It is composed apparently entirely of people that have never been USERS in their lives.
We're all users at some point.
They've never dealt with something that they just don't have the time or ambition to learn.
Because, IMO, Linux users are a different KIND of user than the "typical" home user, who is content to learn as little as possible (i.e., just the bare minimum they need to get by)... Most (not all, I'm sure) Linux users are the type who will dig and search until they find the answer they're looking for.
Is it so bad that the Linux users want Linux to remain as is? I personally am waiting for the day when the commercial demands become too great, and many Linux users and developers pack it up and move on to another platform. That we (Linux users) are "elitist" or "snobbish" is a matter of opinion... the *BSD snobs are way worse. (Note: I didn't say BSD users - many BSD users are quite cool, and even like Linux fine, but I've met enough *BSD snobs to know they're out there.)
My only gripe with what this guy has to say is this:
Companies expecting volunteers to have open-source projects done on some arbitrary timetable? They can expect all they want, but when you're doing it for free, you may not be able to concentrate on the project at hand, or you may just not feel like messing with it for awhile - and when you're not getting PAID for it, you can do as you please.
It's a different story if businesses (like RH, SuSE, VA, PrecisionInsight, etc) HIRE these people, and pay them to continue their open-source projects... but for those for whom this is strictly a hobby deal, they don't have to follow anyone's timetable, and saying that they do is ludicrous.
I do understand the rest of the article, though I think the typical user can learn a lot more than they're willing to - it's in large part a matter of desire...
Well, that's going to be a pretty hefty loss of quality to fit it on 1 or 2 CD-Rs... probably close to the same as recording on a standard VHS VCR. And I think the court cases of yesteryear proved that we are allowed to use/own VCRs. However, it's economically unfeasible to copy DVD to DVD just in the home (because of the cost of DVD-R/DVD-RAM discs, and because they WILL NOT play in a standard set-top DVD deck). It's not the same - you're not getting a 100% identical copy, you're getting a lossy copy.
And if you split the entire DVD down onto individual CDs, you'd be switching discs every 10 minutes just to watch a damned movie. (Yes, you could do it, but the average person won't - and they won't play in a set-top player like that...)
Yes, yes, we know copying movies isn't cool - but I mean, really, the kind of copying that the MPAA should be worrying about - mass-piracy operations in places like Hong Kong, with disc-pressing equipment.
Well, I'm sure that if it doesn't say what you want to believe, it's got to be false, right?
Yes, I've heard from multiple sources that there've been a few different attempts within Microsoft since the acquisition of Hotmail to switch to NT - however, it crashed too frequently to be usable. It's one of those things - you hear it enough times, from enough different sources, you tend to believe it.
I'm sorry that it's not what you want to hear, but it just might be true, even so.
Ok, your claim here proves you don't understand the concept which you're using...
You're comparing a count of KNOWN bugs (65000+) to an estimate for the total number of bugs (which obviously is not known - we don't know all the bugs, and there's no way to)... Also, consider that you're talking about code that's supposed to have been rigorously tested and debugged.
When you think about it that way, 65000+ <i>known</i> bugs may not be so good.
Well, the 65000+ bug count applies to the FINAL release (which went gold late last year) and so, if you buy Win2k, all those bugs are in the product you will buy.
Does this surprise you? Of course, Microsoft wants the profit without having to take responsibility for their product's shortcomings, so they write provisions into the license agreements to codify that. Doesn't come as a surprise to me, quite frankly...
That's why the claim of many people that they "like commercial software because if it fails, you have someone to sue" is basically moot - with new legislation that's supposed to make clickthrough licenses enforcable, that makes it even more pointless. They don't have anyone to sue. They've AGREED to a license that says as much. Oh well, it's their own damn fault, I guess.
Well, remember that Debian has a lot more software packages included with it (applications, Web servers, FTP servers, database servers). However, Windows includes the basics (a few applets, few services included (if any)). Also, keep in mind, this covers the latest (unstable) Debian packages, not just the current released version.
As far as the comment you quote about Linux being nonstandard, the only reason it's nonstandard is because to them, Windows is the standard. Too bad the standard is so poor.
When Loki was getting started, Scott Draeker asked for e-mail from the community stating what games they (we) wanted to see ported. I'm sure the folks at Loki would still be glad to hear from people with suggestions.
(Of course, don't flood Loki, and be nice about it - Loki is a friend to the Linux community, IMO...)
MySQL may not handle large databases as well, but it's a whole lot faster than Oracle. This is NOT intended as a dig at Oracle - it's good at what it does, but for quick-response database service for Web sites, it has way too much overhead. For data warehousing, full SQL-92 support, etc., Oracle's great - but it's not as good for the backend to a Web site... Right tool for the job. That's all I can say about it.
Just thought I'd mention, Freshmeat and SourceForge don't even cover the same sort of territory - that's what Server 51 (afaik) is supposed to do: provide a hosting platform for open-source projects. Figured someone should make the point...
Well, not for reverse engineering - at least not entirely. I quote:
(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING.--(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
I'd say working to make DVD playback software under Linux falls under this (IANAL, but I digress). However, it seems that the MPAA doesn't think so... it's all a matter of who's right and who's wrong.
Do we all remember the last time Microsoft talked about releasing their "Media Player" for several versions of Unix? (which Linux was supposed to be one of) It never did materialize - the only thing that they ever released was a worthless, mostly nonfunctional port of NetShow to Linux - it was ugly, bloated (2-3 MB static binary), and didn't work for shit.
I for one don't care - I'll stick with RealPlayer on my Linux box (which at least does what it advertises most of the time). I don't want M$ bloatware on my Linux box. (Consider how lousy the IE builds for HP-UX and Solaris/SPARC were - do we really need the equivalent of that?)
Not quite - some smaller DVD manufacturers (Manga Video, for example) do not use encryption on their DVDs. (For example, "Ghost in the Shell" is stored 100% unencrypted on the DVD disc.) Players do not require it - but they do check that they are not DVD-RAMs, as far as I know (probably by checking the preburned disc sectors that mark them as DVD-RAM discs). However, most of the large movie houses do encrypt all, or nearly all, of the VOBs on the DVD discs, under the mistaken impression that the CSS encryption will protect the movies from piracy.
From what I understand, Mark Podlipec (developer of Xanim) has talked to Sorenson about doing a codec under NDA for Xanim (as he has done with other codecs), but they've basically told him that Apple has some sort of deal with them where Apple won't allow them to do such a thing. I think it's quite strange, but that's what they told him...
Well, I have too, but not with any modern codecs (esp. like the Sorenson codec and some of the other newer codecs that came along in QT 3 and 4)... I think that's what most of us want.
Keep in mind that Win2K went gold (the installation package was written to a master CD and shipped off to duplicators) in mid-December, so they're not changing the final release - you'll have to download the patches. So, it's a slightly different thing than id Software making last-minute fixes on Q3A (where their last-minute changes actually went into the shipping product).
Well, after all the posturing they've done about how Win2K is supposed to be their most secure OS ever... this is just poor. If they're going to make the claim, they'd better bust their asses to fulfill that claim! And if they CAN'T fulfill it, then damn it, making it is a pretty lousy thing to do.
I can certainly see where you're coming from, but as far as the size goes, that's not OUR fault (I use the first-person plural referring to us as the consuming public), that's their own fault for taping, gluing, nailing, and otherwise affixing in any way possible layer upon layer of cruft to their OS.
Also, part of their testing nightmare is the fact that everything depends on everything else - it's practically impossible to pull ONE component off the behemoth, and poke/prod/analyze it completely, because it's gonna depend on a hundred other little chunks distributed throughout the OS. They really need to clean up their act there.
If they screw up (ESPECIALLY with all the rhetoric and posturing coming from Redmond) and WE call them on it, well, then they'd better sit up and pay attention. Of course, we are dealing with Microsoft, so they're probably sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "I'M NOT LISTENING!!! OH SAY CAN YOU SEEEEEE...." as we speak.
Although it Slashdot likes to say that there are security hazard with windows it's really an exageration.
Ok. I don't know how you figure that it's an exaggeration, but let's have a look at what you're thinking here.
I read an article about Unix permisions helping stop viruses but with Windows we have something far more powerfull.
Oh? And pray tell - what is this powerfull [sp] thing that you have that Unix/Linux doesn't?
Microsoft format is graphical where Linux does not have a graphical user interface [GUI].
Ok, I really don't know how this makes a damn bit of difference. (There are GUIs for Unix/Linux, but they don't have tendrils extending into every layer of the system.)
This makes hacking a W2k more secure becuase things are not stored in plain text.
Bullshit. All it takes is a little effort to learn the formats (and if you have a W2K box, reading those data formats isn't that hard a proposition)...
Instead MicroSoft stores things in fancy graphical text. This makes it harder for hackers to read.
"Fancy graphical text"? Uhh. I think you mean binary config files. That's no protection. There's a name for that though - security by obscurity. It's no security at all.
Linux should really work on making a [GUI] then they will be ready for "prime time." They will even be able to have advertisements on TV if they had a GUI.
That's a laugh. Like we care about ads on TV. Linux works just fine for those of us who want it for the advantages it provides (a lighter-weight system, without the GUI bloat), and GUI frontends are available (think of the GNOME and KDE desktop environments).
Also Linux would be able to handle "real time" applications. And do many other marvelous things like "enterprize readiness" and "intuitive network applications" and "erp" that Windows does.
"[R]eal time" stuff is the domain of real-time OSes (think QNX). Right tool for the job. And "enterprize readiness" [sp]? Enterprise-readiness is a very subjective thing - but Windows NT (Win2k, whatever) isn't it - if you want high-end computing, you best be shelling out for a higher-end box, like a Sun or HP UNIX server-class system. ERP is just bullshit - just another pretty acronym to sell to the suits.
Just my 2 shillings.
That's about all it's worth, too. Really, come on - you're much too in love with GUIs.
I think he was referring to the bastardization that Microsoft has developed over the years as its GUI of choice, and Apple's bowing to Microsoft on certain properties of a GUI (stick-on-click dropdown menus, Alt-Tab (or Command-Tab, in the Mac case) switching among apps, certain other little things). I don't need to tell you that you're right, of course - Apple had its GUI fleshed out quite completely with the original Macs well before Bill & Co. started piecing together their own GUI front-end...
If SGI wish to open-source their stuff, I'm happy. I think that's a good think, and I can heartily say "more power to 'em". Why do we scream for companies to open-source their stuff, then we have people like you who proceed to bitch about it when they do.
Also, it'd be a lot easier to understand your opinion on this if you wrote in better English. (I'm not gonna say anything about your intelligence - I have a professor who is quite intelligent from what I can tell, but most of the time people can't understand him for love or money...)
I have e-mailed them expressing my interest in working on Linux support (under NDA if necessary) for the Hollywood+ card. One thing that I think is making them reluctant to support DVD with it on Linux is that CSS challenge/response authentication is all done in software, making it especially susceptible to reverse engineering. (Which we've learned all too well that the movie industry looks down on...)
I've begun the very basic framework of such a driver, hoping I could (by examining the device's memory space) figure out something, but all I can do so far is read the memory space - I don't yet know what to do from there. (I'm guessing once the software configures the device, by telling it where to output video (to TV-out or to VGA overlay, and if on overlay, video mode characteristics, overlay origin and dimensions, key color, antijitter mode, brightness/contrast/saturation, etc) it starts feeding MPEG frames into a buffer area in its address space, but I only have my suspicions about it, and no way to determine the veracity of them...)
Sigh. I'd like to be involved, but who knows if they have any interest at all in supporting Linux (yes, I know about their claim about a future product supporting DVD on Linux - they've been claiming that for awhile now).
Well, considering NTFS was originally based off of (and nearly indistinguishable from, originally) OS/2's High-Performance Filesystem, it's no big shock. They probably started out using the same partition IDs.
Slashdot Mirror
It is composed apparently entirely of people that have never been USERS in their lives.
We're all users at some point.
They've never dealt with something that they just don't have the time or ambition to learn.
Because, IMO, Linux users are a different KIND of user than the "typical" home user, who is content to learn as little as possible (i.e., just the bare minimum they need to get by)... Most (not all, I'm sure) Linux users are the type who will dig and search until they find the answer they're looking for.
Is it so bad that the Linux users want Linux to remain as is? I personally am waiting for the day when the commercial demands become too great, and many Linux users and developers pack it up and move on to another platform. That we (Linux users) are "elitist" or "snobbish" is a matter of opinion... the *BSD snobs are way worse. (Note: I didn't say BSD users - many BSD users are quite cool, and even like Linux fine, but I've met enough *BSD snobs to know they're out there.)
My only gripe with what this guy has to say is this:
Companies expecting volunteers to have open-source projects done on some arbitrary timetable? They can expect all they want, but when you're doing it for free, you may not be able to concentrate on the project at hand, or you may just not feel like messing with it for awhile - and when you're not getting PAID for it, you can do as you please.
It's a different story if businesses (like RH, SuSE, VA, PrecisionInsight, etc) HIRE these people, and pay them to continue their open-source projects... but for those for whom this is strictly a hobby deal, they don't have to follow anyone's timetable, and saying that they do is ludicrous.
I do understand the rest of the article, though I think the typical user can learn a lot more than they're willing to - it's in large part a matter of desire...
Well, that's going to be a pretty hefty loss of quality to fit it on 1 or 2 CD-Rs... probably close to the same as recording on a standard VHS VCR. And I think the court cases of yesteryear proved that we are allowed to use/own VCRs. However, it's economically unfeasible to copy DVD to DVD just in the home (because of the cost of DVD-R/DVD-RAM discs, and because they WILL NOT play in a standard set-top DVD deck). It's not the same - you're not getting a 100% identical copy, you're getting a lossy copy.
And if you split the entire DVD down onto individual CDs, you'd be switching discs every 10 minutes just to watch a damned movie. (Yes, you could do it, but the average person won't - and they won't play in a set-top player like that...)
Yes, yes, we know copying movies isn't cool - but I mean, really, the kind of copying that the MPAA should be worrying about - mass-piracy operations in places like Hong Kong, with disc-pressing equipment.
Well, I'm sure that if it doesn't say what you want to believe, it's got to be false, right?
Yes, I've heard from multiple sources that there've been a few different attempts within Microsoft since the acquisition of Hotmail to switch to NT - however, it crashed too frequently to be usable. It's one of those things - you hear it enough times, from enough different sources, you tend to believe it.
I'm sorry that it's not what you want to hear, but it just might be true, even so.
Ok, your claim here proves you don't understand the concept which you're using...
You're comparing a count of KNOWN bugs (65000+) to an estimate for the total number of bugs (which obviously is not known - we don't know all the bugs, and there's no way to)... Also, consider that you're talking about code that's supposed to have been rigorously tested and debugged.
When you think about it that way, 65000+ <i>known</i> bugs may not be so good.
Well, the 65000+ bug count applies to the FINAL release (which went gold late last year) and so, if you buy Win2k, all those bugs are in the product you will buy.
Does this surprise you? Of course, Microsoft wants the profit without having to take responsibility for their product's shortcomings, so they write provisions into the license agreements to codify that. Doesn't come as a surprise to me, quite frankly...
That's why the claim of many people that they "like commercial software because if it fails, you have someone to sue" is basically moot - with new legislation that's supposed to make clickthrough licenses enforcable, that makes it even more pointless. They don't have anyone to sue. They've AGREED to a license that says as much. Oh well, it's their own damn fault, I guess.
Well, remember that Debian has a lot more software packages included with it (applications, Web servers, FTP servers, database servers). However, Windows includes the basics (a few applets, few services included (if any)). Also, keep in mind, this covers the latest (unstable) Debian packages, not just the current released version.
It's something to think about.
As far as the comment you quote about Linux being nonstandard, the only reason it's nonstandard is because to them, Windows is the standard. Too bad the standard is so poor.
When Loki was getting started, Scott Draeker asked for e-mail from the community stating what games they (we) wanted to see ported. I'm sure the folks at Loki would still be glad to hear from people with suggestions.
(Of course, don't flood Loki, and be nice about it - Loki is a friend to the Linux community, IMO...)
MySQL may not handle large databases as well, but it's a whole lot faster than Oracle. This is NOT intended as a dig at Oracle - it's good at what it does, but for quick-response database service for Web sites, it has way too much overhead. For data warehousing, full SQL-92 support, etc., Oracle's great - but it's not as good for the backend to a Web site... Right tool for the job. That's all I can say about it.
Just thought I'd mention, Freshmeat and SourceForge don't even cover the same sort of territory - that's what Server 51 (afaik) is supposed to do: provide a hosting platform for open-source projects. Figured someone should make the point...
According to my IRC client, it'd be Sat Sep 8 19:46:40 MDT 2001... so how DID you calculate that time, anyway? :)
I'd say working to make DVD playback software under Linux falls under this (IANAL, but I digress). However, it seems that the MPAA doesn't think so... it's all a matter of who's right and who's wrong.
Do we all remember the last time Microsoft talked about releasing their "Media Player" for several versions of Unix? (which Linux was supposed to be one of) It never did materialize - the only thing that they ever released was a worthless, mostly nonfunctional port of NetShow to Linux - it was ugly, bloated (2-3 MB static binary), and didn't work for shit.
I for one don't care - I'll stick with RealPlayer on my Linux box (which at least does what it advertises most of the time). I don't want M$ bloatware on my Linux box. (Consider how lousy the IE builds for HP-UX and Solaris/SPARC were - do we really need the equivalent of that?)
Not quite - some smaller DVD manufacturers (Manga Video, for example) do not use encryption on their DVDs. (For example, "Ghost in the Shell" is stored 100% unencrypted on the DVD disc.) Players do not require it - but they do check that they are not DVD-RAMs, as far as I know (probably by checking the preburned disc sectors that mark them as DVD-RAM discs). However, most of the large movie houses do encrypt all, or nearly all, of the VOBs on the DVD discs, under the mistaken impression that the CSS encryption will protect the movies from piracy.
From what I understand, Mark Podlipec (developer of Xanim) has talked to Sorenson about doing a codec under NDA for Xanim (as he has done with other codecs), but they've basically told him that Apple has some sort of deal with them where Apple won't allow them to do such a thing. I think it's quite strange, but that's what they told him...
Well, I have too, but not with any modern codecs (esp. like the Sorenson codec and some of the other newer codecs that came along in QT 3 and 4)... I think that's what most of us want.
Keep in mind that Win2K went gold (the installation package was written to a master CD and shipped off to duplicators) in mid-December, so they're not changing the final release - you'll have to download the patches. So, it's a slightly different thing than id Software making last-minute fixes on Q3A (where their last-minute changes actually went into the shipping product).
Well, after all the posturing they've done about how Win2K is supposed to be their most secure OS ever... this is just poor. If they're going to make the claim, they'd better bust their asses to fulfill that claim! And if they CAN'T fulfill it, then damn it, making it is a pretty lousy thing to do.
I can certainly see where you're coming from, but as far as the size goes, that's not OUR fault (I use the first-person plural referring to us as the consuming public), that's their own fault for taping, gluing, nailing, and otherwise affixing in any way possible layer upon layer of cruft to their OS.
Also, part of their testing nightmare is the fact that everything depends on everything else - it's practically impossible to pull ONE component off the behemoth, and poke/prod/analyze it completely, because it's gonna depend on a hundred other little chunks distributed throughout the OS. They really need to clean up their act there.
If they screw up (ESPECIALLY with all the rhetoric and posturing coming from Redmond) and WE call them on it, well, then they'd better sit up and pay attention. Of course, we are dealing with Microsoft, so they're probably sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "I'M NOT LISTENING!!! OH SAY CAN YOU SEEEEEE...." as we speak.
Although it Slashdot likes to say that there are security hazard with windows it's really an exageration.
Ok. I don't know how you figure that it's an exaggeration, but let's have a look at what you're thinking here.
I read an article about Unix permisions helping stop viruses but with Windows we have something far more powerfull.
Oh? And pray tell - what is this powerfull [sp] thing that you have that Unix/Linux doesn't?
Microsoft format is graphical where Linux does not have a graphical user interface [GUI].
Ok, I really don't know how this makes a damn bit of difference. (There are GUIs for Unix/Linux, but they don't have tendrils extending into every layer of the system.)
This makes hacking a W2k more secure becuase things are not stored in plain text.
Bullshit. All it takes is a little effort to learn the formats (and if you have a W2K box, reading those data formats isn't that hard a proposition)...
Instead MicroSoft stores things in fancy graphical text. This makes it harder for hackers to read.
"Fancy graphical text"? Uhh. I think you mean binary config files. That's no protection. There's a name for that though - security by obscurity. It's no security at all.
Linux should really work on making a [GUI] then they will be ready for "prime time." They will even be able to have advertisements on TV if they had a GUI.
That's a laugh. Like we care about ads on TV. Linux works just fine for those of us who want it for the advantages it provides (a lighter-weight system, without the GUI bloat), and GUI frontends are available (think of the GNOME and KDE desktop environments).
Also Linux would be able to handle "real time" applications. And do many other marvelous things like "enterprize readiness" and "intuitive network applications" and "erp" that Windows does.
"[R]eal time" stuff is the domain of real-time OSes (think QNX). Right tool for the job. And "enterprize readiness" [sp]? Enterprise-readiness is a very subjective thing - but Windows NT (Win2k, whatever) isn't it - if you want high-end computing, you best be shelling out for a higher-end box, like a Sun or HP UNIX server-class system. ERP is just bullshit - just another pretty acronym to sell to the suits.
Just my 2 shillings.
That's about all it's worth, too. Really, come on - you're much too in love with GUIs.
I think he was referring to the bastardization that Microsoft has developed over the years as its GUI of choice, and Apple's bowing to Microsoft on certain properties of a GUI (stick-on-click dropdown menus, Alt-Tab (or Command-Tab, in the Mac case) switching among apps, certain other little things). I don't need to tell you that you're right, of course - Apple had its GUI fleshed out quite completely with the original Macs well before Bill & Co. started piecing together their own GUI front-end...
If SGI wish to open-source their stuff, I'm happy. I think that's a good think, and I can heartily say "more power to 'em". Why do we scream for companies to open-source their stuff, then we have people like you who proceed to bitch about it when they do.
Also, it'd be a lot easier to understand your opinion on this if you wrote in better English. (I'm not gonna say anything about your intelligence - I have a professor who is quite intelligent from what I can tell, but most of the time people can't understand him for love or money...)
I have e-mailed them expressing my interest in working on Linux support (under NDA if necessary) for the Hollywood+ card. One thing that I think is making them reluctant to support DVD with it on Linux is that CSS challenge/response authentication is all done in software, making it especially susceptible to reverse engineering. (Which we've learned all too well that the movie industry looks down on...)
I've begun the very basic framework of such a driver, hoping I could (by examining the device's memory space) figure out something, but all I can do so far is read the memory space - I don't yet know what to do from there. (I'm guessing once the software configures the device, by telling it where to output video (to TV-out or to VGA overlay, and if on overlay, video mode characteristics, overlay origin and dimensions, key color, antijitter mode, brightness/contrast/saturation, etc) it starts feeding MPEG frames into a buffer area in its address space, but I only have my suspicions about it, and no way to determine the veracity of them...)
Sigh. I'd like to be involved, but who knows if they have any interest at all in supporting Linux (yes, I know about their claim about a future product supporting DVD on Linux - they've been claiming that for awhile now).
made no distinction between hpfs and ntfs
Well, considering NTFS was originally based off of (and nearly indistinguishable from, originally) OS/2's High-Performance Filesystem, it's no big shock. They probably started out using the same partition IDs.