Come on, man. Think beyond the effects on you alone, and look at the big picture.
You're right, it is about freedom. The restrictions on that freedom that would effect you and many others directly include (but aren't limited to):
Keeping you from viewing/listen to purchased materials without a licenced player. (Hardware or software, which currently excludes linux and other OS)
Keeping you from making a copy of your purchased material, regardless of the fact that "fair use" says you should be able to.
Keeping you from increasing your technical knowlege, or satisfying you curiousity about "how things work" by making it illegal to do so. Or making an independent/competing/compatible product. Regardless of the fact that reverse engineering is legal.
But why are they limiting these things? Do any of them really effect thier business? Yes, but those effects are pretty limited in scope. Take a look at them:
The only thing they have to gain by requiring authorized players is licensing fees. They may be large, but probably brings in just enough money to cover the cost of the infrastructure they put in place to manage and protect that licensing, and to store up for legal fees. (I may be wrong, but that's my guess. That organization can't be cheap to run. And lawyers certainly aren't cheap.)
Of course they want to limit pirating, but controlling this won't really do that. This would just eliminate the individual and small time piraters that can't afford the heavy equipment to do it for real. Those people don't really dig into thier profits to begin with. I doubt they care whether you're capable of producing a single copy for yourself or not. They lose what, $20? It's convenient to lock you out and get that extra $20, but is that really enough to justify the cost of implementing this scheme to begin with? I don't think that was the primary motive. That was just frosting that came along with it.
I doubt they care about individuals increasing their knowledge about anything. That doesn't effect the corporate bottom line. They just don't want you to get the codes that would allow people to bypass their control over content, media, and the resulting profits.
So if none of these results are enough to justify a huge effort to eliminate them, what is?
Control of media.
Control of content distributed by that media.
Control of the channels that distribute it.
Removing or even weakening any of these things is an attack on the very core of thier business.
Artists that create content have been subject to this control for a long time. Most everything artists have created for you to see, hear, and enjoy (including your beloved Matrix) beyond your own local (often bar) scene has had to sell itself and pass inspection by one of these companies to have the opportunity to reach you with a piece of their art. Which is fine.
But technology is starting to weaken the need for artists to have to do that to be heard or seen. It is becoming possible to reach people with your work without having to subject it to corporate inspection and approval. Or get screwed by a shitty contract. Or sell your soul and change your material to get acceptance. Or refuse all of the above and never get heard by anyone but the local barflies. (Not a derogatory term in my book.:) There's always the "drop your life, go to the latest hot recruiting scene, live on cigarettes beer and sandwiches for 5 years attemping to build a following and hope a studio exec sees you and actually likes you enough to give you a shot" storybook method, but not everyone is up to that. My respect to those that do and actually survive it...
I'll drop that tangent simply to state that the music and movie business is big money. Huge money. Those that manage to break into it and get "published" in one form or another by a studio manage to get a big chunk of it, of course. But there's a lot of artists that don't. Simply because they were never heard by someone who could publish their work, or because some bigwig somewhere didn't like it or didn't think it would sell.
And many of them may not give a damn about how much money it may or may not make. Or how many people buy it, or want to listen/view it. Unlike a studio, big numbers/sales don't mean much. They simply like doing what they do, and like sharing it with others. Sort of the whole point of art/music/movies to begin with. It's expression, dude, and this whole thing revolved around freedom of expression in many forms.
Speech: I can tell people where to find something without getting sued, or print out the source code and pass it around.
Press: Slashdot can report it to a bajillion geeks.
Art: I, or the other poster, or anyone else can record something and distribute it if we like without having to go through some damned corporation or getting "discovered"
Information: People are free to figure out how something works, share that information, and maybe even improve it.
Fair Use: You are free to make a copy of it, break it open with a rock, or whatever the hell you want to do with it.
Controlling the "art" and it's distribution is the purpose of these companies, and in turn is the primary motive for the attempts to stifle freedom. That is the point the poster is trying to make, because that fact is very important, and was being overlooked. The other freedoms listed, while being no less important, were mowed down as well in the pursuit of that end. Including the "fair use" part which you seem to find most important to you. Nothing wrong with that.
But you are amazingly quick to dismiss, and even attack the type of people that created that shiny disc you wish to "use fairly", and the creators of whatever else you may have in your media collection. They are the lucky ones that managed to get their work into your hands for your enjoyment. There's thousands more that haven't been able to yet, and may not be able to if this kind of crap doesn't stop. How can you judge what you have not heard or seen? Do you rely solely on the judgement of studios to decide what you should and shouldn't be able to see.? You speak about freedom to do what you want with a piece of media. Yet you trash the freedom to even provide you with the damned thing to begin with.
You dismiss him as egocentric. OK, let's see you toss out every tape, cd, video, and dvd of all the artists whom some might view as egocentric. Have any left? Maybe, maybe not. Has nothing to do with the quality of one's work.
The industry should not provide a key? They should never require a key to begin with. That's the whole point. Whoops, I forgot. You depend on the studios' ability to not subject you to anything "lame". (Now, explain to me the existence of %75+ of the media produced by studios today.:)
Jeez. I guess I can expect as much from an Anonymous Coward.
But you know what? I still wouldn't take the right to express your words, thoughts, or opinions away from you. Even anonymously. This medium is open for you to say what you please. I sincerely hope an Anonymous Coward wouldn't deny the same rights and freedoms they enjoy themselves to someone else that just happens to be working in another medium. That would be hypocrisy indeed.
(Please excuse the spelling errors. I know they're there. But I've spent enough time on this already.)
Re:Self Contradictory... and other notes
on
Three on Munich
·
· Score: 1
Sorry about the clustered run-on... I haven't posted in a while, and forgot to preview.
And any formatting...
Self Contradictory... and other notes
on
Three on Munich
·
· Score: 1
I stopped reading. I read the first part where they're basically talking about individuals (and/or families or whatever) having control over what content they want to allow for themselves. Then watched them proceed to talk about how "publishers" , "service providers" and "whoever else" would do it for them, with government support. Yeah, real control for the individual. "Let us do it for you." Does anyone else find the basic concept contradictory? And just who do they consider publishers? Who the hell are they? This is the Internet. Anybody and everybody is a publisher. Ever write an e-mail? Chat? SSH? You're publishing on the Internet. Or are they confusing the Internet with the Web again? Sounds like a looney scheme from a bunch of big corporate "higher-than-thou's" to me. I can protect myself, and anyone around me who might be depending on me, thank you very much. Speaking of that, a note on overprotection: What happens when people come into contact for the first time with something potentially dangerous that they haven't been exposed to before? (Such as a virus.) And what happens when its not just one person, but an entire group? (Such as a town, village, or whatever.) There's a pretty good chance that it will overwhelm, and possibly even destroy them. Lack of exposure >> disabled defenses >> weakness >> infections, disease, and other maladies >> death. So what is with this "protect everyone from exposure to anything bad at all" mindset that people are pushing? I'm not saying kiddie porn and hate groups build defenses. I'm simply arguing against the whole "protectionist" mindset.
I may be wrong, but here's my understanding of how that would be viewed.
If a derivative of a GPL'd work was coded in that fashion, and only used internally, then the derivative is not GPL. Because it hasn't been released yet. When the author(s) decide to release their work, they have to do it under GPL, but not until then.
I don't think having your code stolen and made public could be considered a release. Regardless of the license involved. Even if it's a GPL derivative, the stolen code is not, because it hasn't been released by its author(s). It's been stolen.
It's stolen code, not a published/distributed work, and should probably be considered such. It should be the author(s) decision if and when to do that, and that fact shouldn't be negated if stolen and published by someone else, even if they are an employee.
I'm sure this view is full of technical errors, and I apologize if so. (I'm not a lawyer.) But I think I understand the basic priciples/intent behind the GPL, and I think you can at least see what I'm trying to point out.
Now, if the disgruntled employee IS the author, that's a completely different scenario. They can do what they want with it, but things might get a little uncomfortable at the workplace if they did.
What about if he/she is one of many authors?: That would be an ugly mess to figure out. I guess it be the same as if they were the sole author, only it would be akin to forking the code.
I'm running RH5.9 (Starbuck) and it includes both Gnome 1.0 and KDE 1.1. RH has hired a couple KDE developers onto it's staff to port it to QT 2.0 as well.
Also, if running xdm, gdm, or kdm on 5.9, you can select which desktop you want to run on every login. Current choices are Gnome, KDE, AnotherLevel, and Default (last picked). I'm sure this will be configurable.
All I'm saying is that while going with Gnome for the default, they're also supporting KDE and various WMs, and making it easy even for a pure newbie to experiment... trying each one till they figure out what they like. And not just enabling choice, but making it pretty darn easy.
I think that is a good thing. I like gnome, and that's what I use. (Well, usually. For the most part, I run whatever I feel like, whenever I feel like it.) But I like choice more. (Choice meanining picking out whatever you wish, be it good or evil, or whatever your point of view, and living with the consequences either way. Remember Clockwork Orange? That's what I mean.) And I'm very happy to see these recent developments for the upcoming 6.0.
Please allow me to retract the part about "go get the magazine to read the other article". I just read the Drudge Report, and other posts on that little tidbit of information.
Plugging your own company's book as news to generate publicity is a bit sick. Not the first time it's happened, but still.
Katz... you got so worked up you forgot to read the article immediately following the "12 obvious, technobabble fluff filled steps".
"Is There a Chapter Missing,Bill?" by Chris Taylor was a pretty good read. He brings up the point that no mention of any of the anti-trust trial are made. And the Gates reflected in the book and excerpt is very different from the Gates seen in the trial, and pretty much tears him and his book into little tiny pieces from there. Fun read, and I was very happy to see it accompany the main article.
My favorite quote from the excerpt: "The old saying 'Knowledge is Power' sometimes makes people hoard knowledge. They believe that knowledge hoarding makes them indispensable. Power comes not from knowledge kept but from knowledge shared."
This looks like something to be thrown right back at him!:)
From the article: "If there was ever was a time for Microsoft employees to slap their boss with a reality check, this is it."
Go get the magazine and give it a read. Lots of ammo, and a good article by Chris Taylor.
(And maybe that plug will keep me out of trouble for posting direct quotes.:) But seriously, get it and read it. Or find it online, if it's posted.)
Been keeping an eye on E and using it from time to time for a long time now. It was actually the first thing I downloaded on my first linux box almost 2 years ago, about 10 minutes after I finally got it to boot.:)
It's come a long way. Regardless of what some may be saying about speed, stability, or whatever... I don't think they've tried it. I'm impressed. It can be loads of eye candy for those that want it, or stripped down to bare minimum for max functionality. And configured however the hell we want. I love it. Keep it up.
Also... that date on your page. Today is Friday, March 12, not 11. I should know, it's my birthday.:) Thanks for the present!
Warning... NT is contagious. My brain just BSOD'd
on
Enlightenment 0.15
·
· Score: 1
You're right, that would be rather stupid. Sorry 'bout that. It's near the end of the day. I'm tired. It is ALT+F*.
I swear, using NT kills brain cells. Dulls the senses. Synapses lapse.
Maybe it'll all come back to me after I get back home in front of my own box.:)
I've got a demo unit sitting on top of my machine right now. It's tiny, has a built in hard drive, and is actually a tiny linux/samba machine!
It's a tiny computer with a scsi interface that will run cds, dvds, cdr, and scsi hard drives. It'll cache images of cds or dvds to disc and serve them up with samba (or novell, or mac, or whatever). It's administered through a web interface, and is a pretty slick little number. Looks cool, too.
One version is an external unit with a built in hard drive, and external scsi connector. Another is a smaller external device with no hard drive and just the scsi. Yet another is an internal unit (to put into a drive tower) with both the scsi and 2 ide channels. So, you could build a 7 bay cd tower with it. But instead of 7 cdrom drives, put the Zerver in the top slot, then a cdrom, then a cdr drive, then a dvd drive. Then polish it off with 3 nice, fat scsi drives. (figure about 4GB for 7 cds or so, to be safe.)
Nifty little thing. The ones without hard drives cost about $750-800. After trying it out, we're going to get two of them. (We already have the cd towers, so it's the best thing for us, anyway.)
Or build your own linux box and do the same thing with it. Cache images of cds to disk and serve them up with samba. I kinda like this cute blue box that does exactly that out of the box by itself. (And is smaller than my phone!)
Found it at http://www.microtest.com
No, I don't work for them or anything. It looked like a good idea, and they had a 30 day free trial. So I tried it out, and it works great. (Sending it back is REALLY going to suck.)
Very cool spot. I went to a conference there last November. On Tuesday they close down the streets around there and have a big bazaar thing in the middle of town. Pretty interesting. Wish I could go...
This seems to be a pretty passionate subject. I guess I'll throw in my take as well.
The one thing that bothers me about college is the reason that many people go. Too many people go to college because they are expected to, and have no idea what else to do anyway. They're told that they can't get a good job without it. There's this huge push for kids to go to college, instead of them thinking about what is right for them to do. They don't start thinking about where they should be headed in life while they are younger. They just assume to goal is to get into college, and put off any other "life-planning" until they get there. That's dangerous, and I've seen the result of it. Many graduates have a hard time finding a job anyway, or realize that maybe they picked the wrong major. And go back again and again, spending even more money.
Before you flame me, realize that I am by no means knocking higher education. I think its one of the most valuable things a person can have. But there are some misconceptions.
1. You can't get a good job without a college degree.
2. If you have one, you'll get a good job.
3. College is the only place to get higher education.
4. Only accept college graduates while hiring, because they're the only ones who know how to learn.
The point of all of this? Don't go to college because someone says you should. Go because its what you want for yourself. Don't go so you can get a good job. (It by itself won't get you one.) Go for learning. That's what it's for. Don't go until you're fully prepared, ready, have some goals, and know what you expect to get out of it.
College can be a very valuable thing, as stated by many people in previous posts. You can't argue with any of them. I agree that it's not there to teach you the latest&greatest. It's to teach concepts and theory and "why", instead of just how. It's ideas, not just "type this and it does that." I just urge you to go for the right reasons, and you'll be sure to get more out of it.
As for me, yes I plan to go someday. 4 years in the US Marine Corps got me started in this business, and the rest has been self taught. I'm glad I waited. My experience has kept me employed, and I don't think going to college first would have helped me much. I think I would get much more out of it now.
I'm going on way too long... that pretty much it. Later.
Hmmm. That's funny. I run it specifically for "lack of crap". Don't like tons of graphics? Pick a small theme with minimal graphics. Don't like all the buttons on the screen? Take them off and use the keybindings to launch your programs or do whatever. Change them to do whatever you want. Or just hide the buttons temporarily. (CTRL+ALT+B). You can hide every little thing on the screen, and just have a root window, with a root menu. That's about as clean a desktop as I can imagine.
Yes, I'm actually using it, and doing precisely that. With gnome minimized to a little tab on the side. Real estate usage is practically ZERO. Minimalism is achieved, and quite nicely. The floating desktops add up to more real estate than I can imagine anyone needing on top of that. Use keybindings to switch between them. Turn off all of the animations, transparencies, opaque moves and whatever, and it flies. On a crappy Cyrix 6x86 200 that needs replacing, at that.
If you still don't like it, don't use it. If you're not using it, complaining is silly. Unless it's to make a point that parts of it don't suit your needs, and you would like it to. And from what you've written, I'd say that it already does.
And it's not even done yet. Yeah, there's still things to add, clean up, improve, and probably bugs to kill. It's looking good to me so far, at least.
Keep coding, Raster. Your work is much appreciated, at least in my book...
Forgiven... and I see exactly what you're seeing. And trying not to laugh. That's great. Here's the names I remember...
BillG = Melkor SBallmer = Sauron Ed Muth = That spider thing (predecessor of Shelob) Vinod = Just another Balrog Saruman & Wormtongue = traitors (yet to be determined) Free software bashers = Orcs RMS = Iluvatar, maybe? (Father of all, including the gods, humans, elves, earth, and whatever else) Linus = Ea Other high-profile PROGRAMMERS = other gods (sort out yourself) Mithrandir (Gandalf) and his peers = loud voices we all know (insert names here), that try to steer our future course. Who is who is yet unknown. (Remember, possible traitors can be in this catagory as well:) Elves = All the hackers, programmers, and others that have been contributing for a long time. Humans = the general public Heroes = those that GET IT, understand, and try to help. Some on a par with some of the elves.
Just some ramblings. Corrections/improvements welcome.
No I'm not a big "Hero Worship" guy. I just find much amusement in analogies.:])
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, it is about freedom. The restrictions on that freedom that would effect you and many others directly include (but aren't limited to):
- Keeping you from viewing/listen to purchased materials without a licenced player. (Hardware or software, which currently excludes linux and other OS)
- Keeping you from making a copy of your purchased material, regardless of the fact that "fair use" says you should be able to.
- Keeping you from increasing your technical knowlege, or satisfying you curiousity about "how things work" by making it illegal to do so. Or making an independent/competing/compatible product. Regardless of the fact that reverse engineering is legal.
But why are they limiting these things? Do any of them really effect thier business? Yes, but those effects are pretty limited in scope. Take a look at them:- The only thing they have to gain by requiring authorized players is licensing fees. They may be large, but probably brings in just enough money to cover the cost of the infrastructure they put in place to manage and protect that licensing, and to store up for legal fees. (I may be wrong, but that's my guess. That organization can't be cheap to run. And lawyers certainly aren't cheap.)
- Of course they want to limit pirating, but controlling this won't really do that. This would just eliminate the individual and small time piraters that can't afford the heavy equipment to do it for real. Those people don't really dig into thier profits to begin with. I doubt they care whether you're capable of producing a single copy for yourself or not. They lose what, $20? It's convenient to lock you out and get that extra $20, but is that really enough to justify the cost of implementing this scheme to begin with? I don't think that was the primary motive. That was just frosting that came along with it.
- I doubt they care about individuals increasing their knowledge about anything. That doesn't effect the corporate bottom line. They just don't want you to get the codes that would allow people to bypass their control over content, media, and the resulting profits.
So if none of these results are enough to justify a huge effort to eliminate them, what is?- Control of media.
- Control of content distributed by that media.
- Control of the channels that distribute it.
Removing or even weakening any of these things is an attack on the very core of thier business.Artists that create content have been subject to this control for a long time. Most everything artists have created for you to see, hear, and enjoy (including your beloved Matrix) beyond your own local (often bar) scene has had to sell itself and pass inspection by one of these companies to have the opportunity to reach you with a piece of their art. Which is fine.
But technology is starting to weaken the need for artists to have to do that to be heard or seen. It is becoming possible to reach people with your work without having to subject it to corporate inspection and approval. Or get screwed by a shitty contract. Or sell your soul and change your material to get acceptance. Or refuse all of the above and never get heard by anyone but the local barflies. (Not a derogatory term in my book. :) There's always the "drop your life, go to the latest hot recruiting scene, live on cigarettes beer and sandwiches for 5 years attemping to build a following and hope a studio exec sees you and actually likes you enough to give you a shot" storybook method, but not everyone is up to that. My respect to those that do and actually survive it...
I'll drop that tangent simply to state that the music and movie business is big money. Huge money. Those that manage to break into it and get "published" in one form or another by a studio manage to get a big chunk of it, of course. But there's a lot of artists that don't. Simply because they were never heard by someone who could publish their work, or because some bigwig somewhere didn't like it or didn't think it would sell.
And many of them may not give a damn about how much money it may or may not make. Or how many people buy it, or want to listen/view it. Unlike a studio, big numbers/sales don't mean much. They simply like doing what they do, and like sharing it with others. Sort of the whole point of art/music/movies to begin with. It's expression, dude, and this whole thing revolved around freedom of expression in many forms.
Controlling the "art" and it's distribution is the purpose of these companies, and in turn is the primary motive for the attempts to stifle freedom. That is the point the poster is trying to make, because that fact is very important, and was being overlooked. The other freedoms listed, while being no less important, were mowed down as well in the pursuit of that end. Including the "fair use" part which you seem to find most important to you. Nothing wrong with that.
But you are amazingly quick to dismiss, and even attack the type of people that created that shiny disc you wish to "use fairly", and the creators of whatever else you may have in your media collection. They are the lucky ones that managed to get their work into your hands for your enjoyment. There's thousands more that haven't been able to yet, and may not be able to if this kind of crap doesn't stop. How can you judge what you have not heard or seen? Do you rely solely on the judgement of studios to decide what you should and shouldn't be able to see.? You speak about freedom to do what you want with a piece of media. Yet you trash the freedom to even provide you with the damned thing to begin with.
You dismiss him as egocentric. OK, let's see you toss out every tape, cd, video, and dvd of all the artists whom some might view as egocentric. Have any left? Maybe, maybe not. Has nothing to do with the quality of one's work.
The industry should not provide a key? They should never require a key to begin with. That's the whole point. Whoops, I forgot. You depend on the studios' ability to not subject you to anything "lame". (Now, explain to me the existence of %75+ of the media produced by studios today. :)
Jeez. I guess I can expect as much from an Anonymous Coward.
But you know what? I still wouldn't take the right to express your words, thoughts, or opinions away from you. Even anonymously. This medium is open for you to say what you please. I sincerely hope an Anonymous Coward wouldn't deny the same rights and freedoms they enjoy themselves to someone else that just happens to be working in another medium. That would be hypocrisy indeed.
(Please excuse the spelling errors. I know they're there. But I've spent enough time on this already.)
Sorry 'bout the run-on. :)
And any formatting...
I stopped reading. I read the first part where they're basically talking about individuals (and/or families or whatever) having control over what content they want to allow for themselves. Then watched them proceed to talk about how "publishers" , "service providers" and "whoever else" would do it for them, with government support. Yeah, real control for the individual. "Let us do it for you." Does anyone else find the basic concept contradictory? And just who do they consider publishers? Who the hell are they? This is the Internet. Anybody and everybody is a publisher. Ever write an e-mail? Chat? SSH? You're publishing on the Internet. Or are they confusing the Internet with the Web again? Sounds like a looney scheme from a bunch of big corporate "higher-than-thou's" to me. I can protect myself, and anyone around me who might be depending on me, thank you very much. Speaking of that, a note on overprotection: What happens when people come into contact for the first time with something potentially dangerous that they haven't been exposed to before? (Such as a virus.) And what happens when its not just one person, but an entire group? (Such as a town, village, or whatever.) There's a pretty good chance that it will overwhelm, and possibly even destroy them. Lack of exposure >> disabled defenses >> weakness >> infections, disease, and other maladies >> death. So what is with this "protect everyone from exposure to anything bad at all" mindset that people are pushing? I'm not saying kiddie porn and hate groups build defenses. I'm simply arguing against the whole "protectionist" mindset.
I may be wrong, but here's my understanding of how that would be viewed.
If a derivative of a GPL'd work was coded in that fashion, and only used internally, then the derivative is not GPL. Because it hasn't been released yet. When the author(s) decide to release their work, they have to do it under GPL, but not until then.
I don't think having your code stolen and made public could be considered a release. Regardless of the license involved. Even if it's a GPL derivative, the stolen code is not, because it hasn't been released by its author(s). It's been stolen.
It's stolen code, not a published/distributed work, and should probably be considered such. It should be the author(s) decision if and when to do that, and that fact shouldn't be negated if stolen and published by someone else, even if they are an employee.
I'm sure this view is full of technical errors, and I apologize if so. (I'm not a lawyer.) But I think I understand the basic priciples/intent behind the GPL, and I think you can at least see what I'm trying to point out.
Now, if the disgruntled employee IS the author, that's a completely different scenario. They can do what they want with it, but things might get a little uncomfortable at the workplace if they did.
What about if he/she is one of many authors?: That would be an ugly mess to figure out. I guess it be the same as if they were the sole author, only it would be akin to forking the code.
Interesting things to think about, though.
Just so you know...
I'm running RH5.9 (Starbuck) and it includes both Gnome 1.0 and KDE 1.1. RH has hired a couple KDE developers onto it's staff to port it to QT 2.0 as well.
Also, if running xdm, gdm, or kdm on 5.9, you can select which desktop you want to run on every login. Current choices are Gnome, KDE, AnotherLevel, and Default (last picked). I'm sure this will be configurable.
All I'm saying is that while going with Gnome for the default, they're also supporting KDE and various WMs, and making it easy even for a pure newbie to experiment... trying each one till they figure out what they like. And not just enabling choice, but making it pretty darn easy.
I think that is a good thing. I like gnome, and that's what I use. (Well, usually. For the most part, I run whatever I feel like, whenever I feel like it.) But I like choice more. (Choice meanining picking out whatever you wish, be it good or evil, or whatever your point of view, and living with the consequences either way. Remember Clockwork Orange? That's what I mean.) And I'm very happy to see these recent developments for the upcoming 6.0.
My two bits, for whatever they're worth...
Please allow me to retract the part about "go get the magazine to read the other article". I just read the Drudge Report, and other posts on that little tidbit of information.
Plugging your own company's book as news to generate publicity is a bit sick. Not the first time it's happened, but still.
Don't buy it. Even if the other article is good.
I'm allowed to change my mind, right?
Katz... you got so worked up you forgot to read the article immediately following the "12 obvious, technobabble fluff filled steps".
:)
:) But seriously, get it and read it. Or find it online, if it's posted.)
"Is There a Chapter Missing,Bill?" by Chris Taylor was a pretty good read. He brings up the point that no mention of any of the anti-trust trial are made. And the Gates reflected in the book and excerpt is very different from the Gates seen in the trial, and pretty much tears him and his book into little tiny pieces from there. Fun read, and I was very happy to see it accompany the main article.
My favorite quote from the excerpt:
"The old saying 'Knowledge is Power' sometimes makes people hoard knowledge. They believe that knowledge hoarding makes them indispensable. Power comes not from knowledge kept but from knowledge shared."
This looks like something to be thrown right back at him!
From the article:
"If there was ever was a time for Microsoft employees to slap their boss with a reality check, this is it."
Go get the magazine and give it a read. Lots of ammo, and a good article by Chris Taylor.
(And maybe that plug will keep me out of trouble for posting direct quotes.
Can't forget that... that's my second BSOD for the day. I really need to turn in.
Been keeping an eye on E and using it from time to time for a long time now. It was actually the first thing I downloaded on my first linux box almost 2 years ago, about 10 minutes after I finally got it to boot. :)
:) Thanks for the present!
It's come a long way. Regardless of what some may be saying about speed, stability, or whatever... I don't think they've tried it. I'm impressed. It can be loads of eye candy for those that want it, or stripped down to bare minimum for max functionality. And configured however the hell we want. I love it. Keep it up.
Also... that date on your page. Today is Friday, March 12, not 11. I should know, it's my birthday.
You're right, that would be rather stupid. Sorry 'bout that. It's near the end of the day. I'm tired. It is ALT+F*.
:)
I swear, using NT kills brain cells. Dulls the senses. Synapses lapse.
Maybe it'll all come back to me after I get back home in front of my own box.
I'm not positive (haven't used it for a while), but I believe it was CTRL+ALT+F* (F1, F2, etc.).
If I remember right, CTRL+ALT+INSERT launched an E-Term. There were quite a few nice default key bindings. They were all listed in the included Help.
I've got a demo unit sitting on top of my machine right now. It's tiny, has a built in hard drive, and is actually a tiny linux/samba machine!
It's a tiny computer with a scsi interface that will run cds, dvds, cdr, and scsi hard drives. It'll cache images of cds or dvds to disc and serve them up with samba (or novell, or mac, or whatever). It's administered through a web interface, and is a pretty slick little number. Looks cool, too.
One version is an external unit with a built in hard drive, and external scsi connector. Another is a smaller external device with no hard drive and just the scsi. Yet another is an internal unit (to put into a drive tower) with both the scsi and 2 ide channels. So, you could build a 7 bay cd tower with it. But instead of 7 cdrom drives, put the Zerver in the top slot, then a cdrom, then a cdr drive, then a dvd drive. Then polish it off with 3 nice, fat scsi drives. (figure about 4GB for 7 cds or so, to be safe.)
Nifty little thing. The ones without hard drives cost about $750-800. After trying it out, we're going to get two of them. (We already have the cd towers, so it's the best thing for us, anyway.)
Or build your own linux box and do the same thing with it. Cache images of cds to disk and serve them up with samba. I kinda like this cute blue box that does exactly that out of the box by itself. (And is smaller than my phone!)
Found it at http://www.microtest.com
No, I don't work for them or anything. It looked like a good idea, and they had a 30 day free trial. So I tried it out, and it works great. (Sending it back is REALLY going to suck.)
I'm sorry if anyone disagrees with me, but I just plain don't like this idea at all. I'm not some "everything is a conspiricy" looney either.
I like my privacy. The personal information currently available for identification is plenty.
What about transfer of ownership and upgrades? Sounds like a pain in the ass to maintain, anyway.
A much unneeded complication.
The option to "opt out" doesn't make it any better. It's just too easily abused, and creeps me out.
"May you spend two hours in heaven before the devil finds out you're dead." --Irish Toast
Very cool spot. I went to a conference there last November. On Tuesday they close down the streets around there and have a big bazaar thing in the middle of town. Pretty interesting. Wish I could go...
This seems to be a pretty passionate subject. I guess I'll throw in my take as well.
The one thing that bothers me about college is the reason that many people go. Too many people go to college because they are expected to, and have no idea what else to do anyway. They're told that they can't get a good job without it. There's this huge push for kids to go to college, instead of them thinking about what is right for them to do. They don't start thinking about where they should be headed in life while they are younger. They just assume to goal is to get into college, and put off any other "life-planning" until they get there. That's dangerous, and I've seen the result of it. Many graduates have a hard time finding a job anyway, or realize that maybe they picked the wrong major. And go back again and again, spending even more money.
Before you flame me, realize that I am by no means knocking higher education. I think its one of the most valuable things a person can have. But there are some misconceptions.
1. You can't get a good job without a college degree.
2. If you have one, you'll get a good job.
3. College is the only place to get higher education.
4. Only accept college graduates while hiring, because they're the only ones who know how to learn.
The point of all of this? Don't go to college because someone says you should. Go because its what you want for yourself. Don't go so you can get a good job. (It by itself won't get you one.) Go for learning. That's what it's for. Don't go until you're fully prepared, ready, have some goals, and know what you expect to get out of it.
College can be a very valuable thing, as stated by many people in previous posts. You can't argue with any of them. I agree that it's not there to teach you the latest&greatest. It's to teach concepts and theory and "why", instead of just how. It's ideas, not just "type this and it does that." I just urge you to go for the right reasons, and you'll be sure to get more out of it.
As for me, yes I plan to go someday. 4 years in the US Marine Corps got me started in this business, and the rest has been self taught. I'm glad I waited. My experience has kept me employed, and I don't think going to college first would have helped me much. I think I would get much more out of it now.
I'm going on way too long... that pretty much it. Later.
Hmmm. That's funny. I run it specifically for "lack of crap". Don't like tons of graphics? Pick a small theme with minimal graphics. Don't like all the buttons on the screen? Take them off and use the keybindings to launch your programs or do whatever. Change them to do whatever you want. Or just hide the buttons temporarily. (CTRL+ALT+B). You can hide every little thing on the screen, and just have a root window, with a root menu. That's about as clean a desktop as I can imagine.
Yes, I'm actually using it, and doing precisely that. With gnome minimized to a little tab on the side. Real estate usage is practically ZERO. Minimalism is achieved, and quite nicely. The floating desktops add up to more real estate than I can imagine anyone needing on top of that. Use keybindings to switch between them. Turn off all of the animations, transparencies, opaque moves and whatever, and it flies. On a crappy Cyrix 6x86 200 that needs replacing, at that.
If you still don't like it, don't use it. If you're not using it, complaining is silly. Unless it's to make a point that parts of it don't suit your needs, and you would like it to. And from what you've written, I'd say that it already does.
And it's not even done yet. Yeah, there's still things to add, clean up, improve, and probably bugs to kill. It's looking good to me so far, at least.
Keep coding, Raster. Your work is much appreciated, at least in my book...
Forgiven... and I see exactly what you're seeing. And trying not to laugh. That's great. Here's the names I remember...
:])
BillG = Melkor
SBallmer = Sauron
Ed Muth = That spider thing (predecessor of Shelob)
Vinod = Just another Balrog
Saruman & Wormtongue = traitors (yet to be determined)
Free software bashers = Orcs
RMS = Iluvatar, maybe? (Father of all, including the gods, humans, elves, earth, and whatever else)
Linus = Ea
Other high-profile PROGRAMMERS = other gods (sort out yourself)
Mithrandir (Gandalf) and his peers = loud voices we all know (insert names here), that try to steer our future course. Who is who is yet unknown. (Remember, possible traitors can be in this catagory as well:)
Elves = All the hackers, programmers, and others that have been contributing for a long time.
Humans = the general public
Heroes = those that GET IT, understand, and try to help. Some on a par with some of the elves.
Just some ramblings. Corrections/improvements welcome.
No I'm not a big "Hero Worship" guy. I just find much amusement in analogies.