Are you kidding me? Softening the transition (which is an option btw, you can change this), would be a smart move for all linux developers. If we create a completely foreign system, then it is that much harder to get people to use, promote and contribute to linux. Otherwise we are left with a select few and linux stays in the basement.
One of my pet peeves, regardless of distro, application, whatever, is when a decision is made to ease the transition of "foreign" users in detriment of the already faithful contributing userbase. People seem to forget that, after the learning curve is past, the new user becomes the old user, and nowadays it takes what, 4, 5 months tops for that to happen. Then, when he is used to the system, free from Windows, another change is made that completely break what he is used to in order to accommodate a new batch of users. That's very frustrating because it seems like the goal is not to provide an usable, stable and free system for whoever wants it, but to "steal" as many users as possible from the rivals.
I hate to break it to you, but there are a lot of users that are locked in because they rely on.NET apps. If you supply mono, then there is a better opportunity they can transition their current custom apps and use linux.
Except for custom applications, I cannot think on a single ubiquitous application that relies on.NET. Anyway, as I pointed above, it is frustrating when changes that are at least not beneficial to the current faithful userbase (not to say dangerous, when it concerns to the intelectual property minefield) in order to accommodate switchers. That is a selfish opinion of mine, and as every opinion, people can agree or disagree.
As for thanking the companies for Linux support, I think you are right. But if Novell actively try to ruin Linux, every good deed of them will be easily forgotten.
Although this is technically not a dupe, it is almost, as the above linked article is the Part 3 and the other submitted and discussed article was the Part 1, isn't it kinda repetitive? What now, someone post a multipart article and we will get one story here on front page for each part?
On topic now, I don't like the way Russinovich is blowing Vista's horn now. I liked him more when he was more critical and analytical on what could be improved, instead of what has already been done.
See? "restrictions". Just because they are lesser restrictions than the default case of "no rights at all", that doesn't mean they ain't restrictive.
That's semantics. GPL doesn't restrict anything that you would be able to do with standard copyright law. Copyright law says you can't do A, B, C, D and E. GPL says you can now do A, B, C. How is that restricting?
Notice, I'm not denying GPL has more conditions than BSD or Public Domain. All I'm saying is that has one goal, to make sure any software and all its derivatives under that license will be able to be freely run, studied, derived and distributed. They never hid that goal, it is the GNU manifesto, for god sake. If they could simply say that, in a clear and unambiguously way, such confusions would never exist in the first place. But because of the likes of Tivo, Novell and others, that will try to find a loophole and release derivative works without granting those rights, FSF has to created this tangled network of legalese, to close as many holes as they can.
Here is a possible answer, in an article from 2003, the time of the announcement of the buyout:
Investors seem to think Novell (NOVL) was wise to buy SuSE. Novell stock spiked to $8.80 soon after the purchase announcement hit the wires, and closed the day at $7.33, up 21.16% from the previous day's $6.05 close.
Not that different than when AOL and Time Warner merged. Company makes a risky move, investors like, shares go up, someone sells and profits, company sinks, board changes, company makes a risky move...
GPL doesn't restrict anything. Copyright laws do. GPL, as the L in the initials says, is a license that exempt you from the no-distribution no-derivative-work limitations that is the core of the copyright concept, as long as you agree with the GPL conditions. How can people distort that simple reality and say GPL restricts freedom is a mystery to me.
It is simple as that. Without GPL, fair use aside, you cannot (legally) use, you cannot derive, you cannot distribute. With GPL, as long as you grant the same rights when you distribute, you can. Now tell me again, how GPL restricts any freedom? How can a license to restrict a freedom that you didn't have in the first place?
People hold high expectations on Novell, and I really don't know why. Of course they "bought" Suse in 2003, the Mono project, and some other free software projects. but Novell was, is and will always be a proprietary software company. They don't care about Free Software, they are not into it for the ideals. Back them they saw an opportunity to make money off free software, so they invested, made some money but, in the end, they would dump everything in a heartbeat and partner with Microsoft if it is more profitable for them.
And that's the beauty of Free Software. They can dump Linux and Free Software all they want, if they do, as fast as it takes, a fork for all projects that they are personally involved (Suse, Gnome, Mono, from the top of my head) will pop up and continue almost as nothing has happened.
And I really wish that happens. I don't like the way they are handling Gnome, ignoring completely the community in order to satisfy Novell's aims and goals (mostly, appease to Windows "converted" users. The recent created Gnome Control Panel is a copy of Windows Control Panel, except that it is slow and cluttered like Win 3.11 Program Manager). That, and things like bundling Mono, pfff. But that's another subject, that doesn't belong here.
Just a heads up. Novell has done nothing to deserve your trust. Don't look surprised when they finally misbehave.
Talk about bait and switch! It says that is more than just a pretty face but shows nothing but the history of Windows APIs and Eye (and maybe Ear) Candy. I will summarize this 8 page long article for you (emphasis mine):
Page 1: This is Part I of Ars Technica's three-part Windows Vista review coverage. In the coming weeks we will be expanding on this coverage, culminating in an official review when our testing is finished.
(... history of Windows APIs, why Vista does graphics and audio better than XP, yada yada...)
Concluding remarks
The new APIs and all-new graphics stack are not the only things new in Vista. There have been major improvements in Vista's approach to secure computing, and many low-level changes to improve the experience of using the OS. I'll talk about these--along with some of the much-vaunted features that didn't make the cut after all--in my next article.
I don't know if you can get Intel graphic cards for your desktop (I got one onboard on my laptop, the 915GM one), but it works like a charm, actually better on Linux (out of the box) than on Windows (I had to hunt the driver as I lost the drivers CD).
Unfortunately, it's not. But it is a good observation. I didn't know that either, because in my native language (portuguese), the equivalent to "two times faster than" exists. I think. Now I don't know anymore hehe.
That graph is the very image of the mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster! Seems like he will soon touch SCO people with His noodly appendage. That explains why SCO called Linux people pirates tho, seems like it was some kind of flattery, or something like that.
"Naa. I'm sure back when car became widely available and used, some of the "elders" complained that now everybody is a "driver", and they don't even know the intrigate details of internal combustion."
You are wrong. We are not talking about end-users here, the element equivalent to the driver you mentioned. The equivalent to the Computer Scientist here would be the Mechanical Engineer. Computer Science has as much to do with computers as Mechanical Engineering has to do with car engines. In both cases, the average person doesn't have even idea of the amount of knowledge (hard science, pure theory, indistinguishable from magic) necessary to the existence of those machines, and the apparent simplicity of use make those people not recognize the importance of those disciplines.
There's plenty of novel ideas and innovation out there. Look at SUNs Sparc T1, IBMs Power Cell (hardwarewise) and stuff lige virtualization (both machines (xen, vmware) and programs (java,.NET)). Web Services, the semantic web? Search engines? New language features, like LINQ?
Again, you are wrong in the analogy and the examples. Every single example you gave there are final products of researches that are dated from the sixties, some even older than that. Researches in fields like Ontology, Knowledge Representation, Theory of Computation, Formal Languages and so on and so forth. And those fields are in the back of works of scientists like Knuth (69 years old), Alan Kay (67 years old), Peter Naur (79 years old), Niklaus Wirth (73 years old), Ken Thompson (63 years old), Dennis Ritchie (66 years old), Dijkstra (sadly deceased), among others. That was an amazing generation, but along with that the other thing they have in common is that they are all near or above the world life expectancy. And, as they are dying, our Computer Science degrees are slowly becoming Information Technology degrees, forming developers but neglecting researchers to make the tools possible. If this trend continues, we will either depend on the luck of another batch of geniuses to arise spontaneously or to see a decline of the rate of innovation and technological development.
But if you believe that C++ was the height of evolution, well, then, yes, CS is dead.
This is completely unrelated, but I like to think that programming languages are like antibiotics. The first came to solve a problem and did it successfully. The, new problems (and diseases) evolved from the simpler one, and new languages (and antibiotics) had to be created to solve it. The difference between both? You don't see people out there dissing Penicillin only because it is old and doesn't cure all diseases anymore, even if it still cures a lot of the most common infections out there. That's the difference.
If you make hard for people that is willing to set up a legal Internet radio and make a profitable business of it, in the end, the only way to get internet music broadcast (and video, for all that matter) will be illegally, on P2P, FTP and whatnot.
But, on a second thought, that is exactly what the Media Cartel want. They don't matter where you are getting it, as long as the only way to be legally exposed to new content is through their channels. They couldn't care less if you and a couple of technologically wealthy people are going around their blockage, but they will do everything on their power to prevent both the average people and the *artists* to get in touch with each other without them.
This is not about giving people no options. It is about giving *artists* no option. People are attached to their favorite artists and will follow them wherever they go.
With both the lack of interest and the distortion of the original goal, Computer Science as we know may be dying with the elders. Computer Science originally had nothing to do with computers (as in personal computer) per se, but with the science of computation, optimal algorithms for pure math problems, etc. Actually, it was nothing but a branch of Math. The way computer science is being dealt with nowadays, with disdain, lack of interest and with people thinking about it as a tool to put another "screw tighter" professional in the market, soon we may run out of real breakthroughs like the ones those genius created to pave the yellow brick road we run over nowadays.
A pair of workers were killed after using buckets to mix nuclear fuel in a lab
We all know what power plant is that. The Sector 7-G Safety Inspector Homer J. Simpson refused to make any statement, but was heard shouting "D'oh!" right after the incident.
Ubuntu 7.04 Alpha 5 CD image testing started
** FEISTY IS NOT SUITABLE FOR EVERYDAY USE RIGHT NOW IT IS ONLY IN ALPHA. **
If you are interested in helping to test CD images for the upcoming Ubuntu release you can find more information here:
All the information used against that woman was obtained by the computer forensic team after they seized her computer using the right procedure, obtaining a warrant first, and keeping the whole chain of evidence rules.
You guys need to remember that only because it is digital it doesn't mean it is less relevant or admissible. Had she asked a doctor what is the lethal dose of a certain substance, or what are the less detectable poisons, or similar suspicious questions like those, this doctor would certainly be called as a prosecution witness, and his deposition would certainly be admissible and relevant. Why then the same pursuit of knowledge would not be admissible or relevant? Because it is not a real doctor that got asked, but the internet?
Notice that I'm not saying that it is sufficient evidence to nail her, as IANAL and I don't know the details of the case. But at least admissible and relevant it is.
Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man,
the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time
handed out military command, high civil office, legions - everything, now
restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses
Who should your computer take its orders from? Most people think their computers should obey them, not obey someone else. With a plan they call "trusted computing", large media corporations (including the movie companies and record companies), together with computer companies such as Microsoft and Intel, are planning to make your computer obey them instead of you. (...)
Proprietary software means, fundamentally, that you don't control what it does;(...) It's not surprising that clever businessmen find ways to use their control to put you at a disadvantage.(...) These malicious features are often secret, but even once you know about them it is hard to remove them, since you don't have the source code.
In the past, these were isolated incidents. "Trusted computing" would make it pervasive. "Treacherous computing" is a more appropriate name, because the plan is designed to make sure your computer will systematically disobey you. In fact, it is designed to stop your computer from functioning as a general-purpose computer. Every operation may require explicit permission.
The technical idea underlying treacherous computing is that the computer includes a digital encryption and signature device, and the keys are kept secret from you. Proprietary programs will use this device to control which other programs you can run, which documents or data you can access, and what programs you can pass them to. These programs will continually download new authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work. If you don't allow your computer to obtain the new rules periodically from the Internet, some capabilities will automatically cease to function.
Read the rest in the above linked article. It is an interesting reading, even for the ones familiar with it, as we march slowly and steady to the worst case scenario predicted there.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you kidding me? Softening the transition (which is an option btw, you can change this), would be a smart move for all linux developers. If we create a completely foreign system, then it is that much harder to get people to use, promote and contribute to linux. Otherwise we are left with a select few and linux stays in the basement.
.NET apps. If you supply mono, then there is a better opportunity they can transition their current custom apps and use linux.
.NET. Anyway, as I pointed above, it is frustrating when changes that are at least not beneficial to the current faithful userbase (not to say dangerous, when it concerns to the intelectual property minefield) in order to accommodate switchers. That is a selfish opinion of mine, and as every opinion, people can agree or disagree.
One of my pet peeves, regardless of distro, application, whatever, is when a decision is made to ease the transition of "foreign" users in detriment of the already faithful contributing userbase. People seem to forget that, after the learning curve is past, the new user becomes the old user, and nowadays it takes what, 4, 5 months tops for that to happen. Then, when he is used to the system, free from Windows, another change is made that completely break what he is used to in order to accommodate a new batch of users. That's very frustrating because it seems like the goal is not to provide an usable, stable and free system for whoever wants it, but to "steal" as many users as possible from the rivals.
I hate to break it to you, but there are a lot of users that are locked in because they rely on
Except for custom applications, I cannot think on a single ubiquitous application that relies on
As for thanking the companies for Linux support, I think you are right. But if Novell actively try to ruin Linux, every good deed of them will be easily forgotten.
He's working at Microsoft now, you do realize that "what could be improved" he's actually doing right now
You don't really prefer pointless critique with no improvement, do you.
Point conceded.
Although this is technically not a dupe, it is almost, as the above linked article is the Part 3 and the other submitted and discussed article was the Part 1, isn't it kinda repetitive? What now, someone post a multipart article and we will get one story here on front page for each part?
On topic now, I don't like the way Russinovich is blowing Vista's horn now. I liked him more when he was more critical and analytical on what could be improved, instead of what has already been done.
See? "restrictions". Just because they are lesser restrictions than the default case of "no rights at all", that doesn't mean they ain't restrictive.
That's semantics. GPL doesn't restrict anything that you would be able to do with standard copyright law. Copyright law says you can't do A, B, C, D and E. GPL says you can now do A, B, C. How is that restricting?
Notice, I'm not denying GPL has more conditions than BSD or Public Domain. All I'm saying is that has one goal, to make sure any software and all its derivatives under that license will be able to be freely run, studied, derived and distributed. They never hid that goal, it is the GNU manifesto, for god sake. If they could simply say that, in a clear and unambiguously way, such confusions would never exist in the first place. But because of the likes of Tivo, Novell and others, that will try to find a loophole and release derivative works without granting those rights, FSF has to created this tangled network of legalese, to close as many holes as they can.
Here is a possible answer, in an article from 2003, the time of the announcement of the buyout:
...
Investors seem to think Novell (NOVL) was wise to buy SuSE. Novell stock spiked to $8.80 soon after the purchase announcement hit the wires, and closed the day at $7.33, up 21.16% from the previous day's $6.05 close.
Not that different than when AOL and Time Warner merged. Company makes a risky move, investors like, shares go up, someone sells and profits, company sinks, board changes, company makes a risky move
GPL doesn't restrict anything. Copyright laws do. GPL, as the L in the initials says, is a license that exempt you from the no-distribution no-derivative-work limitations that is the core of the copyright concept, as long as you agree with the GPL conditions. How can people distort that simple reality and say GPL restricts freedom is a mystery to me.
It is simple as that. Without GPL, fair use aside, you cannot (legally) use, you cannot derive, you cannot distribute. With GPL, as long as you grant the same rights when you distribute, you can. Now tell me again, how GPL restricts any freedom? How can a license to restrict a freedom that you didn't have in the first place?
People hold high expectations on Novell, and I really don't know why. Of course they "bought" Suse in 2003, the Mono project, and some other free software projects. but Novell was, is and will always be a proprietary software company. They don't care about Free Software, they are not into it for the ideals. Back them they saw an opportunity to make money off free software, so they invested, made some money but, in the end, they would dump everything in a heartbeat and partner with Microsoft if it is more profitable for them.
And that's the beauty of Free Software. They can dump Linux and Free Software all they want, if they do, as fast as it takes, a fork for all projects that they are personally involved (Suse, Gnome, Mono, from the top of my head) will pop up and continue almost as nothing has happened.
And I really wish that happens. I don't like the way they are handling Gnome, ignoring completely the community in order to satisfy Novell's aims and goals (mostly, appease to Windows "converted" users. The recent created Gnome Control Panel is a copy of Windows Control Panel, except that it is slow and cluttered like Win 3.11 Program Manager). That, and things like bundling Mono, pfff. But that's another subject, that doesn't belong here.
Just a heads up. Novell has done nothing to deserve your trust. Don't look surprised when they finally misbehave.
Talk about bait and switch! It says that is more than just a pretty face but shows nothing but the history of Windows APIs and Eye (and maybe Ear) Candy. I will summarize this 8 page long article for you (emphasis mine):
...)
Page 1: This is Part I of Ars Technica's three-part Windows Vista review coverage. In the coming weeks we will be expanding on this coverage, culminating in an official review when our testing is finished.
(... history of Windows APIs, why Vista does graphics and audio better than XP, yada yada
Concluding remarks
The new APIs and all-new graphics stack are not the only things new in Vista. There have been major improvements in Vista's approach to secure computing, and many low-level changes to improve the experience of using the OS. I'll talk about these--along with some of the much-vaunted features that didn't make the cut after all--in my next article.
I don't know if you can get Intel graphic cards for your desktop (I got one onboard on my laptop, the 915GM one), but it works like a charm, actually better on Linux (out of the box) than on Windows (I had to hunt the driver as I lost the drivers CD).
Unfortunately, it's not. But it is a good observation. I didn't know that either, because in my native language (portuguese), the equivalent to "two times faster than" exists. I think. Now I don't know anymore hehe.
That graph is the very image of the mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster! Seems like he will soon touch SCO people with His noodly appendage. That explains why SCO called Linux people pirates tho, seems like it was some kind of flattery, or something like that.
"Naa. I'm sure back when car became widely available and used, some of the "elders" complained that now everybody is a "driver", and they don't even know the intrigate details of internal combustion."
.NET)). Web Services, the semantic web? Search engines? New language features, like LINQ?
You are wrong. We are not talking about end-users here, the element equivalent to the driver you mentioned. The equivalent to the Computer Scientist here would be the Mechanical Engineer. Computer Science has as much to do with computers as Mechanical Engineering has to do with car engines. In both cases, the average person doesn't have even idea of the amount of knowledge (hard science, pure theory, indistinguishable from magic) necessary to the existence of those machines, and the apparent simplicity of use make those people not recognize the importance of those disciplines.
There's plenty of novel ideas and innovation out there. Look at SUNs Sparc T1, IBMs Power Cell (hardwarewise) and stuff lige virtualization (both machines (xen, vmware) and programs (java,
Again, you are wrong in the analogy and the examples. Every single example you gave there are final products of researches that are dated from the sixties, some even older than that. Researches in fields like Ontology, Knowledge Representation, Theory of Computation, Formal Languages and so on and so forth. And those fields are in the back of works of scientists like Knuth (69 years old), Alan Kay (67 years old), Peter Naur (79 years old), Niklaus Wirth (73 years old), Ken Thompson (63 years old), Dennis Ritchie (66 years old), Dijkstra (sadly deceased), among others. That was an amazing generation, but along with that the other thing they have in common is that they are all near or above the world life expectancy. And, as they are dying, our Computer Science degrees are slowly becoming Information Technology degrees, forming developers but neglecting researchers to make the tools possible. If this trend continues, we will either depend on the luck of another batch of geniuses to arise spontaneously or to see a decline of the rate of innovation and technological development.
But if you believe that C++ was the height of evolution, well, then, yes, CS is dead.
This is completely unrelated, but I like to think that programming languages are like antibiotics. The first came to solve a problem and did it successfully. The, new problems (and diseases) evolved from the simpler one, and new languages (and antibiotics) had to be created to solve it. The difference between both? You don't see people out there dissing Penicillin only because it is old and doesn't cure all diseases anymore, even if it still cures a lot of the most common infections out there. That's the difference.
If you make hard for people that is willing to set up a legal Internet radio and make a profitable business of it, in the end, the only way to get internet music broadcast (and video, for all that matter) will be illegally, on P2P, FTP and whatnot.
But, on a second thought, that is exactly what the Media Cartel want. They don't matter where you are getting it, as long as the only way to be legally exposed to new content is through their channels. They couldn't care less if you and a couple of technologically wealthy people are going around their blockage, but they will do everything on their power to prevent both the average people and the *artists* to get in touch with each other without them.
This is not about giving people no options. It is about giving *artists* no option. People are attached to their favorite artists and will follow them wherever they go.
With both the lack of interest and the distortion of the original goal, Computer Science as we know may be dying with the elders. Computer Science originally had nothing to do with computers (as in personal computer) per se, but with the science of computation, optimal algorithms for pure math problems, etc. Actually, it was nothing but a branch of Math. The way computer science is being dealt with nowadays, with disdain, lack of interest and with people thinking about it as a tool to put another "screw tighter" professional in the market, soon we may run out of real breakthroughs like the ones those genius created to pave the yellow brick road we run over nowadays.
A pair of workers were killed after using buckets to mix nuclear fuel in a lab
We all know what power plant is that. The Sector 7-G Safety Inspector Homer J. Simpson refused to make any statement, but was heard shouting "D'oh!" right after the incident.
From the Ubuntu forums:
Ubuntu 7.04 Alpha 5 CD image testing started
** FEISTY IS NOT SUITABLE FOR EVERYDAY USE RIGHT NOW IT IS ONLY IN ALPHA. **
If you are interested in helping to test CD images for the upcoming Ubuntu release you can find more information here:
All the information used against that woman was obtained by the computer forensic team after they seized her computer using the right procedure, obtaining a warrant first, and keeping the whole chain of evidence rules.
You guys need to remember that only because it is digital it doesn't mean it is less relevant or admissible. Had she asked a doctor what is the lethal dose of a certain substance, or what are the less detectable poisons, or similar suspicious questions like those, this doctor would certainly be called as a prosecution witness, and his deposition would certainly be admissible and relevant. Why then the same pursuit of knowledge would not be admissible or relevant? Because it is not a real doctor that got asked, but the internet?
Notice that I'm not saying that it is sufficient evidence to nail her, as IANAL and I don't know the details of the case. But at least admissible and relevant it is.
You must be new here. I thought this being Slashdot was the good reason.
This is the most insightful post I read on Slashdot since I first came here. MOD PARENT UP!
Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man,
the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time
handed out military command, high civil office, legions - everything, now
restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things:
bread and circuses
A trapdoor is the only door Microsoft will ever open to any (I say *any*) competitor, ever.
I watch porn to learn foreign languages, you insensitive clod!
Well, they could at least use the hugeurl equivalent of the link, just for the sake of it.
Yet another step towards "trusted" (treacherous) computing. A small part of the article:
Who should your computer take its orders from? Most people think their computers should obey them, not obey someone else. With a plan they call "trusted computing", large media corporations (including the movie companies and record companies), together with computer companies such as Microsoft and Intel, are planning to make your computer obey them instead of you. (...)
Proprietary software means, fundamentally, that you don't control what it does;(...) It's not surprising that clever businessmen find ways to use their control to put you at a disadvantage.(...) These malicious features are often secret, but even once you know about them it is hard to remove them, since you don't have the source code.
In the past, these were isolated incidents. "Trusted computing" would make it pervasive. "Treacherous computing" is a more appropriate name, because the plan is designed to make sure your computer will systematically disobey you. In fact, it is designed to stop your computer from functioning as a general-purpose computer. Every operation may require explicit permission.
The technical idea underlying treacherous computing is that the computer includes a digital encryption and signature device, and the keys are kept secret from you. Proprietary programs will use this device to control which other programs you can run, which documents or data you can access, and what programs you can pass them to. These programs will continually download new authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work. If you don't allow your computer to obtain the new rules periodically from the Internet, some capabilities will automatically cease to function.
Read the rest in the above linked article. It is an interesting reading, even for the ones familiar with it, as we march slowly and steady to the worst case scenario predicted there.
Small text, but plenty of hyperlinks, including a video of the system working.