The original poster makes a valid point; forget about SOX, all major organisations, everywhere, views their email as an essential 'utility', and recognise the need for 'world-class', (whatever that means), uptime, security and auditability.
So, it'll take a while, IMHO. Just like it took a while for Linux & Apache...
"It's a complete desktop environment for Linux on x86. It tries to make easier for Windows XP users to use a Linux box. Nothing more, no clipboard compatibility between Gtk and Qt applications, no emulation of Windows applications, no unification on the widgets of X applications, just a desktop environment."
But thanks for the post - interesting. I'll take a deeper look; should be relatively straightforward to get WINE running on this, for example. Also, interesting legal advice on their main page on copying Windows 'look & feel' (PDF): http://www.xpde.com/docs/Windows_Linux_Lookalikes_v02.pdf
My thoughts exactly - but it's got a +5 so all is well.
Just one thing - switching an XP user to Vista is, unfortunately, less hard than to Linux. I've done both (for users). It's not just the driver hell, it's the investment that people have in the look and feel, shortcuts...
Now, make Ubuntu look *exactly* like XP, and Oo look *exactly* like Office 2003, (so many people hate 2007, including me) and FOSS will clean up
Agree. Slightly confused by your dual usage of 'body politic', tho'. Yes, the Moscow clique support Putin, (through little choice), whilst he - for reasons you allude to - does enjoy genuine popular support. Indeed a problem, and going the wrong way.
By a strange quirk of history, they nearly got me too; but that was another time, and another place...
Still, seemingly like you, I cannot bear a grudge again such a genuinely charming people, who have been foully served by their leaders for centuries.
They did not cut production. During 2008, a time of record high oil prices, in case you have forgotten, production fell by nearly 1%.
Historically, major increases in production had been achieved with the investment and expertise of western companies, working with Russian (OK kleptocratic) private organisations.
Putin then threw them all out / locked 'em all up. (By the way, where the money goes now is fairly obscure...Gazprom, for example, has subsidiaries in such oil-rich nations as the Caymen Islands, Cyprus...)
While I appreciate that this is a popular position for the Norquist/Libeterian crowd, I do not agree.
Well, never though of myself as a Libertarian... To clarify my thoughts; well, all G7 Govs. seem to have dropped the economic ball - in some way or another - in recent times, so we may, I suggest, reasonably claim that they're all incompetent in that regard.
Let's turn to the main point, to whit Putin. He has ruthlessly and systematically concentrated power just as much as any Tzar, (to be fair, so have others - think Burlusconi, Chavez...) I suggest it is therefore reasonable to assign the current condition of the Russian economy and state pretty much to him.
Now, do you seriously suggest that those two things are in good shape? Major western economies are in the toilet, for sure, but on all other criteria (democracy, corruption, life expectancy...) we're way ahead. My concern is that the signs are not good for progress in Rusia on ANY front.
Bollocks. Competent at being authoritarian, yes, as you'd expect from a bunch of Chekists.
Oil production (output) has fallen since the re-nationalisation by Putin and his cronies, and now that oil prices have fallen, the dependance of the Russian economy on commodity exports, and - shock - foreign investment has been revealed.
Make no mistake, they're in big truoble just like the other major world economies.
As I said before, its not the Thai monarch, they have no real power, the king is king in name only (a rich land owner that holds no real political power much like the queen of England). It's Thailand unstable democracy that keeps producing these laws, not its monarch...
An extract: 'Many Thais will squirm at what follows, and will prefer the fairy-tale version of the king's story. But the king's past actions are root causes of a conflict dividing the country, and need to be examined.'
FTA: 'At the same time, Nemesysco's actions have led to even greater media attention for the two Swedish professors' research. "It was hardly their intention. But since the article was withdrawn, I have received lots of mail and requests for copies of the article. The article would not have been read to this extent if the company had simply ignored it in silence," says Francisco Lacerda to the Dagens Nyheter.'
So now, instead of the just the readers of some obscure journal, it's all over da Intertubes. Well done boys!
If you need to consider "virus protection" on your Linux box then someone along the line failed to learn from past mistakes...
Agree about MacOS; as a BSD fan how could I not;)
Anyway, are you seriously suggesting that all mixed network environments are run by people who know what they are doing, and should be 'tarred and feathered' if not? Seems rather harsh. Do you check all the files that come into your network(s) via USB and other sources? Are you sure that no Windows infections can spread via a *nix box?
If they are produced in a typical fab then the technology is known & proven and the environmental issues too...most fabs are outside China and subject to pretty draconian environmental controls.
Also, these things are pretty small, so consume less raw materials and require less transport...
All in all, a win all around, although - as someone has mentioned here - LEDs are not that 'bright' compared to traditional lighting.
OK, maybe so, but was just saying, as a FOSS supporter, please note, that this 'it's Linux so it's safe' attitude worries me. Malware specificially targetting Linux has been around at least since 2002. It's interesting that you mention scripts, since these can actually make attacks less distro-dependant. Anyway, just target (k)ubuntu to make sure that you get the newbies...(although, yes, root is unavailable in ubuntu by default)
I'm tired of explaining to people why they should consider virus protection on their Linux box - "it's invulnerable!" - in, for example, mixed Win/Linux environments...
We should not forget that there are plenty of people out there with ziltch experience in securing a *nix system (how many users do you see still logging in as root?)...so, let's be careful & humble, is all...never underestimate the ability of stupid and/or poorly-trained users to destroy *any* system
Whilst there's some truth in what you say, this is interesting "Globally, the source of the most number of infections for these top 100 malware is the Internet, specifically in surfing unknown or malicious sites, or accepting links offered in unsolicited email."
Sure, there's probably a FOSS program for nearly everything you need, put that won't stop idiots or non tech-aware people downloading malware-ridden crap from the net becuse of banners flashing 'look, free telephoning/pron/whatever *certified* virus-free!!!
I thought that many artists earn the real money these days by live shows, anyway? So they're quite content to have their - erm - content downloaded because it gets them known and so people come to the concerts?
Mod up! I'm a big fan of both Linux and OO, but a lot of people seem to have a dangerously smug attitude towards security. As they get more popular, especially with non-expert users, more vulnerabilities will be found and exploited.
Still, the FOSS community does have a good record of discovering and fixing severe problems quickly IMHO.
With conditions this extreme, I wonder if there is an atmosphere. Would it not get ripped away? The article talks about supersonic winds - but how do we know?
Perhaps the atmosphere regenerates as the planet moves away from the star, only to be ripped away again in some kind of Promethian nightmare
Mod parent funny or insightful depending on your mood. I smiled.
"process not complete"? I'll stick with POP
on
Offline Gmail Launched
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I'm a huge Gmail fan, but - I'll always want to keep a full backup of what I send and receive, and POP does that just fine for me & family.
FTA: "Google ruled out the option of letting users replicate their entire Gmail inboxes to their PCs, which in many cases would translate into gigabytes of data flowing to people's hard drives. It instead developed algorithms that will automatically determine which messages should be downloaded to PCs, taking into consideration a variety of factors that reflect their level of importance to the user, he said. At this point, end-users will not be able to tweak these settings manually."
Slashdot Mirror
C'mon, you just made that number up.
The original poster makes a valid point; forget about SOX, all major organisations, everywhere, views their email as an essential 'utility', and recognise the need for 'world-class', (whatever that means), uptime, security and auditability.
So, it'll take a while, IMHO. Just like it took a while for Linux & Apache...
Would probably look something like this (SFW)
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=kCXDEAWJXqE
Ahhh...here we go. Someone's done the work for getting this going with Kubuntu. Looks old, but I'll give it a whirl.
http://www.linux.org.bd/forum/viewtopic.php?p=662
No, it's not.
"It's a complete desktop environment for Linux on x86. It tries to make easier for Windows XP users to use a Linux box. Nothing more, no clipboard compatibility between Gtk and Qt applications, no emulation of Windows applications, no unification on the widgets of X applications, just a desktop environment."
But thanks for the post - interesting. I'll take a deeper look; should be relatively straightforward to get WINE running on this, for example. Also, interesting legal advice on their main page on copying Windows 'look & feel' (PDF): http://www.xpde.com/docs/Windows_Linux_Lookalikes_v02.pdf
My thoughts exactly - but it's got a +5 so all is well.
Just one thing - switching an XP user to Vista is, unfortunately, less hard than to Linux. I've done both (for users). It's not just the driver hell, it's the investment that people have in the look and feel, shortcuts...
Now, make Ubuntu look *exactly* like XP, and Oo look *exactly* like Office 2003, (so many people hate 2007, including me) and FOSS will clean up
Am I the only one thinking 'Minority Report' here?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/
Agree. Slightly confused by your dual usage of 'body politic', tho'. Yes, the Moscow clique support Putin, (through little choice), whilst he - for reasons you allude to - does enjoy genuine popular support. Indeed a problem, and going the wrong way.
By a strange quirk of history, they nearly got me too; but that was another time, and another place...
Still, seemingly like you, I cannot bear a grudge again such a genuinely charming people, who have been foully served by their leaders for centuries.
Well, I read that, and it seems that they were right to give up, since their stuff was crap?
This link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_computer_systems
Seems to show that most of their (successful) stuff was cloned?
They did not cut production. During 2008, a time of record high oil prices, in case you have forgotten, production fell by nearly 1%.
Historically, major increases in production had been achieved with the investment and expertise of western companies, working with Russian (OK kleptocratic) private organisations.
Putin then threw them all out / locked 'em all up. (By the way, where the money goes now is fairly obscure...Gazprom, for example, has subsidiaries in such oil-rich nations as the Caymen Islands, Cyprus...)
Surprise, surprise, production then fell. Was not reduced, just damn fell. Reminds me of, well, Venezuela, for example?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/3183417/Venezuelas-oil-output-slumps-under-Hugo-Chavez.html
While I appreciate that this is a popular position for the Norquist/Libeterian crowd, I do not agree.
Well, never though of myself as a Libertarian...
To clarify my thoughts; well, all G7 Govs. seem to have dropped the economic ball - in some way or another - in recent times, so we may, I suggest, reasonably claim that they're all incompetent in that regard.
Let's turn to the main point, to whit Putin. He has ruthlessly and systematically concentrated power just as much as any Tzar, (to be fair, so have others - think Burlusconi, Chavez...) I suggest it is therefore reasonable to assign the current condition of the Russian economy and state pretty much to him.
Now, do you seriously suggest that those two things are in good shape? Major western economies are in the toilet, for sure, but on all other criteria (democracy, corruption, life expectancy...) we're way ahead. My concern is that the signs are not good for progress in Rusia on ANY front.
Authoritarian, yes, but competent at it.
Bollocks. Competent at being authoritarian, yes, as you'd expect from a bunch of Chekists.
Oil production (output) has fallen since the re-nationalisation by Putin and his cronies, and now that oil prices have fallen, the dependance of the Russian economy on commodity exports, and - shock - foreign investment has been revealed.
Make no mistake, they're in big truoble just like the other major world economies.
As I said before, its not the Thai monarch, they have no real power, the king is king in name only (a rich land owner that holds no real political power much like the queen of England). It's Thailand unstable democracy that keeps producing these laws, not its monarch...
Many reputable sources, including 'The Economist', (which is probably why it's been banned too), would beg to differ. See:
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12724800&source=hptextfeature
An extract: 'Many Thais will squirm at what follows, and will prefer the fairy-tale version of the king's story. But the king's past actions are root causes of a conflict dividing the country, and need to be examined.'
FTA:
'At the same time, Nemesysco's actions have led to even greater media attention for the two Swedish professors' research. "It was hardly their intention. But since the article was withdrawn, I have received lots of mail and requests for copies of the article. The article would not have been read to this extent if the company had simply ignored it in silence," says Francisco Lacerda to the Dagens Nyheter.'
So now, instead of the just the readers of some obscure journal, it's all over da Intertubes. Well done boys!
There never is one, but right now is certainly NOT a good time to 'go it alone'.
As for 10%, it's worthless. Take cash instead.
If you need to consider "virus protection" on your Linux box then
someone along the line failed to learn from past mistakes...
Agree about MacOS; as a BSD fan how could I not ;)
Anyway, are you seriously suggesting that all mixed network environments are run by people who know what they are doing, and should be 'tarred and feathered' if not? Seems rather harsh.
Do you check all the files that come into your network(s) via USB and other sources? Are you sure that no Windows infections can spread via a *nix box?
If they are produced in a typical fab then the technology is known & proven and the environmental issues too...most fabs are outside China and subject to pretty draconian environmental controls.
Also, these things are pretty small, so consume less raw materials and require less transport...
All in all, a win all around, although - as someone has mentioned here - LEDs are not that 'bright' compared to traditional lighting.
OK, maybe so, but was just saying, as a FOSS supporter, please note, that this 'it's Linux so it's safe' attitude worries me. Malware specificially targetting Linux has been around at least since 2002. It's interesting that you mention scripts, since these can actually make attacks less distro-dependant. Anyway, just target (k)ubuntu to make sure that you get the newbies...(although, yes, root is unavailable in ubuntu by default)
I'm tired of explaining to people why they should consider virus protection on their Linux box - "it's invulnerable!" - in, for example, mixed Win/Linux environments...
We should not forget that there are plenty of people out there with ziltch experience in securing a *nix system (how many users do you see still logging in as root?)...so, let's be careful & humble, is all...never underestimate the ability of stupid and/or poorly-trained users to destroy *any* system
Even discounting human.pet accidents, no one wants to wake up in the morning to find that a robot has eaten your picnic table.
Or emptied your car of fuel...
Whilst there's some truth in what you say, this is interesting "Globally, the source of the most number of infections for these top 100 malware is the Internet, specifically in surfing unknown or malicious sites, or accepting links offered in unsolicited email."
http://blog.trendmicro.com/most-abused-infection-vector/
Sure, there's probably a FOSS program for nearly everything you need, put that won't stop idiots or non tech-aware people downloading malware-ridden crap from the net becuse of banners flashing 'look, free telephoning/pron/whatever *certified* virus-free!!!
I thought that many artists earn the real money these days by live shows, anyway? So they're quite content to have their - erm - content downloaded because it gets them known and so people come to the concerts?
And pot is legal too - that settles it, I'm moving out there...
Mod up! I'm a big fan of both Linux and OO, but a lot of people seem to have a dangerously smug attitude towards security. As they get more popular, especially with non-expert users, more vulnerabilities will be found and exploited.
Still, the FOSS community does have a good record of discovering and fixing severe problems quickly IMHO.
With conditions this extreme, I wonder if there is an atmosphere. Would it not get ripped away?
The article talks about supersonic winds - but how do we know?
Perhaps the atmosphere regenerates as the planet moves away from the star, only to be ripped away again in some kind of Promethian nightmare
Mod parent funny or insightful depending on your mood. I smiled.
I'm a huge Gmail fan, but - I'll always want to keep a full backup of what I send and receive, and POP does that just fine for me & family.
FTA: "Google ruled out the option of letting users replicate their entire Gmail inboxes to their PCs, which in many cases would translate into gigabytes of data flowing to people's hard drives. It instead developed algorithms that will automatically determine which messages should be downloaded to PCs, taking into consideration a variety of factors that reflect their level of importance to the user, he said. At this point, end-users will not be able to tweak these settings manually."
So, urm, no thanks!