What we see here is just one more guy who simply cannot believe that open-sourced software is more secure then proprietary one (Just like the old argument of some people - mainly the less mathematically knowledgeable suits - who can't believe in the security of OS encryption software, after all the algorithm is readable by everyone and therefore unsecure).
In reality, the original patch from Olli was a good chance for moving in the bazaar scheme not only to processing power but also to client development, since it was a simple wrapper which didn't do anything special itself, but enabled other programmers to write their own Fat Fourier Transformation algorithms for special chips.
If S@h would have allowed patching the software (or had even made the client OS) we could now have dozens of different clients tuned for every imaginable Streaming Extension, DSP or multiprocessor enviroment. And the SETI@home project could have also been a starter for future similar projects which could have used all the power of the specialized out there.
Now for the defense of the project heads: There have been multiple malicious tries by individuals in the past who tried to get their rating up by cracking the protocol and sending bogus data to the server. This perhaps explains why they're this paranoid.
I'm a little afraid, that, as soon as KDE (Linux) has its browser integrated into the standard file-manager, Microsoft might take this as a proof that a Web-browser does indeed belong into the operating system and that bundling IE with Windows was completely legal and simply ahead of its time (which is a proof of Microsoft's innovative powers) This could perhaps even turn the outcome of the DOJ investigation which would be VERY bad news.
The article on LinuxWorld shows quite well how the majority of the world sees the Linux (== GNU for them) effort.
They focus on Linux simply being somethin other than Windoze rather than accepting that a there are quite a few people who try to enhance their personal freedom by creating software which doesn't somehow strangle the users by forcing them to have an exact look on the number of needed licenses or by forcing them to wait patiently for the publisher until he decides to produce a badly needed patch.
But there is also too few information on that subject provided by 'standard' media (like NY Times etc.) There should really be an effort to make it clear how we see that the software industry (and possibly other ones) should work, namely by giving every user the chance to use whatever tool they like best in the way they like the best (while still protecting the rights of others) rather than focusing on how to get as much money as possible as fast as possible to the managers and shareholders.
This doesn't seem all that professional. I haven't got the slightest idea what a northeast corner of a world map is. If they produce such deeds they should at least make it look like somewhat professional.
A show like that one is currently running on swiss TV. A number of people selected mainly for their sex (50:50) and apparently not much tested for both social capabilities and knowledge about wilderness has been cast to a secluded island about a month ago, where they need to survive for up to 7 weeks. The only supply they get delivered is just enough rice to make sure they don't starve. There is therefore a big motivation to hunt/fish and forage for other food to fill and enrich their menus. The show has until now been quite fun to watch since they need to innovate fairly often to be able to find food, build houses etc. (just one of these challenges: how does one get to the coconuts hanging some 10 meters above you on a nearly perfectly smooth palm tree, no problem for people living e.g. in the Sahara but for europeans?). The show gives also quite some insights into the life in a stone-age society. Living from mostly the same food (be it rice like in Asia or Corn in America) with few diversities, working with crude tools in an effort to produce a little of luxury goods (even a good fish belongs to that or a stable hut protecting you from the weather). Quite a few of these people apparently misjudged the idea of getting a few weeks of free R&R on an island (together with a lot of/. readers) and were quite shocked when they understood the reality of living in such a way. Anyway, I like the show and I'm sure most of you are also going to appreciate it, be it just for entertainment or for sociological/ethological studies (which it is quite good for...)
Slashdot Mirror
What we see here is just one more guy who simply cannot believe that open-sourced software is more secure then proprietary one (Just like the old argument of some people - mainly the less mathematically knowledgeable suits - who can't believe in the security of OS encryption software, after all the algorithm is readable by everyone and therefore unsecure).
In reality, the original patch from Olli was a good chance for moving in the bazaar scheme not only to processing power but also to client development, since it was a simple wrapper which didn't do anything special itself, but enabled other programmers to write their own Fat Fourier Transformation algorithms for special chips.
If S@h would have allowed patching the software (or had even made the client OS) we could now have dozens of different clients tuned for every imaginable Streaming Extension, DSP or multiprocessor enviroment. And the SETI@home project could have also been a starter for future similar projects which could have used all the power of the specialized out there.
Now for the defense of the project heads: There have been multiple malicious tries by individuals in the past who tried to get their rating up by cracking the protocol and sending bogus data to the server. This perhaps explains why they're this paranoid.
I'm a little afraid, that, as soon as KDE (Linux) has its browser integrated into the standard file-manager, Microsoft might take this as a proof that a Web-browser does indeed belong into the operating system and that bundling IE with Windows was completely legal and simply ahead of its time (which is a proof of Microsoft's innovative powers)
This could perhaps even turn the outcome of the DOJ investigation which would be VERY bad news.
The article on LinuxWorld shows quite well how the majority of the world sees the Linux (== GNU for them) effort.
They focus on Linux simply being somethin other than Windoze rather than accepting that a there are quite a few people who try to enhance their personal freedom by creating software which doesn't somehow strangle the users by forcing them to have an exact look on the number of needed licenses or by forcing them to wait patiently for the publisher until he decides to produce a badly needed patch.
But there is also too few information on that subject provided by 'standard' media (like NY Times etc.) There should really be an effort to make it clear how we see that the software industry (and possibly other ones) should work, namely by giving every user the chance to use whatever tool they like best in the way they like the best (while still protecting the rights of others) rather than focusing on how to get as much money as possible as fast as possible to the managers and shareholders.
This doesn't seem all that professional. I haven't got the slightest idea what a northeast corner of a world map is. If they produce such deeds they should at least make it look like somewhat professional.
A show like that one is currently running on swiss TV. A number of people selected mainly for their sex (50:50) and apparently not much tested for both social capabilities and knowledge about wilderness has been cast to a secluded island about a month ago, where they need to survive for up to 7 weeks. The only supply they get delivered is just enough rice to make sure they don't starve. There is therefore a big motivation to hunt/fish and forage for other food to fill and enrich their menus. The show has until now been quite fun to watch since they need to innovate fairly often to be able to find food, build houses etc. (just one of these challenges: how does one get to the coconuts hanging some 10 meters above you on a nearly perfectly smooth palm tree, no problem for people living e.g. in the Sahara but for europeans?). The show gives also quite some insights into the life in a stone-age society. Living from mostly the same food (be it rice like in Asia or Corn in America) with few diversities, working with crude tools in an effort to produce a little of luxury goods (even a good fish belongs to that or a stable hut protecting you from the weather). Quite a few of these people apparently misjudged the idea of getting a few weeks of free R&R on an island (together with a lot of /. readers) and were quite shocked when they understood the reality of living in such a way. Anyway, I like the show and I'm sure most of you are also going to appreciate it, be it just for entertainment or for sociological/ethological studies (which it is quite good for...)