government is one of the largest patent holders in the world, owning the rights to 20-30,000 patents.

The USPTO cannot easily be said to be "internationally respected", when in fact huge organizations and a tidal wave of dissatisfcation have arisen, because the USPTO grants 95% of all patents filed, has no manpower to assess the validity of patents and has spawned an industry of patent litigation and manipulation. The government's portfolio is relatively unimpressive; IBM, a single US company, has 23,000 active patents and was granted 3415 in 2003 alone. (And, it should be noted, IBM is one of the largest corporate supported of Linux; funny how they are simultaneously the largest patent 'consumer', but also one of Linux's biggest supporters; that in itself seems to imply a disconnection in the documents conclusions)

The disturbing reality is that the hybrid source model depends heavily upon sponging talent from U.S. corporations and/or U.S. proprietary software. Much of this questionable borrowing is a) not in the best interest U.S. corporations b) not in the best interest of IT workers in America c) at a serious expense to the investment community, an entity betting on the success of intellectual property in the marketplace.

This is very cute, and the derogatory language immediately gives away the intent. "Sponging"? Linux inspires grateful contributions of improvements from developers excited to be a part of a phenomenon. That's not "sponging". And I'd like to see Ken Brown justify his argument of theft of proprietary software, which sounds slanderous to me. Note that OSRM now offers intellectual property insurance because their EXTENSIVE review of Linux concluded that it was legally unencumbered. I doubt Ken Brown was so thorough.

Moreover, Brown's paragraphs conclusions about 'best interests' is fallacious. Because with respect to: (a) U.S. Corporations like IBM support Linux because it gives them access to powerful technology that they can build services and other revenue models on top of without forcing them to develop it themselves and Linux inspires more confidence than their proprietary products (such as AIX) ever did; (b) IT workers can benefit enormously from cheaper and more accessible software; expensive proprietary products simply allow soaking customers for IP, which does not benefit IT workers who do less work and see corporations charge more for it; moreover, OSS gives independant and small IT shops the ability to build powerful services on top of openly available tools; I make my living this way (and a good one), and (c) the investment community is irrelevent -- their "bet" on the IP marketplace is not one that government policy makers need to hedge for them; if someone betting on an "IP marketplace", if in fact such a bet has been made, th

everyone here is going to snicker and roll their eyes about how this guy is obviously an idiot since he questions linus, the gpl, linux, etc.

That's not the point. Questioning is good: did Linus really write Linux is a perfectly acceptable question. Is the GPL good and (seperate question) enforcable is a good question. It only becomes foolish when, having gone to your sources and gotten your answers, you still cling to your asinine premise.

...can be found here (it's inlined in the article). Not bad, for RMS. He kinda looks Jedi-ish. Or like a philosophical gnu ;)

There is some more detail including legal views from one of the FSF lawyers here.

AdTI 2002:

"In a paper to be released next week, the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution outlines how open source might facilitate efforts to disrupt or sabotage electronic commerce, air traffic control or even sensitive surveillance systems."

AdTI 2004:

"[Government should] work vigorously to create a true 'free source' code capability program at universities and colleges. This program should go to promote true open source projects [...] The federal government should support a $5 billion budget over ten years to produce a free source code project in partnership with the IT industry and [other governments]" -- linux-'insider'[sic]

After reading this, the Tanenbaum interview and this, there is little doubt that of Brown and the AdTI were determined in their slander campain against Linux from the start. From the AST interview, it is clear that he is just fishing for incriminating quotes. It is well known that initial Linux development took place on (and was inspired by) Minix. With selective quoting, it's likely that he will have AST seemingly accusing Linus of stealing Minix. One of his more persuasive arguments to the laymen will be that it took the highly experienced professor Tanenbaum years to develop Linux, while kid Linus hacked his OS together in 6 months. Of course, he knows this is not a truthful representation, but that doesn't matter as long as it will get him headlines. We (and AST it seems) may regard people like Brown and McBride as dumb and ignorant. But we should beware, these people are of a kind that we do not encounter often day-to-day: people with malicious intend.

There will be no "more modern" AmigaOS. Several months ago Amiga, Inc. sold off its AmigaOS rights to its investor Itech, which in turn sold them to a newly created corporation called KMOS. KMOS does not stand for anything. Its only "product" is AmigaOS. It is incorporated in Delaware, which is a notorious tax and regulation shelter.

Now, there are three things you could believe:
1. That Itech dumped the Amiga IP on a dummy corporation in order to protect its Amiga, Inc. investments from ongoing lawsuits, similar to the Novell/Canopy shuffles. (most likely)
2. Alternatively, that KMOS CEO (and seemingly sole employee) Garry Hare is really serious about moving AmigaOS into the cellphone market. (a little bit likely)
3. Or else, against all likelihood and the public statements of its CEO, that KMOS's primary goal is to get a new, working AmigaOS up and running.

If you believe the last one then I'd like to interest you in some Florida real estate that I'm selling through my own Delaware corporation. Face it, AmigaOS is finally dead this time. Move on to AROS or something, or just stop deluding yourself entirely and move to Mac or Linux or XP.

I saw a great new MS ad in Information Week today, where it shows that Linux costs 400 times more per second than Windows Server 2003 for webserving and file sharing. But the comparasin is W2k3 on 2 900mhz XEON processors and Linux running on a z900 mainframe, so it boils down to the fact that a z900 costs a ton more than a couple low end XEON processors.... I laughed pretty hard at that one.

In fact, there appears to be an entertaining article about the whole ad.

I thought Microsoft was secretly SCO's biggest investor, at least that's what everyone else still believes.

A story with similarly irritating links was posted on Slashdot the other week - and it was on a linux-related site too.

The advertisers seem to think the only way we'll notice the adverts is for them to annoy the hell out of us. Yes, we'll notice them, but what are we going to think of them?

I thought that image was very important for businesses - I think one of the reasons Google has been so successful, and therefore its advertising, is that people have decided you can trust it. If I see a simple, nicely worded advertisment that doesn't leap out at me (or crawl across the page) and which is actually relevant to whatever I'm reading, I'm going to think more highly of the company paying for it - even if I don't actually click on the link.

Newspaper advertisments, billboards and suchlike don't rely on clickthroughs - they rely on projecting an image of a company. If that image is one of extreme aggravation, then you're not going to think much of them or their products...

You sure don't understand basic economics. The vendor will charge whatever the market is willing to pay, no matter how much it cost to make the product.

That's why about 90% of the Windows- and Office-prices is pure profit while they are losing money on XBox, WinCE and many other things.

If anything, the punishments will lower prices for Europeans because of increased competition. Just look at Thailand where Microsoft dropped their Win+Office prices from 600$ to 37$: http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/32110.html

Always remember: Only the loyal customers get ripped off. Those who for example run their servers on Unix get huge discounts (like Munich)

Synopsis:
Microsoft reacts to marketing pressure to make design decisions favoring running a few processes faster but then finds itself forced first to layer in backward compatibility and then to engage in a patch-and-kludge upgrade process until the code becomes so bloated, slow and unreliable that wholesale replacement is again called for.

Given that one is clearly not the same as the other, the real question is, "Why is making money and making an effective OS the same?"

(Answer: They aren't; globally they look similar but they cause much different local decisions. You won't catch Linux being anti-competitive, whereas Microsoft has been proven anti-competitive in court several times. There's one difference for you, and yes, this directly plays out in code quality. If you'd like more details on why this is true, I'd recommend this rather good article on the subject.)

Before making such a bold statement, name two companies that have succeeded selling an operating system.

Microsoft
Wind River
TRON - article on ITRON

That's three.. what were you saying now?

I'm getting less than 3M total Linux installations in the article. How can that be if linux accounts for 29 percent of all server installations?