You mean you have a case?
on
Cooler Cases
·
· Score: 1
Depending on the internal structure of your components, you might run cooler with the case on. I've seen a few cases that were designed with airflow through the case in mind.
And a couple of my computers have cases. The ones I run as servers do, at least. I set them up with their hardware, put in the services I needed, and left them to gether uptime.:) My "tinkering" computer, however... I think the case is around somewhere.
--Phil (Packard Bells seem to have fairly nice cases. Too bad that's the only good thing about them.)
Despite my efforts to drag this subthread off topic, you insist on trying to make it relevant.:) (I wasn't really trying to defend anything. I just wanted to point out that Linux can do a pretty good job of letting you delete the OS out from under yourself.)
As far as the FrontPage "bug", I don't consider it to be a bug. That's probably because I'm used to my computer doing exactly what I tell it to (and not always what I want it to do). If you tell it, "this is my web directory," and then, "delete everything in my web directory," guess what it does? The problem's really more with the OS that doesn't implement multiple users and file restrictions.
--Phil (As usual, this is my point of view. Yours probably differs.)
What's amazing is how in the hell can an APPLICATION wipe out the OS it's running under
$ su Password: # rm -rf/ # ls bash: ls: No such file or directory #
Linux (and Unices in general, AFAIK) is probably better than Windows at letting you delete the OS out from under you, due to its filesystem design. I have actually done the above (on a box that was going to be wiped out anyway) and it works. Everything that was running stays running (until they go looking for more files, that is). If a file in Windows is in use, Windows won't let you do anything with the file. (In some cases, you can't even read it. I've never seen the backup utility that comes with NT do a sucessful system restore, because it never manages to back up files in use.)
--Phil (In the Unix world, "the user is always right". In Windows, "Microsoft is always right". I know which one I like.)
Well, I've never played hexen, so I'm not qualified to comment in it, but Doom as "just another bloody Wolfenstein 3D clone"? Doom was significantly more than just a Wolf3D clone. Its engine allowed a lot more things, like floors and ceiling heights, moving platforms, and walls meeting at angles other than multiples of 90 degrees. The concepts were different too. Wolf3D didn't have toxic slime (or whatever that damaging green stuff was).
Likewise, Quake was a leap ahead of Doom. I'm not so sure about Quakes II and III, since my lowly P75 won't run them very well.
--Phil (Who still likes "Beyond Castle Wolfenstein".)
In the recent past there have been two alternative approaches to software licensing: traditional proprietary licensing and Open Source licensing. Open Source licensing is relatively new, being preceded by shareware and free software.
Probably just a misinformed opinion. Shareware and freeware have little to do with free software, and are predated by it, but you already know that. I'm only complaining a little, I promise.
The sections on proprietary vs. free licensing are pretty good. They point out some advantages and disadvantages of each, with the comparisons fairly obviously coming from a large company. (Proprietary allows protection of intellectual property, but schedules set by one company may not fit the needs of another.) The disadvantages of free software are the sort of claims that tend to have Slashdot readers crying, "FUD!", although the worse ones are couched in phrases containing "may". From a business's point of view, they're probably valid. (Although that doesn't make them any more correct--yes, there's the possibility of fragmentation, but it generally doesn't happen in a well-run project.)
For the license itself, they seem to have explicitly codified some aspects of free software development that are usually implicitly followed but not usually explicitly stated, mostly dealing with ownership of the code. Actually, there seems to be quite a bit of worrying over who own what--more corporate influence.
Overall, I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, this is a step closer to free code, which is significant, especially coming from a large company (who isn't doing this as a last-ditch effort). It gives many of the benefits of free software, including source availability for paranoid admins and the ability to fix bugs on your own schedule, instead of waiting for the distributing company to get around to it. On the other hand, there's a lot more restriction in what can be done. Companies are free to make proprietary extensions and distribute them without the code (well, the BSD license allows that, too). Bug fixes must be contributed back to the parent organization (you effectively get this with the GPL, but it's not mandated). The source seems only to be available to members of the "community", the definition of which seems to be up to the originating company. The example given is for "Research Use" and implies that joining the community is at no cost to the developer, but another company implementing the same idea may charge for membership. (Yes, yes. Yell at me for FUD. I think it's a likely scenario in today's corporate environment. Maybe I'm too cynical in that area.)
I'd like to see companies learn the value of sharing ideas and working on making money by providing services while releasing the code freely, but I don't expect that to happen for a while yet.
--Phil (It's definitely much easier to write long responses in (X)Emacs. (Guess what I tried for the first time.:) )
I don't totally agree with this article. Granted, technology seems to change too quickly for many things to keep up, including books and college courses. There's a lot that can be learned that's not going anywhere, however. On the purely practical side, there are college courses in programming languages like C, C++, Java, and Cobol (still!). Those languages will probably be around for a while. Delving more deeply, degrees in computer science involve slightly more than just learning a lot of computer languages. There are similar basic concepts underlying nearly every programming method.
It might also be prudent to remember that straight programming is not everything. Most programs do something, and you need to understand what needs to be done. It's difficult to write an accounting package (or even maintain one) without a good understanding of accounting principles.
I'll grant that I don't think that I've mentioned anything that can't be learned out of the classroom, but I think it's a lot easier to learn in an environment tailored for learning. (As opposed to having your boss tell you, "I need this done--you said you were a fast learner, right?")
Disclaimer: I'm not majoring in computer science. I'm a physics major, and I have a little less choice about getting a degree.
--Phil (Not to mention that I like learning and enjoy college.)
I would rephrase your clue as such: Releasing your source is a good idea, but you should do it for the right reasons, and understand what you're doing.
People shouldn't release their code in order to let the "teeming hordes of programmers on the Internet" play with it and polish it up for them. In many cases, that won't happen--people often only work on things that they want to work on, and if they don't want to work on BigCorp's Nifty Widget Counter v3.7, they're probably not going to. I think that people releasing their code because they hope to get their programming done for free are going to be disappointed. (Well, unless they're Netscape...) People should release code because they want others to benefit from it. If a company can say, "We have these internal tools that we custom-wrote and we're not making any money from them. Let's release the source so that, if someone else needs something similar, they won't have to reinvent the wheel." Omnigroup did this, and I hope that someone can benefit from those tools.
Note that I'm not sure how this would work with a company deriving its primary income from sales of software. Altruism and profit seem so often to be mutually exclusive. Changing the business model to a more service-oriented one would work, but a lot of companies are resistant to change.
Ok. It's nice that more and more people are being introduced to the world of free software. However, I'm not convinced that "Open Source" isn't being marketed too heavily. When I see quotes like
Brown is quick to add that the open-source model can help large companies trying to keep an innovative edge. "It lets them engage as many minds as possible," he says.
I worry that people are seeing Open Source as a means to release their code, let the "thousands of programmers" work on it, and then sell the result with no labor cost. I'm probably oversimplifying a bit, but that's how I see it. Granted, it does get the source available (unless they try to base their license on the Open Source Guidelines, but that's another rant), but I'm not sure if they're doing it for the right reasons.
This is just another mini-rant from a person disillusioned (yet again) by the corporate world.
Additionally, I'd like to complain about Rob's HTML. I know that it's a script generating the page, but he could at least put in some line breaks to make the source more readable. All of the content on the first page is on the same line.
--Phil (My recent posts all seem to have off-topic bits pasted on at the end--need to focus more.)
Slashdot Mirror
Depending on the internal structure of your components, you might run cooler with the case on. I've seen a few cases that were designed with airflow through the case in mind.
And a couple of my computers have cases. The ones I run as servers do, at least. I set them up with their hardware, put in the services I needed, and left them to gether uptime. :) My "tinkering" computer, however... I think the case is around somewhere.
--Phil (Packard Bells seem to have fairly nice cases. Too bad that's the only good thing about them.)
Despite my efforts to drag this subthread off topic, you insist on trying to make it relevant. :) (I wasn't really trying to defend anything. I just wanted to point out that Linux can do a pretty good job of letting you delete the OS out from under yourself.)
As far as the FrontPage "bug", I don't consider it to be a bug. That's probably because I'm used to my computer doing exactly what I tell it to (and not always what I want it to do). If you tell it, "this is my web directory," and then, "delete everything in my web directory," guess what it does? The problem's really more with the OS that doesn't implement multiple users and file restrictions.
--Phil (As usual, this is my point of view. Yours probably differs.)
$ su /
Password:
# rm -rf
# ls
bash: ls: No such file or directory
#
Linux (and Unices in general, AFAIK) is probably better than Windows at letting you delete the OS out from under you, due to its filesystem design. I have actually done the above (on a box that was going to be wiped out anyway) and it works. Everything that was running stays running (until they go looking for more files, that is). If a file in Windows is in use, Windows won't let you do anything with the file. (In some cases, you can't even read it. I've never seen the backup utility that comes with NT do a sucessful system restore, because it never manages to back up files in use.)
--Phil (In the Unix world, "the user is always right". In Windows, "Microsoft is always right". I know which one I like.)
Well, I've never played hexen, so I'm not qualified to comment in it, but Doom as "just another bloody Wolfenstein 3D clone"? Doom was significantly more than just a Wolf3D clone. Its engine allowed a lot more things, like floors and ceiling heights, moving platforms, and walls meeting at angles other than multiples of 90 degrees. The concepts were different too. Wolf3D didn't have toxic slime (or whatever that damaging green stuff was).
Likewise, Quake was a leap ahead of Doom. I'm not so sure about Quakes II and III, since my lowly P75 won't run them very well.
--Phil (Who still likes "Beyond Castle Wolfenstein".)
That was an interesting link. Thanks!
Probably just a misinformed opinion. Shareware and freeware have little to do with free software, and are predated by it, but you already know that. I'm only complaining a little, I promise.
The sections on proprietary vs. free licensing are pretty good. They point out some advantages and disadvantages of each, with the comparisons fairly obviously coming from a large company. (Proprietary allows protection of intellectual property, but schedules set by one company may not fit the needs of another.) The disadvantages of free software are the sort of claims that tend to have Slashdot readers crying, "FUD!", although the worse ones are couched in phrases containing "may". From a business's point of view, they're probably valid. (Although that doesn't make them any more correct--yes, there's the possibility of fragmentation, but it generally doesn't happen in a well-run project.)
For the license itself, they seem to have explicitly codified some aspects of free software development that are usually implicitly followed but not usually explicitly stated, mostly dealing with ownership of the code. Actually, there seems to be quite a bit of worrying over who own what--more corporate influence.
Overall, I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, this is a step closer to free code, which is significant, especially coming from a large company (who isn't doing this as a last-ditch effort). It gives many of the benefits of free software, including source availability for paranoid admins and the ability to fix bugs on your own schedule, instead of waiting for the distributing company to get around to it. On the other hand, there's a lot more restriction in what can be done. Companies are free to make proprietary extensions and distribute them without the code (well, the BSD license allows that, too). Bug fixes must be contributed back to the parent organization (you effectively get this with the GPL, but it's not mandated). The source seems only to be available to members of the "community", the definition of which seems to be up to the originating company. The example given is for "Research Use" and implies that joining the community is at no cost to the developer, but another company implementing the same idea may charge for membership. (Yes, yes. Yell at me for FUD. I think it's a likely scenario in today's corporate environment. Maybe I'm too cynical in that area.)
I'd like to see companies learn the value of sharing ideas and working on making money by providing services while releasing the code freely, but I don't expect that to happen for a while yet.
--Phil (It's definitely much easier to write long responses in (X)Emacs. (Guess what I tried for the first time.
I don't totally agree with this article. Granted, technology seems to change too quickly for many things to keep up, including books and college courses. There's a lot that can be learned that's not going anywhere, however. On the purely practical side, there are college courses in programming languages like C, C++, Java, and Cobol (still!). Those languages will probably be around for a while. Delving more deeply, degrees in computer science involve slightly more than just learning a lot of computer languages. There are similar basic concepts underlying nearly every programming method.
It might also be prudent to remember that straight programming is not everything. Most programs do something, and you need to understand what needs to be done. It's difficult to write an accounting package (or even maintain one) without a good understanding of accounting principles.
I'll grant that I don't think that I've mentioned anything that can't be learned out of the classroom, but I think it's a lot easier to learn in an environment tailored for learning. (As opposed to having your boss tell you, "I need this done--you said you were a fast learner, right?")
Disclaimer: I'm not majoring in computer science. I'm a physics major, and I have a little less choice about getting a degree.
--Phil (Not to mention that I like learning and enjoy college.)
What OS did the PDP-10s run? Whatever it was, it probably sucked.
--Phil ("Linux sucks differently every time a kernel is released.")
I would rephrase your clue as such: Releasing your source is a good idea, but you should do it for the right reasons, and understand what you're doing.
People shouldn't release their code in order to let the "teeming hordes of programmers on the Internet" play with it and polish it up for them. In many cases, that won't happen--people often only work on things that they want to work on, and if they don't want to work on BigCorp's Nifty Widget Counter v3.7, they're probably not going to. I think that people releasing their code because they hope to get their programming done for free are going to be disappointed. (Well, unless they're Netscape...) People should release code because they want others to benefit from it. If a company can say, "We have these internal tools that we custom-wrote and we're not making any money from them. Let's release the source so that, if someone else needs something similar, they won't have to reinvent the wheel." Omnigroup did this, and I hope that someone can benefit from those tools.
Note that I'm not sure how this would work with a company deriving its primary income from sales of software. Altruism and profit seem so often to be mutually exclusive. Changing the business model to a more service-oriented one would work, but a lot of companies are resistant to change.
--Phil (I hope I'm not being too optimistic.)
This is just another mini-rant from a person disillusioned (yet again) by the corporate world.
Additionally, I'd like to complain about Rob's HTML. I know that it's a script generating the page, but he could at least put in some line breaks to make the source more readable. All of the content on the first page is on the same line.
--Phil (My recent posts all seem to have off-topic bits pasted on at the end--need to focus more.)