So many posters are complaining that "this" or "that" was neglected, that one or another idea is fundamentally wrong.
That is the point. We should celebrate our diversity, not complain about it.
We have several open operating systems (Linux, *BSD, HURD...). We have tons of open protocols and open source programs. We have the power and the freedom to choose to use whatever we like, and avoid what we don't. On the other hand, Windoze users get to enjoy Microsoft's vision of their desktop and their future (where do you want to go today?); if they don't like it, that's too bad! If someone is not implementing an operating system, a "desktop" environment, a browser, or whatever the way you think it should be, that is your golden opportunity! Develop what you do like (or find someone who can, and persuade them to), release it to the world, and watch people enjoy your innovation. Or watch it flounder and die miserably, because it was a horrible idea in the first place. Either way, you can still run whatever you want on your own system. Don't complain that I or someone else is not building your dream product -- do it yourself (or find someone who will).
As for the effects of competing products... I say that competition improves all concerned. Usually innovation in a product comes at the beginning of the product's lifetime. If innovation enters later, check the source: it probably originated somewhere else and was copied or stolen. Changes to a product over its lifetime are largely evolutionary and predictable, unless there is a competing product to steal ideas from and try to leap ahead of. You will say that some products will not survive the competition, and that that may not be a good thing. If the product had an inherently good idea, then that good idea will not be gone for long. If the product had no inherently good ideas, then the marketplace is better served by its departure than by its existence. That is an example of natural selection that actually, demonstrably works. (and I can't wait for it to happen to Windoze!)
Well, this should start at least a little flamewar... Who wants to go first?
Yes. But don't forget to continue your little analogy to military service... Any kid who goes AWOL on his education is punished by court-martial. Lets think about penalties: Not doing your homework. 1 week additional remedial homework assignments. Late for class. Public flogging at 6 am each day, for 2 weeks. All students required to attend, observe, and present reports. Talking out of turn. 1 week in solitary confinement. Disruptive behavior. 1 week in the stocks. Below-average performance (bad grades). Capital punishment.
Lest you think these are a bit harsh, allow me to remind you that we are giving everyone a fair start in life, and cannot allow a few to ruin it for the rest.
Yes, this is extremely sarcastic. The point is, just because something might work (I guarantee after a few months you would have a very obedient, if a bit disgruntled, group of kids), does not mean it is the best approach.
[subtitle]How to be paranoid, for the curious[/subtitle]
In principle I agree with your statement: if you are running untrusted malicious binaries on your system then you have bigger problems. However, the only way to be sure that a binary can be trusted is to inspect the source it was compiled from, or have someone you trust do that for you. Here are two small requirements to meet in order to avoid those "bigger problems" you refer to. 1. You must be able to read and understand all the source languages of all your binaries, and you must know all the possible security/privacy/etc. threats that could be implemented in those languages. In other words, you are a programming and security expert for all those languages. Or you know and trust someone who is. 2. You must have access to the source code that all your binaries were built from. In other words, you run only open source software. While you may meet those requirements just fine, the majority of computer users who might choose to use or be forced to use (by their employer) a computer do not meet those requirements. Not even close. I'm certain that I don't. [For reference, use of most commercial software products is automatic disqualification.] Do you have the time to scrutinize the source for everything you run? Do you have the source to everything you run? For your sake, I hope so.
For the rest of us, two solutions present themselves. Either we can try to prevent private information from leaking out of our computers (difficult-to-impossible), or we can try to prevent outside organizations from recording and using this information (also difficult) and give them plenty of negative press, boycotts, rants,... until they pretend to stop. All we can do is our best.
p.s. I happen to consider Microsoft products to be untrusted malicious binaries. Do you have reason to suggest otherwise? For those of us trapped in the Windows world, do you have a solution -- that runs on Windows?
Just because I'm not paranoid doesn't mean that no one is spying on me.
Sorry this is a little off-topic but it shows how ridiculous our suit-happy society has become. And that is definitely on target. If some greedy idiot breaks into my house and tries to hurt me or my wife or my kid I want to hurt him first, so bad that he wants to stop. He is the aggressor, where does he get the right to sue me, the victim? And if he does have that right, then why can't I go try to rob some really rich people/companies, get shot by their security forces, sue, and make lots of money? Sounds like a plan... The reason I don't like the system is because it only works for the bad guys. Go ahead, prove me wrong.
>>There's not a lot in the bible to suggest that hell is a burning pit of pain... Have you read the Bible recently? Or at least the references to hell? The words fire or flame come up quite a bit. The real problem with hell is that it is eternal punishment, the point of no return, no second chances. The Bible tells you how to be sure that you will avoid hell. Take the advice. Don't go there.
The iMacs use a PowerPC chip which I think is a RISC architecture. The intel chips are definitely CISC. RISC is different from CISC in one letter: R Reduced Instruction Set Computer is different from Complex Instruction Set Computer because the instruction set complexity is reduced. What's the point? Compilers and processors can do more optimization tricks (pipelining, out-of-order execution, prediction,...) with simpler instructions. RISC computers can be faster than CISC computers.
Several posters in this forum have written things like but what does it do that [product xyz] doesn't or but we already have one [product xyz], why do we need another one. We always need "another one", because more is better 1. More competition for me (random developer of product xyz) encourages me to improve my product. That helps me, and my competitor (in the same way), and most importantly the users. 2. More competition for me encourages me to lower my price, if I want people to use my product. But wait, what if my product is free? Price is but one barrier to the potential user of a product, others are ease of use, maintenance, installation, auxiliary required resources (a computer), and the list goes on. I will be encouraged to lower those barriers, and that is good. 3. Moving NT products to Linux helps to move NT users to Linux. More Linux users is a good thing. Fewer NT users is a good thing. 4. Moving NT products to Linux raises awareness of Linux as a real viable useful good thing in managers' eyes (and others who hold those all important purse strings).
Ever heard the phrase a rising tide lifts all boats ?
You asked for it. [Ad hominem rant mode ON] Hey, AC... Get an account. Log in. Stand up and be counted! Do you know how to read? Do you bother trying? MOST means "more than the rest", and MOST of the recent comments are pro-smash-Microsoft. Get a clue! What, because a small minority either like Microsoft or dislike the government or its actions, you think that they will massively overpower the very large, very vocal majority who love government intrusion into other people's lives and hate anything Microsoft? Wake up, smell the java 1.2 beans, and Get a clue! [End rant]
By the way, I don't like Microsoft. I don't like most of their software, except some really nice tools they bought from other companies and haven't managed to screw up yet. I know lots of people (smart developers, not idiots on the street) who dream of inventing something totally cool, being bought by Microsoft, turning into instant zillionaires, and retiring to a beach somewhere at the ripe old age of 25. Yes Microsoft will embrace and extend (swallow and bloat) their innovation. Yes they may worry a little about that. But money talks, and big money talks very persuasively. And what about the hundreds of thousands of developers who have spent the money, bought the books, took the classes, learned the APIs, and depend on Microsoftware for their collective livelihood. Do you really want those people (don't forget their spouses and children) out of a job, out of a house, out on the street... Or (even worse?) do you want them coding everything they know and love (and you despise) into Linux? Here comes the bloat!
In case you hadn't noticed, people like to side with the underdog. At least lets keep Microsoft in enough of a position of power that public sympathy doesn't take hold.
Finally, what's this about the Gestapo. Had you lived in Eastern Europe during World War II you would have far more respect for those who actually endured what really was the Gestapo. It went much further than other people posting their (dissenting) beliefs or feelings in a free, public forum.
Yes, I know this is flamebait. CO2 tank, check. Asbestos suit, check. Flame away, baby!
I agree 101%. RMS/FSF/GNU/BSD/Linux/etc. was helped (or should I say pushed) immensely by the enormous costs for UNIX software several years ago, and the ridiculous quantity of bugs and high cost of Windows more recently. Now the free software / open source community is in danger of losing a big reason to continue the battle. Yes I despise Windoze and avoid using it whenever I can. But I would much rather have people choose free software because it is better and much less expensive, not because the DOJ swatted Micro$oft. By the way, search/. for issues regarding governments and count the times we the posters rail on politicians for their general lack-of-clue about this industry, and our general resentment of their intrusions. Then notice that anytime Micro$oft is mentioned the general feeling runs exactly opposite -- is that hypocrisy or what. I would rather think that we (open source developers) could beat billy boy and the windoze of doom on our own. Don't we have any pride at all? Why do we admit defeat so early? Do we really want to make a pact with one devil to squash another one?
#includestdio.h main() { FILE*fp=fopen("/dev/paper.bag.containing.epic", "rw"); /* now the bag is open, feel free to crawl out. */ } /* comments re coding style cheerfully ignored */
It's architectural blackmail. Either you upgrade and pay in money, or you live with what you have and pay in frustration as the game crawls across your screen. [and online, expect to get well and truly fragged]
At least if you don't stay too far back in the upgrade pipeline, you can usually do incremental upgrades -- always getting *decent* performance, if not the best. If you wait too long, then yes you will have to replace half your system and empty your wallet.
My words of *wisdom* -- get the best AGP video card you can afford, the second-best processor on the market (the first is always ridiculously overpriced and not worth it in price/performance), and at least 128M of memory.
Maybe one of those evil hackers could modify the DOJ's kids web page to include a link to this article--just so the inquiring fifth grader could get both sides of the story.
The reason crypto software needs to be "continually exported" is that that is how open source development works (no, not continual exporting, but continual *collaboration* -- by lots of people all over the world). So if I write some bugs into my super-duper-new-and-wonderful do-everything-you-ever-needed crypto program, and you get the source and fix those bugs... but oh you cannot send me (or anyone else) the patches because you live in the US... well, you see the problem.
Of course c2txt2c does make it pretty obvious that the output text contains a program. But it would not be very difficult to write a translator that *hides* the program in a normal piece of literature. (along the lines of steganography)
So maybe the government will get another un-clue and say that *any* chunk of text that is computer-readable and could be translated to source for a restricted kind of program is not "free speech".
Digital messages (signatures) are already being encoded into.GIFs,.JPGs and the like -- why not encode a program or program fragment instead.
What if the text if this message actually contains part of the source for PGP? (appropriately encoded, of course) It might.
The end result is that as long as geeks are smarter than politicians (that's for(;;); in C) there will be ways for private citizens to communicate privately. And as long as the general populace continues to elect clueless politicians, silly rules will continue to be enacted and shoved down our throats.
Slashdot Mirror
people invest in microsoft
red hat = microsoft
That is the point. We should celebrate our diversity, not complain about it.
We have several open operating systems (Linux, *BSD, HURD...). We have tons of open protocols and open source programs. We have the power and the freedom to choose to use whatever we like, and avoid what we don't. On the other hand, Windoze users get to enjoy Microsoft's vision of their desktop and their future (where do you want to go today?); if they don't like it, that's too bad!
If someone is not implementing an operating system, a "desktop" environment, a browser, or whatever the way you think it should be, that is your golden opportunity! Develop what you do like (or find someone who can, and persuade them to), release it to the world, and watch people enjoy your innovation. Or watch it flounder and die miserably, because it was a horrible idea in the first place. Either way, you can still run whatever you want on your own system. Don't complain that I or someone else is not building your dream product -- do it yourself (or find someone who will).
As for the effects of competing products... I say that competition improves all concerned. Usually innovation in a product comes at the beginning of the product's lifetime. If innovation enters later, check the source: it probably originated somewhere else and was copied or stolen. Changes to a product over its lifetime are largely evolutionary and predictable, unless there is a competing product to steal ideas from and try to leap ahead of.
You will say that some products will not survive the competition, and that that may not be a good thing. If the product had an inherently good idea, then that good idea will not be gone for long. If the product had no inherently good ideas, then the marketplace is better served by its departure than by its existence. That is an example of natural selection that actually, demonstrably works. (and I can't wait for it to happen to Windoze!)
Well, this should start at least a little flamewar... Who wants to go first?
Any kid who goes AWOL on his education is punished by court-martial.
Lets think about penalties:
Not doing your homework. 1 week additional remedial homework assignments.
Late for class. Public flogging at 6 am each day, for 2 weeks. All students required to attend, observe, and present reports.
Talking out of turn. 1 week in solitary confinement.
Disruptive behavior. 1 week in the stocks.
Below-average performance (bad grades). Capital punishment.
Lest you think these are a bit harsh, allow me to remind you that we are giving everyone a fair start in life, and cannot allow a few to ruin it for the rest.
Yes, this is extremely sarcastic. The point is, just because something might work (I guarantee after a few months you would have a very obedient, if a bit disgruntled, group of kids), does not mean it is the best approach.
[subtitle]How to be paranoid, for the curious[/subtitle]
... until they pretend to stop. All we can do is our best.
In principle I agree with your statement: if you are running untrusted malicious binaries on your system then you have bigger problems. However, the only way to be sure that a binary can be trusted is to inspect the source it was compiled from, or have someone you trust do that for you. Here are two small requirements to meet in order to avoid those "bigger problems" you refer to.
1. You must be able to read and understand all the source languages of all your binaries, and you must know all the possible security/privacy/etc. threats that could be implemented in those languages. In other words, you are a programming and security expert for all those languages. Or you know and trust someone who is.
2. You must have access to the source code that all your binaries were built from. In other words, you run only open source software.
While you may meet those requirements just fine, the majority of computer users who might choose to use or be forced to use (by their employer) a computer do not meet those requirements. Not even close. I'm certain that I don't. [For reference, use of most commercial software products is automatic disqualification.]
Do you have the time to scrutinize the source for everything you run? Do you have the source to everything you run? For your sake, I hope so.
For the rest of us, two solutions present themselves. Either we can try to prevent private information from leaking out of our computers (difficult-to-impossible), or we can try to prevent outside organizations from recording and using this information (also difficult) and give them plenty of negative press, boycotts, rants,
p.s. I happen to consider Microsoft products to be untrusted malicious binaries. Do you have reason to suggest otherwise? For those of us trapped in the Windows world, do you have a solution -- that runs on Windows?
Just because I'm not paranoid doesn't mean that no one is spying on me.
If some greedy idiot breaks into my house and tries to hurt me or my wife or my kid I want to hurt him first, so bad that he wants to stop. He is the aggressor, where does he get the right to sue me, the victim? And if he does have that right, then why can't I go try to rob some really rich people/companies, get shot by their security forces, sue, and make lots of money? Sounds like a plan...
The reason I don't like the system is because it only works for the bad guys. Go ahead, prove me wrong.
Have you read the Bible recently? Or at least the references to hell? The words fire or flame come up quite a bit.
The real problem with hell is that it is eternal punishment, the point of no return, no second chances. The Bible tells you how to be sure that you will avoid hell. Take the advice. Don't go there.
RISC is different from CISC in one letter: R
Reduced Instruction Set Computer is different from Complex Instruction Set Computer because the instruction set complexity is reduced.
What's the point? Compilers and processors can do more optimization tricks (pipelining, out-of-order execution, prediction,
And it is always good to have faster computers.
Are all diplomas made from sheepskin?
Do sheep automatically have a degree? In what?
We always need "another one", because more is better
1. More competition for me (random developer of product xyz) encourages me to improve my product. That helps me, and my competitor (in the same way), and most importantly the users.
2. More competition for me encourages me to lower my price, if I want people to use my product. But wait, what if my product is free? Price is but one barrier to the potential user of a product, others are ease of use, maintenance, installation, auxiliary required resources (a computer), and the list goes on. I will be encouraged to lower those barriers, and that is good.
3. Moving NT products to Linux helps to move NT users to Linux. More Linux users is a good thing. Fewer NT users is a good thing.
4. Moving NT products to Linux raises awareness of Linux as a real viable useful good thing in managers' eyes (and others who hold those all important purse strings).
Ever heard the phrase a rising tide lifts all boats ?
[Ad hominem rant mode ON]
Hey, AC... Get an account. Log in. Stand up and be counted!
Do you know how to read? Do you bother trying? MOST means "more than the rest", and MOST of the recent comments are pro-smash-Microsoft. Get a clue! What, because a small minority either like Microsoft or dislike the government or its actions, you think that they will massively overpower the very large, very vocal majority who love government intrusion into other people's lives and hate anything Microsoft? Wake up, smell the java 1.2 beans, and Get a clue!
[End rant]
By the way, I don't like Microsoft. I don't like most of their software, except some really nice tools they bought from other companies and haven't managed to screw up yet.
I know lots of people (smart developers, not idiots on the street) who dream of inventing something totally cool, being bought by Microsoft, turning into instant zillionaires, and retiring to a beach somewhere at the ripe old age of 25. Yes Microsoft will embrace and extend (swallow and bloat) their innovation. Yes they may worry a little about that. But money talks, and big money talks very persuasively.
And what about the hundreds of thousands of developers who have spent the money, bought the books, took the classes, learned the APIs, and depend on Microsoftware for their collective livelihood. Do you really want those people (don't forget their spouses and children) out of a job, out of a house, out on the street... Or (even worse?) do you want them coding everything they know and love (and you despise) into Linux? Here comes the bloat!
In case you hadn't noticed, people like to side with the underdog. At least lets keep Microsoft in enough of a position of power that public sympathy doesn't take hold.
Finally, what's this about the Gestapo. Had you lived in Eastern Europe during World War II you would have far more respect for those who actually endured what really was the Gestapo. It went much further than other people posting their (dissenting) beliefs or feelings in a free, public forum.
Yes, I know this is flamebait. CO2 tank, check. Asbestos suit, check. Flame away, baby!
RMS/FSF/GNU/BSD/Linux/etc. was helped (or should I say pushed) immensely by the enormous costs for UNIX software several years ago, and the ridiculous quantity of bugs and high cost of Windows more recently. Now the free software / open source community is in danger of losing a big reason to continue the battle.
Yes I despise Windoze and avoid using it whenever I can. But I would much rather have people choose free software because it is better and much less expensive, not because the DOJ swatted Micro$oft.
By the way, search
I would rather think that we (open source developers) could beat billy boy and the windoze of doom on our own. Don't we have any pride at all? Why do we admit defeat so early? Do we really want to make a pact with one devil to squash another one?
I believe the man's name is Bruce Schneier.
Not Schneir.
See his website.
#includestdio.h
/* now the bag is open, feel free to crawl out. */
/* comments re coding style cheerfully ignored */
main()
{
FILE*fp=fopen("/dev/paper.bag.containing.epic", "rw");
}
At least if you don't stay too far back in the upgrade pipeline, you can usually do incremental upgrades -- always getting *decent* performance, if not the best. If you wait too long, then yes you will have to replace half your system and empty your wallet.
My words of *wisdom* -- get the best AGP video card you can afford, the second-best processor on the market (the first is always ridiculously overpriced and not worth it in price/performance), and at least 128M of memory.
That's my $0.02. (flame away boys!)
Maybe one of those evil hackers could modify the DOJ's kids web page to include a link to this article--just so the inquiring fifth grader could get both sides of the story.
If natural language (English or whatever you happen to speak) is "free speech", then translate C to that language, and export away.
Perhaps use the c2txt2c translator (GPL'd open source) at http://personal.sip.fi/~lm/c2txt2c/ or http://www.nettaxi.com/citizens/lma/
Of course c2txt2c does make it pretty obvious that the output text contains a program. But it would not be very difficult to write a translator that *hides* the program in a normal piece of literature. (along the lines of steganography)
So maybe the government will get another un-clue and say that *any* chunk of text that is computer-readable and could be translated to source for a restricted kind of program is not "free speech".
Digital messages (signatures) are already being encoded into .GIFs, .JPGs and the like -- why not encode a program or program fragment instead.
What if the text if this message actually contains part of the source for PGP? (appropriately encoded, of course) It might.
The end result is that as long as geeks are smarter than politicians (that's for(;;); in C) there will be ways for private citizens to communicate privately. And as long as the general populace continues to elect clueless politicians, silly rules will continue to be enacted and shoved down our throats.