Slashdot Mirror

I've seen that 30V figure mentioned twice now. Where did that come from? All the modern (TTL voltage) CMOS parts I've ever seen had a maximum bias voltage of 5.8 or 6V (OK, with the exception of Vpp on PROMS). No individual pin is spec'ed to tolerate voltage above the Vcc(+5)(+3 or less on RAMs and CPUs nowdays!) supply nor below ground. I once encountered a power supply that had the unusual "feature" (more likely a regulatory failure) of ramping its +5 output to about 8V on startup, for only maybe 15 or 20 mS before it fell back where it belonged, but this burned up two motherboard/disk sets before I figured out WTF was going on. _Very_ few things in a computer cabinet can withstand a 30V bias. Maybe a 30V ESD pulse? This is nothing, simply moving around in fairly dry air will result in >300V static potential, and you'll never feel it, either.

That said, I'll agree that the ESD hazard is overstated.

A few simple rules keep me out of trouble:

Keep a rather nervous frame of mind, which will make your hands sweat, or turn up the AC a bit. No, not so hot that you drip or anything. Sweat is an ionic solution (salt) and a natural antistatic coating for the human body.

Sit down. Sit at the table, keep your feet still, put your elbows on the table. Standing beside a bench shuffling your feet on the floor is a pretty good way to generate a static charge. Sticking your then-charged hand into a box, without first touching the box and discharging the static, is asking for it.

Hold the cabinet in one hand and the component you're dealing with in the other. If your task requires both hands, lean an elbow or forearm on the edge of the cabinet. Try to keep contact with a metal surface (one painted with EMI/RFI suppression paint will do) of the cabinet as much as possible. This eliminates static charge, much as a bracelet with a wire would, without cuffing you to the cabinet. "Grounding" the bench and/or cabinet is irrelevant. Equalizing the static electronic potential between your body and the gear you're working on is vital.

To pass (unbagged) equipment from one person to another, touch the person's hand first, to discharge any potential difference, then you can touch the gear they're holding. Be sure to explain this as a static precaution so they won't think you're gay.

Keep the gear bagged as much as possible. Keep disk drives in their shock packaging, this is usually antistatic as well. The spectacle of stacks of naked motherboards sitting on shelves at the local used hardware dealer makes me queasy. I don't buy that guy's motherboards.

I leave the power supply plugged into a grounded outlet while working on the machine.

IMU a modern ATX PS doesn't ever really fully power down the motherboard. Touching (with your hands) the 3/5/12 volts you'll find there isn't a hazard, but working with metal tools isn't such a good idea. You're of course safe with a (now old-fashioned) AT power supply that _fully_ shuts off.

"_Nothing_ works after you let out the Magic Smoke(tm)."

Ohh... if only AT&T was a member of the BSA. They already own the Death Star

I don't know who Eric Flint is, and I don't know who you are. You should care what he thinks if you think he makes good points. If he doesn't make a sound argument then just pass it off as part of Stugeon's 90%.

Famous people don't have a stranglehold on intelligent opinions, and judging from the famous people I've seen the opposite could be considered true.

Ok, so something like this: When you use Linux you have your hardware working for the next decade and then the recycling is already paid for, while when you use Windows the Environment XTerminator, you produse waste after six months when you software gets to slow and when you have to get another GHz to run a text editor. A related slogan would be: using Linux, you only care about the Moore's Law - using Windows, there's also Gates's Law. What do you think?

Ok, so something like this: When you use Linux you have your hardware working for the next decade and then the recycling is already paid for, while when you use Windows the Environment XTerminator, you produse waste after six months when you software gets to slow and when you have to get another GHz to run a text editor. A related slogan would be: using Linux, you only care about the Moore's Law - using Windows, there's also Gates's Law. What do you think?

Existing operating systems needed to be reinstalled about once a year [...]

[Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

--Source

I remember reading a long long time ago about developments that were looking at moving cycles across to other processors (i.e., big nasty graphics cards) that could be used to offset workloads when they weren't being fully utilised (99% of the time you aren't game playing). Anybody know what happened?

This rings a bell. The phenomenon is nothing new (note the date below!) and known as Wheel of Reincarnation. Quoting the Jargon File 4.3.1:

wheel of reincarnation
[coined in a paper by T.H. Myer and I.E. Sutherland "On the Design of Display Processors", Comm. ACM, Vol. 11, no. 6, June 1968)] Term used to refer to a well-known effect whereby function in a computing system family is migrated out to special-purpose peripheral hardware for speed, then the peripheral evolves toward more computing power as it does its job, then somebody notices that it is inefficient to support two asymmetrical processors in the architecture and folds the function back into the main CPU, at which point the cycle begins again.

Isn't your computer facility equipped with a big room??

Ian

Wow! It looks like cburley is guilty of the kind of FUD Distribution that the linux-o-philes hate.

If you're not going to fully support the software you make, there are plenty of jobs at Target to fill your "free" time.

"free, ad-hoc" support. What a joke. Ad-hoc support is always inconsistant, frequently self-contradictory, and usually way over the help-seekers head.

cburley seems to be hopelessly engrained into thinking that software support=source code access

If cburley's attitude was taken to the process of changing the air-filter on my car, I'd be an expert at rebuilding Honda engines by now - which is NOT what I want to do with my time; I want my system to work, reliably, with little fuss, and not have to learn Linux Kernel programming to keep my system working.

One thing that's interesting about the analogy is that while all cars are more or less equally complex, in the same general ways, operating systems (and by extension, distributions) actually compete in areas like ease of installation, ease of use and ease of administration.

"Choice D" is what everyone who buys commercial software products does. You PAY for the product (!= free, as in speech OR Stolen Beer) and get support from that company, if at all. Software support for choices A thru C is shotty, unreliable and teduous at best.

SCENARIO 1: 1) Linux Distributions that are "free" (as in your friend's Beer) do not come with support, but you can give it away.
SCENARIO 2: 1) Big software company gets someone into a management position who is a rabid Linux user/coder/penguine fetishist and convinces the company that they should have a Linux Distro
SCENARIO 3: 1) Group of Linux coders/penguine fetishists get together and form a company to make and distribute their own brand of Linux

Your second scenario has only one example that I know of--Corel. They failed, but who cares? Xandros might yet succeed, and the Debian project is still chugging right along, providing "orphaned" Corel Linux users with all the updated software they need.

The third scenario, in which a bunch of geeks form a company to create an incompatible distribution, is just one example of how companies can naturally fail in an open, free, non-monopolistic market. Incompatibility is a bad idea for a young company--if they go that route they probably deserve to fail. If you're early on the scene, like Red Hat and Slackware were, you have the chance to create de facto standards that other vendors adhere to. Wow, capitalism at work!

Support for open-source products is so poor, inconsistent and unreliable that one should consider it virually non-existent.

In conclusion; if I use something that someone has made, whether I paid for it was given to me as a gift (as open-source is), I would expect that "someone" to help me fix it, and in a manner that I would understand.

For anyone reading this and not sure of what SNAFU is, from the jargon file:

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/SNAFU -principle.html

SNAFU principle /sna'foo prin'si-pl/ n.

[from a WWII Army acronym for `Situation Normal, All Fucked Up'] "True communication is possible only between equals, because inferiors are more consistently rewarded for telling their superiors pleasant lies than for telling the truth." -- a central tenet of Discordianism, often invoked by hackers to explain why authoritarian hierarchies screw up so reliably and systematically. The effect of the SNAFU principle is a progressive disconnection of decision-makers from reality. This lightly adapted version of a fable dating back to the early 1960s illustrates the phenomenon perfectly:
In the beginning was the plan,
and then the specification;
And the plan was without form,
and the specification was void.

And darkness
was on the faces of the implementors thereof;
And they spake unto their leader,
saying:
"It is a crock of shit,
and smells as of a sewer."

And the leader took pity on them,
and spoke to the project leader:
"It is a crock of excrement,
and none may abide the odor thereof."

And the project leader
spake unto his section head, saying:
"It is a container of excrement,
and it is very strong, such that none may abide it."

The section head then hurried to his department manager,
and informed him thus:
"It is a vessel of fertilizer,
and none may abide its strength."

The department manager carried these words
to his general manager,
and spoke unto him
saying:
"It containeth that which aideth the growth of plants,
and it is very strong."

And so it was that the general manager rejoiced
and delivered the good news unto the Vice President.
"It promoteth growth,
and it is very powerful."

The Vice President rushed to the President's side,
and joyously exclaimed:
"This powerful new software product
will promote the growth of the company!"

And the President looked upon the product,
and saw that it was very good.

After the subsequent and inevitable disaster, the suits protect themselves by saying "I was misinformed!", and the implementors are demoted or fired. Compare Conway's Law.

1. it usually takes a whole support team to install a geeks' workstation

1. Installation and maintenance requires 4-5 times the bandwidth a 'normal' OS would require

1. Linux was deliberately made completely incompatible and inoperatible with turnkey solutions like MS Exchange or MS SQL server. Investments in these products are therefore voided the minute you start rolling out Linux.

1. Applications developed in Perl or C, the languages of the linux community have proven to be slow,
2. unreliable, insecure and headaching complicated. Once developed and debugged, nobody is able to understand the code.

• All the 'geeks' wearing tux t-shirts are actually MIS support guys who are still studying for their MCSE exam.
  
• 'The screaming fast Linux machines at work' are actually refurbished workstations at a separated network segment, not allowed on the production network since every Linux (l)user seems to need nmap [insecure.org] to perform normal work-related computer operations.
  
• All the 'cool' Apache web servers are actually IIS machines with forged host headers. (yes, you can do that in IIS without recompiling anything. Heck, I lived for years without a C compiler and still do. )
  
  
• For the rare instance where a free UNIX is actually used in a production environment, management has smartened up and BSD is usually installed.

In other words, alternative medicine yes, homeopathy, no.

That's the problem - everything from homeopathy and "crystal healing", to herbs, low-fat diets and massage therapy, is classified as "alternative" when compared to industry-standard cut 'n' drug practices[0].

Some "alternative" therapies (herbs, massage, acupuncture[1]) have plausable physiological mechanisms. Of course, not all therapies in these categories have the effects that are sometimes claimed for them; but the idea that eating a plant, getting rubbed, or being pricked with needles can have definite effects on the flesh should not be surprising to anyone.

Others (such as many ch'i/ki/energy therapies that involve interaction between the pracitioner and the patient) have a more psychosomatic[2] action - disease and healing have a larger psychological and sociological component than we often think. Unfortunately sometimes practioners of these therapies focus their explanations on mystical energies or somesuch, and skeptical investigators often focus on these deficient explanations rather than on the question of whether the patient obtains relief.

I practice reiki. I've found it effective, on myself and others, for minor physical and emotional disturbances. But I believe it works though mild bodywork, the physiological reaction to touch, and the powerful healing effect of ritual, and not by mystical energy flowing into my crown chakra - but still, the best way to obtain the necessary state of mind is to think about mystical energy flowing into my crown chakra. It's sort of like what ESR talks about in "Dancing with the Gods". As he puts it,

Magic is loose in the world. It is not the magic of fantasy -- no would-be violators of the laws of physics need apply. Real magic acts in and through human agents. The two forms of practical magic are healing and divination. Healing works because human minds have more control over their bodies than we normally think; divination works because humans know and perceive more than they are consciously aware of.

...

Feel free to hypothesize that I've merely learned how to enter some non-ordinary mental states that change my body language, disable a few mental censors, and have me putting out signals that other people interpret in terms of certain material in their own unconscious minds.

Fine. You've explained it. Correctly, even. But you can't do it!

And as long as you stick with the sterile denotative language of psychology, and the logical mode of the waking mind, you won't be able to --- because you can't reach and program the unconscious mind that way.

Another category of "alternative" therapies would be those that are completely self-activated placebos. Homoepathy would seem to fit here. (However, be aware that many remedies marketed as homoepathic do contain enough active material to have an effect, and should really be classified as herbal.) Some may be presented by believers, some ("psychic surgery") may be presented by con men.

Finally there are some that not only don't work, but are actively unhealthy.

It's a pretty broad range of practices to be lumped under one label.

([0]Which certainly have their place. If my body gets majorly damaged, please take me to the local trauma center and drug and cut me as appropriate. However, when all you have is a scalpel, everyone looks like a surgical candidate...)

([1] Speaking strictly of endorphin release and nerve stimulation, not meridians of ch'i, which would fall into the next category.)

([2] Which means "mind-body", not "it's all in the mind".)

We all know that fruit flies multiply at an alarming rate. Now consider, in turn, that time flies like an arrow -- if said experiments go awry, it could be discovered that fruit flies like a BANANANANANANANA...

check this out.

ESR did this piece about setting his wife (a windows-junkie-lawyer) up under Linux/KDE ... it's amusing, not entirely serious, but might prove helpful.

bemis

-The fellow who thinks he knows it all is especially annoying to those of us who do. - Harold Coffin

Note that these people (at least those who are actually likely to get the cert), are probably there to become programmers doing bread-and-butter database business apps, not Sysadmins doing cool things with Windows Terminal Server (it's possible).

They are going to do VB with SQL Server or local Jet databases, and there's nothing in the *nix world that can compete with that combo in time-to-first-pay-cheque. That's a combination of a lot of different factors (including market size) that do not exist in the *nix world.

True realization that *nix is better comes (as opposed to ./ing zealotry), zen-like, after many deep experiences. In a two day program, just read them excerpts from The Jargon File, and hope the better ones join the fold some day.

What are the actual figures for guns preventing physical assault?

Do we really want alpha- and beta-level projects released and visible to people who will immediately compare them to Microsoft Windows?

It may be after the fact, but it's better than finding out that the flaw has existed for several months.

I don't think anyone ever said more eyes make bugs shallow

Or, less formally, ``Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.'' I dub this: ``Linus's Law''.

from http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/hacke r.html

hacker n.

[originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe] 1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. 2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming. 3. A person capable of appreciating hack value. 4. A person who is good at programming quickly. 5. An expert at a particular program, or one who frequently does work using it or on it; as in `a Unix hacker'. (Definitions 1 through 5 are correlated, and people who fit them congregate.) 6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example. 7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations. 8. [deprecated] A malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive information by poking around. Hence `password hacker', `network hacker'. The correct term for this sense is cracker.

Seems to me if "hackers" are using IRC could be to the advantage of all those who want advances in technology...

Uhhhh, this really is no fun without a simulated punch-card reader so you can mess with the poor dufus who has to feed the cards.

1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." Compare kook. 3. n. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.

Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.

The use of `troll' in either sense is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning "Do not feed the troll" as part of a followup to troll postings.

1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." Compare kook. 3. n. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.

Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.

The use of `troll' in either sense is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning "Do not feed the troll" as part of a followup to troll postings.

1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." Compare kook. 3. n. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.

Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.

The use of `troll' in either sense is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning "Do not feed the troll" as part of a followup to troll postings.

1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." Compare kook. 3. n. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.

Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.

The use of `troll' in either sense is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning "Do not feed the troll" as part of a followup to troll postings.

1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." Compare kook. 3. n. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.

Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.

The use of `troll' in either sense is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning "Do not feed the troll" as part of a followup to troll postings.

1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." Compare kook. 3. n. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.

Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.

The use of `troll' in either sense is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning "Do not feed the troll" as part of a followup to troll postings.

1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." Compare kook. 3. n. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.

Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.

The use of `troll' in either sense is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning "Do not feed the troll" as part of a followup to troll postings.

Get an encyclopedia. A troll is a mythological creature [britannica.com]. By the way, I couldn't find your definition of troll at either www.dictionary.com [dictionary.com] or www.webster.com [webster.com]. What dictionary were you looking at?

Try the Jargon file wise-guy:
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/troll . tml

I make no claims about the validity of this fear; I only note that it allows the minions of evil, who are mostly unconcerned about guns or babies, to suck up these peoples' votes.

I wish people stopped using the word "evil".
The moment you have to accuse your opponents of being evil, you should stop and think.

I know this is not exactly the same thing, but consider Godwin's Law
Maybe it is time to make an amendment.
The world evil gets thrown around a lot these days.

When the US statements starts to sound like certain religious-nut-countries I get scared...
Don't say you haven't noticed this too.

No, you should go here for slack.

From the article:

Michael Godfrey, a University of Waterloo scientist, is equally hesitant but still finds the Lehman approach useful. In 2000, Godfrey and a fellow Waterloo researcher, Qiang Tu, released a study showing that several open-source software programs, including the Linux kernel and fetchmail, were growing at geometric rates, breaking the inverse squared barrier constraining most traditionally built programs.

Is fetchmail complex enough that it needs to be growing geometrically? I mean yeah, fetchmail does a lot, and I do know what "geometric" means. Still, I doubt the world of email is changing fast enough that you'd want to choose that as your example of out-of-control software maintenance.

[Insert obligatory ESR goading.]

Wow, really? So did I! I got it for $4 on eBay, and since I had bought some other stuff, I got shipping for it for free! And Commander Keen is a pretty good deal at $20, too...

But Napster? Man, I don't know what I'd do with that. If it was an intelligent, peer-to-peer, firewall- and proxy-friendly, fast, resuming, easy-to-use file-sharing system, that'd be one thing, but to today's internet users, it's almost as much of a folk tale as, say, B1FF...

I'll take a shot...

Think Panama Canal, Hoover Dam, the Great Pyramids, walking on the Moon, the tower of Babel... Throughout history, humans in large groups who come together, find a way to work toward a common goal, and actually work without a what's-in-it-for-me attitude accomplish wonders.

OK, yes, many of the accomplishments I mentioned had paid workers, but in most cases there was a cause (racing to the Moon out of patriotism, avoiding a death sentence from Pharaoh... etc.)

In all of these efforts, the sense of being part of something greater was there.

Just as termites can rally around a queen and build giant mounds complete with air conditioning (really, Google-search it), humans in large numbers have altered the Earth's geography and climate. It's only natural that humans in large numbers working toward a common goal (be it a sense of belonging, or just to beat MS) could successfully put together something as complex and large-scale as an OS.

... Not that I'd categorize Linux as a wonder of the world. :)

ESR took a better shot at explaining it in his book, The Cathedral and the Bazaar.

/

.

/

.

The views expressed in this post are my own and aren't connected to the views and opinions of my employers.

Um ... you may be doing this the hard way - the Jargon file simply adds the 'site:' modifier to the query, and gets site-specific results back. No HTML parsing required. Description is here.

Those in glass houses should not throw stones.

I have worked with Windows XP, as well as several versions of Linux, for more than a year now. From my experiences, some of the concepts you propose in this comment should be addressed, in the interest of fairness: 1) It is the buggiest, most unstable operating system ever created for IBM PC (c). It is not hard to see why.

Where I work, our mail server runs on Slackware Linux. It has been running non-stop (barring a large-scale blackout 6 months ago) for over a year now.When it did lose power, it took less than 5 minutes to get the server up and running, with no long-term damage. We have not had the server's security compromised, and several attempts at running port sniffers and virus outbreaks have found no holes.

An online friend of mine works in an insurance company that runs IIS on the servers. He complains to me about regular crashes on the server when a notable email virus is released. On top of that, several Administrative functions that have existed for several versions of Novell Netware and Linux are still not available to Windows users, including: cleaner user directory administration, third-party integration into network environments (he regularly gets "reminded" by Microsoft that everything would work better with their much more expensive software), and potentially costly support outside the company.

Most linux developers lost their saving throw versus pathetic nerddom a long time ago. You'll find them huddled in their parent's basements, living on candy bars and Captain runch. You wouldn't let these feebleminded boys ow your lawn, so why should you allow them to design your operating system?

Saving throw versus nerddom? Personally, making a reference to D&D alone would make one guilty of nerddom. Not that there is anything wrong with being knowledgeable about obscure things. My "nerddom" is helping to pay my bills and help the people I work with do more than just stare blankly at their monitors. As for letting them on people's lawns, many people let me into their homes to help them learn about personal computers, whether it be Windows, MacOS, or Linux. As for designing operating systems, please explain the designers of Windows XP, who need extensive knowledge of several coding languages, networking protocols, and hardware functionality. By your apparent definition, they can be just as nerdy as Linux users.

Look at the calender, people. The year is 2002, not 1979. Nerdly losers are, well, losers. There will be no golden pocket protectors for this decade's foul crop. Distributing your source code for free is just an indication that you realize how much it sucks, have accepted the aforementioned suckage, and are moving on to your next job at Denny's.

Right about now, I feel the morbid urge for the above-mentioned Anonymous Coward to read the subtitle for Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff That Matters. This was intended to be an information source for people with tech jobs or tech interests stay informed about current technology developments, as well as geek culture. If you hate geekdom so much, then please tell me why you feel the need to skulk around where you don't like to be. As for source code, have you tried designing software for Windows? Have you found out in the middle of a project that several key elements that you were working on are not available before you buy $200+ licenses for the permission to use Microsoft's source code? Open source gives programmers the opportunity to innovate without having to worry about expensive license/legal fees and they know that their work won't be absorbed into a large corporation that will not even acknowledge their work. I prefer using open-source "suckage" than using proprietary software that I can never truly create with because of legal boundaries.

But there is something you can do about it. Visit your local computer store today and buy a licensed copy of Windows XP, the most innovative operating system ever created.

Tell this to the hundreds of people that I hae helped since the OS came out. Windows XP gets rid of the 9x kernel, which many programs were dependant one. Look at how many programs have a 95/98/Me version and a NT/2K/XP version. This is because the fundamental level of the two forms of operating system work differently. Yes, this is where nerdly knowledge comes in. But this geekly info help companies not make several-million-dollar software acquisitions, only to find out that their proprietary database and design software do not work with XP. Then tell the users that the layout of the operating system. Sure, you can just scoff and tell them to learn to adapt. But try telling this to several dozen people, who can tell your next-in-command that you're not being helpful enough.

It's hard to get help when your operating system is created by a bunch of teenagers who can't even match their socks or get a date.

One of the main "nerds" involved with Linux is Linus Torvalds. He's more than 30 years old, married, and has two kids. According to the pictures, his socks seem matched enough. On top of that, where do you think he got two daughters from? So it's not like he hasn't dated.

But when you're using Windows XP, customer service will gladly help you with any problem you may encounter. Tell you what. Try reading this, and tell me tech support will be glad to help anyone's problems. This is also assuming that tech support knows what your problem is. Have you tried supporting a customer whose only contribution is complain that "it doesn't work" and then whine at you that they can't play solitaire? Do that for hours at a time for several dozen users, and try to remain "glad and helpful".

Remember, linux is only "free" if your time is of no value.

Linux is "free" because there are no site licenses, expensive over-the-shelf distributions, and because you can download it for free. It also isn't restricted by programming and distribution licenses. On top of all of that, try rummaging through SLashdot about some of the lawsuits and gaping security holes Microsoft products have. Then try the same for the various Linux products. The read will do you good.

Also, linux is only secure if your computer is not connected to the internet.

Three letters for you: IIS. Need I say more?

Give up your futile, sexually repellent nerdisms and return to the company that started it all.

Sexually repellant? What stereotypes are you basing all of this on? I have been dating a lovely woman for about a year now. She has yet to complain. We'll leave it at that.

Usually, I blow the low-rating comments off. They're modded down for a reason. But every once in a while, someone talks without researching what they say. I'm guilty of it at times, yes. When I do, I make an effort to make amends. Given this, I took the previous page or so to give you information with which to better inform you of the other portions of the Operating System industry. You seem to really like Windows XP. Good for you. You found something that works well with what you have. However, from past experiences, upgrading any operating system will not go as planned every time. You don't blame the user, the computer, or even the operating system. Technology is not flawless. With that in mind, make sure you have a balanced view of all the sides involved before jumping onto a pedestal. Remember that, before you throw that rock, that your glass house is made of Windows. Windows can break.

There are three major points for my perfect email client:

1. Look and feel the same in X and console, so that I could make use of both xpdf/mozilla and remote mail reading.
2. Localization. Being non-native english speaker, this one is pretty important.
3. Keyboard navigation

For the last 4 years I am extremely satisfied with the combination:
- fetchmail (getting mail)
- procmail (sorting mail into mailboxes)
- mutt (reading/replying)
- vim (editing)

When it comes down to analyze mailbox and generate some reports, like for example, in the case with antivirus reports, I use perl with Mail::MboxParser module.

For all my friends, who need GUI to read email, I recommend using Mozilla and or Evolution

It is inappropriate to link to the Jargon File's main corpus....It is several megabytes, and costs the site maintainer mucho bandwidth so you can browse one entry.

Use this: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/hack. html

Maybe its not that big an issue, but I know that myself and everyone else who has suffered through 2 hour long essay tests finds that their writing hand is in a great deal of pain. I don't have this problem with a decent keyboard.

Also there's another issue I hav't seen mentioned. Unless the pen functions as a mouse as well, you will either have to learn to use a mouse with your off hand or switch back and forth.

If it doubles as a mouse, would that mean you'd be tapping the pen against something non stop while playing quake? That would require a lot more muscle movement than a mouse finger click. It kind of reminds me of when everyone thought touch screens would be a great idea until they discovered Gorilla Arm.

How do you tell the difference between characters like this:
", ', |, l, 1, `, \
:,;,.,,
-, _,
(, [
You could probably get some of the above using context but that will only get you so far.

Quiz: name one innovative Linux/free software/Open Source(TM) technology.
What's that I hear? The sweet sound of silence.

No, it's the sweet sound of SAMBA.

Microsoft is afraid of the GPL because it thinks, for no particular reason, that it is anti-capitalist.
What is your particular reason that the GNU philosophy of free software is pro-capitalism? Oh. "No particular reason?" I see now... double standards.

It is anti-capitalis; or, at the least, not pro-capitalist. Take a look at ESR's Homesteading the Noosphere . He does a very good job of explaining how the open-source community works. In essence, it is based not on an exchange-for-goods culture, where status is won by being the one with the most toys, but on a gift culture, where status is won by giving the best toys to the community.

One of the things he discusses is that this type of culture can only arise when people are not concerned with meeting their basic needs. Since they are not all that concerned with "getting stuff," focus turns to "getting prestiege."

A lot of this is fairly common sense, if you think about it, but this paper is well thought out, well written, and makes a facinating read.

ESR's favourite argument against gun control can be found here.

As a Brit, living in England, I can honestly say that it would not bother me at all to put that sign in my window. The only reason for not doing so would be that I might scare some little old ladies into thinking that there was some reason to need such a sign. In this country, there really isn't.

Aside from the at-best-questionable disirability of automatic error-correction, you guys have surely seen this, right? There are times when you'd really rather have the machine ask you to explicitly what you wanted instead of having it try to guess, with potentially dire consequences.

It's always been a stretch. The trick to any good AFJ is to come up with a good, yet outlandish, prank, and a delivery so brilliant and so believable that people fall for it, such as the infamous write only memory ad.

SEX /seks/ [Sun Users' Group & elsewhere] n. 1. Software EXchange. A technique invented by the blue-green algae hundreds of millions of years ago to speed up their evolution, which had been terribly slow up until then. Today, SEX parties are popular among hackers and others (of course, these are no longer limited to exchanges of genetic software). In general, SEX parties are a Good Thing, but unprotected SEX can propagate a virus.

And so on ..... :)

has something to say on this matter:

bondage-and-discipline language n.

Unix had the benefit of being developed, at any given moment, under one or a couple roofs, not amongst thousands of volunteers around the country with wildy different perspectives.

Check out Raymond'sThe Cathedral and the Bazaar He actually makes this point; the bazaar model only becomes viable after there is a code base to work on. Design has to come first.

On the other hand, it may just be the tip of the iceberg.

The Right Thing was in the Jargon File long before Carmack picked it up.

Uhm, no, it is you who does not understand terminology. But thank you for attempting to correct me, it really is quite fun.

Virus Definition

Worm definition

A virus has absolutely no requirement to reproduce itself, only embed. If a virus is embedded in an application, it is a Trojan Horse virus.

Do me a favor, from now on, even if you think you are absolutely 100% right do a quick check against the jargon files before arguing definitions, k?

Uhm, no, it is you who does not understand terminology. But thank you for attempting to correct me, it really is quite fun.

Virus Definition

Worm definition

A virus has absolutely no requirement to reproduce itself, only embed. If a virus is embedded in an application, it is a Trojan Horse virus.

Do me a favor, from now on, even if you think you are absolutely 100% right do a quick check against the jargon files before arguing definitions, k?