This attack was designed to stop any possibility of peace among Israelian and Palestinian - and to push the whole world closer to a world-wide conflict between the western countries and the arab countries (I'm choosing not to say christians and muslims). By people that think they have nothing to loose and everithing to gain in such an event.
And I'm afraid that the 'retaliation' of the US, supported by its allies, will go in the same direction.
Ask yourself, looking way back through history to the 1920's even before the state of Israel existed - who initiated the violence?
This remember me of an old story about someone who killed his brother for a dish of legumes... I thing everithing started then (it was a bit earlier than 1920, though...)
Peace can only happen among people for which the future is more important than the past.
software engineers around the world are already working on this problem... even wondered why each software release is more bloated and crappier than the previous one ?
Surely we will see some more consolidation and only the strongest will survive...
On the other hand, RH would be prevented to perform _some_ of the dirtiest M$oft triks by the open-source nature of his platform.
Therefore, customers will have more say in which company will survive ( but money will still play a big role in it ).
Maybe open source software is too good...if it dosen't break, who needs to pay for support???
I'd say: why to pay RH or Caldera, if the local (or in-house) Linux guru can solve my problems faster(smaller communication lag) and cheaper (less infrastructure overhead)?
Open-source software moves knlowledge (i.e. power) from the corporations to the smaller shops. The support model works... only it does not scale-up very well.
My experience of commercial software development is that it is done according to certain proven methods, which generally result in stable, working software, that the target market can use.
Oh well, the proven methods may work well, provided that:
The requirements are derived actually by user needs and not by marketing policies oriented to maximize the flow of cash extracted from user pockets
The software is designed by real engineers and not by buzzword-compliant bootlickers
The budget of the project fits the actual software requirements and not some half-assed estimate of the management
No PHB assigns absurd timelines
The QA department understands that these 'proven methods' are just guidelines and allows development to apply them with a 'grain of salt'
developers have the so-mentioned 'grain of salt' and understands the need to follow standards
Testers are not used as scapegoats for missing the deadline, only because they find show-stopping bugs the day before of the release
All in all, software development is still a craft, where the quality of involved people is much more important than the quality of the production process. This is why software developed by loosely assembled (but technically valid) people can compete with software developed by mega-corporations.
If everything could run the same OS (or set of OSes ), the various hardware architecture would be able to compete freely on their own merits, not because of inter-vendors agreements that lock-out some combo of hardware/OS.
Same thing for the applications.
Total result: more choices for customers and system builders. But possibly a tougher life for companies.
In the meantime, perhaps you can find a way to filter out any messages that are linked FROM slashdot.org and family.
Good idea!
Maybe VA could sell a close-source software to protect sites from the/. effect (with the veiled threat that if they don't buy it, they _will_ be/.ed)
Seriously, they _should_ start to think to the damage they can do with these links. And I don't think this is our fault: an hyperlink exists only for a reason: to be clicked on.
My main gripe instead is that they could not help but play once more the old 'David vs Goliath' piece, only with Miguel in the place usally assigned to Linus.
To declare Linux as a decent alternative or not, you need to know for what its usage is proposed.
From the little written in the article, this Mexican government plan is to enable most of mexicans to 'be on line'.
Now, you possibly don't need neither MS office nor Outlook for this. You need an user-friendly desktop, a good browser (plugins are not a must, especially if average bandwidth will not allow to enjoy them), an easy to use (and virus-resistant) e-mailer, non-sofisticated graphic and editing programs.
Now, my assessment(YMMV) is that a Linux desktop satisfies a 95% of these requirements (improvements may be needed on desktop usability and web browser ).
A strong issue for Linux in non-US government, apart from cost issue, is that with open-source most of the money spent on software stays in-country : they could even pay some local developer and sysadmin to build an ad-hoc distribution, if they don't like the available ones.
If they listen to ximian, I hope that also non-ximian software get a chance to be used, however.
I, and many others here, would agree with that sentiment. Gnome was never a good idea. It grew out of a petty licensing dispute, as far as I
know.
There were also other diferences. The greatest technical one, as I remember, was the use of C vs C++ for libraries.
And I don't think this was a petty excuse generated by the licence war: was a true techno-cultural difference.
Anbiguous C.S. F. declaration:
on
HP Buys Compaq
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
From the article (emphasys is mine):
For Carleton S. Fiorina, who became chief executive of Hewlett- Packard in 1999 when she was hired away from Lucent Technologies, the acquisition amounts to a renewed bet on the computer business and
particularly a new operating system for computer servers that was developed
by Intel and Hewlett-Packard. Compaq is the other large company that has announced it plans to use that technology, which will compete with
technologies developed by Sun Microsystems and I.B.M.
If you say 'an architecture for server tasks' or 'an architecture for home desktop tasks', I 'm with you. But an architecture for servers, for instance, should be able to run equally well any Unix-like system as well as win2000 or winNT (or the good old VMS).
An architecture built 'for Linux only' ( or for Windows only or for Mac OS only ) is a bad thing IMO. I am aware that they already exists in some extent, but that does not make things better.
The idea of adapting an hardware architecture to run well for a specific OS sounds awful to me. It should be the other way around, given the more flexibility and and dynamic nature of software(what if Linux changes architecture? Should I buy a new PC?). If a chip maker wants an OS run well on its CPU, should supply plenty of information and support to the OS developers, but NOT warp the CPU architecture to its excclusive advantage.
On a related topic, one of the great points of Linux IMO is that can run on so many architectures. In a dream-world dominated by the Penguin, one could pick up the best h/w platform for its needs, without worring about software compatibility
Therefore, I am worried by anything that restricts the number of platforms on which Linux can run.
I frankly don't see anyone joining into a bureacracy like that. Agglomerating incompatible organizations together like that just drags everyone down.
Right. OSS worls needs more cooperation/standardization, but not imposed by a top-level organization. Rather, these concepts needs to be re-discovered in OSS culture (they are already part of it, but the boom of Linux and OSS has pushed them back ).
As I see it, the money to be earned making distributions is growing small (linux is not a novelty anymore, Linux expertise is spread and requests for support can be satisfied locally more often than from the distributor). As the distributors will realize this, they will move to other markets (see the move of RH with databases). They will loose interest at differentiating themselves at the system software level, and will gain interest in reducing the costs to mantain the platform on which they build their 'solutions'.
At this point, one possible scenario (which I'd quite like to see happen) is that they leave the hassle of packaging the base system software to the community, merging in a common base distro (I'd like to say Debian, but probably it will be rpm-based), with common packages for all base software.
Then, maybe not.
Here in Europe privacy is a bigger issue, I think.
Or at least so our gouvernment likes us to believe.
Where I live there is a law about that (though I never read it), which should prevent companies to distribute or even archive private demografic info without agreement with the involved person.
So maybe I was a little too hopeful here, and judged the world from my little turf.
If I still believed that "law shall make sense", I would find a little strange that personal info is considered company asset, being something that I permit to use only for specific purpose, not something that I sold to the company or gave away (I see it a little as the Intellectual Property issue). Having given up whith this delusion, however,I am only a little surprised of what you say.
CD Now cannot _legally_ sell credit card info (wich is not a big segret: every time I pay with it, I give this info away) nor user preferences. If they are bent to break the law, they could still do it if they acquire the information from your 'central repository': once they have it, what except law prevents them from using/selling it as they whish?
I see the advantage of sharing your preferences among different shopping sites. This can be accomplished if these sites use a standard (i.e. controlled by a super-partes non-profit organization) open (i.e. whith specs available to everybody and not patented or such) protocol to communicate these information (I'm not saying that Hailstorm does not qualify, just don't know it). However, I don't see any need for a central site storing these information for you, when you can store it on your desktop and your software can communicate them to any site you connect with.
Meta-Moderation should address that...
I fail to understand how; I know how it works, but is still seem to me as just a second-level moderation, with the same defects of moderation.
Beside, IMO meta-moderation mechanics should be explained in the 'moderator guidelines' : it would add to the transparency of this site.
It was nightmare
But it's fun, sometime... I still browse at -1 (and thanks to slashcode, I still end-up with something browsable), because I think it helps sampling the 'cultural flavour' of this site.
ASCII art (what is this? An 1980s bbs?)
I think they are exploits of the new lameness filters in the new slashcode... now that the challenge is won, trolls will find someting else to do
Nothing seemed to have been unjustly downgraded.
This only mean that you are in sync with the average of./ers : the moderation system here promotes the opinions of majority, others are ignored, sometime openly adversed. Still, I can't think of a better system.
So thank you, unsung slashdot moderators.
Being an old timer, I expect you know that moderators are selected randomly(?) among non-anonymous readers with non-negative karma...so you basically are tanking yourself:-)
When a newspaper delivers you some news you can be fairly certain that the journalist took some care to get his facts
straights and that an editor (or editors) looked it over and decided that it was a good and important piece of work that would merit publishing.
That is how it should be. Sadly, I see many newspaper and TV news that just report second or third hand information, followed by biased commentary (I know, all commentaries are biased).
Very few (around here at least) take the pain of searching and reporting _facts_ (or at list trying to).
* If everyone in China starts running Linux, will their software piracy rates drop below those of countries in the West, even without any change in their software-copying behavior? The Software Publishers Association will probably try to claim that Linux is being pirated just to keep their statistics as inflated as possible; they excel at pulling meaningless but impressive numbers out of their asses so this would just be business as usual for them.
I don't know in China, but on the streets in Moscow (NOT in official shops, I think, but did not look) _every_ piece of software costs a little more than the CD on which it was burnt. Therefore Win2000 costs less than Debian, because it had less CD:-). [while you take some risk importing trhe first back in US or Europe].
1). The complete GCC toolchain is available for Solaris SPARC and X86 - Free
I know (I did say I installed some of it). Not 'blessed by SUN' however. If it was, I would case less about which OS I am using.
2) Hardware support is still better for Linux, I think (wasn't this the point, that now Solaris users can use all graphic cards supported by XFree86? This mean they couldn't). And original poster point was "I'm using Solaris on Laptop because it would look bad to use Windows".
3) How much of 'big-iron management' can you learn on an Intel box, without the right hardware? The 'stability' (I'd say 'backward binary compatibility') is a good point, especially if you are running binary-only (and expensive) stuff like Oracle.
On the other hand, I had to re-ask for a licence number when I changed the host name and IP number of the machine on which the SUN C++ compiler was installed. And I am not sure that changing system version would not affect an installed GNU toolchain, that you you suggested to use at point 1.
While I am glad for any improvement of Linux office tools, I would like that WordProcessor designer would consider the good points of LyX approach to creating document, namely What You See Is What You Mean.
What I like of LyX:
contents is separated from presentation; the users specify the semantic of the document and the computer (instructed by layout programmers) does the typesetting; this ensure uniform document appearance and less headhaches reformatting documents;
The on-screen appearance of a document is not forced to be equal to the on-paper appearance, as well as it carries its semantic value.
Things that I would like added to LyX:
A graphical layout editor for people that like me don't know TeX;
An open-source layout repository (I know there is one for TeX/LaTeX but... see point above).
Better on-screen presentation: some of the document semantic is not well represented in the on-screen presentation; some is a bit ugly.
1) Some large customers want to run Solaris on cheaper hardware (ie PC's), but want the power of Solaris and leverage their other Sun
investments.
You mean, using PC hardware and still paying big bucks for each small piece of software? (like compilers, debuggers, development environnments, whatever).
To me, it looks like getting the worst of both worlds.
2)Works great for Sun Field Employees who are given laptops. I'm one of those. I despise the idea of trying to work at a customer site and
having my hands tied by Windows.
You have heard of Linus and FreeBSD, I assume. What can you run on a Solaris laptop that cannot be run on a Linux laptop? (aside from SUN proprietary software, of course ).
3) Students or people who want to learn Solaris need something to tinker with.
A good reason. But only for people deeply involved in Solaris. Solaris is still a Unix, and anyone comfortable with Unix should not have big problems with 90% of Solaris, including many system administration tasks. I personally was able to tackle some non-complex admin task (setting DNS, starting custom programs as daemons, installing Apache, GNU compiler, SUN C++ compiler, SUN firewall), supported only by my previous Linux experience.
Slashdot Mirror
This attack was designed to stop any possibility of peace among Israelian and Palestinian - and to push the whole world closer to a world-wide conflict between the western countries and the arab countries (I'm choosing not to say christians and muslims). By people that think they have nothing to loose and everithing to gain in such an event.
And I'm afraid that the 'retaliation' of the US, supported by its allies, will go in the same direction.
And then ?
This remember me of an old story about someone who killed his brother for a dish of legumes... I thing everithing started then (it was a bit earlier than 1920, though ...)
Peace can only happen among people for which the future is more important than the past.
software engineers around the world are already working on this problem ... even wondered why each software release is more bloated and crappier than the previous one ?
Surely we will see some more consolidation and only the strongest will survive ...
On the other hand, RH would be prevented to perform _some_ of the dirtiest M$oft triks by the open-source nature of his platform.
Therefore, customers will have more say in which company will survive ( but money will still play a big role in it ).
I'd say: why to pay RH or Caldera, if the local (or in-house) Linux guru can solve my problems faster(smaller communication lag) and cheaper (less infrastructure overhead)?
Open-source software moves knlowledge (i.e. power) from the corporations to the smaller shops. The support model works ... only it does not scale-up very well.
Oh well, the proven methods may work well, provided that:
- The requirements are derived actually by user needs and not by marketing policies oriented to maximize the flow of cash extracted from user pockets
- The software is designed by real engineers and not by buzzword-compliant bootlickers
- The budget of the project fits the actual software requirements and not some half-assed estimate of the management
- No PHB assigns absurd timelines
- The QA department understands that these 'proven methods' are just guidelines and allows development to apply them with a 'grain of salt'
- developers have the so-mentioned 'grain of salt' and understands the need to follow standards
- Testers are not used as scapegoats for missing the deadline, only because they find show-stopping bugs the day before of the release
All in all, software development is still a craft, where the quality of involved people is much more important than the quality of the production process. This is why software developed by loosely assembled (but technically valid) people can compete with software developed by mega-corporations.Same thing for the applications.
Total result: more choices for customers and system builders. But possibly a tougher life for companies.
Good idea! Maybe VA could sell a close-source software to protect sites from the /. effect (with the veiled threat that if they don't buy it, they _will_ be /.ed)
Seriously, they _should_ start to think to the damage they can do with these links. And I don't think this is our fault: an hyperlink exists only for a reason: to be clicked on.
My main gripe instead is that they could not help but play once more the old 'David vs Goliath' piece, only with Miguel in the place usally assigned to Linus.
From the little written in the article, this Mexican government plan is to enable most of mexicans to 'be on line'.
Now, you possibly don't need neither MS office nor Outlook for this. You need an user-friendly desktop, a good browser (plugins are not a must, especially if average bandwidth will not allow to enjoy them), an easy to use (and virus-resistant) e-mailer, non-sofisticated graphic and editing programs.
Now, my assessment(YMMV) is that a Linux desktop satisfies a 95% of these requirements (improvements may be needed on desktop usability and web browser ).
A strong issue for Linux in non-US government, apart from cost issue, is that with open-source most of the money spent on software stays in-country : they could even pay some local developer and sysadmin to build an ad-hoc distribution, if they don't like the available ones.
If they listen to ximian, I hope that also non-ximian software get a chance to be used, however.
There were also other diferences. The greatest technical one, as I remember, was the use of C vs C++ for libraries.
And I don't think this was a petty excuse generated by the licence war: was a true techno-cultural difference.
It doesn't sound like Linux ... or it is ???
An architecture built 'for Linux only' ( or for Windows only or for Mac OS only ) is a bad thing IMO. I am aware that they already exists in some extent, but that does not make things better.
On a related topic, one of the great points of Linux IMO is that can run on so many architectures. In a dream-world dominated by the Penguin, one could pick up the best h/w platform for its needs, without worring about software compatibility
Therefore, I am worried by anything that restricts the number of platforms on which Linux can run.
I frankly don't see anyone joining into a bureacracy like that. Agglomerating incompatible organizations together like that just drags everyone down.
Right. OSS worls needs more cooperation/standardization, but not imposed by a top-level organization. Rather, these concepts needs to be re-discovered in OSS culture (they are already part of it, but the boom of Linux and OSS has pushed them back ).
At this point, one possible scenario (which I'd quite like to see happen) is that they leave the hassle of packaging the base system software to the community, merging in a common base distro (I'd like to say Debian, but probably it will be rpm-based), with common packages for all base software.
Then, maybe not.
So maybe I was a little too hopeful here, and judged the world from my little turf.
If I still believed that "law shall make sense", I would find a little strange that personal info is considered company asset, being something that I permit to use only for specific purpose, not something that I sold to the company or gave away (I see it a little as the Intellectual Property issue). Having given up whith this delusion, however,I am only a little surprised of what you say.
I fail to understand how; I know how it works, but is still seem to me as just a second-level moderation, with the same defects of moderation.
Beside, IMO meta-moderation mechanics should be explained in the 'moderator guidelines' : it would add to the transparency of this site.
But it's fun, sometime
ASCII art (what is this? An 1980s bbs?) ... now that the challenge is won, trolls will find someting else to do
I think they are exploits of the new lameness filters in the new slashcode
Nothing seemed to have been unjustly downgraded. ./ers : the moderation system here promotes the opinions of majority, others are ignored, sometime openly adversed. Still, I can't think of a better system.
This only mean that you are in sync with the average of
So thank you, unsung slashdot moderators. ...so you basically are tanking yourself:-)
Being an old timer, I expect you know that moderators are selected randomly(?) among non-anonymous readers with non-negative karma
That is how it should be. Sadly, I see many newspaper and TV news that just report second or third hand information, followed by biased commentary (I know, all commentaries are biased). Very few (around here at least) take the pain of searching and reporting _facts_ (or at list trying to).
* If everyone in China starts running Linux, will their software piracy rates drop below those of countries in the West, even without any change in their software-copying behavior? The Software Publishers Association will probably try to claim that Linux is being pirated just to keep their statistics as inflated as possible; they excel at pulling meaningless but impressive numbers out of their asses so this would just be business as usual for them.
I don't know in China, but on the streets in Moscow (NOT in official shops, I think, but did not look) _every_ piece of software costs a little more than the CD on which it was burnt. Therefore Win2000 costs less than Debian, because it had less CD
I know (I did say I installed some of it). Not 'blessed by SUN' however. If it was, I would case less about which OS I am using.
2) Hardware support is still better for Linux, I think (wasn't this the point, that now Solaris users can use all graphic cards supported by XFree86? This mean they couldn't). And original poster point was "I'm using Solaris on Laptop because it would look bad to use Windows".
3) How much of 'big-iron management' can you learn on an Intel box, without the right hardware?
The 'stability' (I'd say 'backward binary compatibility') is a good point, especially if you are running binary-only (and expensive) stuff like Oracle. On the other hand, I had to re-ask for a licence number when I changed the host name and IP number of the machine on which the SUN C++ compiler was installed. And I am not sure that changing system version would not affect an installed GNU toolchain, that you you suggested to use at point 1.
What I like of LyX:
Things that I would like added to LyX:
You mean, using PC hardware and still paying big bucks for each small piece of software? (like compilers, debuggers, development environnments, whatever).
To me, it looks like getting the worst of both worlds.
2)Works great for Sun Field Employees who are given laptops. I'm one of those. I despise the idea of trying to work at a customer site and having my hands tied by Windows.
You have heard of Linus and FreeBSD, I assume. What can you run on a Solaris laptop that cannot be run on a Linux laptop? (aside from SUN proprietary software, of course ).
3) Students or people who want to learn Solaris need something to tinker with.
A good reason. But only for people deeply involved in Solaris. Solaris is still a Unix, and anyone comfortable with Unix should not have big problems with 90% of Solaris, including many system administration tasks. I personally was able to tackle some non-complex admin task (setting DNS, starting custom programs as daemons, installing Apache, GNU compiler, SUN C++ compiler, SUN firewall), supported only by my previous Linux experience.